IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 14, to amend the Immigration Act (public charge).
He said:	Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to
amend section 40 of the Immigration Act dealing with the question of public charge. It does not attempt to define the term " public charge," but deals with that section of the act which at the present time makes it obligatory upon local authorities to notify the federal government when a person becomes a public charge. The intention of the measure now before the house is that instead of it being obligatory upon local authorities, it shall be optional with them as to whether or not they will notify federal authorities.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mac-Laren). Can he inform the house when the report of the committee investigating conditions in Westminster hospital will be made public?


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Mr. Speaker, that report has been received, but no decision has been made as to when it will be made public. The matter is now under consideration.



DESTRUCTION OF SALMON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the Acting Minister of Fisheries to a news item appearing in a Vancouver paper called The Commonwealth. This item which appeared in the publication of the 14th instant, states there is a rumour to the effect that the Fisheries Patrol boat the Malaspina arrived in Vancouver on Thursday, the 8th instant, for the purpose of loading salmon to dump in the gulf. The article goes on to say:
Good salmon too, not spoiled stuff . . . but perfectly edible salmon.
I think that is unlikely, but suggest the matter should be looked into.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to look into the matter.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. V. C. PORTEOUS (North Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) based on a communication I have received from one of my constituents. Is there any recent development in connection with the retirement of Canadian National electric railway bonds?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member is referring to the Guelph suburban about which he spoke to me. I shall make an answer in regard to that in a few days.



ANNUAL REPORT AND APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE

Robert James Manion: While I am on my feet may I say that the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) asked a question on Friday about the tabling of the annual report of the Canadian National Railways. I have made inquiries and I am informed that the report will not be ready until about March 15, which is about the usual time, after they have received the report of the auditors for the year.



KING ALBERT OF BELGIUM


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be the
sense of this house that we should place on record our very deep sympathy with the Belgian people in the loss they have suffered through the sudden and unexpected death of their sovereign, and that we should extend also our deepest sympathy to the bereaved family.
In the end of July and the beginning of August, 1914, the late King of the Belgians was the well-beloved monarch of a small nation with a relatively limited population. Within a month he had become one of the great figures of the world. If one were to ask how this came about, the answer, I think, would be found in the character of the man.
King Albert of Belgium

who at that moment was sovereign of the Belgian people. The neutrality of his country had been guaranteed by treaty. When Germany determined to march against France the plan of campaign, as prepared by her military leaders, contemplated crossing Belgian soil. That was a violation of neutrality. It is difficult at this time to determine just what discussions took place and to what extent conciliatory efforts were used for the purpose of inducing those in authority in Belgium to consent to such action. But out of all the confusion and doubt on that question there emerges one clear-cut fact, and that is that the King of the Belgians was prepared to sacrifice everything except honour in defence of his people and of the integrity of his kingdom. From that moment on he became a world figure. He must have realized, as everyone did, that that small nation could not resist the onslaught of the great moving millions of Germany, and when his cities fell one after the other, when his country became almost a dependency of a foreign country and governed by a foe, as it was for so many years, he still pursued his course at the head of 'his army, sharing in their vicissitudes their losses and their gains. In the end he was privileged as the head not only of his own armies but of the armies of the north of France and of some British troops, the cavalry brigade of Canada and some detached engineering and railway units, to march back into his kingdom and repossess it.
His place in history is assured. The suddenness of his death and the circumstances attending it will add lustre to the glory of his name. We, far-removed from his kindgom, perhaps do not realize the extent to which he had become beloved by his people. Democratic, and yet in every sense a king, he and his queen had so endeared themselves to their people that I fancy few more popular sovereigns ever sat upon a throne. We Canadians were not closely in contact with the operations which he directed until the end when he repossessed himself of his kingdom, but I think we can share, as our troops shared under the command which he had over his own and the British and Canadian forces at the end, the sorrow of his people and extend the sympathy which Canadians have for those who have lost a heroic sovereign, one whose courage and determination have given him a place among the heroic figures of the world. In that sense I am sure that this House of Commons and the parliament of Canada will join with all the peoples of the world who honour and respect courage, bravery and the qualities that make for enduring fame among

the citizens of the world, in extending our sympathy to the bereaved royal family and people of Belgium in the great loss which they have sustained.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: As leader of
the official opposition in this House of Commons, I deem it a privilege to join with the right lion, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in the sentiments which he has expressed on behalf of the Canadian people in appreciation of the truly great and noble life of the late King Albert I of Belgium; and of the loss which Belgium and the world has sustained in the late king's sudden and tragic death.
I join as well, on behalf of hon. members on this side of the house, with the Prime Minister and hon. members on the government side, in the sympathy which the Prime Minister has expressed with Her Majesty the Queen of Belgium, and the members of the Belgian royal family, in their personal bereavement, and with the people of Belgium in their national loss.
Character, and the circumstances of his time, combined to give to the late king most of the attributes of the mythical hero of legendary days. It is in no way due to convention that in all parts of the world to-day, King Albert of Belgium's many virtues as a sovereign and as a man are being extolled. He, if ever monarch was, will be remembered as a Knight of the Holy Grail; a man who found the joy and fullness of life in high and noble adventure. The manner of his death portrayed the quest of his soul.
The world, in these days of anxiety and uncertainty, will greatly mourn the loss of one whose personality and patriotism did so much to unite the crown and the people in bonds of mutual confidence and affection. It will, however, recognize as a legacy to all mankind, what it now recalls of Albert's kingly and heroic leadership of his country in time of peril; his rigid regard at all times, as a sovereign, for constitutional practice and procedure; his never-failing solicitude for the well-being of his subjects; his democratic sympathies and behaviour; and his exemplary personal life.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, King Albert of Belgium whose death we mourn to-day was beloved by his subjects and revered the world over for his great and sterling qualities. May I be permitted to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in expressing to the royal family and the people of Belgium our sincere sympathy in their irreparable loss.

Questions



AUSTRIAN SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question
to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. It is perhaps hardly fair that I should expect an answer to-day, but I think it perhaps is right that we should ask the question because many are deeply interested in the whole problem. What is the policy of the government, if any, towards the situation existing at the present time in Austria?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I should answer the question at once. The government of the day is advised from time to time of what is transpiring in Austria. So far as policy is concerned, I know of no policy that we can adopt that would warrant us either in interfering in the domestic difficulties of Austria or in endeavouring to preserve the sanctity of treaties when the nations directly affected, Great Britain, France and Italy, have already directed a note to Germany in the sense of maintaining the integrity of Austria and maintaining unviolated the conditions and terms of treaties.



WHEAT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: I should like to direct a question to the government. Is it the intention of the government to ask for concurrence by the House of Commons in the recent agreement entered into regarding wheat?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I am at present advised, it is unnecessary to do so. The legislation dealing with marketing will afford ample powers so far as the government is concerned, but the provinces have certain responsibilities, as the hon. gentleman knows, with respect to cultivation, over which there is grave doubt as to the power of this parliament in the absence of what has been designated as a treaty within the provisions of the British North America Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Prime Minister if three provinces can bind nine provinces with respect to what is to be the agricultural policy of the country?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The three provinces have to deal with the question of production 74726-44
within their borders, and to the extent to which that may affect the interests of the other six or of the nine, of course they are affected. It is not a question of binding them or anything of that sort, it is a question of taking such action as will bring about what they conceive will be in the best interests of their producers and to ensure them higher prices than they are now receiving for their products.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point is that all the provinces of Canada are affected by this agreement. There is no other place except this House of Commons in which expression can be given by at least six out of the nine provinces as to the degree to which they are affected and whether they approve or disapprove. I think it is imperative not only that this matter should receive full discussion but, before its provisions become operative, approval of the treaty as well should be voted by this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to make another observation, having spoken already, I have no doubt that there will be an item in the estimates which will provide ample opportunity for a discussion of this matter. I should like to point out that section 92 of the British North America Act states that in each and every province the legislature has exclusive jurisdiction. Exclusive jurisdiction means just what it says, the power to deal with the quantity of production within the provinces.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the government last year, publish an album entitled "Forty Days in Canada"?
2.	If .so: (a) on whose instructions was this album published; (b) by whom; (c) what was the oort of each copy; (d) on what occasion was this album published; (e) how many copies were published; (f) to whom weTe they distributed in 1933; (g) were copies taken by the Postmaster General for distribution to the members of the postal congress at Cairo; (h) if so, how many?


Mir. DUPRE:: 1 and 2 (a) Certain officials of the Post Office Department ordered the publications and printing of 200 copies of an album entitled "Quaramte Jours an Canada".
2.	(b) Gazette Printing Company, Limited, Montreal.
(c)	$21.60.

Questions

(d)	Meeting of prepaxartwry commission of the tenth congress of the Universal Postal Union.
(e)	200 copies.
(f)	Delegates to meeting of preparatory commission, certain government officials and prominent persons, no detailed list available.
(g and h) Not so fax as known.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF.-CAP-DE-LA-MADBLEINE
Mr. BARIBEAU:: 1.	Has the provincial government of Quebec suggested to the federal government the carrying out of works for the relief of the unemployed in the city of Cap-de-laHMadeleime, Champlain county, during the year 1933-1934, according to the _Gordon-Fraucoeur agreement?
2.	If so, what amount was set aside for this purpose?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Total estimated cost $35,000, dominion proportion $7,500.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MONTREAL
Mr. JEAN:: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railway Company awarded a contract for the pulling down and the reconstruction of the Moreau station, St. Catherine street east, Montreal?
2.	If so, to whom was this contract awarded and for what amount?
3.	What part of this amount is allotted for demolition purposes and what part for the reconstruction ?
4.	When were the plans and specifications of the reconstruction of this station made and by whom?
5.	Were tenders called for in connection with this contract or for part of this contract?
6.	If so, when and how were these tenders called for?
7.	How many tenders were received, by whom were they submitted and what is the amount?
8.	During the past five years, has the government or the railway company called for or received other tenders for the rebuilding of this station?
9.	If so, who were the persons or corporations who submitted tenders and for what amount?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I should
like the hon. gentleman to look at this question with some care. It involves the examination of the internal business of the Canadian National Railways. For reasons which this house has asserted and reasserted, it simply means that we would send a letter to the company and ask them to give us this information. As happens in nine out of ten cases of this kind, they would reply that it is not desirable in the public interest or in the conduct of the business of the railway that

this question should be answered. We would be in the difficult position of trying to insist that a company functioning as a national railway should be asked to do something which a company functioning as a privately owned railway would not be compelled to do. Under the circumstances, I suggest that the question be dropped.
Question dropped.


JAMES MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LIMITED
Alan Webster Neill: How many contracts have 'been awarded during the calendar years 1932 and 1933 to the James MacDonald Construction Company, Limited, of Victoria, by any department of the
Dominion government, and what was the total amount of such contracts?


Mr. CAHAN:: Contract Nature of work done Amount
1.	Whiffen Spit,
Sooke Harbour-Protection work $1,249 30
2. Piers Island-Wharf	4,217 28
3.	Sandspit-Wharf repairs. . . . 1,003 60
4.	Queen Charlotte
City-Float repairs	$ 285 81


MILK INQUIRY
Mr. SEGUIN:: Following the facts established by the parliamentary inquiry carried on during the last session on the milk question and in connection with milk products; will the government without delay, take steps to remedy the present existing condition in providing to reduce to a reasonable figure the profits of the middleman, in order that the producer and the consumer may benefit equally?


Mr. GORDON:: This same question was asked in substance but in another form by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) on February 15. The report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization which went into this question last session will be drawn to the attention of the select committee set up by [DOT]this house a few days ago to be under the chairmanship of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) for such review, investigation and action as is deemed desirable. Under the circumstances, I think the question should be dropped.
Question dropped.

Questions


EASTERN EXPORTERS' COMPANY
Mr. HANBURY:: 1.	How much coal was purchased from the Eastern Exporters' Company by the Marine department for delivery to steamers at Pietou, Nova Scotia, during the year 1933?
2.	What was the price per ton?
3.	What were the dates of delivery?
4.	How much coal was purchased from said company for delivery at Pietou, Nova Scotia, by any other department of the government in 1933?
5.	What was the price paid?
6.	When was said coal delivered?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	180 short tons, 900 pounds.
2.	$6.75 per short ton.
3.	May IS, 1933.
4.	52 tons Besco Coke for custom house.
5.	$8.85 per ton in bins.
6.	September, 1933.


RAILWAY MAIL CONTRACTS
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What is the total value of all rail mail contracts in Canada?
2.	What proportion of this goes to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?
3.	What proportion of this goes to the Canadian National Railway Company?


Mr. DUPRE:: 1.	1930-31, $7,714,151.11; 1931-32, $7,161,433.89; 1932-33, $6,696,920.99.
2.	Canadian Pacific Railway, 1930-31, $3,757,964.04;	1931-32,	$3,613,011.69;	1932-33,

3.	Canadian National Railways, 1930-31, $3,509,650.25; 1931-32, $3,142,452.08; 1932-33, $2,842,699.37.


MR. JOHN JARDINE
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Has Mr. John Jardine, of Campbellton, New Brunswick, been employed in any capacity by any department of the government since January 1, 1933?
2.	If so, in what capacity, and what was his salary or remuneration?
3.	Is the said John Jardine still in the employ of the government or of any department thereof?
4.	If so, in what capacity, and what salary?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Temporary fishery guardian. $90 per month, less 10 per cent.
3.	Yes.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
74726-r44i


RADIO BROADCASTING SERVICE
Mr. BOTHWELL:: 1.	(a) What is the cost to the radio commission, since its establishment, for use of telegraph lines for broadcasting purposes; (b) how much was paid to the C.P R. telegraph service in this connection; (c) how much was paid to the C.N.R. telegraph service in this connection?
2.	(a) What .amount was paid for telegrams by the commission on matters concerning programs, instructions to representatives and other business of the commission; (b) how much to C.P.R. telegraph service; (c) how much to C.N.R. telegraph service?
3.	What has been the cost to the radio commission for telephone services, including long distance connections?
4.	(a) Has any expense been incurred by the radio commission for trans-Atlantic cables; (b) or telephone service? If so, how much?
5.	(a) What is the cost of office space for the radio commission; (b) what is the expense of the leases held from the Canadian National Carbon Company?
6.	What is the cost of station leases for the following stations on a monthly basis: CJCB Sydney, N.S.; CHNS Halifax, N.S.; CFCY Charlottetown, P.E.I.; CHGS Summerside, P.E.I.; CFNB Fredericton, N.B.; CFBO Saint John, N.B.; CHNC New Carlisle, P.Q.; CRCS Chicoutimi, P.Q.; CHRC Quebec, P.Q.; CFCF Montreal, P.Q.; CRCM Montreal, P.Q.; CKCH Hull. P.Q.; CRCO Ottawa, Ont.; CRCT Toronto, Ont.; CKNC Toronto, Ont.; CKOC Hamilton, Ont.; CKPC Preston, Ont.; CFPL London, Ont.; CFCO Chatham, Ont.; CFCH North Bay, Ont.; CKPR Fort William, Ont.; CKY Winnipeg, Man.; CKX Brandon, Man.; CJRW Fleming, Sask.; CJGX Yorktou, Sask.; CHWC Regina, Sask.; CHAB Moose Jaw, Sask.; CJRM Moose Jaw, Sask.; CFQC Saskatoon, Sask.; CKCK Regina, Sask.; CFCN Calgary, Alta.; CJCA Edmonton, Alta.; CKUA Edmonton, Alta.; CJOC Lethbridge, Alta.; CFJC Kamloops, B.C.; CKOV Kelowna, B.C.; CHWK Chilliwack, B.C.; CRCV Vancouver, B.C.?
7.	What is the cost of operation and maintenance of Canadian Radio Commission stations, monthly basis-salaries, power, repairs, depreciation, and rentals?
8.	What is the cost of remote control installations for broadcast purposes on commission programs ?
9.	How much money has been spent by the commission' for radio broadcasting during the months of November and December, 1933?
10.	How much money has been invested in stations taken over or operated under the supervision of the commission?
11.	Why is a radio inspector under the radio commission required to act as monitor for programs in order to locate inductive interference?
12.	What is the cost to the commission of talent sueh as orchestras, singers, bands, players, etc., on the following stations: CJCB Sydney, N.S.; CHNS Halifax, N.S.; CFCY Charlottetown, P.E.I.; CHGS Summerside, P.E.I.; CFNB Fredericton. N.B.; CFBO Saint John, N.B.; CHNC New Carlisle, P.Q.; ORCS Chicoutimi. P.Q.; CHRC Quebec, P.Q.; CFCF Montreal. P.Q.; CRCK Montreal, P.Q.; CKCH Hull. P.Q.; CRCO Ottawa, Ont.; CRCT Toronto, Ont.; CKNC Toronto, Ont.; CKOC Hamilton, Ont.; CKPC Preston, Ont.; CFPL London,
Questions

Ont.; CFCO Chatham, Onfc.; CFCH North Bay, Ont.; GKPR Fort William, Ont.; CKY Winnipeg, Man.; CKX Brandon, Man.; CJiRW Fleming, Sask.; CJGX Yorkton, Sask.; CHWC Regina, Sask.; CKCK Regina, Sask.; CHAB Moose Jaw, Sask.; CJRM Moose Jaw, Sask.; CFQC Saskatoon, Sask.; CFCN Calgary, Alta.; CJCA Edmonton. Alta.; CKUA Edmonton, Alta.; CJOC Lethbridge, Alta.; CFJC Kam-lops, B.C.; CKOV Kelowna, B.C.; CHWK Chilliwack, B.C.; CRCY Vancouver, B.C.?
13.	What salaries are paid to regional directors ?
14.	What salaries are paid to the musical arrangers of the commission?
15.	What is the salary of the western commissioner stationed at Regina?
16.	What has been the cost of the publicity department of the commission?
17.	What has been the total cost of all the activities of the radio commission since its inception?
18.	Is the station CJRM located at Belle Plaine operating on what is known as loose Coupled or tight coupled system of broadcasting?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I ask the
sympathetic consideration, oif this question by this house. We cannot have a radio commission service nationally owned, if this question is to be answered, and I think we might as we! make up our minds at this time. A few days ago a motion was passed to set up a select committee to deal with these matters and I ask the hon. member to defer his inquiry until that committee is sitting. At that time he can conclude whether or not it is in the public interest that his question should be answered by the committee and placed upon the records of the proceedings there.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Will it be possible to obtain the information from the committee to be set up?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be much easier to obtain it there than it would be to obtain it here.
Question dropped.


MB. ARTHUR MOXON
Mr. BRADETTE:: 1.	What is the total amount of salary paid to Mr. Arthur Moxon, secretary. Duff commission?
2.	W11 at is the total of his expense account to date?
3.	Did he receive a per diem allowance? If so, how much?
4.	How many days did he work in the capacity of secretary for this commission?
_ 5. Did he receive salary or expense moneys in any other capacity on the commission? If so, what is the total?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	$5,025.00.
2.	$3,458.20.
rMr. Bothwell.1
3.	Salary-$25. per diem; Living allowance -$15. per diem.
4.	201.
5.	No.


BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Mr. DESROCHERS:: 1.	How many translators, since July, 1930, have been promoted or assigned to other functions than translation, have passed away or have been superannuated, thus creating -among translators of both houses and of the departments, vacancies which have not been filled?
2.	What are the respective names of these former translators, their rank and salaries at the date of their promotion, displacement, superannuation or death?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As this question was answered last week, the hon. gentleman agreed that it should be dropped.
Question dropped.


Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	Will the project of centralization of the translation service presented by the Secretary of State include the dismissal of certain translators?
2.	Will all the translators included in the central bureau of translation, the chief excepted, have the same status?
3.	If so, is the government now considering a revision upwards of the salaries of the translators less remunerated who will be called upon to perform the same work as their colleagues?
4.	If so, in what proportion?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The object of the government is to place the several translation services of parliament and of the government on a permanent statutory basis as an organized branch of the administration of the federal government of Canada, and to provide that all official documents may be efficiently and speedily translated either into the French or into the English language, as required, and that such translations may, thereafter, be dispatched or printed and distributed without unnecessary delay.
The organization of the proposed bureau for translations, as provided in Bill No. 4, will be effected by the Civil Service Commission in consultation with the deputy ministers of the several departments of the public service which are affected thereby or interested therein. To maintain the proposed higher status of this service and improve its efficiency and usefulness, it is desirable that the services of all expert translators, who are now in the public service, should be utilized in the organization of the proposed bureau, and that a minister of the crown should, thereafter, assume responsibility to the government and to parliament for the due administration of this branch of the public service.

Questions


DORION-VAUDREUIL MAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. THAUVETTE:: 1.	Has the contract for the transportation of mail from Dorion, Vaudreuil county, to Vaudreuil village, and vice versa, been awarded?
2.	If so, to whom, and what cost?
3.	If not, why has it not been awarded?
4.	Who were the other tenderers, if any, and what was the amount of the respective tenders?


