OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons debates
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 13, 1936

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battlefordi): Mr. Speaker, the standing committee on industrial and international relations begs leave to present the following as its first report:
Your committee recommends that 500 copies in English and 200 copies in French of the minutes of the proceedings and of the evidence to be taken before it, together with papers and records to be incorporated with such evidence, be printed from day to day; and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I would direct the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that according to a rule of the house this is a resolution requiring forty-eight hours' notice except with the unanimous consent of the house.


Mr. McINTOSH:: This is not a resolution, Mr. Speaker; it is the first report of the committee.


Walter Edward Foster: It has the same force and effect.


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: With the leave of the house I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston) :
That the recommendations contained in the first report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, submitted to the house on Thursday, March 12, be now concurred in.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I rise not for the purpose of objecting to the motion but to call attention to the fact that with regard to matters of expenditure by committees of this house such committees are virtually a law unto themselves once having been authorized by the house to send for persons, papers and so forth and to engage technical and other assistance. I believe I am correct in saying that the certi-12739-68
fication of a chairman of a committee with respect to expenditure is all that is required to enable that expenditure to be made. Because of the number of our committees and the number of references that have been made I hope I may be pardoned for calling the attention of all chairmen of committees to their responsibility in this regard in the interests of economy.


Walter Edward Foster: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: With respect to one phase of the matter I would like to supplement what has been said by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). This committee asks for power to pay auditors and such experts as may be considered necessary. From the bills that were presented to this house by auditors and experts on other occasions, speaking from experience I should say that before any commitment is made by any committee of the house the Minister of Finance should be consulted and his approval should be obtained. That is my conviction with respect to a matter of this kind.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: If I may be permitted to say so, it is within my recollection that during the course of the proceedings of one committee, that dealing with pensions in 1930, it was considered necessary to submit to the house any recommendations of the committee with regard to engaging counsel, before such engagements could be made.


Mr. POULIOT:: Calling witnesses is less expensive than a royal commission.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: By leave of the house I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), that the first report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations, presented to the house this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The previous motion is not declared carried yet.



Pensions and Soldiers' Problems


Walter Edward Foster: That is the one to which I drew the attention of the house a few moments ago. I thought it required forty-eight hours' notice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps my intervention caused Your Honour to overlook the fact that the motion of the chairman of the committee on agriculture and colonization was not put.


Walter Edward Foster: It was put. I will put it again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What happened, Mr. Speaker, was that you read the motion and then you said, "Is the house ready for the question?" And I rose to speak. There was no determination by the chair that the motion had been carried or otherwise.


Walter Edward Foster: I will put the motion again. Mr. Weir moves, seconded by Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre), that the recommendations contained in the first report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization, submitted to the house on Thursday, March 12, be now concurred in.
Motion (Mr. Weir) agreed to.



PENSIONS AND SOLDIERS' PROBLEMS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That a special committee be set up to which shall be referred such matters connected with pensions and returned soldiers' problems as the house may deem advisable and that rule 65 be suspended in relation thereto; that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses for evidence, to print such papers and evidence from day to day, as may be ordered by the committee for the use of the committee and members of the house, and to report from time to time. The committee shall consist of the following members, to wit: Beaubier, Betts, Brooks, Cameron (Hastings South), Emmerson, Fiset, Green, Hamilton, Hartigan, Isnor, Lapointe (Matapedia-Matane), Lennard, Macdonald^ (Brantford City), MacLean (Prince), MacNeil, McLean (Melfort), Marshall, Mulock, Mutch, Poole, Power, Reid, Boss (Middlesex East), Streight, Thorson, Tremblay, Tucker, Wilton.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) addressed a question to the govern-

ment a day or two ago with respect to a statement made by the consul general of Germany at Montreal. I said in reply that I had asked for an exact copy of the statement that was issued, and would comment on it if necessary after having seen it.
I have received from the consul general at Montreal the statement that was issued. I had better place it on Hansard. This statement was given to the press by the German consul general on March 11:
All German citizens living in Canada and Newfoundland are to be conscripted for possible service in the German army. Those Germans who have become naturalized British subjects are not affected by the German law. For under the act of July 22, 1913, a German citizen, who acquires voluntarily another nationality, loses-as a matter of principle- his German citizenship.
In 1936 all male German nationals in Canada and Newfoundland, who were born in 1914, 1915, and' 1916, are being called up for active military service, the class of 1916 first for the Reich labour service.	_
These three classes have to report imme-dately, until March 31 at the latest, to the competent German consular authorities. Those living in the provinces of Ontario. Quebec, the maritimes, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and in Newfoundland have to report to the consulate general a't Montreal, those living in the western provinces to the German consulate at Winnipeg, by means of a form provided for the purpose.
The classes of 1914. 1915, and 1916 have to procure these forms from the above consular offices; applications should be accompanied by return postage. Applications for temporary exemption are to be filed together with the report. Failure to report is punishable.
Those desiring to volunteer for service, belonging to the classes 1911-15, can apply for enlistment as from October 1, 1936, and the classes of 1912-19 as from October 1, 1937. Such volunteers may apply to the above consular authorities for further particulars.
In enclosing the statement in a communication to the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Kempff, the consul general at Montreal, made the following observations:
Dear Doctor Skelton:
I beg to refer to your telegram of March 12, and to enclose copy of the statement which I have given to Canadian newspapers yesterday.
As you will see from the first paragraph, this statement refers exclusively to German nationals. It establishes expressly that nationalized British subjects are not affected by the German law. The German law contains provisions as to the conscription and as to voluntary enlistment. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the statement deal with the classes of German nationals who will be conscripted m 1936, whilst paragraph 5 refers to those German nationals who desire to volunteer for service.

German Conscription
I think the statement makes it quite clear that there is no invitation to Germans who have become naturalized British subjects to enlist in German military forces.
Yours sincerely,
L. Kempff.
I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the consul general of Germany has made no reference to the recruiting of naturalized British subjects in Canada of German origin, and that he has issued no invitation to such persons to enlist voluntarily or otherwise in the German army.
A further aspect of the German consul general's statement was referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre yesterday. My hon. friend said that in the statement of the German consul general already quoted there were to be found the following words:
... that failure to report is punishable.
Further, when interviewed by the press and asked whether men would be compelled to go, he is reported to have said:
Well, I think they will go anyway. Yes, I guess they will be compelled to go.
This morning at half past eleven the German consul general telephoned from Montreal to the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs and gave a statement with regard to this matter which I shall now read to the house:
It is quite clear that a consular officer cannot inflict any punishment.
I am quoting the words which Mr. Kempff used over the telephone from Montreal and which were taken down in my office this morning.
The said sentence has been inserted into the statement to make it complete, and to advise the German nationals in Canada of the consequences of failure to comply with the German law. They had to know that failure is punishable, otherwise those who have not complied with the German law and who are therefore prosecuted in a court in Germany could reproach me with not having properly informed them. The said sentence was inserted merely in the interest of the German nationals in Canada, and for their protection.
That is the end of the message that came in by telephone. I would simply add that from this statement it appears the consul general intended to refer to the provision usually included in European military service laws for penalties on nationals at home, or, if living abroad, on returning to their home country, for failure to report when called. It is unfortunate that the state-
12739- 68J
meat was ambiguous in being open to the interpretation that penalties might be imposed in Canada by any foreign government. This of course could not be done.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask a supplementary question? I think I asked this on the first day on which I referred to this matter. Is a proclamation of this kind, given by a German consul in Canada, consonant with promoting good relations among the various people resident in Canada? I think that is a matter that will have to be considered by this government, and it is a question to which the Prime Minister has not replied. Further, I am not particularly interested in what European military instructions may customarily contain, but I am asking whether or not it is proper to have people who are resident in Canada threatened with punishment, whether it be here or in Germany. Then, I would go farther than that and ask whether or not a nation which has already broken a treaty and is in the midst of warlike preparations which might possibly involve that nation in conflict with the British empire is to be allowed to draw people now resident in Canada to the scene of action. These are questions with respect to which we have a right to receive an expression of opinion from the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be pleased to give the hon. member such further information as I have. I thought possibly the hon. member would make observations similar to those he has just made.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad the Prime Minister is beginning to anticipate my point of view.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say
that the calling to the colours of nationals of a foreign state by its consular agents, and the actions of such consular agents in facilitating the transportation of such nationals, are in accordance with ordinary international usage. In the ordinary course, consuls notify nationals and facilitate their transportation to the home country for the purpose of performing military service. I might add that the whole question of the practices of foreign governments in recruiting, enlisting or calling to the colours their nationals is receiving consideration by the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have one question
which I fancy the Prime Minister may not answer to-day. Listening to the corre-
German Conscription

