Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: I wish to present to the house a petition that has been forwarded to me. This petition comes from British Columbia and is signed by 10,800 people. The prayer of the petitioners is that the government may amend the elections act during this session so as to enable the men in the unemployment relief camps to vote at the forthcoming election.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 76 for the relief of Nora Ellen Moore McCabe.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 77 for the relief of Hildur Emilia Hill Soucy.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 78 for the relief of Ethel Ellis Callow Randles.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).

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

Mr. McPHEE:: 1.	How many employees are there in the soldiers' settlement board to be affected by Bill No. 62 (a) males; (b) females?
2.	What percentage of total employees to be made permanent are returned soldiers?
3.	What is the total administrative costs of soldiers' settlement board for 1933-34, showing (a) salaries; (b) travelling expenses; (c) stationery and' equipment; (d) rentals?
4.	What is the total number of (a) settlers with outstanding loans; (b) civilian purchasers of vacated soldier settlement farms?
5.	What amounts have been collected by this department by district offices exclusive of prepayment, year by year since 1927, from (a) soldier settlers; (b) civilians?
6.	What were the number of employees in this board when this government came into office?
Questions


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	(a) 245; (b) 88.
2.	98 per cent of the male staff.
3.	(a) Salaries	$ 591,687 03(b)	Travelling expenses.. ..	119,678 65(c)	Stationery and equipment 5,298 27(d)	Rentals

Indian Soldier Settlement.. ..	5,625 44

Note.-Office expenses in addition to above	 18,403 41
Total	$ 740,692 80
Rentals are paid by Public Works department.
Present annual rentals are $24,453.
4.	(a) Soldier settlers	 10,828
(b) Civilian purchasers		5,844
British families	 2,061
Leased properties	 1,980
Vacant properties	 538
Total	 21,251
5.	(a) and Ob)
1927-	28	
$3,452,104	511928-	29	
3,209,377	461929-	30	
2,727,697	621930-	31	
1,189,723	841931-	32	
1,169,045	351932-	33	
886,729	331933-	34	
969,056	141934-	35	
1,059,447	89
Information for civilians as apart from soldier settlers not available.
6.	526.


BANK OF CANADA NOTE ISSUE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the number of notes (a) English, and (b) French, issued by the Bank of Canada?
2.	How many French notes were distributed
(a)	in the province of Quebec, and (b) in the other provinces?
3.	Is the first issue exhausted?
4.	If so, on What date will there be a further issue of notes?


Mr. CAHAN (for Mr. Rhodes):: 1.	As at April 30, 1935-(a) $43,566,688.50;
(b)	$8,690,005.
2.	No record of circulation iby provinces.
3	and 4. The issue is a continuing one. The Bank of Canada has advised that adequate supplies of notes in both English and French

text have been shipped to all of its agencies and are being made available to the public, in accordance with demand.


MONTREAL PARCEL POST DELIVERY
Mr. POULIOT:: How many trucks begin parcel post delivery in Montreal (a) at or about 6 a.m., and (b) at or about 10 a.m.?


Mr. SAUVE:: Fifteen conveyances for parcel post service report for duty at the different postal stations at 7.30 a.m.
Truck service starts at around 6 a.m. and 10 a.m,. as the service requires for letter carriers' bundles and air service.


PARCEL POST DRIVERS' SALARIES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What salaries are paid to parcel post drivers (a) in Westmount; (b) in Verdun; (c) at Station II; (d) at Station R; (e) in Outremont; (f) for Delorimier; (g) for Station C; (h) for Hochelaga; (i) for the Centre; (j) for the West; and (k) for Notre-Dame de Grace?
2.	How many horse-drawn vehicles carry postal parcels in the city of Montreal?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	(a) $12 per week; (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j) and (k) $14 per week; (i) one at $14 per week and one at $15 per week.
2.	15 vehicles.


SUPERANNUATION FUND NO. 5
Mr. AHEARN:: Regarding the superannuation fund No. 5 as of date the 31st March, 1935:-
1.	What is the amount transferred during the year from the retirement fund?
2.	What is the amount of contributions for the year of employees including contributions on account of arrears?
3.	What is the amount contributed during the year by the government?
4.	What is the amount of interest earned during the year?
5.	What is the total amount of the receipts placed to the credit of fund during the year?
6.	What is the total amount of disbursements on account of annuities during the year?
7.	What is the total amount disbursed' on all other accounts during the year?
8. What is the balance standing at the credit of the fund?
9.	What is the number of contributors?
10.	What is the increase in the amount disbursed on account of annuities for the last fiscal year over the year ending the 31st March, 1930?


Mr. CAHAN (for Mr. Rhodes):: 1.	Nil.
2.	$2,140,409.38.
3.	$1,947,495.48.
4.	$1,745,19723.
5.	$5,833,102.09.

Questions
6.	S3,178,715.11.
7.	S148.S48.50.
8.	S46,654,105.08. 9 . 22,866.
10. 82,427,057.35.


WELLAND CANAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	What are the names, occupations and salaries of the persons employed by the government of Canada on the Welland canal?
2.	What is the country of origin of each of the above persons?
3.	How long had those persons been residing in Canada when they entered the public service?


Mr. MANION:: We would not have the nationalities of people working on the Welland canal, because nationalities are not asked for in employing men for work on that canal. I shall be glad to try to get whatever else is asked for in the question, but I do not think there is any way of getting the information as to nationalities.


YUKON TERRITORY RELIEF EXPENDITURES
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	How much money was expended in the Yukon territory out of the appropriation for relief purposes made at the special session of parliament, 1930?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the person or persons entrusted with the expenditure of such money?
3.	Who were the recipients of the relief granted?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	S19,998.29.
2.	G. A. Jeckell, Chief Executive Officer and Comptroller, Yukon territory, Dawson.
3.	See lists attached.


THE UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT, 1930
[Stage Direction]
Whitehorse district roads and Kluane junction to Minto section of the overland trail
In connection with the relief works carried out with the aid of the expenditures, payments were made for wages, materials, transportation, freight, team hire and board to the following:
Carvill, A.
Campbell, W. Dickson, Adam Ennis, E.
Grant, W.
Geary, L.
Good, R. J.
Good, Reed Gaulter, Frank, Jr.
Gideon, Mrs. Johnson, E. Koloff, T. Klondike Airways Ltd.
Mayer-Leason, F. Maher, W. McPherson, John Mack, Fred. A.
Mack, E. K. Puckett, W. A. Somerton, E. J. Skelly, G. Sewell, John
Thomas, R. Taylor, Wm. Towle, O.
Wilson, Frank Yellow Bus Line
Mayo district roads and the Klondike to Klondike section of the overland trail In connection with the relief works carried out with the aid of the expenditures, payments were made for wages, materials, transportation, freight, team hire and board to the following:
Alplanalp, J. Braiden, Jas. Bond, J.
Beaton, Mike Beck, Chas. Boyle, Wm. Barlow, O.
Booth, R. Brennan, Jas. Burns & Coy. Binet & Lefebre Binet Bros. Campbell, Sami. Clark, Jas.
Close, Archie Chisholm, Jas. Cody, Andrew Chasni & Shegrin Duncan, Geo. Danker, Jos. Darbolo, John Forbes, Wm. Grand, Oscar Gauvin, W.
Gunn, T.
Gergish, Jos. Graham, John. Gillespie, Frank Guilbault, W. Hale, Fred Henderson, H. Harvey, Thos. Hayden, W. S. Hardy, Thos. Hartrell, Mrs. Johnson, Chas. Jensen, P.
Jensen, C. Knutson, Geo. Keating, Thos. LeClaire, A.
Lefebvre, J. B. Matheson, A.
Moreau, Sam. Morrison, Don Miller, Oscar Melozevich, Nick McCIosky, Jas. McIntosh, Allan McLennan, Archie McLeod, Angus McLellan, J. P. McDonald, A. J. McVitae, Archie Mclnnes, Angus Noble, Hugh Northern Cmcl. Coy. O'Brien, Jas.
Rankin, Chas.
Reid, George Rohr, Harry Rankin & Dubois Sparks, David Stewart, Arthur Sinyard, Clem Stone, Chas.
Stewart, John Treadwell Yukon Coy. Turner, A.
Taylor & Drury, Ltd. Utilities, Mayo, Ltd. Van Cleaves, The Williamson, Thos. Walsh, J. R.
Waters, Jesse Wightman, Alex. Wickman, Eric Walby, Wm.
York, W.
Government of Yukon territory
Dawson district roads
In connection with the relief works carried out with the aid of the expenditures, pay-
Ascension Day Adjournment
[Stage Direction]
ments were made for	wages, materials, trailsportation, freight, team hire and board to the following:	
Anderson, S.	Lloyd, Jas.
Alcorn, Robert	Lawrence, A. N.
Anderson, Edward	Landreville, Max.
Bernard, Wm.	McDonell, Donald
Betzner, Samuel	McIntyre, Angus
Brown, John	Mahan, John
Burt, E. C.	Molstad, M.
Biggs, W. H.	Matheson, A. J.
Bigg, A. A.	Mills, Geo.
Cameron, Ewen	McCrank, Jas.
Campbell, Lawrence	Nicholas, J.
Collins, David	Nicholas, Mrs. J. W.
Collins, W. F.	Overhill, C. G.
Cardinal, Al.	Olsen, Chris
Carroll, Jas. F.	Price, Eugene
Case, John	Peterson, Charles
Coulombe, John	Readford, Wm.
Donohue, John	Rochester, Richard
Dawson Hardware	Richardson, John
Coy.	Strugar, John
Elliott, W. H.	Sart, Chester B.
Fothergill, Chris.	Sullivan, Wm.
Ferguson, Wm.	Slocum, George
Farr, Waldon	Svendsen, S.
Fulton, Geo. E.	Scaife, Robt.
Fournier, Eugene	Sharpies, Geo.
Fournier, Mrs. M.	Seagram, Chas.
Gray, John	Stadlbauer, Joseph
Hurst, Fred.	Smith, Geo. H.
Holmes, John	Skistad, Mrs. Nels.
Hawn, E. F.	Timm, Richard
Hill, J.	Thomas, J.
Hollenbeck, John	Tennelly, Wm.
Harrington, John	Thornbum, R.
Halkett, Duncan	Whitehouse, John
Hickey, E. E.	'Wadell, Thomas
Jones, Ben	Wallace, C.
LaChasseur, M. Lind, Gus	Zacaarelli, Ralph

Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Has Antoine Ouellet been dismissed as postmaster of Bosse post office, in the county of Madawaska, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, when was he dismissed, for what
reason, at whose request or demand?	_
3.	Who was appointed postmaster at Bosse post office, and upon whose recommendation was the appointment made ?


Arthur Sauvé: 1. No.
2. and 3. See answer to No. 1.