Mr. DUPRE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	J. T. Lalonde, at S240 per annum.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Francois Bourgardez, $250 per annum; Aime Charlebois, $318 per annum; Avila Cou-sineau, $360 per annum.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, RICHMOND-WOLFE
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Has the provincial government of Quebec suggested to the federal government the carrying out of certain works to aid unemployment in the county of Richmond-Wolfe, provincial division, during the years 1930, 1933, and 1934, according to the Gordon-Franeoeur understanding?
2.	If so, what amount has been allowed for each item?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	During the year 1930 there was no so-called Gordon-Franeoeur agreement. During the year 1933-34, an agreement respecting unemployment relief was entered into under date of July 26, 1933, between the dominion and the province of Quebec, signed on behalf of the latter by the Hon. J. N. Francoeur, and by the Hon. W. A. Gordon, on behalf of the dominion. Proposed relief works for the counties of Richmond and Wolfe were submitted to the dominion for approval in accordance with the terms of the aforementioned agreement.
2.	Statement attached sets forth the relief works approved for the counties of Richmond and Wolfe under the terms of the said agreement.
County of Richmond-
Schedule No. 296
Colonie St. Denis (Brompton)-Road works through Brompton township. For the needy
unemployed in St. Denis colony and surrounding district. Undertaking to be carried out by the Department of Colonization.
Total estimated cost	SI,500 00
Total estimated labour cost	
1,000	00Man-days work provided by project. 625 Basis of contribution.. .. $0.50 per man-day Dominion proportion	
312	50
Schedule No. 300
Town of Richmond-Richmond county- improvements to waterworks.
Total estimated cost	$26,000	00Total estimated labour cost	
7,200	00
Basis of contribution.. .. 33i of $7200 00
Dominion proportion	 2,400	00
County of Wolfe-
Schedule No. 419
Wolfe county-highway No. 1-parish of Disraeli,-blasting of rock in order to straighten and widen the road near the village of Disraeli, and other improvements-to remedy unemployment at Disraeli village and parish.
Total estimated cost	$5,000	00Total estimated labour cost.. ..	4,000	00
Man-days work provided by project. 2,500
Basis of contribution	$0.50 per man-day
Dominion proportion	 1,250	00


MARITIME PROVINCES, LOANS OR ADVANCES
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	How much money, if any, was advanced by way of loan or loans, guarantee or guarantees by the government to the three eastern maritime provinces, or any of them since 1930, and to what province was the loan or guar- ' antee made, and the amount of each?
2.	Did' any of the three eastern maritime provinces default in the payment of its obligations since 1930?
3.	If so, what province, when did it default, and for what amount?


Mir. RHODES:: 1.	Nil.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS PRICES
Mr. FERLAND:: During each of the last twelve months, what were the wholesale and retail prices, at Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg, of the following agricultural products:	(a) milk; (b) cream;
(c)	butter; (d) cheese; (e) eggs?

Mr. STEVENS
Dominion Bureau of Statistics-Internal Trade Branch
Wholesale and Retail Prices of Specified Dairy Products, January, 1933-January, 1934
-	Jobbing price of butter. No. 1 creamery prints at Montreal, per pound	Retail price of butter, creamery prints at Montreal, per pound	Jobbing price of butter, No. 1 creamery prints at Toronto, per pound	Retail price of butter, creamery prints at Toronto, per pound	Butter, creamery, finest prints, f.o.b. plant, Winnipeg, per pound	Retail price of butter, creamery prints at Winnipeg, per pound	Cheese, large, new, at Montreal, per pound	Retail price of cheese, kind most sold at Montreal, per pound	Cheese,, large, coloured, new, at Toronto, per pound	Retail price of cheese, kind most sold at Toronto, per pound	Ontario, large, new, f.o.b. plant, Winnipeg, per pound	Retail price of cheese, kind most sold at Winnipeg, per pound1933	$	$	3	8	$	$	$	$	8	8	8	$January	[DOT]235	[DOT]260	[DOT]238	[DOT]263	[DOT]230	[DOT]253	[DOT]098	[DOT]191	[DOT]103	[DOT]237	[DOT]135	[DOT]212February	[DOT]241	[DOT]255	[DOT]241	[DOT]262	[DOT]220	[DOT]250	[DOT]098	[DOT]188	[DOT]103	[DOT]235	[DOT]135	[DOT]207March	[DOT]271	[DOT]272	[DOT]267	[DOT]272	[DOT]250	[DOT]260	*110	[DOT]190	[DOT]115	[DOT]234	[DOT]143	[DOT]205April	[DOT]273	[DOT]291	[DOT]267	[DOT]292	[DOT]240	[DOT]280	[DOT]100	[DOT]186	[DOT]110	[DOT]210	[DOT]145	[DOT]204May	[DOT]223	[DOT]262	[DOT]223	[DOT]275	[DOT]220	[DOT]243	[DOT]103	[DOT]186	[DOT]100	[DOT]227	[DOT]130	[DOT]215June	*209	*230	[DOT]211	[DOT]238	[DOT]200	[DOT]221	[DOT]108	[DOT]182	[DOT]113	[DOT]212	[DOT]130	[DOT]205July	[DOT]224	[DOT]236	[DOT]228	[DOT]243	[DOT]210	[DOT]220	[DOT]108	[DOT]180	[DOT]110	[DOT]215	[DOT]140	[DOT]209August	[DOT]213	[DOT]244	[DOT]224	[DOT]257	[DOT]220	[DOT]241	[DOT]105	[DOT]185	[DOT]110	[DOT]221	[DOT]140	[DOT]202September	[DOT]211	[DOT]233	[DOT]215	[DOT]246	[DOT]190	[DOT]236	[DOT]110	[DOT]186	[DOT]110	[DOT]221	[DOT]138	[DOT]209October	[DOT]211	[DOT]240	[DOT]219	*244	[DOT]190	[DOT]223	[DOT]105	[DOT]187	[DOT]105	[DOT]225	[DOT]145	[DOT]208November	[DOT]229	[DOT]239	[DOT]230	[DOT]243	[DOT]210	[DOT]228	[DOT]100	[DOT]186	[DOT]108	[DOT]223	[DOT]130	[DOT]205December	[DOT]253	[DOT]246	[DOT]252	[DOT]253	[DOT]230	[DOT]245	[DOT]100	[DOT]187	[DOT]108	[DOT]219	[DOT]140	[DOT]2131934	January	[DOT]272	[DOT]283	[DOT]272	[DOT]287	[DOT]260	[DOT]273	[DOT]105	[DOT]182	(a) -108	[DOT]218	[DOT]140	[DOT]211
o
s
Co


WAR CLAIMS AND REPARATIONS
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Has Justice Errol McDougall completed his work in connection with the war claims and reparations, and has he finally reported?
2.	Are any of these war claims still unpaid?
3.	If so, how many, and for what amount?


Mr. GAHAN:: 1.	Yes. Mr. Justice McDougall's interim report, dated November 30, 1932, and his final report, dated March 4, 1933, were presented to parliament on March 13, 1933.
2.	Yes.
3.	Four claims remain unpaid through inability to ascertain the addresses of the four claimants. They amount to $3,057.64.


NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATES
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What is the total number of naturalization certificates which were granted in the following years: (a) 1930; (b) 1931; (c) 1932;
(d)	1933?
2.	Have all the applications been first submitted to a court of justice?
3.	If not, how many cases have been dealt with, in each of the years mentioned, by direct action of the department?


Mr. GAHAN:: 1.	(a), 10,904; (b), 14,790; (c), 18,739; (d), 15,240.
2.	No. It is only applications under section 4, subsection 1, of the Naturalization Act, which are submitted to the courts.
Certificates were granted under section 4, subsection 1, as follows:
In 1930, 10,307; in 1931, 14,151; in 1932, 17,567; and in 1933, 14,382.
3.	(1) Certificates granted to women, who were British subjects previously to marriage to aliens and who resumed British nationality under section 4, subsection 5: in 1930, 9; in 1931, 6; in 1932, 15; in 1933, 26.
(2)	Special certificates granted by the Minister under section 6 in cases of doubt: in 1930, 2; in 1932, 6; in 1933, 7.
(3)	Certificates granted to minors in special circumstances under section 7, subsection 2: in 1930, 1; in 1931, 2; in 1932, 1; in 1933, 5.
(4)	Certificates of naturalization granted under section 8 of the Naturalization Act to persons who were naturalized, prior to 1914, under previous acts of parliament of Canada: in 1930, 585; in 1931, 631; in 1932, 599; in 1933, 493.
(5)	Certificates of retention of British nationality issued under section 13, clause (4), to women of British nationality marrying aliens: in 1932, 22; in 1933, 33.
(6)	Acquisition by wives of British nationality under section 13, clause (5): in 1932, 549; in 1933, 1,293.


COMPANY INCORPORATIONS
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	How many incorporations to companies have been granted in 1932, and in 1933?
2.	What has been the revenue issuing from said incorporations in 1932; and in 1933?
3.	What recommendations, if any, have been made as the result of the interprovineial conference of 1934, regarding the incorporation of companies by the federal government?


Mr. GAHAN:: 1.	In calendar year 1932, 564; in calendar year 1933, 550.
2.	In calendar year 1932, $212,871.65; in calendar year 1933, $200,008.08.
3.	Proposed amendments to the Companies Act (Canada) are now being considered by the attorneys general of the several provinces.


PATENT AND COPYRIGHT BRANCH
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Has the branch of patent and copyright been merged into the department of the Secretary of State?
2.	If so, what is the date of the order in council putting same into effect?
3.	What is the status of the Commissioner of Patents and Copyrights in relation to the Under Secretary of State?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	The Secretary of State is the minister under whom the commissioner of patents performs his duties, as provided by section. 5 of The Patent Act and by section 8 of The Copyright Amendment Act, 1931; and by orders in council P.C. 2281 of the 29th of November, 1927; P.C. 2338 of the 9th of December, 1927; P.C. 2337 of the 10th of December, 1927, and P.C. 20 of the 16th of January, 1932.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	All branches of the public sendee which are now concerned with the administration of the Patent Act and the Copyright Act, as above stated, have been transferred to and vested in the Department of the Secretary of State, under the Secretary of State of Canada, as minister, and under the Under Secretary of State, as deputy minister, with authority to such deputy minister to exercise such powers as may lawfully be exercised by such deputy.


SECRETARY, RAILWAY COMMISSION
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Is the Mr. Cartwright who was described in answer to question number 35, Monday, February 12, as being 69 years of age and drawing a salary of $6,000, less ten per cent, per annum, the same Mr. Cartwright who was secretary of the Board of Railway Commissioners in 1930?

Questions
2.	(a) On what date was he born; (b) where?
3.	When did he enter the government service?
4.	How many passes were issued by the railways of Canada in the year 1930:	(a) long
service annual passes; (b) other annual passes;
(e)	trip passes; (d) trip passes issued to members of parliament, government employees, and press representatives?
Mr. MANION;
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) September 20, 1864; (b) Kingston, Ontario.
3.	Mr. Cartwright was appointed secretary of the Board of Railway Commissioners by order in council, dated February 1, 1904.
4.
Long Service annuals to employees.. ..
Other annual passes	
Trip passes to dependents of senators and members, government employees and
press	
Other trip passes, mainly railway employees and dependents


BUTTER EXPORTS AND IMPORTS
Mr. BERTRAND:: 1.	How many pounds of butter were exported to England, each month, during the year 1933?
2.	How many pounds of butter were imported from England each month, during the year 1933?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1. Canada's domestic exports of butter in pounds, to the United Kingdom, each month, during the calendar year 1933, were:
Months	Pounds
January	 -
February	 -
March	 -
April	 -
May	 -
June	 -
July	 -
August	 55,700
September	 1,608,200
October	 1,648,300
N ovember	 406,200
December	   100
Calendar Year 1933	 3,718,500
2.	Canada's imports of butter in pounds, from the United Kingdom, each month, during the calendar year 1033, were :
M(oniths	Pounds
January	 8,904
February	 10,976
March	 8,064
April	 71,008
May	 57,848
Junie	 336
July	 6,216
Canadian	Canadian	
National	Pacific	BothRailways	Railway	Lines77,212	62,683	139,89516,858	21,351	38,2096,011	5,067	11,078288,639	266,659	555,298August	
2,912September	
-October	
-November	
-December	
4,200Calendar Year 1933	
170,464
SOUTH SHORE ST. LAtVREN CE FISHERIES


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What is the number of fishermen carrying on salmon fishing, on the south shore of Matane, Gasp-e, to la Pointe a la Groix, Bonaventure county ?
2.	What is the number of fishermen carrying on salmon fishing, on the north shore, Saguenay county, from Tadoussac to Blanc Sablon, in the Canadian Labrador?
3.	What is the value of the fishing equipment used for salmon fishing on the south shore and the north shore, as mentioned above?
4.	What was the quantity of salmon taken during the last fishing season on the north shore and the south shore, as mentioned above?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	227 in 1933.
2.	249 in 1933.
3.	A portion of the fishing equipment used in salmon fishing is also used in other fishing. Value of that used for salmon alone not available.
4.	North shore, 6,505 cwts; South shore, 5,421 cwts.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What is the number of fishermen carrying on the fishing of cod, on the south shore of Matane, Gaspe to la Pointe a la Croix, Bonaventure county?
2.	What is the number of fisher-men carrying on the fishing of cod', on the north shore, Saguenay county, from Tadoussac to Blanc Sablon, in the Canadian Labrador?

Questions

3. What is the value of the fishing equipment used in the fishing of cod on the south shore and north shore, as mentioned above?
4.	What was the quantity of cod fish taken during the last fishing season on the north shore and the south shore, as mentioned above?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	5,412 in 1933.
2.	1,3S1 in 1933.
3.	A portion of the equipment used for cod fishing is also used in other fishing. The value of all fishing equipment used in these areas in 1933 was,-south shore, $880,984; north shore, $391,531.
4.	North shore, 113,772 cwts; south shore, 323,705 cwts.


MILK INQUIRY-COST
Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	What was the cost, to the state, for the milk inquiry?
2.	In connection with the said inquiry, what amount has the government paid, (a) to the witnesses; (b) to the lawyers; (c) what are the names of the lawyers?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1. Printing costs.
Day to day copy of proceedings
and evidence,-English	$ 2,754 74
Blue book-French translation.. 3,800 91
Total printing costs.. ..$ 6,555 65 2. (a) Paid to witnesses	S 1,306 99
(b)	None.
(c)	No lawyers employed.


KAMLOOPS, B.C., POST OFFICE
Mr. HANBURY:: 1.	Were tenders called for replacing of the boilers in the old post office building, Kamloops, British Columbia, during 1932?
2.	If so, were such tenders advertised, in what papers and on what dates?
3.	Who were the tenderers, and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	Who was the successful tenderer?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	No, but tenders invited from local firms by district resident architect.
3.	Tenders invited from four firms namely:
Johnson & Co.; W. J. Moffatt; W. J. Ellis & Co.; Kamloops Plumbing & Heating Co. Tenders received from:	Kamloops Plumbing
& Heating Co., $976; W. J. Moffatt, $1,007.
4.	Kamloops Plumbing & Heating Co.


LAMEQUE, N.B., MAIL DELIVERY
Mr. VENIOT:: 1; Have tenders been called for delivery of mail from Lameque, Gloucester county, New Brunswick, to Little Shippigan?
2.	If so, has a contract been awarded, to whom and at what price?
3.	Who tendered and what was the amount of each tender?


Mr. DUPRE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, Omil Hache, $396 per annum.
3.	Omil Hache, Lameque, $396 per annum; Napoleon Hache, Lameque, $440 per annum; Leon R. Poulin, Savoy Landing, $485 per annum; Stanislas Hache, Lameque, $489 per annum; Edgar Chiasson, Island River, $495 per annum; Adalbert Robiehaud, Lameque, $525 per annum; Albert F. Chiasson, Lameque, $590 per annum; Philippe Rail, Lameque, $600 per annum; Amedee L. Duguay, Little Lameque, $600 per annum; William R. Gibbs, Little Lameque, $650 per annum; Johnny Hache, Lameque, $660 per annum; Isaac Duguay, Little Lameque, $675 per annum; Thomas J. Wilson, Little Shippigan, $694 per annum; Azade J. Chiasson, Lameque, $695 per annum.


CREAM SEPARATOR IMPORTATIONS
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	How many cream separators were imported into Canada during the calendar years, 1932 and 1933, giving each year separately, and showing the country from whence imported in each case?
2.	What was the number of cream separators manufactured in Canada during the years 1932 and 1933?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1. The number of cream separators imported into Canada, by countries, for the calendar years 1932 and 1933, was:
Imports from-	1932	1933
	No.	No.
United Kingdom.. ..	. . 2	535United States	.. 3,521	4,325Denmark	. .. 3	2Finland	.. 184	37Germany	. .. 618	427Sweden	4,234Total Imports	
7,358	9,560
2. The number of cream separators manufactured in Canada in 1932 amounted to 3,324 separators.
No information available at this date respecting the production of cream separators in Canada for the calendar year 1933.

Questions as Orders )or Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Alan Webster Neill: How many contracts have been awarded during the calendar years 1932 and 1933 to the Pacific Engineers, Limited, of Vancouver, by any department of the Dominion government, including the Vancouver harbour commission, and what was the total amount of such contracts?


CAMPBELLTON, N.B. WHARF
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	How much money was received by the Department of Marine, between May 1, 1933, and December 31, 1933, inclusive, for wharfage at the wharf at Campbellton, New Brunswick, and the one at Restigouche, Quebec?
2.	What are the names of the vessels that paid said wharfage?
3.	How much money was expended by the government for repairs to the ferry wharf, Campbellton, New Brunswick, in each year from September 1, 1930, to December 31, 1933?
4.	How much money was expended for repairs to public wharf at Campbellton, ~.ew Brunswick, from September 1, 1930, to December 31, 1933, and what are the details?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.


LEGAL SERVICES
Mr. REID:: 1.	What lawyers, of Vancouver or New Westminster, were engaged by the government during the year 1933, and January, 1934.
2.	For what specific purpose was each engaged ?
3.	What respective amounts were paid by way of fees, emoluments or expenses to each of these lawyers so engaged?
4.	What amounts, if any, are still outstanding?


CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL CREDIT COMMISSION
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	In what year did the Canadian Agricultural Credit Commission begin making loans to the farmers?
2.	What is the number of farmers who have contracted loans, in accordance with the Canadian Agricultural Credit Act, in each province and during each year separately?
3.	In each province, what is the total amount borrowed from the said commission, since its organization and during each year separately?


Mr. RHODES:: On the assumption that the hon. gentleman's question has reference to the farm loan board, I am tabling the return forthwith.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the farm loan
board but not commercial credits.


MILITARY TRAINING-ST. JOHN, QUE., SUMMER CAMP
Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	How many, (a) regiments; (b) soldiers, have taken part in the military exercises at the summer camps at Saint John during the year 1933?
2.	How many days did each regiment remain at these summer camps, and what is the name of each regiment?
3.	Of what military district does each regiment form part?
4.	By what railroad was each regiment or the soldiers transported to the said summer camps?
5.	What is the amount received by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways?
6.	What is the total number, (a) of officers; (b) of soldiers, who have attended these military camps?
7.	What amount was paid in salaries, (a) to the officers, (b) to the soldiers?
8.	What has been the cost of each one of these camps, (a) in salaries; (b) for all other expenses?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. TOTZKE:: For a return showing:
1.	List of all supplies for the Dundurn, Saskatchewan, unemployment relief camp, for which tenders were asked.
2.	Copy of forms used in calling for tenders.
3.	Copy of all tenders submitted for all goods supplied at this camp, and list of names of successful tenderers.


VAUDRIN UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF PLAN
Mr. DENIS:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the right hon. R. B. Bennett, Prime Minister, and Mr. Geo. C. Vaudrin, in connection with the Vaudrin plan and the means to solve the crisis of unemployment, from the first of January, 1933, to the present day.


NOVA SCOTIA POST OFFICES
Mr. DUFF:: For a return giving a list of post offices in Nova Scotia whose net revenue is between $200 and $3,000. Also the gross revenue of the same classes of offices, with names of post offices and the figures set opposite each.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
Mr. MICHAUD:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, contracts, agreements and pay lists, statements of payments and other documents, exchanged between the Minister of Labour, or any minister of the government, and the government of the province of New Brunswick ot any member
Motions for Papers

or employee thereof, regarding unemployment relief, and showing what amount contributed by Dominion government to province of New Brunswick from September 1, 1930, to February 1, 1934, for relief of unemployment.


George Gordon: It will be noted that this motion contemplates copies of all correspondence, telegrams, contracts, agreements, pay lists, statements and so forth, from September 1, 1930 to February 1, 1934. There is no objection to having this motion pass the house, but I can frankly state that there is no possible hope, with the available staff, of having the return ready for this session of parliament. It will entail a very long statement with copies of the documents themselves. I have seen what is contemplated and I feel certain that during this session of parliament it could not possibly be prepared with the present staff. If the hon. member has in mind any particular activity in the province of New Brunswick, which was carried on with respect to unemployment, and in which he is interested, if he cares to see me I shall be very glad to have prepared for him those portions of the documents which are asked for in this motion, and have it supplied with the least possible delay.
I believe that on reflection the hon, member will drop the motion and follow my suggestion. If he comes and sees me I think I can give him within a reasonable time copies of all records he requires.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I must thank the minister for the valuable information he has just submitted. I regret if, by moving this motion, I have obliged him to go to a great deal of trouble. Before placing the motion on the order paper I had been given to understand, from sources in New Brunswick, that with regard to these matters there was very little correspondence and documentary evidence exchanged between the two departments. However, I am pleased to accept the minister's invitation. I will try to obtain the information in the way he has suggested, and if not successful then I shall be at liberty to come again.
Motion dropped.


BAGOTVILLE, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. HEENAN (for Mr. Casgrain):: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and documents, in connection with the appointment and dismissal of Mr. Jos. C. Levesque, postmaster at Bagotville, and also for a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to an inquiry held in connection with charges made against said J. C. Levesque, 
including the proof and evidence of all the witnesses heard' at said inquiry together with the decision arrived at by the commissioner who held said inquiry.