spondenee which has been read it would appear to me that at least the German consul general did contemplate the possibility of those volunteering for service who are already naturalized but were German.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know the Prime Minister has said that, but it is certainly open to the construction I have indicated. We have in this country a Foreign Enlistment Act to which reference might be made, if it has any such implication as that, and I rather think it has. The sentence about volunteers is ambiguous, because obviously there would not be volunteers who were called out by reason of the proclamation made by the consul general. He divided them into two classes, those who report and those who volunteer. Those who report are liable to be proceeded against if they do not report; those who volunteer obviously would be in some class other than those who are called out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the right
hon. gentleman will look at Hansard tomorrow he will see that there is no reference to naturalized subjects being invited to volunteer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not put that way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question
of volunteer service applies to German nationals in Canada who may wish to volu-teer for service in Germany ahead of the time they would ordinarily be called out. But that has no relation to naturalized subjects; it is a different age class. The law applicable to the situation is found in the British Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: There is another class in regard
to whom I think investigation should be made, namely sons of German parentage, bom in Canada and who, by virtue of being bom in this country, are British subjects. They are Canadian nationals, even although the parents have not been naturalized. I understand the German government insists that they are German citizens, although under our law they are British subjects. Then, there is another class, namely the sons of those who have been naturalized in Canada, but whose names have been inserted in the certificates of naturalization of their fathers. There are these two classes, first those who by reason of being born here are British subjects, and secondly those who, not

having been bom here, upon reaching the age of twenty-one years are entitled to be deemed British subjects unless they file declarations of alienage. I suggest some inquiry should be made into the status of these two classes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reply to
the hon. member may I say that his question is apart altogether from the one raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes; I have simply made
the suggestion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The discussion had to do with the impropriety of the consul general making certain statements. I thank the hon. member for directing attention to these other matters. I shall be glad to see that an investigation is made, and if it appears that any report should be made to the house, I shall seek to make such report at a later time.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Customs	tariff-184(b), 184(c), 184(d).
Periodical publications, unbound or paper-bound, printed and issued in the United States at regular intervals, not less frequently than four times a year, and bearing dates of issue: free.
Provided, that nothing in this item shall affect in any way the provisions of item 1201 of schedule "C" to the customs tariff.
Mr. THOMPSON:: Mr. Chairman, I look with a great deal of apprehension upon the free entry of United States magazines and periodicals into Canada. These publications carry hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of advertising, and would appear to me to constitute a gigantic move by the American people to have their products advertised in Canada and thereby obtain control of our market to the disadvantage of Canadians. In looking over these items one is forced to the conclusion that wherever it is advantageous for the United States to get into the Canadian market the restrictions are taken away, but where it is advantageous for Canada to get into the United States market little or no reduction is made in the tariffs. I am reminded of the big boy at school who, when playing with the little boy, tosses on the cciidition of "heads I win; tails you lose." I suggest that this matter should have the careful consideration of the committee.

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement


Mr. LAWSON:: Has the minister figures indicating the amount of revenue received by the government in the calendar or fiscal year 1935?


Mr. DUNNING:: One must arrive at the answer by giving estimates rather than by actual calculations, because some items are involved which are complicated with others. The nearest estimate I can give is between $400,000 and $500,000 per annum.


Mr. HEAPS:: What are the countervailing duties on Canadian magazines of a similar type going into the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: They enter free.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Has the minister any record of the machinery brought into Canada in 1931, 1932 and 1933 to print American magazines now printed in this country?


Charles Avery Dunning: We have no record of that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I came down here to the department on one occasion to intercede in connection with an order for machinery by one firm, amounting, it was said, to about $450,000. I am familiar with another firm which is reported to have brought into this country about two million dollars' worth of machinery to print magazines or advertising. It strikes me as a hardship to these firms which have already brought this machinery if they are put out of business now so far as the printing of American magazines is concerned.


Charles Avery Dunning: Would my hon. friend permit me to answer his first question? While we have no record here, the representations of those connected with the industry are to the effect that approximately $250,000 worth of new equipment has been brought in during recent years for the purpose he mentions.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was advised that one firm was bringing in $450,000 worth, with a large plant in Montreal and another in Toronto. However, if my information is incorrect I will accept what the minister says, but will check up through my source of information. I have been wondering, Mr. Chairman, what effect this item is going to have on the production of paper that is now used in the printing of these magazines in Canada. If a number of them return to the United States we will lose that amount of paper production and sales. Then there is the ink. I know of two factories making ink, and I shall speak of them on the ink item. Then there is the engraving, of which a considerable amount has been done in
Canada as a result of these magazines being printed here. Also art work; I know of art work having been done. These are all items that give employment to Canadian workmen. I remember also reading that this government has been receiving approximately $6,000 from the postage on these magazines now printed in Canada. It strikes me that this is a step in the wrong direction. I know we cannot do anything about it; we have to accept it as it is, but the workmen who will be displaced as a result of this item will likely have something to say later.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the minister give us
some idea as to the effect of the tariff that was imposed a few years ago on the importation of American magazines? He might tell us, to be a little more precise, whether the production of these magazines in Canada has increased or decreased, also the number of extra men employed as a result of the tariff increase, and so on.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was a large decrease, which oan only be estimated, in the neighbourhood of sixty per cent in the importation of American magazines.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sixty-four per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: But something like
twelve million magazines paid duty under item 184 (b) alone. My hon. friend will see from the figures of duty paid, which I gave to the hon. member for South York (Mr. Lawson), that the importations were still considerable, while reduced in the proportion I have indicated.


Mr LAWSON:: Has the minister available a list of the American magazines that were imported into Canada prior to the enactment of the tax on advertising, and which were subsequently printed in Canada for circulation in this country-such magazines as Esquire, for example, Fortune, Liberty, and others?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid that information is not available to the department. Did my hon. friend say that Esquire and Fortune were printed in Canada?


James Earl Lawson: Let me put it this way.
At the time the tax on advertising in these magazines was imposed in 1931, several American magazines had a large circulation in Canada, such as, for example, the Saturday Evening Post, the Ladies Home Journal, Pictorial Review, and several magazines of that kind. My information is that after the enactment of the tax on advertising in these magazines in 1931, several of these American
Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement

magazines entered into arrangements for their printing in Canada for Canadian distribution. My question is, has the department available the number of magazines so printed in Canada for distribution in Canada after the enactment of 1931?


Charles Avery Dunning: We have not such a
list. There is a class of magazines known technically as the pulp magazines, those printed on newsprint paper, the cheap, popular magazines, a considerable number of which did make arrangements for printing in Canada. Of the higher quality paper magazines, such as Fortune, I think I am correct in saying, the Saturday Evening Post, and Esquire, which my hon. friend mentioned-


James Earl Lawson: I should not have mentioned that, for a special reason.


Charles Avery Dunning: These were not printed
in Canada so far as I know, but paid the duty. I believe that Esquire was about to start to print in Canada. Representations have been made to me that they were going to do that. We have no list of such magazines because naturally if they were printed in Canada there would be no object in the Department of National Revenue keeping a list of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Post Office Department does.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I know that quite a strong
effort has been made in various parts of the country to have this item changed. Personally I do not want to see a tax on learning or on good magazines entering this country. I think we need all the education we can get, no matter from what source it comes. But there are some papers and magazines which it might be a good thing to tax out of existence, and which might find their way in under this item.
There is one other thing I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. An agitation has sprung up across the country to have this item in the agreement changed, and amongst the newspapers desirous of seeing some form of protection given to Canadian publishers of magazines I find the Winnipeg Free Press. I have never known it before to be an advocate of protection, but in this case evidently it is, and I find this rather significant item in that paper:
We are told that while the American publisher has a much larger market for his product than the Canadian publisher, the latter-
That is the Canadian publisher.
-is also handicapped in having to pay more for his paper.
Mr. Lawson.]
This is news to me because I knew we sent vast quantities of pulp and paper to the other side of the line. If the Canadian publisher has to pay more for his paper than the American publisher, he is certainly under a handicap for some reason other than tariffs. Has the minister any information as to whether or not the Canadian publisher is compelled to pay more for his paper than the publisher in the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is very difficult to give an answer to such an omnibus question, because there is paper and paper. For instance, newsprint is a very different thing from the super-calendered magazine paper. I have not the relative prices of these articles in the two countries.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The statement here is a general one, and I had to make my question general. This statement says that the Canadian publisher is handicapped because he has to pay more for his paper.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is a definite statement made?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Oh, yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Or is it, "it is stated"?


Abraham Albert Heaps: It says, "We are told that while the American publisher has a much larger market for his product," and so on. I am sure the Minister of Finance would not think that the Winnipeg Free Press would publish anything but the facts.


Charles Avery Dunning: They say, "We are told."