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. MICHAUD:: For a copy of paysheets relating to the work done to the wharf at Grand Aldouane, Kent county, New Brunswick, by the Department of Public Works, during the last fiscal year.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That when this house adjourns this day it stand adjourned until Friday, May 31st instant.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I am rising not to object to the motion, but to ask my right hon. friend if he could inform the house as to the intention oif the government, whether we shall be sitting or again adjourned on Monday next?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think we shall follow
the usual course, calling it six o'clock earlier in the afternoon and then resuming in the evening. That is my present intention if that is satisfactory to the chamber.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
my right hon. friend that I think we certainly ought to sit part of the day on Monday, and as nearly the whole of the day as mlay be possible.
Could my right hon. friend indicate whether what we have 'before us now, in the way of legislation on the order paper and proposed further legislation as set forth in the votes and proceedings, is sufficiently complete to enable us to form an estimate as to about the time at which the session will be concluding? I might mention that to-morrow it will be five years since the previous parliament dissolved. 1 believe that the people of the country are more concerned about getting an opportunity of expressing either their confidence or lack of confidence in the government, and their wishes as to the policies that are to govern in the future, than they are to have us continue here putting through a mass of legislation that cannot possibly, at this stage of the session and under existing conditions, be given the consideration it should. If my right hon. friend is in a position to indicate that he expects we will be able to complete the session fairly soon, that would I think meet with the approval of all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: While I suppose that
strictly the motion before the house is not subject to debate, I may say that having regard to what transpired on Thursday, May 14, 1931, and to statements that were made since by some hon. gentlemen opposite, I thought it desirable that we should make the motion that now stands in my name. It will be remembered that the house on Ascension day, 1931, divided upon this question, unfortunately, and some of the members left the house. Hence I have always thought it

Revaluation of Gold Reserves
desirable that some arrangement should be made that would be satisfactory to all parties. We did1 sit in 1933, I think with the general approval of the house.
As far as the question of this house proroguing is concerned I may say that I am [DOT]quite as anxious as any hon, gentleman to see it prorogued. As far as the question of an election is concerned, I have pointed out *on more than one occasion that if we are to permit those who will be entitled for the first time to vote to have their names upon the lists, the business could not be expedited beyond what has already been done.
With respect to the legislation still to be introduced, I think this house probably has had more ample opportunity to consider legislation arising out of the report of the royal commission and the committee of the House of Commons on price spreads than it has had with respect to most legislation. It will be known to all members that there are some bills that have yet to be introduced to carry into effect the recommendations made by that commission. During the recess the law officers of the crown, with such legal assistance as they thought necessary, have been engaged in drafting the legislation. It has all been drafted, hnd numbers of the bills have been considered by council and are now upon the order paper. I hope that by Friday next all the bills that arise out of that report will be ready for submission to the house on the succeeding Monday, and notice will be given accordingly. That is our expectation. To those who have studied the matter it is only necessary to point out that there are large numbers of enactments upon the statute books of this country that cover many matters that are recommended for consideration of this house by that commission, and it is a somewhat tedious and tiresome and lengthy process to follow them all through in [DOT]order that proposed legislation may not overlap existing legislation. However-, I think that will be concluded, as I say, so that on Friday we may be able to give notice of the remainder of the legislation that arises out of those recommendations. There are one or two amendments to existing statutes that have to' be made, as I mentioned the other day, but that should not engage the attention of the house for any great length of time. The resolutions arising out of the budget have not yet been enacted, I believe it was the intention of the Minister of Finance, if his health permits, to take those up on Friday in order that he may advance them as rapidly as possible.
I do not think there is any reason to believe that outside of the legislation I have mentioned and the legislation that is foreshadowed on the order paper with respect to a grain board, there is any other legislation of great significance, except as I have said some amendments to existing statutes, not of great importance, that will be submitted to the house. I confidently hope that by the middle of this coming week we shall have finished our efforts towards the enactment of legislation at this session. I can only assure the right hon. gentleman and members of this house that as far as we can we shall endeavour to facilitate the early prorogation of parliament, in order, as has been said by the right hon. gentleman, that the will of the people of this country may be made known.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I have a question to address to the
Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) whether in the recess of parliament an order in council was passed dealing with the valuation of the gold taken over from the chartered banks? If so, will the order in council be tabled?


Richard Bedford Bennett: While I was absent during that period, I have only to point out that there is no authority in the governor jn council to value gold at the present moment. One of the bills that may be submitted to the house is a permissive bill to come into force by proclamation in the event of it being thought desirable to revalue the gold reserves of the country. I have not any present intention of so doing, but it might well be that between now and the time the house meets again some government might regard it as desirable. My present intention is to submit to the house a bill, permissive in character, coming into force by proclamation, to deal with .that matter. I think I can assure the hon. gentleman that no order in council has been passed, because there is no authority to do so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My information is that an order in council had been passed pursuant to one of the sections of the Bank of Canada Act which gives the governor in council discretion to fix the valuation of a [DOT]certain amount of gold taken over from the chartered banks either at S35 or S20.67. I wonder if that order in council has been passed yet?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think perhaps the hon. gentleman has in mind an order in council that dealt with the percentage of the gold that the chartered banks had that was applicable
Price Spreads Commission

to their foreign obligations. I believe that an order in council was passed during the recess with respect to that. But it has nothing to do with the valuation of gold.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Can that be .tabled?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.



OREGON BOUNDARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I would direct the attention of the government to the fact that question No. 4 on the order paper was first read on April 15. .As the end of the session may be in sight I ask that consideration be given to this question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman has a clear
understanding of the implications of that question he will understand the difficulty in connection with an answer. Many inquiries have to be made with respect to it. It is a matter of first rate international importance, and a question of that kind is not usually asked in the House of Commons in that form. The question will be dealt with.
NATURALIZATION PAPERS On the orders of the day:


Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battleford):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State; whether in making application for naturalization papers it is necessary for the applicant to produce evidence that he is at present employed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Vallance: I hold in my hand three letters that have been sent to me from the west. The letters are from the Department of the Secretary of State and one paragraph reads:
In reply to your communication of the 22nd ultimo will you be good enough to state whether or not you are permanently employed? A letter from your present employer will serve the purpose.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: I will look into the matter. Many considerations enter into the question of granting naturalization and the fitness and qualifications of applicants. I do not know of the case to which the hon. gentleman refers, but if he will give me the date of the letter-


John Vallance: May 16.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -and by whom signed- Mr. VALLANCE: One by Duggan, and two by Coderre.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If my hon. friend will let me see the letters I shall look into the matter. rMr. Bennett.J
UNEMPLOYED RETURNED SOLDIERS On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre): I should like to ask whether the government have yet received the report of the Hyndman commission dealing with unemployment among returned soldiers, and if it is intended to refer that report to a special committee of the house.


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: The report has been received and probably will be deposited on the table of the house at the beginning of the week.
GLOUCESTER RETURNING OFFICER On the orders of the day:


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: I wish to direct the attention of some member of the government-J do not know exactly under which department the matter comes- to the conduct of the federal returning officer for the county of Gloucester. The St. John Telegram of May 28 contains the report of a Conservative provincial convention held in Gloucester county, which was presided over by Mr. A. V. Landry. Mr. A. V. Landry is the federal returning officer for the coming election, and I wish to direct the attention of the government to the actions of this gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Immediate action will be taken in the matter.
PRICE SPREADS COMMISSION On the orders of the day:


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). On April 12 the report of the price spreads and mass buying commission was laid on the table of this house. This report was based not only on the evidence taken by the commission but also on the evidence given before the special committee set up by this house last year to investigate these matters. On April 15 the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens) moved the adoption of this report. My question is this: Is it the intention of the government to afford this house an early opportunity to vote on this motion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. gentleman knows that a motion to adopt the report of a commission is not in order; surely he is aware of that fact. The mere fact that a portion of the evidence used by the royal commission

Beam Trawlers
was taken by a committee of this house does not change or alter in any respect the fact that this is the report of a royal commission. That is the position of the matter.
Possibly I should add that the hon. member for Acadia must realize that the adoption of a commission's report involving the expenditure of public moneys, creating a charge on the public revenue, would be wholly out of order, because it must be preceded by a resolution with regard to the specific item.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then why has it appeared on the
order paper for the last two months? That is all wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will be discussed when the order is called.



PREVENTIVE SERVICE SEARCHES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) inquired as to the activities of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the highway running from Sherbrooke to the international boundary on May 24 last, and the hon. member sent me a note requesting me to make a statement in the house to-day in regard to the matter. I have obtained a report in regard to the situation, which I will read to the house:
Tradespeople of Sherbrooke, Quebec, have made numerous verbal complaints to members of our local detachment to the effect that their trade is seriously affected because of the habit of many local residents of proceeding to shopping centres across the south of the line and failing to report their purchases at the local customs ports of entry when returning to Canada. The majority of the traffic passes across the line at Rock Island and Beebe, Quebec, and the offenders usually take special advantage of public holidays, when the volume of traffic passing through those ports will not allow a thorough check to be made of their ears at the Canadian customs, and when the local collectors have, to some extent, to rely on persons voluntarily declaring such goods, as required by the customs regulations.
In an endeavour to curb the traffic a check up of cars passing along the Rock Island-Sherbrooke highway is made periodically, usually at holiday times, and the results have justified the action taken.
At all times the searches are carried out with tact and courtesy and seizures are not effected even when justified, unless the value of the goods makes such action essential. The usual course followed is to direct the parties concerned back to the port and have them pay the duties and taxes which should have been paid when they were returning from the United States. If the terms of the Customs
Act were strictly followed' the goods and cars could be seized and held pending departmental decision and the guilty parties are liable to prosecution.
Incidentally, careful check has to be kept of traffic on this highway at all times, as will be realized by the fact that within the past six months a total of 270 gallons of alcohol smuggled in cars from the United States, as well as a truck and a car for transporting the liquor, have been seized. This traffic will have to be carefully checked during the coming season as last fall it reached large proportions along the entire Sherbrooke and Huntingdon sections, -when several thousand ga.llons of American alcohol were seized' in transit, being conveyed by automobiles.
It is not our desire to unnecessarily embarrass or hamper honest citizens or ;ourists, in the carrying out of our duties, but it will be realized that the primary function of the preventive service is the safeguarding of the revenue and of Canadian business from unfair competition through the evasion of duties and taxes properly payable. The fact that only one or two actual seizures have been made, whereas approximately a hundred cases could have been so reported in the past year, indicates our aim to curtail the smuggling in the interests of local merchants by educating the people regarding the necessity of complying with the customs regulations, rather than by effecting seizures in the particular type of case in question.
The total gallonage of American alcohol seized in the Sherbrooke and Huntingdon sections since April 1, 1934, to date, was 6,036, which was conveyed in three trucks and seventeen automobiles which were also seized for transporting the smuggled spirits.
That is the report given me by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.



BEAM TRAWLERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):: I wish to direct a question to the acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Stirling) arising out of a resolution which I placed on the order paper this session an.d which was discussed by this house on February 6 of this year. The resolution read:
That, in the opinion of this house, in the interests of the fishermen of Nova Scotia, no permits should be granted or renewed with those who own and operate beam trawlers in in the province of Nova Scotia.
At the request of the acting minister the resolution was referred to the committee on fisheries. I find that on May 22 that committee made a report which dealt with another matter, and which contained these words:
Your committee has agred to report that, whereas the royal commission on price spreads and mass buying has investigated the subject
Weights and Measures Act

matter of the said resolution and made a report thereon, which may be the subject of discussion and consideration by parliament-
As I assure you it shall be so far as I am concerned.
-your committee is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by further investigation of the said matter by your committee at the present session of parliament.
The question I wish to direct to the minister, or through him to the chairman of the committee, is whether that report was concurred in. by all the members of the fisheries committee or whether the matter was delegated to a sub-committee and, if so, who were the members of the sub-committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question will stand as a notice, but I do not know that it is customary to answer questions in this house as to how committees may divide in the determination of their business.



CUSTOMS EXEMPTION FOR TOURISTS

[Stage Direction]
On, the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napierville):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews) if the government have studied the advisability of granting an exemption of $100 to Canadian tourists returning from the United States, as has been the practice in the United States with regard to tourists returning from Canada.


Hon. R. C. MATTHEWS (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my hon. friend I would say that that question has been studied by every government for a considerable number of years.


Vincent Dupuis: Is it the intention of this government to grant it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will proceed with No. 24 on the order paper.


Vincent Dupuis: I want an answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You got it.


An hon. MEMBER:: He wants it improved.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. 70, to amend the Weights and Measures Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)-Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 9-Regulations.
The CHAIRMAN:: Shall section 9 carry?
Section 9 agreed to.

On section 10-Penalty for short weights, measure or counts.