Maurice Dupré: Apparently there is some misunderstanding about this question and I will ask you to let the matter stand, Mr. Speaker, until the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) is present.
Motion stands.


AIR MAIL SERVICES
Richard Bedford Bennett: With the consent of the house I should like to answer the inquiry made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) a few days ago. He inquired as to the policy of the government with respect to the transportation of mail by air. I can only say to him that the matter rests entirely upon financial considerations, and if, as and when financial conditions warrant, the government will announce its policy in the matter.


WATER TRANSPORTATION
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient, in view of the large amounts of money invested by the dominion in canals and railroads, that all goods shipped through the canals owned and operated by the Government of Canada be subject to taxation.
He said: The motion standing on the order paper in my name, which you have just read, Mr. Speaker, is one I shall discuss for a few minutes this afternoon from the standpoint of finance and present-day business and transportation. It is not my intention to ask this country or this government to do anything contrary to the usual practice of the nations of the world to-day; that, I think, would be impossible. The seas are the common highway of mankind; on them there are no preferred claims, no prescriptive rights. And what pertains to the seas pertains also, to a lesser degree, to the navigable streams of this or any other country. When nature has placed impediments that have to be circumvented or removed by man and these obstructions are overcome it is a recognized fact that countries incurring that expense are entitled to collect tolls to reimburse them for their outlay. But I think it is also a generally recognized international practice that there must be no discrimination between

Water Transportation-Mr. McGibbon
countries. That was first laid down, in a treaty between Great Britain and the United States in 1850, the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. It was reiterated in the Washington treaty of 1870 and again in the convention of Constantinople which regulated tolls on the Suez canal. The principle was again recognized in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of 1901 and lastly in the treaty signed at Washington in 1910 between Canada and the United States. Nearly all these treaties carry similar clauses. As the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was superseded by the Hay-Pauncefote treaty we can pass that over. But we find in the convention of Constantinople, which was signed by Great Britain, Russia, France, Spain, Italy and Germany, the following clause regarding the Suez canal:
The Suez maritime canal shall always be free and open in time of war as in time of peace to every vessel of commerce or war without distinction of flag.
That again was copied almost word for word in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of 1901 and a similar idea is expressed in the Washington treaty and the treaty of 1910 in connection with the international boundary waters of Canada and the United States. Consequently, I do not think it would be wise, as so many journals and some individuals in Canada are suggesting to-day, to discriminate either for or against any other country, but rather, we should exercise our rights as they are being exercised by other nations and levy on the tonnage going through our canals a sufficient tax to recompense us, at least in part, for the great expenditures we have made.
In this day and generation it is a fair maxim that every service which is costing the country a considerable sum of money should bring us some return. If we stop for a moment to look at the vast sums of money that we have tied up in our water transportation systems I think the house and the country will agree with me that the dominion should get some return. We have some $245,000,000 invested in canals, $280,000,000 invested in wharves and harbours and, as nearly as I can find out, something over $100,000,000 invested in elevators through harbour commissions and such-like. In addition to that, we have spent some $30,000,000 or $35,000,000 in dredging the St. Lawrence river. It may be a surprise to the house to know that the return to the public treasury on this vast sum of $600,000,000 or $700,000,000 is practically nothing. If you take this sum and compound the interest at, say four per cent from the time of the investment, the total amount involved would simply stagger the country.
The time has come when we should levy on the tonnage passing through these waterways a tax that would bring at least some revenue back to the public treasury. It seems almost incomprehensible that a country owning a railway in which we have invested some $2,600,000,000, would build a water transportation system in competition with it for some 1,426 miles and run it absolutely free to every nation in the world. But that is what we have done. We make the railways build their tracks, buy their equipment, construct their terminals and operate them; then in competition we put a free waterway transportation system costing us the gross sum of $600,000,000 or $700,000,000. More than that, incredible as it may seem, every province is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on highways in competition with our railways. Ontario alone has spent $406,000,000 on highways and gravelled roads; Quebec has spent $158,000,000 in the same way, and as I have said, we have invested between $600,000,000 and $700,000,000 on a waterway system which we have made free; the highways are practically free and yet we expect our two great railway systems to meet competition of that kind and earn their expenses and some return on their investment. The whole thing is incredible.
What has been the result? Let me give just a few instances. I was raised in the county of Lambton and ore from Duluth used to come down to Point Edward in that county, being reshipped from there over the national railways to Hamilton where it was used. During the two years preceding the opening of the Welland canal more than 1,000,006 tons of ore were carried to Point Edward and on that carriage the railway received more than half a million dollars. To-day every ton of that business is lost to the railroad; the ore is now carried by United States vessels from Duluth to Hamilton. The net result is that Canada is simply bonusing United States ships to come in and take business away from our own railway.
Flour transportation from Port Arthur and Fort William is in the same position. Previously, that flour was ground and shipped to Port McNicoll and Point Edward. Since the Welland canal has been opened I am informed that the railways have lost business amounting to $1,250,000 per annum, that tonnage being nearly all carried by boats and one-third of those being foreign. Last year tonnage to the amount of 9,000,000 tons went through the Welland canal and over one-third of it was carried by ships built in foreign countries by foreign workmen and manned by foreign
702	COMMONS
Water Transportation-Mr. McOibbon
sailors. We build a waterway transportation system and give it to them free, asking them to come in and compete against our own railway transportation systems.
Take the coal that comes into Toronto. For many years that came in over our railway systems. To-day it comes in by water and the two railways are now losing more than $1,000,000 of business per annum. That has also gone partly to foreign ships. Two years ago 90,000 tons of pulpwood from Norway was carried in free through our canals, thus helping to depress the product of our own industries in the markets of Canada and the United States. That is part of the result of allowing free transportation over our waterways.
There is no doubt that the government has power to impose tolls. I could refer the house to the different treaties which I have read and which give us that power. There is a Canadian statute in which that is set out, but the greatest proof of all is that we did impose tolls and they were not abolished until 1905. I have under my hand the order in council passed in June, 1905, but as no reasons are given for the abolition of tolls, we must assume what those reasons were. But whatever the reasons were in 1905, they no longer exist. A great deal of water has gone under the bridge since then. At that time Canada had an interest bill of only $7,000,000 on its funded debt; to-day we have an interest bill of $134,000,000. The national debt was then somewhere under $300,000,000, whereas to-day it is $2,600,000,000 or $2,700,000,000. At that time we did not have a great railway system on our hands with a debt of $2,600,000,000 and this is costing and going to cost us from $75,000,000 to $100,000,000 per annum for at least the lifetime of any person in this house. We then did not have to pay $42,000,000 annually in pensions as a result of the great war, nor did we have $130,000,000 invested in the Welland canal. This colossal debt has all been piled up since that time and yet we continue to give free transportation over our inland waterways to all the ships in the world. Every other major canal that I have read anything about has tolls. Tolls are charged on the Panama canal, I saw this morning that last year they amounted to $23,000,000. That is over five per cent of the cost, which was $400,000,000. Last year one third as much tonnage went from Canada through the Panama canal as went through the Welland canal, and on goods going from and coming to Canada we paid over $3,000,000 in tolls to the Panama canal. Yet on the northern side of the United States we let an equal quantity of goods go through our canals for nothing.
[Mr. McGibbon.l
It is an asinine policy in my opinion, especially for a young country so loaded with debt as we are.
Some may differ from me, but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this house, that the greatest transportation systems that we ever had and must have in the future are our railways. Confederation would not have been possible had we not been able to carry out the agreement to join the provinces by railway. The railways have been the great instrument of colonization, and we must preserve them. When the Duff commission made its report the railways of Canada gave employment to 163,000 people. They pay in taxes to the different treasuries of this country something over $8,000,000 per year. The canals pay nothing; there are no fees outside of the elevator charges, practically everything that is represented in the total investment is free.
Besides that, sir, this country is spending hundreds of millions on roads, and they are practically free. And now we have started in the air, and have spent some $3,000,000 on that. I think it is only fair that all the services of this country should pay a fair return on the capital invested. We have on the Welland1 canal alone a loss of about $14,-. 000,000 a year, including interest and amortization. We are spending in actual services and wages over $3,000,000 a year and not charging even that to the traffic.


Mr. HANBURY:: Is that for all over
Canada ?


Peter McGibbon: Yes, all over Canada.
We are not even charging that to the traffic, why I do not know. But I do think the time has come when this house should seriously consider the matter. With the great debt we have at the present time and the heavy taxation placed upon this country we cannot afford to go on giving for nothing services of this kind costing $14,000,000 to $15,000,000 a year in cash. Take the budget presented to this house, some $343,000,000 I think in the main estimates, and the supplementary estimates yet to come. Then we have our railway deficits, and when you go into the provincial sphere you have the provinces spending $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 each, and besides that the municipal taxes. In my opinion, sir, this country has got a load that it simply cannot carry. The taxation on the people to-day is grinding them down; I know it cannot be helped but it is shackling the nation. It is up to this parliament and this government to get every dollar they legitimately can get, and I think the canals are one source to which they should look. I

Water Transportation-Mr. McGibbon
would suggest with all humility to the Minister of Finance that he can raise in this way $10,000,000 a year, basing that estimate on last year's traffic. I see the Prime Minister disagrees


Robert James Manion: What rate?
Mr. MeGIBBON:	Same rate as the
Panama canal.


Mr. COOTE:: It would kill the traffic.


Peter McGibbon: Well let me read something that the Coolidge commission said about that. I cannot put my hand on it for the moment, but it is to the effect that traffic that will not bear a reasonable charge for the services entailed should be let go. The late President Coolidge appointed a committee to investigate the question and their report stated that traffic that could not bear a reasonable rate of return on the cost and upkeep of the facilities involved and meet competition should be disbanded. I think that is a fair statement of business facts. Why do the people of this country bonus Norwegian ships to come here and take business away from our own people, ships built in foreign countries and manned by foreigners? If there is any reason I do not know it. The only reason I have seen in print or heard of any place is that free tolls help some classes of business; the pulp and paper business was mentioned. I do not see why one business should be selected and given special favours by a country, allowing its hands to be put in the treasury and money taken out to help that particular industry.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. MeGIBBON:	Someone says "hear,
hear." It has been done for a good many years, but that is another point. I am not saying what the rate should be. If there are any industries that are specially dependent on favours in this country the rates could be set accordingly, but to make everything free for the whole world is to my mind absolutely ridiculous. I ami going to ask the Minister of Finance to get his government to put this tax on and take it off sugar.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. MeGIBBON:	I know we have got to
have the revenue, Mr. Speaker, but I come from a part of the country where the people are very, very poor, and where they are dependent for practically all their fruit on picking and preserving the wild fruit, and I am stating nothing more than the fact when I tell this house that many of them last summer could not preserve their fruit because they could not buy the sugar. Yet at the same time we are bonusing the shipping interests of this country to the extent of $10,000,000 or $11,000,000 a year. I am going to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals to give this question his serious consideration.
I think it is a fair business proposition. This country has poured out between $600,000,000 and $700,000,000 on these waterways, and we have an annual expense for upkeep of $3,000,000 or $4,000,000, now likely to increase to $5,000,000, and no returns. I am going to ask the minister not to turn this resolution down, but at least, as one famous statesman in the province of Ontario used to say, " to take it into his favourable consideration."


Mr. HEAPS:: 'Before the hon. member sits down might I ask a question? Does the hon. gentleman know the amount of the annual maintenance charges of these canals, and the annual interest charges on the capital invested?
Mr. MeGIBBON: Maintenance charges on the canals amount to $3,000,000 about a year.


Mr. MAN ION:: Does my hon. friend include the interest?


Peter McGibbon: No.
Mr. MA'NION:	The maintenance charge
is not anything like $3,000,000 on the Welland canal.
Mr. MeGTBBOiN: Well I got my information from the department. " I take my time from the minister's clock." I do not know what the interest charges are, but they are easy to calculate, taking, say, 4| per cent on the $245,000,000 spent on canals alone. That would come to between $9,000,000 and $10,000,000 wouldn't it? And the revenue is only about $1,000,000 half from the elevator at Prescott and half from the water powers on the Welland canal?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is that $1,000,000 the total
revenue from all the canal systems in the country?
Mr. MeGIBBON:	Yes.


Peter John Veniot: I should like to ask a question. As the hon. member has studied the facts concerning other canals such as the Panama and Suez could he tell the house as to how the tonnage is charged? Is it gross, net, or how is it charged?
Mr. MeGIBBON: There is a charge of seventy-five cents a ton for ballast and $1.20
704	COMMONS
Water Transportation-Mr. Bothwell
a ton for loaded. Those figures are for the Panama and Suez canal. The Manchester ship canal is very cheap, the rate being only twenty-six cents per ton.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Mr. Speaker, I think it is generally conceded that agricultural interests in Canada, during these years of depression have been the hardest hit. The resolution of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) is apparently designed to exact some further toll from agricultural interests. Looking at the report of the royal commission on railways and transportation in Canada we find that in 1931 about half of the freight which passed through our Canadian canals consisted of agricultural products and about two-thirds of those products consisted of wheat. This government found it necessary only a few years ago to grant a bonus on wheat. Also at the Imperial economic conference they thought it desirable to obtain a preference of six cents a bushel for wheat in the British market. If tolls are imposed on tonnage passing through Canadian canals wheat must bear a considerable part of the taxation. Canada is a rather difficult country to govern.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Our greatest exports are produced so far from the sea that competition in the world market is rendered more difficult. In looking up the rates between the Argentine and Great Britain and between Australia and Great Britain and comparing them with Canadian rates, I was interested to find that the Argentine has what might be termed a preference in the matter of transportation rates of from eight cents to ten cents per bushel in the world's markets, with which our wheat has to compete. Australia is in very much the same position. She has a greater ocean mileage, but her wheat fields are located comparatively close to the ocean and to the ports from which her commodities are exported. The same applies to the Argentine.
When we consider those facts and consider the necessity of the Canadian farmer getting his product to the sea as cheaply as possible it seems to me that at this time we should not impose tolls. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has stated that in 1905 when tolls were abolished there may have been some justification for such action, but he states the argument used in those days would not apply to-day. I submit the very opposite is the fact, so far as Canadian canals are concerned. In 1905 the bulk of freight passing through Canadian canals was of American
fMr. McGibbon.]
origin. At the present time the bulk is largely Canadian, and the hon. member would now be penalizing Canadians. On at least a part of our canal system we are not allowed to impose tolls.
Section 26 of the treaty of Washington of 1871 is as follows:
The navigation of the river St. Lawrence ascending and descending from the 45th parallel of north latitude, where it ceases to form the boundary between the two countries, from, to, and into the sea, shall forever remain free and open for the purposes of commerce to the citizens of the United States, subject to any laws and regulations of Great Britain or of the Dominion of Canada, not inconsistent with such privileges of free navigation.
Then, in section 27 I find:
The government of Her Britannic Majesty engages to urge upon the government of the Dominion of Canada to secure to the citizens of the United States the use of the Welland, St. Lawrence and other canals in the dominion on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the dominion; and the government of the United States engages that the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty shall enjoy the use of the St. Clair flats canal on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United States, and further engages to urge upon the state governments to secure to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty the use of the several state canals connected with the navigation of the lakes or rivers traversed by or contiguous to the boundary line 'between the possessions of the high contracting parties on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the hon. member observed the modifications of that treaty in the Boundary Waters treaty of 1909.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Yes. However it does not alter the intention of the parties, if I read the subsequent modifications correctly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there is a great change.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: May I ask the hon. member a question. After the time about which he is speaking did we not impose and collect tolls?


Charles Edward Bothwell: Quite true; we did. But in 1905 we found it necessary or advisable to abolish tolls, and since that time there has been no idea in the minds either of the people of the United States or of Canada to exercise any discrimination as between the two countries in the use of the canal system.
In speaking of production in Canada and the movement through our canal system I believe I should place on record a few

Water Transportation-Mr. Bothwell
sections of the report of the royal commission on railways and transportation in Canada. From section 177 of that report I read:
The arterial pulse of the movement of commerce through the great lakes navigation system is to be found in the Canadian and United States locks at Sault Ste. Marie. It is not generally appreciated that the traffic through the St. Mary's river connecting lakes Superior and Huron is, in a normal season, in excess of the combined annual traffic through the Panama, the Suez, the Kiel and the Manchester ship canals. In 1929 the total traffic passed at Sault Ste. Marie (Canadian and United States locks) was 92,616,808 tons; for the Panama it was 30,663,006; for the Suez, 33.466,014; for the Kiel, 21,613,088; and for the Manchester, 6,558,598. a total, for the four salt-water canals of 92,300,000, or a slightly less tonnage than that of the fresh-water system as registered at the principal tally point for our international inland waters.
In order to have on record the class of freight moved through our canal system I shall read section 180 of the report of the commission, which is as follows:
In 1931, by no means a representative year, the total traffic through the purely Canadian canals along this route amounted to 16,189,074 tons. This figure would necessarily include duplications of cargoes carried through two or more canals. To this movement 27,651 vessels contributed.
The classes of commodities carried included:
Tons
Agricultural products	 7,757,307
Animal products	 15,830
Manufactures	 2,976,780
Products of forests	 748,419
Products of mines	 4,690,738
Total	 16,189,074
In the following section the commission
say:
Two-thirds of the movement of agricultural products, as listed above, consisted of grain, principally wheat.
Further on in the report the commission say, in section 183:
Railway transportation in so far as the movement of grain and bulk commodities is concerned has been largely adjusted to the problem presented by competition from the great inland waterway. The railways carry to and from the head of the lakes and to and from the lower lake ports. The movement of grain in particular is dependent on low inland water transport and the fortunes of the railways themselves in western Canada are dependent upon the ability of the grain grower to place his product at low cost at Ocean ports.
Further on, in section 185, of the report I find this:
While on first consideration it might appear that the construction of canals which are free of all tolls to water carriers is in effect a 74726-15
form of state subsidy to a rival transport agency, yet in so far at least as bulk traffic in grain and heavy commodities is concerned, complaint is not made by the railways on this score. The imposition of tolls would not help and would probably hinder the railways as tending to discourage production.
And section 187:
Water-borne traffic will continue to be a factor of major importance in Canadian transportation both on the inland waterways and coastwise, through the Panama canal, but rail traffic has in the main been adjusted to the conditions now existing, and it does not seem probable that the developments now under way and in contemplation in connection with the Hudson's bay route, and the deepening of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes canals, will seriously prejudice the position of the railways in the future. The competition of water-borne traffic has not been an important factor in bringing about the present difficulties of the railways.
That is the report of the commission that we appointed to endeavour to solve our transportation difficulties in Canada, and there is no suggestion from that commission that tolls should be levied. As a matter of fact they intimate that the imposition of tolls would work a further hardship or be further detrimental to the railway situation.
I want to say a further word in connection with wheat and what the imposition of these tolls would mean. I wish to refer to the competition which we have from the Argentine and Australia, but particularly the Argentine. We have a preference under the empire agreements in the British markets, and we were hopeful that this would result in an increased export of our wffieat to Great Britain; that we would to a large extent, at least, shut out the Argentine until Britain had received whatever we were able to ship to her. But in the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce dated January 30 of this year I find that our exports of wheat to Great Britain have fallen in 1933 as compared with 1932, while the exports of the Argentine republic to Great Britain have increased. I quote from page seven of that report:
The following table shows imports of wheat into the United Kingdom during August, September, October, November and December, 1933 and 1932.
The figures are rather startling. They are as follows:
1933	1932
Aug.-Dee.	Aug.-Dee.
From:	(Bushels)
Canada	 31,716,174	49,324,078
This shows a decrease of 17,607,904 bushels.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose that the hon. gentleman knows that in the meantime England bonused the production of wheat, and the production was eight million quarters or over 60,000,000 bushels.



Water Transportation-Mr. White (London)


Charles Edward Bothwell: Canada nevertheless is supposed to have a preference-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not supposed to; she has.
Mr. BOTHWELL; -a preference of six cents a bushel on our wheat entering Great Britain, but Canada has not been able to meet the competition of the Argentine.^ I am therefore arguing against the imposition of tolls that will make our position worse instead of better. In 1932 the Argentine exported to Great Britain from August to December inclusive 4,207,452 bushels, and for the same months in 1933 17,073,198 bushels, or an increase of 12,865,746. Australia increased her exports of wheat to Great Britain for the same months from 13,643,593 in 1932, to 18,192,892 in 1933, an increase of 4,549,299 bushels. Australia is in the same position as Canada with respect to the trade agreement with Great Britain, but Australia has increased her exports. While Canada has reduced her exports for the same months in 1933 as compared with 1932 by 17,607,904 bushels, Australia increased hers by 4,549,299 bushels.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
knows that it is a question of the quality of the wheat.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Russia also increased her exports for the same months from 3,960,235 in 1932 to 10,763,357 bushels in 1933. Other nations also increased their exports to Great Britain for the same months from 9,069,789 in 1932 to 10.501,570 bushels in 1933.
Having regard to the condition that agriculture in Canada finds itself in during this depression, and to the fact that the government has found it necessary to find a preference for Canadian products in the British market, and also found it necessary to bonus wheat a few years ago; having regard also to the difficulties that were recognized at the world wheat congress at Regina in regard to Canada getting her wheat on the world market as is outlined in the report of the Grain Exhibition and Congress last year, starting at page 291, I submit that to-day of all times in the history of Canada is the least opportune for the imposition of tolls and a further levy upon the agriculturists of Canada who are no' now able to live and pay their taxes under the conditions that exist.


Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a good deal of interest to the presentation of his case by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon). While he gave us a great deal of information I find that I cannot come to the conclusion that I should support his motion.

