[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 344, respecting a certain convention signed the twenty-sixth day of May 1930, between His Majesty in respect of Canada and the United States of America for the preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries in the Fraser river system.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, yesterday I tabled
a treaty which had been signed in the morning on behalf of the United States and
Unemployed at The Pas
[Stage Direction]
Canada with respect to the preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon in the Fraser river system. It is similar to the treaty which was introduced in the house last session but which was withdrawn before the session closed. The government is asking approval of the treaty in the form of an act rather than just by resolution, inasmuch as some legislation is required to give full effect to the provisions of the treaty. It is believed that the single measure will lend expedition in the enactment of the necessary provisions. The bill which is now being introduced includes the necessary legislation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-PROCEDURE On the order of government notices of motion being called:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, probably
it would facilitate the work of this morning s session if we were to proceed at once to government orders, with the consent of the house, and resume the debate which was being carried on when we adjourned last night.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Then we will say "stand" for government notices of motion and proceed with the orders of the day.



CHINESE EMPLOYED ON BESCO SHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg:	I
have just received a communication in which it is stated that on the ships plying between Montreal and Sydney, owned by the Besco corporation, white men recently have been replaced by Chinamen. I should like to ask the acting Minister of Immigration if he has heard anything in relation to this matter and whether he has issued any special permits to allow this to be done. I remember that some years ago a special permit was necessary in order to allow these Chinese to work on these steamers.
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration):: I am not aware
of anything of the kind having taken place, but of course I will make inquiry and ascertain if this is being done to any extent. Of course my hon. friend will realize that the vessels would have to be of Canadian registry.
"PATRONAGE" SOUTH ESSEX On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question on the order paper (Mr. Mackenzie King.]
which apparently has been sidetracked, and I cannot find out what has become of it. It was in relation to the government patronage in the riding of South Essex.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was answered yesterday.



UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN AT THE PAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) to the following letter which I have just received from The Pas:
Two hundred men and four hundred new Canadians without work in The Pas, stranded. I personally served three years overseas being under age when I enlisted. All we want is work, not charity.
Some of the men hired for Churchill and Hudson Bay railway are being shipped in here from all over the Dominion. In my opinion, men who have helped to develop this country are surely entitled to consideration. We do not want to mix politics in this matter.
I am,
Your obedient servant,
Respectfully,
R. G. Thomson.
I would like to ask the minister if anything further has been done in this matter, as it seems to be a very serious situation.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend I would say that there has been quite a number of men at The Pas for several weeks past. I suppose they went in expectation of work in the north country. A large number have been absorbed by the Canadian National Railways on ballasting work from The Pas to Churchill. So far as the reference to men coming in from other parts of Canada en route to Churchill is concerned, as I stated to the house before in reply to a question from my hon. friend, as many of the men who were working last year at Churchill as desired to return were given the opportunity to do so. Those coming in have been men who worked on the line last year, and they are going to work under that arrangement. I have received several communications from The Pas in respect to this situation, some of which I think should have been addressed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan). A few days ago I received a telegram from the secretary treasurer of the municipality, but that telegram did not indicate quite so serious a condition of affairs as the communication my hon. friend has just read. In reply to that telegram, I sent the following:
Telegram re unemployment at The Pas received. Relief is primarily matter for

Farm Loan Board
municipality and province to deal with. If province unable to do so and request financial assistance from federal authorities government here will consider what assistance it can give in the circumstances. Carter, Halls, Aldinger and Company who have been awarded the contract for building the elevator at Churchill will be commencing operations as soon as possible and have advised they will be glad to take as many men as may be suitable for the work from The Pas. They will require altogether from 300 to 400 men.
For the information of my hon. friend, I would say that a copy of that telegram was sent to the Premier of Manitoba.



FILIPINO IMMIGRATION INTO BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the order of the day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Immigration if he has heard anything regarding Filipino immigration into British Columbia, which matter I brought up some days ago.


Charles A. Stewart: I have had inquiries
made, but it would appear that no Filipinos have passed our immigration officers. Of course, that does not mean that they have not got in in some other way, but if my hon. friend will give me the particular localities in which they are located, I shall be glad to have further inquiries made.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have received a letter from Mr. Charles E. Hope, manager of the Deep Creek Farm Limited, Fort Langley, B.C. in which among other things he says:
You will be surprised to hear that the advance guard is already in British Columbia and we have had applications from Filipinos to work on my farm.
In any event, they have gone into Fort Langley.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon.
friend would let me have that information, I will investigate the matter.


William Garland McQuarrie: I will be glad to give
the minister a copy of this letter.



JUDICIAL ROTATION SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, we have in the province of Quebec what is known as a rotation system for the judges of the superior court. Each judge in turn is supposed to visit the rural districts, but there has been an exception made for several years in the district of
Kamouraska, for which district the Minister of Justice for many years was the most distinguished member. I know this is not a federal matter, but I would ask the minister if he would be kind enough to communicate with the Attorney General of Quebec in an endeavour to see that the system in force in that province is applied to the district of Kamouraska as to the other constituencies.
I am unable to give to the house the reasons for this request.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I will be pleased to
inquire into the facts mentioned by my hon. friend.



FONTAINE AND LACASSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer
to the case of the two young men, Fontaine and Lacasse, which was brought to the attention of the house the other day by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth).


Mr. MANION:: And some time ago by
myself.


Ernest Lapointe: The documents reached
the Department of Justice only last week, and these men were immediately released on Saturday on ticket of leave. Since then I have looked into the matter and have investigated the circumstances, and yesterday I signed an order for a new trial as requested by their counsel.



FARM LOAN BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. BENOIT (St. Johns-Iberville):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the government whether it is its intention at this session to reduce the rate of interest exacted by the Canadian Farm Loan Board on loans made to farmers. I had a resolution on the order paper of March 20th, but on April 29, 1930, at the request of the Clerk of the House, who stated that private members' days were exhausted and that the resolution would involve useless expenditure, I agreed to withdraw it.
In the meantime a petition signed by ninety-five members of this house, who are in earnest, asking that the rate of interest be reduced by one per cent, has been addressed to the Minister of Finance-I was one of the members to sign that petition-and I now ask the government to grant the request on behalf of the farming community.
Trade with Russia

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance):	Mr. Speaker, I received the
petition to which my hon. friend, has referred. Of course, the government is bound by the existing legislation, and it is not planned to introduce an amendment this session. The principle of the legislation is that the money should be loaned at cost, and it is intended to carry out that principle. At the present time I do not see how the rate of interest could be reduced to the borrowers and comply at the same time with the principle of the law, which is the loaning of money at cost. The matter is being studied but it must be remembered that the Farm Loan Board has been operating for less than one year, and it is rather difficult to say just what the situation in the future will be.



TRADE WITH RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to a Canadian Press despatch which contains the information that because of the credits which have been arranged between Great Britain and Russia an order for no less than 3,000.000 pairs of boots has been received by England. Has anything been done to develop trade between Canada and Russia?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This matter might stand
as a question.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
Mr. HARRY B. SHORT (Digby-Annapolis): Mr. Speaker, on April 28 an order of this house was passed for a return; on May 14 I made inquiry as to when I might receive it and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) advised me that it would be forthcoming at the earliest possible date. Up to date I have not received it. I notice the . minister is in his seat this morning. May I ask him when I may receive that return?
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I kept my word with the
hon. gentleman when I promised him I would expedite that return. I may inform him that it is going to be a very lengthy report. The officers tell me that when completed it will run over 400 pages. They are working at it as expeditiously as they can and I hope to be able to table it in a day or two.



DOMINION AND MERCHANT SHIPPING LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lapointe:
That this house approves the recommendations of the conference on the operation of Dominion legislation and merchant shipping legislation, held in London, 1929, and considers that steps should be taken at the forthcoming imperial conference to ensure their being given effect at an early date.
Rodolphe Lemieux: The reply of the Minister of Justice will close the debate.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, until the very last minutes of the debate yesterday evening it was not my intention to exercise my right of reply. The debate has, I think, been rather illuminating, conducted on a high plane, and I am quite willing to let the people of Canada decide as to the merits of the respective contentions which have been presented to the house. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), however, in his address last night made use of certain language and made certain statements which I cannot leave unanswered or unchallenged. He opened his remarks by reading a quotation from Professor Kennedy to the effect that a question like this should always be discussed free from all political leanings or partisanship, but I am compelled to say that my hon. friend did not follow that advice with conspicuous devotion. His first words were rather for the purpose of trying to belittle and even to throw ridicule upon the work of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and my own modest cooperation in that respect.


Mr. BENNETT:: I think not.


Ernest Lapointe: But immediately afterwards he took good care to claim credit for everything that had been achieved by way of constitutional reform for the leaders of the Conservative party. Let me tell my hon. friend that I gladly and enthusiastically commend the work and achievements of Sir Robert Borden in regard to Canadian autonomy and his share in contributing towards building up the imperial structure on a stable and firm basis of equality of status and nationhood. I do so with all the more pleasure because that work stands in striking contrast to, and in glaring contradiction of, the words of the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and of the leader of the opposition himself. Listen to the language of the resolution adopted by the

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Lapointe
Imperial War conference of 1917 of which Sir Robert Borden was a leading member:
The Imperial WTar conference are of opinion that the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the empire is too important and intricate a subject to be dealt with during the war, and that it should form the subject of a special imperial conference to be summoned as soon, as possible after the cessation of hostilities.
They deem it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such adjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based upon a full recognition of the dominions as autonomous nations

They were not afraid of using that word.

of an imperial commonwealth, and of India as an important portion of the same, should recognize the right of the dominions and India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, and should provide^ effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several governments may determine.
May I quote also these words of Sir Robert Borden in his book, Constitutional Development :
But I have never wavered in the firm and constant belief that, within the British commonwealth of nations, Canada will find her most commanding influence, her widest usefulness, and her highest destiny. With that opinion is coupled a fixed and absolute conviction that the unity of the empire can alone find its expression in complete autonomy and in equality of nationhood. A strong Canadian national spirit is entirely consistent with a firm purpose to maintain our country in a high place within the British commonwealth.
Will the leader of the opposition apply to Sir Robert Borden the words he used towards his successor-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely.


Ernest Lapointe: -for exactly the same language, for the same work? Did Sir Robert Borden let go the mooring? Did he cut the painter? Did he drift away from the little islands, to use the words of my hon. friend? As regards the other men who were associated with him at that Imperial War conference, did Hughes of Australia cut the painter? Did Massey of New Zealand let go the mooring? Did Smuts of South Africa drift from the little islands? As regards those statesmen of the empire who came later in 1926, did Balfour, whose last political work is that great achievement of having coupled his name with that magnificent report of 1926, also let go the mooring? Did Baldwin, Chamberlain, Bruce of Australia, all the prime ministers of the six nations of the empire-and I am proud to
use the word-also cut the painter? Indeed, the only discordant voices have been from some opponents of the Canadian government and I am sorry to have to reach the conclusion that political partisanship seems to have been the main reason of the criticism.
They have not even been in accord with themselves in their attacks. Listen to their objections; read their newspapers and hon. members will see that one school claims that the whole thing is a sham; that nothing has been done; that no change has been effected, while the other school claims that we are on the road to disaster; that revolution is looming ahead of us; that separation is the thing that we should dread. In fact, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George yesterday in the same speech propounded two doctrines. In one part he described the work of 1929 as being futile, infantile, childish, foolish. Really,
I added some words to my vocabulary listening to my hon. friend yesterday. In the next breath he depicted the dangers which were on the horizon of the empire as a result of the work that has been done. That gloomy picture, which I am sorry to say my hon. friend the leader of the opposition also held up, has not even the merit of novelty. At every stage of our constitutional evolution, reactionaries have been seen opposing every reform because, they said, it was leading to separation. Every time, I repeat, the voice of reaction was raised. Yes, every step along the road to self-government was resisted as a step away from the empire and towards separation. When Baldwin and Lafontaine fought in order that parliament should control taxation and expenditure they were described as rebels leading this country to separation from the empire. They were called traitors. Sydenham, Metcalfe and Lord John Russell in their writings all took that stand. Yet who to-day will deny that those men who achieved responsible government in Canada have been the real founders of the British commonwealth? I agree with the suggestion that I heard somewhere that a monument should be erected to Baldwin and Lafontaine at the very door of Downing street because they had been the preservers of the British Empire. The winning of fiscal freedom in 1859, the right of negotiating commercial conventions, the efforts of Edward Blake in 1876 and 1877 to have the instructions to the governor generals of Canada changed in order that they might accord with the status of Canada, the negotiation and the signature of our treaties-all these were viewed with concern by those of that type of mind as manifestations of separatist tendencies. Separation, letting go the moor-
2622	COMMONS
Shipping Legislation-Mr. Lapointe
ings, cutting the painter, drifting away from those little islands-these have always been the words that have been flung in the face of the reformer in this country and elsewhere in the British Empire. Let me illustrate that by a few quotations.
In 1839-I am going back a long way-when the battles were being fought for responsible government in Canada, the select committtee of the legislative council of Upper Canada brought in a report, and listen to this:
After an attentive and disinterested consideration of this subject, your committee are led to the conclusion that the adoption of the plan proposed by the Earl of Durham, in which this (responsible government) is the prominent feature must lead to the overthrow of the great colonial empire of England.
Opposing the Durham report. In 1843, Governor Metcalfe was writing, "the obvious consequence of the concession of responsible government will be separation," and he was saying of Baldwin and Lafontaine, "I regard their faint professions of a desire to perpetuate the connection of the colony with the mother country as utterly worthless."
In 1855, when confederation was looming on the horizon of this country and being discussed in the parliament of the United Kingdom, Mr. Dunkin, in the parliamentary debates, was referring to separation and said:
Sir, I believe in my conscience that this step now proposed-
Mind you, that was confederation:
-is one directly and inevitably tending to this other step; and for that reason-even if I believed, as I do not, that it bids fair to answer ever so well in the other respects-because I am an Englishman and hold to the connection with England, I must be against this scheme.
In 1882, speaking on Edward Blake's motion that Canada should have the power to negotiate commercial agreements with any British possession or foreign state, Sir John A. Macdonald declared:
Disguise it as you will, this means separation and independence.
In 1895, the Colonial Office sent the following despatch:
To give the colonies the power of negotiating treaties for themselves without reference to Her Majesty's government would be to give them an international status as separate and sovereign states, and would be equivalent to breaking up the empire into a number of independent states.
I am free to admit that I am disappointed in my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. After his professions of Canadianism the other day and Canada first, I did not expect that he would indulge in this-shall I say?-distortion 
of the motives of those who have given their best to try to solve the present difficulties and to ensure the maintenance and preservation of our great association on a stable basis. Does he not realize that this is not a unilateral document? It is not the work of Canada alone. It is the combined work of the representatives of Great Britain and the Dominions. Does he not realize that the spirit which inspired them was an earnest desire and a determination to ensure the maintenance and preservation of our great association? Does he not realize that the voice of a group of free nations united by a great bond is more powerful than that of subordinate colonies? Has he not learned from the course of English and Canadian history that the fuller the liberty, the stronger the bond becomes?
I resent deeply, and my hon. friend will pardon me for being frank about it, the implied imputation contained in the words which were used by the leader of the opposition, and I throw back the unworthy suggestion and insinuation. It is that same spirit of resistance which still manifest itself as it has done at every period of our constitutional evolution; but let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the people of Canada that the definition of equal status will stand unchanged and unchangeable. By claiming, as my hon. friend did again last night, that the fact that we do not amend our own constitution implies inequality of status, my hon. friend is fighting a rearguard action in the defence of his theories. How is it that those who are responsible for the work that has been done, that those who have been the pioneers, that all those who have worked to achieve reform, are satisfied with this sort of equality, while my hon. friend who is rather putting obstacles in the way is not satisfied? May I refer to one man in Canada, a journalist of prominence, the editor of an important newspaper, who has been in the forefront of the work to achieve the position which Canada holds to-day? I refer to Mr. Dafoe of the Manitoba Free Press. What does Mr. Dafoe say in his journal about this new attitude of my hon. friend? It will be found in the issue of February 28, 1930.


An hon. MEMBER:: Dispense.


Ernest Lapointe: I must impose this upon my hon. friend; if he does not want to listen to it he will have to go away. Mr. Dafoe said:
The Still Obstructive Mr. Bennett
Mr. Bennett still elects to belong to that small and everdwindling minority which concerns itself to find excuses for casting doubt upon the doctrine of constitutional equality between Great Britain and the dominions. The

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Lapointe
movement to establish this condition of equality, which, it should not be forgotten, must be precedent to effective cooperation by the British nations, has not been a party one. When its history comes to be written the name of Sir Robert Borden must stand very high in the list of those to whom credit is due. Indeed, when the movement is completed and the position of Canada as a coequal member of the commonwealth is accepted without question, the Conservative party, by reason of Sir Robert Borden's record, may be expected to claim the whole credit; indeed there have already been indications, as at the convention of the party held in Winnipeg in 1926, of its purpose to advance this claim. But meanwhile the party is so unfortunate as to have a leader who shows, in every reference which he makes to this question, his dislike to the movement and his desire to belittle the development.
Since the Balfour declaration of 1926 a little group of hair-splitters have been trying determinedly but ineffectively to deny the soundness of the constitutional doctrine embodied in that declaration. Their method has been simple enough. It has been boldly to deny that there is equality; to declare that the explicit statements of the 1926 report are without foundation; and to point to existing anomalies in suport of their contention. Prof. Berriedale Keith is the chief of these critics. Prof. Philip Noel Baker, of London University and a member of the present British parliament, deals very effectively with Dr. Keith and his associates in his recently published book, "The Present Judicial Status of the British Dominions in International Law." Meeting his arguments point by point, Prof Keith says it is impossible to accept his conclusions. In noting those who have associated themselves wth Dr. Keith in fighting this rearguard action, Prof. Baker includes the name of but a single public man. It is perhaps needless to say that the person thus referred to is our Mr. Bennett. Thus Prof. Baker says (page 140):
"The leader of the Conservative opposition in the Canadian House of Commons, Mr. Bennett, has made several speeches in which he has used similar language (i.e., language similar to Keith's), e.g., 'Equality of status was a high-sounding phrase, but it could not properly represent the existing position,' and he deprecated the continued use of wrong nomenclature."
It is therefore characteristic of Mr. Bennett that, having had most of his case against "equality" knocked out by the recommendations of the constitutional committee, he should, in place of accepting graciously this new way of escape from an impossible position, look around frantically for some new pretext for contending that our talk about dominion status is all moonshine, the real position being that we are still in a relation of colonial subordination. Hence his gleeful discovery, as announced in his contribution to the debate on the address, that any claim that Canada has constitutional equality with Great Britain is negatived by the fact that the Dominion parliament has not been vested with power to amend the Canadian constitution at will. The reply to this is quite simple and effective. The British parliament is not willingly retaining any control over our constitution; it is ready to turn a responsibility, which would be irksome and dangerous
if it were called upon to exercise it, over to Canadian jurisdiction if the Dominion and the provinces can agree among themselves as to the methods by which the constitution is to be amended. The fact upon which Mr. Bennett seizes so hopefully relates to a purely domestic matter for which a domestic solution must be sought.
Are the Conservatives of Canada willing to have Mr. Bennett tie them up definitely to an attitude of unenlightened opposition to a constitutional development, already achieved, which is acceptable to the vast majority of Canadian people? This ungracious, stubborn attitude by Mr. Bennett towards the national status which Canada has achieved by grace of the combined efforts of public men of all parties is very tiresome to the great mass of the people of Canada, and it must be exasperating to most of his colleagues, who would doubtless be much happier in taking credit to themselves and their party for the constitutional progress that has been made.
So, as I stated, those who have worked to achieve the result which has been reached are satisfied with the present position, and I cannot understand why my hon. friend should still raise this question as implying inequality.
Fears were expressed by both the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George and the leader of the opposition with regard to what may happen concerning Canadian navigation and shipping. My hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George says that it means the sweeping away of legislation. It does not mean anything of the kind. It means the right to enact our own legislation. It means that we, as is stated in the report, want willingly to cooperate on all subjects where cooperation and concerted action are desirable. That will be done. Why distrust the people of Canada? Why distrust the parliament of Canada? The fact that we have the power of a self-governing country in shipping and navigation as well as in other spheres of legislation does not mean that we are going to exercise that power foolishly. Self-government, as I said yesterday, implies trust. Surely my hon. friend is not serious when he thinks that the first use that the parliament of Canada will make of the right of legislation will be to sweep away all the statutes which have been useful to Canadian shipping and navigation. The only change that is effected is a change from subordination to cooperation, from conflict to harmony. That is the change that is being made. My friend said: Let us proceed slowly in this matter. Then a few minutes later he blamed the government for having brought up this resolution at this late hour of the session. He says we are proceeding too fast, he beseeches us to proceed slowly, and afterward he blames us for
2624	COMMONS
Shipping Legislation-Mr. Lapointe
having waited so long to submit this resolution. We cannot wait much longer because the conference will sit in September, parliament will prorogue in a few days, and surely this is the only way in which members of the house could deal with the question.


William Garland McQuarrie: We will be here for
a month at this rate.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but apparently we should proceed slowly.
In the last part of his remarks-and it will be the last of mine-my hon. friend lectured the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and I suppose, indirectly, myself, for using the word "nation" in the description of Canada. Well, surely this will be astounding news to the Canadian people. They have heard the word used by all their leaders for a number of years, certainly long prior to the conference of 1926.	My friends from Bow River and
Winnipeg are certainly in good company. I should like my hon. friend to peruse this work of Sir Robert Borden, his former leader. The word " nation " is the only one which is used by him to express what Canada is among the countries of the world. Shall I quote a few sentences? I think it is useless, but the word appears on every page. My hon. friend referred to the legal meaning which may be attached to it, and he says that the word should not be used. Will hon. members permit me to quote the words of the Hon. Charles Doherty, who was Minister of Justice during the whole term of the Borden government? Hon. members will find these words quoted in Hansard of 1927 at page 1703:
It has not been claimed on this side of the house that this treaty-
Meaning the peace treaty.
-made Canada a nation; nor has it been claimed that anything that happened at the Peace conference made Canada a nation. Canada has grown to nationhood and Canada is a nation; and she does not go seeking anywhere to any of the allied or associated powers, to any foreign power, to Great Britain herself, to the entire Peace conference, to confer upon her the gift of nationhood.
Later in the excerpt I find:
Nationhood is a matter of fact; it is not a question of what is written in a statute book or what is declared by one nation in relation to another.
Then at a later time he stated:
I have referred to the recent discussion with regard to the aviation law. Over in Great Britain they recognize our national status and

that constitutionally the whole field of government of Canada is ours. It is only in this country that you find the little man -who wants to hang on to the colonial status of his country and to insist that she is subordinate to and to be governed by another portion of the empire. However great that portion may be-and we all respect it, we all recognize what she was the source of for us all, and we shall all be happy to recognize her as the first among these equal nations-we contend that, as a matter of fact, we stand as an equal nation within the empire.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question?
Does the hon. gentleman remember that after the Minister of Finance made his speech on the budget the words "Canadian nation" came from the 'Lips of the leader of the opposition, but they were not recorded in Hansard the day after?


Ernest Lapointe: I could mention many similar statements indeed. If the rules of the house would permit me I would mention a statement contained in a message sent to the people of Canada on the sixtieth anniversary of confederation. All those high authorities surely did not want to let go the moorings; they did not want to Cut the painter; they did not want to drift away from the little islands in the North sea, as my hon. friend so eloquently stated last night.
Canada is a nation; she may hold her head high because of the part she .played in the world war and because of her work in all national, political, social and international fields, because of her sacrifice and because of the respect in which she is held by all foreign nations. Canada is a nation; she will not recognize those who refuse to work with her on terms of nationhood; she will not permit them to shape the thoughts and the policies of the Canadian people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I did not
desire to interrupt the remarks of the hon. gentleman, but he must have known that he put the wrong interpretation upon one observation I -made. As he knows, I was referring to the legal definition of the term " nation," and he also knows that the authorities are clear that there can be no nation, in the sense in which it is judicially interpreted, unless it be an independent sovereignty. My hon. friend knows as a matter of law that my contention is correct; I used the word nation just as he used it and as we use it frequently -in the colloquial sense. The judicial interpretation is and always has been that there can be no such thing as a nation, either in internatlional law or domestic law, unless there be a sovereignty.

B.N.A. Act-Natural Resources


Jean-François Pouliot: So the hon. gentleman
meant nothing when he used the word "nation"?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that a resolution and humble address be presented to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, in the following words:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the (Senate and) Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty praying that you may graciously be pleased to give your consent to submitting a measure to the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and northern Ireland to amend the British North America acts. 1867 to 1916, the four agreements in the schedule hereto set out being scheduled to such act and the said act being expressed as follows or to the following effect:
An Act to Amend the British North America Acte, 1867 to 1916
Whereas the four several agreements in the schedule set out were entered into between the government of the Dominion of Canada and the governments of Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan respectively on the dates which the said several agreements respectively bear;
And whereas each of the said agreements has been approved by the parliament of Canada and by the legislature of the province to which it relates;
And whereas subsequently to the execution of the agreement with the province of Alberta it was agreed that in addition to the rights accruing thereunder to the said province, it should be entitled to such further rights, if any. with respect to the subject matter of the said agreement as were required to be vested in the province in order that it might enjoy rights equal to those confered upon or reserved to the province of Saskatchewan under any agreement upon a like subject matter thereafter approved and confirmed in the same manner as the said agreement with the prov- . inee of Alberta, and provision accordingly was made by the parliament of Canada and by the legislature of the province;
And whereas each of the said agreements provides that the same shall come into force only after it has been confirmed by this parliament, and the Dominion of Canada has requested and consented to the enactment of this act;
Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1.	The said several agreements are hereby confirmed and shall have the force of law respectively notwithstanding anything in the British North America acts, 1867 to 1916, or any order in council or terms or conditions of 2419-166
union made or approved under any of the said acts, or in any act of parliament of Canada.
2.	The agreement with the province of Alberta in the schedule hereto contained shall have the force of law as aforesaid, subject to the proviso that in addition to the rights accruing thereunder to the said province, the said province shall be entitled to such further rights, if any, with respect to the subject matter of the said agreement as are required to be vested in the said province in order that it may enjoy rights equal to those which may be conferred upon or reserved to the province of Saskatchewan under agreement with such last mentioned province in the schedule hereto contained.
3.	This act may be cited as the "British North America Act, 1930" and the British North America acts, 1867 to 1916. and this act may be cited together as the "British North America acts, 1S67 to 1930."
All of which we humbly pray Your Majesty to take into Your favourable and gracious consideration.
He said:	The purpose of this address is
apparent from the text. It is to ask the British parliament to confirm and thereby give force and effect to the agreements which have been entered into between the government of Canada and the legislatures of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. These several agreements have been approved by this parliament and by the several legislatures I have mentioned. They have been approved, without a division, by both houses of this parliament and for that reason I think it unnecessary at this moment to do more than indicate the purpose of the address in order to express the belief that it too will be passed with like unanimity.
My hon. friends will realize that at the moment we are amending the British North America Act; in other words, Canada is now engaged in the process of amending her own constitution in so far as that step has become necessary under the agreements into which she has entered. The part played by the parliament at Westminster is at the instance of this parliament; the parliament at Westminster lends its good offices, so to speak, to enact what in accordance with our method of proceeding is essential to give force and effect to the agreements. That, however, in no way lessens the significance of the amendment of the constitution being our own amendment and made in accordance with our established method of procedure. The parliament at Westminster, of its own initiative, would never think of attempting to make an amendment to our constitution. It acts in these matters as an agent of the government of Canada.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The observations of the right hon. the Prime Minister lend



B.N.A. Act-Natural Resources
point and substance to the debate which took place yesterday in this house. It is now realized that without the action of the Imperial parliament at Westminster the Canadian parliament cannot amend its constitution. It is now made clear that we must ask another body three thousand miles away to pass a statute in order that our action may be made legal or valid. I had not expected proof of my contention to come so quickly from the government side of the house. The right hon. gentleman, with his usual astuteness, and anticipating the attitude of hon. members on this side of the house, said that we are now engaged in amending our constitution. And that is true; we are passing an address to ask the parliament in London to do that particular thing for us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the proper method of procedure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what we are asking them to do, and that coincides exactly with the remarks I made yesterday. Hon. gentlemen will notice that the legislation we are asking the British parliament to pass is in these words:
Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
So far as I know the Lords Spiritual and Temporal hold office in Great Britain, not in Canada. The House of Commons that is referred to is the House of Commons sitting in Great Britain. So we now have complete and absolute proof upon the records of this parliament that by the constitutional changes that give us so-called equality of status we cannot amend our own constitution as can Australia, as can South Africa and as can Great Britain itself. That is the story.
I find it difficult to understand the warmth with which the Minister of Justice was dealing with this phase of the matter when he was considering another subject, but let there be no misunderstanding. Surely hon. members opposite do not insult the intelligence of the ordinary man on the street by asking him to believe there is an equality when the word "equality" means just what it says, the power to do the same thing, and we have not the power to do the same thing as England does, as Australia does and as South Africa does in the manner and form by their constitutions prescribed, which I will not take time to discuss at present.

We are solemnly sitting here, the elected members of the House of Commons, asking by petition of this house and the Senate that the parliament of Great Britain may be pleased to act as we request, and at the close of the petition we find these words:
All of which we humbly pray Your Majesty to take into your favourable and gracious consideration.
That is, we are asking that a parliament three thousand miles away may be pleased to do it. Suppose no one introduces the measure; then what happens? Suppose no one in the parliament of Great Britain introduces this matter into the House of Commons or the House of Lords. What is the result? The Minister of Justice will make a speech on equality of status, and in perfervid eloquence declare to the Canadian people that this is so or it is not so because he, the Minister of Justice, has said so. I do say this to the minister:	It is just such observations as have
been made here this morning and as the Prime Minister has made about the equality of status of Canada, when it is not so, that make Canadians question the sincerity of the government in the whole matter, because they are presuming upon the Canadian people when they make that statement. After all, there is some intelligence in Canada and people will not be deluded by observations made by any man, however important he may be, when he says things are equal when they are not equal. You cannot do it that way.
It is true that the British parliament will do as this parliament asks, or at least we assume that to be so, but supposing they do not do so? Who is going to introduce your bills? Someone must do it; someone in that parliament must take the responsibility of seeing that the bills are introduced and passed, that a majority is secured in their favour and that they are enacted, and all the sophistry in the world, all the casuistry in the world cannot get away from the fact that to amend our constitution, to give validity to the transfer of the resources to western Canada, to make legal that which is now illegal, we have to go to a parliament three thousand miles away. You cannot get away from it. It is a significant circumstance that on the same morning when a minister of the crown solemnly declares that there is equality of status between Great Britain and Canada, within the next few minutes the Prime Minister of the country moves that a humble petition be sent to His

B.N.A. Act-Natural Resources
Majesty the King, praying that he have his parliament at Westminster enact legislation to give validity, life and form to something which to-day is not worth the paper on which it is written, because we have not the power to do that which we have done, and are now seeking ratification of the Imperial parliament. That is what causes distrust of the whole action of the government; that is what makes people ask, "What does this mean, when men go about and talk in these terms about equality when they know there is none, when they know that the essence of nationhood is the right to amend its own constitution." Why the attempt to deceive; why not at once say frankly that we use these words in the broad and colloquial sense? We know that as a matter of law this is not so; we know that any court that might consider the question would have to decide otherwise; we know what the legal position is, but we use these terms as I have used them from my youth in referring to Canada as a "nation," referring to the "status" and referring to these matters in that sense. When, as yesterday and this morning, we are dealing with matters which touch legal questions, then precedents, authorities and judgments govern, and you cannot give to words meanings they do not legally possess in order to attach significance to a phrase which will not bear judicial interpretation in the sense suggested.
That is the reason I said to the minister what I did say in connection with this matter some days ago. I gravely doubt whether we should proceed in this way. Once more I venture to fight a rearguard action, in the language of the Minister of Justice, when I point out to him that it has not been customary to deal with constitutional matters in this way. Constitutional matters usually have been dealt with in the form of a statute which embodies the arrangement or agreement which has been entered into. It was so in the original British North America Act, and it has been so in the different amendments which have been made to that act. We are now ratifying agreements, but part of those agreements require no ratification. I put this to the Minister of Justice as a suggestion which I think he, as a lawyer, will regard as important: If we make the agreements in question a part of our constitution when portions of the agreements require no confirmation because they deal with purely domestic matters, but do they not hereafter become a part of the constitution, and are they not only amendable in the manner in 2419-166J
which the constitution can be amended? There is a section in the agreements which declares that any matter referred to in the agreements may be dealt with by an understanding between the parties concerned, that is, between Alberta and the Dominion, between Saskatchewan and the Dominion and between Manitoba and the Dominion. But that only refers, as I take it, to limited portions of the agreements and if the hon. gentleman will look at them he will see that the limitations to which I refer are thus expressed. I will say this, that not before in the history of British institutions has a constitutional change been made by the confirmation of agreements; such changes have heretofore been embodied in legislation, as in the Manitoba Act. The government takes the responsibility in this matter; the Minister of Justice, the chief law officer of the crown, is satisfied in that regard and therefore the motherland. Now I am merely speaking as a member of parliament, not in any sense as the leader of a party; I am making a suggestion to him as one lawyer to another. I suggest that this is not the way in which it has been done.
Just here I might point out one other matter. Those who read history and endeavour to form conclusions and draw inferences all realize that a day, a year, or fifty years in the life of a state are as nothing; all we can do is to endeavour as best we can to conclude that certain things done to-day will, years hence, have a result which we believe will be injurious or beneficial to the body politic. The immediate consequences are not of concern; what is of vital concern is the effect upon the body politic in the years that are to come, and in that regard I have some measure of pride and satisfaction in looking back upon the rearguard actions I have fought, for, by a strange circumstance, the results which I predicted would come about in connection with what has been done have usually occurred. I know not why that is so; I only know that has been the case. When I ventured, twenty-five years ago, to point out in connection with these resources what the inevitable result would be, I can remember one of the friends of my hon. friends saying, "We have heard the last of you. This country is going to have the money, and the resources are nothing." When I remember the vociferous cheers of those hon. gentlemen in those days; when I recall the scoffing and the scorn which they expressed, for our demand that the new prov-

B.N.A. Act-Natural Resources
inces should be granted their resources I take some pride and satisfaction in thinking that where the vanguard camps to-day the rear will march to-morrow.