Abraham Albert Heaps: I suppose their information was fairly reliable. If it is true that our publishers are handicapped by having to pay more for their paper than similar publishers in the United States, because of a trust or a combine, say, then they are suffering an unfair handicap which this government should inquire into.


Mr. DEACHMAN:: Mr. Chairman, I was surprised at the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, (Mr. Heaps) that the Winnipeg Free Press supported the idea of a tariff on magazines. I read that article and certainly I could see no such implication. What they did say, and what is quite obvious to every hon. member, is that the publishers are placed under a handicap by virtue of the fact that their raw materials are dutiable while the finished product is free. The magazine story in the Dominion of Canada is rather interesting. I think it was back in

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement
1927 that they made an application to the tariff board. I listened to them at that time and I believe every argument which could be advanced in favour of a duty on magazines was brought forward. They told us of the handicaps under which they laboured, of the relative smallness of their circulation, and above all they emphasized their desire to save the youth of this country from the danger of contamination by magazines coming in from the other side of the line. They referred repeatedly-they had all sorts of evidence to support their contention from women's associations, boards of trade and other organizations-to the claim that these magazines were salacious, that they were a deadly menace, and that our homes were imperilled by reading of literature from the other side of the line. I looked over these magazines and I failed to find anything in them that was very bad. Then I recalled the fact that to the pure in heart all things are pure. So I suggested to a lady of mature years and cultured mind that she look over some of these magazines and tell me if in her opinion they w'ould be dangerous to a girl of Sunday school age. She made a careful study of them and brought in her verdict. She said that to her there was not even the appearance of a kick in them, that the only thing they reminded her of was the Pansy books which she had read in the days when she attended Sunday school.
The government of that day did nothing with regard to magazines. I do not know what report the tariff board brought in, but one result was that the department of customs classified these magazines as books, which were dutiable at that time. They might just as well have classified a buck saw as a. seed drill; it would have been just as reasonable. I appealed to a committee of the cabinet and argued the question. I do not know whether they heard me, but they did not act. I quoted definitions from the dictionary and I produced letters from Funk and Wagnalls and the publishers of Webster's dictionary, in which they said that as far as they could see a magazine was a magazine no matter whether it contained fiction or non-fiction. However, they threw both dictionaries through the window and let the judgment stand. If that had happened under my Conservative friends I would not have been able to find language strong enough to condemn it, but as it was done by my Liberal friends I shall be meekly silent or at least discreet. I shall say nothing except to express the hope that they have since learned the dangers of such autocratic and despotic action. Then we had a change of
government. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, (Mr. Bennett) did not wait or hesitate about it; he plunged right in and placed a duty upon magazines.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Upon advertising.


Robert John Deachman: Upon the advertising which was in the magazines. The result was that a number of these magazines were published in Canada. And what happened? All talk of their salacity disappeared. All was well in the best of all possible worlds, because now some of these magazine were published in Canada. A made in Canada article could not be impure. I should like to refer to something that happened prior to this. The late Mr. Robb granted a drawback upon the paper which entered into the production of magazines in Canada. That proved a great stimulation to the magazine publishing business, and, more important, it lifted the tone of mind and thought in connection with our Canadian magazine publishing business. They then studied the situation a little more carefully and for a time they wondered which side they were on, whether they wanted a duty on magazines or whether they wanted a reduction in the duties upon their raw materials. Then the Conservative government came into power and withdrew the drawback. The publishers now come out with the statement that they want the duties upon their raw materials removed, that they want to produce magazines in Canada under freedom instead of under restrictions. One of the reasons they advance, one which I have heard before, is that the Canadian public demands a magazine as high in quality as any produced by the American publisher, and that they cannot possibly meet this demand if they are hampered by restrictions upon their purchase of the raw materials which enter into production. I submit it is absolutely unfair to the Canadian publisher that you should be able to bring in ten tons of Saturday Evening Posts and pay no duty, whereas if you brought in ten tons of paper similar to that upon which the Saturday Evening Post is printed, you are penalized by having to make a contribution to the dominion revenue. I should like to read one statement the publishers make; they still have a little of that lofty conception for the development of a Canadian industry for which I give them credit. They say:
The preservation and growth of Canadian unity. Canadian ideas, Canadian industry and Canadian institutions demand that the government of Canada take adequate action to give Canadian periodicals equal opportunities in their own country.
Canada-U-S. Trade Agreement

Listen to this sentence:
Canadian publishers ask no odds and do not advocate a tariff on foreign periodicals.
They are united in that. All they ask is that the duties upon their raw materials be removed and that they be given an opportunity to develop the Canadian publishing business as it ought to be developed and as it would be developed under freedom of entry for their raw materials. They point out these interesting facts:
1.	Duties ranging from 5 per cent to 33J per cent on 90 to 100 items of plant equipment (presses and typesetting machines are duty free).
2.	Sales tax and excise tax on all materials and plant equipment.
3.	Duties-224 per cent to 324 per cent on paper; 174 per cent on ink; 15 per cent on original engravings; 22J per cent on art work -to which are added sales and excise taxes.
4.	Duty of 124 cents per pound, or 224 per cent, plus sales and excise taxes on inserts imported into Canada to be inserted into Canadian publications, the same inserts entering Canada duty free when bound in United States publications.
They do not ask for a duty on magazines; all they ask for is an opportunity to develop a Canadian enterprise which went forward more rapidly than it had done before during that brief interval in which a drawback was granted with respect to paper imported from the United States. All they ask is this privilege. While I do not know what the Minister of Finance can do now or can promise to do in regard to the budget-and I do not think he will promise much in advance -I do suggest that he give very serious consideration to this most important matter; for it is worth while in a nation such as Canada, a young nation growing up and developing with its own ideals and aims and aspirations, that we should have a great publishing business, a great press in the dominion. And the press and the publishing business will always flourish more under freedom than under repression.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to add one further word, and I would not speak but for the remarks made by my hon. friend. I like to say something in favour of the employees; I keep their problem in front of me instead of making remarks more or less to provoke amusement. I am told that there are 250 employees in Canada engaged in printing these magazines. I went to the MacLean Publishing Company and they gave me the names and the number of magazines which they print, but I have forgotten the details. I also went to the Garden City Press on Adelaide street west, in Toronto, where I saw machinery they had got in from

the United States. They also gave me information with regard to the number of men engaged in the printing of their United States magazines. In my own riding in the old airplane plant on Dufferin street there are two firms-or rather I should say one employing quite a number of men and they have installed a good deal of new machinery. This firm is printing Liberty and another magazine the name of which I forget at the moment; it is a magazine that carries a lot of photogravure illustrations. Now I wonder what will happen to these 250 men said to be printing United States magazines.


Charles Avery Dunning: Liberty is still in Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know, but I was
told that they might discontinue.


Mr. EULER:: They themselves issued a
statement that they intended to continue publishing in this country.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I hope that is right, but I was told that they might discontinue. I hope none of them will discontinue publishing in Canada, but we have all read that a number of them are going to do so and I am surprised that someone on the other side is not familiar with the number of United States magazines that are published here. My information is that there are about fifty, and the loss of a goodly number of these will affect the labour market.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should have said that including what are known as the pulp magazines there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of fifty American magazines published in Canada. As to the number which are still being published I cannot speak with accuracy; that is a point on which I have not accurate information at the moment, but a considerable number are still printed here.


James Earl Lawson: Even the reformed Liberal party in its judgments, I am afraid, can hardly, through its Minister of Finance, deliver a judgment which would be approved of by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) and by myself, because we approach the matter from such vastly different points of view. I should like however to have a statement from the Minister of Finance with regard to an aspect of this change made by the trade agreement, and to do so I have to marshal and review a few facts so that they may be present to his mind.
The tax on advertising in these magazines was imposed in 1931. Since that time and up to the time of the negotiation of this trade agreement the circulation of thirteen American

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement
magazines in Canada decreased by 62 per cent and the circulation of Canadian magazines increased by 64 per cent. There is no question that, as a result of the imposition of that tariff upon advertising, a considerable number of American publishers caused their magazines to be printed in Canada for distribution in Canada, thereby providing employment not merely for printers but for designers, illustrators and all the different labour factors that enter into the production of a magazine. If my recollection is correct, the present Prime Minister opposed the imposition of this tax at the time it was brought into being on the ground that thought was universal and that no handicap should be placed upon it and so forth. I remember that quite well. I would point out both to the Minister of Finance and to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) who was speaking along the same line, that under the provisions of 184c of the tariff magazines maintained by and in the interests of religious, educational, scientific, philanthropic, agricultural, labour or fraternal organizations or associations were not subject to the tax. That, I think, allowed some scope for the dissemination of useful thought. Now the government must have known that if this tax were removed it would result of necessity in some if not all of these magazines which had been printed in Canada being discontinued here and shipped in from the United States. The other day I conceded good intentions to the Minister of Finance and therefore I want to ask him this question. In view of these circumstances am I to take it that this change is something put in voluntarily by the present government in order further to disseminate that international thing called thought, or is it a straight concession to the United States to get from them some other concession and in order to make this trade treaty?