The tolls on Canadian canals were abolished I understand in 1904 or 1905, and as far as I can gather, it was done for the purpose of increasing traffic through our canals, and also because of the preponderance of American tonnage that was passing through them. That condition has been corrected in time, as was stated by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. The Canadian tonnage is now much ahead of the American, and the tonnage passing through the canals has increased very materially.
As far as I can gather there is nothing in the treaties that have been made with the United States to prevent tolls being levied. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Both-well) has quoted the treaty of 1871. I should like to quote article 1 of the waterways treaty of 1909, approved by this house in 1911. It reads:
The high contracting parties agree that the navigation of all navigable boundary waters shall for ever continue free and open for the purposes of commerce to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both countries equally, subject, however, to any laws and regulations of either country, within its own territory, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation, and applying equally and without discrimination to the inhabitants, ships, vessels, and boats of both countries.
It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force this same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of lake Michigan, and to all canals connecting boundary waters and now existing or which may hereafter be constructed on either side of the line. Either of the high contracting parties may adopt rules and regulations governing the use of such canals within its own territory, and may charge tolls for the use thereof; but all such rules and regulations and all tolls charged shall apply alike to the subjects or citizens of the high contracting parties and the ships, vessels, and boats of both of the high contracting parties, and they shall be placed on terms of equality in the use thereof.
That treaty was to exist for five years, after which it was to be subject to termination upon tw'elve months' notice. In the St. Lawrence deep waterway treaty which was negotiated in 1932, subject to approval by the United States governing bodies and by this parliament, there is a clause which deals with the matter to which I have just referred. Article 7 reads;
The high contracting parties agree that the rights of navigation accorded under the provisions of existing treaties between His Majesty and the United States of America shall lie maintained, notwithstanding the provisions for termination contained in any of such treaties, and declare that these treaties confer upon the subjects or citizens and upon the ships, vessels and boats of each high con-

Water Transportation-Mr. Turnbull
tracting parly, rights of navigation in the St. Lawrence river, and the great lakes system, including the canals now existing or which may hereafter be constructed.
That article has the effect of making the arrangement perpetual in character. In view of the fact that this treaty is now being discussed in the United States, I think that this resolution is rather ill-timed. I do not think we should do anything either to promote or hinder the passage of this measure in the United States. If it should pass there, well and good, it will then come to us.
Equality of treatment for the people and shipping of the United States and the people of Canada is insisted upon in the treaties of 1871, 1909 and the one now under discussion. Should Canada levy tolls without coming to an arrangement with the United States, I think it would have the effect of driving tonnage away from the Canadian canals. If that should occur the estimated revenue from these tolls will be much smaller. It will have the additional effect of increasing the cost of transportation. Hitherto our efforts have been in the direction of cheapening transportation as much as possible, especially through the canals of the St. Lawrence and the great lakes where so much wheat is transported. It is my opinion that this added cost of transportation ultimately will find its way back to the producers of wheat. If tolls are levied it will have the effect of driving business to other channels. There would be the competition of the Hudson Bay railway, the Vancouver outlet to Europe through the Panama canal and the Buffalo and Albany which is used to some extent. There would be also the Mississippi route to the gulf. These would all affect the amount of tonnage which would pass through our canals.
The speaker referred to the railroads but he did not tell the house the amount of land grants which have been made nor the subsidies paid for construction. I cannot see that the railroads have much complaint with regard to their treatment. It seems to me that in view of the fact that, transportation charges will be increased on a vital product of central Canada, the best thing we can do is to leave our canals free of tolls.


Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of taking up much time in discussing this interesting and important motion but I desire merely to place on record my concurrence in the views of the hon. members who have just spoken, that it would not be a proper step to take to impose an additional tax upon the water borne traffic of our internal canals. As far as western 74726-45 i
wheat is concerned the effect would be to force more wheat through Vancouver and the Panama canal. This wheat would pay tolls to the Panama canal rather than to the Canadian canals, and much of our wheat now moves in that direction.
Wheat is not the only product involved. There are large cargoes moving through our canals both east and west of lumber, ore, steel and manufactured products. Central Canada is unfortunately situated as far as access to ocean ports is concerned. It is situated far inland and produces a particular commodity in large quantities. In order that this commodity may meet the competition on the markets of the world it is necessary that transportation rates to those markets shall be as low as possible. This applies not only to the outgoing traffic consisting of wheat, cattle, meat, butter and eggs but also to the incoming traffic from eastern Canada. It is desirable that central Canada should have cheap transportation to the markets of the world as well as cheap freight rates on those things which are required to maintain production.
If a tax upon canal tolls were to favour the railroads it would have to be very high indeed. The rail rate on wheat from Fort William to Montreal is something over thirty cents per hundredweight while in normal years the water rate is something like seven or eight cents per hundredweight. In order to be of any benefit to the railroads, a tremendous tax would have to be imposed. This would be necessary before there could be anything like competition with the canals in the carriage of this particular product. Perhaps not so great a tax would be necessary in the case of other commodities, but the life of the country depends upon its ability to sell sufficient goods in order to meet its obligations in other lands and its ability to export depends upon transportation as much as upon anything else.
A tax of even one cent per bushel upon western wheat would reduce to that extent the purchasing power of the people of the prairies. To the extent that their purchasing power was reduced, the industries of eastern Canada would suffer. There would be a slowing up of the whole internal trade between the east and the west.
I do not think the hon. member for Mus-koka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) was really in earnest when he suggested that with the $10,000,000 to be derived by this tax on canals we could afford to abolish the sugar tax. Perhaps this tax is not the most popular one in the world and I do not know of any other tax that I would be as willing to abolish. But there is this about it. The necessities of the
708	COMMONS
Water Transportation-Mr. Arthurs
case, relief and matters of that kind, made essential the gathering of revenue from new sources, and I am rather of the opinion that the amount gathered from the people in the sugar tax was more than paid back to them by extraordinary government assistance. But to place a toll on canal traffic as a substitute for the sugar tax would, to my mind, transfer the tax which is now spread over the whole of Canada to a very large extent to the two million people who reside between the Rocky mountains and the head of the great lakes, and for that reason if for no other I would oppose it.
I do not think that the imposition of such a tax as is proposed would be of any assistance to the railways. It would work a great injury to the primary products of the country, not only wheat, but lumber, ore and mineral products, in the search for markets east and west, and would also be injurious to the manufacturing industries of Canada which have to find markets, to a certain extent at least, in western Canada, over long distances of transportation. So that the whole effect of the ten millions which would be gained by that tax would be' lost through the reduction in business which it would cause, and by reducing business it would thereby reduce the tax basis of our whole system. For that reason, as well as for the reasons advanced by other lion, members, I shall have to oppose it.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound) :: I am not entirely in accord with the resolution, but at the same time there are a great many people in Canada who feel that they have been taxed to an inordinate degree for the support and maintenance of our canal system. I believe that the proper solution would be perhaps to place a very small tax, say a cent a ton, upon the vessels passing through these canals, or a graduated tax as the case may be, which could be worked out satisfactorily, and which would pay for the maintenance and operation of the canal system. The canal system in Canada has been largely paid for in the past. It has been written off the books of Canada, and is regarded as an asset, but we continue to pay large sums every year for the upkeep of the canals. I do not know the exact amount, but a reference to the public accounts will show how much we pay annually. It is the custom at the present time for the United States to charge a toll for vessels passing through the Panama canal, either loaded or empty.
I agree with the last speaker (Mr. Turnbull) that no tax should be placed upon the commodities raised in the west for export purposes. But I also believe that any canal, such

as the Trent canal, which has cost the country millions of dollars and which at the present time entails a very large upkeep cost, being almost entirely, if not entirely used by tourists, should make a charge on these vessels to recompense Canada for the expense involved in the maintenance of the canal. This would apply to all canals.
A tax such as I suggest, one cent a ton on vessels passing through, let us say the Welland canal, which runs through the home of my hon. friend to my left, would not embarrass the vessels. It would not increase the cost of transportation, but in a marked degree would relieve Canada of the expense of upkeep and the incidental expenses of operating these canals. I do not know that I have anything further to add. I simply wish to convey my impression to other members of the house, but I believe that something of this kind should be done. I might also add that we are not breaking any treaty with the United States. We have a treaty with that country signed in 1871, which guaranteed equal rights to American vessels passing through our canals, and providing that any tolls placed on the vessels of either country should be paid by both-that is to say, no discrimination should be made as between vessels of the United States and ours. But when we find tramp vessels coming from Norway or from other foreign countries and passing through our canals, it is perfectly right that they should pay the same tolls as they would pay in their own countries in similar circumstances.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: The proposition made by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) and the arguments he has used in support of his motion might seem at first glance to be entirely fair and reasonable, but one has to take into account not only the situation as it appears from a theoretical point of view but the actual facts that confront us to-day. The statement which has been made by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) sets forth clearly the situation as it appears to us from the point of view of the western provinces. Certainly the time is most inopportune to place any extra burden on the producers of wheat. Any increase in the freight rate even by the fraction of a cent must of necessity be reflected back to the producer of wheat.
Perhaps the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has over-estimated the effect upon the revenue. Let us take this fact into consideration. At the present time large quantities of wheat go via British Columbia ports and the Panama canal. There is a line drawn some-

Water Transportation-Mr. Brown
where north and south through the western prairies which would determine the route taken by the wheat. It will take the cheapest route, whatever that may be. Might I suggest that the possible effect of making the eastern route more expensive would be simply to draw that line further east and send a larger quantity of wheat via Vancouver and Prince Rupert-that I would not object to-but also via the Panama canal, to the increase of the revenues of the Panama canal and the decrease in the revenues of the transportation systems here that carry our wheat east. That is a point of view that was not considered by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario.
When a tax, even a small tax, is imposed, it often has effects that are entirely unintended and unforeseen. That is one of the things we frequently meet in our tariff taxation, and the same is true of any tax-the effect is very often different from what was intended.
I do not know that it is necessary for me at further length to register my objections to this resolution. The hon. member for Swift Current seems to me to have placed the matter before us quite adequately. Certainly the time is very inopportune to impose any extra burden upon the wheat producers of the prairie provinces.


Mr. GEARY:: It occurred to me that,
after all, the deepening of the St. Lawrence river east of Montreal is in the same category as the canals. Does the hon. gentleman intend to impose a tax for the use of that?


Robert James Manion: I have listened with a
good deal of interest to the whole discussion here this afternoon, but I have noticed that from all sides of the house and from all sections of the country opposition has come to the proposal of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon), whom I should like to congratulate on the careful and reasonable manner in which he dealt with this question. At the same time I am, to a large extent at any rate, in a similar position to those from various sections who have spoken before me in opposition to the imposition of tolls, without at least a great deal more consideration than I have been able to give to the question or without more cogent reasons being put forward than have so far been advanced by various writers and speakers. There is no doubt that the whole proposition appears attractive to some who give it more or less superficial thought, but as a matter of fact, when the question is studied there enters into it matters of international differences, injury to the grain trade of the west and complications of various kinds that make it not so attractive as it at first appears.
May I review briefly-and in this regard I shall follow the example of the other hon. members who have spoken-the whole question as it appears to me? I had intended to quote a few of the treaties that have been referred to, but as they have already been quoted from, I shall quote merely one of them, namely, the treaty of 1909, and I do this, not because it has not already been quoted-the hon. member for London (Mr. White) quoted it a few minutes ago-but simply in order to utilize it in my remarks as part of my argument. I am quoting from article one of the treaty of 1909 between Great Britain and the United States:
It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force, this same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of lake Michigan and to all canals connecting boundary waters, and now existing or which may hereafter be constructed on either side of the line. Either of the high contracting parties may adopt rules and regulations governing the use of such canals within its own territory, and may charge tolls for the use thereof, but all such rules and regulations and all tolls charged shall apply alike to the subjects or citizens of the high contracting parties and the ships, vessels, and boats of both of the high contracting parties, and they shall be placed on terms of equality in the use thereof.
That, without doubt, confirms the other treaties such as the Webster-Ashburton treaty and the treaty of Washington of 1871, in. making the imposition of tolls, if they should) be imposed, uniform as to the United States-and Canada. The hon. member for Muskoka, in his remarks, agreed with that. The question, however, is deeper than that, because if you undertook to impose tolls on merely some of what are called foreign vessels, that is vessels outside the British Empire and, if you like, outside the United States, you would obtain so little in return that it would be of no importance to the revenues. It is apparent that if you do anything, you must do it; without discrimination of any kind; you must do it towards all the different countries that make use of the canals. I believe that principle is generally accepted, unless you wish to stir up a spirit of antagonism or economic reprisals of one kind or another, and it seems to me there is enough economic nationalism throughout the world to-day without trying to increase it.
May I give very briefly the history of canal tolls? They were established in 1873 on Canadian canals, although the United stales canal at Sault Ste. Marie remained

Water Transportation-Mr. Manion
free as did, so far as tolls were concerned, the Brie canal at that time. Therefore, as a result of the establishment of tolls on Canadian canals, Canadian grain was at that time diverted to United States ports and in 1892 the government of the day passed an order in council reducing the tolls on grain from the then rate of twenty cents to two cents per ton provided the grain went out via Canadian ports. The United States retaliated by imposing a toll of twenty cents a ton on our Canadian grain passing through the United States canal at the Soo. At that time there was no Canadian canal at Sault Ste. Marie. In consequence, in 1893, Canada did away with the preferential toll and imposed a reduced uniform toll of ten cents a ton on traffic through the Welland and St. Lawrence canals, regardless of destination. This toll was in force for the next ten years when as a result of petitions from all over Canada to the government of the day serious consideration was given the question of abolishing tolls altogether. I have under my hand a list of the organizations and public bodies which sent in petitions and for the sake of the record it might be well to name some of the different organizations that sent them. I have before me a copy of one dated March 30, 1903, from Kingston, but among those sending in petitions at that time to do away with the tolls were such bodies as these:
Montreal Corn Exchange Association.
Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.
Montreal Board of Trade.
Kingston Board of Trade.
Council of the Corporation of the City of Kingston.
Canadian Merchant Marine Association.
Toronto Board of Trade.
Calgary Board of Trade.
Kasio Board of Trade.
Sorel Board of Trade.
Owen Sound Board of Trade.
National Association of Marine Engineers of Canada.
Board of Trade of City of Ottawa.
Winnipeg Board of Trade.
Winnipeg Grain and Produce Association.
That is a list of some of the bodies which sent in petitions against the continuance of tolls. As a result, on April 27, 1903, the tolls were suspended temporarily by order in council and two years later, in 1905, the tolls were definitely abandoned. In 1902, the last year in which tolls existed, the Welland ship canal carried 646,000 tons of traffic, whereas in the next year when the tolls were abandoned, the the traffic increased to 979,000 tons, or an increase of about 50 per cent. I may add, without giving the figures, that the traffic on the St. Lawrence canals at that time also Increased by 50 per cent. It is understood
'Mr. Manior.l
of course that traffic passing through both the Welland and St. Lawrence canals paid tolls on only one canal and that would be the case if tolls were again instituted. A boat that went through the Welland canal could not be charged tolls again on going through the St. Lawrence and vice versa. To demonstrate the increase in traffic in past years I may say that in 1933 on the Welland canal the traffic carried amounted to 9,194,000 tons.
As to the earnings from those tolls, at the time they were charged, the rate on grain was ten cents a ton whether it went through the Welland or the St. Lawrence canals. Between 1893 and 1902 when tolls were being charged, the annual revenue amounted in round figures to 8230,000. I had some officials in my department take the tolls as they were in force between 1893 and 1902 and apply them to the traffic of 1932. The figures are taken not for last year but for the year before because we had more complete returns. Instead of 8230,000, the return for 1932, had we charged on the same basis as in the period from 1893 to 1902, when tolls were in force, would have been 81,480,000. Against that is the cost of operation and repairs of the canals on the through route which, in the same year, 1932, amounted to 81,634,000. Therefore I must confess that the hon. member for Muskoka was in error so far as I can find out-and I think my figures are correct- in regard to his statement that the annual charges on the Welland canal were $14,000,000. I sent out to get them in order to check myself up and I find that the charges on the Welland canal in 1932 were $738,000 or, with a few extras, nearly $739,000, about half being operation and the other half repairs. Of course, if you added the interest on the investment you would still have only about one half the figure which I think was given by my hon. friend, because the interest on the investment in the Welland canal of, as he said, $130,000,000, would probably amount to something like 87,000,000, and the cost of operation and upkeep 8738,000.
In regard to the capital investment, it is true we use immense figures in speaking of the cost of the different canals in this country. If you go back perhaps one hundred years to the building of the first canal in Canada and add all the expenditures together since then, without interest, it does come to a figure of 8245,000,000. But as a matter of fact that is hardly a fair computation, because certain of the canals have been superseded or replaced.
Suppose tolls were put on the Canadian canals, the result to my mind would be merely

Water Transportation-Mr. Manion
to drive the traffic to other routes. It would injure the eastern Canadian ports to the advantage of other parts; it would drive the traffic from Montreal, Quebec and Sorel to Churchill, if you will, or to Vancouver and the Panama canal, or by the Erie canal to New York. And as over 70 per cent of the traffic through the port of Montreal is grain it would certainly injure the port of Montreal. The average rate on grain from Port Col-borne to Montreal between 1925 and 1931 was just under 6 cents, or 5-66 cents a bushel. From Buffalo to New York it was 4-84 cents a bushel. So you would merely add to that differential and drive some of the grain traffic probably through the Erie canal, some to the Panama canal, and, as my hon. friend who just sat down said, move further east the line beyond which the grain goes west. The result would be to divert the grain; otherwise as far as I can see it would not have any particular effect. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario said that at the present time one-third of the traffic of Canada goes by way of the Panama canal, I presume he means the grain traffic. So that you would merely increase the proportion of grain traffic going by the Panama canal if tolls were put on our canals; you would prevent the grain coming east and would drive it west. The statement that we could raise 810,000,000 per annum by tolls on the canals I think is extreme, in that to produce any such sum you would have to have a rate of something over $1 a ton.


Peter McGibbon: If I may correct that, it has been misquoted two or three times. I said that on last year's tonnage at Panama canal rates it would amount to that.


Robert James Manion: I do not dispute that. But I point out that it would require a rate of over 81 a ton. I believe the Panama canal rates are about 81.20. One dollar a ton would mean an extra charge of 3 or 4 cents a bushel on wheat. Notwithstanding anything I have heard or read I believe that impost would be against the farmers of western Canada, and I entirely agree with those from the west who say that the western Canadian grain grower cannot stand that toll added to his present cost, because the price of grain is fixed in the Liverpool market, and the cost of delivering it there is a factor affecting the Canadian farmer.
Concerning the railways, a great deal has been written in the press and stated by some speakers about the advantage that would result to the railways from charging tolls on the canals. Someone I think quoted what the Duff commission said on that point. I am
going to quote one clause at any rate. The Duff commission made this statement about the canals competing with the railways:
While on first consideration it might appear that the construction of canals which are free of all tolls to water carriers is in effect a form of state subsidy to a rival transport agency, yet in so far at least as bulk traffic in grain and heavy commodities is concerned, complaint is not made by the railways on this score. The imposition of tolls would not help and would probably hinder the railways as tending to discourage production.
And further on:
Water-borne traffic will continue to be a factor of major importance in Canadian transportation both on the inland waterways and coastwise through the Panama canal, but rail traffic in the main has been adjusted to the conditions now' existing and it does not seem probable that the developments now under way and in contemplation in connection with the Hudson's Bay route, and' the deepening of the St. Lawn'ence-great lakes canals, will seriously prejudice the "position of the railways in the future. The competition of water-borne traffic has not been an important factor in bringing about the present difficulties of the railways.
I could if I took the time quote from some railwaymen, notably the late Sir Henry Thornton, and I think Mr. Beatty also, statements showing that they were not very strongly, at any rate, of the opinion that the canals were interfering with the railways.


Ross Wilfred Gray: If the minister will permit
a question, he mentioned the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway. Does he seriously contend that that would not affect the railways?


Robert James Manion: If I said that I did not
mean to. I was speaking of the canals.
Speaking further of the railways, I wish to submit that it is not fair to say the canals have been built at public expense and the railways at private expense, as some writers have, because the railways of Canada have been very heavily subsidized. The Canadian National Railways last year required from this house 861,000,000, and it costs to operate the canals as a whole about 81,500,000 a year. We have given to the Canadian National at various times loans amounting to nearly $700,000,000, that is three times the cost of the canals, and in addition there is the interest on that money, none of which has ever been paid, and which has amounted to nearly $400,000,000. Besides that you have the cost of building the Intercolonial, the Prince Edward Island railway and the National transcontinental, amounting to another $400,000,000, upon which again nothing has ever been paid in the way of interest. And still further, you have the Maritime Freight Rates Act, by

Water Transportation-Mr. Manion
which a 20 per cent reduction in freight that is granted and reimbursed to both the Canadian National and the private railway system. There is also the deficit in operation of the eastern lines, and the $7,000,000 expended on the Prince Edward Island car ferry service. [ point these things out merely to emphasize the fact that any tolls that could be collected on the canals would be a very small contribution towards meeting the railway deficits. The railways have cost the Dominion of Canada many times more than the canals.
May I refer to one suggestion made by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs), which would be worthy of consideration if it would give a real return; he said that perhaps we could impose a charge of one cent a ton. But taking the 1933 traffic through the Welland canal I found that it would yield at one cent a ton about $90,000. So it would not produce enough really to be worth putting on the grain or other traffic that goes through the canals.


James Arthurs: Say two cents or three cents then.