Mr. MORIN:: The hon. gentleman's argument was that Canada could not olaim nationhood because it had not the power of amending its own constitution. At the same time he acknowledged that Australia enjoyed that power, and therefore, we must infer from his statement that Australia has a higher status than has Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that that was one of the badges of nationhood, using the words of my hon. friend, but it is not the only attribute of nationhood. Nationhood, as it was defined last night-perhaps the hon. gentleman was not present-is really synonymous with an independent state. The right of amendment of a constitution is one of the determining factors as to whether or not a community is a nation, but it does not make it a nation.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I will not
refer to the first part of my hon. friend's remarks, because I dealt with that matter both yesterday and to-day. I can see that my hon. friend is fighting a rearguard action. I would inform my hon. friend that the form of the address was carefully considered, as well as the bill to be enacted by the Imperial government. These matters were considered not only by the officers of the department, but by outside counsel, and they have been submitted to the various law departments of the provinces concerned.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Has the consent been
obtained of those provinces not directly interested in this address, that is to say, has the concurrence been received of the provinces other than British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All the provinces of Canada are at the present time represented in this house, and I assume that there will be unanimity on the part of this house in the matter of this address as there has been with respect to the agreements themselves. The provinces of Canada were represented at the Dominion-provincial conference, both by their premiers and members of their administrations. Among other subjects considered and discussed at that conference was this very question of the return of the natural resources to the western prov-I Mr. Bennett.]
inces. The view then expressed by the representatives of the other provinces seemed to be that the treatment of these western provinces should be liberal and cordial. I do not think it is necessary to have any formal submission of this address to the other provinces before this parliament takes action upon it. It relates exclusively to the western provinces, and should the other provinces have any matters to be discussed growing out of what we are now doing, those matters will receive every consideration.


Murray MacLaren: I cannot agree with
the view put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The British North America Act first received the assent of all the provinces, and I submit that the forwarding of this petition by this parliament does not represent the views of the provinces in the sense that it is expressing the acquiescence and concurrence of the provinces concerned. I contend that amendments to the British North America Act, especially those of the importance of the one we have before us, should be submitted not in an informal but in a very official way to all the provinces in order to obtain their concurrence therein, or to give them an opportunity of expressing objections. The procedure now suggested is contrary to both confederation and the British North America Act. It is not following out the spirit in which that act was framed; it is not giving to the provinces the opportunity of expressing objection or acquiescence. I do not see how it can be considered that the simple passage by this house of this petition represents the will of the provinces. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I enter my protest that a petition of this character should be forwarded without consulting all the provinces of the Dominion with a view of obtaining their assent thereto or their objections.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to delay these proceedings, but I feel that I should reiterate what I said when the agreements were before the house. After an agreement had been concluded with the province of Alberta, satisfactory both to the Dominion of Canada and to the province, the government of Saskatchewan succeeded in wresting from this government more favourable terms; and we now ask the British parliament to adopt legislation by which the province of Alberta will be given something which it has not asked for. That shows the weakness of the posi-

B.NA. Act-Natural Resources
tion which was created by this government agreeing to give to Saskatchewan something more than Alberta had asked for, and something more than I think was necessary. That is my first objection.
My second objection is that a wrong principle is introduced herein. It is a wrong policy to introduce into an agreement the principle introduced herein, that an act enacted by this parliament, even though reenacted or ratified by the British parliament, shall not be final. We thus open the way for litigation upon the agreements which we have concluded.
I think also there is something in the point raised by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren). I would remind him and the other representatives from the maritime provinces that at all times they have my deepest sympathy, because I think those provinces have been made the victims of confederation. [DOT] However, I remind him also of the very lucid interpretation which was put upon the constitution by Lord Haldane. I do not remember the particular case-I am sure the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) would remember it-but it originated in Australia. His Lordship made an extremely interesting, and from my humble layman's point of view, a most conclusive comparison as between the constitutions of Australia, Canada and South Africa. He pointed out how mistaken many Canadians are in referring to the British North America Act as a contract, when in fact it was only the result of a contract. The old colonies agreed to renounce their existence, they laid down the terms under which they were prepared to enter into confederation in the form of provinces, and they sent that contract to London; but there it was amended greatly by the various representatives of those colonies, and finally the British parliament passed a statute which differed from both the contract passed in Quebec and the London treaty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Prepared by the British draftsmen on the strength of the reprsenta-tions made.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I admit that, but nevertheless-and I think this was Lord Haldane's conclusion, and I believe it was right-once that law was passed, the old colonies lost their identity-they became provinces under the new law, just as the Dominion was created under the same new law. The powers of each are defined by the statute itself, and no further reference can be made to the contract as against the letter and spirit of the constitution itself. Of course, history records how both the contract and the legislation were imposed upon the people of the maritime provinces; and I quite realize they should be very sensitive in regard to anything which may look to them as a further abandonment of what they claim as their rights. But in regard to this I think the way is quite clear. The government of any of those provinces can have representatives before the British parliament and make such opposition to the enactment of these agreements as it may think fit. It may plead before the committee of the House of Commons in England what it considers to be an abridgement of its rights or claims in equity, as they were presented here during the debate on the agreements. That can be done; but I do not think we could agree in this house to renounce our right to make an agreement with various provinces upon matters concerning only those provinces, afterwards asking ratification by the British parliament in concurrence with the provinces immediately interested. Any individual, so far as that is concerned, may go before the British parliament and have his views presented to that body as against these agreements or any amendment of the constitution.
This brings me to the point made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and I think it is worth while looking into it also. There is no doubt something rather ludicrous in the contrast between the debates that have preceded, on the national status of Canada, and the debate on this motion. There is not the slightest doubt that so long as we submit to the exercise of imperial jurisdiction over our constitution, or upon any agreement that we may make with the provinces or with one or more of the provinces, it is absurd to talk of Canada having attained her full national status. But where I think the solution is to be found is in the comparison between two very simple words, that is, the word "right" and the word "power." Undoubtedly the leader of the opposition is quite right as a lawyer when he says that so long as we do not exercise the power of amending the constitution, there is something childish and ludicrous in our parading our title as a nation. This looks very much like a boy who would catch hold of his father's military uniform and sword and parade himself as a general because his father, being a general, has received from his commander a military uniform, a plumed hat and a sword.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Is it not against the
rules of the house so to characterize the Minister of Justice?

B.N.A. Act-Natural Resources
Mr. BOURASSA; I am not characterizing the Minister of Justice. I am characterizing the Canadian nation, whether it be the Minister of Justice, Sir Robert Borden or myself, because I have spoken very often concerning the matter. I admit there is something childish in our attitude, but at the same time it is by repeating it that one of these days we shall make good our rights. That is what I come back to. In a previous debate, I think at the opening of this parliament-and I do not want to refer to a past debate except by way of illustration-the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) put the matter quite clearly when he said in effect-and it has been stated time and again outside the house also, and quite rightly:-we have not yet chosen to exercise our undoubted right to amend our constitution according, of course, to the spirit under which it was framed, that is, after agreeing with the provinces as to the manner in which those powers which belong to both jurisdictions or those which belong to only one of them, should be treated. After we have agreed with them, it remains with ourselves to take action, and nobody in England would contradict or interfere, not even Mr. Keith. In Mr. Keith's latest book there is a somewhat melancholy but very clear admission that in the conference of 1926 and in the last conference of 1929 we have made much headway. There is not the slightest doubt that the day the parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures would assert their will to exercise their right of amending their constitution without going to Westminster, no word would be uttered in London against that action. Further, it would not take long before we made our position good before the Imperial parliament as regards the exercise of that power. I remember an opinion expressed as far back as twenty-eight years ago, I think it was, again by Lord Haldane, when he said that it was becoming clearer and clearer every day that in regard to passing legislation at the request of the various colonial legislatures as they were still called, it was realized that the Imperial parliament was exercising a mere power of trusteeship and had nothing to do but to legislate in the manner suggested by those various parliaments.


Mr. THORSON:: Legislative action would
be automatic.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Well "automatic" may be a little too strong. Not with the idea of extending the debate that has passed before this motion, but precisely in conjunction with this motion and the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Mac-Laren), let me point out the situation which
fMr. Ryckman.]
may arise: supposing the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, at the next session of the Imperial parliament, when this legislation comes up, make solemn protest against the passing of the legislation; supposing they convince a majority of the members of the Imperial parliament that this agreement is doing an injustice to the people of the maritime provinces: would anybody deny that the Imperial parliament would have both the right and the power to decide as between the claim of Canada in conjunction with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia, and the counter claims of the maritime provinces?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Not a constitutional
right.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Why? Supposing the
governments of the maritime provinces demonstrate that, while they have not any possible access to those natural resources which were or which at least some people hold to have been the property of the people of Canada, the parliament of Canada is divesting itself of the rest of those resources after having handed over a large portion of them to Ontario and Quebec without an inch of territory being given to the maritime provinces; supposing the maritime provinces make their claim in equity before the Imperial parliament: will anyone deny that the Imperial parliament will have both the right and the power to say that as regards these agreements, especially after we have handed over to Quebec and Ontario such a large portion of those territories, the legislation should not pass until we have compensated the maritime provinces? I do not say that this should be done as a matter of equity, but I say that the British parliament would certainly have a right to say: So long as the people of Canada, through their various political powers, federal and provincial, have not chosen to exercise to the full their right of sovereignty over their constitution; so long as they choose to make us the final legislative arbiters, so to speak, in such matters, we have to consider Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island just as much as Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and just as much as the Dominion of Canada. So long as we rely upon the final exercise of legislative power by the Imperial parliament, surely we must be prepared to expect from that parliament the exercise of a duty which we would ourselves have to exercise if we had to decide between two or three different contentions presented to us by governments, corporations or individuals.

B.N.A. Act-Natural Resources
I repeat, I am not making these remarks to obstruct or retard the passage of this measure, but I am afraid that in the last few years we have developed the habit of giving a great deal of time to comparatively small questions and questions of money, and then leaving till the last two or three days of the session the greatest questions of state which should be most carefully considered because their consequences in the future may be very far-reaching, either as regards the relations between the Dominion and the provinces or the relations between the various provinces themselves. I thought it was my duty to suggest that the question was not so simple as it has been regarded; but at the same time I would not like to put myself along the same line of thought adopted by the hon. leader of the opposition, who seems to consider that this question of constitutional amendments is one that we cannot solve. We can solve it. We can exercise our rights, and therefore we can make the power in conformity with the right, make the fact conform with the theory. But so long as we have not done it, so long as for reasons good or bad, such as have been expressed time and again, by the premier of Quebec, Mr. Taschereau, whose views I respect but do not share-so long as you have people east and west who imagine that Canada is not just enough, that Canada is not manly enough, to exercise its nationhood to the full, that we must rely upon a foreign tribunal to pass final adjudication upon our legal quarrels, upon a foreign parliament to give the final touch to our most important pieces of legislation, then we must be prepared to accept some of the consequences, nay, all the consequences, of that state of fact which wisely or unwisely we choose to keep in being.
That was suggested to me partly by the argument made by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren). We of the west or of the central parts of Canada, are too apt to forget the dire position in which the maritime provinces find themselves. They have been, I repeat, the victims of confederation. They have paid practically all the penalties of the confederation pact, with very little compensation; and as far as I am concerned I would view with sympathy some means being taken by those provinces to assert their rights. I suggest humbly and in a friendly way to my friends of the maritime provinces-I think they know the sincerity of my feelings-that they should induce their provincial governments to take direct action and send their delegates to London to place
their views before the Imperial parliament. They would then have at once the advantage of having their views properly aired and, as well, a declaration by the Imperial parliament as to whether that body still considers itself as the arbiter between the various provinces of Canada, or as between the Dominion and those provinces.


Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: I want to join with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren) in protesting against this legislation going through until the question is decided whether or not the maritime provinces have any right to those lands. They claim that they have. They may be wrong. Their claim is opposed by our friends from the west. I say that that claim should be determined before this thing passes irrevocably out of our hands. The present assurances do not go far enough. They are the same assurances that were given to our representatives in 1912, that when the matter came to be discussed and the lands were given over to the western provinces, the claims of the maritime provinces would be recognized. That time has come and those claims have not been recognized. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has enlarged on the point that I had in my mind, that it will be the duty of the three maritime governments to appear before the Imperial parliament and oppose the passage of this legislation until that claim is settled one way or the other. It may be that we have no claim. Very well; let us have it decided; and then the people of the maritimes will be satisfied. But until that question is settled I believe that the people of the maritime provinces will feel that they have been unjustly treated in this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved that the said address be engrossed.
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate to inform their honours that this house has passed an address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, praying that he may graciously be pleased to give his consent to submitting a measure to the parliament of the United Kingdom to amend the British North America acts, 1867 to 1916, in the manner set forth in the said address hereto attached, and requesting that their honours will unite with this house in the said address by filling up the blank therein with the words "Senate and."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Halibut Fisheries Convention


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the convention between Canada and the United States for the preservation of the halibut fishery of the northern Pacific ocean and Bering sea, Ottawa, 9th May, 1930, signed in respect of the Dominion of Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein, and that this house do approve of the same.
He said: In 1923 a treaty was made between the United States and Canada for the purpose of protecting and preserving the halibut fisheries in the northern Pacific ocean and Bering sea. One of the provisions of that treaty was to the effect that an international fisheries commission should be appointed, which commission would have the power to study the life history of the halibut, to report the results of its investigation, and also to make recommendations in the nature of regulations for governing the fishing for halibut in those waters. The international fisheries commission took a period of some three years to make the investigation and reported that the halibut fisheries were being seriously depleted. It made important recommendations for the preservation of the halibut, and these recommendations were approved, so far as Canada is concerned, by order in council in 1928. It was thought that that was all that was necessary to give effect to the recommendations on behalf of Canada. The United States government, however, felt that something more in the way of authority was necessary for the United States to give like effect to the recommendations, and suggested that the former treaty should be modified in a manner which would embody the recommendations. That >s what has been done, and the treaty which f laid on the table a day or two ago, and which the house is now being asked to approve, is virtually the treaty of 1923, as it was but embodying as well the recommendations of the international fisheries commission.
These recommendations are embodied in the following provisions of the treaty:
(a)	divide the convention waters into areas;
(b)	limit the catch of halibut to be taken from each area;
(c)	fix the size and character of halibut fishing appliances to be used therein;
(d)	make such regulations for the collection of statistics of the catch of halibut including the licensing and clearance of vessels, as will
IMr. Mackenzie King.]
enable the International Fisheries Commission to determine the condition and trend of the halibut fishery by banks and areas, as a proper basis for protecting and conserving the fishery;
(e)	close to all halibut fishing such portion or portions of an area or areas, as the International Fisheries Commission find to be populated by small, immature halibut.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Licensed by whom?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under the
authority of the commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was a little uncertain
about that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say the closed season has been extended under this treaty to commence on the first of November instead of the fifteenth and to continue as formerly to the fifteenth of February inclusive. Those, I think, are all the essential features of the new treaty.


Mr. SHORT:: Have any important changes been made in the former treaty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have just indicated one important change-the closed season has been extended by fifteen days. The present treaty embodies a number of the recommendations of the joint fisheries commission. These recommendations had been approved by order in council so far as Canada is concerned, but to meet the desires of the United States government in the matter of sufficient authority they have now been put in the form of a treaty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, last summer when I had an opportunity to visit Prince Rupert I went down to the boats and observed the operations in connection with the landing of the halibut catch and its treatment in cold storage for the purpose of ascertaining something in connection with the industry. The truth is that the fish are being absolutely destroyed. I found that halibut do not attain a reasonable size until their seventh or eighth year; some live to an age of thirty-five or forty years. Formerly halibut were caught weighing over four hundred pounds. Now the halibut from the open sea are being caught, brought into port and shipped in bond to the United States, principally to Boston, and this affords considerable traffic for the railways. Our fishermen get for their halibut a smaller price than the Americans get for their catch because of the duty against the importation of halibut into the United States. That is the basis, I assume, of the suggestion made the other day that there should be a countervailing duty in respect to fish.

Halibut Fisheries Convention
Although I had heard a great deal about it before I went to Prince Rupert, I satisfied myself from the questions which I asked and from what I saw while there that unfortunately heretofore the provisions of the treaty have not been fully observed. In other words, the patrol has been inadequate, and being inadequate has been ineffective. I regret to say the fishermen told me that the industry was really threatened with extinction, and that unless very drastic action were taken to enforce the regulations the result would be extremely serious. I think we realize how desirable it is that the halibut fishing industry in the north Pacific should not be destroyed. Halibut is one of the best food fishes in the world, and it is in constant demand by our friends to the south. The extension of the closed season, I think, from the information I gathered at Prince Rupert, will improve conditions and I only desire to impress upon the government the very great importance of insisting on the regulations under the treaty being respected, and that without fear, favour or affection we should prosecute those who violate them. The member for Skeena (Mr. Brady) placed upon Hansard a year ago-I daresay hon. members will recall the occasion -a story in connection with the enforcement of the treaty regulations. I took the trouble to make some inquiries at the time, because it struck me that if what he related were repeated frequently it would result in the entire extinction of halibut in the northern Pacific.
I welcome this treaty as an advance on the former treaty. I hope the extension of the closed season and the establishment of areas in which no fish shall be taken will to some extent at least meet the difficulty. Under the circumstances I would impress upon the government once more how desirable it is to enforce the law. I am confident they may count upon the support of every Canadian who is interested in this great fishery in seeing that the law is observed and the treaty respected, and that no reasonable expenditure will be too great if it has the effect of maintaining the halibut fishery for posterity.


Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, permit me to say a few words on this very important treaty. The very fact that two nations decide to enter into a treaty presupposes the importance of the subject matter dealt with. Undoubtedly the halibut fishing industry is of very great importance, not merely to Canada but also to the United States. I have read the treaty as brought down yesterday. I am in perfect accord with the efforts made to conserve the greatest fishing banks at present in the world. If
hon. members have read the story of our Atlantic fishing grounds they will recall that many years ago halibut existed in abundance on the great fishing banks of the North sea; to-day they are non-existent. We find that, steadily, for the last twenty years halibut which was caught in abundance off cape Flattery, many years ago, were decimated in that area, and1 then Hecate straits, became the great centre of our halibut industry and continued to be so for a period of ten to fifteen years. Once more the scene changed. To-day the halibut fishermen have to travel right to the extreme end of Alaskan boundaries; they have to go as far as Kodiak, and beyond, even to Unalaska near the Behring sea. That being the case we must realize the gravity and importance of this treaty renewed between two great nations.
I do regret however that in the text of the treaty the government has overlooked a very important matter in respect to the halibut situation. At the present time the great weight of power, wealth and control of these fisheries is not in Canadian hands and has not been for years past; it is in the hands of Americans. They have the wealth and the power, and through these sources they have obtained almost complete control of this great and important fishing industry. For example, last year in the port of Prince Rupert over 30,000,000 pounds of halibut were landed, and of that poundage 20,000,000 pounds came in American vessels. For some reason or another it is a very easy matter to have the press misrepresent what one is trying honestly to represent to the public. What I said last year, and what I repeat this year, has nothing to do with retaliation upon the United States; it is simply a question of equality and fair dealing between the two countries which have made this treaty. I want to impress upon the government the fact that in our salmon fisheries we have a large area of neutral waters; strictly speaking these should be part of the Canadian waters. I refer to the great Hecate straits lying between Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland of Canada. What happens in connection with this fishing ground? Every year hundreds of American fishing vessels enter our harbours and violate the sacred treaty which was entered into years ago between the United States and Canada. I gave evidence of this last year. The result is that in every phase of this great and important industry the Canadian fisherman has not the rights to which he is entitled, while on the other hand the American nation realize the importance and the greatness of the fishing industry and

Halibut Fisheries Convention
are ever alert to get every advantage. So important is the fishing industry and so great the demand of the American public for fish that we can never hope to supply it. Fish is one of the most important foods consumed by the American people. I may be too late, but I ask the Prime Minister to make one more effort to secure for Canadian fishermen, their rights in connection with this important industry. A few weeks ago, I placed before this house certain facts; they are facts which can be authenticated by any one who desires so to do. Canada has in Prince Rupert a wonderful port on the Pacific coast, and it is the only port at which American vessels can deliver their fish and have them sent with expedition to the great markets of the United States. The result is that the American fishing vessels bring their fish to that port, and they do not pay a single cent; they are charged only one dollar for the licence to fish, and they receive the full benefits of the port. They are allowed to ship their fish from that port in bond; they seek Canadian ports as a shelter from storm; they receive all the benefits we can confer and in return we receive practically nothing.
I urge the government in pursuance of this treaty to try to impress upon the United States the necessity of a fair deal in a matter which has a profound interest both for that country and Canada. That is all I ask.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate informing their honours that this house has adopted a resolution approving of the convention between Canada and the United States for the preservation of the halibut fishery of the northern Pacific ocean and Bering sea, Ottawa, fith Slay, 1930, signed in respect of the Dominion of Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein; and that the clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At 1.05 p.m. the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Glen.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates for the financial year end-

ing March 31, 1931, was presented by Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

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

Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How much creamery butter ivas produced m Canada in the calendar years 1928-1929?
2.	How much dairy butter was produced in Canada in the calendar years 1928-1929?
3. How much butter was exported from Canada in the calendar years 1928-1929?
4. How much butter was imported into Canada in the calendar years 1928-1929?
5.	What was the^ consumption of buttter per capita in Canada in the calendar years 1928-
6.	Is any substitute for butter permitted to
be imported, manufactured or sold in Canada?
7.	Is it permissible to renovate butter under the existing Canadian laws?
8.	How much milk was produced in Canada in the calendar years 1928-1929?
9.	How much milk was exported from Canada in the calendar years 1928-1929, and to what countries?
10.	How much cream was exported from Canada in the calendar years 1928-1929, and to what countries?
11- What was the per capita consumption of 19 h? in Canada in the calendar years 1928-
12.	What was the number of dairy cattle in Canada in the calendar years 1928-1929?
13.	What was the average milk production per dairy cow in the calendar years 1928-1920?
14.	How many farmers in Canada are interested in the dairy industry?
15.	What was the average price of butter, cream and milk in Canada, by months, during the calendar years, 1928-1929?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1.	Canada's production of creamery butter, calendar years 1928-1929, was-
Pounds
1928		 168,027,039
1929	(not available)
2.	Canada's production of dairy butter, calendar years 1928-1929, was-
Pounds
1928		 90,000,000
1929	(not available)
3.	Canada's domestic exports of butter, calendar years 1928-1929, were-
Pounds
1928		 1,994,800
1929		 1,400,400

Questions
4. Canada's imports of butter, calendar years 1928-1929, were-
Pounds
1928	[DOT]	[DOT][DOT]	16,801,6561929	"	
35,928,2495.	Canada's per capita consumption of butter, calendar years 1928-1929, was
Pounds
1928.
1929.
29.06
(not available)
6.	No.
7.	No.	.	,	,
8.	Canada's milk production, calendar years
1928-1929, was-
Pounds
192g	 14,512,897,961
J929		(not available)
9. Canada's domestic exports of milk, calendar years 1928-1929,	were-	
	1928	1929
	Gal.	Gal.
To United States..	3,959,812	3,291,819Total exports...	3,959,812	3,291,81910. Canada's domestic exports	of cream.calendar years 1928-1929, were-	1928	1929Gal.	Gal.To United Kingdom	714	-To United States..	3,042,704	2,385,754Total exports...	3,043,418	2,385,75411.	The Dairy and Cold Storage Branchestimate the consumption of milk at one pint per capita per day.	_12.	The number of milch cows in Canada, calendar years 1928-1929, was-1928	
3,792,5221929	
3,778,27713.	The average milk production per cow milked, calendar years 1928-1929, was-
Pounds
1928		 4,498
1929		(not available)
14.	Information not available in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
15.	(See attached statements).
Milk, Fresh
Price to producers per gallon delivered at dairy-
Charlottetown
1928	1929
January	
$0.20	$0.20February	,	0.20	0.20March	
0.20	0.20
Charlottetown-Con.
	1928	1929
April	.. .. 0.20	0.20May	.. 0.20	0.20June	.. .. 0.20	0.20July	. .. 0.20	0.20August.. ..	.. .. 0.20	0.20September..	.. .. 0.20	0.20October.. ..	.. .. 0.20	0.20November..	.. .. 0.20	0.25December..	.. .. 0.20	0.25Average.	.. .. 0.20 Halifax	0.2081928	1929January.. ..	.. .. $0.27	$0.27February.. ..	.... 0.27	0.27March.. ..	.. .. 0.27	0.27April	.. .. 0.27	0.27May	.. .. 0.27	0.27June	.. .. 0.27	0.27July	.. .. 0.27	0.27August.. ..	.. .. 0.27	0.27September..	.. .. 0.27	0.27October.. ..	.. .. 0.27	0.27November..	.. .. 0.27	0.27December..	.. .. 0.27	0.27Average..	.... 0.27 St. John	0.271928	1929January.. ..	.... $0,265	$0,265February.. .	
0.265	0.265March.. ..	.. .. 0.265	0.265April	.... 0.265	0.265May	.... 0.265	0.265June	.... 0.265	0.265July	.... 0.265	0.265August.. ..	.. .. 0.265	0.265September..	.. .. 0.265	0.265October.. ..	.... 0.265	0.265November..	.. .. 0.265	0.265December..	.. .. 0.265	0.265Average..	
0.265	0.265
Price to producers per 100 pounds delivered railway station-
Montreal
	1928	1929
January.. ..	.. $2,805	$2,805February.. .	
2.805	2.805March.. ..	.. .. 2.805	2.805April	.... 2.805	2.805May	
-	.... 2.03	2.805June	.... 2.03	2.39July	.. .. 2.03	2.39August.. ..	.. .. 2.03	2.39September..	.. .. 2.03	2.39October.. ..	.... 2.805	2.81November..	.. .. 2.805	2.81December..	.. .. 2.805	3.20Average..	
2.482	2.70
Questions

Price to producers per gallon delivered at dairy-
Quebec
	1928	1929
January.. ..		$0.30
February.. .		0.30
March.. ..		0.275
April			0.225
May			0.20
June			0.20
July			0.20
August.. ..	.. .. 0.22	0.20September..	.. .. 0.22	0.20October.. ..	.... 0.22	0.25November..	.. .. 0.25	0.25December..	0.30Average..	.. .. 0.2546	0.2417
Price to producers per 100 pounds delivered at dairy-
	Ottawa	
	1928	1929
January.. .	
$2.70	$3.00February..	
2.70	3.00March.. ..	.. .. 2.70	3.00April	
2.70	3.00May	2.SOJune	2.40July	2.50August.. ..	2.50September..	.. .. 2.40	2.50October.. .	
2.80	3.00November..	.. .. 3.00	3.00December..	.. .. 3.00	3.00Average.	
2.633	2.808Price to producers per 8-gallon	can delivereat dairy-	Toronto	
1928	1929
January.. ..		 $2.20	$2.20
February.. .		2.00
March.. ..		2.00
April			2.00
May			1.95
June			1.95
July			1.95
August.. ..		1.95
September..		2.20
October.. ..		2.35
November..		2.3925
December..		2.3925
Average..		2.1125
Price to producers per gallon		delivered a
dairy-	Hamilton	
	1928	1929
Januarv.. ..		$0,275
February.. ..		0.275
March.. ..	.... 0 275	0.275
		
Hamilton-Con.
	1928	1929
April			0.275
May			0.24375
June			0.24375
July			0.24375
August	.. 0.24375	0.24375September.. ..	.. 0.275	0.275October	.. 0.275	0.275November.. .	.. 0.275	0.30December.. ..	.. 0.275	0.30Average.. ..	.. 0.2672	0.2687
Price to producers per 100 pounds delivered railway station-
Winnipeg
	1928	1929
January			$2.47
February			2.47
March			2.47
April			2.47
May			2.16
June			2.16
July			2.16
August			2.16
September.. ..		2.81
October			2.46
November.. ..	.. 2.47	2.46December.. ..	.. 2.47	2.46Average.. ..	.. 2.313	2.392
Price to producers per pound butterfat, delivered at dairy-
Saskatoon
	1928	1929
January			$0.75
February			0.75
March			0.70
April			0.70
May			0.65
June			0.65
July			0.65
August			0.65
September.. ..	.. 0.85	0.85
October			0.85
November.. ..	.. 0.75	0.75December.. ..	.. 0.75	0.75Average.. ..	.. 0.7575	0.725
Price to producers per gallon delivered at dairy-
Regina
	1928	1929
January	. .. $0,265	$0.2775February	. .. 0.265	0.266March	. .. 0.265	0.247April	. .. 0.265	0.247May	0.228June	0.243July	0.243
Questions
Regina-Con.
	1928	1929
August	.. 0.245	0.247September.. ..	.. 0.285	0.288October	.. 0.285	0.323November.. ..	.. 0.285	0.323December.. ..	.. 0.285	0.323Average.. ..	.. 0.267	0.2713
Price to producers per 100 pounds delivered at dairy-
Calgary
	1928	1929
January.. ..	.... $2.75	$2.80February.. .	
2.75	2.75March.. ..	.. .. 2.75	2.75April	
2.75	2.75May	.... 2.75	2.40June	.... 2.40	2.40July	.. .. 2.40	2.40August.. ..	.. .. 2.40	2.40September..	.. .. 2.40	2.80October.. ..	
2.80	2.80November..	.. .. 2.80	2.80December..	.. .. 2.80	2.80Average.	
2.646	2.654Price to producers per 100 pounds at dairy- Edmonton	deliveredVictoria-Con.	1928	1929October..	
0.32	0.25November.	
0.32	0.275December..	. .. 0.33	0.275Average	
0.293	0.271
Price to producers jier pound butterfat, delivered at dairy-
Vancouver
	1928	1929
January	. $0.70	SO.70February	.. 0.70	0.70March	.. 0.70	0.70April	.. 0.70	0.70May	.. 0.70	0.70June	.. 0.70	0.70July	.. 0.70	0.70August	.. 0.70	0.70September .. ..	.. 0.70	0.70October	.. 0.70	0.70November.. ..	.. 0.70	0.70December.. ..	.. 0.70	0.70Average.. ..	.. 0.70	0.70Milk,	Condensed	Manufacturers' price	per case of	48 15-ounce
tins, car lots-
	1928	1929
January	.. $2.80	$2.75February	.. 2.SO	2.75March	.. 2.80	2.75April	.. 2.80	2.75May	.. 2.40	2.40June	.. 2.40	2.40July	.. 2.40	2.40August	.. 2.40	2.40September.. ..	.. 2.40	2.75October	.. 2.75	2.75November.. ..	.. 2.75	2.75December.. ..	.. 2.75	2.75Average. ..	.. 2.62	2.63Price to producers	per gallon	delivered
dairy-
Victoria
	1928	1929
January			$8.10
February	.. 8.10	8.10March	.. 8.10	8.10April	.. 8.10	8.10May	.. 8.10	8.10June	.. 8.10	8.10July	.. 8.10	8.10August	.. 8.10	8.10September.. ..	.. 8.10	8.10October	.. 8.10	8.10November.. ..	.. 8.10	8.10December.. ..	.. 8.10	8.10Average.. ..	.. 8.10	8.10Milk,	Evaporated	Manufacturers' price	per case of	48 1-pound
tins-
	1928	1929
January	.. SO.29	$0.30February	.. 0.31	0.30March	. .. 0.31	0.30Aoril	. .. 0.25	0.30May	.. 0.25	0.25June	.. 0.26	0.25July	.. 0.29	0.25August	.. 0.29	0.25September.. ..	.. 0.29	0.251928	1929January	.. $5.10	$5.10February	.. 5.10	5.10March	. .. 5.10	5.10April	.. 5.10	5.10May	.. 5.10	5.10June	5.10	5.10July	.. 5.10	5.10August	.. 5.10	5.10September.. ..	.. 5.10	5.10
Questions

Milk, Evaporated-Con.
	1928	1929
October	.. 5.10	5.10November.. ..	.. 5.10	5.10December.. ..	.. 5.10	5.10Average.. ..	.. 5.10	5.10Butter, Creamery,' No. 1	Printsrice per pound at	Montreal-	monthly average-	1928	1929January	.. $0.39	$0.43February	.. 0.39	0.444March	.. 0.43	0.454April	.. 0.41	0.452May	.. 0.36	0.386June	.. 0.37	0.387July	.. 0.40	0.402August	.. 0.41	0.41September.. ..	.. 0.43	0.42October	.. 0.42	0.42November.. ..	.. 0.43	0.4256December.. ..	.. 0.43	0.429Average.. ..	.. 0.406	0.4216
Price per pound at Toronto-monthly average-
	1928	1929
January	. .. $0.42	SO.445February	. .. 0.42	0.447March	. .. 0.44	0.459April	. .. 0.43	0.456May	. .. 0.39	0.412June	. .. 0.39	0.406July	. .. 0.41	0.416August	. .. 0.42	0.428September.. ..	. .. 0.43	0.435October	. .. 0.43	0.439November.. ..	.. 0.44	0.44December.. ..	.. 0.44	0.439Average.. .	. .. 0.422	0.4352Vice per pound at	Winnipeg-	1928	1929January	.. $0.43	SO.45February	.. 0.44	0.46March	0.46April	0.46May	. .. 0.42	0.40June	.. 0.37	0.38July	.. 0.38	0.40August	.. 0.42	0.41September.. ..	.. 0.43	0.42October	.. 0.43	0.42November.. ..	.. 0.43	0.42December.. ..	.. 0.44	0.43Average.. ..	.. 0.422	0.4258
Butter, Creamery, Finest Prints
Price per pound at Regina-
	1928	1929
January	. .. $0.44	$0.45February	. .. 0.43	0.45March	. .. 0.43	0.45April	, .. 0.44	0.44May	0.42June	.. 0.39	0.40Julv	.. 0.40	0.40August	.. 0.42	0.41September.. ..	.. 0.43	0.42October.. .	.. 0.43	0.42November.. ..	.. 0.44	0.41December. ..	0.38Average.. ..	.. 0.429	0.4208Price per pound at Calgary-	1928	1929January	.. $0.44	$0.43February	.. 0.43	0.44March	.. 0.42	0.44April	.. 0.44	0.42May	.. 0.41	0.40June	.. 0.39	0.39Julv	0.38August	.. 0.41	0.38September.. ..	.. 0.41	0.40October	.. 0.43	0.40November.. ..	.. 0.43	0.43December.. ..	.. 0.43	0.43Average.. ..	.. 0.419	0.4117
Butter, Dairy, Prints
Price per pound at Toronto-monthly average-
	1928	1929
January	.. SO.34	S0.33-S0.35February	.. 0.34	0.33- 0.35March	.. 0.34	0.33- 0.35April	0.333May	.. 0.34	-June	.. 0.34	July	.. 0.33	-August	.. 0.33	September.. ..	.. 0.33	-October	November.. ..	.. 0.33	December.. ..	.. 0.3375	Average.. ..	.. 0.333	0.338


PRIVATE BILLS-PROCEDURE
Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette) moved:: That all private bills reported upon to-day and contained in the tenth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills be placed upon the order paper of the house for consideration this day in committee of the whole and for third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Soldier Settlement Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Soldier Settlement Act to carry into effect the recommendations of the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems, submitted to the house on the 23rd May, instant, and to provide that the total outstanding indebtedness of all soldier settlers who are still in active occupancy of their farms shall be reduced by the amount of thirty per cent, to take effect upon the last standard date, 1929, or, in the case of settlers whose applications for revaluation have not yet been finally dealt with, immediately after the final award has been given.
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 and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: The leader of the opposition is not here, but there is no objection to this resolution carrying since he will have an opportunity of saying anything he wishes to say when the bill is in committee.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 313, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When shall said bill be
read a second time?