Mr. RALSTON:: I thought the minister was going to suggest an amendment to section 9.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: No, I
withdrew the proposed amendment to section 9, which deals with section 52 of the act, and gave notice of a substantive section to be added as section 81 (a). We will reach that later.
Section 10 agreed to.
On section 11-False or unjust weights.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does the interpretation of this section include consideration of expansion and contraction? At times some people may, even in good faith, give a little less on account of certain physical phenomena. Does the minister take that fact into consideration? Otherwise the legislation would be unfair to people acting in good faith.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This section does not cover the point raised by the hon. member, but I understand the condition is taken care of by a thermostatic device used in testing scales, and that in that way an allowance is made for the matter the hon. member has mentioned.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does this device apply to the measuring of gasoline which as a result of differences in temperature is being sold to the public in false quantities?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is taken care of by legislation relating to the commodity, but not to the device by which it is measured. We do not deal with that situation under this statute.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where is it being dealt with?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am told it is not being dealt with, at all. If it is to be considered it will have to be considered by other legislation; at all events it is not contemplated by this bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the minister if it is his intention to consider the tremendous loss suffered by the consuming public, especially in regard to gasoline, occasioned by differences in temperature.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Naturally, consideration has been given to the matter.

Weights and Measures Act
I must state frankly that my attention has not been called to it before but now that it has been I shall give instructions to have consideration given it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must thank the minister for his answer. The matter was called to the attention of his predecessor in office, and I am under the impression that it might best be dealt with by amending the Weights and Measures Act. Although I am not sure, that was my impression.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am advised that it cannot be done in that way. It will have to be done some other way. However I shall certainly look into the matter; this is the first time I have heard of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does a definition of false and unjust weights appear in the act?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, there is no definition of false and unjust weights, but there is-*


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, judges cannot interpret legislation of that kind. If false and unjust weights are not defined, then it would be impossible to give a proper decision. This goes to show how badly and carelessly legislation is being drafted by people who know nothing about drafting it at all. Here we have a provision concerning false and unjust weights. A judge may say, "What is a false or an unjust weight?-the law does not show it." Here we have a bombastic gentleman saying that we are to have a new deal. What is there in a new deal, if the government does not define what is wrong? The minister states there is no definition of a false or unjust measure. Did the price spreads commission sit almost a year for nothing? The most important part of the legislation is to have a definition of the offence. The minister is an able lawyer, but he comes to this house with third-rate legislation respecting weights and measures, and we find that the definition is missing. How does the minister expect the law to be applied or a penalty imposed if a false or an unjust weight is not defined. Would he be kind enough to explain to me what his interpretation would be if he were on the bench and hearing a case of this kind?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I shall do the best I can for the hon. member, but I do not guarantee to satisfy him. Under section 64 there may 'be two classes of cases coming within the provisions of the statute.


Jean-François Pouliot: What section?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Section 64 of the act, which we are now amending. At the present time we are amending it in one particular, namely that of increasing the penalty for violation, as recommended by the royal commission on price spreads. That is as far as we have gone. There are two classes of cases which come under section 64 which deals with false or unjust weights. In the first instanoe an unjust scale means a scale with a mechanical manipulation capable of making the scale weigh unjustly, and the second interpretation is a proper scale improperly or unjustly operated through not being kept in true balance. These are the two types of cases which come under the section, and I believe the statute as it now reads has worked efficiently. There has been no demand for any change in that respect. All we are seeking to do in the amendment to section 64 is to increase the penalty for violation.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I should like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that the offences indicated under sections 65 and 66 are in their nature more serious than those indicated in sections 63 and 64. I would suggest that those sections be amended so that the penalties would be at least as serious as the penalties under the first two sections I named.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be true, but I would point out to the hon. member, who is a lawyer, that under sections 63 and 64 mens rea or intent to defraud is not an integral part of the offences, while it is under sections 65 and 66. The department has made a distinction because of that reason.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is exactly what I am saying.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: I did not
understand it in that way.


James Lorimer Ilsley: An offence where mens rea is a necessary element is a more serious offence. You have this situation. A person who innocently has an unjust scale in his possession is subjected to the heavy penalties prescribed by this legislation, while a person who wilfully commits a fraud under section 65 or wilfully makes or sells or causes to be made or sold any false or unjust weight is subjected to only a slight penalty which is utterly out of keeping with the seriousness of the offence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think the question is a practical one. I

Weights and Measures Act

understand that there has not been a prosecution under section 65 or section 66 for years. It is a matter of opinion; perhaps the hon. gentleman is right; I am not going to back my opinion against his. The question does not arise at the moment under the legislation now before the house. We are trying to follow in this regard the report of the royal commission. That is the only observation I can make in regard to it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 12 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
On section 15-Size or capacity of containers, etc., to be in terms of dominion measure.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to make an observation in regard to this section. This is a departmental amendment and is altogether new, and public attention I think ought to be drawn to it. The amendment, as will be observed by the note on the opposite page, is designed to prevent the sale and use in Canada of articles such as domestic measuring cups, water bottles, preserving crocks, and so forth, in foreign wine sizes. For example, the wine five-gallon preserving crock contains only four and one-sixth imperial gallons but it is sold as a five-gallon crock and competes with and undersells the larger Canadian five-gallon crock. That is not fair. If we are to have the imperial gallon in this country we ought to carry it through to its legitimate conclusion. The intention is to stand on the imperial gallon in Canada.


Robert Gardiner: May I inquire what provision is made by the department for the dhecking of these measures in order that they may be absolutely correct? A complaint was made to me some time ago that the cost of stamping utensils as measures for liquids was very considerable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: These
utensils are not measures at all, but they are examined at the time of importation or at the factory if they are made in Canada, and I understand that there is no fee charged for that.


Robert Gardiner: But is there not a fee in the case of measures that are stamped?


Richard Burpee Hanson: If it is inspected as a measure there is a charge, of course, for that, but the utensils referred to are not considered measures and the intention is so far as possible to eradicate the use of them as measures but not as utensils.
[Mr. R. B. Hanson.j


Mr. BROWN:: There is no intention, I understand, of preventing their use as utensils?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, just as measures.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think the section does what the minister thinks it does.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps not. but the officials are of the opinion that it does.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 16 and 17 agreed: to.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Last night we had a discussion in committee on the advisability of providing penalties by regulation. The sense of the committee was against that theory, and I am quite in accord with the view of the committee. But there are a few clauses of the bill in respect to which there is imposed no penalty, and it is thought by the department that it is necessary to have a general clause near the end of the bill which will provide for a penalty where it is not specifically provided for under the section. I therefore shall ask one of my colleagues to move the following amendment:
That the bill be amended by adding thereto
at the end thereof the following as section 18 of the bill:
"81a. Any person who acts in contravention of any provision of this act or any regulation made thereunder for which no express penalty is provided shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not less than ten dollars and not more than twenty-five dollars for the first offence, and not less than twenty-five dollars and not more than one hundred dollars for a second offence, or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months."
I have inserted the word "express" so that it reads, "for which no express penalty is provided" because the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr, Ralston) suggested that.


Hugh Guthrie: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


James Layton Ralston: What is the penalty for
the second offence?
Mr. HANS'ON (York-Sunbury):	Any subsequent offence might be a second offence.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Is there imprisonment
for the first offence?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Section 82 provides for the procedure. It provides for the recovery of penalties under the Summary Convictions Act. It does not provide for

Industrial Disputes Act
imprisonment but for execution or levy, unless it is otherwise provided for. I will read section 82:
All penalties imposed by this act or by any regulation made under this authority, shall be recoverable with costs-
(a) before any civil court of competent jurisdiction, by any person who shall sue for the same, and in such case the amount of the judgment, if not forthwith paid, may be levied by execution and Sale of the goods and chattels of the offender; or
(ib) if the penalty does not exceed fifty dollars by summary conviction before any justice of the peace for the district, county or place in which the offence is committed, and, if the penalty exceeds fifty dollars, by summary conviction before any two such justices.
That is any official having the authority of two justices of the peace, as my hon. friend knows. The section proceeds:
Subject to the provisions of this act, the provisions of the criminal code relating to summary convictions shall apply to all prosecutions for penalties.


John Campbell Elliott: I am obliged for that
explanation but as I heard1 the amendment read it did not strike me as being very clear as to whether or not there was imprisonment for the first offence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No imprisonment for the first offence, and I dio not think there ought to be. The amendment now before the chair, section 81A, would cover minor offences. The major offences would come under sections 63 and 64. As I construe the amendment the imprisonment attaches to the second offence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is
not very clear.


John Campbell Elliott: It was not clear as I heard the amendment read whether the imprisonment related to both the first and the second offences.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
it follows the ordinary construction that imprisonment would apply only to the second offence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But that is not very clear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
only giving you my opinion for what it is worth, and perhaps it is not worth very much.


John Campbell Elliott: It could easily be made
clear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If there is any doubt I think it ought to be made clear, and I will ask the Justice department to
92582-200J
do it. I think I could do it just as well myself, but I will ask them to do it and put the responsibility where it belongs. If they come to the conclusion that it is necessary to clarify it, we can deal with it on the third reading.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister" of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 71, to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Minister may in certain cases, with or without application, order a board or recommend an inquiry.
Mr. MITCHELL:: I should like an explanation of the phrase "subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada." Does this mean that this legislation will cover every industry in the country which receives benefits under the tariff or otherwise, or will it apply only to companies holding dominion charters?


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, this bill was originally drawn up in the Department of Justice and if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) will permit me I should like to explain the situation. On pages 136 and 137 of the report of the price spreads commission is a long and elaborate recommendation in connection with the extension of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act more generally throughout Canada, if possible to embrace practically all industries operating in the dominion. Careful consideration was given to this recommendation and a bill was drawn to carry out this recommendation in full. The opinion of the law officers of the Department of Justice was taken in regard to the matter as well as the opinion of two very able constitutional lawyers, Mr. Tilley, K.C., of Toronto, and Mr. Aime Geoffrion, K.C., of Montreal. The opinion of the departmental counsel as well as of the two gentlemen whose names I have given was that if the bill was drawn up in conformity with the report of the price spreads commission it would be beyond the powers of the parliament of Canada. It therefore became
Industrial Disputes Act

necessary to limit the operation of the bill by inserting in the first clause the words, "where in any industry subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada," when certain things arise certain things shall be done. I do not need to state that there is no use in attempting to go beyond our legislative jurisdiction and it is for that reason that these words were put in the section.


Mr. HEAPS:: What will be the effect of this legislation as compared with the present act upon any disputes which may arise?


Hugh Guthrie: If my hon. friend will read the section as printed and as it appears in the former act he will realize the difference. In the former act no single individual or the minister by his own motion could take action. This has been provided for in this bill, to apply to those industries which come under the control of this parliament. It is well within the knowledge of the committee that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act as it appeared upon our statute book has been declared ultra vires by the judicial committee of the privy council. Acts very similar to the dominion act have been passed by various provinces and it is supposed that with the aid of these provincial acts there will be certain jurisdiction still remaining in the dominion. Where the constitution of this country expressly permits the provinces to do certain acts and excludes the dominion from interfering in such matters there is no such thing as concurrent jurisdiction. This parliament cannot devolve its powers upon the provinces nor can the provinces hand over their powers to the dominion. There is no conflict in the bill as it is now drawn and in the opinion of counsel it is within the constitutional powers of this parliament. We have gone as far as we could to carry out the recommendation of the price spreads commission and have made no attempt to override the clear constitutional authorities of the provinces of Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not want the minister to imagine for one moment that I am not sympathetic to this legislation, in fact I only wish we could make it mandatory across the whole dominion. I realize the limitations of this bill when it comes to .a practical application in connection with any dispute. I believe there are at present three provinces- if I am wrong I hope the minister or some other hon. member will correct me-which would come within the provisions of this legislation, Manitoba, Alberta, and perhaps one other province. The major portion of the country, therefore, particularly in so far as
	.
population is concerned, would not come within the ambit of such legislation. Personally I feel, sympathetic as I am to the basis of this legislation, it might have been a good thing had we attempted to bring about the end sought by amending the British North America Act and having the power confined to the federal parliament to pass legislation of this kind, so that there would be no doubt as to its validity. The minister in discussing the matter stated a moment ago that the provinces cannot delegate to the federal parliament the powers they possess. If that be so it is very doubtful whether the legislation which they have passed handing over their powers in respect of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is not ultra vires of the provincial legislature.