Robert James Manion: Two or three cents would still produce a relatively small amount, not of very much use to Canada in the present economic conditions. Without doubt the commodity that would be chiefly affected by these tolls would be grain, because grain and coal constitute two-thirds of the traffic of the canals; without doubt it would raise costs to the farmer and at the same time give a black eye to the city of Montreal and our other eastern ports by diverting traffic through the other ports that I have already mentioned. Incidentally, may I mention that the grain rate from Fort William to Montreal last year by water averaged about 3-71 cents per bushel while the all-rail rate was 34i cents per hundredweight. My hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Turnbull) brought out something to this effect. If all that grain that moved by water to Montreal last season had been carried by rail to Montreal from the head of the lakes at rail rates-which of course would be entirely out of the question-but if it could have been done it would have meant an extra expenditure of about $10,000,000. In regard to the Panama, Suez and Manchester canals it is true, as the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has said, that they collect tolls. We must realize however that the conditions under which those canals are operated are altogether different from those exisitng in connection with Canadian canals. The Manchester canal is a private commercial enterprise, whereas in Canada our canals are na-

tional. Then, the Suez canal is operated by a privately owned company. True the Panama canal is publicly owned and operated, but we must remember this important point; the difference between the Suez, the Panama and our Canadian canals is that no vessel owner is forced to use either the Suez or the Panama because, if the shipper wishes, he may ignore either of them and take a longer route, thereby arriving at the same point on the globe. However, to do that would require a longer time, and because of that fact, and because through using the Panama or Suez canals he may secure a greater number of cargoes for his ship, he finds that it pays him to take the shorter route offered through using the Panama or Suez canals. Time saving is the important factor, because were it not for these canals it would be necessary to navigate around the southern end of South America or of the African continent. On the other hand, in Canada we have no alternative water route from the western grain fields, unless one wished to use the railways from the head of the lakes. As has already been pointed out, however, the rail rate would be so much higher that it would not be feasible in the marketing of grain. A number of speakers have said that, because of our distance from the seaboard it is important that we should have the lowest possible rates in order that we may compete with countries whose grain fields are closer to the seaboard than are the fields of Canada.
In view of these facts, and in view of statements which have been made by hon. members on both sides of the house I submit to my hon. friend, with the best of intention, that having brought this matter before the House of Commons-and I believe in that he has done very good service, because it is a question which should be discussed in order that it may be threshed out properly-and in view of the very excellent discussion which has taken place, for the time being at any rate he would be doing well to withdraw the resolution and allow further consideration to be given the matter by all classes in the community as well as by hon. members of this house and the government.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I did not like to interrupt the minister when he was giving figures showing the total tonnage through the Welland canal, but now that he has completed his remarks I should like to know if he can tell us what percentage of that total tonnage is carried by Canadian vessels?

Water Transportation-Mr. Bennett


Robert James Manion: I should not like to guess at those figures, because-


Peter McGibbon: Roughly speaking it is two-thirds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member concludes the debate I should like to make only a few observations. I make them because of the statements made by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) and in order to remove any misapprehension there may be as to the exact position at the present time with respect to the use of canals and boundary waters. The Boundary Waters treaty of 1909 has a preliminary article reading as follows:
For the purpose of this treaty boundary waters are defined as the waters from main shore to main shore of the lakes and rivers and connecting waterways, or the portions thereof, along which the international boundary between the United States and the Dominion of Canada passes, including all bays, arms and inlets thereof, but not including tributary waters which in their natural channels would flow into such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or waters flowing from such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or the waters of rivers flowing across the boundary.
Article 1 of the 1909 treaty, which is somewhat different from the old treaty of 1871, is as follows:
The high contracting parties agree that the navigation of all navigable boundary waters shall for ever continue free and open for the purposes of commerce to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both countries equally, subject, however, to any laws and regulations of either country within its own territory, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation, and applying equally and without discrimination to the inhabitants, ships, vessels, and boats of both countries.
That, it will be observed, refers to boundary watery, and in article XXVI the treaty of 1871, to which reference was made by the hon. member, refers to other than boundary waters in these words:
The navigation of the river St. Lawrence, ascending and descending from the 45th parallel of north latitude, where it ceases to form the boundary between the two countries, from, to, and into the sea, shall forever remain free and open for the purposes of commerce to the citizens of the United States, subject to any laws and regulations of Great Britain or of the Dominion of Canada, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation.
The navigation of the rivers Yukon, Porcupine and Stikine, ascending and descending from, to, and into the sea, shall forever remain free and open for the purposes of commerce to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty and to the citizens of the United States, subject to any laws and regulations of either country within its own territory, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation.
So that in article XXVI of the Treaty of Washington of 1871, which I have just read, we have a declaration with respect to navigation of the St. Lawrence, other than through boundary waters. And in the article I have read with respect to boundary waters you have the same declaration as that contained in the treaty of 1871 with respect to other than boundary waters of the St. Lawrence.
But article 1 of the treaty of 1909 specifically deals with the question of tolls. Perhaps I had better read the article so that there may be no misunderstanding.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Would the right hon.
gentleman allow a question? Does the treaty of 1900 determine the question of imposition of tolls on the lower St. Lawrence?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall come to that. I
was going to read to the house the whole of article 1 of the treaty of 1909. It is as follows:
The high contracting parties agree that the navigation of all navigable boundary waters shall for ever continue free and open for the purposes of commerce to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both countries equally, subject, however, to any laws and regulations of either country, within its own territory, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation, and applying equally and without discrimination to the inhabitants, ships, vessels and boats of both countries.
It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force, this same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of lake Michigan and to all canals connecting boundary waters, and now existing or which may hereafter be constructed on either side of the line. Either of the high contracting parties may adopt rules and regulations governing the use of such canals within its own territory, and may charge tolls for the use thereof, but all such rules and regulations and all tolls charged shall apply alike to the subjects or citizens of the high contracting parties and' the ships, vessels, and boats of both of the high oontract-ig parties, and they shall be placed on terms of equality in the use thereof.
That is to be found in the treaty of 1909-The net effect of it is to expand the treaty of 1871 so that the provisions of the treaty with respect to other than boundary waters applies to boundary waters, and further to provide that canals on either side and boundary waters constructed by either party may be subject to such rules and regulations and tolls as the national owning the canal may think desirable, but that, in any event, such tolls shall not discriminate against the ships of either country. So that if any of the canals we have constructed in boundary territories connecting boundary waters are to be subject to tolls, the tolls must apply equally to our own ships and the ships of the United States.
714	COMMONS
Water Transportation-Mr. McGibbon
Then, there is one other question-and I desire only to place myself on record so that there may be no misapprehension in the matter-


Mr. BOTH WELL:: Would the right hon.
gentleman allow a question? Is not the net effect of the treaty of 1909 to leave the lower St. Lawrence, from the 45th parallel, always free of tolls, and to restrict the imposition of tolls on boundary waters so that there shall be no discrimination?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should not care to express an opinion at this particular moment with respect to a matter of that kind) when a treaty between these two countries is under consideration, for fear the construction I should place upon it would be misconstrued. I therefore limit my observations-and the hon. member can understand why-to mere statements of extracts from the treaties themselves.
Just one word more and I shall have concluded all I wish to say. There are, of course, certain most favoured nation treaties outstanding, and they are old treaties in the main. Undoubtedly under the provisions of these treaties some countries are entitled to the same privileges as the United States. I do not desire to do more than make that simple statement at the moment because this question of most favoured nation treatment is one surrounded by so many difficulties that I content myself merely by stating what the conditions are. There is no reason why the Canadian people might not desire to impose tolls upon their canals. There is no reason why they could not if they thought it desirable to do so, but, in my judgment, under the present conditions it would not only be practically impossible to raise any revenue by so doing, but it would create a situation which we in this country are not desirous at this moment of creating.


Peter McGibbon: 
A CANADIAN FLAG
Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, a national flag representing the Dominion of Canada should be adopted.
He said: I have been a little surprised, Mr. Speaker, to learn that considerable opposition to this resolution would be manifested in this house. Perhaps a greater proportion of the people of the constituency that sends me here were born in the British isles than are to be found in any other constituency in Canada. When it came out in the press that I intended to introduce a resolution of this kind, there was not one single criticism nor did I hear one single word against it from those in the constituency from which I come. It was a surprise to me when I suggested to some hon. members that they should assist me with this resolution to hear them say: Hands off the flag; we will have nothing to do with the resolution; the good old union jack is good enough for us-"the flag that braved a thousand years the battle and the breeze." There is no doubt that that flag is good enough for anyone and I wish to say right here that I yield to no organization, sect, society or individual in my regard for the British flag and all that it symbolizes. It is a wonderful flag, but we desire a flag to indicate that Canada has a right to a part in that flag. The British union jack is a composite flag composed of the crosses of St. Andrew, St. George, and St. Patrick, representing the three great divisions of the British isles. It is considered as the flag of the British Empire and we, as a composite part of that empire, consider it as our flag. But we desire some emblem to designate and indicate that it is our flag. That is all I am asking for. We want a flag that will indicate that Canada has a right to a part in that great British flag.
We are the only important dominion in the British Empire that has not a flag. South Africa has a flag; India has a flag and New Zealand and Australia each have beautiful flags. As is well known, the flag of New Zealand is a blue ensign upon which are four stars of the southern cross. A conspicuous part of that flag is the union jack, and it would be inconceivable to me that the proposed Canadian flag should not have the union jack in a predominant position. In the New Zealand flag the union jack is in the top corner next the flagstaff, the commanding or dominating position. This blue flag with its starry design is very beautiful. No one
Canadian Flag-Mr. Dickie


Mr. ROBINSON:: Not on your life.


Mr. McINTOSH:: The hon. gentleman is a little late with his "life" statement. Instead of courageously coming out in support of the resolution on those former occasions, it seemed to be quite satisfactory to my hon. friends opposite to have the issue thrown into the discard-to have it buried as it were. Now, however, one hon. gentleman opposite, after the battle for a national flag has proceeded for years brings up the question, and for my part I will lend him my support.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: That will kill it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If anyone can kill himself quicker by wild words than the hon. gentleman who has just exploded I do not know his name. He has made speeches in the house which have had the effect of killing him not only in his own riding but throughout his province. He is the last man to talk about killing anything. We all know where he stands on this question.
On Empire day when my resolution was brought up for the first time, after I had spoken for perhaps thirty-five or forty minutes on the subject, what do you suppose happened? Hon. gentlemen opposite will recall
quite well what happened. As I say, it was on Empire day and I do not think there was a better day in the year to have such a question discussed. Now, there was no intimation until practically six o'clock that the house was to be adjourned, and when the resolution was before the house and everything was set for a first-class debate on this national flag question, along came the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and adjourned the house abruptly at six o'clock, with the result of course that no further debate on the question took place that year. In other words, the question was not allowed to be placed before the people of the country as it should have been. In 1933 when the same resolution was up for discussion, I again spoke on it, taking the stand that if hon. members opposite and the house as a body were not then favourable to the consideration of a distinctive flag for Canada, because of emergency economic conditions, then I was quite willing not to interject at such a time the question of a national flag into the discussion of economic and financial matters, for the reason that it seemed to me important for this house to devote all its time to industrial and commercial subjects, such as the matter of trade, unemployment, and so forth with a view to relieving forthwith the distress of the people. Under these circumstances I took the ground that I would not then urge upon the house a discussion of the question of a distinctive flag for Canada. For that reason and that reason alone I spoke only briefly in 1933; and for that reason I did not place a resolution on the order paper for the session of 1934.
Now it seems to me that we have before us to-day what is very much like a case of trying to steal the other man's thunder, but I say to the hon. member for Nanaimo and to others opposite that that cannot be done by the Conservative party of Canada, nor can it be done by the hon. member for Nanaimo, because the spade work has already been done, and no matter what takes place with respect to the hon. gentleman's resolution at this time he will come second rather than first in the movement for a national flag. But even if he does come second I will lend him my support in order to help the movement along. I want to make it quite plain, once more, not only to the hon. gentleman but to the people of Canada, just where I stand on this question. The people of this country know quite well who put on the order paper of the House of Commons a resolution on behalf of a flag for Canada; they know exactly who first introduced that reso-
Canadian Flag-Mr. McIntosh

lution, and when. They know also that it has already been introduced on more than one occasion.
The hon. member speaks now about opposition. Well, there is no oipposition now of any account. The only opposition to a distinctive flag for Canada comes from the other side of the house-from his own party. There is no opposition on this side, and this question has been kept in the background up to the present time only because of the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite. Everyone in Canada who has read anything on this question knows that. But the opposition at the present time is nothing compared to the opposition that was very apparent a year ago when I had the honour of placing on the order paper a resolution sponsoring a national flag for this country. I had correspondence from every province in Canada, from almost every municipality, town and city, practically from one ocean to the other, and the opposition to a national flag at that time was quite apparent. But I never left one of these letters unanswered; I never let anyone who wrote me opposing a national flag get away with any baseless argument put forward along that line. The result is that to-day after years of hard work, after espousing this cause and doing the cultivating work on behalf of a national flag, after keeping the subject before the people of Canada, in all the provinces, I find that the opposition has now to a very large extent petered out or broken down. I believe that the feeling throughout Canada in the best informed circles is very strongly in favour of a distinctive flag for the dominion.
That being the case, may I direct the attention of the house to the subject matter of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo. For instance, he says he stands for a distinctive Canadian flag. That as a matter of fact is an old question now; it lias been before the house for j'ears and I believe there is at the moment a pronounced opinion in favour of it throughout Canada.
Then he goes on to say that it must be a national flag. How could it be anything else. He also says that the union jack must be in it. He says too that we have an empire flag and that Australia, New Zealand and South Africa each has a national flag. Again, he speaks about the Southern Cross as the symbol on the national flag of New Zealand and also Australia. Then, in a news item I read in the Ottawa Journal this afternoon, he has the Journal make the pronouncement that he lives in the most British riding in Canada. Well that is news to me.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Is the hon. member talking against the resolution?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, I am talking in
favour of it. I am just taking up some of the statements I consider debatable with regard to the hon. member's speech. As to the statement made by the hon. member that he thinks he lives in the most British riding in Canada, I hope he does, but I do not believe he does. In this country there are other ridings just as British as that which the hon. member represents in the house. If he has the idea that his riding can by any stretch of the imagination be classified as the most British in Canada on account of the fact that a great number of the people there were born overseas, in England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales, then he has another guess coming, because I repudiate any such statement. If any person born in Canada, born in Quebec or any other province, is loyal to his king, his flag, his country, he is just as good a Britisher as anyone else. I make no apology for a statement of that kind; I do not care what his creed or his national extraction may be; he can be just as British as those who are born overseas or those directly descended from citizens bom in the British Isles. That is self evident.
Another point advanced by the hon. member is that we should have on the fly of the flag a maple leaf. I do not think I ever made an address on the flag question in any part of Canada that I did not say I thought the maple leaf would make a very suitable design, but I did not think I had any right to come before parliament and say what the design on a Canadian flag should be. I thought then and I think so now a special committee of the house should be convened, consider the question thoroughly and adopt a resolution thereon. It might take a year or two to decide upon the design for a Dominion flag. If a special committee were convened and evidence adduced from well defined parts of Canada by having representatives of many of our national organizations appear before the committee and if parliament were to offer a prize of $1,000 or so for the best design, we would get not only one but hundreds and thousands of artistic designs, just as in Australia, and from these designs guided by the good sense of the committee and the House of Commons, we could certainly pick a flag that would best symbolize Canada among the nations of the world. The job is no small one; it is big; it cannot be done in a day or a week or a month, and it is something to which any party attempting to deal with it should give its very best attention. Therefore, one of the

Canadian Flag-Mr. McIntosh
strongest committees that can be got together in the house ought to be appointed and it should go into the flag question thoroughly and report to the house. Then the government of the day could very properly act on that report.
Prior to the first resolution being put on the order papeT in 1929 and again in 1931- when I had the honour of speaking to it- the movement in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag did not amount ito very much. I believe the war veterans of Canada passed a resolution practically favouring a distinctive flag for the dominion; at least they went so far as to put themselves on record that they were not opposed to it. In my address to the house on Empire day, Monday, May 25, 1931, I incorporated their resolution, because I thought it was very important to put the War Veterans of Canada on record with regard to a national flag. Hon. members who wish to turn up my address can -read for themselves what the members of the Canadian Legion thought then of the question now before the house.
Further than that, members of the Canadian Weekly Newspaper Association, a national organization, went on record at London in 1929, favouring a distinctive flag. Since then literally hundreds and thousands of resolutions have been passed by organizations, clubs and gatherings of one nature or another in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag. The Kiwanians in convention assembled at Windsor, September 15, 1931, where representative business men from the Atlantic coast attended, went on record in favour of a distinctive national flag. From that day to this the sentiment in favour of a national flag has been growing-gathering splendid momentum.
May I put on record some statements made by leading Canadian newspapers with regard to this resolution? I believe the daily and the weekly press of the country, when a question of this kind arises, can size up the situation just about as well if not better than parliament, and the essence of these news items and editorials in favour of a national flag for the dominion is well worthy of our attention. For instance, the London Advertiser on June 19, 1931, three years ago, when this question was up, discussed the stand taken by Mr. T. A. Kidd, who was at that time the head of the Orange Grand Lodge of British North America, and who spoke in Hamilton. I believe Mr. Kidd is speaker of the Ontario legislature. He is a gentleman who occupies a high position and we ought to have a great regard for what he says. Let us listen to what he said at Hamilton:
Canada has the Canadian ensign which serves the purpose for her merchant marine at sea and I have yet to see a strong argument that any Canadian is embarrassed by the union jack flying over the Canada House in London, Washington, Tokyo or Paris.
The hon. gentleman was under the impression that we are flying the union jack in Tokyo, Paris, London and Washington. He goes on record at that great gathering as opposing a distinctive flag for Canada because, as he says, the union jack is flying in those capitals and we should not disturb it there or as the 'official land flag at home. Therefore, he says, there is no necessity of having a distinctive flag for orir country. Well the opposite is the case. The union jack does not fly over Canada House in London, it does not fly on Canada's building in Paris, it does not fly over the Tokyo embassy nor over that at Washington.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: It flies in Ottawa.
Mr. M-oLNTOSH: That would be ridiculous, because it would not have any significance. The only flag that flies over these embassies is the red ensign, the sea flag of our country, not -the union jack or land flag at all. So apparently we can use outside of Canada, in the capitals of the world, the red ensign with the coat of arms of Canada in the fly, but we -cannot use it on land in Canada. Did you ever hear of a more ridiculous position for a young nation to be in? So the London Advertiser, dealing with this aspect of the question, goes on to say that this is rather a peculiar position in which to find ourselves as Canadians and it makes this statement:
The proposal of Mr. Cameron McIntosh, M.P., in the House of Commons over which some colonials who have not read his speech are making a fuss-
And those colonials are mostly of the Tory party-

is merely to replace this hodge-podge by a more pleasing design, such as the maple leaf, which would be common to all the provinces. Australia has such a flag, New Zealand has such a flag. Only Canada, among the Dominions, has no distinctive Canadian emblem except-and this is the ridiculous paradox-one which is flown only overseas, or on the high seas. If all Canadians knew this the opposition to the movement for a Canadian flag would be dissolved in laughter. But when even the Speaker of the Ontario legislature is ignorant of the fact it is not surprising that misunderstanding is widespread and that prejudice can be aroused.
There is a very true picture of -the situation as it exists right now in Canada, and when men talk about a distinctive flag for Canada and
Canadian Flag-Mr. McIntosh

oppose it without knowing the facts it is no wonder that we have not made any more progress than we have in this country in regard to that important question. May I just quote another statement? This is from the Ottawa Citizen, taken from the Manitoba Free Press, in 1932:
But while it is not correctly used on land

That is the red ensign.
-it serves the purpose for it is a distinctive emblem.
I do not agree with that. It is not a distinctive emblem; you cannot see it plainly ten feet away, and in my opinion it will never make a suitable flag for Canada. We might just as well face the issue as the Winnipeg Free Press has so often explained and realize that a distinctive flag for Canada is coming in the near future. I do not think the flag question should be made a political or a party question; I think we should show a united front upon it, and if we do the problem can be solved without arousing very much opposition. Then this quotation from the Free Press goes on to say:
With the numerous flags, officially recognized, of the various parts of the British commonwealth now being seen at Ottawa-
That is during 1932 when the imperial conference was on.
-the absurdity of opposition in Canada to the adoption of a flag of our own is very plain. Canada, which led the movement for constitutional freedom and whose government has been enamoured of a "Canada first" policy, is the only member of the commonwealth which cannot use its official emblem on this occasion, and, for the sake of practical convenience, resorts to an irregularity.
Surely, after this conference, the desire for a new Canadian flag will be unanimous.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was outlining the statements in a news and editorial way of many of the leading newspapers across Canada, on behalf of a national flag. May I, before continuing some further readings of certain editorials and news statements just read the resolution to which I have referred and which was passed in London in 1929 by the national weekly newspaper organization of Canada. The resolution was as follows:
Whereas we believe it is desirable to adopt a distinctive dominion flag for Canada, the design of which should include the union jack, resolved' that we appeal to the parliament of

Canada to treat this matter on a non-party basis, and we further appeal to all Canadians, irrespective of race, creed or origin, to cooperate towards the solution of this vital national question.
Then I referred briefly to the resolution of the Canadian Legion in Regina a few years ago, the conclusion of which was as follows:
Therefore be it resolved that this convention instruct the Dominion council that in the event of any concrete proposition for the adoption of a distinctively Canadian flag being presented to parliament, that parliament be advised that no device will be acceptable to the ex-service men of Canada in which the union jack is not the predominant figure, and if the question is to be decided that we strongly recommend the retention of the union jack, with some device such as the maple leaf or the Canadian coat of arms, superimposed thereon.
Further may I say that the national sentiment on behalf of a distinctive flag and the ideals of nationhood which that flag will represent is very nicely brought out in more ways than one. I have before me a poem written by Henry Holcomb Bennett, a poet of repute in the United States. This poem is penned on the flag, and the words are as follows:
Hats off! along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums,
A flash of colour beneath the sky;
Hats off! the flag is passing by!
Blue and crimson and white it shines Over the steel-tipped ordered lines,
Hats off! the colours before us fly;
But more than the flag is passing by.
Sign of a nation, great and strong To ward her people from foreign wrong; Pride and glory, honour all Live in the colours to stand or fall.
Then the last verse of it is:
Hats off! along the street there comes A blare of bugles a ruffle of drums;
And loyal hearts are beating high:
Hats off! the flag is passing by!
That depicts splendidly what a national flag stands for. Then we have Kipling on the union jack, one or two verses of which are as follows:
It's only a small bit of bunting,
It's only an old coloured rag,
Yet thousands have died for the honour And shed their best blood for the flag.
We hoist it to show our devotion
To our King, to our country, and laws; It's the outward and visible emblem Of advancement and liberty's cause.
Then the last verse:
You may say it's an old bit of bunting,
You may call it an old coloured rag;
But freedom has made it majestic,
And time has ennobled the flag.