Charles Avery Dunning: The item we are discussing is one which grants to the United States the existing intermediate tariff; it was inherent in any arrangement that might be made granting to that country our intermediate tariff. The effect of it in this schedule is merely to bind the duty under that intermediate tariff for the period of the treaty and also to define it more closely than previously, that is all. Such granting was simply inherent in the making of any trade arrangement with the United States involving the granting of the Canadian intermediate tariff.


James Earl Lawson: Then I say it was a
necessary condition to the making of this trade agreement.


Charles Avery Dunning: If you want to give the
intermediate tariff as a basis, yes; of course.


Mr. LOCKHART:: We have had some
conflicting figures given by hon. members of this house as to the actual number of employees who have been affected by this change.
I was wondering if any information had been given the minister with regard to the actual amount of labour that would be lost to the printing industry in general. I refer not only to the actual number of printers; I have reference to the approximate amount ol labour that will be lost through the free entry of these magazines.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is quite impossible
to get such information accurately. Various statements have been made by interested parties, based of course, I assume, upon theii own knowledge of their own particular institutions, but in very many plants the employees engaged in printing these magazines do other printing work as well. Then the answer is rendered much more difficult by the fact that a considerable number of these magazines will continue to be printed in Canada. I am sorry to say that it is quite impossible to answer my hon. friend on that point with any degree of accuracy.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask whether the
minister has any information as to any plants having closed down as a result of this change in the tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: I know of none.


James Earl Lawson: For the information of
the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps), Mr. Chairman, I may say that I understand that not a plant has closed, but the secretary of the union advised me that up to this date 320 printers had lost their jobs. Plants do not close; they simply run with a lessened staff.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then may I ask the hon.
member who has just made that statement whether these 320 printers have lost their jobs as a result of this tariff change?


James Earl Lawson: They allege so.


Mr. WILTON:: I think it is an insult
to the intelligence of Canadians to say that the flooding of Canada with United States magazines is in the cultural interests of the young manhood and womanhood of this country. Canadian publishers are just as capable of supplying the cultural needs of young Canada as are the American publishers. I have some knowledge of newspaper work in Canada, and I have no hesitation at all in saying that the cultural standards of our Canadian newspapers and magazines is far superior to the yellow brand of journalism so much in evidence in United States newspapers and magazines. If we allow
Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement

American publishers to flood Canada with their magazines it is only reasonable to assume that it is bound to be to the detriment of our Canadian publications. It is quite true that these magazines will be read whatever they are and whatever their type may be, good or bad, but from my knowledge of newspaper work I do not think there is a country in the world where the standard is higher and more in the cultural interests of young manhood and womanhood than in the newspaper and magazine industry of Canada. I do not see why we should degenerate to the point of allowing Canada to be flooded with that type of yellow journalism which we know to be so much in evidence in the United States, to the detriment of not only young manhood and womanhood but also of adult manhood and womanhood and those employed in the publishing industry of Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think I should say that consideration of this item really has not the moral aspect placed upon it by the hon. member who has just spoken. It is only fair to say that. The magazines which, prior to the imposition of this duty in 1931, came into this country, entered subject to the provisions of section 1201 which is called the customs censorship. They continued to come in under the same conditions, but if they happened to be printed here during the time this duty was on they were not subject to the censorship imposed by that section. I do not say, of course, that more salacious literature was printed in Canada than would have been allowed to come in under the tariff item, because after all the quality of literature sold in Canada depends upon the taste of the Canadian people, and I think the compliment my hon. friend paid the Canadian people in that regard i3 well deserved. They do not tend to support to any extent undesirable literature. But I have long ago lost-or I never had any-faith in the idea that you can control the morals of the people or the quality of our literature by means of a protective tariff.


Herbert Earl Wilton: May I be allowed to add this one remark?


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member for Saskatoon has the floor.


Mr. YOUNG:: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if there has been any change in the prices of American magazines sold in Canada as compared with the prices in 1935, and, if there has been any change, whether the prices are higher or lower.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think it is well known to everyone in the committee that all such magazines announced reductions immediately after this agreement went into effect.


Herbert Earl Wilton: The minister stated that you could not control the reading of magazines. I do not agree with that statement. You can control it by not allowing these magazines to get into the hands of the people whom you do not want to read them.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Before this item passes, as I think it will in a moment or two, I want to remind the house that this has been a very controversial issue for many years. The argument has been advanced time and again that we should not allow these magazines to come in because of their salacious character. I remember advancing the other side of the argument, that they should be kept out if they were not fit to come in or to be circulated in this country, but to allow them to come in simply upon payment of a fine at the border was no cure for the difficulty.
We heard one hon. gentleman opposite say there had been 250 printers engaged in the printing of these magazines. Already my hon. friend from York South has made 320 printers out of those 250, and he says they have lost their jobs through the abolition of the duty on these magazines. I do not know which of these hon. gentlemen is correct. If time permitted I could tell a similar story, with regard to the ravages that were to be caused by the importation of safety razor blades into England. At one time it was stated that this would mean the inundation of the country by 900,000,000 tons of razor blades if certain things happened. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian people value very highly the privilege;, now restored to them, of buying high class American magazines at reasonable prices. Doubtless some of the poorer class of magazines will come in also. If we do not want them to be circulated among the Canadian people they should be kept out absolutely, by embargo or otherwise. A moment ago the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) asked if this had made any difference in the prices of these magazines. I should like to give an illustration in regard to a magazine which I formerly read. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) made the statement, -which was quite true, that magazines of certain classes, religious, educational, philanthropic, agricultural, scientific, and so on, were allowed in free. I have bought for a

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement
number of years a high class agricultural magazine. Because it contains advertising and some rather high class fiction it was not classed as an agricultural magazine but was excluded from coming under the low rates that it formerly enjoyed. The result was that whereas in 1930, I think it was, I got a three years' subscription at SI immediately the change was brought about I was told I would have to pay SI.75 if I wanted to continue. I did continue. Last year as soon as this change was announced-I had stopped reading it for a year-I was advised from the head office that if I wished to take it again I could have it for 50 cents a year, a difference of S1.25 a year or $3.75 for the three years. Being Scotch I would just as soon have that money in my pocket as in the pocket of some printing baron in Toronto or Montreal.
Let me say a word about the printers. I am under the impression, from what I have read, that various American magazines that are now published in Canada are not printed in this country but are simply impressions taken from matrices sent over across the line.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is correct; plates are sent over.


Malcolm McLean: The matrices are sent over and the impressions are made here. They are not printed in this country; there is probably not a single printer in Canada engaged in that work. We all know that the designs and illustrations are done on the other side and sent across here by mail. If that literature is not fit to be read by the people of Canada when set up in Buffalo or New York, surely even with all the goodness of the city of Toronto it does not make it fit for the Canadian people to read when printed there.


Herbert Earl Wilton: With all due respect to the literary knowledge of the hon. member opposite, I have had, as I say, some knowledge of newspaper and publishing work, but I have never yet been able to find a high class magazine for which you can subscribe at fifty cents a year.


Malcolm McLean: If I am forced to by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Wilton) I will name the magazine. Everyone knows that The Country Gentleman is a high class agricultural magazine. I think the hon. member for Hamilton West betrays his lack of knowledge of agricultural magazines. I will admit that I do not like some of the Curtis publications, because they are Tory
magazines published in Philadelphia, but the Country Gentleman is in another class; it is a high class country magazine that contains entertainment and educational features along with its agricultural instruction.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Some hon. gentleman was speaking about a few printers being out of work. I think we on this side are just as much interested in men getting work as hon. gentlemen on the other side. We have been told this afternoon by the Minister of Finance, and I think it was generally known in any event, that the cost to consumers of magazines in this country has been greatly reduced. I wonder if the Minister of Finance has any means of computing the saving to Canadian consumers resulting from the reduction in the prices of American magazines now sold in Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is about four months since this item became effective. Has the minister any idea of the effect the change has had on the importation of American magazines?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think I answered that some time ago as nearly as I can. Replying first to the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young), in connection with an item of this kind the saving to the consumers of magazines may be measured of course by the loss to the public treasury, and the approximate loss to the public treasury, as I indicated, will be between $400,000 and $500,000 a year.
Mr, LAWSON:	Will the minister disagree that what is lost to the public treasury by the reduction of the impost on magazines must be taken from the consumers in taxes in some other manner?