Hugh Guthrie: Very doubtful.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In this case this legislation has a very real effect in that if there is a dispute, it gives to the parties to it, or even to the government, an opportunity of appointing a mediator or someone who may step in and arbitrate or in some way attempt to settle the dispute. But if we are now attempting to do something that will eliminate disputes in the dominion, we should have attempted something more heroic than what is contained within this bill. I do not want to go into the other aspect of the question, 'that is as to dealing not merely with effects; I would rather see the government and parliament deal with causes and not so much with effects, because we could then make a great deal of headway towards the elimination of disputes before they even show themselves on the surface. I am naturally in favour of this legislation; I am in favour of anything that attempts to eliminate disputes, but I wish we could find some more heroic way of dealing with the whole situation than that contained in the bill now before the committee.


James Layton Ralston: From the advice the Minister of Justice has received, what industries does he think would be subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada within the meaning of this section? Is it his advice that this applies to companies incorporated under the Dominion Companies Act?


Hugh Guthrie: I would not go so far as that.


James Layton Ralston: What then?


Hugh Guthrie: Anything over which this parliament is expressly given jurisdiction, such

Industrial Disputes Act
as railways, telephones, telegraphs, shipping, matters of that kind, and I think also in regard to corporations incorporated under the laws of this parliament who do foreign trade, for instance, thus bringing the matter within the realm of trade and commerce. But I agree that a great many industries in Canada would not come within this provision at all; it is limited.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If parliament has a right to create tariffs for industries, has it not the right to step in when disputes arise?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not agree with that. I do not think I would go that far.


Humphrey Mitchell: As a matter of fact the bill as drawn at the moment does not touch the fringes of the problem brought out by the price spreads commission; we might as well be frank about the matter. I am not going to discuss the jurisdiction aspect of the question. This bill is perhaps a step in the right direction. All it touches is transportation and to some degree foreign trade, but as regards going to the heart of the situation brought out by the price spreads commission, the bill does not mean a thing. I think that is a fair statement to make. Frankly, I believe the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is the best act of its kind in the civilized world. I believe that is a fair observation to make. I was under the impression that the provision in the bill "subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada" would bring within its orbit those undertakings that expressly came within the purview of the price spreads commission and matters that in the judgment of that commission needed to be rectified. I can see the force of legislation of this description and I believe, in view of the proposed amendment, it could be made a really constructive measure if it included within its scope the industrial organizations and life .of this country. Frankly I believe this is more or less in conflict with section 16 of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. I have had some experience with this legislation and I could never see why it was necessary to take a strike vote in order to ask for a board of conciliation or arbitration. It might be as well to read the section. Subsection 2 of section 16 reads:
. .. that the necessary authority to declare such lockout or strike has been obtained; or, where a dispute directly affects employees in more than one province and such employees are members of a trade union having a general committee authorized to carry on negotiations in disputes between employers and employees and so recognized by the employer, a statutory declaration by the chairman or president and
by the secretary of such committee setting forth that, failing an adjustment of the dispute or a reference thereof by the minister to a board, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the declarants a strike will be declared.
I believe if that part of that section were eliminated, it would be a real step forward in an effort by the government of Canada to meet at least some of the difficulties that have been revealed by the price spreads commission. I believe the mere taking of a vote is a joke; you go into a meeting possibly with a clear understanding that you do not intend to strike, but you have to vote to strike in older to comply with the act. If negotiations have reached the stage where there is a deadlock between the two parties, it is more honest and in my judgment better policy to admit that frankly to the minister and let the board be set in motion in a normal way rather than go through the formality of a strike vote with all that that implies in the minds of the people of this country. I would put forward that suggestion, which I bblieve is a sound and also a constructive one, to the government in connection with the amendment of this legislation. I am disappointed that the scope of the amendment is not broader in regard to the industrial life of the dominion and particularly with regard to the findings of the royal commission on price spreads.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: I am fully conscious of some of the technical difficulties in carrying out in their entirety the recommendations of the royal commission on price spreads, but there is a phase of the matter under consideration that I should like to direct to the attention of the minister. I think we all agree with the principle that if a strike can be prevented through any channel of mediation, that is for the benefit of the employee, the employer and the whole community. That principle is adopted in this bill, but as drafted it refers only to a matter of mediation or the appointment of a board of mediation in respect to disputes arising in connection with subjects over which the federal government has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. Would it not be possible to have the amendment to the act apply to industrial disputes of all kinds whether in relation to matters under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces or of the federal government by a provision to the effect that such board shall be appointed only where complementary legislation is passed by the province concerned? That is not a new principle.
Before dealing with this, let me point out to the committee that the members of
Industrial Disputes Act

the royal commission, in submitting their recommendations on this subject, were impressed with the necessity of the powers of mediation being as wide as possible. Where a board is appointed only in respect to matters over which the federal parliament has legislative jurisdiction, it simply, as the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) has intimated, touches the fringe of the situation. We felt it was desirable that such boards should be set up to deal with disputes in whatever realm of jurisdiction they arose. Let me refer the minister to the old bill. I think conflict of legislation arose in connection with the administration of the former act, and that was overcome by an amendment. I refer the minister to chapter 1.12, section 3, subsection (d). Section 3 provides:
This act shall apply to the following disputes only:-
And then it enumerates them. In the final subclause (d) it provides that the act shall apply to:
Any dispute which is within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of any province and which by the legislation of the province is made subject to the provisions of this act.


Hugh Guthrie: That is still in the act.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, I
realize that. That is the force of my argument, if there is any force to it. Why can we not in this amendment, instead of limiting the matter of setting up boards to questions over which the federal government has legislative jurisdiction, open it wide, with that provision already in the act? If we open it up wide, assuming for the moment that the government under this act is asked to set up a board in connection with some dispute within provincial jurisdiction, that province can pass complementary legislation.


Mr. NEILL:: Have they done it?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Just a
moment. That province could pass complementary legislation an.d then we could deal with it. You had the same thing in connection with old age pensions; it was held that the federal government had not jurisdiction to impose them upon the provinces, but under the act there was set up machinery whereby the federal government would contribute to old age pensions provided complementary legislation was passed by the province.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The point is extremely important; I wonder if it occurred to the hon. member as chairman of the com-

mitt-ee to get in touch with the provinces concerning the matter, so that it could be embodied in the legislation before the report came down,?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It was not a question of getting in touch with the provinces. We investigated and reported what we felt should be done; it is then, I think, a matter for subsequent negotiation with the provinces where it is considered that complementary legislation by the provinces is necessary.


Mr. GRAY:: Has not that been decided adversely in connection with the Marketing act in Saskatchewan?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am aware of that. The hon. member for East Hamilton has dealt with the situation in a very practical way, apart from the technical difficulty. I suggest to the minister who has charge of the bill, further consideration of the possibility of making a provision that will apply to all industrial disputes, subject to complementary legislation being passed by any province affected, where the matter under dispute is one which comes under the provincial jurisdiction.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy) will know that in many provinces they have acts dealing with industrial disputes. I do not know offhand which provinces they are, but I believe Ontario and Quebec have such acts.


Hugh Guthrie: All the provinces except Prince Edward Island.


Abraham Albert Heaps: So there is here some conflict of jurisdiction between federal and provincial legislation. To-day when a dispute occurs there is nothing to stop the parties from asking the federal government to appoint a board of arbitrators, irrespective of the provisions of this act. It has been done in the past in many instances, I believe, where the contest does not come within the provisions of the act, and I believe in some cases boards of arbitrators have been, appointed with no mandatory power but merely at the request of the parties. I know that has been done in Winnipeg and I believe in other parts of Canada.
I should like the minister to tell us what provinces to-day have what you might call concurrent legislation in connection with the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. And could the minister inform the committee as to how many boards were appointed by the Department of Labour say in the last year to mediate in disputes, and where, province by province?

Industrial Disputes Act


Mr. GORDON:: As to the first question, all the provinces of Canada except Prince Edward Island have passed legislation similar to this dominion legislation.
As to the second question, of course I have not the figures before me, but I agree with what has been said by the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) with respect to this legislation. It provides a method which in my judgment is the best possible to prevent or circumvent industrial trouble. I have had occasion to authorize the setting up of a great many boards in the last four years. The important thing is getting employer and employee together quickly, before they get in a temper and perhaps say things about each other that they really do not mean, and drift far apart. If you do not get a board set up [DOT]with expedition great losses will occur by reason of the tying up of work. The present act, so far as it goes, and as far as the industries it affects are concerned, is probably as near perfection as legislation of this kind can be. The purpose of this amendment is not to take away anything that is at present in the act, but- rather to widen its scope as far as this parliament can. do so.


Humphrey Mitchell: If I may ask a question at this point: How much wider is it to-day
than it was yesterday?


George Gordon: Well, with respect to complaints, say.


Humphrey Mitchell: The machinery is there now; it already exists. If by the amendment there is no extension of jurisdiction it does not mean anything. I am a great believer in this form of legislation. .Section 16 of the act gives all the power that is needed. Unless the purpose of this amendment is to broaden the base of application of the legislation it means nothing. I understand from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) that all this amendment deals with now is jurisdiction and nothing else. The act has not been broadened. I thought the government would bring within its operation the steel companies, the textile companies, all these enormous aggregations of wealth and capital which derive benefit from the federal government through the instrumentality of the tariff. I am not well versed in the legal aspects of the question, but I think that if these companies can come to the federal government for benefits under the tariff it would be sound policy to bring them within this legislation so that the people employed in those industries could meet them on equal grounds.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not gather that that was the recommendation of the. commission.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is what I understood.


Hugh Guthrie: We have tried to follow
the recommendations of the commission. In the clause as originally drafted we did not have any restriction about jurisdiction. I think I am safe in saying that the best legal opinion in Canada was obtained, and these lawyers declared that the section as drafted, in accordance with the recommendations, was beyond the jurisdiction of this parliament. The remedy suggested was that we put in the words of limitation which appear at the beginning of the clause. 'It must be borne in mind that this is an amendment to only one section of the present act and that the rest of the act stands for what it is worth. Section 3, referred to by my hon. friend, stands just as it has stood. Very serious questions still arise as to the validity of that act, even with the aid of provincial legislation in eight provinces of Canada. If the provinces have the jurisdiction I am afraid that disputes will have to be settled under provincial jurisdiction, but this act has served a good purpose, because it is not being challenged and has not been challenged for some time past, and its operation has been very satisfactory. But the price spreads commission recommended certain things in regard to section 65, and we have sought to meet these recommendations by the legislation brought down, without interfering at all with the rest of the act.
Mr. NEII'LL:	The only broadening of the
section, as I understand it, is the addition of the words "or complaint," is it not?


Hugh Guthrie: The words underlined.


Alan Webster Neill: It is provided that action
may be taken by the minister in regard to any dispute, strike, lockout, and as now added-or complaint.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I read the section it does not alter the scope of the act at all but it does give the minister an additional power with respect to complaints of a certain character, namely complaints regarding intimidation or discrimination. I think my hon. friends who have spoken will agree that in labour disputes the questions of intimidation and discrimination are highly vexatious to labour, and a fruitful source of industrial disputes, and that undoubtedly the interests of labour will be furthered by giving the minister an additional power to intervene on his own initiative where complaint is made to him that discrimination or intimidation is going on. As I read the section that is
Industrial Disputes Act

what it does. It does not enlarge the scope of the act or remove any of the present provisions but it does give the minister the power to act on his own initiative in regard to that particular class of complaints, a class which I imagine means very much, particularly to employees in industrial concerns. So far as it goes the section in this respect is helpful, but I think it would be a mistake to over-emphasize what it amounts to.