George Halsey Perley: Has this bill been printed?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. Perhaps it would be better to continue to-morrow with the discussion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Or this day later?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, this
day later.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The bill will be read a
second time this day later.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 12, to amend the act respecting grain.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest a method of procedure which might save the time of the committee.
I think the committee on agriculture did excellent work in connection with this bill. The decisions in regard thereto were practically unanimous, indeed I may say absolutely unanimous, but there was just one matter in connection with the bill to which serious objection was taken, and in connection with that matter the minister has agreed to make a statement to the committee. The question to which I refer is the status of the assistant commissioners. Hon. members will recall that a provision was made last year that the assistant commissioner should have all the powers of a commissioner for the purpose of making inquiry, hearing complaints and making decisions. In the original draft of the present bill, which was finally agreed to by the committee, it is intended to take away from the assistant commissioner those powers, and to make him completely subject in every respect to the board and his future powers will depend upon regulations or orders passed by the board. While admitting that this feature from an administrative point of view has considerable merit, and while admitting that a great deal may be said for the change, yet I feel that the producers may not be wholly satisfied. The reason for making the change last year was to give the producer a man with power who would be close to him, a man who could deal effectively and in a speedy manner with any questions which might arise. Personally I believe that the new board will be a good one, will be efficient and will operate excellently, yet I feel that it would have been better if the producers had close to them a man with the pow'ers of a commissioner. If the new board should delegate to these assistant commissioners the full power which they had last year, then my objection would be removed. Before we pass this bill I would like the minister to make a statement in regard to this matter. With that one criticism, I would suggest that considerable time would be saved if the bill were simply passed as a bill and sent forward to its conclusion.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Mr. Chairman, I think
the remarks of the hon., member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) have clearly outlined the objection which he took in the committee when the bill was unanimously passed. Section 10 of the new bill provides:
The board or the chief commissioner may authorize a commissioner or assistant commissioner to inquire into any matter as to which
Canada Grain Act

the commission has power to make inquiry, and any commissioner or assistant commissioner so authorized shall have the same powers as the board might itself have exercised.
The person so authorized would have the same right of inquiry as the board itself. Section 11a of last year's amendment provided :
Each of the assistant commissioners shall have the like powers and duty to receive and investigate complaints and also make investigations without complaint received and make findings thereon, as by the act is given to and imposed upon the board of any commissioner,
Subsection (3) of section 11a of the amendment provides:
There shall be an appeal to the board within fifteen days by any person dissatisfied with a decision of an assistant commissioner.
While the assistant commissioner was given last year the full power to decide for the whole board, of which he was not a member, the individual who might feel that such decision was not a fair one could appeal to the board within fifteen days. I am free to say that the advice offered to me and to the committee in support of section 10 by the chairman of the board and by the legal advisers is that under the amendment, section 11a, the assistant commissioner was given more power that any one of the commissioners. He was given more power than the chairman of 'the board because he could make a finding, whereas no member of the board could do so under the act. Under the new section, which I think we should accept for at least a year's trial, I believe that the recommendations of the assistant commissioner would be more carefully considered because he would know that a finding would -be based thereon. If the assistant commissioner possesed full power with appeal to the board, he might be influenced by a hasty judgment. When he knows that his investigation and his finding require the approval of the board, he will give very careful consideration thereto. Section 10 will provide a greater degree of finality once the case is heard. It does not seem to me that an assistant commissioner would be as careful in making his decision when there was a possibility of the case being reheard by the full board within fifteen days. If the power of making a decision were left with the assistant, many apepals would have to be made to the board, and I think it advisable that the board should have the opportunity to pass upon any matter in which an inquiry is advisable.
As minister of the department charged with the administration of this act through the Board of Grain Commissioners, I want to point out another objection to 11a. Under

subsection 11a of the amendment of last year the department has to supervise two bodies. One body is the Board of Grain Commissioners, headed by a chairman charged with the administration of the act and responsible for decisions made by the assistant commissioner. Inasmuch as these assistant commissioners are appointed not by the governor in council but on the recommendation of the board itself; inasmuch as the three assistant commissioners were chosen for their technical and practical knowledge by the Board of Grain Commissioners, I think it is a very improper situation for these men not to be responsible to the board that engaged them. As regards the three assistant commissioners, one man was taken from the grain trade-I believe he was an elevator operator for the United Grain Growers-and another man, an excellent and well known operator, was taken from the pool. The third man was taken from the Manitoba Agricultural college, on account of his expert knowledge of the whole grain business. I do not think one could criticize the board for their selection of the assistant commissioners, but I do not believe these men selected by the board should be given any more power than any officer of the board. I submit that for the present at least I must take the advice of the officers of the board and ask the committee to accept section 10, which I believe is better than section 11a of the amendment of last year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 138 inclusive agreed to.
On section 139-Leases for grain shipped to Pacific.
James Malcolm: I should like to move
for the deletion of subsection (3) from section 139. The deletion of this section still leaves to the board the right to refuse to permit the leasing of special bin accommodation at any time, but it removes the statutory limitation on the power of the board and does not make the leasing a contravention of the act. The committee will note that subsection (3) of section 139 reads:
No contract for the leasing of special bin accommodation in any eastern elevator during the period between the 1st day of September and the 15th day of December in any year shall be approved by the board or permitted to take effect.
In other words, subsection 3 takes away from the board the right to approve special bin leasing. In the general interest of the trade it is felt by the board that they should have a right to permit special binning at any period of the crop season. I therefore move that subsection (3) of section 139 be deleted.

Canada Grain Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is rather important in a matter of this kind, dealing with a lengthy statute where the minister suggests that certain amendments be made, that he should be able to assure the house beyond peradven-ture that every clause has been checked and that there is no doubt in the world that what we are doing with respect to this bill as a whole is something that will not cause difficulties in the operation of the statute. We are adopting a wholly unusual course, one for which the government must accept the fullest responsibility in every way. I trust that no difficulties may arise, but there is always the opportunity for them to occur, when you deal with a statute in the manner in which this one is now being dealt with. When the minister makes one amendment, this necessitates my making the observations I have. If it be necessary to make a change with respect to one clause, it may be like the budget of the Minister of Finance, where we increase a steel tariff item 50 per cent; or where we made a seasonal tariff on fruit and vegetables. Under those circumstances I should like some assurance from the minister.


James Malcolm: I can give the leader of the opposition this assurance and I quite realize the value and importance of his suggestion. Never before has there been such unanimity of opinion in committee and such a careful hearing of the various interested parties in the handling of grain as there has been on this occasion. I should like to join with the hon. member for Bow River in saying that the committee went so carefully through the bill that I doubt very much whether any hon member who did not have the advantage of being on the committee could find many suggestions to make. The striking out of subsection 3 of section 139 was reviewed carefully by the chairman of the board after listening to certain representations by the bay port elevator operators and I think, before recommending to the minister that he amend the section by striking out subsection 3, the chairman also discussed the matter with the interested members of the committee. Therefore, I have no hesitancy in expressing the belief that the amendment will operate to the general advantage of the trade, because it provides simply that should an emergency arise, the board may grant the right to special bin at a season at which it is now prohibited under the act to grant it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 140 to 171 inclusive agreed to.
On section 172.
James Malcolm: I think the leader of the opposition will agree to the amendment I desire to make to section 172. This is purely a case of wording. I move to amend section 172 by inserting the word "coming" in the third line in place of the word "carrying." The section will then read:
This act shall come into force on proclamation of the governor in council who may by such proclamation direct the coming into force-
Instead of "carrying into force," which was a misprint.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Coming" is not a very good word. Indeed, I would say, from the standpoint of the hon. member for Lisgar neither word is very apt to express the meaning.


Mr. BROWN:: I understand my hon. friend is a student of Roget's Thesaurus, and perhaps he might find the proper word.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I had time, I certainly would. The word "coming" is not an apt word to use to express what the minister has in mind.


James Malcolm: The section as amended will reiad:
This act shall come into force on proclamation of the governor in council who may by such proclamation direct the coming into force at any time of any specified sections or parts thereof subject to such conditions as the governor in council may direct.


Mr. DUNNING:: The word "coming" relates to certain specified sections, not to the whole act.


James Malcolm: On behalf of the leader of the apposition, who probably is in a better position to judge the merit of any amendment, I had another amendment drafted for the whole section:
This act shall come into force on proclamation of the governor in council who may from time to time direct the coming into force of any specified section subject to such conditions as the governor in council may direct.
That is another way of covering this. The word "carrying" was a misprint. If the second amendment suits my hon. friend, I will agree.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Companies Act


[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 9, to amend the Companies Act.
Mr. GARDINER:: Will the minister explain?


Mr. RINFRET:: The Senate has not really amended the bill as it has not changed any of the clauses that we adopted in this house, but it has added a clause as part IV of the bill, which would apply to all companies, whether incorporated by letters patent or by special act, the provision in part I of the bill, which allows companies to establish and support associations calculated to benefit their employees, and to guarantee or subscribe money for charitable purposes. This disposition which alreadj' exists in part I as applying to companies incorporated by letters patent will apply, under the Senate amendment, to all companies whether incorporated by letters patent or by special act of parliament. The amendment is benevolent in character, and has met with the unanimous approval of the Senate.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 310, to amend the Income War Tax Act-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Dividends received by one corporation from another.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the minister
has received representations from various sources in connection with this legislation. I have received communications from members of the legal profession indicating that they thought the retroactive features of it were very unfair. I usually am opposed to retroactive legislation having regard to what was once done in this house in connection with retroactive legislation. It always arouses great suspicion in the mind of every thoughtful man when you begin making an act apply to days gone by, because business men have made their arrangements, incurred their obligations, and then suddenly you say that all this is to be set at naught and something that happened two or three years ago treated as if it were happening to-day.


Mr. EULER:: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of my correspondents are fearful that the language of the statute is not sufficiently clear as to just when the retroactive feature will commence to operate.


William Daum Euler: I can hardly understand how anyone could construe the bill to mean that it becomes retroactive for two years. It states distinctly in the clause in question that it shall take effect only as from January 1 of this year, and the returns for the accounting period cannot be made until some time next year. So it is distinctly not retroactive. It just goes back to January 1 of this year.


Mr. HANSON:: To the extent that it does go back to January 1 of this year it is retroactive, and it does affect pending transactions. That is the objection. If the bill were made to operate from the next accounting period, instead of from January 1 of this year, no one would be injured. But I am informed that there are transactions pending which this act is designed to catch as from the 1st day of January last, and there will be some damage done. I do not suggest that it will be as much as we thought when the resolution w'as on the order paper and before we had read the terms of the bill. Would it meet the views of the department if this provision were to operate only from the 1st day of July of this year?


Charles Avery Dunning: Has my hon. friend read section 4?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish he would because I think we are misunderstanding each other again as we did in committee. Section 4 is the operative section, and provides for the repeal of the old section 19 and the substitution of a new section 19 for it. I think if my hon. friend will read that section, it will clear up his misapprehension.


William Daum Euler: The new section 19 reads:
On the winding-up, discontinuance or reorganization of the business of any incorporated company, the distribution in any form of the property of the company shall be deemed to be the payment of a dividend to the extent that the company has on hand undistributed income earned in the taxation period 1930 and subsequent periods.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is money earned in
the period that counts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is still retroactive from the 1st day of January.


William Daum Euler: You cannot very well break
the period.

Income War Tax Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister is
wrong in that. By section 4 of the bill he desires apparently to protect those who may be involved in transactions that are antecedent to the 1930 accounting period, which begins on the 1st day of January, or whatever day may be the close of the business year.


William Daum Euler: We take the calendar year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You take the calendar
year as being the accounting period?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the 27th of May. What my correspondent had in mind was a transaction that commenced say in January and was completed say in April, or perhaps previous to that, in good faith. Now it becomes subject to this statute.


Charles Avery Dunning: Only with respect to the income earned in this calendar year, not with respect to its previously earned income.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. The minister
perhaps has not quite caught the point. The new section 19 reads:
(1) On the winding-up, discontinuance or reorganization of the business of any incorporated company, the distribution in any form of the property of the company shall be deemed to be the payment of a dividend to the extent that the company has on hand undistributed income earned in the taxation period 1930 and subsequent periods.
That applies clearly only to such accretions to the company's resources as accrued after the 1st day of January. What I am pointing out is that in some of these reorganizations the distribution of what would now become income since the 1st day of January might be very large.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is income earned by
the subsidiary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it means that, then
there is no doubt that the minister is correct; but that is not abundantly clear. If that is what is in his mind, I cannot think that there will be any trouble. It was a firm of solicitors who wrote to me. I do not think that I have the pleasure of knowing the gentlemen, and of course they did not have the advantage of having the bill before them.
Mr. DUNNING- They had not had the advantage of reading the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But what they were fearful of was that a pending transaction might be affected by it. The addition of the words that the minister has just used makes it quite 2419-167^
clear that ivhat he had in his mind was not what the legal gentlemen have at all. What the minister suggests is that the earnings of the enterprise after the first day of January, 1930, shall, if distributed, be taxable as income.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and in the taxation period of 1930. That is very clear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is the earnings of the subsidiary, not the earnings of the principal company.


Charles Avery Dunning: Undoubtedly the whole reference is to the winding up, discontinuance, and so forth.
* Mr. HANSON: The shoe might pinch in this way. In the case of a pending transaction .where the purchase of a company has been agreed upon and a firm contract made the buyers would property assume that legally they would not have to pay any tax on income earned since the first day of January. If you make it retroactive the buyers will have to pay the tax because they have made a firm contract. That is the only objection that occurs to me at the moment. However, if the minister will not remove this objectionable feature I do not think that I should press the matter any further. If it were stated that income earned on and after the date the act comes into effect is liable to taxation, the minister could no longer be charged with making the legislation retroactive. I do not see that it can make very much difference to the department in the matter of taxation. You are establishing a new principle that for thirty years has not been resorted to. You are foregoing all the unearned and undistributed incomes of companies of this character down to the first day of January. Why not go a little further and make it the first of July or the thirtieth of June, 1930? I do not see any reason in the objection urged by the minister that you cannot have a broken period. The amount of tax can be ascertained.
, Mr. EULER: Not very readily.
, Mr. RYCKMAN:	My objection to the
proposed legislation is that involves triple taxation. I do not think it has been sufficiently considered. If you take section 1 and, as the minister very properly pointed out, section ,19, the result is that where company A has been successful, has made earnings, has been taxed, has heaped up, if you like, a surplus, and then this company is acquired by company B, the income falling into the hands of company B on the winding up of company A would not be exempt, but it should be exempt from further taxation; and when the dividends

Income War Tax Act
are paid by company B to its shareholders, these dividends are taxes. That is triple taxation. There is no question about it. Under .section 19 a further criticism is that all shareholders of companies wound up prior to 1930 were liable to income tax on the undistributed income earned afteT 1927, except an incorporated company under paragraph (n) of section 4, whereas the shareholders of a company wound up after 1929 will be liable only on income earned after 1929. This is not fair: it is making fish of one and fowl of another. I should like to hear some justification for this difference in treatment.


William Daum Euler: I cannot get my hon. friend's point that it is triple taxation.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I will hand the minister a memorandum.


William Daum Euler: Thank you. It is true that
undistributed income in the hands of a corporation is subject to the regular eight per cent tax. Then we desire to tax the surplus again which ordinarily would be paid out to the shareholders. In the case of all other companies it is so taxed. But there is no taxation beyond that because when it gets into the hands of the final company it is in the form of capital and is not further taxable.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is where I do not agree with the minister. I say when there is taxation on realization or sale to a second company, and especially if dividends are paid to shareholders out of the surplus that comes to the second company, then there is double taxation.


William Daum Euler: But they bought that as a
matter of capital, not as surplus, and did not distribute it as dividends. That is exactly what we want to get at. The method which has been followed makes it possible for the shareholders of a company to receive as capital moneys which are in the form of profits. It is an evasion of the act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not an evasion of the act. The minister is not justified in so stating.


William Daum Euler: Well, it is an evasion of the purpose of the government to tax all profits when distributed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be so.


William Daum Euler: We desire to get over that
technicality.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Cooperative companies and associations.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does section 2 give effect to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the wheat pool case?


William Daum Euler: Yes, it is intended to recognize cooperative marketing and purchasing corporations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I noticed on page 2 the
wording of (q) is "the income of any banking institution." I fail to understand that. There is no such thing as a cooperatively organized bank in Canada, as the minister knows. The statute is very explicit on that point.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know as to the aptness of the wording. Of course the word "bank" is descriptively a federal word, legislatively speaking. The subsection is intended to cover these cooperative credit institutions- caises populaires-in Quebec. There are some hundreds of them in that province. I gather that they make no taxable profits in any event; but it was desired to recognize such institutions under the heading of cooperative institutions in order that whenever a few dollars did accumulate-which I understand cannot be distributed to anyone in the form of dividends, but can be applied only for charitable and other purposes-it would be clear that this amendment did not apply to such institutions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Banking institution" is
the only troublesome expression.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am advised that the
word "bank" is used in the Quebec statute itself upon which this is based. It is a literal translation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister no doubt
knows the legal objection to the use of the word "bank" in that sense-no provincial legislature can authorize the creation of an institution called a bank. Although called "banking institutions" I am simply pointing out that there cannot be any such thing as a cooperative banking institution in this country.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think it is about as
descriptive as we can get it of the particular type of institution referred to.


William Daum Euler: I am told, Mr. Chairman,
that the correct translation of the name of the organization known in Quebec as the "caisse populaire" is the "peoples' bank."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know that.


William Daum Euler: The memfoens of those
organizations contribute their money for one purpose only, that those moneys shall again be loaned to the members themselves. It is entirely a cooperative institution.

Income War Tax Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, they have them in
France. But the use of the word ''bank" is illegal with respect to any institution incorporated under other than the Bank Act.


Edward Joseph Garland: In deference to the house, and to yourself, Mr. Chairman, may I ask that this interesting conversation be carried on in a tone loud enough for the other members to hear?


Charles Avery Dunning: I appreciate my hon.
friends' point but if all the other conversations going on around us were carried on in lower tones or not at all the discussion would be audible without straining our hearing.


Robert Gardiner: May I suggest that the chairman do his duty?


The CHAIRMAN:: Order, order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest that the minister see one of his colleagues.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Dependent relatives-donations-$5,000 annuity exemption.
Charles Avery Dunning: We had a lengthy discussion in committee in connection with this section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government has
followed the old principle of allowing 10 (per cent of a man's income to be exempt from income tax when used for philanthropic and charitable purposes. It is derived from the old Mosaic law, and it represents the tithing system to which we were brought up in our childhood days; we learned that we should give one-tenth of our income to the Lord. Here is a provision for giving away one-tenth of the income, but not more than that. W hy should we not make the application of the provision as generous and broad as possible? If I have a thousand dollars to give away, and give it to a church the result is that on my tax return I am exempted to the extent of that donation. If on the other hand I give $500 to an organization which is not here mentioned I receive no exemption. Is it not the intention of the minister to give effect to the old theory that a tenth should be contributed to useful, philanthropic and religious purposes? Let us extend this section so that we shall have no discrimination I am bound to say that there is no answer to the claims made with respect to federated charities.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or with respect to any
charities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We may take the Red
Cross as an example; in the city of Calgary we have the junior Red Cross hospital, and it is necessary to maintain that institution by voluntary subscriptions. If I give a thousand dollars to the junior Red Cross I am not allowed to include the donation as an exemption in my income return. If on the other hand I give $10,000 to a university I receive an exemption of $10,000, provided always that my total donations subject to exemption shall not exceed 10 per cent of my income. To my mind that is the crux of this matter. The minister has said that an amount "not exceeding 10 per cent" shall go for these purposes. Let us expand the operation of the. section.	,


William Daum Euler: I have a good deal of sympathy with the statement of my hon. friend, but this legislation is more or less experimental.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no, I do not think
it is experimental.


William Daum Euler: It is sio easy to make it
broad and inclusive that I am sure that as a matter of departmental practice it would prove to be very difficult to administer. While I have sympathy with the remarks of the hon. gentleman ^nd those of some other members of the house to the effect that we might go farther in connection with philanthropic contributions, it may 'be that we have gone far enough for the present. We have at least established the principle; we do not know just how much it will cost by way of revenue. We thought we would meet the exigencies of the present situation if we went as far as we have here indicated. If we have not gone far enough we can extend it-or perhaps our friends may extend it in another session-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: It is my belief that if it is
made any broader there will be great difficulty in deciding, as a matter of administration, which organizations are and which are not entitled to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It could be specified;
there is no difficulty in expressing them in the statute. I am in accord with the views of the minister, except for one fact. He has provided that up to 10 per cent shall be exempt.


William Daum Euler: We had to set a limit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A man who has an income of $100,000 undoubtedly is anxious to give away $10,000.
Income War Tax Act


William Daum Euler: Not always.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: I remember that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Few of us will ever forget it. You have one dollar and you give ten cents to the missionary society, and as a result you feel a certain sense of satisfaction.


Charles Avery Dunning: You learn to have that
sense of satisfaction after a time, but in the beginning it is rather difficult to develop it. Eventually you appreciate its real significance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no doubt that we have before us the recognition of a principle which I certainly commend. In view of the recognition I was hopeful that the number of institutions which might be benefited would be extended. We might take for example our western communities in which they have drives for charitable purposes. Here is a home, for instance, and they cannot get enough money to carry on the work connected with it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh yes, they can, if it performs the functions of a hospital.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am talking about a home, not a hospital; the home I have reference to does not perform the functions of a hospital. We have the Victorian Order of Nurses, and two or three others which I might mention; 1 know, alas, all too well what they are. If I give away $25,000 to a university I am going to save a .considerable amount of money, and the university will get it. If I divided it up, however, and gave the Red Cross-


Charles Avery Dunning: The government gets it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am pointing out that we are exercising a discrimination against deserving organizations.


Mr. GEARY:: That is perfectly true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see no answer to it, and I think the minister would do well to see if he cannot draft a clause to meet that suggestion.

Income War Tax Act


Charles Avery Dunning: As I said the other day
when the matter was under discussion, I am entirely in sympathy with the desires which have been expressed, but the difficulty in opening a system of this kind is to keep it within such limits at its inception that we would, by experience, find along what line it could be safely and properly broadened. When the matter was under consideration the government. particularly the Minister of National Revenue and myself, had before us the experience of those other countries which have tried to apply the same principle, and that experience is extremely varied and complex, particularly in the United States. I think members of the committee will remember that the other morning when we were speaking of this matter many suggestions were put forward of a much wider character even than those now made by the leader of the opposition as suitable objects for which exemption should be allowed in case of contribution.
Just to give the committee some idea of the breadth of the matter in the United States I should like to read the exemption in that country as an evidence of how broadly we would have to deal with the matter in order to be sure of covering everything, and even then I am quite sure some member of the committee will have in his mind some bodies that are not mentioned even here. In the United States exception is granted on contributions to any corporation or trust or community chest fund, or foundation organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, but only if no part of the net earnings inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. Distributions to the special fund under the vocational rehabilitation act, authorized by section 7 of that act, posts or organizations of war veterans or auxiliaries, units or societies are also exempt, but only to these posts or organizations if such posts or organizations, funds or societies are organized in the United States or any of its possessions and have no part of their net earnings which inures to the benefit of any private individual. Exemptions include also contributions to a fraternal society, order or association operating under the lodge system, but only if such contributions are to be used exclusively for religious, scientific, literary, charitable or educational purposes or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.
I may say that the letters I have received since the introduction of the measure in the budget indicate an even wider range, which is still more difficult to describe, in Canada,
which I am inclined to think would have at least an equal claim for such exemption. What I proposed to the committee the other day, while absolutely in agreement with the desirability of widening this exemption, was that we should operate it for a year as it is and in the meantime-and I know the leader of the opposition will appreciate this points- the various community chests and organizations such as the federated charities could perhaps evolve some common basis of organization or rather some common basis of handling their contributions. As my hon. friend knows, the system differs in different communities. In some places the contributor can allocate the particular object for which his subscription shall be used, while in others the societies themselves agree in advance that a certain percentage of the total contribution shall go to each of them. Many devices of this kind are in operation, and of course there are very many of our communities which have not as yet adopted the community chest idea. That makes it even more difficult to operate.
Really, the government had the idea that the recognition of the principle at this time would, during the year, bring about such organization of tihe charitable objects to which the leader of the opposition referred as to make it easier to widen the application of the section so as to include them and to see to it that discrimination would be avoided. Really that is the only argument 1 have to offer. With the logic of my hon. friend I entirely agree, but to attempt it without experience and without notice to the Canadian people who have various types of organizations, some of which I am quite sure we would manage to leave out, would not in my judgment be quite proper. I think it would be better to go ahead as we are for this year, knowing full well that by next year all these men and women from one end of this country to the other who devote themselves to the service of -their fellow beings along charitable lines will be thinking of the matter and endeavouring so to create organizations as to facilitate the operation of such a law in relation to them. I feel sure we will be able to approach the question one year from now with very much clearer minds and greater ability to do the right thing without discrimination, beyond the limits I have indicated.


George Reginald Geary: If there is one thing of which the minister -can be sure it is that he is working a discrimination in the present section. That is quite clear. The minister would go further towards obviating any discrimination
Income War Tax Act

if he increased the Dumber of bodies affected. My leader has expressed the right idea; you have practically set aside 10 per cent of a man's income as being exempt if he cares to donate it to charities. For instance, 1 have in mind a drive, as they call it, now being made for a very worthy institution in my own city, a home for incurables. That institution has been carrying on for fifty or sixty years without having had to come to the people for much money; they have had very good subscriptions, but now they feel that they need a fund, and they are aiming at $100,000. These people are not going to get subscriptions, I am afraid, if this section carries.


Charles Avery Dunning: Such a home would be
a hospital.


George Reginald Geary: There is nothing here which would include it; the section describes a hospital as being a hospital exclusively operated as such, and I do not think a home where old people are being cared for would come within that section,


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly it is the intention to give the most liberal interpretation to the section, as far as tha-t goes.


George Reginald Geary: I think you are going to
discriminate against such institutions.' In Toronto we have several hospitals, St. Michael's, Western, Toronto General, and many others; those are all hospitals acting as such, but a home is a different thing. Certainly there is a difference implied in the legislation, because here you describe a hospital as a hospital exclusively operating as such. Take Strachan House, which is a new institution in the old Trinity College building in Toronto. No one is ill there; the inmates are old people who are unable to look after themselves. They have nurses in attendance for the ordinary ailments but these people are not in a hospital in the ordinary sense of the word, with any illness or any hurt. They are there to be cared for and given, so far as possible, as far as they cannot afford payment, board and lodging. I know that people who have spoken to me in my own city feel aggrieved about this; they feel that they are being left out. One lady spoke to me the other day apropos of several charities, as we call them, which do not stand a chance of getting donations during the present year because of this section. The stream of donations will be diverted elsewhere, and probably to objects which are no more worthy. I think the feeling is very strong that you will avoid a great deal of discrimination if you make the class larger; that is, you will leave fewer outside.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Mr. Chairman, I want
to urge upon the minister that he be, I will say, compassionate as well as business-like and reasonable. I know a case-I may say without any hesitation that it is not my own case-of a distinguished man who gave $10,000 to a charitable object, and who had to pay the government $4,600 in order to do so, because his income was at that particular level. When a man has to pay $4,600 in order to give away $10,000 he begins to think, and he feels that it is unfair. I submit to the minister that with just a little adjustment-


William Daum Euler: He would have had to pay
that amount anyway.