Canadian Flag-Mr. McIntosh
May I continue my argument by referring to the fact that His Excellency the Governor General of Canada has a new flag, and I think it dates from the time the Earl of Bessborough took office in Canada. The old Governor General's flag was simply the union jack. It was no longer suitable-distinctive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I just wish to correct that statement; it is the king's flag.
Mr. MdNTOSH:	Yes, His Excellency represents the king. Naturally if would be the king's flag.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just a minute; it is the king's flag which is flown by all governors general in all parts of the king's dominions.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Is if not only flown in
the dominions of the empire?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I said.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is what I also said. The old flag flown by governors general of Canada was simply the union jack with a shield superimposed upon it carrying the old arms of Canada surrounded by maple leaves and capped by the crown. The Earl of Bessborough, speaking before the Canadian Club of Ottawa about this new flag of the governor general, said:
To gome, I believe in Canada a negligible majority, this new flag may seem a thing of small import; a mere piece of decorative heraldry, a relic of things that are old' and out of date. Such a view of it, if held, springs to my mind from a dangerous illusion; the illusion, only too common to-day, that those two words ''old" and "out of date" necessarily mean the same thing. That the idea of a flag is an old one is unquestionably true; it is so old that it makes its appearance in the very dawn of civilization. The human race, ever since it began to march at all, has never been able to march without the guidance of some symbol; and the function of such symbols has been two fold-they point out to mankind a better way for the future and they remind them of good that lias been achieved in the past.
Then at a later point Hie Excellency said:
It is in some such light, I believe, that most of us see this new flag; we see it as the outward sign of a very important and wholesome step in the political evolution, not only of Canada, but of the entire British empire; we see it as a picture in miniature of that empire itself. You have no doubt looked at it carefully. Have you observed its detail closely? It contains in the centre a crown surmounted by a lion on a deep blue ground-let your imagination play upon it. It is the crown of England set in the middle of the seas of the wide world, guarded by the hon. that has always been the totem of the British race; we are perpetually reminded by the single word "Canada" written beneath the Imperial crown, of Canada's age long and 74726-46
historical association with that crown; and it symbolizes for us-if I may play upon the word -the proud standard of the history and tradition of our race set up high for all of us to follow.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a new flag for the representative of the king in Canada, and our endeavour is to have a new flag for Canada as a nation. I have here the reproduction of a flag that has been sponsored by the Native Sons of Canada. I would say I am opposed to that flag for one reason.-the union jack is not in it. The resolution sponsored by myself in the House of Commons years ago provided for the union jack in the upper left hand comer. Personally I want to say in parliament to-day that my name will not be identified with a distinctive flag for Canada unless the union jack is incorporated in that national flag.
Had I time I might go on to quote many important passages from the press of Canada supporting this stand. For instance, here is a line or two from the Orillia Packet and Times:
But for our part we have never seen any reason why Canada should not have sueb a flag; and there are many reasons why, when inter-empire gatherings such as that at Ottawa are held, there should be some method of distinguishing the Canadian colours.
Them from the Toronto Daily Star of July 28, 1982, I read the following:
The flag issue was not raised; it raised itself, and nothing could be more absurd than to suggest that under these circumstances the newspapers should say nothing about it. It is easily understood, however, that those newspapers which oppose a Canadian flag do not want it talked about on an occasion which so vividly illustrates the need of one.
Then we have the Stratford Beacon-Herald, which really opposes a national flag for Canada, making this statement at the conclusion of an editorial:
If the Canadian people did decide to have a new flag it would mean doing away with the union jack as we have it now, and there are many pepole in this country who would not care to do that; in fact, many of them would not do it, and there would be no way to force unanimity of opinion and action.
A national flag for Canada would not necessarily interfere with the union jack at all. I want to make it plain, Mr. Speaker, that it would not in any way interfere with our empire flag, which would still fly and symbolize the empire whenever we desired. A distinctive flag for Canada would only supplement, not supplant, the union jack; that is fundamental. We could fly Canada's distinctive flag, and fly the union jack as well on occasions definitely settled by parliament. So there could be no

Canadian Flag-Mr. McIntosh

opposition to the union jack by authorizing a distinctive flag for Canada-none whatever.
We have this statement made by the Winchester press:
Candidly, we do not see -why Canada should not have a flag that is at once British as well as Canadian. The governments of the dominions have adopted national flags. Why there should be any fuss about Canada having a flag that would be pronounced Canadian as well as British we cannot understand. This opposition to a "Canadian Flag" is silly sentiment and should not stand in the way of our government adopting a Canadian flag.
The Brockville Recorder and Times says:
If opponents of a Canadian national flag, in which the union jack could be embodied, were consistent, they would instantly demand that Canada abandon its red ensign and return to the flag of the British merchant marine. There is, however, no demand for such abandonment. Why should there not be equal approval of the institution of a Canadian national flag to fly on land? Mr. Chamberlain probably wonders. So do a great many others, who are quite unable to fathom the reasoning of those who object to such a proceeding.
The Perth Courier, a leading weekly, says:
There is no thought either in any Liberal's or Conservative's brain to do away with the time-honoured union jack in our national flag. We all love the old flag and its Christian three-cross design too well to abandon it for any other. No other flag has so wonderful a history or has earned so loving a tribute from its far-flung peoples as this emblem of the empire; and so we in Canada must honour this feeling and all the sentiments involved by retaining in the most prominent corner of any flag that may be adopted this old union jack with its historical and fond memories.
The Hamilton Herald makes this statement:
If prejudice could he put aside and reason were allowed to rule, it would be easy to make a compromise arrangement satisfactory to all parties.
The Brantford Expositor thinks that if an agreement eould be reached whereby a Canadian device would appear on the union jack it would promote an intenser feeling of patriotism and citizenship not only for the dominion but for the empire. Canadians, it says, are surely not afraid of an emblem that would characterize the flag as their own.
The Kingston Whig-Standard, in concluding an editorial, makes this statement:
There is no reason why Canada should not have its own distinctive flag. It will make us no less loyal and no less a part of the British Empire. Now that the idea of a distinctive Canadian flag has been publicly adopted by the Kiwanians of Ontario, Quebec and the maritime districts, it is quite possible that the matter will receive wider attention than it has received heretofore, and that something tangible will result therefrom.
fMr. McIntosh.]
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I believe it would be only right for the house to have a clear-cut and complete debate on this question, and not merely a clear-cut debate but a recorded vote, so that we will know exactly where every member representing a Canadian constituency stands on this question of a distinctively Canadian flag. My opinion is that if that were done the house would carry this resolution, and if it did, the next step would be to set up a parliamentary committee which would investigate this question from every angle, and have the report endorsed by parliament and thereafter at the opportune time have it decided what flag design should be adapted. The success of the whole undertaking would depend upon the committee established as well as upon the direction of parliament. Of course, time would be required to settle all the details. I believe that not only the house if allowed a free hand but Canada as a nation and our empire's king are all in favour of every dominion having a distinctive flag of its own, and any opposition trumped up in this house or out of it is merely shortsighted opposition. So far as I am concerned as an hon. member of this house I would like to see parliamentary action taken on this resolution immediately so that in the very near future we can have the flag problem worked out in such a way that Canada will have a truly national flag that will take its place proudly among the most beautiful, the most honoured and the most beloved of the many national symbols floating on high the earth around.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Toronto Northwest) :: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the speech of the hon. member for North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh), if the mover of the resolution (Mr. Dickie) will not mind my saying so, I would suggest that he walk across the floor with this baby which the hon. member for North Battleford accuses him of having stolen and place it on that hon. gentleman's desk, and then I hope that this side of the house will be rid of it altogether.
I admire the sincerity of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) in bringing this resolution before the house. The member for North Battleford placed a similar resolution before us on two former occasions, in 1931 and in 1932. I listened to both debates in those former years and I have listened to the debate to-day, and now more than ever I am convinced that we Canadians have a priceless heritage in having the right to fly from the flagpole of this building the union jack, and I for my part in the few words I am going to say will do my best to maintain it there.

Canadian Flag-Mr. MacNicol
As I understand it, Canada at the present time has an official flag for every occasion. In 1865 the Colonial Defence Act decreed that the blue ensign, with the Canadian coat of arms on the fly, should be the official flag for Canadian government ships. In 1892 an admiralty warrant was issued that the red ensign, with the Canadian coat of arms on the fly, should be the official flag for the Canadian merchant marine. On May 21,	1912, the
Secretary of State for the Colonies sent a dispatch to the Governor General of Canada that the union jack should be the official flag for Canada. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as we have official flags for all occasions, I do not see why we need to change the flag we have.
I quite understand why on water a Canadian ship should have some emblem on the fly of the flag to distinguish that it is a Canadian ship and not one of Great Britain registry, and I can quite see why on our legations in Tokyo, Washington, Paris and elsewhere we should fly the red ensign, with the Canadian coat of arms, which I am informed by the office of the Secretary of State is the official flag for these legations. I cannot see any reason why we should change from the use of the union jack because there is no international competition on land on the north half of this continent.


Mr. ERNST:: If the red ensign is the
official flag for Canada abroad, why should we not have a Canadian flag for use at home? Why should we have a different flag abroad from that used at home?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is the essence of
the problem.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We are particularly
favoured by having three flags. We have an official flag on land; another on sea for merchant ships; and the admiralty has granted a special flag for our government ships. The British government also has three different flags. The only difference between our flags and theirs is that we have a Canadian coat of arms on the red ensign flying at the masts of our merchant ships. The same flag is used for the legations while the blue ensign with our coat of arms is used on ships in our government service.


William Gordon Ernst: Why should there be a distinction?


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is not any.


William Gordon Ernst: There is.
Mr. MacNICO'L:	Except that the coat of
arms is on our flags. There have been many discussions in this house, some of them more or less educational-
74726-46 i


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Might I ask the hon.
member a question? According to what he has said-


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the hon. member is
going to ask the same question, he bad better read the answer I have just given to the other hon. member.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I did not intend to ask
the same one.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As I say, there have
been many discussions of an educational and academic nature in this house. Some folks think that such discussions are a waste of time, but I do not agree. I believe there is much to be learned from such discussions. However, I am convinced that there is a proper time for the discussion of resolutions similar to this one and perhaps there are other times when such discussions are a waste of time. When I go home and find so many men in need of employment I know that they are more interested in measures to relieve unemployment than in discussions of an educational nature.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is the stand I took a year ago.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member took
up forty minutes but I do not propose to take up so long as I do not think the matter requires so much answering. In every depression we have such discussions. Since this depression commenced we have had a resolution to change our system of finance, to inflate, deflate and reflate our money, and resolutions covering other subjects. As the hon. member has said, he was the first to introduce this matter.
We are still in the depression and another resolution to change our flag is brought forward. Is there anything that is inviolable? Is there anything that is safe? Is there anything in which we can put our faith? Is there anything that is not going to change? I recall the twenty-eighth verse of the twenty-second chapter of Proverbs, which reads: Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. Of all the ancient landmarks in the world to-day, in my humble opinion the union jack is the most sacred. I remember being up in the county of Grey where I go quite frequently and visiting the son of a pioneer who had settled on a farm in 1850. He was repairing a line fence and his man was going along the fence and taking down some rotten rails. He came across an old, roughly hewn stake which had some roughly carved marks upon it. Like so many

Canadian Flag-Mr. MacNicol
young men-I do not mean this to apply to all young men as I am a great admirer of the youth of this generation-he was about to destroy that stake when the son of the pioneer stopped him and said:	Hands off,
that is the stake placed by my father and the surveyor in 1850; I want it to remain there.
In the union jack we have three very ancient landmarks, all going back into mythology. They go farther back than any other landmark of which I know. We have the landmark of the cross of St. Patrick. That was the cross carried by St. Patrick into the Emerald Isle where he taught the words of the Nazarene. Then we have the cross of St. Andrew. Mythology tells us that St. Andrew was martyred in Greece and his body transported miraculously to bonnie Scotland. Then we have the cross of St. George. Mythology tells us that this was the cross which was on the white banner of St. George when he appeared before the English armies and saved them from the Saracens. These are ancient landmarks and I say to those who would support this resolution: Remember the landmarks that our fathers have set and remove them not.
It has been stated that other dominions have a distinctive flag. That is true, but Canada is the greatest of all dominions, and are we to be leaders or merely followers? Simply because another dominion has a distinctive flag is not a conclusive reason Why Canada should adopt one. I read very carefully the debate which took place in the South African house on this question, and if I do not miss my guess, there will be millions in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand who will be very happy if this house does not follow in their footsteps. I hope this house rejects this resolution and decides not to pull down the union jack and erect some other flag in its place. The union jack has tradition behind it; it is the official flag of this country and it should not be pulled down. I hope this resolution will be rejected by a large majority.
The hon. member who has just sat down gave a number of quotations from newspapers which supported the resolution he had moved along similar lines, but I could quote thousands of quotations from newspapers condemning his resolution.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Quote some of them.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The time of the house
will not permit. He referred to various associations and so forth that had supported his resolution, but I could refer to scores that opposed it. After reading the debates which took place in the legislatures of the other dominions I came to the conclusion that some

educated and gifted orator like my hon. friend across the aisle and like my good friend on this side was able to present an argument which for sheer lack of defenders of the union jack was agreed to and the union jack was pulled down. I hope defenders will not be lacking in this house. If they are, I shall be very much surprised.
A few moments ago I said that perhaps some good comes out of an educational debate even in times like this, and I believe that some good may come out of this one. The mover of the resolution has suggested the maple leaf in place of the arms of Canada. Well, if he had proposed a resolution to put the maple leaf on the fly of the flag which is flown over the legations, or on the ships of the Canadian merchant or government marine, I should have no particular objection, because in each of those spheres there is competition, and if the people of Canada desire to have one emblem or another, that is their business. But on land, on the north half of this continent, there is no competition. I have a recollection of coming here on the first day of the imperial conference, and as I walked up past the post office, where all the flags of the dominions were flying outside the walls, I saw various stripes and bars and colours. But when I passed by that building and came up the main walk in front of this building and saw the flag that was flying at the mast of	the memorial tower, I was
never so proud of any flag as I was then of the union jack. It was to me the finest of flags and its colours stood out more beautifully than any I had ever seen except the colours on the battleship Hood, in Victoria harbour a few years ago, where I had gone with a committee to receive the admiral. The colours of our flag, displayed on that opening day of the imperial conference, were more brilliant than any other such colours I had seen before-the blue, the red and the white. The blue recalled to my mind the crest of the waves as one crosses the ocean, a beautiful blue. The red suggested the sacrifice of the British people down through the ages, marking the pathways for the ships of commerce, leading to every harbour throughout the world-not for military glory alone but for the glories of peace as well. And the white stood for the honour of our nation, standing like a beacon light before the world.
The union jack, with its three colours, its three crosses, is complete. You cannot add anything to it. If you attempt to add to it you add not, and if you take away from it you take from its completeness. There might

Canadian Flag-Mr. White (Mount Royal)
be some reason for enacting legislation, if there is not at present such legislation, to make necessary the flying of one flag on land in this country. I have in mind what the late Mr. Justice Logie said when he opened court at Welland on October 20, 1931. When he arrived he observed flying on the flagstaff of the courthouse a flag other than the union jack. He knew that the official flag in Canada is the union jack, and that this flag should be on 'the flagstaff of all government buildings, and he made the following remarks to the grand jury, at that time, as reported by the Mail and Empire:
Gentlemen,-when I arrived for this session I observed a monstrosity at the head of the court flagstaff, a cross between an admiralty flag and a patchwork quilt. I have ordered the sheriff to take that thing down. It is important and proper that the union jack be flown here, especially as there are so many foreigners in this district. That thing at the head of the mast now is not the flag to be flown oveT His Majesty's courthouse. I hope you will bring in a recommendation that a new flag be purchased. In the meantime, the proper union jack will be flown, even if it is in tatters.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that our highways are to-day cluttered up with all sorts of monstrosities in the way of flags, and the time ha3 come when there should be a rebirth of patriotic spirit in this country, such as there is across the line, where they fly only the stars and stripes. I give that nation to the south of us credit for teaching their people to be loyal to their flag and to fly it and it alone on all public occasions, and I say that we should not have the highways of Canada cluttered up with a regiment of monstrosities. If, therefore, the resolution before the house to-night does nothing more than to direct the attention of the Canadian people to the fact that the time has come for a proper realization once more that on land the union jack is the official flag of this country, then the resolution serves a good purpose. The people might learn further that when that flag is flown it must be attached to the mast with the wide part of the cross of St. Andrew along the top. Quite often we see it upside down, and perhaps Judge Logie witnessed something of the sort. The flag should be flown properly, and on land the official flag is the union jack. I do not see -why this is not taught in the schools; I contend that this should be done, so that we might not have all this discussion about changing flags and getting a new flag. All such discussion should be a thing of the past, and the boys and girls of this country should be taught the full meaning of the flag with the triple cross which flies over land inhabited by a quarter of the world's population.
I yield to no one in my love for Canada. I am a Canadian of the fourth generation, the first generation of which was a Scottish veteran of a Scottish regiment that took part in Quatre Bras and Waterloo. I glory in the achievements of Canadians, and I respect and admire the achievements of all creeds and races and colours; I have nothing to say against any race, because I realize that we are all God's creatures and should do our best. Canadians have every reason to be proud of what this country has accomplished, and when I hear this talk about pulling down the flag I think of the regiments that left the shores of Canada between the years 1914 and 1918. Many of the men that went overseas failed to come back, but the flags came back and today right across Canada you will see those flags hanging in our churches and in our great cathedrals and public halls. Those flags Should remain there, a perpetual memorial to those who did not come back; and to those Who are willing to see them pulled down, I say that if the union jack is to fly over the peace tower where the names of our fallen heroes are to be inscribed until they say "pull it down," it will fly until the crack of doom.


Mr. R. S. WHITE (Mount Royal):: I regret greatly that I was not in my seat this afternoon to second the resolution of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) because I had promised to do so. Now, the subject of a flag always lends itself to heroics, mock or otherwise, but I do not intend to indulge in anything of that kind. I oannot understand, it is incomprehensible to me how any member of this house or anybody out of it can suggest a change, a displacement of the union jack, and retain his self respect. For I am certain that he cannot retain the self respect of the people of this country if he attempts to lay unholy hands upon the union jack. But the proposal before the house is not to remove the union jack in any way whatsoever; it asks merely that upon the fly there be placed an emblem significant of Canada. We have that now in our merchant marine flag-the matter has been referred to frequently during this discussion-the Canadian coat of arms. I could almost defy anybody to determine from a look at the merchant marine flag what that particular emblem means.
This is not a new subject. I can well remember more than forty years ago when I had the honour of a seat in this house, that the then member for St. Antoine, the late Lord Strathcona, devoted a large part of a sitting to an endeavour to persuade the members to adopt what might be called, if you will, the national flag of Canada. I forget
726	COMMONS
Canadian Flag-Mr. White (Mount Royal)
whether the design he favoured was such as is suggested by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) a maple leaf, or a spray of maple leaves. Lord Strathcona did not succeed in his effort at that time but I shall be greatly surprised if the hon. member for Nanaimo, myself and others who may think with him, fail in our effort to-day. But let this be well understood, that it is not proposed to displace or mutilate in any way the union jack. Are the people of the Commonwealth of Australia less loyal because they have upon the fly an emblem significant of that commonwealth?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, they are not.


Robert Smeaton White: Are the people of New Zealand less loyal because they have followed the same course?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No.