Mr. CHURCH:: I hope this bill will appeal to all parties in this house. New section 65 is a practical, reasonable, sensible section. It not only leaves the machinery of the original act; it adds to and strengthens that act by bringing in the federal inquiries act. It also gives the minister power to start an inquiry on his own initiative. During the time I was a municipal officer I saw a couple of hundred strikes, and I believe an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in these matters. So I congratulate the minister upon having brought down this amendment.
Before I conclude I should like to ask one question. In view of the decision of the privy council in 1923 in the leading case in this connection, Snider versus the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario, will this section apply to municipal public utilities such as light, power and transportation? As I see it there is nothing in this particular decision to prevent the Minister of Labour holding an inquiry into any industry or any municipal undertaking anywhere in the dominion under what is known as the Inquiries Act. Under this act boards are appointed to investigate many matters which are not federal in their scope. I should like to point out that many municipalities have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in public utilities such as light, power, transportation. water works and so on. Will this amendment apply to them, in view of the decision of the privy council?
I believe that in these matters the procedure should be carried through as rapidly as possible, and under this amendment the minister can act at a moment's notice, ahead of any lockout or strike that may threaten. He can have his officer under the Inquiries Act on the ground before there is any strike or lockout. The moment he receives a complaint, even if it is from only one employee, the minister can take action. He need not wait for the lockout or strike actually to happen; he need not wait for a formal complaint. as has been the case in the past. Previously it required an affidavit containing a formal complaint and there was an elaborate rMr. Mackenzie Kim?.]
procedure that had to be followed, with the result that sometimes weeks went by before action was taken. So I congratulate the government on bringing down this amendment. By adding the Inquiries Act to the present statute they have brought about a new order of affairs that is badly needed in this country, and that I believe was never needed more than at the present time when there is so much unrest.


Mr. MERGIER (St. Henri):: I followed the argument of the Minister of Justice very closely, and I agree with him that section 65 is constitutional and not ultra vires, because it contains these words:
-subject to t'he legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada-
When I look at the French version of the bill, however, I find that we have no such bill at all; the French version is unconstitutional and ultra vires because those words have not been translated. Section 65 is translated as follows:
Cbaque fois que, dans un industrie (qu'elle soit ou non une industrie a laquelle s'appli-quent d'autres dispositions de la presente loi), une greve ou un lock-out est declare ou lui parait imminent.
I am surprised that this should happen after what we were told wrhen the new translations bureau was formed.


Hugh Guthrie: I am very glad that my attention has been directed to this point. The bill referred to by my hon. friend is the bill that was originally drawn and submitted to counsel, and upon which counsel's opinion was taken, as I stated this afternoon. It is not the bill which was introduced in the house, because those words that are in the English version are in the bill that was introduced, and those words should be in the translated copy. I introduced a bill yesterday in regard to hours of labour. On the files to-day, however, I find another draft bill, not the one I introduced yesterday at all. I directed the attention of the clerk to that fact to-day, but evidently the same thing has happened in regard to the bill to which my hon. friend has just referred.


Paul Mercier: This is the bill that is on the table for distribution to members of the house.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know where the mix up has occurred but they have printed the wrong bill.


Paul Mercier: Then I would ask the Minister of Justice to see that the French version is corrected.

Industrial Disputes Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reference to the drafting of this bill may I ask the Minister of Justice the purpose of the word "such" in line 26. I have read the section several times but I cannot see to what person or persons the word "such" refers. In the original bill the expression was "some person," which seems to me the correct expression. Perhaps my hon. friend can tell us to whom the word "such" relates.


Hugh Guthrie: I think "such" is the correct expression.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To whom does it refer? The section reads:
-the appointment of such person or persons-
Does that mean the person who makes the complaint?


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: Does not the word "such" apply to the words "as a commissioner or commissioners under the provisions of the Inquiries Act"?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who are "such persons"; does it relate back to some persons previously designated?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The paragraph reads in part:

the minister on the application of any municipality interested or of the mayor, reeve or head officer or acting head officer thereof, or of his own motion with or without application of either of the parties to the dispute, strike, lockout or complaint whether it involves one or more employers or employees in the employ of one or more employers, may establish a board' under this act in respect of the dispute, strike, lockout or complaint or may in any such case, if it seems to him expedient, either with or without an application from any interested party, recomend to the governor in council the appointment of such person or persons as a commissioner or commissioners under the provisions of the Inquiries Act to inquire into the dispute, strike, lockout or complaint or into any matters or circumstances connected therewith.
Surely there must be some qualifying words?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, some word should
be in there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest the
words "as he may deem proper."


Hugh Guthrie: " As he may deem
proper" should be in there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, "as he
may deem proper" I should think would be correct. Either that, or leave the word as it was. The original clause mentions the appointment of "some person"; that is all right. "Some person" would cover it.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, it should be "some
person," as it was in the former section.


George Gordon: I move, therefore:
That section 65 be amended by striking out the word "such" at the end of line twenty-six and substituting therefor the word "some."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacNicol):: Just
a moment, please. The clerk informs me that the amendment should be in writing.


Hugh Guthrie: It is only a clerical error. We continually amend clerical defects without handing in written motions. If it is the wish of the committee the amendment could be agreed to without a written motion.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. FACTOR:: The intention of the price
spreads commission is clearly set forth at the bottom of page 136 of the report. The first paragraph reads:
The appointment of boards of investigation should be encourabed not only when an industrial dispute threatens but also when complaint is made that improper intimidation or discriminatory action has been taken either by employers or workers.
I believe this section covers the first part of the recommendation. But section (ii) of the report recommends that-
... a wider range of industries and occupations should be brought within scope of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, or some related inquiries act. The dominion should have authority to investigate any industrial situation which may either endanger general economic welfare or create avoidable social unrest.
Under the old act the industries subject to the act are specifically mentioned. In the present instance, however, we find the words "subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada." That expression is used, instead of specifying the industries.


Hugh Guthrie: The industries are still
specified. We have not changed the act in that particular.


Samuel Factor: May I ask the Minister of Justice how the words "subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada" in any way widen the range of industries and occupations?


Hugh Guthrie: It does not widen it in any way; it rather has a limiting effect.


Samuel Factor: Well then, that is the
point I wish to make.
Industrial Disputes Act


Hugh Guthrie: If my hon. friend would turn to the report he has just read he would find that the last sentence of paragraph (ii) at the 'bottom of page 136 reads as follows:
The dominion should have authority to investigate any industrial situation ...
But, if we have not authority, what are we going to do about it?


Samuel Factor: The only thing done by the present amendment is that it narrows the scope of the former legislation.


Hugh Guthrie: We are providing a remedy for the first recommendation read by thie hon. member a moment ago. He was satisfied with that.


Samuel Factor: Yes it does that. But so far as the second recommendation goes, admitting that the dominion has no jurisdiction, by putting in the words "subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada" we are narrowing the scope.


Hugh Guthrie: No, we are leaving it as it is, but we are making it definite that this section applies only so far as our legislative jurisdiction goes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: With respect to the point raised by the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell), namely as to whether or not this measure broadens the basis of investigation, may I say that although I do not presume to speak for the minister I did have an opportunity to study the act and to discuss it with him. I understand there is a broadening effect. I would draw to the attention of the house that the title of the statute is "An Act to Aid in the Prevention and Settlement of Strikes and Lockouts in Mines and Industries connected with Public Utilities." I am informed, upon inquiry, that in giving their views as to the scope of the act the law officers of the crown have held that section 65 of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, as it stands, applies only to disputes affecting mines and industries connected with public utilities, as defined in section 2 (f) of the act. Under this section authority is given to the Minister of Labour, without application from either the employers or employees affected to establish boards of conciliation and investigation, either "on application of any municipality interested, or of the mayor, reeve or head officer or acting head officer thereeof, or of his own motion."
The main object of the present amendment, as I understand it, is to permit the establishment by the Minister of Labour of boards of conciliation and investigation to

deal with disputes arising in other classes of industry. In support of that view I refer the ' house to the second line of the amendment to section 65. Hon. members will note that it reads:
Where in any industry subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada-
And then in parenthesis-
- (whether or not it be an industry to which other provisions of this act apply).


Samuel Factor: Can the hon. member name me any other industry which would be covered under the new amendment-I mean an industry other than those mentioned in the old section?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am not in a position to give a list of them, but I have indicated the intention as I understand it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not know much about the constitutional side of the matter, and I am afraid that so far the discussion has not enlightened me. I am coming to the conclusion that the act is widened to a very slight extent by allowing those who have complaints to make them to the Minister of Labour who, if he so desires, may then appoint a committee to investigate. As an ordinary layman, Mr. Chairman, reading part of the new section dealing with the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, I cannot for the life of me make that fine distinction which the lawyers of this house make in regard to that question. We have the power to deal with practically every industry in the Dominion of Canada by way of the tariff. We find the owners of industry coming to the government and parliament of Canada and applying for tariff protection or for a reduction of tariffs. They also get subventions, and in many other ways industries are helped through the legislative action of this parliament; but when it comes to a question of a trade dispute in that same industry we are told that we have no jurisdiction at all. That is a very fine point which the average citizen cannot understand.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that if we have vested in this parliament the power to enact tariffs of fifty and one hundred per cent protection for an industry, then when that industry is not paying a reasonable or fair wage to its employees we have got in our hands a very potent weapon with which to compel the industry to pay its employees a fair wage and provide reasonable working conditions. Take, for instance, the textile industry, using that term in its broader scope. I think it is generally understood that we give to the textile industry anjnvhere from fifty to one hundred per cent

Industrial Disputes Act
tariff protection, and yet we have in some branches of that industry some of the worst conditions we know of so far as labour is concerned. A perusal of the evidence that was given before the price spreads commission will in itself be a substantiation of the statements I am now making to this house, and what I am attempting to find out is this: If we have legislative jurisdiction over this industry by way of the tariff, and then one branch of that industry has a dispute with its employees with regard to wages or working conditions, have we not the power at least to appoint a committee to investigate the conditions in, the industry and to arrive at certain conclusions, and then if the industry will not live up to the conclusions of that committee surely we have the power to take away from the industry the protection which parliament has given it? I think we have that power, and I think that the mere threat by the government to take away the protection that is granted to an industry would immediately bring that industry to time and compel it to provide fair and reasonable conditions for its employees.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to interject at that point? If the federal government has the power to investigate these matters affected by tariffs, this amendment does not deny or take away from that power in any respect.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am saying that we have the power to give these valuable considerations to the industries of this country, and in the bill now before the committee the term is used, " subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada," and I cannot see how we can legislate for an industry in one sense and not in another. There is that fine distinction which it is difficult for the ordinary layman to understand. I claim that if we have the power to legislate for the purpose of providing an industry with the high protection it is receiving we ought to have the power, if not of fixing wages, at least of setting up a board of arbitration of some kind to investigate the conditions in exactly the same way as the commission on price spreads investigated industry.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If the hon. member will permit me, the reason that the federal government has legislative power to enact tariffs is because it is specifically set out m the British North America Act which gives the federal parliament jurisdiction over trade and commerce. Tariffs affect international trade, and so the jurisdiction there is very clear.