Charles Avery Dunning: He was in the $100,000
class.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: You cannot cavil at my statement; he simply paid $4,600 out of his pocket in order to give away $10,000. It was a nice thing to do>-


Charles Avery Dunning: Not because he gave it
away, but because he had it as income; he was a $100,000 man and it did not matter what he did with the money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That amount would have been saved to him if the object to which he contributed had been within this class.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: You cannot say my
statement is unfair, and a man will pause before he will have his charitable desires hedged about and hampered in this way. I think the minister admits the fairness of our presentation. Why make sheep of some and goats of others? Something should be done in this regard. It would not interfere with the prestige of the government but would be really beneficial to the charitable institutions of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Red Cross is mentioned in the treaty of peace as being the instrument selected by the warring nations to distribute charitable gifts amongst the people in peace times. Many of us have supported that organization rather generously, but such gifts will not be subject to exemption. I have received a letter from the general secretary and administrator of that society in Toronto, pointing out to me how unfair this provision is to an institution selected by the treaty of Peace to discharge certain obligations, and which was being maintained by the gifts of people from one end to the other of this country. Few people realize the amount of work this organization is doing, especially

Income War Tax Act
among the juniors of the country in the way of education. His Excellency the Governor General is the patron of the society. Why not include in our statutes the American provisions as read by the hon. minister?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are not broad
enough to meet all the suggestions made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They would meet a great many of them. The broad basic principle is this: if no benefit accrues to individuals as members of the organization to which gifts are made, then such gifts shall be exempt.


William Daum Euler: Many of the provisions are
purely American in character and would not apply to Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But a number of them
would.


William Daum Euler: I understood the hon. leadei of the opposition to suggest that they should be incorporated in this bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The first part could be
incorporated. I wonder if the minister has considered the result in the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Magnificent, private
benevolences have placed an institution on a hill here, another there and another there; universities have been enriched and wonderful libraries established by gifts of this character. It is amazing what private benefactions have done in the United States during the last few years. The minister will remember that the Prime Minister once said that situated as we are in Canada -we could not hope to maintain a higher income tax than obtained in the United States. The corporation tax in the United States is higher than in Canada, but the individual tax is lower, and the exemptions allowed have had a most desirable effect in (hat country. I was looking at the World Almanac not long ago for the purpose of finding out the extent of private benefactions in the United States during the year 1929, and an amazing amount of money has been given for charitable purposes. I suggest that this section be allowed to stand until eight o'clock so that the minister may be able to discuss the matter with his colleagues in an endeavour to see whether this clause cannot be extended without in any sense increasing the amount of exemption.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not a matter of
money at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I feel very strongly on
this matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a matter of administration. I will accede to my hon. friend's request and let this section stand. What would my hon. friend's views be to the inclusion of the words "charitable organization"? The reason for not including those words is the uncertainty as to the real meaning of a charitable organization.


George Reginald Geary: That has been settled fairly well in the province of Ontario.


Charles Avery Dunning: But it has not been settled by the rest of Canada. That presents a real difficulty, but if the minister concerned with the administration, the Minister of National Revenue, is willing to take the responsibility, that amendment would cover nearly all the most deserving suggestions which have been made. It might not cover the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren) who wants an exemption granted in respect of contributions to museums or the suggestions as to contributions for special objects other than of a charitable nature.


Murray MacLaren: Instead of using the words "universities, colleges and schools," why not use the term "educational institutions," which would include museums? The minister is going to consider this question until this evening, and I would ask him to consider my suggestion.


Mr. McGIBBON:: The Red Cross as ar, organization has no hospitals; it simply operates such institutions and in addition to that is performing many services for this country. Under this legislation no grant could be made to the Red Cross and receive an exemption, because it is confined to hospitals. All this organization does is to run hospitals; they have to be procured and equipped by the municipality and then the Red Cross steps in and manages them. Having regard to the valuable services rendered by the Red Cross, I think the minister should consider this matter.


George Reginald Geary: I would direct the attention of the minister to the Ontario Assessment Act, which provides an exemption as follows:
Every industrial farm, house of industry, house of refuge, orphan asylum, and every boys' and girls' or infants' home or other charitable institution conducted on philanthropic principles and not for the purpose of profit or gain,
That is a pretty wide section, and it might be considered by the minister in drafting any proposed amendment.
Income War Tax Act


Charles Avery Dunning: What really appeals to me is the use of some such term as "charitable institutions" in addition to what appears already in the bill. That, of course, would be qualified by the words which follow, "operated exclusively as such and not for the benefit of private gain."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the test.


Charles Avery Dunning: According to the department, there would be difficulty in the administration.


Peter McGibbon: I do not think the Red Cross would come under that classification.


Charles Avery Dunning: Would the Red Cross come under the heading of charitable institutions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My answer probably
would be no. The Red Cross occupies a very significant position. It is an international organization which, as the hon. minister knows, had no peace time activities until the end of the war. Those peace time activities were sanctioned by a statute of this parliament because under the treaty of Peace the Red Cross society was selected as the instrument to accomplish certain purposes. It probably receives as much money as any one institution of that class in the United States of America.


Charles Avery Dunning: But its work is largely *charitable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is in a sense different from charitable. Part of it is educational. It is really assisting the health department in some instances, for example, in distributing literature, thus creating a public opinion.


William Daum Euler: Make it read "Red Cross and charitable institutions."


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a real difficulty if we single out just the Red Cross.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is singled out in the treaty of Peace.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have in mind literally hundreds of deserving institutions that would want to be mentioned by name, because of some peculiar feature that might make a difference in their case. From the point of view of income tax, the Red Cross would be regarded as falling within the term "charitable institutions."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I reached the same conclusion, but when the peace treaty was under consideration, when all the representatives of the warring countries met in the south of France to determine how they were to refMr. Geary. ]
habilitate war-stricken Europe, they found it tremendously difficult to decide what institution they should select. However, they selected the Red Cross, which appears in the treaty of Peace as being the instrument selected for that purpose. Sometimes I think we have been derelict in our duty in that regard, for we have given grants to almost every other institution in Canada and nothing to the Red Cross, although as regards some of the others it would be difficult to find out where the money has gone except for salaries.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not want to introduce that point, but now that my hon. friend has mentioned it, that is one feature which does not make it easier to deal with a case of this kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the Red Cross has at the instance of the government done a great deal of work on several occasions. At the end of the war it had, I think, $250,000 of accumulated funds. That has been distributed throughout Canada, and I know, for instance in northern Alberta at Pouce Coupe, they maintained a hospital when the provincial governments concerned would not undertake it. I was hopeful that the minister would see that that was not overlooked.


Charles Avery Dunning: We will look into that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister will agree that paragraph (k) is susceptible at any rate of a very discriminatory use. Take, for instance, the case of a man who puts $100,000 or $120,000 into a life insurance company and purchases an annuity of $5,000 under one of those special contracts by which he receives the interest on the capital during his lifetime and in the end the money is payable to his estate. That is a contract for life. Then take the case of the poor man who cannot afford to put up that amount of money and who does not get the exemption for his life insurance premium. What about that? In England there is an exemption with respect to the premium paid. In the one instance a single premium is paid for a given benefit issued under a contract which provides an annuity based on the earning power of the money and an ultimate payment of a fixed capital sum. In the other case the individual pays $40, $50 or $60 a year as premium on his life insurance. He gets no benefit, no exemption. We are exempting in the one case and not in the other.


Charles Avery Dunning: The payment in the one case of a premium is analogous to the other. If the payment is made out of income in both cases, the income is taxable.

Income War Tax Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not out of income.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member means it is a capital transaction?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I see the point now.


George Reginald Geary: A man may have an exemption of $3,000 and be unmarried.


Charles Avery Dunning: By having dependents.


George Reginald Geary: Yes. When he becomes
married, bis wife has an exemption of another $1,500. That would make nominally an exemption of $4,500. On marriage that is cut down to $3,000 between them. The unfortunate part of it, in cases that have been represented to me, is that the law does not allow them to allocate that $3,000 either to the husband's income or to the wife's income. They are bound to divide it evenly, with the result that one of them may have a substantial income as against which an exemption of $3,000 would be a substantial reduction, while the other may have a small income, probably $1,500 taxable, as against which income the $1,500 would go and be of very little or no benefit. If the minister is going to make a common exemption of $3,000 instead of a joint exemption of $4,500, why should they not be allowed to apply that exemption to the husband's income or to the wife's income, whichever may be more profitable for the parties? This has always struck me as a very unfair provision. The minister knows the situation.


William Daum Euler: There is something in what the hon. membeT says.


George Reginald Geary: I wonder if that could not be dealt with. I think at is recognized in the department as being unfair. Could it be arranged in this bill or by regulation?
Mr. EUiLER: It is not touched in this at all. One would have to introduce another amendment.


George Reginald Geary: Section 3 touches it indirectly.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite indirectly.
Section 3 stands.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5.-Family corporations.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: 
William Daum Euler: For the purposes of administration of the act, I think if the committee will consider it carefully, they will agree that it is not unreasonable that any corporation should know within at least a period of thirty days as to which form it comes under, whether it wants to be treated as a partnership or as a family corporation. It is a sufficient period of time, and no one can go wrong with regard to it, because I may tell the committee that the department intends on the passing of this
Income War Tax Act

legislation to notify all corporations in the country of the new enactment, so they will have no excuse for saying later on that they were not notified that they had to make their election in thirty days.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I thank the minister for that much, but I would point out to him that the individual shareholder has the right to elect, and I do not have to mention twice to the minister that very often a shareholder is not aware of his privileges. He may not know the date of the annual meeting or how the company is carrying on, but some day he may learn that if he had asked, being a shareholder in a family corporation, to be taxed on a certain scale, he would have been so taxed, and the answer of the department may be: We could have done that if you had asked us the day before yesterday, but to-day it is too late. Therefore, I suggest that if you have a limit, make it a year, because thirty days is too short. There was no complaint that a year was too long, and there was no trouble in the department because the time was a year. I do not see why that could not remain as it was. I am glad that the minister has given this much consideration, but I would ask him to let it go at a year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Dividends of non-resident employees taxable.
Mr. SMOKE:: On Saturday last when the resolution preceding this bill was under discussion I asked the minister how the government of Canada proposed to get at these nonresident directors, and his reply was to wait till the bill comes in. I do not see anything in the bill to cover that point. I would further point out what seems to me to be a little faulty drafting in the clause itself. It reads:
The income liable to taxation under the act of every person residing outside of Canada-*
As I understand it, there is no income liable to taxation under the act of any person residing outside of Canada, and I think that that wording should be changed to bring the nonresident within the compass of the act. As 1 said before, I would also like the minister to point out how he proposes to get at these people. It must be remembered that the income tax is not payable until April of the following year. The moneys are paid out by the Canadian companies to their directors and shareholders in the year previous. Are you going to say that every company must know whether any employee or any shareholder is a non-resident of the Dominion of Canada, and impose the duty upon the company to 
deduct the tax of a certain amount-I do not know how much it is going to be-from the salary or dividend before it leaves the treasuiy of the company? I think that those points should be cleared up before this section passes.


William Daum Euler: The whole section is based on the assumption that the shareholder or director, if you will, is employed in Canada.


Franklin Smoke: It says, not employed in Canada.


William Daum Euler: But the directors and
employees are. rendering service in Canada, which means that they must be employed in Canada. As to how we might collect from the shareholder in another country, I think my hon. friend who is a lawyer will realize that ways and means could be found of prosecuting and obtaining a judgment in the courts of Canada where the man is employed, and if he did not satisfy the judgment, his stock could be attached and sold.


Franklin Smoke: His stock may been disposed of, or if he is an employee he may have left the employment of the company.


William Daum Euler: That may be done in any case, I suppose.


Mr. FRASER:: Would a company like
Brazilian Traction or Barcelona come under this section?


William Daum Euler: No. As a matter of fact,
this memorandum will perhaps answer what my hon. friend has in mind. No tax arises unless the person renders service in Canada to a company carrying on business in Canada, and then only if he actually controls the company?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Actually controls the
company?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 311, to amend the Special War Revenue Act-Mr. Euler

Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Excise tax on sale, transfer or assignment of stocks, bonds, debentures and debenture stock.
Mr. LAWSON:: Last year when the method of taxation proposed by the 1928 amendment was introduced into this house, I took oc-

Special War Revenue Act
casion to point out to the then Minister of Finance and the committee the results which would probably flow therefrom and to state my objection to the provisions then proposed. This vear the rate of taxation is reduced by the bill now before us, but the principle is maintained that was introduced in the amendment of last year. I submitted last year, fiist, that this taxation was excessive, secondly, that it was inequitable, and thirdly, that it would result in driving business from Canada to the United States. The amendment of last year came into effect on the first of July. It was in effect only six months of last year. For the nine months preceding the coming into effect of the 1929 amendment, the tax collected by the Dominion government on the sale and transfer of stocks1 was $01211,967.07, while in the nine months succeeding the coming into effect of that amendment the tax collected was $1,894,382.97, or an increase of $972,000 odd. That, I submit, is excessive taxation, particularly when you have regard to the rates imposed by other countries and by the provinces. One exchange in 1929, the Standard Stock and Mining exchange, in spite of the fact that during the last half of the year the business done was only one-seventh of that done in the corresponding period of the previous year, paid in taxes to this government $765,029 on the transfer of shares, whereas they paid to the province, which is on the old basis, the provincial transfer tax the same as the American tax $200,041. In other words the Dominion collected from this source in the province of Ontario from one exchange $547,988 more than was paid to the province. What is the result? If you impose heavy taxation upon the transaction of business which can be done elsewhere, it will naturally flow to the other place. So we find that during last year the dividend-paying Canadian issues of the Canadian mining industry have been listed on' the New York produce exchange, and two member-houses of that exchange have opened offices in the larger centres of Canada. They advertise for business- Canadian business, bear in mind-on the basis that you can do your business so much more cheaply through the New York produce exchange than through the Canadian
8XCi*uiigu o.
Let me cite one or two examples-and from the reasonable attitude of the Minister of Finance I have some hope that he may be impressed by them. Suppose I wish to sell 100 shares of stock having a par value of $100. which stock is listed on both the Canadian and New York exchanges. In that case I pay the provincial tax of $3 and
the Dominion tax of $4, or a total of $7. By doing my business through a New York exchange I pay the state tax of $2 and the federal tax of $2, or a total of $4. Let me remind hon. members I am dealing not with conditions brought about by the 1929 amendment, because they were much worse, but with conditions under the proposals now before the committee. Let me take another example:
I desire to sell 100 shares of Teck-Hughes, a stock very generally dealt in in this country. The provincial tax is 3 cents, the Dominion tax $1, or a total tax of $1.03. I can transact the same business through a New York stock exchange for 2 cents state, and 2 cents federal tax, or a total of 4 cents. One more example which is even more striking. Let me assume that I wish to sell 100 shares of Lake Shore. At the moment Lake Shore, I think, is selling around $22, but ordinarily the price is about $26. My figures are on the basis of the ordinary price a few days ago. To sell 100 shares of that stock in Ontario I pay a provincial tax of 3 cents and the Dominion tax of $2, or $2.03. If I transact that business in New York state I pay a total tax of 4 cents, 2 cents state and 2 cents federal.
Surely it must be apparent to the government that this is a case in which we have specific evidence that by enacting this taxation you are driving Canadian business into American hands. And, bear in mind, you are driving the business of Canadians into American hands to be transacted in New York state. In fa.ct, it is now proposed by an advertisement which I saw recently to incorporate-I am not so sure but what the actual act of incorporation has already been passed-in New York state a mining exchange upon which all the Canadian mining issues will be listed. They advertise quite openly that the object of that incorporation is to secure a tremendous volume of the Canadian business because it is so much cheaper to do business in the United States, particularly in the state of New York, than it is in Canada.
Now, I submit that in view of these facts the minister and the government should take into serious consideration, not the reducing of this tax further as they are doing this vear. but, the going back to the basis of taxation which was in force prior to the ^ 1929 amendment, because that form of taxation is similar to the taxation in force in all the provinces and in all the states, and is equitable because it imposes an equal rate of taxation upon the high-priced and upon the low-priced issues.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall section 1 carry?
2G54
Special War Revenue Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. Is there any answer to what the hon. member for West York has said? Let ns be frank about this transaction. Last session we on this side of the house pointed out that the proposals then made would be a failure, in that they were unjust, inequitable and unsound. The government persisted, but now they have abandoned them.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly they have
abandoned them and are substituting another tax.


Robert James Manion: And during the election
they will boast of lowering taxation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. But what is much
more to the point is this; what did it cost to administer this tax? We were promised figures of this last year. What about the law suit in Vancouver? What about the bluff- and I use that word deliberately-that this act was ultra vires? This bluff was resorted to by Liberal lawyers to induce the people to believe that there was going to be a change this session. They said that it was an unrighteous law and illegal and would be declared so by the courts. Fortunately they cannot control the courts. Now, we are going to amend that legislation. What will be the effect on the taxes already accrued and not collected? What has been the cost of collection? The people want to know what this means.


William Daum Euler: I cannot tell exactly what
it cost, but we have eight auditors engaged on this work at $2,800 a year each.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the whole of
Canada?


William Daum Euler: And of course we pay commissions to the stock exchanges for collecting the tax.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What has been the total collection?


William Daum Euler: Approximately the total
collections last year were a little over $2,000000 and the cost would be approximately $70,000 or $75,000. That was through the exchanges only, but the greater part of the collection is done that way?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the hon. gentleman realizes that on the basis of the alleged sales in the exchanges there must have been a great many transfers of certificates in blank if that is all the revenue he got out of it. Because we know, taking the figures of the transactions on the exchanges and adding [The Chairman.]
them together for the first month of the year, if the tax had been collected as the then Minister of Finance thought it would be, instead of the manner in which it has been collected, namely by trying to check up the ultimate transactions while the stock certificates have been floating around endorsed in blank and passing by delivery with the result indicating that only $2,000,000 was involved, as the minister knows, not millions, but hundreds of millions of dollars would be the aggregate value of the transactions for the first nine months of the year.


William Daum Euler: This is only the amount
collected through the exchanges themselves. There was very little money lost through the exchanges. I will admit that audits have disclosed that the department did not receive what it should have received through other sources. This hill is to close some of the leaks. As a matter of fact we could not insist on the brokers keeping accounts; we are taking that authority under this bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I pointed out to the hon. minister last session that supposing I enter into a transaction to sell him certain shares of stock at $100; (he certificate is endorsed in blank; it has not my name on it at all;
I received it from somebody else; it is passed on by my friend to somebody else, and the exchange have no record of it. There may be no record of it of any kind. We pointed out to him then what this would lead to. You will check exchanges and check registers of the companies to see what has been done in that regard. The hon. member for South Timiskaming (Mr. Lang) last year voted and spoke against this measure. Some changes have been made, and I want to know what the results will be. I would ask the minister the result of litigation carried on in British Columbia; did the government pay the costs of all parties, or just part of the costs?


William Daum Euler: We were successful in both the British Columbia courts. As to transfers in blank between man and man I may say that they may pass through twenty or thirty hands, and my hon. friend will realize that their passage would be almost impossible to check. It would be just as impossible to check those transfers as to check the course of a ten dollar bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the government pay the whole of the costs in connection with the Vancouver litigation?


William Daum Euler: I am not certain.

Special War Revenue Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: We want to know, before the election.


Robert James Manion: May I ask the minister
how the tax as it is rearranged now will compare with the tax as it existed before last year when the original change was made? Is this higher or lower?


William Daum Euler: It works out much lower.
Does my hon. friend inquire whether we will receive less taxes?


Robert James Manion: I know irt is lower than it was last year. The government last year brought in an increase in taxation; there was an increase per share to which we objected. Now you are withdrawing that increase, as you have done on so many different occasions, and you are going to undo what you did last year. Half of the time of this house has been taken up in undoing in one year what was done the year before. I am trying to find out how this figure compares with the rates as they were before the change was made last year.


William Daum Euler: It is impossible accurately to answer my hon. friend; the question was not anticipated. I am informed however by an officer of the department that perhaps we will get klightly more under the terms proposed here than we got before the changes were made last year.


Robert James Manion: As far as one can estimate it roughly, I thought the minister would answer in that way. At the moment I think this is a wrong system. Since the crash in stocks throughout the country the mining industry has been very seriously affected. It may have been properly affected, because I think there was an over-indulgence and an over-investment in mining stocks of the cheaper varieties; it may have been that there was some promoting done which should not have been done. Last night in the city of Toronto I was told of a claim owned by a company in which the gentleman to whom I was talking was interested. He told me that they had done a great deal of work on the claim, but that they could get no one interested. I do not think anything should be done which will interfere with the development of a growing industry in this country. I suggest to the minister that in view of the crash in the stock market, and the effect which it has had upon the whole mining industry, at this time it would be well to reconsider this tax and to endeavour to put it at such a figure that it would not be detrimental to the north country.


James Earl Lawson: The Minister of National Revenue has made the statement, which he said was based upon information from the department, that the tax collected under this amendment will be very little more than what was collected prior to the 1929 amendment. That statement, to put it mildly, is widely in error, and to prove my contention I shall make some comparisons. Prior to the 1929 amendment the basis of taxation was three cents for each $100 par value of the stock sold. On one hundred shares of stock selling at a par value of $100 per share prior to the 1929 amendment, the Dominion tax would have been $3; it is now $4.


William Daum Euler: Under this?


James Earl Lawson: No, under the law as it stood prior to the 1929 amendment. The basis of your taxation was three cents for each $100 par value. Therefore if you sold one hundred shares of $100 par value stock, sticking to the illustration I gave before, you would have collected prior to 1929 a tax of $3. Under the proposal contained in this bill No. 311, the tax would be $4. In the high priced issues there is not so much difference. Let me come down to the illustration I used in connection with the 100 shares of Teck-Hughes, and the sale of stock having $1 par value. Prior to the 1929 amendment three cents in taxation would have been collected. Under Bill No. 311 one dollar would be collected. On 100 shares of Lake Shore, prior to the 1929 amendment three cents would have been collected and under the present amendment, $2. That is the difference between the old tax and the new.


Robert James Manion: The remarks of the hon.
gentleman, who has his facts carefully worked out, emphasize more stongly than I have done the point I had in mind. I think the government should hold over this tax; they should wait until to-morrow and reconsider the whole proposition, because in its present form it will result in great detriment to the mining industry of the north country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister tell
us at eight o'clock whether or not the costs of all parties in connection with the litigation in British Columbia have been paid by the government?


William Daum Euler: I shall try to.


James Earl Lawson: I understood the Minister
of Nationl Revenue to say that the expense in connection with the collection under this
Special War Revenue Act

tax of $2,000,000 revenue had been $75,000, through exchanges only. Does that $75,000 include in the cost of collection the percentage paid the exchanges for making collections?


William Daum Euler: That includes the commissions paid to the exchanges.


James Earl Lawson: Is that the amount when the exchanges were being paid one per cent of their collections, or since it has been increased to 3 per cent?


William Daum Euler: Under the old arrangement
of 5 per cent, which I regarded as too much and which I changed.


James Earl Lawson: So that the rate got down to 1 per cent and was subsequently increased to 3 per cent?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Certificate before distribution of assets.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There should be some
promptness in connection with these matters. A case has been brought to my attention where because of delays in obtaining necessary information, reiving upon what seemed to be a correct certificate, not issued by the government, it was found afterwards on investigation that further sums had to be paid. How nearly is the work of the department up to date?


William Daum Euler: Is my hon. friend referring
to the sales tax audit?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I am referring to
seetion 4 dealing with "Certificate before distribution of assets".


William Daum Euler: I am informed, I would say to my hon. friend, that really we are not in arrears on it at all now. Sometimes there is delay because the trustees have not submitted the balance sheet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before we leave these
items there is another matter I wish to discuss. There has been a great deal of unrest in Canada in connection with the brokers' offices and the sale of shares. Certain investigations were carried on by federal and provincial authorities. The Department of National Revenue carried on certain investigations; reports were made and, as I understand it, such reports were submitted to the Department of Justice for action. On the very same day that they were communicated to the Attorney General of Ontario the leader
fMr. Lawson. 1
of the Ontario provincial Liberal party, in the town of Waterloo, made a statement in terms similar to the statements contained in the statement sent to the attorney general. Dad that emanate from tlhe minister's office? I want an answer


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend need not demand an answer; he will get one. The Minister of National Revenue at no time had any communication of any kind whatsoever with the leader of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I am asking.


William Daum Euler: Whether it emanated from my office I do not know, but it certainly did not emanate from myself. '


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the minister investigate when he knew the same words were used in that speech?


William Daum Euler: No; there was nothing to investigate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a great deal to investigate; this strikes at the whole root of law and order in this country.


William Daum Euler: Let me say this to my hon. friend, that as far as I know there was absolutely no possibility of anyone outside of the office knowing, until some time after the Attorney General of the province of Ontario had been communicated with and given the information, what that information was, and no person would have an opportunity to give out that information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the minister aware that there went out over the wires on that night, from the Kitchener Record-of which he is the proprietor, his name being at the top of it-the message "Watch Sinclair's speech to-night"?
* Mr. EULER: I will say this to my hon. friend, having knowledge of the circumstances: The meeting that was called at Waterloo and which was addressed by Mr. Sinclair-and I suppose my hon. friend knows it was also addressed by Mr. Tweed, the local member there, who was associated with him-was called before the report had been received in the department from the auditors, as far as I know. I may say this also, that the meeting was called, to my certain knowledge, without any information being in a report, so there was no possibility of that information with regard to the stock brokerage firms being in the possession of Mr. Sinclair prior to the calling of the meeting.

Special War Revenue Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not answer the question in any way, shape or form. It is not when the meeting was called; it is when the meeting was held that I am talking about.


William Daum Euler: Did not my hon. friend ask me whether I was aware such a report had appeared in the Kitchener Record? I happen to be the owner of that paper and I read it occasionally. Yes; I read the article, if that is the answer my hon. friend wants.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the minister aware that a flash message went over the Canadian Press from the Kitchener Record, saying "Watch Sinclair's speech to-night"?


William Daum Euler: I am not aware of anything of the kind at all; I do not know whether such a message went out or whether it did not. I doubt very much whether it did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I will put this to the minister: Does he know this, that the language used by Mr. Sinclair in that speech was language which contained in exact terms the information sent from the Department of Justice to the Attorney General of Ontario?


William Daum Euler: Yes, I saw that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister knows that?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister taken any steps to investigate where the leak was?


William Daum Euler: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Although the minister
realizes what the statute says as to leaks and as to this information being secret, he did not take any action? The minister knows what it says? He has taken no steps to ascertain where that leak occurred by which Sinclair was enabled to make a statement in Waterloo, at a public meeting, in terms exactly similar to those contained in the communication from the Department of Justice to the Attorney General of Ontario? That is the kind of government we have, is it? Is that the situation?


William Daum Euler: I think my hon. friend
might give credit to the Department of National Revenue for giving the information to the department at Toronto.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To Sinclair.


William Daum Euler: No, not to Sinclair; I deny
that absolutely. The department did give information, which it had obtained through its own investigations, for the benefit of the people of the province of Ontario, and the 2419-108
department passed on that information without making it public, as it might very well have done. It passed on that information to the Department of the Attorney General of Ontario for action, and he took action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, and that answers the question. The Department of National Revenue investigated the brokers' offices in regard to taxes. They made investigations, which were supposed to be secret investigations, using the word in the proper sense according to the statute. As a result of those investigations


William Daum Euler: What statute is that to
which my hon. friend is referring?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute with respect to the whole question of income and other taxes says that these matters shall be kept secret.


William Daum Euler: I am not going to argue with my hon. friend, but I know of no such statute with regard to sales taxes or transfer taxes. Income tax is on a different basis altogether from these other taxes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am putting it on income tax basis.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not income tax


William Daum Euler: That is the Special War
Revenue Act.


Mr. CANNON:: That does not apply to this act at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the Income War Tax Act to which I am referring now.


Charles Avery Dunning: But the question has no relation to the income tax.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then we will leave that for the moment. The minister had his confidential officers, his auditors, make a report, which report was made to the department. Whether or not the statute requires such information to be kept secret I will leave for the moment. The auditors made the report. That report was transmitted by the Minister of National Revenue to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice asked the attorney general, of course, to take the necessary action, because the Department of Justice says-


William Daum Euler: Merely transmitted the information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Department of Justice, of course, takes the ground that it has nothing to do with prosecutions, that each province must deal with those, and that department transmitted the information received

Special War Revenue Act

from the Department of National Revenue together with the report made by the minister's officials to the attorney general at Toronto. Now, the minister says he might have made that public. I say that is not so.


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that is exactly what I said, but I know of no law that would have prevented me from publishing that information if I had so desired. I did not do it, but I know of no law which would have prevented me from doing so if I had wished.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I can say is that the practice of the departments is quite the opposite. I do not know about the law except in regard to the income tax, so we will not discuss that for the moment. We will leave that, but on the very same evening, before the department at Toronto could have taken any action Mr. Sinclair, the leader of the provincial Liberal party, made a speech in which he uses that information in the exact terms in which it has been communicated to the attorney general at Toronto. His words are exactly the same as the language in which the information was given. Then why select the leader of the Liberal party, the provincial Liberal party to make a public statement at Waterloo regarding the administration with regard to brokers' businesses in Ontario, resulting from information secured by the minister in his effort to collect a tax?


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend says "Why
select the leader of the Liberal party in Ontario as the person to make that statement?" Is he saying to me that I made that selection? If not, what does he mean?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. minister said
he did not do it; I say it must have come from his department somehow.


William Daum Euler: I think not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How otherwise could it
have come?


William Daum Euler: I do not know, but I will
say-and I ask the committee to believe this -that no information went to Mr. Sinclair, and nothing was ever intended to go to Mr. Sinclair, so far as I am concerned. I have no knowledge of anything that took place with Mr. Sinclair. I had nothing whatever to do with it, and Mr. Sinclair himself has stated publicly that he did not receive the information from the Minister of National Revenue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is unnecessary for
any further statement to be made as far as the minister is personally concerned; everyone will accept his denial, I am sure.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend objected that I made no investigation at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister says he
made no investigation as to the leakage. I say it was a public duty which rested upon him to do so, because the responsibility rested upon him as head of the department. No minister can escape his responsibility by saying "I personally did not do it" when it is apparent that for some reason-which must have been political-the leader of the Liberal party in Ontario stands upon a public platform and makes a statement which is in terms identical with the communication sent by the Attorney General of Canada to the Attorney General of Ontario with respect to a matter about which that department had knowledge in consequence of the investigations carried on under the direction of the Minister of National Revenue. I say that this condition of affairs warrants an investigation, for why was Mr. Sinclair selected by someone to be put in possession of that information? Is that government? Does that represent the correlation of effort between the Department of National Revenue, whose business it is to find out the facts about non-payment of taxes, and the leader of a party in a province who is using the information for political purposes, to condemn his opponents? I want to know. We want to know whether this government is conducting the business of the country in the public interest or as an ally and an adjunct of the Liberal party in a province.


William Daum Euler: I make no admission whatever, Mr. Chairman, that the leak was from the Department of National Revenue; in fact I make no admission that there was a leak at all. I leave it to the judgment of the members of this house, to those on the other side as well as to those on this side, that if the Department of National Revenue had chosen to play politics with this situation they certainly would not have submitted that information first to the Attorney General of the province of Ontario.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was part of the
game, the idea being to see that the departs ment of the Attorney General of Ontario would not take action, but fortunately action was taken.


William Daum Euler: Exactly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the whole
game.


William Daum Euler: They had the information
through the department.

Bounty on Coal


Richard Bedford Bennett: They had obtained the
information themselves because they did not get the letter, by some strange coincidence, until after Mr. Sinclair had made his speech. The minister has put his finger right on the spot; the whole game was to say that the department of the Attorney General of Ontario neglected its duty, and Mr. Sinclair was to go and make his speech. Fortunately for the department, the attorney general had obtained information from his own officers and took action, and the letter to which the minister refers was not received by the attorney general until after Mr. Sinclair had made his speech.


William Daum Euler: I am not going to prolong
this debate; I cannot help it if my hon. friend draws a deduction which-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are the facts.


William Daum Euler: -is not substantiated by
facts. The Department of National Revenue acted in absolutely good faith in trying to clear up what it considered to be a rotten situation existing among the mining brokers in the province of Ontario. The information was passed on in absolutely good faith for the attorney general of the province to take such action as he saw fit. Whether he took that action as a result of the information we gave him, or as a result of information which he had obtained himself, I am not going to say. I have no desire to impugn his motives, and I do not want to have mine impugned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman must remember that he is the head of a department, and as such he is responsible. If it was not his department that sent that information to the Attorney General of Ontario, then it was the Department of Justice, and that department indicated- that the information was received from the minister's department. The Attorney General of Ontario received it from the attorney general at Ottawa, but the information, strange as it may seem, was not received in its entirety until after Mr. Sinclair had made his statement at Waterloo. I-Iow could Mr. Sinclair have made that statement unless he had received information from uue of two departments, the Department of Justice or the Department of National Revenue? The Minister of National Revenue says that he had nothing to do with it, either directly or indirectly, nor did he know of it, and we accept gladly his word. But let us ask the other department whether that information was permitted to leak out. That information must have leaked out, otherwise Mr. Sinclair would not have been in possession
2419-168J
of the information in connection with the taxes. There are the facts, and they demand some explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On the title.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like to refer again to section 5. Upon what basis are these changes made?