Malcolm McLean: Yes, that is fair enough.


Mr. McIYOR:: When I listen to discussions on tariffs I feel like the Queen of Sheba	in	the	presence of	a group of
Solomons.


An hon. MEMBER:: You flatter yourself.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: But, Mr. Chairman, I do
not think it is the intention of our hon. friends	on	the	other side to	class all themagazines	from	the country	to the southof us as yellow. I should be very sorry to think that some of the magazines that I revel in do not compare favourably with the best of our own. Yet that which is Canadian is just	a	little	sweeter than	anything else
that is printed. There are good magazines from the other side and there are the other kind, and I am only sorry to say that we have some of them in Canada.
Canada-US. Trade Agreement


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was responsible for introducing into the house the resolutions under which this charge was made against advertising. It was purposely a charge against advertising, for a very special reason. At that time there were circulated in this country 1,200,224 copies of American magazines. The advertising in them cost as much as $1,000 to $2,000 a page. It was most attractively made up and it advertised goods that were manufactured both in Canada and in the United States, but it paid no revenue to this country, none whatever. The profits inured entirely to the United States treasury; not a single sou was paid into our treasury, except through the Post Office Department in connection with the distribution of the magazines by post, and in that department we have never operated at any substantial profit. Confronted with that situation the question was whether or not we should permit this to continue, so that the advertising would be done in the manner I have indicated-I shall have something to say about that presently-or should take steps to endeavour to secure some revenue from it, the effect being that there would be a diminution of the. circulation of those magazines. As a result of the efforts we made, while Canadian magazines in June, 1930, had a circulation of only 613,237 copies, on June 30 of last year the figure had risen to 1,006.419 copies, and the American magazines that had been carrying the advertising and had circulated so widely in this country found their circulation reduced in June, 1935, to 472,989 copies.
In the meantime what did we receive? There is a certain type of magazine that we said should not pay any substantial toll for its advertising in this country. I will not name the United States magazines because that might be thought unfair, but where they contained not more than thirty per cent of advertising matter the charge was two cents a copy. That meant that the high type American magazine to which reference has been made, containing advertising of a very select type, with respect to books and literature, schools and colleges and matters of that kind, magazines that are published monthly for the most part, were taxed only two cents a copy if the advertising did not exceed thirty per cent of the contents of the magazine. That permitted the payment of two cents a copy to the revenue of this country by every magazine of that high type that came into Canada. It is that type of magazine to which the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) has just referred as the magazines in which he revels. I 
recall that a question was asked in this house when the measure was under consideration as to whether or not the Atlantic Monthly would come within the provisions of this section, and some hon. member produced that magazine and showed that its advertising did not exceed the thirty per cent. There were other magazines of that type; it is	not necessary	to go further	withrespect to	them.	Then	there comes	thenext type of magazine, that which sells its advertising	space	at one	or two thousanddollars a page. It is the most attractive type of advertising that comes into the country and makes dissatisfied Canadians. It magnifies the type of manufactured articles in the United States and by inference minimizes those of any other country. On those magazines we imposed a toll of five cents a copy, where the advertising exceeded thirty per cent.	The	Minister	of Finance	now
states that that revenue has gone, and that some other means must be found of raising the money.
I put to the committee this question: Is it not a fact that the advertising appearing in the magazines to which I have referred is having and has had a very marked effect upon the character of the Canadian people? Not for a single moment was it proposed to tax ideas or thought. These were left out; they paid two cents per copy. The prime minister of that day said that civilization itself was dependent upon the circulation of thought and ideas. That is why magazines which put forward thought and ideas and articles for education and the development of character paid only two cents towards revenue, if their advertising material was not more than thirty per cent.
I shall not mention names, but some hon. members must have seen advertisements in magazines advertising goods at prices very much less than those obtaining in Canada, and magnifying the type and qualities of goods produced and thus advertised to be sold. In 1930 Canadians read this advertising to the extent of a million copies per issue. This type of advertising was thrust upon them, and from it they had to make a choice with respect to purchases, and matters of that kind. Is there any hon. member who does not recall the bent and trend of articles which appeared in United States magazines to which Canadians found it necessary to answer in some of our own magazines?-for instance, articles dealing with the part taken by this country in the war. The whole bent and power of influence in these advertisements was one way, namely to stamp a certain idea of civilization upon

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement
our people, who at the same time were trying to develop a distinctive civilization of their own. That was succeeding. No one doubted it; no one questioned it. There was an unconscious influence upon the habits, character, inclinations and tendencies of Canadian people. All these were being stamped with the influence of articles and advertisements in United States magazines.
I have no doubt about the power of those magazines. When the duty was imposed upon advertising, officials connected with the publication of the magazines waited upon me and told me what an unfair procedure it was to tax advertising. We replied, "Is it unfair that the profit you make from Canadians in the circulation of your advertising should pay something towards the revenue of Canada?" I believe I succeeded in perhaps convincing them that they were making great profits because the added circulation of their journals in Canada enabled them to obtain enhanced prices for their advertising. For instance, at that time one of them had a circulation of over
180,000	copies per month. As every newspaper man knows, that made it possible for the proprietors to obtain from their advertisers a much larger price than otherwise they would have obtained. In 1930, 180,000 copies was the largest circulation in Canada of a foreign magazine. When I tell you that the highest circulation of a Canadian magazine at that time was only 163,000 copies per month hon. members will have some idea of just what I mean when I say we felt we had to impose a tax against advertising, for the purposes I have mentioned.
The tax brought us revenue, but it did more than that: it diminished to 472,000 copies the circulation in Canada of magazines which had previously had a circulation of over a million copies. It did something else, at once; it increased the sales of Canadian magazines from 613,000 copies to over a million copies, while at the same time it reduced their price. One magazine having the greatest circulation in Canada increased its circulation to 252,276 copies, the next to 216,715, the next to 215,208, the next to 211,942 and the next to 110,000. Circulation was thus expanded, and with the expanded circulation there came higher advertising revenues and, as everyone knows, the most important magazine reduced its price and doubled its rate of issue.
That was the effect upon Canada. I deprecate more than I can say in words the effect upon Canadian people of once more raising to a million copies per month and sometimes per week the circulation of United States publications. Is the distinctive character of Canadian, shall I say, civilization, or Canadian culture which we have been endeavouring to build up to be thus destroyed? It will be; it has been. I can recall the bent given to men's minds, and it is more worthy of notice when we remember the number of people who come here from other countries to make their homes. Far be it from me to plead the cause of any particular Canadian magazine. That is not the point. It is the question of the effect upon our destiny, upon our lives and upon our character. I was amazed to hear an hon. member opposite discuss the question of salacious magazines. I would remind him that they are dealt with in the tariff, and if printed in Canada they are dealt with by the criminal code. Our criminal code cannot be effective in the United States. What happened was that item 1201 was placed in the schedule whereby we are enabled at the customs border to prevent such magazines from entering the country. If they are published in Canada the criminal code deals with the situation, and the publishers have to pay the penalty for the violation of the law.
After the statute came into force I can recall changes being made in the Canadian issue of magazines as compared with the United States copies. Changes were made so as to conform to the requirements of our law. More than one issue had to be modified, and on more than one occasion I can remember attention being directed to the propriety of certain statements in magazines with respect to our form of government, and in connection with articles comparing monarchical institutions, and the benefits derived therefrom, with systems in other countries. We pointed out to the publishers that that sort of thing would not be permitted to go on in Canada, in view of decisions in connection with matters which had come before the courts of Ontario.
The hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman), usually very careful in his statements, was not so careful in this instance. May I point out to him that in 1927, when the tariff board considered the matter-and I do not know ultimately what they may have told the government-by what he now describes, ten years after, as arbitrary and despotic action they imposed a duty where no duty had been payable previously. It is always an amazing picture, is it not, to hear the supporter of an administration describe as arbitrary and despotic action taken by them when they were previously in power, while at the same time by every act and word he commends them highly to the people for their broadmindedness and generous liberal
Canada-U&. Trade Agreement