Robert Smeaton White: Are the
people of Canada lacking in loyalty because they plaice the dominion ooat of arms on the merchant marine flag? Certainly not. Years ago the emblem of the old province of Canada was the beaver and I can recall suggestions made that the beaver might well be placed upon the fly as indicating that the flag was a Canadian one. But while the beaver is a vary industrious animal with a good deal of ingenuity and skill, placed upon a flag it too much resembles a rat. No such objection, however, can be made to what I venture to say is the most beautiful leaf to be found on any tree that grows.
I want to read to the house just a few words in respect of the union jack. The late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, whom few hon. members will have known as I had the pleasure of knowing in his lifetime, once Prime Minister of Canada, I think in 1876 was attending a banquet given by the Board of Trade of Saint John, New Brunswick, on which occasion the United States consul at Saint John and the late James G. Blaine, one time candidate for the presidency of the United States, and a very distinguished United States public man, were present, Mr. Mackenzie, in the course of his speech, said this:
I hope that the people of the United States and of Great Britain will always remain true to those principles on which their institutions are founded and that their flags may wave together in beauty and harmony in many a distant land,-the one bearing on it the emblem of the might of the Creator, the starry heavens, which express His infinite power, and the other emblazoned with the emblem of God's greatest work-the redemption of man.
I yield to no man in Canada in my loyalty to the British flag, the union jack, and I would 
be last to lay the hand of desecration upon it. The resolution proposes to perpetuate that flag. We are a British commonwealth of nations, or I think it is a commonwealth of British nations, of equal status under the statute of Westminster, and to place an insignia upon the fly means merely that that flag represents the Canadian dominion within the British commonwealth and nothing more. I have pleasure in supporting a resolution which does not go one iota further than to place upon the fly of the union jack something emblematic of the Canadian dominion.


George Reginald Geary: 
George Reginald Geary: I	was paired with the hon.
member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted I would have voted for the	
motion to adjourn.


John Vallance: I was paired with the	
hon. member for	Wentworth (Mr. Wilson).
Had I voted I would have voted against the	
motion to adjourn.	
Mr. McKENZIE	(Assiniboia): I was paired
with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Bowen). Had I voted I would have voted	
against the motion	to adjourn.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr.	
Embury). Had I	voted I would have voted
against the motion	to adjourn.


Mr. BLAIR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion to adjourn.
Mr. MeGIBBON: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power): Had I voted I would have voted for the motion to adjourn.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton) :: I was paired with the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Goulet). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion to adjourn.


Mr. SENN:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion to adjourn.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION


PROPOSED INVESTIGATION OF SPREAD BETWEEN PRICES OF RAW PRODUCTS AND MANUFACTURED GOODS
Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, an immediate inquiry should be made under the provisions of the Research Council Act, Chapter 177, R.S.C., 1927, or by other means, into the causes underlying the wide spread between the prices of raw products and the prices of goods manufactured from such products.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this resolution to the house hon. members will note that I have followed the form of my resolution presented on February 6, of last year, upon which occasion I was supported by some of my friends. Later the resolution went to the bottom of the order paper and was not reached again during the session.
At the time I introduced my resolution of a year ago I drew attention to a number of anomalies in prices, particularly those anomalies in the prices of farm products in the raw state, and the prices of the same products after processing. Upon that occasion I desired, as indicated in my resolution, to have the research council during the recess period go into the matter of these anomalies in prices, in order that legislation could have been presented at this session based on their report. This evening it is not my intention to deal, as I did last year, with particular items, but rather to speak in general terms. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) introduced his motion of February 2, dealing with some of the matters contained in my resolution my inclination was to withdraw from the order paper the resolution standing in my name, in the hope that the committee to be set up would deal effectively with the questions I had in mind. Since then, however, I have given considerable thought to the matter and have come to the conclusion that the committee which has been set up, sitting as it will be for only a few hours a day, a few days each week, cannot by any means meet the situation I have in mind. Its efforts

Production and Distribution
will be entirely inadequate to deal with the great volume of business which will come before it, and for that reason I believe the work of that committee might well be supplemented by the investigation I propose.
After the committee was set up about a week ago I noticed headlines in the newspapers referring to it as a committee on mass buying, and those newspaper articles prompted me to proceed with my resolution. The question of mass buying does not in any sense enter into the resolution standing in my name. The people with whom I am* concerned do not consider mass buying an evil. As I view it, mass buying is only a system which has grown up during the last few years which has for its purpose the overcoming of an evil, and cannot be considered an evil in itself from the consumer's viewpoint. Further, I have proceeded with the resolution because I believe the method adopted by the government, namely that of appointing a special committee, is altogether too cumbersome, and it will take too long to accomplish anything. On account of the urgency of this matter I believe the suggestion I have offered should be accepted, so as to supplement the work of the committee, in the hope that some remedial legislation may be effected while the depression exists. If we go through this depression without doing something along the lines I have indicated I am afraid that, in the event of another depression in a few years conditions would be found to be worse than those now prevailing. Particularly would this apply to those who are suffering most in these days, namely the poor people.
There is another reason why I desire to present this resolution, and that is in relation to the personnel of the committee that has been appointed. I am going to ask the Prime Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, if he thinks it is just and right that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) should be permitted to sit in judgment on that committee. I am going to read a letter written by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to a gentleman by the name of Hermiston, and which was published in a paper called the Parliamentary Critic, Ottawa. The letter, dated Ottawa, January 19, is as follows:
Dear Mr. Hermiston,

I have your letter of the 17th and thank you very much for the illustrations attached to show the evil influence of the department and chain store system.
We are now continuing the investigation and hope to build up a pretty strong case. The information you have given will be useful.
Yours very truly,
H. H. Stevens.
In view of that letter I say in all seriousness that as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has prejudged the question he ought not be allowed to sit in judgment on a committee of that kind, and I am bringing it to the attention of the government in the hope that they will take my objection into their very serious consideration.
Last year when I presented this resolution I dealt largely with the question of wool and woollen clothing, for the reason that woollen clothing is so necessary in the part of the country from which I come, and also because there are so many people, even those who are raising wool, who are not able to buy it back in its manufactured form, and are therefore suffering from the want of it. I believe that the resolution I am presenting strikes at the very root of this depression, and that if the matter complained of were remedied it would go a long way towards our recovery from this depression. Certainly when another depression comes along, as they appear to do periodically, it will bear much more heavily upon the people if action along this line is not taken in the meantime.
The outstanding feature of the present depression so far as the farming community is concerned has been the unprecedented decline in the prices of commodities, more particularly farm products, without a corresponding fall in the prices of manufactured goods. Our trouble is due not only to the fact that farm prices have depreciated enormously, but also to the disparity between the decrease in farm prices and the decline in the prices of manufactured products. While manufactured products are lower in price, as we will all admit, they have not dropped to the low levels reached by the prices of raw materials and natural products generally. I repeat, as I have stated before in this house as well as elsewhere, that a depressed agriculture, such as we have in Canada to-day, is one of the main reasons why we have falling revenues, unemployment, the railway problem and a good many of our other major problems. Let me give a few figures which will prove what I have said, that the prices of farm products have fallen to a greater extent than the prices of manufactured products.
Taking 1926 as a normal year, with the index figure of prices of that year for both manufactured and farm products at 100, we
Production and Distribution

find that the prices of farm and manufactured products stood as follows in the years from 1927 to 1933:
Index price
	Farm	Manufactured
	products	products
1927	102.1	96.51928	100.7	951929	100.8	931930	80.6	85.21931	56.3	74.91932	48	701933 (eight months ending August) . . .	50	69.5
In other words, from 1926 to 1930 the prices of farm products fell 19'4 per cent and of manufactured products 14-8 per cent, while from 1930 to 1933 farm products fell 30-6 per cent and manufactured products only 15-7 per cent. To put it in another way, in 1926 one dollar's worth of farm products would buy one dollar's worth of manufactured goods; in 1927, ninety-five cents' worth of farm products would buy one dollars' worth of manufactured goods on the basis of 1926 prices. For succeeding years, still on the basis of 1926 prices, the values of farm products required to buy one dollars' worth of manufactured goods were: in 1928, ninety-four cents' worth; in 1920, ninety-two cents' worth; in 1930, $1.09 worth; in 1931, $1.33 worth; in 1932, $1.44 worth, and in 1933, $1.49 worth. By this it may be seen that the manufacturing industries did not suffer to anything like the same extent as the farming industry. I contend, and these figures go to prove, that if farm products were on the same basis as other products, if one dollar's worth of farm products would buy one dollar's worth of manufactured products, we would still be able to buy and sell, and the country would not be in the condition it is in to-day. But when we have to give almost $1.50 worth of farm products to buy one dollar's worth of manufactured goods, recovery is almost impossible so far as the farming industry is concerned.
On the second day of this month the Prime Minister introduced a resolution appointing a committee to inquire into some of the matters which are mentioned in my resolution. At that time, speaking to that resolution, I stated that I believed that combines, the high tariffs and special duties and other regulations of the National Revenue department were largely responsible for the wide spread in prices between natural products and the same products in a manufactured state. The question has often been asked why it is that this depression appears to bear so much more heavily upon the farmers and the labouring 
classes than former depressions did, and particular reference is made when the question is asked to the depression of 1020-1922. The answer that I have given, and I believe it is the best answer available, is that tariffs are higher in Canada to-day than they have ever been before in the history of this country, and the manufacturers in Canada, in spite of what may be said, are taking advantage of those high tariffs. The labouring men and fhe farmers cannot obtain by any stretch of the imagination any benefit from these high tariffs. This is largely the reason why the depression is bearing so much more heavily to-day upon the farming community than it did previously. The very fact that the manufacturers are taking advantage of the high tariff compels the farmers and labouring people to pay higher prices for the products they need than otherwise would be the case. This has been denied many times from the other side of the house; hon. members opposite try to make out that the tariff is not responsible for increases in prices, but I remember last year when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) brought down his budget he stated that many manufacturing industries were operating in the red because they were able to operate only twenty-five, fifty or sixty per cent of their capacity. He stated that that was why they required higher tariff protection. To my mind that is an admission that these manufacturing industries are taking advantage of the tariff. If they are not, and this is something I should like investigated, it is because there are too many industries in certain lines attempting to operate in Canada.
Business in all lines is calling out for some relief. The resolution of the Prime Minister and the setting up of a committee has met with a good deal of favour, but so did the resolution which I presented a year ago. I contend that had that resolution been adopted last year we could have been in a fair way to having some legislation to remedy the conditions of which I complained. Even now it is not too late. I cannot see how this committee, which will sit only a few hours a day for a few days each week, can do any more than touch the fringe of this big question. The president of the United States has been given wide powers to deal with just such matters as were mentioned in my resolution, and he is making a determined effort to deal with the problem. He is dealing with it in a big way, and I believe that if there has been an improvement in conditions in Canada it is because of what is being done in the United States. I believe that that country is an indispensable factor in the world recovery

Production and Distribution
which we all hope will come very soon. It will be noticed that the United States is beginning to deal with reality and is now tackling the tariff problem with a view to reducing duties and bringing about greater trade with other nations of the world. That country realizes, as must every country sooner or later, that economic exclusiveness, as it has been termed here, tends to make the problem harder to solve.
I have always been at a loss to know why our representatives at the conference held at Ottawa in 1932 did not endeavour to have some provision made whereby the better quality clothing manufactured in Great Britain, which could be sold here at a price lower than the poorer quality manufactured in Canada, could continue to be brought into the country Such a measure would have increased the market in Great Britain for some of our products. I know the answer is that the government wanted to give employment to people engaged in the textile industry, but I know that people in my part of the country are not buying simply because they have no purchasing power. Quite often I hear men say that they have not had a suit of clothes for the last five years. If the retail stores throughout the country were doing the business they would be doing if conditions were right, many of the men in the textile industry who might be laid off could be engaged in selling goods over the counter and be just as profitably employed.
Surely the time has come when we should do something more than just appoint a committee to investigate a few things. As I said, this committee will be sitting a few hours a day in an attempt to deal with this great problem. There is a need of some drastic measure when the people who produce raw materials are not able to buy them back after they are processed. I hope this government will soon realize that there are other people who should be considered besides the manufacturers. In tackling this problem we are tackling a problem too large to be handled in the way that this government is attempting to handle it. During the last two years when I have had this resolution in mind and when it has appeared upon the order paper I have received many letters from all across Canada. I think the people of Canada would be solidly behind the government if they would take hold of this problem in a big way but from what I have seen in some of the papers I am afraid that to a certain extent the people are of the same opinion as myself, namely, that the government is not going after it in a big enough way. I should like to quote part of a long editorial which appeared in the Times-
Herald of Moose Jaw. This editorial deals with this very matter, and the concluding words are these:
The problem that was shelved a year ago has suddenly become urgent for political reasons, and in order to forestall a demand on the part of the opposition for a far-reaching inquiry under the Research Council Act, the government prefers the longer and roundabout way of a parliamentary inquiry, which it can always hold well in hand, and which a "steering committee " of the protected manufacturers can guide along the lines desired.
I am not prepared to go quite as far as that editorial. I hope the government is in earnest, but there are others besides the Moose Jaw Times-Herald who do not believe that the government is in earnest in trying to solve this problem. This is the conclusion I have reached from the many letters I have received. One man said to me that this was a Liberal policy and he wondered how the government could go ahead with anything like that. He then quoted the words of the Prime Minister who said on one occasion: Converts always can be depended upon to make a failure of anything they undertake to do. My final word is this: Let us adopt the best method possible; if it is the intention of the government that this committee should deal with the mass buying problem, all well and good, but let us have some earnest endeavour to do something in connection with these price spreads.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Will the hon. member kindly state who seconded his motion? .


Robert McKenzie: The hon.
member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown).


John Livingstone Brown: I really had not thought of saying anything in regard to this resolution, but while the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) was speaking a few thoughts came to my mind. I would point out to the house, as we have had occasion to point out many times before, that in the question of spread in prices as between the producer and the consumer there is no one who suffers more than the farmer, and I would discuss this question from the standpoint of the farmers, since I am a representative of farmers. No one suffers more than the farmer, for this reason, that he gets it both ways, whether it is on what he produces or on what he buys. If it is a question of wheat, then the price we receive for our wheat is based upon the world price, and that takes into account all costs that have to be paid between the time the commodity leaves the farmer's wagon and the time it gets to the consumer. The farmer pays all the freight,
Production and Distribution

all the commission charges, everything that has to be paid between the time it leaves his waggon and the time it reaches the consumer. And similarly with the things he buys; the price he has to pay for what he buys is the price the manufacturer gets plus the price that the distributors, however many they may be, have to be paid for their services, and the freight rates. The farmer has to pay for all that, and therefore the farmer more than any other class suffers by this spread in prices. To put it another way, the farmer sells everything at wholesale prices and buys back everything at retail prices.
A committee has now been set up to study the question of mass buying by the department and the chain stores, and so on, but here is something which that committee will be faced with when it comes to investigate this matter. If the committee tries to regulate this spread between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays it will find that it has a conflict on its hands, because the mass buying on the part of the department and chain stores is an attempt to lower this difference between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays. I do not see therefore how the committee will solve the problem with these two conflicting interests to be considered; at any rate it cannot solve both at the same time.
The ordinary consumer in the city suffers of course, but he does not suffer the double burden that the farmer has to bear. The consumer has to pay all the cost, and I think we may as well turn our attention to the fact that so much of this cost is taken up in distribution. There is the problem that confronts us. We have solved the question of production; we have not solved the question of economical distribution. I remember that at one of our United Farmer's meetings a good many years ago an old farmer from a small town in northern Manitoba gave this illustration. He said that in his town of Fox-warren there were one day four commercial travellers, one selling soap, another candies, another tobacco and, I think, the fourth one was selling matches-it does not matter what it was; maybe it was Eddy matches.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope so; they are good matches.


John Livingstone Brown: Anyhow, there were four
men, each drawing a big salary and piling up the expense accounts which commercial travellers are said to pile up, yet each one was only engaged in the trivial business of selling one or other of these little commodi-
ties. Can anyone doubt for a moment that that system must add tremendously to the cost of distributing goods?
I am not disposed to blame the manufacturer for all these things. I think something came out in discussion some years ago when we were speaking of some articles of hardware which the hon. member for Lincoln makes. He was reported to have said that for a particular kind of stable fork the manufacturer got about 80 cents. That may be right or wrong; I am only telling the story as it came to me. Well, we have to pay about $2.50 or $3 for the same fork. I am second to nobody in my antagonism to protective tariffs, but that particular situation is not brought about entirely by protective tariffs. I do not know what it costs to manufacture the common four-toed potato fork with the wide prongs; perhaps the hon. member for Lincoln could tell us. But I do know that two years ago I paid $2 for it. I imagine that between the price which the hon. member for Lincoln gets for such a fork and what I had to pay there is a wide spread. What the spread is I do not know, but I hope that the committee, of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) is to be chairman, will investigate that situation and see whether he will solve that problem by attacking mass buying in the department and chain stores, because these methods have been introduced to help to solve the problem of the spread between the price that the producer receives and the price the consumer pays. I think he will have to do a little bit of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds when he deals with this matter.
Undoubtedly there is a problem that confronts us, and I emphasize again the fact that the farmer gets it both ways, both on what he produces and on what he buys. I happen to know that a certain man sold twenty ducks, dressed-and ducks are not the easiest thing in the world to dress and clean-and the return to this producer was less than 20 cents apiece; the whole net return was $3.95. I presume the people in the city who consumed those ducks paid 10 or 12 cents a pound at least, and perhaps a good deal more. Illustrations might be multiplied indefinitely to show the very wide spread that exists. I think it was brought out in the milk inquiry that was held in Winnipeg that the man who drove the milk wagon distributing the milk received more than twice as much for his work as the farmer who produced the milk. While this question

Production and Distribution
of labour is an important one; while the question of unemployment is important and the remedy suggested of shorter hours and bigger pay to the man who is labouring in the city is one that undoubtedly must receive [DOT]consideration, what I fail to see yet is how that solution of the problem can be made to fit in with the farmers' interests. If that can be done and if any person is able to show ns just how it can be done, I shall be only too glad to listen to him.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I should like to say just a 'word or two, addressing my remarks more directly to the resolution before us than to the affairs of the [DOT]committee that has been set up by the house. I feel myself precluded from discussing that if I desire to obey the rules, which I think are clear that we are not permitted to discuss in this chamber the activities of a committee.
The resolution that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) proposes is that under the provisions of the Research Council Act, or by other means, an inquiry should be made into the causes underlying the wide spread between the prices of raw products and the prices of goods manufactured from such products. May I suggest to the mover of the resolution-and to this degree I shall have to transgress what I know to be the Tules-that the first action of the committee set up was to invite the bureau of statistics and the president of the national research council, together with the official in charge of the Combines Act, to make an immediate study of all the material, documents, data and so forth at present in the hands of government departments and to correlate all this information in preparation for treatment by the committee. In other words, the very thing he is now asking is actually under way at the present moment. As I say, it is quite contrary to the rules for me or any other hon. member to enter into a discussion, first, of the activities of a committee, and, second, of a debate that has already been closed by the action of this house, namely in passing a resolution and appointing a committee based upon it. Therefore I am precluded by the rules from carrying that further. I have, as I say, transgressed them to the extent of conveying that information to the hon. member.
I might perhaps invite the house for a moment to consider the Research Council Act. To speak now of that act which is specifically referred to in the resolution before us, the question is whether under that act this matter is properly 'covered. I merely mention that; I think the act has more to
do with scientific and industrial research and standardization. One of the reasons why the research council was invited to join with the bureau of statistics in a study of this matter was the scientific knowledge possessed by the expert officials of the council and particularly the possible assistance that might be secured by furtheT standardization. But I might say to the hon. member that in the bureau of statistics there are some highly skilled and competent officials, economists we would be well justified in terming them, who can give and are now giving close study to the very matters to which he refers. In the light of what I have said to the hon. member, I do not see that there would be anything gained by pressing this motion to a vote.
I am sure both my hon. friends who have spoken will excuse me if I do not follow them in a discussion of the matters to which they have referred, because, as I say, they are all matt-eTs which I think are more or less out of order under this particular resolution, having been dealt with in connection with the committee that has been set up. But I would be unfair to myself and other hon. gentlemen on this side of the house if I were not to say that we fully appreciate, just as keenly as do hon. members opposite, the tremendous importance of the welfare^ of 'the agriculturists of this country. Speaking for myself, I am profoundly impressed with that. I know full well what the prosperity of the agriculturists means to Canada and am just as keenly anxious as it is possible to be to do everything we can to find a solution for the problems with which they are confronted.
I should like, however, to say to my hon. friends that perhaps more progress may be made in the interests of the agriculturists and other producers of primary products if we could approach the question with some degree of unanimity of purpose. I assure them that I have no desire to make the fate of the agriculturists a question of political view, and if they will, I certainly will approach the question with one desire and that is to do the best we can to find a solution for these problems. I do not think there is any need for me to say more at the moment. In the light of the facts that I have indicated, I would suggest to the hon. member that the resolution might be allowed to drop or to be withdrawn.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the hon. member prepared to withdraw the resolution?


Robert McKenzie: In view of what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has said, I may say that the
Production and Distribution

main object I had in moving the resolution at this time was that I feel, as I said before, that the time will go along and this session will be over; that there will not be time to do very much and that somebody will have to carry on the work. That is why I thought the resolution should be presented.
There is just one other matter. I was in hopes that the minister would give us some explanation of the letter I read that he was supposed to have written, according to the newspaper I quoted, to a gentleman in Ottawa, in which letter it appeared that he had his mind already made up on certain points and I questioned the advisability of his sitting in judgment. Except for that I have nothing further to say.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was not in the chamber when the hon. gentleman read the letter, but I presume, speaking to a point of privilege, if I may, Mr. Speaker, it is the same letter which one of my hon. friend's colleagues read to the committee the other day.