Charles Avery Dunning: All of the items in the
old act are covered. That is, there is no change involved by the change in numbers. The effect will be exactly the same as it was under the old act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Simply a rearrangement
of items?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, and read the third time.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Dunning moves that
the bill do now pass and that the title be as on the order paper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was some information to be given this evening, and the third reading had better stand over till then.


Charles Avery Dunning: The bill has had its third reading; we could allow the actual passing to stand if my hon. friend is afraid that he will not receive the information. Perhaps we had better do that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a question of
being afraid, it is a question of parliamentary procedure. This bill should not leave the house until the information is given, and no one knows that better than the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: I recognize parliamentary procedure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not afraid of anything.
Motion stands.



BOUNTY ON COAL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of forty-nine and one-half cents per ton of bituminous coal mined in Canada and converted into coke in Canada and used in the smelting of iron from ore, or in the production of steel.
Bounty on Coal
[Stage Direction]
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 and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: There was an amendment proposed at the last sitting of the committee, but I understand that it is not in order.


John Frederick Johnston: When this resolution
was last before the committee, the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald) moved the following amendment:
And to provide that the money so paid or a portion thereof shall be devoted to the improvement of the position of the men employed in such plants either by way of increased wages or shorter hours or both.
In looking up the authorities, the following is found at page 546 of the thirteenth edition of May:
An amendment proposing to substitute for the resolution an argumentative justification for the refusal of that demand is out of order, as are also amendments proposed with a view to substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation.
With that authority, I have to rule the amendment out of order.
Mr. MacDOiNALD (Cape Breton South): Mr. Chairman-


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend would
wait until the bill has been introduced, I am sure that he will facilitate the course which he has in view. I propose to introduce the' bill immediately and give it second reading.


Mr. CAHAN:: Has the bill been printed?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and it will be distributed immediately the resolution is reported.
Resolution reported, on division, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 312, to (place Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron or steel on a basis of equality with imported coal.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. DUNNING moved the second reading of the bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Should we not have the
bill distributed before it is read the second time, so that we may know what the contents are?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It will be distributed in
a moment.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I would like to say something in regard to the bill before it passes, and I desire to know whether or not I am prevented from doing so if you declare the motion carried.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaips it can be agreed to take the second reading at some time later this day. This will give opportunity for distribution of the bill and for everyone to become familiar with its contents.
Motion stands.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): It will be remembered that during the previous discussion one or two items were allowed to stand. Among them was the matter of grape juice which gave some concern I see that the hon. member for Lincoln is in his seat. He is familiar with the subject. My officers have had conferences with the grape growers and others interested in an effort to find some means to deal with this difficulty which has arisen within the past few weeks, but which has not yet become a real factor. There is considerable difficulty in arriving at a proper test for what is known as concentrated grape juice. When I spoke of the matter in the house before, I mentioned the growers' suggestion of what is called the Baume test. On examination it was found that the Baume test does not appear to be the standardized medium it was thought to be and it has been abandoned. What the growers now suggest is what I am about to read, as follows:
That the following item, enumeration and rates of duty be inserted in schedule A.
This will involve no change in the ordinary domestic grape juice item.
152b. Grape juice in containers of more than one_ gallon capacity each: British preferential tariff, 17i per cent: intermediate tariff, 22^ per cent; general tariff, 22J per cent.
The governor in council may by order in council direct that there be substituted for tariff item 152b in schedule A of the customs tariff, the enumeration of goods and the rates of duties of customs set opposite the said item the following:
152c. Grape juice in containers of more than one gallon capacity each: Testing not more than 1.074 specific gravity at 60 degrees temperature, per gallon: British preferential tariff, 20 cents:	intermediate tariff. 25 cents; general
tariff. 25 cents, and in addition thereto, for each increment of 0.01 in specific gravity above

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
1.074: British preferential tariff, 3 cents; intermediate tariff, 3 cents; general tariff, 3 cents.
From and after the publication of such order in council in the Canada Gazette, tariff item 152b as it appears in the said schedule at the time of the passing of this act shall be repealed and the provisions of tariff item 152c shall be substituted therefor.
The reason why the growers ask for this to come into effect by order in council is because they themselves are not yet absolutely assured of this method of testing the grape juice, and I must frankly confess, in the few weeks which have elapsed since the matter first became urgent, it has not been possible for the department to arrive definitely at what should be done and how the test should be applied with respect to concentrated grape juice. It is intended to investigate immediately as fully as possible any complaints that may come in from interested parties as a result of the very publicity which will be given to this provision, and then to bring the new duty into qffeot if that investigation shows this to be a practical .method of meeting what everybody desires to have done.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Supposing it is not?


Charles Avery Dunning: Then we are in the position of having grape juice in containers of more than one gallon capacity under the present rates: British preferential tariff, 174 per cent; intermediate tariff, 22^ per cent; general tariff, 22| per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are the existing
rates?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I presume if the growers
are satisfied, there is nothing further to be said. The only danger I can see is that if there is any delay about the matter, this year's crop will be lost, because, if a month or two goes by without anything being done, enough concentrated grape juice can be imported to destroy the price of the incoming native crop. I cannot for the life of me understand why it is necessary to do anything more than apply a percentage rate on the concentrated juice. As I pointed out a few days ago, if juice can be reduced from a five-gallon quantity to a one-gallon quantity, then you can make the duty on that concentrate five times as great. It would not be very hard to draft a clause which would cover that. If -the juice is concentrated to the extent of only two to one, then the rate should be doubled. If it is -three to one, the rate should be th-ree times as great.	_


Charles Avery Dunning: As my hon. friend will
understand, the question which is worrying
the growers is how to determine the extent of the concentration, whether it is five to one, four to one, three to one, and to base the rates -accordingly.


James Dew Chaplin: The growers know what they want, and it is for the minister to put the thing into such shape that they can be protected. I do not care whether it is done by the Baume test or by any other test. I know this, that if concentrates are allowed to come in to ruin the business of these people, it is going to be a very serious thing for every farmer in that whole district.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can assure my hon. friend that I am endeavouring to evolve something that will have the effect of meeting the desires of the growers. They have impressed me very much with their sincerity of purpose and fairness in the matter, and what I am here proposing is what is proposed by them and will be satisfactory to them.


James Dew Chaplin: I am quite satisfied as to the good intentions of the minister. I am only asking him to see that the matter is expedited so that no loss will come to these people.


Charles Avery Dunning: I	will undertake to
expedite the matter so far as is humanly possible because I am keenly desirous of meeting this situation. Theoretical though it is, it is imminent and appears to be of practical moment. The intention certainly is to proceed immediately to deal with it. I have been consulting with my officers about it and I am quite sure that we can clear it up in less than a month.


Mr. PETTIT:: I am informed by one of the wineries in my district at Niagara Falls that an agent for the California fruit growers has been soliciting orders in that district, and it is expected from information given out by him that at least one million gallons of concentrated grape juice will be shipped in here this year.


Charles Avery Dunning: That information has been communicated to me.


George Hamilton Pettit: So action is wanted at once.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the duty is sufficiently high to afford a measure of necessary protection to the Canadian grape grower as against this California competition.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is intended is to proportion what is done to what already exists with respect to grapes. It is a matter of proportioning one rate to another.
2662	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Dew Chaplin: The minister has not quite answered the question. If there is no attention whatever paid to concentrates, and concentrates are allowed to come in at the rate of duty proposed, that rate is not sufficient to take care of the situation; there is no doubt about that.


John Frederick Johnston: It is moved to insert the item accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-296.	Flint, ground flint
stone; feldspar, fluorspar; mica schist; cliff, chalk, china, or Cornwall stone, ground or unground, refuse stone, not sawn, hammered or chiselled nor fit for flagstone, building stone or paving: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: I think I can meet the point raised by my hon. friend from Kingston City very easily by inserting after the word "feldspar" in the first line the words "crude only," and then adding a new sub-item to item 296, reading as follows:
Customs tariff-206d. Feldspar, not further manufactured than ground: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
That distinguishes between the crude feldspar and the ground feldspar, admitting the crude free under all tariffs, and imposing on the ground feldspar a duty of 10 per cent under the intermediate tariff, 15 per cent under the general tariff, and free under the British preference. That was the point my hon. friend raised, and he had every right to raise it on account of the magnesite which is alongside the feldspar.


John Frederick Johnston: It is moved that the item be amended accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-377a. Blooms, cogged ingots, slabs, billets, n.o.p., sheet bars, of iron or steel, by whatever process made, n.o.p., per ton-Pn.tish Preferential tariff, $2.50; intermediate tariff, $4; general tariff, $4.50.
John Frederick Johnston: This item and items 377b and 377c are standing.


Mr. HEAPS:: This is the item which was under discussion for a few moments last Friday evening when I objected to the increased duties granted to the corporation particularly on account of the conditions under which the men are compelled to work at Sydney, Nova Scotia.
In the first place, I think I ought to correct an impression which the Minister of Finance left with the house when he said that the men
IMr. Dunning.]
themselves had asked for this increased protection to the steel industry. That statement is only partially correct. It is quite true that a delegation of one or two workers from the steel mills at Algoma came before the tariff board and applied for some increased protection to the steel industry, but they in no way represented anyone beyond the men engaged in the steel industry at Algoma, and then only partially. They did not represent at all the men engaged in the Nova Scotia mills.


Mr. SIMPSON:: Before my hon. friend
leaves the Algoma end, while one or two men came down here, as he says, stating that they were representing the men and were in favour of this additional protection for the steel industry, I want to say that I have talked with a very great number of men engaged in the Algoma Steel works at Sault Ste. Marie, and generally speaking the men are unanimous in their wish for additional protection for the products of the Algoma Steel pl^nt.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. gentleman is just lepeatmg what I said. I said that these men represented probably a large number of the men at the Algoma Steel plant, but I have also had representations made to me by quite a large number of men who object to anything being given to the company if the men receive no advantage from the company. Only last year or the year before when the Empire Parliamentary Union came here from Great Britain, a delegation of the mem from the mills at the Soo appeared before them, and it is only the truth to say that they were shocked at the deplorable conditions which were revealed to them. I could bring communications to show that there are men at Algoma who object strenuously to this protection being given. The minister will realize, of course, how unfair it would be for me to give in this house the names of those men. What I was trying to point out in reply to the statement of the Minister of Finance, that the men themselves had asked for this increased protection, was that the only men who had asked for it were men representing a number of employees at the Algoma Steel works, and that there was nothing to show that the men employed at the steel works at Sydney wanted this increased protection. That was the point that I wished to make. I do not think that the Minister of Finance intentionally tried to convey a wrong impression.


Charles Avery Dunning: I must here point out that the men in question from the Algoma plant appeared before the Tariff Advisory Board, and I must take their own representations as

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
to who they were and whom they represented, and they certainly stated, as the evidence will show, that they represented the employees of the Algoma Steel plant and were sent here by those employees. That is as I remember it; I am speaking from memory.
With respect to the other steel plant, there is no doubt at all because there are resolutions in the possession of the government and of myself purporting to come from the men and the men's organizations in that plant.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Asking for this increased
protection?


Charles Avery Dunning: Undoubtedly.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Let me read something that took place before the tariff board itself, and which I accept as being correct. I refer to the report of the hearing before the tariff board on January 29, 1929. It was on this hearing that I believe the action of the government was based. The Reverend J. H. Hamilton was present and said, in part, as follows:
The plant committee, representing 3.000 workmen of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, sent a request to our association-that is, the Ministerial Association of Sydney-asking us to use our influence in helping them to secure an eight hour day.
That statement was made before the tariff board. He proceeded to deal with the conditions, but all through bis remarks there is nothing but a demand that something be done on behalf of the men employed at the Sydney steel plant. He pointed out the very deplorable conditions prevailing there and said in effect that they were a disgrace. The Reverend Mr. Hamilton also referred to the Robertson commission which was appointed by the present government in 1923. Perhaps I might quote the following recommendations made by that commission in 1924, which recommendations also were submitted to the tariff board. This will be found in the report:
The commission are of the opinion that the hours of labour have been excessively long in some departments of the plant under the two-shift system of operation. The commission recommends that in the interests alike of the company and the workmen, early and earnest attention be given to the elimination of the twenty-four hour change-over period and to the abolition of the seven-day week. The commission recommends that the question of adopting the three-shift plan, eight hours per shift, in the departments of continuous processes, and a maximum of a ten-hour day for the workmen be given the most careful consideration. In our opinion the change would be advantageous to the company and beneficial to the men, and should be adopted.
At little further on the Reverend Mr. Hamilton made this statement:
The men, of course, were aware of these findings, and their expectations were raised also by the parliament of Canada accepting the labour convention of the treaty of \ ersailles in regard to the hours of labour.
Evidently, so far as the mills at Sydney were concerned, where approximately 3,000 men are employed, no representations have been made on behalf of the men, openly at least, to the tariff board in favour of increased protection. However, the men have been led to believe by the recommendations of various commissions that something would be done on their behalf. As far back as 1919 when Sir Robert Borden signed the treaty of Versailles the men had great expectations that something would be done for them. In fact in this house a statement was made by the Hon. Mr. Rowell that the signing of the treaty of Versailles represented the magna carta of labour. He expressed his pride that it was Sir Robert Borden, the Prime Minister of Canada, who moved that the labour convention be incorporated in the treaty.
Now, correspondence took place between the officials of the steel plant and the government of Nova Scotia. I have in my hand a letter which is rather interesting because it is signed by Hon. G. Harrington, Minister of Mines for the province of Nova Scotia. It is in part as follows:
In explanation I may say that without equal action throughout the Dominion so as to bring other plants on the same basis as your orvn I greatly fear that what your coworkers would make up in improved conditions or hours of employment they would be liable to lose in the amount of employment they would receive annually. That is why I was anxious to have the federal authorities attempt to get a uniform measure for the Dominion. At the same time I may tell you the deputy minister informs me that he believes he is making progress towards at least a partial solution and I must say it appears as though your general manager there is inclined to be sympathetic and fair from what my deputy tells me. All told, it looks as though if everyone is patient, something satisfactory may be worked out yet.
This letter, dated from Halifax, Nova Scotia, on December 12, 1928, was written to one of the workers at the Sydney plant. It is nearly two years ago, but nothing has yet been done to ameliorate the deplorable conditions. Letters have also passed between the federal Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) and the Minister of Mines in Nova Scotia, Hon. G. Harrington. Let me quote from a letter dated December 27, 1927, signed by the Minister of Labour here and directed to Colonel the Hon. G. S. Harrington, Minister
26G4


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am going to accept that
statement of the minister unreservedly and point out that one way in which he can show his fairness will be to withdraw entirely the steel schedules from the tariff bill until such time as the employers who are going to benefit thei etby put into effect improved labour conditions, including the eight hour day.
I had great hopes that something would be done last Wednesday evening when the leader of the opposition made a suggestion which he asked the Minister of Finance to embody in the tariff resolution. The Minister of Finance pointed out that it was impracticable. However the suggestion of the leader of the opposition was a good one, and I was very pleased indeed to see how quickly it was taken up by the Prime Minister. In the meantime I am very sorry to see how quickly it has been dropped both by the Prime Minister and by the leader of the opposition. However I hope before the bill is passed the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition will have an opportunity to vote for the resolution even if the leader of the opposition does not happen to move it himself. Why has there been this sudden change since last Wednesday evening? It is very difficult indeed for the average person to understand why the sudden change has taken place. The report was broadcast throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion that the government and the House of Commons as a whole were almost unanimously in favour of doing something to further the acceptance of the eight-hour day. It was felt throughout the land that the House of Commons was in favour of introducing the eight-hour day into the steel mills of this Dominion. Then on Friday evening the leader of the opposition stated from his place in the house that he did not think the resolution was in order, and the Minister of Finance claimed that the idea was impracticable.
_ hundreds of thousands of workingmen in this country are watching with a good deal of interest the action of the government in regard to this particular question. A more or less definite promise has been made by the leaders of the two major parties in the house. I do not say that a definite promise would be immediately put into effect, but I do say that an implied promise was given and

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the leader of the government and the opposition were in favour of doing something to inaugurate the eight-hour day in the steel mills of Canada where conditions are in a deplorable state. When we have decided to give something to these large corporations it would seem to me that the time is opportune to compel them to accept the eight-hour day.
1	would like to know why there has been a sudden change of front; why has there been a change of opinion since last Wednesday evening? I know it has been stated that directors of Besco have been seen around the corridors, and it is quite possible that the pitiful stories of these millionaire directors may have touched the hearts of some hon. members of this house. The men in the mills have had nobody to plead their case; they could not afford to send advocates to the house; hence other hon. members and myself intend to plead the case for these men who in our opinion require more protection than the directors of Besco. The conditions under which these men are working are known to practically every hon. member and it would work a great wrong on them if we passed measures for the relief of the shareholders and did nothing for the men employed in that great industrial concern. Sometimes we hear it suggetsed that when adjustments are made we are attempting to hold an even balance between capital and labour; in this case however it is quite apparent that the balance is weighted against the interests of the labouring men.
I am asking for consideration for the steel workers. They have lived and raised their families in the hope that something would be done for their relief. To wlhat have these men to look forward in life? They work thirteen hours, which means that they are absent from their homes at least fourteen hours, leaving them ten hours each day to sleep, rest, and be ready for the next day's work. This continues seven days of the week for fifty-two weeks in the year.
What is this house going to do? I observe in the bill which the Minister of Finance brought in a few minutes ago, bill No. 312, which deals with the bounty on coal used in the steel industry, that he is putting in clause
2	thereof a provision which makes the granting of the bounty conditional upon the adoption by the province of Nova Scotia of certain provisions contained in the treaty of Versailles. I think that represents a new provision in the act; I do not know whether such a provision has been suggested before in this
house. Under these circumstances I must congratulate the government on having adopted this principle so far as the bounty on coal is concerned. I would also ask the government to do something for the men employed in the steel industry of Nova Scotia.


Charles Avery Dunning: The bill does something.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not touch the
steel industry.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh yes, it does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not these steel items.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This refers only to the bounty and does not affect the tariff. The tariff will be operative, and it will give an advantage. All we are doing is to give one advantage instead of two.


Charles Avery Dunning: The reason is that it is more practical to operate under the bounty. As yet I have found no practical means of making it work under the tariff. If my hon. friends have any suggestions as to how it might be made to operate in a practical way under the tariff without disarranging the industry throughout the country, I should be pleased to listen. I thought I would be meeting the situation when I endeavoured to attaoh a condition in respect to the bounties, and that it would have a salutary effect.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I appreciate the action of
the government in that respect, and I congratulate them on including such a provision. I have made a practical suggestion to the minister; I have asked him not to put into effect these increases in the tariff until such time as the industry has adjusted itself to the new conditions which some of us are demanding.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is my hon. friend referring to the whole iron and steel schedule?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am referring to sections
377, 377a, 377b and 377c. There is nothing impracticable in my suggestion. This matter could be held over for a year, and when the industry is prepared to do something for the men the Minister of Finance might be prepared to do something for the industry. I think I am making a very reasonable request.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
Private Bills

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 284, for the relief of Arthur Cameron-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
John Frederick Johnston: There are a number of unopposed divorce bills which were reported without amendment from the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills today. It has been moved and seconded that they be considered this day.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask
if it is usual to request the blanket passing of a number of bills of this kind when they are not even on the order paper? I have no objection, but I suggest that the proceeding is rather unusual.


John Frederick Johnston: It has been done before at the close of a session.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then may I ask why they have not been printed on the order paper?


John Frederick Johnston: They were just reported to-day to the house, and a special motion was made that these bills be taken into consideration this day in committee of the whole and for third reading. That is usual at the end of a session.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Gertrude Margaret Gilmour.-Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Vera Irene Collins.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Lena Hogarth. -Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Isadore Sabbath. -Mr. Glen.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Gladys May Carter.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Dorothy Stans-field.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of George Washington Latta.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 305, for the relief of William Henry Wardell.-Mr. Church.
[Mr. Heaps i
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Nellie Carr Weeks.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Donald Burwell Ross.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Cherry Ray Fletcher.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Eleanor Somes -Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Hazel May Rowland.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Reginald Ernest Ball.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Marion Elizabeth Gamsby.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Ethel Long Nightingale.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Winnifred May Cahill.-Mr. Ryerson.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Gertrude Lockhart.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Frederick Max Quick.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 325, for the relief of Daniel Mc-Quistan.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 326, for the relief of Anna Ruel.- Mr. McPhee.
Bil No. 327, for the relief of Ethel Adine Ross.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 328, for the relief of Ronald Paterson.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 329, for the relief of Rosanna Christena Jarrett.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 330, for the relief of James Lean.- Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 331, for the relief of Lyall John MacDonald.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 332, for the relief of Essa Mulant Durry.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 333, for the relief of Esther Eleanor Zryd.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 334, for the relief of Ira Jane Gertrude Rea.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 335, for the relief of Thomas Green. -Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 336, for the relief of Inez Elizabeth Gross.-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 337, for the relief of Viola Turquand. -Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 338, for the relief of Norville Alberta Gourley.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 339, for the relief of Martha Brown Hemsley.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 340, for the relief of Edward Buker. -Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 341, for the relief of Herbert
Machen.-Mr. Spence.

Private Bills
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Majorie Mary Gwendolyn Dempsey Davis.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Wilfred Nathaniel Bickle.-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw).
Motion for third readings agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 300, respecting a certain patent of Stauntons Limited-Mr. Geary-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1.-Authority to commissioner of patents to extend the duration of the patent for five years from the date on which it would otherwise expire.
Edward Joseph Garland: What bill are we considering now?


John Frederick Johnston: This is bill 300, respecting a certain patent of Stauntons Limited.


George Halsey Perley: I notice this is one of these patent applications, and I should like to know whether the commissioner of patents has been consulted.


John Frederick Johnston: The sponsor of the
bill is not here, but perhaps the Secretary of State knows the circumstances.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have explained many
times, and I must repeat, that these bills do not emanate from my department, and I have no information with respect to this bill.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then I
would suggest that this bill stand until the sponsor is present.


George Halsey Perley: Is the chairman of the committee here?


John Frederick Johnston: No.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps at this stage of the session we might try to accommodate the hon. member, but we have not the bill before us and I have no information about it.


John Frederick Johnston: There is just one section to the bill, and if it would meet the wish of the committee I might read it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
desire to hold up the house at this late stage of the session, but I do submit that when the bill is not printed, is not on the order paper and is not named on the orders of the day, the members of the house are at least entitled to a statement by the chairman or
some member of the committee. If there is a member of the committee present who can tell the house that the bill has been considered and that in the opinion of the committee it is all right, I will have nothing further to gay.
Mr. J. E. LETELLIER de ST. JUST: As a member of the committee I will say that the bill was discussed this morning and it was decided that the extension of time should be granted.


Edward Joseph Garland: There was no objection, I take it?
Mr. J. E. LETELLIER de ST. JUST: Only from one member.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: I may say
objection was taken to the bill this morning; a representative of the patent office presented what I thought was a very clear case as to why the extension should not be granted.


Edward Joseph Garland: Under these circumstances I would ask that the bill stand until the sponsor is present.


George Halsey Perley: Perhaps it might be understood that since we have proceeded in rather an irregular fashion to-day, and have taken up different matters one after the other, the bill might be considered again if the sponsor should appear. This may be the last chance to put the bill through.


Charles Avery Dunning: Am I to presume that we will be back in committee on private bills again, or is this the end of private bills for to-night?


John Frederick Johnston: I suppose this will end private bills for to-night.


Charles Avery Dunning: It would be rather difficult to revert to private bills.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall I report progress on Bill No. 300 and ask leave to sit again this day?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Progress reported.


STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. S. RENE MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) presented the fourth report of the select standing committee on standing orders.
Mr. MORIN moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Private Bills

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 300, respecting a certain patent of Stauntons Limited.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Sir Eugene Fiset in the chair.
On section 1-Authority to the commissioner of patents to extend the duration of the patent for five years from the date on which it would otherwise expire.
Mr. IRVINE:: Mr. Chairman, I think the
committee should have some explanation. When this bill came before the private bills committee it seemed to me to be a very reasonable one, but after I heard the objections raised by the department to the granting of the extension, I thought it would be better if this bill were not passed. As far as I am aware, the patent has three years to run, and this company comes forward and asks for an extension of time before the final expiry date. The company claim that it is their intention to make a large expenditure of money and they desire some assurance that this extension will be granted, but should this be done it would be creating a precedent in patent law. That is an argument which should appeal to both sides of the house. The real point at issue is the fact that there have been improvements made in this patent and other men are waiting for the expiration of the present patent in order that their improvements may be brought into force. If this extension is granted it will mean that those men will have to wait a longer period before they are allowed to exercise their patent rights. If any good reason can be advanced why the time should be extended, I think the sponsor of the bill should now give it to the committee.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Chairman, the bill was
discussed in the committee and has finally found its way into the house. It is the ordinary bill for the extension of a patent. There may be a claim that someone else would apply for a patent if this company did not go on, but this is a substantial firm who intend to proceed with their work. They require this extension in order to take advantage of the money which they intend to spend in order to manufacture the article. There may be some objections raised by the patent office, but with only one dissenting voice the committee passed the bill. The committee took

that action after full consideration, and I do not think any advantage could be gained by my entering into a long discussion on the matter.


Edward Joseph Garland: How long
has the patent been in the possession of the company?


George Reginald Geary: I have forgotten, but I
understand it has three years still to run.


Edward Joseph Garland: How long
has it been in force already?


George Reginald Geary: I believe for five years.


Edward Joseph Garland: The patent itself has been in effect for a longer period than that, for about fifteen years?


George Reginald Geary: I think so.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I protest against this bill in particular, and I protest against the passage of these renewal of patent bills in general. In some cases there have been extenuating circumstances which justified our action, but such is not the case with the present bill. I understand that the patent was granted for about fifteen years, and has about three years to run. It has been in the possession of the present owners for five years, and before the expiration of the patent they come to us and ask us to give them a further renewal. I think it is absurd; I think it is impertinent that they should come into this house and ask for such renewal. My objection is further buttressed by the fact that the officials of the department concerned appeared before the committee and registered definite objections against the bill. I think the committee will be making a serious mistake in adopting the principle involved in the passing of this bill, and I am definitely opposed to such action.


Mr. SPENCE:: This bill came before the
private bills committee this morning; it was discussed for over half an hour, and with one exception no objection was offered. The company in question is a reputable one, and they have been labouring under difficulties for many years. It is the intention of the company to erect this year a new building which will cost from $350,000 to $400,000, but are not disposed to make such an expenditure unless the patent is extended for a further five years. This industry will be considerably injured if the bill does not go through, and I think it is our duty to give consideration to the industries of this country.

Private Bills


George Halsey Perley: What article is
manufactured by this company?


James Houston Spence: Wallpaper.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I am opposed to the bill
unless a better explanation can be offered for its passage than has been advanced by the two hon. gentlemen opposite. I agree with what the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has said about the bill. I had no knowledge until a few moments ago that there was such a bill before the committee, but I remember distinctly that two or three years ago a similar bill was introduced into the house to extend the patent on some sort of concrete pipe. I think that bill was introduced by the bon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, the hon. member for Park-dale. I remember very distinctly the stand that was taken at the time by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that we should not extend these patents. I do not know of any precedent in the house for this bill. If we begin the practice of extending patents, we open the whole field of applications. I thought, of course, when the hon. member for South Toronto was giving reasons why the committee should pass the bill, we wouLd hear some real reasons, but none have been forthcoming. The patent appears to have run for fifteen years already.


Edward Joseph Garland: Twelve
years.


James Houston Spence: The firm has bad it for only five years.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is neither here nor there whether the present owners have had it for five, ten or fifteen years. The patent has run within three years of its expiration and unless some better explanation than this is given, I shall have to oppose the bill regardless of what action the private bills committee has taken.
Mr. SPEN'GE: During the few years I have been in the house I have many a time seen patents extended. There was an exception in the case of one that I had charge of some years ago; some of the committee opposed me and I was beaten out by manipulation in the house. If the hon. member realized the conditions as we do, I am sure he would agree to grant the extension.


William Russell Fansher: The request for the renewal of this patent is an extraordinary one. If it were a patent in connection with some machinery, it might have some claim on our consideration, but it is a patent on a process for the manufacture of wallpaper, and the fact that it is a patent on a process
gives the firm a complete monopoly in that line. It will be remembered that wallpaper has a protection at present of 35 per cent, and to extend the patent three years before its expiration, thus giving a complete monopoly on a process of manufacture, seems to be forcing privilege to the extreme. I think it would be wise to wait at least until the expiration of the present patent before we consider granting any extension of time.


George Reginald Geary: I do not know that I can give any further reasons. I wonder what the hon. member for Hants-Kings wants that has not already been given in the way of reasons In this 'Case there is no question of validity or law or practice. Patents have been extended from time to time; it is nothing new in the house to grant such extensions. This patent may have been dormant for some time, but a reputable firm now possesses it, intends to use the process and is spending its money in that regard. If, however, it is to have only three years in order to get any return from its investment, that is too much of a risk for any enterprise to assume. The firm has put the matter very frankly and plainly before the committee and it was most thoroughly discussed. All that is wanted now is the grace of the committee and the house and I consider sufficient reasons have been given why the patent should be extended.


Mr. COOTE:: I think we have a good right to ask the sponsor of the bill what the firm have been doing with this patent for the past five years. Why they have not made use of it and what was done during the seven year3 prior to that. I quite agree with those apposing the bill.


George Reginald Geary: Perhaps I have been a little obscure in my explanation. For three years the firm has been manufacturing, but it desires to extend and to put more money into the business. The point is that it is not good business to put that money in for simply three years, which is the present life of the patent. The firm has been bona fide in its operations under the patent since it bought it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member has made a case for the interests of the firm, but in what way is it in the public interest to extend the patent?


James Houston Spence: The public are not worrying about it.


George Reginald Geary: If my hon. friend's argument is sound, we should never give an exclusive
Private Bills

right to the use of a patent, but it has been determined time and again that people who have patents have some right to the exclusive use of the process that is patented.


Mr. JACOBS:: I had a couple of these patent bills before the house last week and they went through without any opposition at all. Why make fish of one and flesh of another.


William Irvine: There is a great difference between this bill and the bills my hon. friend sponsored some days ago. This bill is in connection with a patent that has still three years to run. I think the patents referred to by my hon. friend had expired or almost expired when he asked for extensions. Let us wait until the expiration of the patent and then consider its extension.


Mr. McGREGOR:: The hon. gentleman says: Let us wait until the patent expires. The reason these people are asking for an extension is this: they have been doing business in Toronto for seventy years; they want to extend that business; they want to spend $300,000 on a new building and new machinery. Unless they can have this patent extended, they cannot enter into that expenditure. They are at present employing 200 men and they expect to employ 400 men when this scheme goes through. I do not see any reason why the hon. member should deny to an industry in Toronto what has been granted to other people.


Edward Joseph Garland: I object to the remarks of the last speaker. There is no argument in the sentences that he has uttered. This is a company asking for a monopoly charter from the House of Commons on this particular patent when the department informs us there are two or three other concerns willing to go into this very operation and business.


James Houston Spence: There is no such firm.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am so informed.


George Reginald Geary: The hon. member for Bow River, if he is giving us statements that are based on information, should state the source instead of making the statement as though he knew it of his own knowledge.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am informed by one of the members of the committee.


George Reginald Geary: The hon. member did not so state.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am informed by one of the members of the committee that an official or officials of the department appeared before the committee and stated that several firms were willing to engage in this particular work. Therefore the likelihood is that instead of having 400 additional men, we may have 800 or 1,000 additional men employed if we do not grant this extension. In the meantime what is the position with regard to the consuming public? If we grant this extension, we give the firm a monopoly that will enable it to charge high prices because of the control of the patent and the fact that there is no competition. If the members present represent the interest of the people and not that of the manufacturers, I ask them to oppose this bill.


Peter McGibbon: The committee should have some consideration for stability in business. What are the facts? This man has an idea and a process. Other people simply want to steal it. Is parliament going to give sanction to that or is it not? You cannot expect any firm to invest a large sum of money in a process of manufacturing for simply two or three years.
Section agreed to on division: Yeas, 81' Nays, 40.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South) moved concurrence in the third report of the special committee on the Dominion Elections Act and the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solictor General) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution: That it is expedient to bring in a bill to amend the Dominion Elections Act to carry into effect the recommendations of the special committee appointed to consider the Dominion Elections Act and the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act submitted to the house on the 23rd May, instant, and to provide for the appointment of a legal adviser to the Chief Electoral Officer in reference to any matter relating to the pending general election.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the sugject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.