attitude towards everything concerning the well being of the nation.
Then came the drawback of 80 per cent of the duty, which was payable largely to a single firm of publishers. That is not the time that the great progress was made in magazines. It was not made from 1927 to 1929. The great progress that was made in Canadian magazines was made after this charge on advertising was imposed. All' you have to do is to consult the figures of revenue on the one hand and of expanding circulation on the other, and then you have the complete facts before you. The statement made by the hon. gentleman was made I think probably in the heat of debate, because he must have known that the great expansion took place as I have mentioned, giving you the figures from the circulation of the papers themselves after this duty on advertising was imposed. When the late Mr. Robb gave the drawback of eighty per cent on magazine calendered paper, one publisher said that it meant $35,000 a year to him. They made their representations to us, and what did we say? One firm came up from Montreal and said: We are prepared to supply calendered magazine paper. I suppose there is no harm in mentioning it; it was the firm that has a large paper plant at Cornwall. They were making then a writing paper also, in addition to the firm of Rolland's that have done such a large business in making higher grades of writing paper. They were prepared to do this, but it was cheaper at the moment to continue buying their requirements in another country, giving employment to American workmen in their mills, in their forests, at their machines, making American magazine paper to be sent into Canada. We said: It is preferable, having regard to our conditions, that that should be made in Canada, and that we should at least develop our industry to the point where we can make a calendered magazine paper; and we did so.
Confronted with the situation that I have indicated, this agreement does away with the tax, and while the government has the power to increase the tariff and maintain the tax on most of the items, my complaint is that by this agreement they are binding the hands of parliament not to touch this for three years. That is the objection to it. It might well be that in making the agreement they said, in their desire not to make an exception: We are not going to single out one article as an exception. But for three years now there can be no tax imposed on American advertising coming into this country, and I say that that is radically unsound, and that it is known to be unsound. You have all seen the
[Mr. Bennett 1
article from which I quoted which was written by Mr. Thompson and was printed in most of the newspapers in this country. The Minister of Finance has it before him, and in that article the writer say's that just now there is being earned on in this country the greatest activity for the purpose of expanding the circulation of these magazines. That means that to the extent to which there may be any loss in Canadian circulation, there is just that much shrinkage in our economic life. But it means more than that. It means an expansion of business for all the requirements that go to make these magazines in a country other than ours. It means an expansion of their profits from which the Canadian government receives not a single sou except in so far as postage may be concerned. That is my objection.
I can readily understand the hon. gentleman's argument that this was incidental to the granting of the intermediate tariff, and that it was not desirable to say "except for item so and so." He did reserve the right, and properly reserved the right, to increase the intermediate tariff when the interests of this country demanded it, but to-day we are asked to say that we bind this item for three years or during the life of this agreement, and that we cannot during that time impose a single cent of tariff upon advertising, a single cent upon magazines carrying all this advertising, and which by expanding their circulation are receiving higher rates for their advertising.
To make it still clearer that the great expansion in Canadian magazines took place after this advertising duty was imposed, I point out that it was after the imposition of that duty that a large magazine came out with two issues instead of the one issue it formerly brought out in the same period. All that took place after the duty was imposed.
Let us go a step further. The magazines say: We do not want you to put back the advertising charge. We know this government is in office with a majority larger than any government has had; we know they have made this arrangement, that they have bound this item, and that there is no point in our knocking our heads against a stone wall; we know we cannot accomplish anything, nor can anybody else. Not a single item can be changed; the thing is done, signed, concluded. We can discuss it and point out the consequences that will follow from its adoption, and that is as far as we can go. These magazine publishers are pretty shrewd men; they are men of affairs and business. So

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement
they said: There is only one thing to do; we cannot change that item; they will not put the tax back on advertising, but we can demand free entry into Canada of everything that goes into the making of our magazines. And that is what they are doing now. Never mind Canadians who are employed in paper mills, never mind Canadians who are employed in the forests, never mind Canadians who are employed in other walks of life; let us have free entry, and though it will increase the employment of men on the other side of the line we will benefit by it. The action taken by the government has made it impossible for them to do anything else. When it is pointed out by the Winnipeg Free Press, by the hon. member for Huron North or anybody else, that this fine altruistic attitude was taken to secure free entry into this country as against some other form of contribution by foreign magazines, they all know that it is too late to talk about anything else but one thing, and that is free entry, because this agreement is signed and is in force, and being signed and being in force there is no chance to change these items now. They are made free, but I do protest against making them free for three years or during the life of this agreement. I protest against depriving the Canadian exchequer of half a million dollars that came in from advertising. I protest against the expansion to an issue of one million copies of magazines coming in, with all this propaganda that influences our national life as it does, the attempt to indicate that there is no other country quite so great, no other form of government so much to be desired, no products quite so good as those to be found on the other side of the line. That is what I protest against, and I believe the Canadian people take that view.
In all this advertising, which they do very cleverly, they point out that the Prime Minister of this country in his speeches when in opposition contended that there should be no tax against ideas-and he would say the same to-day, as I say-but when it comes to a question of moulding the character of this young country in this formative period of our existence, are we to have it shaped and formed and directed to conform to the suggestions made to us from week to wreek and month to month in this great propaganda that is being carried on, not for that particular purpose, but that is carried on just the same? There has been no other country in the world just like the one across the line, both with respect to the sales of their commodities, and the devotion of their people
to their institutions and their form of government and everything that goes with it. What I protest against is the binding of the hands of parliament during the life of this agreement against getting a single cent of revenue from this source except wdiat may come from postage. That is what the protest is over, and that is the reason we say the publishers in their demands that they should have free entry into this country are now ready to sacrifice every Canadian industry that may be affected by it provided only that they can get free this, free that, and free something else. If the Minister of Finance is prepared to make this concession, as he can do, he will no doubt do it when the budget is brought down.
There is one point further I want to make clear beyond peradventure. In imposing this tax on advertising there never was any intent to impose a tax on what might be termed purely religious propaganda carried on through these magazines. Item 184c reads:
Magazines in which the advertising matter does not exceed twenty per centum of the total space and magazines maintained by and in the interests of religious educational, scientific, philanthropic, agricultural, labour or fraternal organizations or associations not organized for profit and none of the net income of which inures for the benefit of any private individual.


Charles Avery Dunning: That would not let in
the Atlantic Monthly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say it would.


Charles Avery Dunning: Or any other published
for profit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That reference is to
fraternal organizations. Surely the minister realizes that these are separate items. The first covers magazines in which the advertising matter does not exceed twenty per centum; they come in free. Next are the magazines maintained by and in the interests of (a) religious, (b) educational, (c) scientific, (d) philanthropic, (e) agricultural, (f) labour or (g) fraternal organizations or associations, not organized for profit. So far as this parliament is concerned, there never was any doubt about that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Did philanthropic magazines come in free?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, religious and all
such magazines entered free and have entered free ever since this was passed. For instance, the Scientific American came in free, and I believe Popular Mechanics also came in free. All scientific and religious magazines entered free. I recall the debate that took place on this item. If my memory serves me rightly.
Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement

the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) was one of those who directed attention to the fact that some difficulty might be experienced. It was in the heat of a summer's day that that item was framed and put through this house, as the record will show. It was intended to make it absolutely clear that if the advertising was under twenty per cent, the magazine would come in free. There were also the other types of magazines to which I have referred -which also came in free.
But there was another class of publication to which I should direct attention. Item 184d reads:
Periodicals or portions of newspapers consisting largely of fiction and/or feature stories or articles and/or comic supplements, per pound, 15 cents.
I dare say hon. members will recall the observations I made at that time that no one could yet say what the new generation that had been brought up on Mutt and Jeff, on Major Hoople and Bringing up Father, would be like. The government imposed a duty of fifteen cents per pound, and many people thought that this rate was wholly inadequate. This meant that the type of magazine known as the pulp magazine had to pay fifteen cents per pound, and many established plants in this country. But in publishing their magazines here many of them had to vary their output because of our criminal code. It may be contended that the plates were brought in from the United States, but in many cases they were modified in order that they might not violate the provisions of our law. With respect to one magazine, I believe the one having the largest circulation, a separate editorial office was established. The editorials appearing in the magazines were purely Canadian, the only reproduction being the fiction and other articles. That is the position, and it is not for the reason the Minister of Finance has mentioned. There is no desire to suggest that when he gave the intermediate he found it difficult to accept this or that. We have now undertaken to bind ourselves for the life of this treaty to a continuance of a condition that was becoming almost intolerable to the Canadian people. There was a desire to get revenue from advertising, but that would be through the higher corporation tax paid by newspaper corporations because of greater profits. There was no desire to tax ideas or thoughts upon which the progress of civilization might depend; the desire was that foreign publications should make some contribution to the treasury of Canada because of the value received through adver-

tising, and to give a chance to Canadian magazines to expand. The circulation of Canadian magazines practically doubled after this came into force. It is against the binding of this agreement which is detrimental to the Canadian people that I protest.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, of course, there is fundamentally a difference of view between the present government and the leader of the last government (Mr. Bennett) with respect to the principle underlying this matter. My right hon. friend has indicated grave apprehension because of the coming into this country of magazines containing advertising of a type calculated to sell commodities at lower prices and calculated to extol the country in which they are published. He has argued that all this tended so to mould Canadian thought as to impair our national future. But the remedy of my hon. friends opposite was to impose a tax which, according to the article from which my right hon. friend read, had the effect of reducing the weekly or periodical dissemination of these magazines, this great source of national danger, from
1.200.000	copies in boom times to less than
500.000	copies at the low point. These figures illustrate the futility of trying to deal with a great national danger by taxation. The cure is not there. One half million copies of literature dangerous to our national life are only less dangerous in degree than twice that number. With the people as hard up as they have been in recent years, I am inclined to think that the number of readers of these magazines may have increased, due to their being passed from hand to hand, sufficiently to involve as grave a danger to our national growth, our national integrity and our monarchical institutions as formerly obtained when they came in free. I think I am as firm a believer in our constitutional monarchy as any other hon. gentleman, but I certainly do not object to critical comparison with any other system of human government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is unfair criticism.