Mr. BURY:: My hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has overlooked this fact. These labour disputes he speaks of are disputes in specific establishments. Tariffs deal with laws relating to all establishment* of the same kind, and what my hon. friend is asking is that the tariff and the authority of parliament over tariffs should be used for the purpose of enforcing fair working conditions in particular individual establishments. That is impossible. Tariffs deal with the whole trade of Canada. They deal with the trade and industry and the industrial interests not of any one particular establishment in an industry but of every establishment in that industry. Some establishments may be perfectly fair and honourable and humane in their conditions of work and wages and so on, while others may not be, and you cannot pick out one industry and treat it one way by means of the tariff and treat another industry under the same tariff law in another way.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I realize the force of the contention of the hon. member and it has been given considerable weight in times gone by, but in these days with the concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands, and with the same concentration to be found in industry, there is not the same force in that argument as there might have been twenty-five or thirty years ago. Take, for instance, the textile industry as a very striking example. How many different concerns are there in the textile industry in this country? You may find three or four, but if you will look at the names of the directors you will probably find a number of interlocking directorates in those industries. In the cotton goods branch of the textile industry you will find very little of a spread of the industry across the country, so that if the employees in that industry were adversely affected I think the threat of tariff action by this parliament would in itself be sufficient to bring about fair and reasonable conditions in the industry. What applies to that particular industry is becoming applicable more and more to a great many other industries. I admit that there may be some force in my hon. friend's argument in connection with some industries, but generally speaking to-day the greater concentration of wealth and capital in fewer and fewer hands in my opinion gives this parliament in the tariff a very powerful lever by which to see that the recommendations of the price spreads commission are given practical application.
Industrial Disputes Act


Hugh Guthrie: I think that my hon. friend's difficulty is what he first stated to the committee: if we have not the power now to do what the price spreads commission have reported we should amend our constitutional act. There may be some reason for doing so, but we have not as yet amended it, and we have not quite found the way to do it. My hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) must remember this, that the customs tariff comes under the jurisdiction of this parliament because the British North America Act says that this parliament shall have exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the customs tariff of Canada. On the other hand, the provinces are given exclusive jurisdiction in all matter's of property and civil rights within the province. All matters pertaining to labour conditions, hiring and service and matters of that kind which generally lead to strikes, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the province under, property and civil rights within the province. That is the difficulty of the situation. We may be able to overcome it some time by an amendment to the constitution, but we have not done so up to the present time, and it is for that reason that this clause in the bill has been limited in the way it has. There may be a great deal of force in my hon. friend's argument. I do not say there is not, but we are going just as far as the constitution will permit us in carrying out the report of the commission.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not
at all convinced that there is not a method in the hands of any ministry at least to enforce fair wages or even go so far as to aid in the settlement of disputes by exercising the same jurisdiction which they have in granting tariffs in the withdrawing of those privileges. I see no reason, for example, why in the event of a dispute in the textile industry, as my hon. friend from North Winnipeg has suggested, the Minister of Labour should not in company with the Minister of Finance have a conference with the employers affected. It could be pointed out that in most cases protection was granted because it had been stated that higher wages were paid here than perhaps in New York state, in Japan or even in Great Britain, What is to prevent any government from going to these manufacturers and telling them that unless they keep their part of the unwritten contract there will be withdrawn from them that special privilege which constitutes a tax upon all the people of the country? For the life of me I cannot see any invalidity in that proposal and any ministry which really had the interests of the masses of the workers
[Mr. Heaps.!
at heart would have no hesitation in using such a weapon. It is an apparent one, it is one which can be simply operated and one which can be used most effectively. Not long ago I remember a very extended debate which continued over several sessions in connection with the steel industry. I can remember hon. members who are now sitting in the seats of the government, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), then leader of the opposition, being very strong in their protestations against the increases in the duties on steel and iron products then being introduced by the Liberal party. Hon. members protested against these duties being put into effect before fair wages and decent working conditions obtained in the industry. A virtual obstruction of the house took place, one with which I thoroughly approved, but unfortunately at the last moment, for reasons with which I am not fully acquainted but which I believe were partly due to pressure brought to bear by the management of the British Empire Steel Corporation and others, there was a withdrawal of that opposition. At that time the Prime Minister and many of his faithful followers strongly urged, as we are urging to-day, the use of the tariff for the purpose of enforcing fair wages and fair working conditions upon any industry. What was a good' and sound policy then is surely a good and sound policy now. All the arguments raised by the other side of the house do not invalidate the position then taken.
There is a further point which was raised a moment ago by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). The right hon. gentleman stated that this amendment provided an extension of the industrial disputes act through permitting boards of arbitration to be set up in connection with complaints as to discrimination or intimidation. I should like to know from the Minister oif Labour (Mr. Gordon), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) or the leader of the opposition the proper procedure to be followed in the case of discrimination of the character which I shall now relate. I received a letter from the United Brotherhood of 'Carpenters and Joiners of America, local union No. 1779, Calgary, Alberta, which states:
Contractors opened lists for the carpenters who had worked for them at various periods and many workmen hoped that after waiting many months for the work to begin, that at least they would be able to get a few days employment. Now we are to understand that the only hope of ever getting work on the barracks job is when his name is on the approved list which is furnished to the contractors.
The members of local 1779 request that when parliament is opened that a protest be

Industrial Disputes Act
vigorously made against the practice of using this patronage list, as it is debarring carpenters who are loyal and have been citizens of this country for the last twenty-five to thirty years, also a large percentage of the members being ex-service men. Owing to this approved list being used certain carpenters are being given employment by the various contractors on the scheme, thereby making it impossible for others to get employment.
There is a clear case of discrimination which is now being presented to the ministry.
I do not know all the facts but I should like to know if the minister will appoint a board of arbitration to investigate this charge of discrimination in connection with the construction of a public building under the jurisdiction of this government. If it is possible to do this, why has it not been done?


George Gordon: The bill has not been
passed.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
minister undertake that when it is passed he will make a proper investigation of this complain!; and if these patronage lists are being used, see to it that they are done away with at once and provide a fair opportunity to carpenters and other craftsmen to obtain employment on jobs of this kind irrespective of political affiliations?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING; Has my hon. friend thought of the possibility of having the public accounts committee called together and of referring this complaint to it? This has to do with the expenditure of money on public works and the complaint of discrimination could be immediately dealt with in that way.


Edward Joseph Garland: I hope it
will be dealt with in some way.
Mr. GORDON; If this bill becomes law and a proper complaint comes before me, there will not be any doubt about my taking action.


Edward Joseph Garland: This is a
proper complaint. I will furnish the minister with a copy in writing of this complaint which comes from a responsible brotherhood local,


George Gordon: I am not challenging that
Mr. MITCHELL; Would that particular complaint come within the jurisdiction of the present act or as it will be when this amendment passes? I think it will be found that the legislation is so circumscribed that it will be just too bad for these carpenters when they endeavour to have a board of conciliation appointed.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I should like to add a word
or two to what I said before. I have the utmost sympathy with the principle that where in any particular industry generally there prevails a condition of low wages or poor working conditions the tariff should be used as a weapon of correction but I do not think that the tariff could be used as a weapon to end every strike which might occur. I suppose in nine cases out of ten strikes occur in individual establishments and I am afraid it would be absolutely impossible to use the tariff as a weapon in this connection, as suggested by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). However, it can be used and I think it should be used to see that conditions in industries which are protected are such that the workers receive a proper wage and work under proper conditions.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is a very good suggestion to come from the hon. member. If we had fair working conditions it would not be necessary to appoint these boards. The evidence submitted before the price spreads committee and commission showed that in the most highly protected industries the poorest working conditions prevailed. Before the government gives such tremendously increased tariff protection it should see that the conditions prevailing in any industry are such as to entitle that industry to the protection. If fair working conditions prevail I am sure that there will be but very few disputes; with fair working conditions I am sure we could get along without the legislation now before us.


Edward Joseph Garland: Should this legislation pass, is it intended to set up regulations and forms to govern complaints which might be made? Is there to be any particular form of complaint regarded as being necessary?


George Gordon: The section does not prescribe any set form that would have to be followed by an applicant. Anybody can complain and the simplest sort of a letter, the simpler the better, would do.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In case of a complaint, is it compulsory for the department to appoint a board of arbitration?


George Gordon: When a complaint is received under this section, the minister may, if it seems to him expedient, appoint a person under the Inquiries Act to inquire into the matter. I do not think the hon. member himself, with all his desire to advocate the position of labour, would suggest that the provision should be mandatory, because this
Industrial Disputes Act

is giving to an individual the right to complain and one can easily see that if there was no discretion at all and it was mandatory that an inquiry should be set up on every individual complaint, we would have, I am afraid, to enlarge the capacity of the Labour department.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I quite understand that, but a question arises out of the answer of the minister. Could he tell the committee how many requests during the past twelve months were made to the minister for a board of arbitration and were refused?


George Gordon: I assume what the hon.
member means is requests for boards of conciliation?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes.


George Gordon: At the moment I cannot remember one. There may have been some. Many disputes as defined under the act have arisen, but fortunately they have been settled and determined through the efforts of the conciliation officers of the department. It may be that boards, where it was possible to settle disputes in that way, were refused, but I cannot recollect any particular one. I do not remember where, when a board was applied for and the applicants complied with the statute, such a board was refused.


Humphrey Mitchell: The question raised by the hon. member for Bow River about complaints brings up an entirely different aspect of the matter. Who is going to decide? Take the question of a union shop, a closed shop. A couple of individuals make a complaint against a trade union under this section of the act which provides "either by employers or employees." The danger in the premises put forward by the hon. member for Bow River in my judgment is that it strikes at the very roots of organization on the part of the workers. I would like to know what was the necessity of inserting the word "employees." If the majority of the employees are organized in a trade union and some chaps outside it want to interfere in the strike to the detriment of the members of the trade union, I question whether those added words are going to be of any benefit.


Edward Joseph Garland: Before the minister answers, I assume the hon. member for East Hamilton does not wish to put words into my mouth. I did not raise the point, I asked the question. I understand the minister's reply has led to the peculiar

situation raised by the hon. member for East Hamilton. I certainly would not endeavour to undermine the prerogatives of organized labour.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I would like to invite from the Minister of Justice an expression of opinion as to a point I raised a little earlier in the discussion, namely, whether with the aid of complementary legislation from the provinces it would not be competent for the federal government to set up boards of conciliation to settle industrial disputes whether they came exclusively within provincial jurisdiction or not.


Hugh Guthrie: It would be competent to set them up and they might do good service, but if they were challenged in the courts, I do not think they would be worth anything.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Would it not be desirable as a step forward to broaden this amendment instead of limiting it to industries subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, a provision which puts the clamps on it and confines it? These words were not in the legislation before; they now confine these matters subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. In my view they rule out the possibility, even with complementary legislation passed by the provinces, of investigating industrial disputes that come exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. So I suggest to the minister that the scope be broadened and that there be no limitation to matters coming exclusively within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. If cutting out that provision does not add to our jurisdiction, yet it does not limit it, and we find, if we do not limit it to matters coming exclusively within federal jurisdiction, the provinces will be glad-this may be a pious hope and I may be too optimistic-to cooperate in passing complementary legislation under which, as the Minister of Justice has indicated, much good service may be rendered to industry. If it is held upon challenge to be unconstitutional, then we shall know definitely whether it is an amendment to the jurisdiction as set forth in the British North America Act that we should press for.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is already covered in the act. Section 3, paragraph (d) reads:
Any dispute which is within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of any province and which by the legislation of the province is made subject to the provisions of this act.

Criminal Code Amendment


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: But section 65 has inserted in it the provision:
Subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have followed with interest what the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Kennedy) has said and I gather he is suggesting that a provision such as this be inserted after the word "Canada" in the second line of the section:
Or which is subject to the legislative jurisdiction of any province and declared by the legislature of that province to be subject to the provisions of this act.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Exactly.
Mr. ILSLEY. The section would then read as follows:
Where in any industry subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada or which is subject to the legislative jurisdiction of any province and declared by the legislature of that province to be subject to the provisions of this act-
And so forth. I would call the attention of the Minister of Justice to that so that he may give it consideration and see whether it would effect the end desired by the price spreads commission and by the hon. member for South Winnipeg. If he would like to move it I will second it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I realize in a Saskatchewan case-I think the Minister of Justice is familiar with it-that was recently decided, it was held that a province could not, by declaring a matter within its exclusive jurisdiction to be federal, make it federal; in other words, a province could not detract from its own jurisdiction and hand it over to the federal government, or vice versa. But I do not know that that is the final word on the matter. While that is a weakness, yet I think we make progress only by meeting these difficulties when they arise, and if it will do no harm to broaden the scope of this act and if there is a possibility of real service being rendered to industry, to employers and employees in the community, it is well to do so.