Dominion Elections Act
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the ohair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cannon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 309, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. CANNON moved the second reading of the bill.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explain, please.


Lucien Cannon: This bill, which is mow
printed and ready for distribution, is in conformity with the committee's report. Briefly, section 1 provides a slight amendment to the provisions which was adopted last year in reference to summer residents. Section 1 is to the effect that when an elector is working in one part of a constituency, and has been there long enough to entitle him to vote at that place rather than his usual place of residence, he will be entitled to vote where he is earning his living provided it is in the same constituency. This is to meet a demand made by some of the western members^ and to meet also the requirements of some of the labour people. It will be a convenience not only to the west but to the east, in such places as Seven Islands, in Charfevoix-Mont-morency county, and other places of that kind, as" it will save the voter travelling a very considerable distance to register his vote.
Section 2 lays down rules for a new system which will be adopted in the urban constituencies whereby a double set of enumerators will be used in making up the voters' lists. Last year the act provided for one set of enumerators; this year we have regulations to the effect that there shall be two sets, to make sure the list is as regular and as complete as possible.
Section 3 provides for by-elections. Under the new system inaugurated by the act last year, when a writ of election in any electoral district is issued within six months after a general election there will be no necessity to go through the long process of making up new lists; the lists in the hands of the chief electoral officer at the time will be used for the by-election.
Section 4 provides for the voting of blind men. Representations were made to the committee by blind people to the effect that the present system might be improved, and that a blind man who wishes to vote might be accompanied by a friend who would vouch for him and would also swear that he had
accompanied but one man to the poll. This is now provided for and takes the place of the procedure to which they objected.
Section 5 applies to the constituency of Regina, where instead of providing for eight days between nomination and polling the interval will be fifteen days. I may say that the committee made this recommendation with the understanding that if any other member of the house wishes a similar change in his constituency it will be made now.
Section 6 provides that a legal adviser shall be retained to advise the chief electoral officer in reference to any matter relating to the present election. The idea of the government and of the committee is that Colonel Biggar, who has served as chief electoral officer in former elections, should be retained as legal adviser to his successor.
Section 7 is put forward, in view of the fact that the delay between prorogation and dissolution might be very short, to provide for the necessary changes in order that the regulations for the double set of enumerators will apply in urban centres at the pending election.


James Houston Spence: The next general election
will likely be held during the summer months. If residents of Toronto or Montreal, say, are at their summer cottages 50 .miles distant from their city homes during the time of the enumeration, will they be enumerated theie and vote in the county, or will they be forced to go back home to vote?


Lucien Cannon: They will have to go back home.


James Houston Spence: It will be an inconvenience
to many.


George Gibson Coote: It is hard to decide anything without the bill before us. Certainly I think we ought to have the bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The bill, I understand, is
on the table of the house.


Lucien Cannon: The contents of the bill
will be found in Votes and Proceedings of Friday, May 28. This bill is exactly the same as the bill embodied in the report of the committee which was laid on the table of the house last Friday. I may say that that report was unanimous and represents the views of all the members of the committee belonging to the various parties.


George Gibson Coote: I am not objecting to the
bill, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is only right that every member should insist on having

M ays and Means-Customs Tariff
a copy of the bill before him when it is under consideration. I have asked the pages for a copy of this bill, but they say there are none available.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are on the table.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr Johnston in the chair
John Frederick Johnston: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering item 3/7a Shall the item carry?


Mr HEAPS:: No, Mr Chairman. When the house rose at six o'clock I was discussing the conditions of labour prevailing in the Besco plant at Sydney, and I have one or two other comments to make before we leave this particular item.
The men employed at the steel works at Sydney and for the Besco corporation generally have during the last ten or twelve years gone through several very trying experiences. In 1923 during a bitterly contested strike troops were sent down to Nova Scotia and ultimately the men were forced to go back to work under the same intolerable conditions against which they had so vigorously protested; and they are working under similar conditions at the present time. Several commissions have investigated the industry and in each case they have suggested that immediate improvement be made in the working conditions.
I know it may be said, Mr. Chairman, with a good deal of truth, that the question of labour hours and the general conditions under which the men are engaged in the industry is entirely for the provincial legislature and -t for the federal parliament to deal with. Although recognizing that there is a certain amount of truth in the statement, I cannot altogether agree that the contention as sound.
I think that the parliament of Canada, the supreme legislative body in the Dominion, has a very important duty to perform so far as the conditions of the people are concerned, and I do not think that we as members of this House of Commons are doing the right or proper thing when we attempt to shelve our responsibility in a matter of this character. I know it is very simple indeed for either this parliament or the provincial legislature to say: It is not our responsibility.

But while this dispute between the provincial and federal governments is being settled the working people are getting no particular benefit. Although the question of legislative jurisdiction may be involved, at the present time we are confronted with a concrete situation of some difficulty. This government is being asked to grant certain concessions to an industry, and I say it is not beyond the powers of parliament to say to that industry that parliament will not grant them any such concession unless they are willing to put into effect certain improved conditions in connection with the men they employ. I do not think I am asking too much when I ask parliament to take that action. For the past eight or ten years, perhaps longer than that, the aggrieved men have been looking for some remedy, and up to the present time they have not been accorded it. In the past this parliament has appointed commissions to inquire into social conditions affecting the Canadian people. If parliament has not the right to legislate in connection with social conditions, why do we continue to appoint commissions for the purpose of inquiring into them? I do not think we should tell the working people that we have nothing to say as to the conditions under which men and women are employed in industry. I think I am correct in saying that Practically every hon. gentleman in this house, whether he be on one side or the other, is opposed to the intolerable conditions which prevail in the Besco mills at Sydney, Nova Scotia. If such is the case, if we are unanimous, and if the expressions of opinion on the part of the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition last IVednesday evening are a criterion of the feeling of the men who sit behind those hon. gentlemen, is it beyond the wit of this parliament to devise ways and means to withhold from the iron and steel industry any increased tariff benefits until something is done by the industry to improve the conditions of the workers under its control? I do not think so.
As I said prior to the adjournment, as a result of the statement made by the Prime Minister, and the very concrete and definite, suggestion made by the leader of the opposition within the last few days, the men have been led to believe that this House of Commons is ready to do something for them. But lo and behold, within a few days after those statements are made we are told that parliament is impotent to act in connection with this matter! What will the men say? What will be the average man's reaction to a situation of that kind? He will say that this

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
government is not impotent when it comes to doing something for the directors and shareholders of a corporation, but that it is impotent in respest to the interests of the men employed by that concern. To my mind that is a very unfortunate impression to be broadcast throughout the length and breadth of this country. Parliament should not allow the impression to go out that it does not wish to do anything to better the conditions of the most oppressed men in our Dominion. It is an attitude of that character which brings parliament into disrepute. Parliament has functions to perform, and here we have an opportunity to do something in the interests of the men engaged in the steel industry.
We have been asked to give certain valuable concessions to the shareholders and bondholders of the British Empire Steel Corporation. I think I am correct when I say that a very large percentage of those who own bonds and stocks in the steel industries of this country do not live in the Dominion of Canada. In other words, we are going to give valuable concessions to men who are not Canadians, who live outside of Canada, yet it is suggested that we cannot do a thing for men of our own kith and kin engaged in the steel industry. That is why I have risen on these occasions and have protested against any aid being given to the steel corporations until first of all we have it understood that something will be done for the men employed in the steel industry.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wish to
congratulate the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and his colleague for having brought to the attention of this house the dissatisfaction of the workers in the steel plants at Sydney and in other parts of the Dominion. He has made special reference to the employees in the plant of the British Empire Steel Corporation, and I believe properly so.
I remember very well the first speech I had the honour to make in this house. It was in the year 1922, and on that occasion I spoke on behalf of the very men whose case has been so ably championed by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. The men in the steel industry had passed through an appalling period of depression and strife. Shocking conditions of intense misery and destitution were depicted before the house. There have been some improvements since that time, but now, on May 27, 1930, we hear another appeal from the steel workers, and perhaps from the miners, for improved and reasonable working conditions. They ask for fair working hours and fair wages, and 2419-169
the case made out by the two hon. members who have spoken stands unchallenged. No member of the government has dared to challenge the rights of the workers, nor can the government deny the complaints that have been lodged in connection with this matter. Even the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Oantley) could not shatter the arguments made when he attempted to show that in connection with the Scotia plant there had been no particular disturbances and that the men appeared to be satisfied. Because the men do not go on strike is no indication that they are satisfied. If that principle were adopted a premium would foe placed upon strikes. I say to the Minister of Finance that when he retorted that the men could look after their affairs by organization-


Charles Avery Dunning: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; I did not say that.


Edward Joseph Garland: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the workers could adjust their conditions by organized action. I may have to quote the words he actually used.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quote them correctly,
then.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is one to
imagine that nothing can be done for these men until they decide to strike? When they do strike, what is done for them? Troops are sent down; the country is burdened with civil conflict; disturbances result which are always contingent upon a strike. Are we to wait for that state of affairs before we recognize the fair stand taken by these people?
We are dealing with specific increases in the tariff concerning the steel industry. Let us turn for a moment to the condition of the industry. I have in my hand a Canadian Press despatch dated at Montreal, April 21, 1930,-a month and six days ago. I shall read it for the information of hon. members:
British Empire Steel Corporation's consolidated statement for 1929 showed an operating profit of $6,046,647 as compared with $4,187,403 in 1928 according to figures published here to-day.
That is an operating profit of over $6,000,000.
After writing off a larger amount for depreciation and depletion and taking care of bond interest and discount bonds, there remained a net profit of $2,226,635 as against $855,938 in the preceding year. With other minor charges taken care of the company reported a surplus of $2,070,001 which was sufficient to wipe out a previous deficit of $1,739,697 and carry forward a surplus of $330,303.
Dominion Iron and Steel showed an operating profit of $2,247,837 in 1929 as compared with $1,843,328 in 1928. The company reported

2674	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
a surplus carried forward of $2,741,609 as compared with $1,914,756 in the previous year.
Dominion Coal showed an operating profit of $1,745,09-5 as compared with $1,181,813 in 1928. Net profit amounted to $200,106 as compared with a deficit of $303,184 in the previous year.
And so on. The steel industry in this country has shown handsome profits and operating surpluses. At this time the country is asked through parliament to give to the shareholders and bondholders in the iron and steel industries an additional opportunity to make greater profits. Will the government which is proposing to grant these great privileges, increases of from 66 per cent to 80 per cent, to this industry, refuse to heed the just appeal of labour? Is labour not to get its share of this improved condition? There was a time, I remember, not so long ago when we used to refer to the hon. gentlemen who sit to the left of the Speaker and to my right as being the friends of the manufacturers. They were pilloried all over the hustings of this country as the friends of the manufacturers, the gentlemen who extended special privileges to their own friends. Not only that, but they frequently argued in response. "Oh, no, we want protection in order to protect the worker." Now we find this government adopting the same principle of protection, and for whom? Are they going to place themselves in the same position as hon. gentlemen to my right have been placed for so many years, as friends of the manufacturers and not friends of the workers? That is the issue, clear cut, which is before us in this house to-night. Are we going to befriend only industries which already make handsome profits, and are we going to leave labour to its own devices, to solve its own problems as best it may without extending to labour any reasonable opportunity to make better the conditions under which it exists? Why, Mr. Chairman, if that be the condition *which we have reached in our political life in Canada to-day, I say we might as well have the Tories in office as have the Liberals in office.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Samuel William Jacobs: No, it is not as bad as that.


Edward Joseph Garland: I say in connection with this particular point that we might as well have the Tories in office as have the Liberals in office.


Mr. McINTOSH:: You are losing faith, man.


Edward Joseph Garland: Faith in whom?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In yourself of course.


Edward Joseph Garland: Not in my hon. friend, certainly; I never had much faith in his ability to do anything for Liberalism.

Mr. McINTOSH Why apply that limitation to yourself?


Edward Joseph Garland: Protection we are told, is to protect labour; we have heard that so frequently from my hon. friends to my right. They have repeated that phrase so often, that protection is to help labour, and we have time and again said to them, "Can you show us that it will help labour or save the consumer from additional costs? I well remember Right Hon. Arthur Meighen standing in his place and saying that protection did not necessarily increase the price to the consumer, and that if he went into office he would see to it that it did not increase the price to the consumer. He said in effect that he was going to protect the working people. Hon. gentlemen to my right always have said that, and tonight we have an opportunity to justify Mr. Meighen's contention and the contention of his friends who still sit in this house. Protection is a privilege which is extended by the Dominion to certain industries; it is a privilege that is eagerly sought by manufacturers and corporations everywhere. It is a privilege which extends to them the opportunity to sell their products to the people in a sheltered market at a higher price than they would bring if they were sold in open competition. The manufacturers seek that privilege eagerly, but they have never to my knowledge handed back in the aggregate to the workers or to the consumers the benefits which they have received by virtue of the protective tariff.
If you want one illustration in that regard all you have to do is to take the textile industry-and it is only an illustration; that is my excuse for introducing it into this discussion The textile" industry is like the steel industry; one enjoys a protection of something over 30 per cent and the other enjoys an even higher protection, yet in the textile industry we have the lowest average weekly wage in any industry in the Dominion of Canada. It is one of the most highly protected industries we have. No longer can hon. gentlemen delude the worker or the common consuming public in this country-


Robert James Manion: Or anyone else.


Edward Joseph Garland: -or anyone else by saying that protection will help the worker. Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is not too much to ask that this government, this parliament which has the power to grant these privileges, shall also exact fair conditions in return for them. If you must grant them, then I say make sure that the workers at least get a measure of the relief that you are

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
extending to the manufacturers. This does not imply the adoption on my part of the principle of protection. I am definitely opposed to protection as an economic principle, but I say if you feel that you must apply it, then make it mean what you say it should mean, relief to the people engaged in industry and not merely to the shareholders and the bondholders.
It is our duty as a parliament to see that in extending privileges to these industries they are carried down to the poorest worker in the plant benefiting by them; and if we fail in that duty we have failed in our responsibility as members representing the people of this country. As my hon. friend who has just taken his seat has said, we also throw into utter disrepute our whole parliamentary and political institutions. Why should industry be built up on a system of doles? That is what it means, a system of doles which you deny to the workers themselves. Better conditions, that is all we are asking for, better working conditions and a little more pay for these men. What would be the result? Better conditions would mean more efficiency; the whole history of industry is proof of that. I cannot for the life of me understand the blind greed of manufacturers who continue to employ men for ten hours and more a day. Surely they have learned the lesson that the physical ability and mental energy of the human being must and does decline after a certain number of hours of work continually performed from day to day, from week to week, from month to month and year to year. You cannot maintain a high peak of physical and mental efficiency when you are dulled by the very tedious monotony of the labour itself for almost unlimited hours.
In this connection I may refer to another fact. I wonder why, w'hen the Minister of Finance was speaking upon this subject, he did not refer to other representations which had been made before the tariff board. His attention was called to them to-night, I think, by the hon. member for North Winnipeg, and perhaps in order to bring this point clearly before the house I might just quote once more the representations made by the Ministerial Association of Sydney to the tariff board, as follows:
We recommend:
(1)	That this Ministerial Association of
Sydney wait upon the responsible heads of the D.I.S. Co. at the earliest opportunity and urge the just claims of the men for a shorter working day.	_
(2)	That representatives be sent immediately to the federal Department of Labour and to the Prime Minister of Canada, urging that if
and when the steel companies of Canada are allowed a protective tariff that provision be made for the men receiving the standard hours of labour adopted by the parliament of Canada, namely, the eight hour day.
Now, Mr. Chairman, at this stage I think it will be fair to review very briefly one or two of the very striking statements made b3r hon. members in this debate. I find that the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) in an eloquent appeal following the member for Winnipeg North Centre, said:
No member of this house, if he is fair, whether he is a Liberal, a Conservative, a Progressive or a Labour man, can argue that the British Empire Steel Corporation is doing what is right and fair when it compels its men to work thirteen hours a day, as they are doing in some cases, and ten hours a day as they are doing in all cases. A great many of these men do not even get one day off a week; they are compelled to work on Sunday as well.
It is almost unthinkable, Mr. Chairman, in this year and in this country that men should be working seven days a week and not less than ten hours on each of those days. The hon. member continued:
.... I believe all parties in this house, irrespective of political affiliations, should join together and say- that for once in this country we are going to place human values ahead of any other values that may be considered later. For my part I would not want one single concession made to the British Empire Steel Corporation by this government unless the government first bargained with them to give their employees a fair deal in the matter of wages and working hours.
I congratulate the hon. gentleman upon his fearless statement in that regard. He said further:
Unless the workingmen of Sydney get some benefit from these concessions, 1 am opposed to them; for any company which compels its workmen in this civilized and Christian age to work twelve hours a day and a great many of them to work seven days a week, should not be given any concessions by a civilized government.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) then made the following
statement:
I have a practical object in view, and when the resolution comes before this house I am going to move that a provision be added that the money be not paid to the siteel company unless it shall find its way into the wage envelopes of the men.
I congratulate in turn that hon. member for the courage with which he pronounced that sentence. I come now to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith), who said:
I am a strong believer in protection to industry, but I think that protection, unless it is passed along to the worker, is repugnant to every sense of fair play.
2676	^	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Let me congratulate those members of the Conservative party on the new philosophy which they are now bringing to bear upon this question of protection.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nothing new about
it at all.


Edward Joseph Garland: It has never before been put into effect.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is just dawning upon
you.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
have preferred a practical illustration.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You would have had it, had you read some of my speeches.


Edward Joseph Garland: That means nothing unless results are obtained. I come now to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), regarded as one of the most capable members in this house. His remarks were as follows:
This parliament and this government are not helpless in a matter of this character, which is sufficiently serious to warrant their asserting their power and influence.
And further:
In connection w'ith these items-
The particular ones under discussion.
-we have an opportunity of saying to this industry: "Yes, the parliament of Canada is prepared to give you protection sufficient to enable you profitably to produce these articles but before such tariff will apply you will satisfy the governor in council that the conditions of labour, the hours of labour and the wages paid are such as will afford a decent living." That is what the government could do; that is what parliament could do, and I say right now that that is what parliament should do before it goes a step further.
Now I come to a man even greater than the member for Vancouver Centre, the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who said:
I confess, Mr. Chairman, that there is only one question in my mind: Have we the power? The answer must be in the affirmative. Having the power, then should we not exercise it? I put that to my hon. friends opposite, because here we have no division of opinion; we are all committed to it.
And further on he says:
Here we have a chance to say that these increases shall apply only to such mills as maintain the principles of the treaty of Versailles. Is it unfair to say that that should be done?
I commend the matter to the government. I think it should be done. It may mean great differences, but an amendment such as this, I think, would meet the situation:
"Provided, however, that the rates of duty set out under items 377, 377a, 377b, 377c, shall 
apply only when the industry producing the articles enumerated therein have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the governor in council that there is maintained in the operation of such industry, hours of labour and nates of wages consistent with the provisions of the labour conference held under the treaty of Versailles."
Those are the very words in which the amendment was couched which was offered by the hon. gentleman to the government for its acceptance. He continues:
That is an amendment that I commend now to the government, and that I think at the proper time should be moved; because after all, Mr. Chairman, if we really represent Canadian democracy, if we are sincere in the expressions of our faith in our party conventions, if we really mean what we have declared unanimously m this house with respect to the provisions of the treaty of Versailles and at the League of ^Nations at Geneva regarding labour, there should not be a dissenting voice in this chamber. We have the opportunity and the jurisdiction; let us leave out all this talk about the province and asser/t that power affirmatively, and let it be understood in this country that when we agree to principles in treaties, m contracts and conventions, we mean what we say. and that our expressions are not mere sounding brass and tinkling cymbal.
When the hon. gentleman put that question, when he asked the government to accept this great gift, I noticed the eyes of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and those of his colleague sparkling with delight. Here was a gift worth accepting, but I leaned over to them and said: Beware the Greeks. However, I had hardly spoken those words before a Greek with greater gifts, the Prime Minister, rose in his place in the government ranks, and said: No, if this applies at all, it must apply to all . Once more, beware the Greeks bearing gifts.
My hon. friends now find themselves disillusioned. Why, I am not as yet certain, but something strange has happened. Either the Greeks got together and compromised on the matter or else other gentlemen came to them and discussed the question. The statements to which I have referred were uttered in this house on the evening of the 21st of this month. On the 22nd there was a discussion on the Beauharnois situation, but I learned subsequent to that that some of the directors of the British Empire Steel Corporation had been in this city. Whether or not they were hurriedly called, I do not know, but I wondered if they interviewed either the Prime Minister or the leader of the opposition, and if such an interview took place,
I wonder what passed between them.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask them.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edward Joseph Garland: I hope that they will both tell the committee whether any discussion of this particular question arose in their conversation. The hon. leader of the opposition says that we have the power, and having that power we should exercise it, but I find that two days afterwards he suddenly discovers that his amendment may not be in order.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Do not forget to read his recantation.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not calling it a recantation or anything like that; I am calling it a slow retirement from position. He adopted the courageous position of insisting that these tariff revisions should not apply unless and until something was done for the worker, but two days later we find him receding steadily from that position. I do not know why that was done, unless this is again the little old sham battle between the two political parties when discussing tariff matters, which fact has been apparent to us for many years. I have in my hand a copy of the Scoop Shovel of May, 1930, the organ of the Manitoba wheat pool, which contains a very excellent cartoon. In the lower right hand corner is an inset circle containing a most unflattering representation of the right hon. the Prime Minister, and facing him upon a little pedestal there is portrayed the hon. leader of the opposition. Both hon. gentlemen are armed with wooden swords and carry wooden shields. They are shouting at each other at the top of their voices, but neither of them is actually striking any blows. This is labelled, "The Sham Fight." In the other part of the cartoon appears "The Real Fight," which is a fight between the profitism of protected interests and the consuming people represented by cooperation.


George Gibson Coote: Put it on Hansard.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wish I
could. That illustration on the records of the house would be well worth while. The principle we are discussing to-night is whether human life, happiness and decent living conditions are to come before or after profits. That in the final analysis is the crux of the whole discussion. I wonder whether any hon members have ever seen Millet's portrait, Man with Hoe? I am satisfied most of them have. If they have seen that picture they must have carried with them some of the thoughts I read on one occasion in a poem by Edwin Markham. I cannot remember the poem very well, but I have paraphrased and jotted down a few of the ideas. Here was the man with the hoe, and
what did we see when we looked at the picture? We saw the mark of ages of toil in the work-dulled face; we saw an expression that was dead, unlighted by any spark of active mental energy; we saw a back bent by wearisome toil. We saw neither hopelessness nor hope shining there. The weight of a world was on his shoulders, the weight of an agricultural world slowly but surely giving way, or rather, so far as the age of the world goes, speedily giving way to the new industrial age, the machine age, the mechanical age.
Had Millet lived in these days, he might have painted a different picture, the picture that we have seen of huge furnaces, blazing heat, great open plants filled with titanic energy. He might have seen in those great plants, larger than the House of Commons, little figures of men plying their tasks in front of those furnaces in a deafening, coush-ing din. He might have seen the huge white' hot ingots taken out of those furnaces and carried by overhead trolleys to the rollers where, in almost a minute as one watches, those great moltent masses of metal are rolled out into steel strips undulating like gleaming serpents later on to be turned into rigid steel. Then he might have seen the steel cut with great circular saws throwing the sparks high as a rocket burst in midair. These pictures on can see in any steel mill. You see there great cranes carrying huge electromagnets which come down and pick up four or five or more of those steel rails at one time, raise them up, a weight that it would take many men to lift, and throw them on to the racks as one would pile matches. You would see the driving ingenuity of man to save labour of man.
But has there been any change? If Millet could come and looked around him at the conditions of to-day he would find there the same type of man, the same work-dulled face hardened with dire hopelessness, with the misery and destitution of unfair exaction of labour in order that profits might come to those who own industries. Yes, he would have found men working, not as the Man with the Hoe, from sun to sun, but ten, even thirteen hours a day, for seven days a week. He would have found men working not outside in the open air and bright sunshine, but in those caverns, those huge plants with the darkening roof over them, and nothing within but the heat and stench and dust and dirt and clangor of the great machines. That is what he would have seen before him. How many years have passed since those days? I ask the house: Are we to continue to give our sanction to such conditions, or are we
2678	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
to take some opportunity to remedy them? I am not a lawyer; I wish I were, because if I were I would apply every energy I possessed in an endeavour to solve this problem. But there are lawyers in the house. The Prime Minister is an LL.D. The leader of the opposition is a lawyer of great reputation in this country. Surely they can get together and frame, in connection with this question, some constructive piece of legislation that will refer back to the worker the privileges that have always been extended to the manufacturer. Give the workers some chance; for if you do not you face the climax painted in Edwin Markham's story of the man with the hoe which is as applicable to these men in industry as it was in those days to the man with the hoe. Listen to his burning words.
0 masters, lords and rulers in all lands,
How will the future reckon with this man?
How answer his brute question in that hour
When whirlwinds of rebellion shake all shores?
How will it be with kingdoms and with kings-
With those who shaped him to the thing he is-
When this dumb terror shall rise to judge the world.
After the silence of the centuries?


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) on some of the very lofty sentiments which he has expressed to-night. Rising immediately after him I am under a great disadvantage, because it is always difficult to follow one who has within himself a monopoly of all virtue, truth, honesty of purpose, and integrity. Indeed, I could not speak after my hon. friend at all were it not for the fact that I am reminded that somewhere in the long ago a sinful man like myself went up to a certain temple to pray, and kneeling down at the door of the temple he struck his breast and said: "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa." Another gentleman-probably he did not come from Bow River and perhaps he was not a Progressive; I do not know what his politics were-happened to come into the temple at the same time, and going up to the very altar rail he raised his voice on high and said: "God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are." But the funny part of it all was that Scripture records, rightly I presume, that of the two who visited the temple on that day, the man who entered at the door and confessed his sins of omission and commission went away justified.
I would point out to my hon. friend from Bow River that no matter what shade of politics we have in the house, it is a great mistake for any individual, whether he be Grit

or Tory or Progressive, to think that he and he alone has a monopoly upon sympathy so far as it extends to the labouring people of the Dominion of Canada. What I said the other night in regard to having the benefits of protection extended to the workers, I stand by now, and I remember the first speech I made in the house when, coming as I did from a labour organization, I said that any measure that might be introduced that was calculated to assist the workers, whether it was proposed by friend or political foe, would have my support. My record in that respect has been consistent. I do not stand to-night holding any brief for the British Empire Steel Corporation. I repeat that I believe it is a crying shame that the employees of the steel company at Sydney should be compelled to work ten hours and in some cases thirteen hours a day, and in some instances, seven days a week. I believe this money which is being given to the corporation by the government ought not to be given until parliament decides that those men who make the profits for the corporation shall be given at least a fair portion of that in the way of increased wages or shorter working hours.
One of the choice illogical tit-bits in the speech of my hon. friend from Bcw River who has just taken his seat, was this: With fiery denunciation he declared that protection could never assist the worker; and then in his next breath he made a long argument to show why the benefits of this protection should be applied to the steel workers of Nova Scotia.


Edward Joseph Garland: I said that it never had protected the workers.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Then the hon. member believes that it can assist the workers, otherwise there was no reason for his speech to-night. He came to this house with all the free trade doctrines that he has imbibed, perhaps not wisely or too well, from the Manchester school, and to-night he says: Give us protection to assist the workers. He asks the government to see that the benefits from this protection shall be extended to the workers.


Edward Joseph Garland: Hear, hear.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Then the hon. gentleman admits that protection is for the benefit of the workers of Canada. That is what the Conservative party has always stood for. I join with my hon. friend most heartily tonight in trying to see that some of the benefits resulting from application of protection in the fiscal policy of this country shall be extended to the workingmen of Nova Scotia. Protection applied, mark you, by a government

IFuys and Means-Customs Tariff
that has repudiated it. Protection applied by a government in which sits the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar), who in 1922 left this house whining about abandoned farms in the county of Huron, although, to-day in the county of Huron there are twice as many abandoned farms as then, as a result of the fiscal policy of this government. Yet the Minister of Railways and Canals comes back to this parliament to be a member of the government that brought that condition about. Read his speeches in Hansard; for one fortunate thing about parliament is this, that the moving finger writes and having wnt moves on, leaving its imprint upon the written page. My hon. friend to-day occupies a seat adjoining that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), who sits in a chair protected to the extent of 42 per cent. In 1922 the Minister of Railways told us that to apply protection to the extent of 30 per cent to the boot and shoe industry in this country was protecting exploitation. He comes back to parliament to join a government that protects beans to the extent of 400 per cent, that protects cast iron pipe over 100 per cent, and protects the boot and shoe industry 30 per cent.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Is the duty on
cast iron pipe 100 per cent?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: It is.


Edward James Young: It is not.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: It is so, and my
word is as good as my hon. friend's. Have we no longer the doctrine of cabinet solidarity in this country? During the years that have gone that principle was always maintained. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier was Prime Minister, if any cabinet minister disagreed with his policy he was discharged from the cabinet. Men were driven out of the cabinet by Laurier,- who was a man of principle, and who stuck to his principles. But to-day, sitting around the Prime Minister, we find not only the Minister of Railways but the minister who on account of his sanctimonious look was chosen a few years ago to ring the death knell of protection. Yet he swallows 400 per cent of an increase in the tariff on beans and 105 per cent of an increase in the tariff on cast iron pipe.
I say to the house that I am glad to have a convert to protection to-night in the person of my.learned and brilliant friend from Bow River, who admits that there are benefits to be derived by the workers of Canada as the result of a protective policy. I stand in this parliament to-night to say with my voice and with my vote., and I shall continue to do so
as long as it is my privilege to be in this parliament, which will be some time yet, that so far as I can see to it the benefits of the tariff shall be passed on to the steel workers of Sydney and to the workers of Canada generally wherever protection is applied, and I trust that I shall get support not only from the hon. member for Bow River but from the house generally. I trust that I shall have the support in particular of members representing the province of Nova Scotia, who are immediately concerned in this matter. The British Empire Steel Corporation is well able to take care of itself, but the men who are working long hours of labour which do not give them an opportunity for proper recreation and rest and the opportunity which they should have to educate themselves, have found from experience that they are unable to protect themselves, and therefore it is up to the members of this parliament, irrespective of party, to stand together and see that the poor men of this country get a fair deal.
Let us remember this, and I give it as a warning to all political leaders: The politics of this country in the future, as Lord Balfour said some years ago in England, will be the politics of the poor. It is the poor persons who cannot protect themselves that I want to see receiving some benefits from protection.
I trust that the house will not pass this matter over lightly, because it concerns the happiness and the standard of living of the men and women in this country who provide the purchasing power which alone is the basis on which the real progress and prosperity of this country can be built.


Thomas Cantley: On various occasions
while the tariff proposals of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) have been before the house I have made some remarks in connection with them. On May 7, before I had . had time to look fully into all the provisions of the tariff as brought down by the minister, and particularly the resolution referring to Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron and steel, which appears on page 47 of the ways and means resolutions, I thanked the hon. minister for having as I then supposed implemented one of the recommendations of the Duncan commission. That recommendation as set out on page 38 of the report reads:
Having regard to the bounty system previously applied and to this aspect of the application of the drawback, we recommend that a bonus should be given in respect of steel when Canadian coal is used in its manufacture, and that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of the present drawback for every ton of coal used in such manufacture.
2680	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
That, you will note, Mr. Chairman, is a reference to a bounty on steel. I regret to say that this bill does not, as I read it, comply with the recommendation of the Duncan commission which I have just quoted, and therefore I must now voice my disappointment and dissent because, as a matter of plain fact, the resolution of the minister does not provide for the payment of a bonus as recommended by the Duncan commission.
Mr., MACKENZIE KING:	Is my hon.
friend discussing the bill that has to do with the bounty?	.


Mr. CANT  LEY@: I am discussing the bill
which I understood was now before us, Bill No. 312.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has got into the wrong pew for the moment. We are at the present time considering a tariff item.


Thomas Cantley: This is a tariff item,
surely.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But it is a
separate bill my hon. friend is discussing.


Thomas Cantley: I am willing to postpone what I have to say if-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just wished
to point out that my hon. friend was referring to a particular bill. I was not sure that he appreciated that we are dealing now with one or two items in the tariff schedules. The bill will come up later, but my hon. friend can make his remarks now if he likes.