Charles Avery Dunning: In that regard, if I may say so, I think I am in the very best British tradition. As I am sure my right hon. friend has done at times, I have strolled occasionally through Hyde park and listened there to the various expressions with respect to all the institutions of Great Britain and the British empire. I have seen there the majesty of the British law represented-what for? For the purpose of protecting the very fellow who is preaching in many instances the most incendiary sort of doctrine. I do not see that any bottling up of ideas of this sort will pre-

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement
vent their dissemination. It is far better to have them brought out into the open unless they directly propose to change our system of government or our institutions by violent means. With that exception discussion cannot do any of us harm.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not discussion; it is the printed word.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, that is merely a difference in the form of expression of ideas, a difference in the form of recording them. I refuse to be alarmed by this bogey. With means of communication becoming easier from year to year, with the coming of the moving picture and the radio and various other means of intercommunication, I think it is futile for us so to exaggerate the bogey of magazine advertising as an influence upon our future national life as to think that we can do anything about it even by embargo and still less by the method of taxing it down to one-half its former volume. Regarding it as a means of revenue, as Minister of Finance I regret of course to let any tax go, and it is quite fair and proper to say that the revenue lost must be replaced. That is correct. My right hon. friend, I know, must have had this item in mind when he made his offer of a basis of negotiation on Nevember 14, 1934. I am quite sure he knew that the United States government would ask for this concession, especially as in this instance our magazines go into the United States free. True, that does not help our magazine publishers very much because of the natural superiority of magazines published there with a much wider circulation and wider advertising fields to draw from. My right hon. friend knew that, and he was careful in his address not to say that he would not have granted the intermediate tariff. And the intermediate tariff would have put these magazines precisely where they are at the moment. The objection he made was to binding it for three years or for the life of the treaty. Well, we secured the binding of some commodities on the United States free list going in the other direction, commodities of very great importance to this dominion, among them newsprint, representing the second greatest export of Canada -it is second only to wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will discuss that when
we come to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: We secured a binding on the free list in connection with that commodity. I am not pretending for a moment that putting magazines on the free list does not create difficulties for our Canadian publishing indus-12739-69
try; of course it does. But I would point out that those strong characters who built up our present Canadian magazines built them up under a tariff the same as the one that exists to-day under this treaty; they expanded them very largely under the artificial stimulus mentioned by my right hon. friend, which has been in existence during the last five years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Four.


Charles Avery Dunning: Four years. They founded the magazines and developed them under a tariff exactly similar to that which is now going into effect. Some hon. members have asked what the government is likely to do with respect to the requests of magazine publishers, and I believe it was the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) who intimated that he did not expect the Minister of Finance to make a statement in that regard on this occasion. Quite right. The government will give consideration to these requests as it gives consideration to all requests from any industry in Canada. The matter will be very carefully examined. I cannot at present indicate what the result will be, but I would point out in one last word, with respect to the dangers of this advertising, that if you take any Canadian magazine to-day and look at the advertising contained in it you will find in very many cases that the same commodity is advertised as is advertised in American magazines, with the exception that at the bottom there will appear particulars with respect to the manufacture of that article in Canada. That is quite proper and as it should be, but I do not see how one can be regarded as sinister and the other as quite innocent. The same commodity is advertised frequently in exactly the same way, with the difference as to where one must apply in order to obtain the particular article advertised. That is all I have to say. I commend the item to the consideration ol the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard
to the tax on advertising, I would ask my right hon. friend whether as a matter of fact the tax on advertising in American magazines was not just one more protectionist device intended to limit competition rather than to promote the development of culture?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to answer
that question, because my right hon. friend must have known that as regards those primarily concerned about the matter they were unfriendly to us; and if he is interested in anything I may say he will remember that as long ago as 1927 in the city of Winnipeg, speaking to the Kiwanis club, I pointed out the effect of unconscious influences in the



Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement
making of national character. I assure him that protection was not the question; it was a question of having foreign advertising in Canada make some contribution to the country. I want to be fair.


Mr. MARCIL:: I do not want to speak
of the economic side of the question; it has been fully discussed on both sides and there are two views that cannot be easily reconciled. I have, however, spoken in former years on this very subject and I will repeat now what I have previously said.
There is no objection to decent literature coming into Canada from the United States; we can stand that even in the province of Quebec, which is least vulnerable in that regard, for the reason that three-quarters of the literature would not be read there. There are two classes of literature that come from the United States; one is very high and the other is a very low class, and it is to the latter that I wish to direct the attention of the department to-day. I am sure that the minister, passing by news stands, has been amazed at the illustrated magazines sold in Canada, especially to -young people. That is where our duty lies; it is our duty to protect the younger generation. I know that the Department of National Revenue can ban certain literature coming from the United States, and the Post Office Department can also exclude certain publications. This trash coming from the United States enters the country in two ways, through the post office and by railway express, and I am afraid that the censorship that has been exercised is not what it should be. It is to that aspect of the matter that I draw the attention of the government. If they want to do the Canadian people a real service, now that the occasion presents itself, they should see that all trashy magazines calculated to pollute and degrade Canadian youth are banished from the country. If they do that I am willing to stand the consequences of what has been done here.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: I should like to refer to some of the remarks of the Minister of Finance. The hon. gentleman made a comparison, as I understood it, between the Hyde park soap box orations and the publication and distribution of United States magazines in this country. I do not think there is any comparison. The soap box orator discusses a matter before a limited number of people within the sound of his voice, which is an entirely different matter from a publication which is distributed throughout the country. If I am wrong in construing
	*
what the minister said I hope he will correct me.
Then the hon. gentleman admitted that these publications were in existence before the Conservative government put through a measure of protection for Canadian magazines. He also admitted that these publications greatly expanded in Canada after that protection was established. I do not understand why the minister brings up these matters in condoning the action that is being taken by the government. In passing I may say I cannot understand how the hon. member for Mel-fort (Mr. McLean) is able to get a magazine subscription for 50 cents now for which he had to pay $L75 when the protection was on. It must have been that the publishers of that magazine intended to penalize him, to make him as a Canadian pay for the loss of advertising and circulation they suffered.


Mr. FINN:: The leader of the opposition raised the point in reference to the morals of our young people and the non-application of the criminal code to the sale, distribution or having in his possession the sort of literature to which the right hon. gentleman referred as coming in from the United States. Entirely outside the agreement that is to be entered into between Canada and the United States, my right hon. friend, as a member of the legal profession, knows that section 207 of the criminal code deals with this question. So that there may be no doubt on that point in the mind of any person who desires that the morals of our people should be raised rather than lowered, as we all do, and that salacious literature should not be allowed in our homes or in our bookstands, I should like to read the section to the committee:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who knowingly, w'itliout lawful justification or excuse, makes, manufactures or sells, or exposes for sale or to public view, or distributes or circulates ... or has in his possession for sale ... any obscene book or other printed, typewritten or otherwise written matter, or any picture, photograph, model or other object tending to corrupt morals, or any plate for the reproduction of any such picture or photograph-
So it does not matter whether it comes from the United States or from any other part of the world, once it enters into the possession of a bookseller in Canada and is offered for sale that bookseller comes under this section. In this way the criminal code protects the morals of both young and old and prevents salacious matter from coming into their hands, with a possible penalty of two years in the penitentiary for offering for

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement
sale or selling such matter. That I think is an answer to my right hon. friend, and I am sure that when he made his statement he did not remember that this provision was in the criminal code.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend from
Halifax misunderstood me. I said we could not get at the publishers through the criminal code, and therefore we did it in the customs house. In connection with Canadian publications, of course, we were able to take advantage of the criminal code.