Hugh Guthrie: My fear is that if we pass that amendment we take a very serious chance on the whole clause. We have submitted to council a clause that we believe will stand the test. I would not like to weaken it now by inserting something that is highly controversial and that in my opinion would render the clause useless.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 73 to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Sections 1035 and 1081 not to apply.
Albert Joseph Brown: I understand the purpose of this section is to make it obligatory upon a magistrate to impose a gaol sentence upon anyone driving an automobile while under the influence of liquor. Is the minister satisfied that this section will accomplish that purpose? I understand that sections 1035 and 1081 refer to exceptions that may be made in the imposition of gaol sentences and that this clause does away with those exceptions so that the imposition of a gaol sentence will be obligatory. I think this offers an opportunity to bring to the attention of the committee and of the country a very serious condition of things. To my mind the man. who operates a motor car while under the influence of intoxicating liquor is a potential criminal. I am fully in sympathy with the law being applied to the utmost in imposing a gaol sentence upon a man who causes an accident while driving an. automobile when he is under the influence of drink. But there is a serious aspect to the matter which I do not think the public as a whole considers; that is it has never yet been decided how to determine when a man is drunk and when he is sober. So long as this confusion prevails the evil resulting from the use of intoxicating liquor is not going to be remedied. I saw a statement the other day to which I think the committee should give serious consideration, that so long as the idea prevails that a man is not drunk so long as he can stand on his feet, just so long will the statistics concerning the connection of alcoholic liquors with motor accidents be valueless. They are entirely useless because of that attitude on the part of magistrates. That is the situation which confronts us. It has been proven by scientific test that the first drink is the dangerous one.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Albert Joseph Brown: I know this becomes a subject of ridicule, but that has been proven, that the first drink of alcohol incapacitates a man from acting quickly.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Does the hon. member speak from his own knowledge?

Criminal Code Amendment


Albert Joseph Brown: A man loses his ability to come to a quick decision. We know that an accident may happen or be avoided within a few seconds of time. It is not a matter of minutes but of seconds, with the speed at which motor cars travel now. While I am perfectly satisfied that the intention of this legislation is good I do not think it will accomplish the desired end so long as many magistrates take the position they do, that a man is not drunk so long as he can stand up. I say again that scientific tests have proven that a man's ability to come to a quick decision is seriously affected from the time he takes his first drink.


Mr. COTNAM:: Will you explain1 the scientific test?


Albert Joseph Brown: At the moment I have not got the information at hand.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: May I ask the hon. member whether the first drink ever had that effect on him?


Albert Joseph Brown: I have not taken the first drink yet, if the hon. member wants to know.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Albert Joseph Brown: I did not intend to make that statement, but since it has been drawn from me, I do make it. I want to bring this to the attention of the committee, that it has been proven beyond question that a man's ability to come to a quick decision is affected the minute he takes a drink of alcoholic liquor.


Mr. MALONEY:: My hon. friend has made a very serious statement, something that many of us never heard of before. We desire greatly to have the authority.


Albert Joseph Brown: I know the tests have been made again and again; just at the moment they are not under my hand but there is no question that as long as magistrates refuse to recognize a man as being under the influence of intoxicating liquor as long as he is able to walk, any statistics we have as to the connection between alcohol and motor accidents are absolutely valueless.


Hugh Guthrie: This section is drawn for the purpose of clearing up any difficulty which may have arisen in respect to penalties imposed under section 285, subsection 4 of the criminal code, which provides:
Everyone who while intoxicated or under the influence of narcotics drives any motor vehicle or automobile or has the care or control of a motor vehicle or automobile whether it is in motion or not shall be guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction for the first offence to a term of imprisonment not exceed-

ing thirty days and not less than seven days, for a second offence to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months and not less than one month, and for each subsequent offence to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year and not less than three months.
It has been held by magistrates in various parts of Canada that under the provisions of section 1035 of the act they are still permitted to impose a fine instead of the penalty of imprisonment, and fines have been imposed in some cases that have been brought to the attention of the department. In one part of Canada it has been decided by magistrates that under the provisions of section 1081 they are entitled to suspend sentence altogether in cases arising under section 285, which I have just quoted. I am satisfied that it was not the intention that these sections should apply to the offence mentioned in section 285, subsection 4, and in order to clear up the matter and make it definite this amendment to the criminal code is proposed. If the amendment is adopted it will not lie within the power of magistrates either to impose a pecuniary penalty or to impose what we call suspended sentence. There is no other amendment of the section contemplated.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask who recommended this amendment?


Hugh Guthrie: I think it was the
attorneys general of two provincial governments.


Albert Joseph Brown: Is there not just this possibility, however, that since a magistrate will be obliged to impose a gaol sentence he will be even a little more lenient in judging as to a man's condition while driving an automobile?


Hugh Guthrie: I think our magistrates will carry out the law without fear or favour. We do not appoint them; they are appointed by the provincial governments, but I think on the whole they try to do their duty.


Thomas Langton Church: On April 17 I gave notice of an amendment to this bill, which is reported in the votes and proceedings of that date, but in view of the amendment introduced by the minister I wish to withdraw my amendment. But I hope that during the recess something will be done in addition to what is proposed to-day with regard to these motor accidents. Two or three people are killed daily in the larger cities of the country, and I think public opinion demands some further legislation along these lines. I also hope

Currency Act Amendment
that something will be done with regard to level crossings as well, and that this is only the start of modern legislation to help check the great loss of life on our highways throughout Canada.


Mr. ROSS:: It seems to me the punishment in regard to these cases is hardly correct. A man who has been convicted once should not be given an opportunity to offend again; I do not think he should be given a licence after the first offence.


Hugh Guthrie: That would be a matter for the provinces.


Arthur Edward Ross: Quite so. I do not agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown); so far as I know the tests are the opposite of what he indicated. A person is first stimulated; then when the depression begins it always takes effect upon those centres which are the latest developed; that is, speech is one of the latest. First the speech is stimulated; then the speech is one of the first faculties to become depressed.
There is one point that has not been dealt with, and that is a definition of just what "under the influence of a narcotic" means. You can easily detect whether or not a man has been using alcohol, whether it is his first or his hundredth drink, but the question of narcotics is a very dangerous matter. A man may have an ordinary dose of a narcotic and suddenly, without any fault on his part, he may become numb and depressed and unable to exercise his mental faculties. I think it would be a very dangerous thing, under this provision, to rule that imprisonment should be the punishment. It is not the same thing as intoxication; there is an absolutely normal dose of a narcotic which will affect different people in different ways. The same may be said about alcohol, but it is a fact that under certain conditions a moderate dose of a narcotic administered even by a doctor may have a very depressing effect upon the man and may cause an accident. It would be very severe to punish a man for something for which he was not responsible. I think every doctor in this house will agree that a dose of a narcotic may have a peculiar effect upon even an ordinary normal man or patient, and that a normal dose may bring about a very abnormal result. I do not say anything in favour of intoxication but I do think it is rather dangerous to sentence a man to imprisonment when suffering from a condition such as I have mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Making untrue or misleading statements to procure a passport.
John Campbell Elliott: I wonder if I might say
a word with regard to section 1, which was passed before I noticed that it was the clause to which I intended to object on the ground that it is another case of delegating to somebody the power to make what is practically a new section of the criminal code. Section 1 provides:
The Minister of Agriculture may make regulations with respect to the carrying out of the provisions of subsection two of this section, and may, by such regulations, impose such penalties, not exceeding in any one case five hundred dollars, for any violation of any such regulations, as he deems necessary for ensuring the observance of the same.
This delegates to the Minister of Agriculture the right to make regulations, without any limitation in this section as to what the regulations may be, the penalty for the violation of any of which may be $500. That is bad legislation, and protest has been made against it before. It is very similar to the clause in the weights and measures legislation to which objection was taken last night. I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that a carte blanche of that kind should not be given to anybody. I should like to hear the minister on the point.


Hugh Guthrie: It has been done so often that I believe we might venture once more to do it. It was done by the government in which my hon. friend was a minister, and it has been done by previous Liberal and Conservative administrations. Section 235 of the act already allows the Minister of Agriculture to prescribe certain penalties in connection with pari mutuel betting. This is rather to extend his power.


John Campbell Elliott: That is worse.


Hugh Guthrie: I believe some one in authority ought to be in a position to regulate these matters and to prescribe penalties. It is not going beyond what we have done in other cases; whether or not the principle is sound I am not prepared to say.


John Campbell Elliott: When we are getting up
to a penalty as high as $500 this house should name the offence for which that penalty is indicated.


Hugh Guthrie: It is a fact in connection with illegal betting and pool selling.


John Campbell Elliott: But we do not know what the offence is, and some one may be compelled to pay a fine of $500. Surely that w not good legislation.

Criminal Code Amendment


Hugh Guthrie: Well, you have to have a pretty stiff penalty for some of the people engaged in these operations.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Penalty.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is the minister referring to a subclause of section 4?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I am not calling the subclauses, unless it is so desired.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We are dealing with section 415A?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: On page 2 of Bill No. 73.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 5.


James Layton Ralston: Will the minister advise us as to any advice he has received regarding the constitutionality of this section?


Hugh Guthrie: When I introduced the bill I intimated that there was at least doubt about the right of this parliament constitutionally to enact sections 5 and 6 of this measure. I believe I would do well to state those difficulties to the chamber. The law officers of the Department of Justice were asked to examine the proposal, because it arises out of the recommendations of the price spreads commission. In drafting sections 5 and 6 the idea was as closely as possible to conform to those recommendations. In the department we were aware that there was serious doubt in regard to them, and we not only took the opinions of departmental lawyers but we also submitted the bill to two of the leading counsel in Canada, namely, Mr. W. N. Tilley, K.C., and Mr. Aime Geoffrion in order that we might obtain their views. In the first place I may say that the most we have received by way of advice in the matter is that there is doubt as to the right of this parliament to enact parts of these sections, not because they are absolutely bad in the judgment of counsel, but because they are doubtful. The opinion of the law officers of the crown is that clause 5 presents some difficulties. Paragraphs (a) and (b) purport to make it an indictable offence to employ a person at a rate of wages less than the minimum fixed by law or any competent authority, or to permit an employee to work beyond the maximum hours fixed by law or any competent authority.
Paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h) of section 5 are similar in character and would appear to be of very doubtful validity since they seem to be designed to provide penalties or