Thomas Cantley: It does not make any
particular difference. A little later on I was going to discuss several of the tariff items one by one. If my hon. friend will give me a few minutes I will exhaust all I have to say with regard to this bill, and I promise him I will not bother him again during this session.
The resolution before the house proposes a bounty on bituminous coal mined in Canada and converted into coke in Canada and used in the smelting of iron from ore or in the production of steel. Now, Mr. Speaker, coal either alone or in the form of coke, or a combination of both, can be and is used in the smelting of iron from ore. But coke is not used in the production of steel, save in very small and negligible amounts. As drafted the bill will make available a bonus of 49J cents per ton for coal coked in Canada for the making of pig iron produced in Canada, or, say, from 721 to possibly as much as 80 cents per ton of pig iron so made. But, sir, the bituminous coal mined in Canada and used in
[Mr. CantleyJ
the manufacture of steel is in this bill entirely ignored. Nova Scotia steel makers are large users of Canadian coal for the production of steam, hydraulic and electric power for operating steel melting shop and other cranes. A much greater quantity is constantly used for the generation of producer gas, which is the fuel largely used in the conversion of pig iron into steel in open hearth melting furnaces. All this coal which is daily so used in steel making is by this bill entirely ignored. Therefore the proposal of the minister as set out in his resolution falls far short of full compliance with the recommendation of the Duncan commission and cannot be accepted as such. The minister shakes his head, but I am convinced that my interpretation is correct.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend places me at a disadvantage beoause he is discussing a bill which is not before the house. I can assure him that the point he is now raising will be cleared up when the bill is under discussion. It is rather difficult to involve that debate with the one we are now engaged in.


Thomas Cantley: Now we may leave that matter and I will deal more particularly with the various items affected by the iron and steel tariff.
Item 374. Pig iron is under the British preference $1.50 per ton, equal to, say, 6 or 7 per cent, which surely is inadequate protection, particularly for eastern furnaces, where in the case of the nearest market being Montreal the British ironmasters have an advantage of quite $3 per ton in freight, or double the amount of preference duty. The situation in regard to pig iron is even worse in the matter of steel ingots, which carry the same rate as pig iron, although the cost of production is much greater.
Item 442a. Here pig iron, also hot rolled iron and steel, is on the free list for a wide-range of manufacturers.
Item 377b. Ingots, blooms, slabs, billets valued at 3 cents per ipound or over-free This should give the entire market in alloy steels to the British producers, and the same applies to item 378a, b, and c. The duties here imposed will have the same effect, while item 379, covering rods for horseshoe nails, chain, shovels, are all free, although in each case the materials produced from them are well protected and have been over a long period of years. The same will apply to. 384 and 3S6 in all its subdivision from (a) on to (n) and (o).
Item 380. Plates 40 inches and less in width at $2 duty per ton British preference

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
will undoubtedly give a large proportion of this business to the British ironmasters, who will also have a large portion of the plate covered by item 380 (b), plates over 40 inches, free; while item 381a at 7i per cent will also have the same effect.
Item 387a. Railway fish-plates, splice plates, rail joints, tie-plates, etc. Here the British preference reduces the general tariff by $3 per ton. With the low ocean rates considerable business will probably be diverted overseas, as also will be the case as to angles, beams, channels, etc., tariff item 388, where the British preferential rate is $1 per ton.
Item 395. Hame steel, providing as it does for material not only rolled but cut to actual needed lengths, forged, punched and in every way ready to rivet on to the wooden hame, is one of the most outstanding of several examples of a wholly unwarranted and undue preference being given to certain favourite manufacturers.
Item 396. Cast pipe might also perhaps be included in that statement.
Item 401. Wire, iron or steel, free. Barb fencing, free. This is calculated to throw this business entirely into the hands of the United States makers.
We now come to an item of quite a different character, namely. 410b, machinery and apparatus for use exclusively in washing or dry cleaning coal at coal mines, etc., 7i, 10, 12J per cent. Contrast this with the free admission accorded to well-drilling machinery, traction engines, electric generating plants and scores of other agricultural equipment articles, all accorded free admission into Canada,
In the matter of alloy steels containing varied percentages of several alloys, item 389, I doubt much if the officers of the customs department can interpret or administer this section of the act. Frankly I cannot see how it can be done.
Coming now to the matter of refund of duties, viewed from this angle the proposals of the finance minister are rather astonishing; for here we have gradations in the percentages of duty refunded to the importers of different classes of material. In 7 oases, 99 per cent is rebated; in 2 cases, 80 per cent; in one case, 70 per cent; in six cases, 60 per cent; in two cases, 50 per cent and in one case, 40 per cent; and it happens that the manufacturer accorded the lowest percentage of refund is a Nova Scotia skate maker whose protection on the finished product has been reduced-see item 450-5^ per cent on general, 7\ per cent on intermediate and British preference rates.
In general, the iron and steel tariff when examined and fully understood will not be considered satisfactory by the producers of the primary forms of steel, and I submit its operations will be viewed with disappointment, due primarily to the quite mistaken policy set out in the tariff proposals of the hon. the finance minister, which fails to give adequate protection to the primary forms and heavier tonnage of steel.
Again, no proper advance in duty proportioned on the additional labour involved in the various advance stages of manufacture is provided in this tariff. Further, makers of secondary products are given undue protection at the cost of the primary producers.
Due to the extended line in exemptions for duty and the free iron and steel items which are the raw material for the secondary producers, most of whose products have a fair and, indeed, some a high rate of protection, but the primary trade is unfairly dealt with.
The objectionable and most unfair former free list as here further extended in most cases where but little needed, certain favoured manufacturers thus obtaining undue protection at the expense of others who have invested immensely greater sums in plant and whose business is much more important to the state. The refunding of duty to other industries has in this tariff schedule been further extended, as has the other undesirable feature of graded percentages of refund of duty, ranging from 40 per cent to 99 per cent.
For these and other reasons I have been compelled to oppose the budget of the minister, and I fear I must look to another administration to supply an iron and steel tariff calculated to advance the real interests of this county which are centered on the production of the basic forms of iron and steel from our own native resources. I am particularly sorry that the minister has not seen to it that the recommendations of the Duncan commission should be met.


Charles Avery Dunning: They have been.


Thomas Cantley: I am sure the minister will realize at a later time that they have not. I think I can speak with some slight degree of authority in view of forty or more years' experience, and I again tell the minister that the item to which I have referred does not meet the conditions set out in the recommendations contained in the Duncan report.


Jean-François Pouliot: I congratulate my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr.Cantley) for not having been interrupted by his friends as he was
2682	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the last time he spoke. I have only two statements to make to my hon. friend from Inverness (Mr. Maedougall). He said that the duty on cast iron pipe was 100 per cent more, and in that statement he made a gross mistake. The British preferential duty is $4 a ton; we have a countervailing duty with the United States, and the American duty is only 25 per cent. Hon. members will readily see that the figures are far from 100 per cent.
When my hon. friend says that he is in favour of protecting labour I must say that in theory his contention is absolutely correct, and I entirely agree with it. He must however go to the right door, and may I remind him that the right door is not the door of this parliament. He should go to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and state his complaints to Mr. Rhodes, the Tory premier of that province, who has not seen fit to make use of the minimum wage law for the benefit of the men engaged in industry in that province. As soon as he recognizes that law, the wages will increase automatically. If the miners and steel workers are underpaid in the province of Nova Scotia, every hon. gentleman in this house must feel sorry for them, but we must place the blame on the shoulders of Mr. Rhodes, who has not listened to the complaints of his own friends. Instead of going to their native province and speaking to the premier of that province as to the situation existing among the miners and steel workers, and instead of telling the premier of Nova Scotia that such a condition must not continue, hon. members from that province waste the time of this house by accusing the government of Canada of not doing its duty. Everyone knows that this government has been the friend of labour and has sought at all times to improve the conditions under which the labourers work.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: My Conservative friends may laugh, but I ask them what they have done for labour. They have done nothing; ;hey have only screamed. They remind me jf the old women who used to weep at the ancient Greek funerals. They have never brought any measure of relief for the labouring men, while the present government has been fair both to industry and to labour. It is a well known fact, and we see it exemplified repeatedly, that capitalists such as my hon. friend from Pictou are never satisfied. The Scriptures speak of such men when they say that the greedy man "can never have enough."
I ask my hon. friend the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black), who is a capitalist and a director of several companies, why he does

not share his fortune with the miners and steel workers of Nova Scotia? We see before us the front benchers of the Tory party who can walk on paths of gold; why do those hon. gentlemen not share their immense fortunes with the labourers? Why do they not give labour a chance?


James Dew Chaplin: Why not get the Beauharnois Power Company to help?


An hon. MEMBER:: How about Mr. Tasehereau?


Jean-François Pouliot: If I were to remind my
hon. friend of the fortunes that were made during the war it would be a long story, and it may be that he would not be as much interested in it as other hon. members in this house would be.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about Mr. Tasehereau?


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend will read in Hansard the speech made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) he will have a conclusive answer to his remark. He will note also that the hon. leader of the opposition said that he would not accuse the men who are directors of that company of being dishonest, and if the leader of the opposition, who is a better business man than any of the hecklers sitting behind him, can make that statement, I think those hon. members should at least be decent about the matter and not be too fussy. I now come to my point, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: When I reach the point
it hurts the hon. gentleman as he hurts his desk when he pounds it. However, may I say that there is a bad situation in the province of Nova Scotia? Men are underpaid by people who claim that they do not make sufficient profits.


Finlay MacDonald: Where is the point?


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend were in my class I would place him at the tailend, because it would seem that he does not understand anything; his voice is stronger than his brains, and the noise he makes by banging his desk is stronger than his voice.


Finlay MacDonald: I should like to say to my hon. friend that it would take a Solomon to understand the point he is trying to bring out.


Jean-François Pouliot: I suggest that my hon.
friend make his speech to the electors of St.

Peter's in Nova Scotia. He might go to Inverness and speak in the constituency of my hon. friend (Mr. Macdougall) who has just entered the house, and whom I like very much.


James Charles Brady: And we like you, too.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will speak about Skeena after a while. If my hon. friend from Richmond-West Cape Breton (Mr. Macdonald) goes to Inverness he will have to address them by saying, "dear constituents of my quiet neighbour"-because there is no doubt that the hon. gentleman from Richmond-West Cape Breton is the more noisy. If my hon. friend from Inverness goes to Richmond-West Cape Breton, he will have to say to them, "Dear constituents of my noisy neighbour." The hon. member for Richmond-West Cape Breton may go to the people at Inverness and say that he has heard the eloquent speeches made in the House of Commons by the member from Inverness, and he may add, "I was next to him when he made his speech, and sometimes I drowned his voice by the noise I made by banging my desk." My hon. friend from Inverness has made some very eloquent speeches, but they amounted to nothing because he has approached the wrong door.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is the point?


Jean-François Pouliot: This is the third occasion
upon which I have had to enlighten my hon. friend since the beginning of my speech; does he not understand it yet? Poor fellow, I feel sorry for him.
The question before us is one which involves political economy, and it is very easy to understand. When a bad condition exists in a province as to wages which are being paid, the remedy should be supplied by the provincial government; the provincial government has full and exclusive authority in a matter of that kind. This is a well known and accepted principle. The miners of Nova Scotia are not working for the federal government; the federal government has jurisdiction only over those people who work for it. The Dominion government cannot enact legislation to increase wages, but the provincial government can do so very easily. This is what my hon. friends should say to the electors of their part of the country: "If you have wages which are too low; if your wages are not sufficient to enable you to live decently, it depends upon the provincial government," which in Nova Scotia is the Tory party. My hon. friend from Richmond-West Cape Breton will be glad to say that, because he was a Liberal before he was Conservative, and then he was
, 1930	2683
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
ready to ask for the secession of Nova Scotia from confederation. He was radical at that time, when he was a Tory; previously he was a Liberal, but the gold turned into lead. He should say, "My poor fellows, you should overturn the Rhodes government and put in a Liberal government so that you will get a minimum wage law which will increase your wages automatically, and you will be happy. You should have justice; you have a right to justice."


Mr. QUINN:: Rot; they were there for forty years and did nothing.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend knows that these questions are rather new.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I know very well that the conditions of the mining population were at a very low ebb under the Liberal government. Conditions never improved until the Rhodes government came into office in 1925.


Jean-François Pouliot: But I remember very well, Mr. Chairman, that when the Liberal government was in power in Nova Scotia we had a delegation here headed by Mayor Murphy, a good Liberal, and that delegation came during the first year I was in parliament to express the views of the people of Nova Scotia to the government of this country. At that time my hon. friend was not a member. He was elected by screaming and complaining before his electors, and they are now fed up with that; he will be defeated at the next election. If he screams in his county as he does in this house he will meet with the same success that the senior member for Halifax will, and we shall never see him again in this parliament.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Don't worry.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not worry at all; I think it will be a general satisfaction to everyone. Oh, the old women used to weep only when the funeral procession passed by in ancient Greece, but we hear hon. gentlemen in the house screaming all the time. There is no one who can scream so loud as a Tory; that is well known. In my county, when two or three Tories get together they can scream as loudly as a whole crowd. It is their specialty; they advertise themselves in that way, with loud voices, but afterwards we hear nothing.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Go on and say something.


Jean-François Pouliot: Say something? I am taking your picture. I have just a word more to say.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely it will be carried, because it is sense to carry it. If, instead of giving such exhibitions in this house, these gentlemen were more sensible; if they had some influence with their provincial tory friends and really wanted to help labour they would have to be more powerful than the voice of capitalism with the Rhodes government, and they might then get something from that government. Mr. Rhodes, however, has absorbent cotton in his ears when he hears delegations from the people.


Robert Henry McGregor: What has Taschereau in his ears?


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend would do better to grow celery than to utter such nonsense in this house; he would be more useful to the country.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we will come to the miners. I insist again on that point, that my hon. friends make complaints here that should be directed to the Rhodes government but which cannot be directed against this government, because this government gives fair play to industry and labour in this country and we will see the result at the next general election. In the meantime my hon. friends will go back to their own part of the country, and they should see Mr. Rhodes and his Tory gang in Halifax and tell him he should improve the conditions of labour for the miners and labouring men in general of Nova Scotia. Then they will be doing something useful to the country and they will erase the bad impression they have left with this house by their nonsensical utterances.


William Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I shall be
very brief in my remarks on this subject.


An hon. MEMBER:: The briefer the better. Some hon. MEMBERS:	Carried.


William Irvine: If my hon. friends opposite take that unkindly attitude, of course I may be much longer than I had intended. I wish, Mr. Chairman, to take my stand with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). His argument, so eloquently put before this house, is the point of view which I hold, and I say that in spite of the remarks of the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougarll).
May I be permitted at this point to observe that I think the remarks of the hon. member for Inverness were rather uncalled for. When hon. members of the house read the speech of the hon. member for Bow River to-morrow I am sure they will not find any grounds whatever for the assumption of the hon. member for Inverness that my hon. friend from Bow River took the position of a 
Pharisee and assumed that he was better fitted to speak for labour than anyone else and that the policies and standards of members in this corner were better than others. I am sure there was nothing further from the mind of the hon. member for Bow River. Indeed I am not so sure that the hon. member for Inverness was fortunate in his simile. He said the hon. member for Bow River was like the Pharisee who said he was better than other people. My hon. friend to my right takes the other prayer, which was the prayer of the Publican, "God be merciful to me, a sinner" and after hearing the speech of my hon. friend I know he took the right prayer. I might go further and state that it would take a god to forgive him for it.
Certainly the hon. member for Bow River took his stand on the human side of the industrial issue, and there is only one question as far as many of us are concerned with respect to industry. That is, does industry turn out better men, nobler men, cleaner men, stronger men; not does the steel industry produce greater profits or increase its output. I think the time has come when someone should lay the emphasis where it belongs, on the human side of the issue. My hon. friend from Inverness waxed eloquent on the tariff, but my hon. friend from Bow River waxed eloquent on the human interest. It was the low standard of living and the suffering of ill-paid labour which awakened the eloquence of the hon. member for Bow River.
Now let me ask the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister what they intend to do. As far as I am concerned I have no evidence that the Prime Minister is going to refuse some consideration to this question; I have no evidence that the Minister of Finance will refuse to listen to the plea which has been put forward in this connection. Indeed, I should be surprised if they did not respond, knowing them as I do, or at least knowing their viewpoint as I have heard it expressed from time to time, and knowing that they understand and respond to the human side of the question. I am not prepared to assume that they are going to turn a deaf ear to the appeal which has been made. However, let me emphasize to the Minister of Finance and to the Prime Minister that as far as I am concerned, if we are going to have protection we must make it go all round. I think it was Kant, the great philosopher, who laid down the principle that anything is wrong that you oannot universalize. If we cannot extend the principle of protection to the working classes and to the agricultural

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
classes, and put all classes on a basis of equality, we had better drop it altogether. I believe that something can be done in this particular instance in the interests of the working people and in the interests of the principle which I have enunciated, and I should be surprised if the leader of the opposition did not take a similar stand on this question. The party which he leads has been arguing for many years that protection does assist the working classes. Let us prove that it does by seeing that it does, and we have the opportunity here to do so.
I anticipate that if the Prime Minister refuses this request he will do so to some extent on the ground that again we shall be interfering with provincial rights, that this house has no control over the wages paid to men in certain industries, and so forth. It is the parliament of Canada which is granting to these industries the privilege of protection and parliament surely has the right to lay down conditions to the granting of that privilege. That is all we are asking the Prime Minister to do, to lay down conditions under which the protection to be extended to this industry will be available to them. We are asking that one of those conditions shall be that a fair and reasonable wage shall be paid. If anyone should ask what that means, we will refer them to the bill presented by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan). We ask that the eight hour day shall be established and that the provisions of the treaty of Versailles shall be observed. There may be technical difficulties, but it should be possible to overcome them. Personally, until I am compelled to believe it, I will not believe that either the Prime Minister or the leader of the opposition have been compelled, by any interviews with any class of people whatsoever, to recant from the position which they took a few days ago. I still have some faith in humanity, although it may have to be shaken. Once we lose our faith in humanity, nothing remains to help us along the road. In the interests of humanity I hope the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition will stretch their hands across the floor of this chamber and give a little protection to the working class to make up for what they will lose for having to pay more for their goods because of the protection proposed for the manufacturers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-377b. Ingots, cogged ingots, blooms, slabs, billets, n.o.p., of iron or steel, valued at not less than three cents per pound, when imported by manufacturers of steels for
use exclusively in the manufacture of steels, in their own factories, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, 5 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-377c. Ingots, cogged ingots, blooms, slabs, billets, n.o.p., of iron or steel, of a class or kind not made in Canada, when employed by manufacturers of forgings for use exclusively in the manufacture of forgings in their own factories, under regulations prescribed by the minister, per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $2.25; general tariff, $2.59.
George Gibson Coote: Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate some statement in regard to this matter from the Prime Minister. He made a rather significant remark the other night when the leader of the opposition was speaking about what might be done to protect labour in this country. Ever since I have been in parliament for the last nine years I have heard considerable argument in favour of protection, which argument was predicated always upon this one fact: that Canadian workmen should be given a decent standard of living. Before the test item is passed, I think the Prime Minister should inform this committee whether or not the government is prepared at this time to make some provision whereby the steel industry must pay its men a living wage before it can enjoy the benefits of increased protection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I shall be only too glad to endeavour to make clear my position. What I shall have to say about both the tariff and labour applies generally and at all times. There is a right and a wrong way to deal with any matter. There is a right way to deal with the tariff, and that is to treat all industries alike and not to discriminate with respect to any particular one. At the present time it is suggested that we deal with the tariff only as it relates to one particular industry, and as I said the other evening, we should deal either with all or with none at all. I cannot see why this house should enact tariff legislation in a manner which would single out one particular industry in one locality for one kind of treatment, and do differently with every other industry in every other locality throughout the Dominion. This parliament, I believe, would do well to adhere to the attitude which has been always adopted, namely, not to attempt to discriminate as between industry and industry, as between class and class, or as between locality and locality.
2686	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
There is a right and a wong method of seeking to redress industrial wrongs. The right method is the direct method; the wrong method is to seek to do by indirect means what cannot be done by direct methods. The right method of dealing with the questions of wages and hours of labour is to deal with them in the legislatures of the provinces, which under our constitution have those questions specifically within their jurisdiction. Hon. members know very well that this parliament has no power to enact an eight hour day in any province of Canada. Hon. members who suggest we should impose an eight hour condition to any one item of our tariff legislation as respects an industry in one particular province, are seeking to do indirectly what they have no right to do directly. That is not a correct method of procedure, and I submit that in the long run we will get nowhere in this country if we attempt to deal with industrial problems in that way.
The constitution of our country clearly defines the different fields in which legislative efforts with respect to certain matters shall be put forth. So far as hours of labour, working conditions, wages and the like are concerned, the constitution of our land lays it down definitely that those are matters for provincial legislatures.


William Irvine: Might I ask the hon. gentleman-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member has had his say, and I should like to have the opportunity to have mine. He, amongst others, asked me to say something, and I hope he will listen to what I have to say. I repeat that the constitution of our country provides for a known and definite method of dealing with questions of industrial reform, and it will only help to confuse the issue to have the workingmen of this country believe that this is the legislative body to which they should look for laws respecting hours of labour and rates of wages.
Some little time ago this government referred to the supreme court a question with respect to the relative jurisdictions of the federal and provincial governments in matters of this kind, and the decision of the supreme court is very pertinent to the matter under discussion at the present moment. As hon. members well know, this whole discussion arose out of a reference to the treaty of Versailles, and to the labour convention of principles associated with the League of Nations in industrial mat-

ters. That was how the question first came up for discussion in reference to the tariff generally, and more specifically in reference to the bill regarding the so-called bonus.


An hon. MEMBER:: The five cent piece.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was this
very matter of obligation as between the federal anid the provincial governments arising out of the treaty of Versailles which was referred to the supreme court. I have in my hand the opinion which was given by the Supreme Court of Canada in this matter. It may be well for me to place it on Hansard because it will go very far towards clearing up some of the confusion which has been created in the course of this debate.
On January 12, 1925, the reference to which I refer was made by an order in council of the Dominion government of certain questions as to the obligations of Canada arising out of the Labour part of the treaties of Peace, and also as to the legislative authority of the Dominion parliament or of the provincial legislatures to deal with a certain draft convention which had been adopted by the International Labour Conference (League of Nations) in 1919, limiting the hours of work in industries to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week. The judgment of the court was delivered on June 11, 1925, and it was unanimous. In effect it is a confirmation of the view which was expressed by the law officers of the crown and embodied in an order in council of the Dominion government adopted in November, 1920.
The judgment of the court was in the terms following:-
In the matter of a reference by His Excellency the Governor General in Council to the Supreme Court of Canada of certain questions relating to legislative jurisdiction over hours of labour.
The very question we are discussing at the moment.
The judgment of the court-the Chief Justice and Duff, Mignault, Rinfret, and Magee J.J.-was delivered by Duff J.-
The first of the questions submitted concerns the general effect of one of the clauses in Artcile 405 of the Treaty of Versailles and the corresponding provision in the other treaties of peace. This article is one of those comprised in the labour part (part 13) of the treaties and it defines the undertaking entered into by each of the members respecting recommendations and draft conventions adopted by the general conference of representatives of the members of the League of Nations established as part of a permanent organization for the promotion of the objects set forth in the preamble to that part. The pertinent clause is in these words:-
"Each of the members undertakes that it will, within the period of one year at most

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
from the closing of the session of the conference, or if it is impossible owing to exceptional circumstances to do so within the period of one year, then at the earliest practical moment and in no case later than eighteen months from the closing of the session of the conference bring the recommendation or draft conyention before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment or legislation or other action."
It seems very clear that the duty arising under this clause is not a duty to enact legislation or to promote legislation; it is an undertaking simply to bring the recommendation or draft convention before the competent authority No question is submitted as to the duty of the member arising under the succeeding clauses of the same article in the event of the competent authority or authorities giving its or their consent to the recommendation or draft convention; and upon this no opinion is expressed.	,
The second, third and fourth questions submitted relate to a particular draft convention; that, namely, adopted by the general conference of the international Labour Organization of the League of Nations on the 29th of October. 1919, which has for its object the limiting of the hours of work in industrial undertakings as therein defined to eight hours in the day and forty-eight hours m the week.
Under the scheme of distribution ot legislative authority in the British North America Act. legislative jurisdiction touching the subject' matter of this convention is, subject to a qualification to be mentioned, primarily vested in the provinces. Under the head of jurisdiction numbered 13 in section 92, Property and Civil Rights, or under the sixteenth head, Local and Private Matters Within the Province, or under both heads, each of the provinces possesses authority to give the force of law in the province to provisions such as those contained in the draft convention. This general proposition is subject to this qualification, namelv that as a rule a province has no authority to regulate the hours of employment of the servants of the Dominion government.
It seems questionable whether government employees, in industrial undertakings carried on by the government, such, for example, as shipbuilding, are within the scope of the convention. The point was not the subject ot argument before us, and concerning it no opinion in intended to be expressed.
It is necessary to observe, also, that as regards those parts of Canada which are not included within the limits of any province, the legislative authority in relation to civil rights generally, and to the subject matter of the convention in particular, is the Dominion parliament.
Then a little further down:
It follows from what has been said that the draft convention ought to be brought before the parliament of Canada as being the competent legislative authority for those parts of Canada not within the boundaries of any province; and if servants of the Dominion government engaged in industrial undertakings as defined by the convention are within the scope of its provisions, then the Dominion parliament is the competent authority also to give force of law to those provisions as applicable to such persons.
The convention should also be brought before the lieutenant-governor of each of the provinces for the purpose of enabling him to bring it to the attention of the provincial legislature as possessing, subject to the qualification mentioned, legislative jurisdiction within the province in relation to the subject matter of the convention.
The judgment continues to give answers to the several questions as indicated. I submit that that judgment is a guide as to the correct method of procedure to those who are interested in industrial matters, particularly to those who seek the improvement of conditions under which labour is working in our country. Where the matter is one that comes within the jurisdiction of the Dominion, let us by all means seek to the extent of our power to see that the principles associated with the League of Nations are carried out under federal jurisdiction. That is what the government has done in larger measure at this session than has been done at any previous time. We have in the supplementary estimates which have been brought down an item with respect to employees in only one department of the public service, amounting, as far as I am able to recall at the moment, to something like $667,000. I am not sure that in the supplementary estimates which were laid on the table last night more than $1,000,000 is not being asked of parliament for the sole purpose of -making possible the carrying out of the eight-hour day principle in its application to classes of labour or service controlled by the Dominon.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is more than $1,000,-
000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Finance tells me that it is over $1,000,000. Similarly with regard to construction work undertaken by the government itself and public works carried out by contract under the government, we have enacted at this session, or there will be enacted when His Excellency the Governor General gives his consent, an eight hour day law and a fair wage law with respect to all labour employed on such work. So far as I am aware, in so far as the jurisdiction of this parliament extends as regards labour, and speaking broadly, there is not left in any particular any provisions of the treaty of Versailles which have not been made applicable to the terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the government or engaged on government contract construction work. In regard to work carried on in the provinces and under provincial laws, we have followed a method which, in so far as the judgment of the
2688	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
supreme court which I have read may serve as a guide, is suggested as the one that should be followed.
In the bill which was placed before the hous this afternoon by the Minister of Finance there is an important section which I may be permitted to read again. It applies to the bonus which will be given to the industry being discussed, among other industries which comply with the conditions laid down:
No payment shall be made to any person or corporation entitled to receive any payment under this act, or any drawback under the tariff item mentioned in the preceding section, where it is shown to the satisfaction of the governor in council that such person or corporation is not complying with laws enacted by the province, in which the industry concerned is operating, for the purpose of maintaining in the operation of such industry hours of labour and rates of wages consistent with the provisions of any international convention adopted by a labour conference held under the treaty of Versailles.
What does that provision mean? It means that this government stands foursquare in its intention, to the extent of its power, not indirectly, not by some subterfuge, but directly, out in the open, in a straightforward way, to do all it can to ensure that the principles associated with the League of Nations with respect to industrial conditions and labour are carried out. Where those principles relate to matters coming within the jurisdiction of the provinces, we say that if a province will notify us that there is any industry within their jurisdiction which is receiving aid from the federal treasury and which is not complying in any particular with any law which it has passed for the purpose of carrying out principles associated with the League of Nations-the eight hour day, the minimum wage, the fair wage, or any of those conditions-we will withhold whatever is being given that industry from the federal treasury.
I ask, can there be a more effective way of dealing with these matters?
We are discussing at the moment one particular concern, but these laws are made for all concerns which may to-day or hereafter come to foe applicable under them. So far as the industry which has been particularly referred to is concerned, the British Empire Steel Corporation, I believe it is true that that industry has recently been considerably reorganized. I know a good deal about labour conditions in that industry in previous years. I have had something to do with seeking to bring about better conditions in that industry during a period of twenty or thirty years. I have followed the progress of that industry with a good deal of personal 
interest and concern. I believe it is true that to-day that industry comes nearer to being on its feet, so to speak, in a legitimate way than it has been at any time since its inception. At this moment the men employed in that industry as well as those who have capital invested in it are looking forward hopefully to seeing that industry become established, under fair conditions, in the province of Nova Scotia. Now it may take very little to have that hope realized; it may take equally little altogether to destroy it. What we as a government are seeking to do is to follow the direction given to us by the commission on maritime claims which investigated conditions in Nova Scotia, and which made certain recommendations with respect to what they believe should be done for the iron and steel industry and the coal industry in that province in order to give them their fair chance. We have taken the recommendations of that commission. We have not acted on them hastily. Why?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend saya "hear, hear," and I am very glad he draws attention to it because it enables me to give the reason why. The reason has been given in this house in two or three different sessions. Hon. members opposite from Nova Scotia have asked us at different sessions when we were going to implement these different recommendations of the Duncan commission, and we have replied that we would do it when those connected with the industry itself got together and straightened out their difficulties, reorganized the concern, put it on a fair basis and gave it a fair start.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Was there any
condition in the recommendations made by the Duncan commission such as the right hon. gentleman speaks of?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, there was
not, but I say to my hon. friend that we were justified in taking the position that before we should be expected to do anything for this industry we should be satisfied that those who had their capital invested in it were doing by the elimination of watered stock, by settling litigation, and in other ways, all that it was possible to do to put that industry on a fair basis so far as conditions applicable to labour were concerned; and on that account, and also because of delays in tariff hearings for which those engaged in the industry were themselves responsible, we have held back our support in the matter of im-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
plementing this recommendation for fully three years. Our action has I think been justified by the reorganization that has taken place.
Now there has been I believe very considerable reorganization effected within that period; I think no one will deny that. I believe that that reorganization has already resulted in material improvement and will result in the course of a short time in a very great improvement with respect to the conditions of labour. My hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) said that he saw one of the directors of the company around this parliament buildings the other evening, and he said that he would like to know whether the leader of the opposition or the Prime Minister had been conferring with him. I wish some hon. gentlemen would believe that other men seek to be just as honest and straightforward in their dealings as they themselves. I wish that they would not always be imputing or insinuating some sinister or ulterior motive to those who are trying to cooperate with them in seeking to improve industrial conditions-not trying to antagonize them, not trying to make their path more difficult, but trying to cooperate with them in helping to improve the conditions of those in whose welfare we believe they are honestly concerned. May I say to my hon. friend that I had a talk with the director who was here the other evening, and I tasked him how long he expected it would be before this industry would establish the eight hour day. I said to him that my belief was that the industry ought to establish it, and establish it forthwith. I said to him: I have seen something of other iron and steel industries that have established the eight hour day in their works, and I cited cases to him where I had reason to believe that the employers themselves were very much pleased with the consequences of the change from the twelve hour to the eight hour day. I said to him that I would like to be in a position when I spoke in this debate to tell this house that that company was serious [DOT]with respect to the conditions of its labour, and what it was going to do to improve them. His reply to me was that before the company paid out anything in the way of dividends it would be seen that the bonus had helped to improve the conditions of labour, that I might expect to see that before dividends were declared the conditions of labour would be still further improved over what they are at the present time.
May I say this? If I find so far as the British Empire Steel Corporation is concerned that they begin to pay dividends to their shareholders without at the same time im-2419-170
proving the conditions of their workmen, in the matter of wages and in the matter of hours, if I am in the place in the government of this country which I occupy at the moment, I will seek to do my part to see that any assistance that is being given by this government is withheld until some action is taken along the right line.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Perhaps the Prime
Minister would tell us what the British Empire Steel Corporation did with the million dollars profit which they made on steel last year. Did they apply that to giving better wages or shorter hours to their workmen?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know nothing about what they have done with it, but I have no doubt their financial statements will speak for themselves. I am not aware that any dividends have been paid by the company. We have heard it said over and over again in this debate that money should not be paid as dividends to the shareholders until something was done to improve the conditions of labour. With that I agree entirely, but I say that the way to go about effecting that result so far as parliament is concerned, is to proceed in accordance with a method that is not open to question, and which in the long -run is certain ta bring about the best results.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up further time. AH I desire to make clear is this, that so far as Canada is concerned it is a country made up of nine provinces, each with its own government, having jurisdiction with regard to certain matters and this federal parliament to deal with other matters. One of the most serious problems continually confronting us, it seems to me, is to maintain on an even, fair and just basis the relations between the respective provinces and the Dominion, and any efforts that are made, so far as this Dominion government is concerned, to encroach upon the field of the provinces in matters of legislation, or efforts made to coerce the provinces by indirect methods, will not help in the long run, nor will they 6erve to maintain the structure of confederation as it is to-day. I say, Mr. Speaker, that by each of us in our own field doing the best we can, we will in the end do more for those we are seeking to help than by any other method.
I would say to my hon. friends who have spoken so eloquently and so feelingly on this matter to-night that I hope they will at the earliest opportunity go and repeat the speeches which they have made in this house to the government of Nova Scotia, to the members of that government who have it within their power at this minute-