Robert McKenzie: It was a
letter published in a paper called the Parliamentary Critic.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know the letter. One of his colleagues read it to the committee the other day. It is a very brief one written in reply to one of several thousand letters that I have received. Hon. gentlemen will appreciate that when one is flooded with letters of this kind, he cannot sit down and in every individual case carefully consider the nature of the answer. I am not blaming anyone; I will quite frankly take full responsibility for the letter. It went out as one of many many hundreds. The expression in it which I suppose could be taken as an indication of one's mind being made up was not so intended. I think this house has known me long enough to know that I will perform my duties on that committee as fairly and impartially as it is possible to do. Probably there are few of us who have not rather strong views on many matters. My hon. friend is sitting over there, and I am sitting here, because he has strong views on certain policies and I have opposite views, and I presume we hold these views honestly; at least I accord to him quite sincerely that credit. I do not think, therefore, there is any particular need for me to explain that letter, other than to say just what I have said. The house can rest assured that anything dealt with in that committee will be dealt with fairly. But I will say that as chairman of it, and having some sense of responsibility as a member of this house and of my duty to the country, it is my purpose to pursue certain 
things vigorously and earnestly; I shall pursue them to their ultimate end with the one object of bringing out impartially the whole truth in regard to these matters.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member
who moved the resolution withdraw it? With the unanimous consent of the house the resolution is withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


TRADE WITH UNITED STATES
William Duff: That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the government of Canada reopen negotiations with the government of the United States of America with a view of bringing about a satisfactory reciprocal trade agreement between Canada and the United States, whereby the natural products of Canada, that is, the products of the sea, the farm, the mines and the forests, and including fish, lumber, wheat, cattle, etc., should have free entry into the United States in exchange for the admission of certain goods from the United States of America, which in the interests of both countries may be admitted into Canada, free from customs tariffs.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in rising to support
this resolution I would say that it is worded in exactly the same terms as one which I moved in this house last year. I think it will be agreed that on that occasion there was a fair and perhaps full discussion of this very important matter. At that time certain objections were made because I introduced the resolution in the manner in which I did and at the time I did. If I remember correctly objection was also made to the fact that I used the word "expedient," that in the opinion of this house it is expedient that the government of Canada reopen negotiations with the government of the United States. After the discussion I looked it up in the dictionary and found that after all is said and done the word "expedient" "is not such a harsh or unsuitable one; it means "desirable." So I could just as well have used the word "desirable"; it would have meant the same thing.
Further in regard to the wording of the resolution, may I say that as long as the government and this house will accept the resolution I am willing to amend it as far as possible so as to meet the wishes of the government and the house; I am not committed to any particular form of resolution regarding this very important matter. I do say, however, as to my reason for reintroducing it at this session, that I am sincere in the

Trade with United States-Mr. Duff
matter. I am not introducing it in any partisan spirit, but I feel, as I have felt for a great many years and did feel long before the reciprocity agreement was introduced in this house in the session of 1911, that it is in the interests of this country and the United States as well that these two countries, situated side by side, should do a greater volume of trade one with another on a reciprocal basis. Therefore I say that if it is necessary that the motion be amended in some slight degree I have no particular objection to that being done.
I said a moment ago that there were other objections raised last year. One was that when I introduced the motion it was premature. That might be, because at that time, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) pointed out, the government of the United States had only recently been changed, and the president-elect had not yet taken charge of the affairs of the government. Another reason given by the Prime Minister was that there was to be a world economic conference held in London, at which among other things the subject of tariffs was to be discussed. In his speech on that occasion the Prime Minister said:
But there is another reason, and I put it to the house as being, I submit, a conclusive reason why at this time, after this discussion, which cannot be helpful, we should not adopt any resolution that would involve the possibility of being taken as an indication of a division of opinion. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the other day directed attention to the fact that a draft annotated agenda for the monetary and economic conference had been issued. I indicated that while that is a draft agenda only, it is now published, and any person who so desired might * avail himself of the opportunity to read it. Among the items on that agenda for consideration you will perhaps recall that after some difficulty this was added:
5. Tariff and treaty policy.
A. Tariff policy:
(1)	Cessation of tariff increases.
(2)	Reduction of tariffs.
(3)	Special aspects of the tariff problem.
(4)	Method of procedure.
Now, sir, since the Prime Minister knew at that time what the agenda of the worid economic conference was to be, I can understand his reason for asking me then that my resolution should stand. As will be remembered, I had no opportunity either to withdraw it or to ask that a vote be taken on it. However, that conference met, and although the United States was represented there no action was taken in regard to tariffs. I think in view of that fact, and view of the serious situation in certain parts of this country, that I am justified to-night in raising my voice in
this house in order to try again to impress on this parliament and the government the necessity of arranging some reciprocal treaty with our great neighbour to the south.
I was pleased to-night when the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mir. White), speaking in regard to the flag, referred to a meeting in Saint John, New Brunswick, some fifty or sixty years ago at which meeting there were present James G. Blaine, a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, who was then Prime Minister of Canada. The hon. member for Mount Royal told us that at that meeting, in their speeches, referring to the flag, they both said there was no reason why the two flags should not fly side by side. If the United States flag and the union jack can fly side by side, is there any reason why this great country and the great country to the south should not be able to trade with each another more freely than they do? Look at the map of the northern part of this continent; if it were not for the fact that the two parts are in different colours most of us would not know where the United Stated ends on the north and where Canada begins; we would not know that Canada's territory ends at the forty-ninth parallel and that the United States begins there. Since Canada is divided from the United States only by the forty-ninth parallel, an imaginary lime, and the great lakes, is there any reason why New Brunswick should not trade with the state of Maine just as freely as New Brunswick trades with Nova Scotia? Is there any reason why New York state should not trade with the province of Quebec as easily as Quebec trades with Ontario? We might say the same of adjoining points along the border until we reach the Pacific coast and come to Point Roberts and the Fraser river dividing Canada from the United States. God and nature never intended that the United States and Canada should not have a fair and equitable arrangement whereby one could trade with the other.
There is no doubt in my mind that because of tariffs and restrictions existing between Canada and the United States, conditions in Canada are not as good as they might be. Since for the last fifty or sixty years we have had oeirtadn policies in Canada I can understand that it would be difficult immediately to do away entirely with those restrictions and barriers, yet I am fully convinced that the adoption of better trade relations between these two contiguous countries would be in the best interests of Canada and the Canadian people and the people of the United States.
736	COMMONS
Trade with United States-Mr. Duff
Although the rules will not; permit me to quote, may I say that in this chamber a speech was made only a few days ago in which this question was discussed. Answering some speeches which have been made by hon. members on this side of the house the Prime Minister stated that he would not sign a lopsided pact of reciprocity. May I say to him I am with him heart and soul in that statement. I do not want to see nor is there any need of any lopsided treaty. To my mind there is no reason why the peoples of the United States and Canada cannot get together and make a treaty or agreement which would be satisfactory to both countries. The argument was used that the reciprocal trade arrangement suggested in 1911 was not a treaty, but was only an agreement. I believe it was the Prime Minister who said that he would not agree to an agreement and that if anything was done it would have to be in the shape of a treaty. It is immaterial to me whether it is an agreement or a treaty because I am convinced that if an arrangement was made if only for a few months it would benefit a great many people in the Dominion of Canada.
Speaking on that point, let me say that I should like to give credit to this government for what it has done in connection with an arrangement for which I have argued, talked and fought for the last twenty years. I refer to the modus vivendi arrangement with the United States. For years I have tried to get that into effect. I urged the late government, the present one and the department to let United States vessels come into this country and do business so that they might buy bait and ice supplies, and land their fish in bond and send it to the United States. Last year, quite properly, this government decided that they would allow the United States vessels to do those very things I have mentioned. The government agreed to make that arrangement for a period of six months. If it was good business to make a modus vivendi arrangement for six months why would it not be just as good to have a reciprocity treaty for six months, a year, two years or as long as both contracting parties could agree?
My only objection to the modus vivendi is that in my opinion, so far as the maritime provinces are concerned-and they are most affected-from a business standpoint there is no reason why the government could not send word to-morrow to the government of the United States saying, "Come in as often as you like, stay as long as you like, and do as much business as you like with us." There is no reason why the government of Canada

should not say to the government of the United States, "We will let you bring your fish into Nova Scotia ports; we will let you land those fish and buy ice and boxes from those who make ice and boxes, and we will let you hire labourers to pack the fish and use our trains to carry them to their destination." Surely there could be no objection to that. And if it is good business to do that for six months, there is no reason why we should quibble as to whether or not a reciprocal trade arrangement is an agreement or a treaty.
I notice in the speech from the throne the following expression:
The temporary trade arrangements made with Germany and Austria have been further extended. Canadian products are now receiving most favoured tariff treatment in those countries in exchange for the grant of our intermediate tariff on their products.
Then if hon. members will turn to the estimates they will find that a vote of $200,000 is asked from this parliament to expand trade in European countries. Surely if it is good business to make an arrangement with Austria and Germany, if it is good business to vote $200,000 to extend our trade with those countries, is it not even more in the interests of the Canadian people to arrange to spend money, if necessary-and I do not think it would be necessary-to make an arrangement with the United States so that we may do business with the people on the other side of the boundary line?
If we could make an arrangement with the United States I can see no reason why our cattle should have to be shipped from Alberta to Quebec or Montreal and from those points overseas to the English market when, within three or four hundred miles of this country, ' we have a market. I cannot understand why other Canadian products should have to be sent long distances when we should be able to buy and sell in the United States market.
In discussing a resolution introduced to-day by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon), the statement was made that the United States had taken retaliatory action because of a certain agreement or treaty which was made a couple of years ago within the British Empire. I said two years ago, when the Ottawa conference was being discussed in this House of Commons and an arrangement had been made whereby if certain goods from the western prairies did not go entirely through Canadian channels they would have to pay a duty of six cents per bushel, that I was very much afraid the United States might adopt a similar measure under which they would retaliate against us for taking that action. I noticed the other

Trade with United States-Mr. Duff
day there was an effort in the United States to have the president put a ten per cent duty on all goods going through Canadian channels destined to the United States.
Mr, BENNETT:	May I correct the hon.
gentleman? That referred to the item which was passed in the first budget of Mr. Robb by which a ten per cent further preference was given if the imports came through Canadian ports, and the United States had some years ago introduced a measure to meet that situation. It was introduced again by a senator from Maine and had nothing at all to do with the Ottawa conference.


William Duff: I beg my right hon. friend's pardon; this is a different matter. In this instance the shipping board and shipping interests of the United States appealed not long ago to President Roosevelt.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Arising out of Mr. Robb's first budget.


William Duff: They represented to the president that in view of the fact that Canadian goods could not go through American ports without being subject to this duty on the other side, the United States government should compel all goods coming through Canada in bond and bound for the United States to pay a ten per cent duty. Let me give one instance of the effect that would have if by any means the United States decided to do that. Take, for instance, the silk trade. Train loads of silk which have entered Vancouver from Japan travel mostly across Canadian territory on their way to New York. It would mean that we should lose all that business if our government did not take action to make a satisfactory trade arrangement with the United States. That is what might happen.
I hold in my hand an interview which was given by the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Cordell Hull, to the Montreal Star, and which appeared in its issue of the seventeenth instant. The interview says:
Then the secretary launched into a general discussion of world trade in which he declared emphatically that any special agreements between nations or groups of nations, large or small, cause the total volume of world trade to drop, however much they may increase business between the particular countries concerned.
It continues:
In one part of the discussion. Secretary Hull as much as admitted that this nationalistic trend is a movement in the wrong direction when he said that the people of the United States are turning towards greater foreign trade as a way out of the depression, adding that "they have tried everything else and it lias failed."
There is no question, sir, that in the last number of years, and I think this is perhaps one of the reasons why we in this country have not been able to make a reciprocal trade arrangement with the United States, the government of that country under President Hoover and President Coolidge were in favour of very high tariffs for their own country and so stated. They felt that their resources were so great in the United States that they did not have to bother with any other country, and that they could live within themselves. I shall never forget listening to President Hoover's addresses over the radio during the 1928 election when he promised the farmers higher protection, and the fishermen higher protection, and the lumbermen and the manufacturers and everyone else. But Mr. Hoover woke up to find that his policy was wrong, and I believe in my soul that the United States to-day realizes that the policy of high protection will not get them anywhere and that they are willing, as Mr. Cordell Hull says in this interview, to make a fair trade arrangement with any other country in the world. He says further:
The world has been twelve years getting into its present difficulties, and it must be several more years getting out. At present we cannot find any considerable number of statesmen in the world who admit and are ready to meet the actualities.
They don't realize that any special agreements for preference rights between any particular countries, no matter how much they increase trade between those nations, decrease the total of world trade. But our own people are growing to recognize this. They have tried everything else and it has failed.
That is my own humble opinion, Mr. Speaker. We should not have these restrictions upon trade and tariffs especially against a great country like the United States where if we had a reciprocal arrangement we would have most to gain by dealing with them. I also feel that their market is so great that they can take everything that we want to sell to them on a fair basis, and consequently I say that this government and this parliament should do everything possible to make a satisfactory trade arrangement with that great country.
The other day when another subject was under discussion in this house, it was mentioned that due to certain conditions in this country there were certain agricultural products higher in price in Canada than in the United States to-day. Of course, that may happen in any country, but why has it happened in Canada? In my opinion the reason there are a few articles higher in price in Canada to-day than in the United States is


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am led to conclude, after listening to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Duff), who for nine years sat on this side of the house and found tariffs at the end of those nine years raised by the United States much higher than they were when he first came here, that after
all there is a great difference between the hon. gentleman's advocacy to-night and what it was some time ago. He might be good enough to explain how, after his distinguished leader had laboured so sedulously to bring about an agreement with the United States, at the end of nine years the tariff that was then high had been raised twice as high as it was when he came into power, and that notwithstanding the fact that the League of Nations reported, as was admitted in this house, that this is one country on the globe that twice reduced its tariffs.


William Duff: Because there was a high
tariff government in the United States during those nine years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And there has been no
change in the tariff since. On the first day of May last it was my privilege in this house to read a communication that had been agreed to between the President of the United States and myself. The last paragraph of that communication reads:
We have also discussed the problems peculiar to the United States and Canada. We have agreed to begin a search for means to increase the exchange of commodities between our two countries, and thereby promote not only economic betterment on the North American continent, but also the general improvement of world conditions.
In July the world economic conference met, and on the last day, namely, the fourteenth of July, the Hon. Mr. Cordell Hull, Secretary of State of the United States, who was the ranking head of the delegation from that country at the conference, laid upon the table the following communication:
Although the chief portion of its work is uncompleted, the conference is about to enter upon a recess. During and following this recess, it is hoped that the interested' governments will bring forward, through diplomatic or other channels, substantial proposals aimed to carry out ultimately the fundamental purpose for which the conference was called. I herewith forward a document which I hope will, along with others of a similar character that may come from other sources, receive the attention of those who have the duty of planning the continuation of the work of the conference.
This document contains the outline of a possible agreement for a protracted truce against measures restrictive of international trade. I contemplate that this truce agreement might be carried into effect when and as the conference truce-which, I understand, remains in effect among the adhering states during the recess-may end. This further truce may carry through the longer period required for the carrying out of the general aim of reducing existing barriers. The terms suggested are more precise than those of the conference truce. Other governments may quite
742	COMMONS
Trade with United States-Mr. Bennett
possibly feel that their national necessities would require them to add various points even to the substantial list of reservations and exceptions proposed. A continuing truce should serve to restrict new barriers to such instances of evident and unusual necessity as may arise, even while general governmental policy was aimed in the other direction.
It will be seen that in this document the American government indicates the precise test of necessity which it expects to observe before introducing any new restrictions that may seem imperative for the success of the domestic program of recovery upon which it is engaged. American policy will in general seek to further international commerce to the fullest possible extent compatible with the essential aims of this program.
The document advocates, furthermore, the immediate undertaking of reductions of the existing barriers by the encouragement of bilateral and of practical multilateral agreements. It does not attempt to put into legal form of agreement the terms of possible action; the difficulties of this require further discussion among governments.
lint it does attempt to limit with some degree of precision the exceptions and reservations which may be necessary.
It also sets forth the present American attitude towards other matters involved in commercial treaty negotiations, such as the most favoured nation principle and the possible special exceptions from that principle that might be allowed by governments to facilitate agreements for the lowering of trade barriers
I trust that these proposals will turn out to be a useful contribution to the long term plan of attack upon existing trade obstacles. Despite their limitations and imperfections, I am confident that their acceptance in substance would mark an important advance towards the restoration of international commerce.
The American government reserves the liberty in the course of any future discussion that may take place of modifying its attitude on details. Other governments will no doubt find that their approach to this question, as dictated by their own national situations, is somewhat different and may have modifications and additions to present. However, it is my hope that the governments will be able to adjust their national interests and necessities and devise means for achieving the general purpose upon which we have all agreed.
The sub-appendix which is to be found on page 52 of the printed document which I laid on the table the other day, contains the following:
American suggestion for the further development, during the recess and later stages of the conference, of a program on commercial policy.
Section 1. Are resolved, as a first step in carrying out this program, to endeavour to reach agreement, at the earliest moment favourable to such action, along the following lines.
Then follows a statement of what is to be agreed upon:
The participating governments agree not to introduce any new obstacles, direct or indirect, to the movements of international commerce, whether such obstacles are embodied in new

legislation or brought into existence by the exercise of administrative or executive power under existing legislation. The truce against new barriers is to become effective as between the countries participating in it but will not, subject to treaty obligations, bind participating governments towards those governments which do not participate.
Then follow exceptions (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), to which the preceding agreement shall be subject. Section 2, however, provides :
Are further resolved forthwith to initiate bilateral or (plurilateral) negotiations for the removal of prohibitions and restrictions and for reduction of tariff rates; and they declare that their aim in these treaties is substantial reduction of basic trade barriers, and not merely the removal of temporary and abnormal restrictions and increments imposed for bargaining purposes.
In shaping its policy and in executing its obligations under any agreements, each government should direct its first and greatest efforts towards eliminating restrictions and reducing duties which most clearly lack economic justification, particularly:
(a)	Duties or restrictions which now completely or almost completely exclude foreign competition, such as those which restrict importation of particular commodities to less than five per cent of the domestic consumption ther-of;
(b)	Duties or restrictions on articles the imports of which have' been substantially curtailed since 1929 as compared with domestic consumption;
(c)	Protective duties or restrictions which have been in effect a considerable period of time without bringing about a substantial domestic production of the protected commodities (say equal to 15 per cent of the total domestic consumption thereof).
Without following that in detail, as my time is limited, I desire to point out that in the language which was used in this house in the document which was communicated to the United States after my visit to Washington, we did not use idle phrases. In the nine months which have elapsed since that statement was made, informal conversations with Washington have been continued and several methods of improving trade relations between Canada and the United States have been carefully examined. I need hardly refer to what took place when the prohibition amendment of the United States was eliminated by popular action. One difficulty has been that President Roosevelt did not secure from congress at the special session which ended last June, new tariff bargaining machinery to facilitate the negotiation of trade agreements with foreign countries. At the time of my visit the early enactment of this legislation was expected. There are indications that legislation looking to the creation of that machinery will be sought at the present session

Trade with United States-Mr. Bennett
of congress and, if it is enacted, I hope negotiations for a trade agreement with Canada will be undertaken forthwith. Alternative means of improving tirade under the existing procedure have also been under consideration. This government is ready to accept any reasonable opportunity which may offer of trade on an equitable basis.
Further, it is a matter of common knowledge that the progress of President Roosevelt's domestic policies for the development of industry and agriculture have caused him to postpone the working out of his plan for the stimulation of international trade by trade agreements. Therefore, having regard to present conditions, having regard to what has taken place during the past nine months, having regard to the action now pending in the congress of the United States and having regard to what took place at the world economic conference and the attitude of the United States as dictated by the Secretary of State of that country, I move, seconded by the Minister Finance (Mr. Rhodes):
That all the words after the word "that" in the said resolution be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"on the 1st day of May, 1933, the Prime Minister informed this house that the governments of Canada and the United States of America had agreed to begin a search for means to increase the exchange of commodities between the two countries and thereby promote not only economic betterment on the North American continent but also the general improvement of world conditions, and while no trade agreement between the two countries has yet been arrived at, this house approves of the government continuing their efforts to that end."
That amendment embodies a record of the situation since my visit to Washington in 1933 and carries transactions down to the present moment, including the discussion, which I have not amplified to-night because of lack of time, of what took place at the world economic conference. I suggest to hon. members that it might be well to read the conditions which Mr. Secretary Hull indicated should be laid down in the making of any trade agreement. I can only add that any trade agreement that is arrived at between the United States and Canada must be based upon a fair and equitable understanding of conditions in one country by the other, and might I remind the hon. gentleman who has moved this resolution (Mr. Duff) that this is the parliament of Canada and not the congress of the United States of America.


William Duff: I do not think that is fair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Judging from what he has said and the way in which he has said it, one
would think he was merely indicating to this chamber that this parliament for some reasons unknown had prevented the United States from buying its requirements from Canada. In view of what took place under my predecessor and his efforts to negotiate a lower tariff trade agreement with the United States and of what has taken place since this government came into power, I can only once more remind this chamber that this is the parliament of Canada and not the congress of the United States; that the congress of the United States has to do with its tariffs and its duties, and the parliament of Canada, although the hon. gentleman has spoken as he has with respect to the causes that brought about the creation of two countries, has not yet the authority or power to legislate on tariff matters for the United States of America.
It is now eleven o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Prime Minister what the document is he quoted from a moment ago?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The document which I
laid on the table the other day, the report approved by the conference on July 27, 1933, reading at page 51, Mr. Cordell Hull's letter, and pages 52 and 53, the subappendix indicating what in his judgment should be the principles governing in matters of this kind.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 20, 1934