additional penalties for the enforcement of provincial law. Section 92 (15) of the 'British North America Act gives to the province exclusive jurisdiction respecting the imposition of punishment by fine, penalty or imprisonment, for enforcing any law of the province. I would think these paragraphs to be of doubtful validity. Section 6 forbids certain unfair trade practices and renders them criminal, and would seem to be valid.
The opinions of counsel whom I have named are summed up in the following statement by Mr. Tilley:
Section 4 is, in my opinion, clearly intra vires. Section 5 is also, I think, intra vires. Legislation regarding minimum wages and maximum hours of labour must, except in cases where the dominion has a special jurisdiction, be enacted by provincial legislatures, and the legislature may of course create sanctions for the enforcement of its laws; but this does not prevent the dominion from making certain practices, in evasion of provincial law, crimes and of punishing them as such. The result may be an inconvenient exposure to a double liability, but that possibility affords no argument against the right of the dominion to exercise its powers.
Subsection (1) of section 6 is, I think, of very doubtful validity, but sections (2) and (3), are, I think, valid.
Subsection (1) does not prohibit any contract between the seller and the purchaser for the sale of goods. It attaches penal consequences to the seller granting more favourable terms to competitors of the purchaser. It seems to me to be an attempt to interfere with provincial rights and an encroachment on the provincial legislative jurisdiction. There is nothing in the nature of the transactions themselves or in the language of the subsection to indicate that the public interest is being protected or that a wrong against the community is being prevented. The object seems to be to compel traders to	sell to	all	competitors onuniform terms having regard to quantity and quality. It seeks	to regulate	dealings	by atrader with those	who are	as	amongst	themselves competitors, and will apply largely to transactions entirely within a province. There is no compulsion	to sell	to	all such	competitors who desire to make purchases, but if sales are made and the contracts are not on the prescribed footing, the seller, according to the subsection, commits a crime. No purchaser is obliged to pay what his competitors pay and may secure more favourable terms by purchasing from a seller who has no transactions with his competitors. Accordingly, a seller may commit a crime if he meets the terms offered by one of his competitors. It is somewhat difficult to understand how such an interference with the contractual liberty of a particular trader can genuinely be determined by parliament to be in the public interest. The court is entitled to consider whether parliament has so genuinely determined or has attempted under the guise of criminal law to control the civil rights of persons entering into commercial contracts within the province. The subsection does not prohibit transactions of a class particularly described; indeed' all the contracts made with the purchaser and his
Criminal Code Amendment
competitors would seem to be valid notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1). The sole test of criminality is, has a trader carrying on business in competition with other traders given more favourable terms to a purchaser than he has accorded to the competitors of the purchaser. A trader making a sale on particular terms may, therefore, commit a crime, whereas his competitor making the same sale would not. It is difficult to express an opinion on the question whether the court will hold that legislation which takes the form of criminal law is colourable and is in substance an invasion of the provincial field. All I can say is that in my opinion the subsection is of very doubtful validity, and I incline to the view it is invalid.
Subsections (2) and (3) -


James Layton Ralston: That is the opinion of
Mr. Tilley?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: He has mentioned subsections (2) and (3). I suppose he means (b) and (c).


Hugh Guthrie: He calls them subsections (2) and (3).


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He has
done so two or three times in his opinion.


Hugh Guthrie: He must mean the lettering. He continues:
Subsections (2) and (3) prohibit engaging in policies of selling at lower prices in a particular area-


James Layton Ralston: That is (b) and (c).


Hugh Guthrie: (reading)-
-in a particular area than elsewhere for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor and selling at unreasonably low prices for a similar purpose. I think the court would hold that parliament genuinely determined that the commercial activities described in these subsections were to be suppressed in the public interest and would maintain the validity of the subsections. I am of opinion that the court would treat these subsections as separable. If the provisions of section 6 were embodied in three sections, they would clearly be separable and I can see no reason for making a distinction because they are in subsections. While the second and third subsections might not as between themselves be separable, they are I think separable from the first subsection.
I am sorry that I did not bring Mr. Geoffrion's opinion; I brought two of Mr. Tilley's, but Mr. Geoffrion's opinion is to the same effect. He also casts doubt on the same portions of these sections. I point out that neither of these learned counsel gives an opinion that the sections are invalid but at most that they are doubtful.


James Layton Ralston: The law officers of the crown I understand give the opinion that this section 5 is invalid.
92582-201J


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, that is the opinion of the law officers of the crown.


Mr. JACOBS:: Mr. Chairman, I have been in this house for twenty sessions and this is one of the most extraordinary statements that I have heard made by the Minister of Justice who is piloting a bill through and inviting the house to pass it. He has no confidence in it himself. I can see that, and apparently the gentlemen who were asked to give him advice have about the same confidence as the minister has.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a mockery of parliament.


Samuel William Jacobs: Now is it right for the minister to invite members of the house to pass this legislation when we are told on the face of it that it practically is worthless? I cannot understand the attitude of the government at all. I remember the Prime Minister making the statement earlier in the session that the recommendations of the price spreads commission, when they finally made their report, would be backed up by legislative enactment but he presupposed, I am sure, that it would be within the jurisdiction of parliament to enact the legislation. Surely the Minister of Justice when he presents this bill as he does, with a black eye cannot expect us to pass it. It would be an affront to parliament to ask us to do this thing in the face of the opinions expressed by these learned counsel, by the Minister of Justice himself and by the law officers of the crown. I think the Minister of Justice would be well advised to ask the permission of the committee to withdraw this bill.


Hugh Guthrie: No, Mr. Chairman, I will not ask the permission of the committee to withdraw it at the present time. As I stated when the bill was originally presented to the house, it was drawn with the intention of complying as far as we possibly could with the recommendations of the price spreads commission. Had the opinions that we have obtained been definite opinions removing any doubt on the question that these clauses were invalid or ultra vires I would agree with my hon. friend. We have a report from a commission definitely recommending certain amendments to the criminal code, and rudely to brush them aside without presenting them to parliament would not be I think proper action on the part of myself or of the government. But as they are of only doubtful validity I thought I would submit them and have them discussed by this house and I stated so originally when I introduced the bill.
Criminal Code Amendment


Samuel William Jacobs: Now it has been introduced and has been discussed.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it has been discussed yet. It can stand a lot fuller discussion.


Samuel William Jacobs: We have the opinion) of the Minister of Justice that he thinks it is worthless.


Hugh Guthrie: I have not said so. Please do not put words into my mouth. I have said they are of doubtful validity. If these clauses are examined it may be the opinion of this committee that until they are attacked in the courts they should stand in the bill. I do not say that is my opinion.
Some lion. MEMBERS: No.


Hugh Guthrie: But I am giving the committee an opportunity of passing an opinion on the point. I think myself that they would be very inefficacious even if they were passed. I do not believe you could ever support a prosecution on them because you never could prove your case. But the commission has made very definite recommendations in regard to the matter and I felt it my duty unless-


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Does the minister consider the government bound to follow the recommendations of this commission or any other commission appointed by the government?


Hugh Guthrie: Not in, a case which is definitely beyond our powers; I would say no.


Samuel Factor: Where did the commission recommend that the clauses respecting unfair trade practices be embodied in the criminal code?


Hugh Guthrie: Just a moment, I think I can tell my hon. friend.


William Richard Motherwell: No government I ever heard of held itself responsible to carry out the recommendations of any commission.


Hugh Guthrie: Replying to my hon. friend, from Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor), I refer him to page 135 of the commission's report, dealing with certain industrial relations, policies and practices, and recommending that permitting employees to work beyond the maximum hours fixed by law, the falsification of any employment record, child labour and so forth be made a criminal offence. Then on page 246 of the report the
'Mr. Guthrie.]
commission recommends an amendment to the criminal code in regard to false and misleading advertisements. There may be other references in the report but I (mention those.


Samuel Factor: I do not think there was anything in the recommendations of the committee along the lines of section 6 of the bill or recommending that these so-called unfair trade practices be embodied in the criminal code. We did suggest the establishment of a federal trade commission which would issue orders to desist from such practices, and in default of obeying such order we recommended a penalty under the criminal code.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I just
want to support what the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) has said. I must say that in my very limited experience of five years I have never seen such a miserable exhibition as we have had in this house this afternoon. Here is the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) with a tremendous parliamentary experience, the legal and constitutional adviser of the administration, submitting to this parliament and to this committee legislation two or three sections of which he himself admits are of doubtful validity. Advised by his law officers to that effect, advised also by two eminent outside counsel to the same effect, yet he comes here and asks us in the free exercise of our judgment to make a mockery of that judgment and support sections which he himself tells us are of doubtful constitutional and legal validity. Mr. Chairman, I venture to suggest this, that if this same procedure had been adopted by this administration in response to our requests and our protests earlier in the session, if they had called in these two same eminent legal counsel from the outside, as	we asked	them	to do, inregard to other	legislation	that	has	beenbrought down to	the house,	they would	havereceived the same opinion exactly in regard to its unconstitutional features and I am certain the same proviso would have been inserted in the other bills which have passed the house during the present session, I do not want to use too strong language but in my humble opinion it is an insult to the intelligence of	parliament	for	the	legal
advisers of the crown to ask this committee to pass this measure. As a result of agitation from outside or as a result of pressure within their own ranks, the government through the minister is asking us to pass a measure which the minister himself informs us is of doubtful validity.

Criminal Code Amendment


Ross Wilfred Gray: He said we could not enforce it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray)
says that the minister said that we could not enforce it. Why present such legislation to this parliament and make a mockery of parliament? The government is leading the public to bdieve that legislation is being passed which will be effective in remedying certain grievances. Every hon. member, no matter to what party he belongs, is desirous that the grievances which have been brought to light should be remedied. I believe every hon. member of this committee has a sufficient appreciation of the functions of parliament and the duty of every hon. member is to repudiate absolutely this practice of swallowing four, five and six clauses which the minister himself tells us are absolutely unconstitutional and of doubtful legal validity. What are we here for? The legal advisers of the crown tell us that these three sections are useless; I believe the minister knew that but because of an agitation within the ranks of the party the government is making a mockery of the public of Canada. The public is being deceived. I would much rather pass something which was sincere and which would give results than this mockery and insult to the intelligence of the people of Canada.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I should like to make a few observations in connection with this section. It provides that everyone is guilty of an indictable offence who (a) employs a person at a rate of wage less than the minimum wage rate fixed by law or any competent public authority; (b) permits an employee to work beyond the maximum hours fixed by law or any competent public authority; (c) falsifies any employment record required to be kept by law or any competent public authority; (d) punches a time clock with intent to deceive. All these clauses deal with different phases of the one matter, that is, deliberately cheating an employee in one way or another by an overt act. I shall not take the time to quote the evidence given, but it was to the effect that many employees were paid a wage less than the minimum wage fixed by law. There may be a minimum wage law in a province which says that a girl shall receive $10.50 per week. An employer may know that and by cajolery or other means he hires a girl for less, say at $7 per week. He is stealing $3.50 per week from that girl.
Again, an employer may permit an employee to work beyond the maximum hours fixed by law. This would be another evasion.
He may pay an employee the minimum wage of $10.50 per week and then insist on the employee working overtime. The evidence shows that employees were sometimes asked to work until the early hours of the morning. This is another evasion of the law; he is stealing the time of the employee. A minimum wage act may require an employer to keep accurate records in connection with his employees. The evidence showed that in many cases these records were falsified. This was another means of cheating the employee and evading the law. Then the evidence disclosed that in some cases a superintendent of a factory, with the full knowledge and consent of the head of the factory, would punch the time clock for all the employees at the hour of quitting but the employees would continue to work sometimes for an hour, an hour and a 'half or perhaps return again at night. This was stealing their time.
It would be a criminal offence for one of these girl employees to go into a store and take a loaf of bread. It would be a criminal offence and she could be sent to gaol for taking a muffler or any other article of wearing apparel. We have the jurisdiction to pass laws to deal with such matters and to put such people in gaol, but when it comes to a question of making it a criminal offence for a man in authority to steal the time of his employees, at once the constitutional question is raised. With great passion the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) tells us that this is a miserable exhibition. I want to say to him that if there has been any miserable exhibition in this house, it is that of always invoking the constitutional question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Your
own minister invoked it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) did not say that they were not valid; he said they were of doubtful value. I suggest to hon. members that- instead of raising the constitutional question they approach this matter from the other angle and remember that we are endeavouring to improve conditions for the workers. I ask the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to remember that the letter killeth but tie spirit giveth life. We have endeavoured lo carry out the spirit of the recommendations of the commission and have introduced them to the house.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned withoui question put, pursuant to standing order, until Friday, May 31.
Currency Act Amendment
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 31, 1935.