2690	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Mr. MADD0UC! ALL: You have it too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have not.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Yes, you have.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shut up.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -who have it within their power to-day to enact an eight hour law in the province of Nova Scotia. If they will pass that eight hour law or any law in respect of wages which is based upon the labour convention of the Versailles treaty or the principles associated with the League of Nations, and will tell us that that law is not being observed by a company that is being aided by moneys from the treasury of this country, and the governor in council has reason to be satisfied that such is the case, then I say from that moment further assistance will be withheld until the law is observed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
regret exceedingly that the Prime Minister has taken the stand that he has taken to-night. Once again he has sought refuge behind the British North America Act. Further than that, it seems to me that the statement he has made has tended to obscure the real issue before the house. The judgment of the supreme court, which was read at length and with which we are familiar, deals with legislative authority. No one is proposing to draft legislation here to-night. We know perfectly well that under the decision of the supreme court we cannot draft such legislation. Some of us may doubt whether the decisions of the supreme court might not ultimately be reversed, but so long as they stand we will accept the position for the purpose of this argument that we cannot draft such legislation.
But, Mr. Chairman, none of us to-night is proposing that, none of us is asking the government to do that. What we are asking the government to do is altogether a different matter and one which comes entirely within the jurisdiction of this parliament. What we find to-day is a request from these corporations for special privileges, and what we do say is that in granting special privileges the grantor has a perfect right to lay down the conditions under which they shall be granted. The Prime Minister says that in the future if the company does not live up to the undertaking which they have given to him he will find means to make them do so. Why not find such means now? Some of us have watched these deplorable conditions for a good many years. I have known these conditions to exist during the nine years I have been in this house, and we have seen no amelioration of them. We

have had during that time strike upon strike; we have had the military sent down again and again to this district to quell labour troubles; we have had commission after commission go down and report. The Duncan commission report is to be implemented, we are told, because it deals with the relief of the industry; but the other reports are not to be implemented. No, they deal only with the relief of the men who work.
The Prime Minister says that wages and hours of labour should be dealt with by the province. I say as far as legislation is concerned let us concede that. But we have a great many precedents under which we as a parliament may have something to say with regard to wages, working hours and so on. For expamle, when we give a contract we stipulate what wages and hours shall govern, whether the contractor lives in Nova Scotia or British Columbia; that is one case in which we deal with wages and hours-not by legislation, but by regulation, because we are dealing with matters that come under our own jurisdiction. In the same way in the granting of certain licences we determine the conditions under which those licences shall be granted, and it is conceded that we have a perfect right to deal with such matters even though they relate to wages and working hours. We are not putting legislation on the statute books; we are exercising powers vested in this government in relation to the granting of such licences. The same thing applies on the incorporation of a private concern; again and again in the past few years in the case of certain international bridges we have inserted in the charters a fair wage clause, even though these structures authorized were situated in the province of Ontario on one bank of the river and in New York state on the other bank. There again it was not a matter of legislation, but we said: Since these companies come to us asking for incorporation, we have a perfect right to state the conditions under which that incorporation shall be granted. I do not think I need continue to give further precedents along that line.
The Prime Minister says that we must not coerce the provinces. I want to suggest that in this very tariff we have in the past again and again coerced outside bodies. We have even coerced, if you like to put it that way, the empire itself, because we have insisted that there shall be a certain empire content of material and labour in their manufactured goods or else they cannot be imported under the preferential tariff. If you talk of coercion in that sense, I say we are coercing the empire by insisting on certain conditions with which

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
their manufactured goods must comply. We do no more here. We say: Before this tariff is applicable the industries must come up to a certain standard. That is not legislation, and I do not think the Prime Minister will seriously state that the supreme court decided anything which touches upon this matter at all.
The Prime Minister says that it is not fair to deal with one particular industry, that any legislation should deal with all industries. Possibly that may be correct in theory, but we have pointed out again and again that this particular industry is the only industry in Canada which is working a considerable body of its men eleven and thirteen hours a day. We are not concerned with the other industries that are working their men only eight hours a day; perhaps we are not even concerned with those that are working their men ten hours a day, although that is longer than the hours prescribed by the Versailles treaty. But we are trying to find some means of curbing these corporations that are working their men eleven' and thirteen hours a day and seven days a week. And so I say we have to deal with a particular industry, and there is nothing wrong in dealing with that industry when it is the industry that is sinning in this regard.
Further than that it is this particular industry that is seeking this special protection. We are dealing with a special item of the tariff. I would point out to the Prime Minister that some industries are protected to the extent of 10 or 15 or 20 per cent, some to the extent of 30 and 40 per cent; surely we have discrimination between industries. Some industries such as farming, are not protected at all. Surely this is discrimination. Surely the very complexity of our tariff schedules shows discrimination. So when it is stated that we must not discriminate against one industry, again I say we are elaborating a theoretical principle which in practice does not exist. In taking action along this line we are simply doing something which we are doing every day when we put through any of these tariff items.
The Prime Minister has brought forward as the only one contribution that the government is prepared to make in regard to this whole matter a section in the bill before the house, an act to place Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron and steel on a basis of equality with imported coal. That section would contain a condition that before this bonus is given there should be certain conditions complied with. If the government of the 2419-1704
province of Nova Scotia or any other government enacted the eight hour day it would have to be complied with. That may sound well, and it may look well on paper, but it is not worth the paper upon which it is written. Hon. members in this house know very well that the British Empire Steel Corporation practically controls the province of Nova Scotia. We know that since the Versailles treaty this government, in the performance of its duty, has asked the province of Nova Scotia to inaugurate an eight hour working day, and that province so far has refused to do so. There is no particular reason to hope that in the near future the attitude of the province of Nova Scotia will change. Under these conditions we are simply putting in a dead letter clause; that is all that this government is offering to help the situation.
I do not want to prolong this debate, but we in this corner of the house are honest in our contentions, and I think that some who have claimed honesty will permit us to say that we have introduced this matter in the hope that we may secure some alleviation for the conditions under which the steel workers find themselves. I am not concerned with the factional disputes over the items contained in the tariff, but I am concerned in getting better conditions for these labouring men. I had hoped that this government, which has claimed again and again to be the friend of the workers, would solve my problem, but it has failed to do so. At this particular stage of the proceedings I believe it is out of order to offer a resolution, but at a later stage when we are in a position to discuss the bill which I understand is to follow, we propose to move an amendment. It may be that we in this corner of the house are too weak to pass such an amendment; certainly we cannot carry it by ourselves, but I am hoping that a considerable number of gentle-ment to my right will come to our assistance, and it may be that there are some hon. members across the floor of the house who will lend their aid. We purpose to move an amendment to the effect that these tariff privileges will be given only when the industry producing the articles has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the governor in council that in the operation of such industry employees are being paid a fair and reasonable wage, and that there has been instituted an eight hour day and a forty-eight hour week in accordance with the conditions of the Washington labour conference held under the authority of the treaty of Versailles. If we are successful in passing an amendment of that nature we will bring immediate relief
2692	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
to these steel workers. When the government intends to give special privileges which will mean the placing of larger amounts of money into the hands of the British Empire Steel Corporation I see no reason why we should not insist that such privileges should be granted conditionally upon the workers being paid a decent wage and living under decent conditions.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend knows
very well that I respect him; we are two members in this house who suffer most through our allegiance to truth and principle. He makes the suggestion that he will propose an amendment, but may I remind him that his proposed amendment is ultra vires of the jurisdiction of this parliament. He wants to help the miners, but if his amendment is ultra vires and is declared null and void by the courts, it will not be much help to the miners.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In the first place, I am not talking about the miners; I am talking about steel workers. If what I have said does not show that my amendment in the miners' interests is intra vires, nothing I can say will help.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I wish to make a few observations in connection with this matter. I think that the Prime Minister and my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre both have the same object in view; they are working in the interests of the workers in the steel industry. As to the constitutional powers of this parliament to impose conditions upon tariff increases I regret that I must differ from the opinion expressed by my leader, the Prime Minister, and must agree with the sentiments of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. In my opinion it is within the jurisdiction of this parliament to impose such conditions as it might consider reasonable upon any tariff changes which are made in this parliament. We have full jurisdiction over the tariff and we have the right to impose any conditions we desire with regard to tariffs or the changing of tariffs. That is my opinion as to the constitutional powers of this parliament, and I can see no reason whatever why it would not be within our jurisdiction to impose such a condition as has been suggested by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. The rules of the house preclude any amendment by a private member at this stage, but if my hon. friend will bring in his suggested amendment to the bill when it is in committee I shall be glad to vote for it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to move at this time that the house do not adjourn at eleven o'clock. I think there is unanimous agreement that we should sit at least one hour longer.


Robert Gardiner: Is there any specified time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Until twelve o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: When the committee rose we were considering item 377c.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Mr. Chairman, I feel that there are some things I should like to say in regard to the item under discussion. When one listens to the righteously indignant speech of the Prime Minister one is convinced of what one often hears, that he has a flair for waxing righteously indignant when that particular method is required. Indeed, the Prime Minister, who has time and again said that he was the friend of the worker, and who is now in the position of defending legislation brought forward for the benefit of a special privilege group without at the same time guaranteeing that part of that special privilege for which all the people in Canada pay will be passed on to the worker, has every need for a flair for righteous indignation. I do not forget the conditions of the steel workers as I saw them when I visited Nova Scotia in 1925. These men and women live as none of us want to live; as we would not want any of our people to live, as our hardworking farmers who work more than twelve hours a day live. They do need whatever help we can give them, and I support most heartily what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
After all, it is the business of the Dominion parliament to look after the people of Canada and not after the specially privileged groups in Canada. Surely the people in the country soon ought to come to realize what has been true for some time in Canada, that special privilege groups work under the mantles of the two great political parties. When the Prime Minister hurls-particularly at the hon. member for Bow River but after all at all of us in this comer-the suggestion that we are giving ourselves a righteousness that does not

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
belong to us, we can say to him that we are at least quite honestly and clearly and above board a class group, and we are not ashamed of it. We do not hide it under a mantle with a general name, and it does seem to me perfectly clear that under the mantle of so-called great Liberal principles, special privilege groups are being well looked after and that the welfare of the workers in this particular matter is not being looked after at all.
I am sorry to disappoint the Prime Minister. While I admire the cleverness with which he made his speech and the vigour which came to him-one might almost say the eloquence-I am afraid it falls on deaf ears in this corner. We have heard the same kind of thing for a long time without seeing results follow.


John Livingstone Brown: The question which has been going through my mind ever since the proposal was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was whether his proposition was practicable and whether it would be possible for a minister of national revenue, entrusted with the administration of an act containing such a provision, to administer that are. I listened with a great deal of interest to the very eloquent speech made by the hon. member for Bow River, and I should be very loath to do anything that would seem for a moment to underestimate the importance of this matter from the humanitarian standpoint; but we are here this evening dealing with a question which we must consider not from the theoretical standpoint only but from the standpoint also of whether or not the proposition is practicable.
With what the hon. member for Bow River said in regard to tariffs in general I am in hearty accord, and if he takes the position that these particular duties are wrong in themselves, I am willing to agree with him most heartily. However, when he takes the position that these tariffs must be levied only on consideration that certain conditions be observed by the Besco Company, and advances that as a practical proposition, I must say that I dissent. He referred to the words of the leader of the opposition, when he said:
Here we have a chance to say that these increases shall apply only to such mills as maintain the principles of the treaty of Versailles.
I should like the hon. member for Bow River or those who are supporting him in this matter to point out how it is possible to mlake the benefits of tariff legislation apply only to certain companies in this country. Tariff legislation must be general in its scope; it cannot possibly be made to apply to the
Besco Company and not apply to another steel company which possibly may be observing the terms of the treaty of Versailles in regard to the eight hour day.
With me this is a practical proposition; how can it be done? It would seem to me rather inconsiderate of the hon. member for Bow River to recall the words of the leader of the opposition. The hon. gentleman has the sometimes fatal gift of fluency in language, and sometimes I think his words run ahead of his thoughts. I believe that on more mature consideration the leader of the opposition would admit that the proposal involved in the sentence quoted is absolutely impracticable. This is the question which concerns me at the moment, Mr. Chairman: How is it possible, under tariff legislation which must be general in its scope, to make it apply to only such a branch of the industry or to such a company engaged in the particular industry as observes certain conditions? If it were a matter of a bonus to a particular manufacturer, then we might impose that Obligation, but how it can be done under tariff legislation is a mystery to me. I hope those who have indicated their intention to bring forward an amendment at a later date will consider it from this standpoint and not be content with general expressions of opinion, not say merely that the thing is theoretically sound, is desirable from the humanitarian standpoint, but also show how it possibly can be done and how the Minister of National Revenue, in carrying out the act, will be able to do it in accordance with the wishes expressed by hon. members themselves.
I express this hope, that when the time comes to, move that amendment, as I understand my hon. friends intend to do, they will show that the proposal is practicable. Otherwise I am afraid I shall have to vote against it, as I would feel disposed to do at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The observations made
by the right hon. Prime Minister more fittingly illustrate the difficulties of disregarding principles than anything I have heard for some time. He says that we must never forget the relative rights, constitutionally, of the provinces, and that to impose conditions upon provinces might be and is highly improper, if not illegal.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: We are not imposing any conditions upon the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the moment I am
addressing my remarks to the committee; I was referring to the observations of the right
2694	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
hon. Prime Minister and not to those of his deputy. May I observe that the legislation which was adopted by this bouse on a previous occasion at the instance of the Prime Minister and his government disregarded that principle? It will be recalled that the premier of Quebec, Mr. Taschereau, has indicated that he has had the opinion of two eminent lawyers to the effect that the action taken by this parliament on that occasion was illegal. We provided for the granting of old age pensions by the provinces, and stated that we would pay half of the money, but we imposed conditions under which we would pay it. Those conditions were imposed upon the provinces whether they did or did not like them; if they accepted the principle they accepted the conditions. This parliament, at the instance of the Prime Minister and his government, imposed upon the various provinces which accepted the old age pensions scheme, a plan which provided conditions under which they could obtain the benefits; if they did not want the benefits, they did not accept the scheme. The scheme contained conditions with which every hon. member of this house is familiar; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows quite well what they were.
Let us analyze the proposal to see whether it be sound or unsound from the point of view of the constitution. Undoubtedly parliament has the jurisdiction to deal with the tariff; in fact it is the only legislative body in Canada which can deal with that matter. The tariff which existed before the present tariff bill was introduced had existed for many years, and under it and by virtue of reorganization the institution mentioned had grown to a position, as the Prime Minister said, which was better than ever before attained in its history. That being so, a special concession is being given to that organization because of the recommendations of the Duncan report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was referring to the matter of reorganization of the industry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Financially.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know anything about the financial position of the industry; I was speaking about the more favourable position of that industry to bring about better relations as between labour and capital.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That means finance. I think the right hon. gentleman made it abundantly clear that he was not speaking of the conditions with respect to labour; he was 
speaking of the position of the plant under its present reorganization. It was in the hands of a receiver, which meant that it did not have to pay interest on its debentures or bonds, indeed had not done so until a few months ago, when it was taken out of the hands of the receiver; and an endeavour is now being made to reorganize it under the conditions to which the right hon. gentlemen referred. The only question to which I directed my mind the other evening was whether or not we had a legal right to impose conditions, and I agree with the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg in the view he has expressed in that regard.
Leaving that for the moment, we then consider the matter of an amendment. I do not think there is any doubt that an amendment moved by a private member of this house would be out of order, because it would be interfering with a plan or scheme of finance introduced by the minister. When I made inquiry the other afternoon the clerk of the house satisfied me in that regard. The Deputy Speaker has ruled out of order a certain amendment in that direction.


Charles Avery Dunning: Only at this stage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be out of order at any stage if it interfered with the scheme of the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would not say that it would be out of order at a later stage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gathered from the quotation from May which the Chairman read, that that would be the case. However, I am not certain about that, but it has nothing to do with the point I am endeavouring to make. I ventured to point out the other evening that parliament, in my judgment, has the power to adopt this course of action. I made also a very strong statement with respect to the eighty-four hour week. However, any man is entitled to search for information, and in answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) I should like to associate myself with the right hon. the Prime Minister in stating that anyone should be entitled to ask for information without being suspected of improper motives.
I asked information of certain gentlemen who I thought would be able to inform me.
The making of steel is a continuous process; it is not a question of an eight hour day, it is a question of shifts. There must be either two or three; if three, they would be of eight hours each, if two, they would be divided into two twelve hour shifts or one thirteen and one eleven hour shift. I have been advised, and I have seen the process

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
myself, that the work itself is not continuous. Between the opening of the furnace in order to allow the metal to pour out there are certain periods of rest which make the actual hours of labour much less than has been indicated. I have been informed that under modern practice the use of pneumatic tools eases the actual labour to a considerable extent, and the conditions are not as bad as I was led to believe.
Three years ago the system was changed in some of the plants in the United States from two shifts to three, but up to date all the plants have not been able to adopt that new system. This change involves an expenditure of from $200,000 to $300,000 for a moderately small plant, and the reasons given by those responsible for the management of this enterprise for their inability to adopt the new method is that the company is only recently out of a receivership, and the solution as to how they would be able to attain this end has not been arrived at. As I understand it, they have given to the Prime Minister an undertaking that no dividends will be paid upon the capital stock of the enterprise in its reorganized condition unless and until an improvement in working conditions has been provided for those who create the profits out of which the dividends can be paid. Speaking for myself, I am disposed to say that an enterprise which has been in the hands of a receiver as long as this one has been, and which has met with the difficulties encountered by this one, should be given an opportunity-not a long one-to determine whether or not it is possible to attain to the condition which now obtains in the United States Steel Corporation and other plants in the United States.
It is not a question of an eight hour day, but rather one of eight hour shifts, because steel making being a continuous process it is necessary that workmen should be there prepared at all times to do the work. However, I am informed that these men do not work continuously for an eighty-four hour week; they work six days out of the week and have one day in seven of rest. If the furnaces are operated on Sunday it is necessary that some men work on that day, but they receive another iday of rest during the week. That is the practice which obtains at the present time in the larger plants. What the bon. member for Winnipeg North Centre hao said as to its being advisable from the standpoint of the proprietors has, I think, been abundantly established by the results which have been obtained in certain plants. In view of the information which I have received that some 25,000 men are employed in this enterprise, one has to consider whether or not the promise given steadily to improve conditions until there are three shifts instead of two, should be substituted at this moment for any legislative action. If this were my own property to be dealt with under the circumstances, I would endeavour to see to^ what extent good faith would be accepted in the promise made by the Prime Minister. That is the way it would strike me at the moment.
The hon. member for Bow River and others have referred to the fact that in days gone by the party with which I am associated has indicated that the protection of the workingman is of fundamental importance. I think they have hardly put the matter fairly. We say' that industry can be developed in this country only if it is afforded an opportunity to compete on even terms with industry in other countries. That involves a consideration of rates of pay, hours of labour, cost of raw materials and everything that is a factor in cost of production. But may I add this: the only reason that tariffs are regarded as being of value in that respect is that without tariffs there can be no industry in Canada -let us face that frankly-and there must be a tariff until industry in our own country has attained to such a strength and position that it can compete with industry in other countries. No one in Canada learned that more quickly than the farmer in respect to the New Zealand treaty, and he learned it to his sorrow. No one has learned it better than the bean producers, who have the benefit of the tariff placed on their product at the present session. It was a Liberal government led by a free trade Minister of Finance who placed upon the tariff books of this country for the protection of the bean grower a provision amounting to an increase of something like 200 per cent over the old duty rate.


An hon. MEMBER:: Three hundred per
cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rate being four times as much and the increase being 300 per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: Five hundred per
cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to see that
my hon. friends are now thinking in terms of hundreds per cent increases in order that they may justify their action to their constituents. They no longer are the party of free trade. They have now become the party of increase in tariffs by hundreds per cent.
The question in this case is purely as to how and when the end can best be accomplished, having regard to the number of people employed and the necessity for some
2696	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
protection. Protection is not primarily for capital; it is in order that there may be any industry at all in this country that we asked for it in the first instance. We ask for it not as an expedient, not as a deathbed repentance just before an election, but as a principle; when we had no election pending we asked for it from one session to another. Everyone has now adopted it; in the case of my hon. friends opposite not as a principle but as an expedient, and in our case as a continuing principle. I put this to the house: Would there be in this country any industry of any kind in the steel business without some protection? If there would not be, then obviously the tariff ensures employment, and as it ensures employment it therefore is a protection for labour; because it means that labour can stay in Canada and not have to migrate to some other country in order to secure a job.
I could give instance after instance. The hon. member for Bow River referred to the textile industry. The other day I was given the names of nine woollen mills in Ontario that are closed and the number of spindles in those mills that are idle because they no longer have an opportunity to compete on even terms with the mills of other countries. I went to Sherbrooke, to the great Paton plant, and I found there the spindles idle because of the tariff enacted in this house. The manager did not hesitate to say: You can come and look at the machines and the men; there is the list of workmen employed; there is the diminution of the number because of the tariff enacted in parliament. I went to another plant and I found there the same condition.
I give these instances because I desire to point out how unfair are the statements that have been made in the house this afternoon. Protection is a principle that, applied to Canada, means that we have an opportunity to develop our industrial life. Unless we have that we cannot develop; for as long as this country is the slaughter market for the surplus mass production of our great neighbour to the south, there can be no industrial life and consequently no general employment in Canada. That, it seems to me, is the whole reason behind the effort to apply the principle of protection-and the government has now adopted that principle-to the fiscal life of the country. Of course, if this country develops as we believe it will, the necessity for the protection should become less. As the industry strengthens, the necessity for supporting it correspondingly diminishes, and there is no doubt, despite what my hon. friend from

Rosetown will say, that the principle enunciated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is true, namely, that if the domestic industry has the domestic market there will be such competition as to ensure that there will be no increase in prices by reason of communities outside of Canada not being permitted on unfair terms to compete with Canadian industry.
A manufacturer pointed out to me a year ago that if the tariff on his product could be increased 10 per cent, he would reduce his prices by 10 per cent because the volume of his business would be increased accordingly. That has been the history of the United States -volume of business decreasing unit overhead cost and the decreasing of unit overhead cost meaning, of course, a lessening of prices. The point that the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen made in dealing with the problem is that in the mind of every Canadian legislator there is the idea that in giving the necessary encouragement to the development of industry in Canada we should take the essential steps to protect the consumer from exploitation; in other words, that the domestic competition, to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred, is ensured in order that there be such active demand for the products produced in our own country that the price will not be out of line with what it would be for the imported article. It does not follow that the price in the domestic market is the price in the foreign country plus the protection. The duty may be high enough to shut out the commodity altogether. Then it becomes necessary for parliament so to legislate as to ensure the Consumer against exploitation while supplying an opportunity for labour on the part of our own Canadian people. There can be employment in this country only if we afford the opportunity, and I agree with my hon. friend -and I believe those who have been before me in this position have always enunciated the same view whether in office or out of office -that the application of that principle to the fiscal life of the country is not only for the purpose of developing Canadian life, of affording opportunities for employment to Canadians in Canada, of encouraging the building of homes in Canada, of creating of stable conditions in Canada, but of providing a living wage for men who toil and giving them in addition some opportunity for leisure and the improvement of their homes and family life so that they may become good and useful citizens of this Dominion.
I firmly believe that unless that principle is applied, the end aimed at cannot be attained. Aiming at that end, as we do in Nova Scotia

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
and other parts of the Dominion, I believe an opportunity should be afforded to those who have given their solemn assurance to the Prime Minister that they will endeavour to bring about that purpose, to see whether or not they can eSectuate it; and if with the facilities which the government has at its command those purposes are not effectuated by the efforts of those concerned, then indeed the parliament that grants is the parliament that can repeal.
I have not changed a single thought that I expressed the other evening with respect to a matter of this kind. In view of what was said to me I did make inquiries; I invited an opportunity to ask questions of gentlemen whose words I accept as being true, and the assurance which the Prime Minister was given is an assurance which was given also to myself. I have reason to believe that unless that assurance is implemented by effort, and in the end by results commensurate with the promise given, parliament will not be slow to indicate its views in the premises.
Those are my convictions, which I have no hesitation in expressing to this house because I do not conceive it possible for Canada to make any progress in industry and in the development of our vast resources unless we aim to protect those who toil with their hands as well as those who risk their capital iD enterprise. The first consideration must be for those who toil; for they have a more difficult task and are less able to look after their own interests. Capital may seek employment elsewhere usefully and profitably, whereas those who live in our own country can never migrate without grave inconvenience to themselves and the disruption of their homes. It is for these reasons that I venture at this time to say, in connection with the statement made by the Prime Minister, that he applied an entirely different principle in dealing with the problem of old age pensions. It is competent for parliament at all times to impose any condition it pleases upon legislation that it enacts, and granting that those conditions may be imposed, the only question is whether or not that power should be exercised to-day or to-morrow; if to-morrow, then only because waiting until then affords an opportunity to ascertain whether or not, having regard to the complexity of modern industry, the competition that exists, and the difficulties that have been experienced in establishing a stable industry, the assurances given are capable of being implemented to the full.


Mr. EVANS:: I did not intend to enter into this debate, but seeing that the house is not disposed to let this measure go through, I will add a word or two. We seem to be enacting over again the old scene which was enacted some thirty years or more ago when these same companies got every concession possible, tariffs, bonuses, and special privileges, to establish an industry down there by the sea. We are no nearer the establishment of a steel industry in Canada to-day than we were when Sir Wilfrid Laurier bonused the Dominion Iron and Steel Company for that very purpose, and our efforts to-day are just as futile as they were then. The tariff has never yet established any industry. There is no industry, according to my friends on the protectionist benches, that is any nearer making its own way to-day than it was forty years ago.
I am sorry that the Prime Minister has thrown out a kind of a challenge to-night to this corner of the house, accusing us of insinuations regarding this tariff question. I have heard before these old promises of having protection extended to other classes. In fact some thirty or more years ago it was a common thing to hear from one end of this Dominion to the other the statement that the workingman was going to get a cosy home and a full dinner pail, and so on; yet after all the billions of dollars that have been spent in the establishment of these industries we are not any nearer that objective than we were thirty years ago, and the conditions of the workingmen in some of our industries cannot be compared with those which prevail in any other country on the northern hemisphere. In fact I believe our workingmen are in a more precarious condition as to their living and employment than the workingmen in England. If we did throw out insinuations, we are in mighty good company. Let me quote from the words of the present leader of the opposition, speaking on this very subject some years ago. He said:
I appeal to every man in this house and say that if he will take the time to read the history of the operations of Mackenzie and Mann from that time till now, he will find nothing but a long trail of parliamentary corruption, of lobbying of degradation of parliamentary institutions, of the lowering of the morale of public life and the degrading of those standards by which public life should be truly measured. Both sides of the house have been to blame. Look to the statute books for the aid that has been given to this company.
Change the name from Mackenzie and Mann to the British Empire Steel Corpora-


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-389. Provided: that up
Charles Avery Dunning: The question was raised by several members whether the five per cent mentioned in this item is the maximum. It is the opinion of the draftsmen that five per cent is the maximum, but in order to place it beyond peradventure I desire	to insert
after the word " contains " in line 9 the following words "any one or more of the following."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The total surtax is five per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-439f.	Children's carriages,
sleds, and other vehicles; complete parts of all
the foregoing: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Mr. BOIVIN:: I would ask the minister
that this item be dropped altogether, for several reasons. First, we want these goods made in Canada; we want Canadian-born babies to ride in Canadian-made baby carriages. That is one reason. The second reason is that we have about a dozen concerns in Canada with an investment of $1,125,000 in this industry, and they are employing at least 500 people with an annual wage roll of $600,000. I see no reason why these concerns should be destroyed. They aTe legitimate companies, well equipped with up to date machinery, there is no water in their stock, and they are managed by good business men. Under the existing tariff of 22J, 30 and 35 per cent we find that more goods were brought into Canada from the United States in 1929 than in 1928. Consequently there seems no reason why the tariff on this item should be reduced on American made goods from 35 to 30 per cent. What do we owe the Americans? Why should we open our doors to let them bring in their goods here to compete with our legitimate manufacturers? Most farmers do not buy baby carriages they have no sidewalks to use them on; it is mostly city people that buy them; so I do not think the farmers are very much interested in this item and to reduce the tariff will not do them very much good1. I have two of these industries in my constituency and I know they need this protection. Therefore I request the minister to drop the item and leave the duty as it was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was the item before the tariff board?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What about item 61,
wheat flour?


Charles Avery Dunning: I find that Canada
produces in the neighbourhood of 4,000,000 barrels of soft wheat flour. It is practically all milled in eastern Canada from our own native soft wheats, and it is used by the confectioners. I was surprised to learn that there is some export business, the product going as far as Scotland in considerable volume, having relation to the total production. It is also sent to the West Indies where it has become very popular. I am advised that it is possible to arrange to secure supplies of this flour in Canada, and eastern millers state that they are anxious to cater to the western market. They say that even without a mil-
Dominion Elections Act

ling in transit rate they can lay the product down in the prairie provinces at prices which will be advantageous to the western users In car lots the rate from Toronto to Calgary is 76i cents par barrel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be only
about 38 cents per one hundred pounds. Is my hon. friend sure of the figure?


Charles Avery Dunning: I was surprised at the low rate. The rail rate from Fort William to Calgary on similar shipments is 50i cents per barrel. The lake and rail rate from Toronto to Calgary is less than the 76J cents. The value at the present time is approximately $5 a barrel, carload lots, f.o.b. the mill. Then of course the customs tariff on biscuits is 30 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly was not and I do not think Mr. Shaw was aware of the fact that soft wheat would be available in eastern Canada to supply the small biscuit factories at Regina, Calgary and Edmonton;
I did not know that they could get flour from those sources. The new American rate would be $2.03 per barrel, including duty and freight. My hon. friend says that the purchase price is $5 at the mill, and the rate from Toronto to Calgary is about 76 cents per barrel, or a total charge of about II per barrel. I think there must be something wrong in the figures supplied by my hon. friend, because formerly the duty was SO cents, and they paid the 50 cents because they could not get sufficient supplies in Canada. I am simply pointing this out to the minister because the matter is new to me, and as the industry employs about 125 people I thought it my duty to present the case as strongly as I could. If the minister is certain of his position-


Charles Avery Dunning: I asked my office to
have rates quoted to-day, and I was surprised to find the keen interest taken by the Canadian milling industry in the western trade.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 345, to amend the customs tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
and second times.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 309, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-When new list of voters unnecessary.
Mr. KELLNER:: Last year the committee reported that section 9 of the act should be struck out. The labour organizations are very much apposed to this particular section, and I think the hon. member for North Winnipeg intended to move that it be struck out. I do not know whether or not it appears in the present bill.


Mr. POWER:: My hon. friend is referring
to a section of the Dominion Election Act which was not considered this year in the sittings of the committee.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: That may be so.


Charles Gavan Power: It was discussed last year,
but members of the committee which sat this year decided that the section to which my hon. friend refers should not be taken up in view of the fact that we barely had time to pass the amendments which were urgently needed in order to carry on the present election. I think it was clearly stated to the committee and to the subcommittee of which my hon. friend was a member that the amendments proposed in the fifth and final reports of the committee of last year could not be taken up this year. It was thought that legislation could not be put into effect if we were going to carry on with the bill and finish our business in connection with it in time to deal with matters which were probably of more importance, and matters which would directly affect the coming election. I may say to my hon. friend that that is the only reason why nothing was done in respect to section 9 of the present Dominion Elections Act. I think it is too late at this time to go into the matter he has suggested.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Rodolphe Lemieux: WThen shall the bill be
read a third time?
Mr. BENNETT. At the next sitting of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Put it through
to-night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I object; I have a
good reason for delaying consideration until the next sitting.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 12.03 a.m. (Wednesday).

Beauhamois Corporation-Mr. Gardiner
Wednesday, May 28, 1930.