Robert Emmett Finn: I agree with the statement just made by the right hon. gentleman. Persons in Canada who purchase and offer these magazines for sale are subject to this section of the criminal code. You do not need to get at the publisher, because he is not the person *who offers for sale or sells the magazine. Once they are in the bookstand or the store the person who offers for sale or sells them is liable to a penalty of two years in the penitentiary. The manufacturer may be in the United States, but that is true also in regard to certain medicines that are imported into this country. You are not able to get at the manufacturers, but you can get at the person who sells or offers for sale, and that is as far as we can go unless my right hon. friend: d'esires to enter into some international agreement which will provide that persons may be extradited from the United States for any offence against the criminal code in this respect. I mention this because some people might get the impression that under this agreement the government is promoting the sale of salacious or immoral literature. The criminal code deals with that effectively as far as Canadian magazines are concerned, as well as magazines coming from the United States or any other part of the world. As my right hon. friend says, the publisher is not available, but if you cut off the sales of his magazines you are dealing with the very question of the morals of the people, both young and old; you are dealing with the offering for sale or selling of literature that is immoral or, to use the words of my right hon. friend, of a salacious character.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 174. Tourist literature, printed and issued in the United States by federal or state governments or departments thereof, boards of trade, chambers of commerce. municipal and automobile associations, and similar organizations or associations, free.
Mr. PLUNKETT:: I should like to ask the minister if similar literature printed and issued in Canada enters the United States free or if there is a duty on it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, similar literature
enters free.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is only one restriction I should like to have seen imposed, and this has nothing to do with the tariff. Some of the literature I have seen, containing pictures of distinguished men who managed to conduct very successfully operations against the powers that were, should not be circulated in this country. Would that be subject to the general power of supervision? I should like to have seen a word added, that it should not be offensive to the people of this country. I have seen some literature issued by some of these associations that is rather unpleasant reading.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not seen that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That could
be met by the general clause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it is, all right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-178a.
Provided, that on the goods specified in item 178 and imported by mail, duties may be paid by customs revenue stamps, under regulations by the minister, at the rates specified in said item, except that on each separate package weighing not more than one ounce, the duty shall be 2 cents each.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not much different from what it is now.


Charles Avery Dunning: Binding the intermediate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-181a.	Pictorial postcards,
greeting cards and similar artistic cards or folders, 32J per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: Binding the intermediate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have had great
difficulty trying to build up that industry in this country, as the hon. gentleman knows better than I. What were our imports, and what is the present rate of duty going into the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: The rate on greeting
cards, valentines, et cetera, going into the United States is forty per cent ad valorem.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that the previous rate under the Fordney-McCumber tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; that was the previous rate. Of our own imports a little more than half, 243,000 pounds out of 409,000 came from the United States, the rest from the united kingdom and Germany. The total

Canada-US. Trade Agreement
value was $329,000, of which $256,000 worth was from the United States. Our production in Canada of greeting cards for the calendar year 1933, which is the last year I have, was $830,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has greatly increased.
It was over a million dollars last year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Sanderson) cannot take part in this debate in defence of the picture postcard producers in the city of Stratford I wish to say a word for the workers in that plant as well as those in the plants in Toronto. I checked over the importations of picture postcards during the last five years, and particularly the number imported in 1930. I notice there has been a considerable reduction in importations, and I know that during the last few years picture postcard manufacturers in this country have had a veiy substantial business, and that many more Canadians are now employed in that work than there were a few years ago. I wish to say again that I regret very much that in so many of these items the products made by Canadians will be displaced by those made by their cousins to the south, for every thousand dollars worth of picture postcards printed in the United States and imported into Canada means one thousand dollars worth less made by Canadians.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-184. Newspapers, unbound, n.o.p.; tailors', milliners' and mantle-makers' fashion plates, when imported in single copies in sheet form with periodical trade journals; magazines published in other than the English or the French language, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any record of
importations under that item? The only effect is to bind it free during the period of the agreement?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, binding it on the
present intermediate tariff. There are no separate statistics of this item; they are part of a total of over a million dollars which covers item 184c as well. From the United States came $1,006,000 out of that total, but it is impossible to separate it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-187. Albumenized and other papers and films chemically prepared for photographers' use, n.o.p., 25 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is binding the intermediate tariff. Our total imports last year were $109,000, of which $67,000 were from the United States, $32,000 from Belgium and $7,000 from the united kingdom. Then

under the same item, films chemically prepared for photographers' use are included. Of that item, we imported from the United States, $365,000; from Belgium, $61,000; from the united kingdom, $15,000 and from Germany, $6,000.
Our own exports are part of a total of $3,026,000 which covers films for photographers' use and for moving pictures, of which $1,380,000 worth went to the united kingdom and $1,111,000 worth to the United States.
With regard to production, unfortunately there are not three companies reporting, and as the leader of the opposition will remember, three companies reporting is the basis of the statistics of production, so I have not the actual production. But we are large producers of photographic paper of various kinds, and our imports are slight in value.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the point I
had in mind. Our imports seemed to be very light, and what we are doing at the moment is binding the item. I know the minister is as well aware as any hon. member that there has been a substantial development of that industry in Canada, and the larger part of the item is the export from this country of moving picture films, which industry has been very largely developed during the last few years. Could the minister tell us what the duty in the United States is on those items?


Charles Avery Dunning: On- sensitized photographic film, entering the United States, twenty-five per cent under the tariff act of 1930, and there are various rates on moving picture films ranging from four-tenths of a cent to three cents a linear foot.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did they bind theirs?


Charles Avery Dunning: I should correct my last statement; the treaty of the United States with Belgium results in our getting a reduction below these rates to twelve and one-half per cent instead of twenty-five per cent on photographic paper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Most favoured nation?


Charles Avery Dunning: Most favoured nation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-195. Paper hanging or wall papers, including borders or bordering 32J per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: Our imports are: From
the United Kingdom, 253,000 pounds, valued at $44,000; from the United States, 585,000 pounds, valued at $71,000; and from Germany,
40,000	pounds, valued at approximately $8,000. The exports are expressed in rolls. Our exports totalled 1,784,000 rolls, valued at $212,000.

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement
This is a binding of the intermediate tariff with the United States. Here again, because of the few companies producing, I have not the figures of production, but we export quite a little of that commodity to the United States, the United Kingdom, Newfoundland, Australia and New Zealand. United States rates are: On hanging paper, not printed, lithographed, dyed or coloured, ten per cent; when it is printed, lithographed, dyed or coloured, twenty per cent plus one and one-half cents per pound.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What we have given is
two cents a pound and two and one-half per cent ad valorem.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the difference, yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What percentage is two cents a pound equivalent to? What further reduction?


Charles Avery Dunning: The average duty paid
last year on last year's values, which of course include that two cents, would be about fifty per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Two cents sends it up?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, about fifty per cent.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We have in Toronto two first class plants manufacturing wall paper. I am not familiar with where their branches are located, but I have no doubt branches are to be found in other cities. Is there any possibility of learning just how many men will, as a result of these duties, be displaced in Canadian plants manufacturing wall paper?


Charles Avery Dunning: I can offer only an
opinion, and it would be that there would not be any.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-196.	Newsprinting paper
and all printing paper, in sheets and rolls, valued at not more than two and one-quarter cents per pound, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: That is a complementary item to the United States binding on their free list our newsprint entering that country. No imports of newsprint were recorded in 1935. Our total exports amounted to 47,850,000 hundredweight, valued at $82,147,000, of which
39,068,000	hundredweight, valued at $68,106,000 went to the United States. Our total production of newsprint paper in 1934, the latest year for which I have the figures-and I am sure there was an improvement in 1935-


Richard Bedford Bennett: A little.


Charles Avery Dunning: In volume, but not very much in value, I am sorry to say. The total production was 2,604,000 tons, valued at $86,811,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-197.	Paper of all kinds,
n.o.p., 22£ per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no reduction there; it is just binding the item, is it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: Binding the intermediate rate. It involves a reduction of 2J per cent from the former general rate.


Mr. STEWART:: Is there a duty on similar paper going to the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is thirty per cent ad valorem.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not higher than that on some grades?


Charles Avery Dunning: One would have to exclude those for which there are special provisions, because in both items we have the n.o.p. classification.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Did the minister say that on a similar classification, n.o.p., on paper going into the United States the rate is thirty per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: On an approximately
similar item.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As against 22j per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has the minister information as to exports to the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Our exports of book paper were valued at $351,000, chiefly to Australia and the United Kingdom, and of bond and writing paper there were exports valued at $11,300, chiefly to the United States. Of course there are various grades of odds and ends such as tissues and toilet papers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-197a. Super-calendered or machine finish grades of book paper, not coated, when used exclusively in the production of magazines, newspapers and periodicals, printed, published or issued regularly, under regulations prescribed' by the minister, 22J per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this not an item on which drawback was given? I am asking for information.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not exactly similar.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will recall that this paper is not coated, but is highly
Canada-UjS. Trade Agreement

processed so as to give it a smooth service used for certain types of magazines. For instance, it does not take rotogravure reproductions as used in some of the Sunday issues.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is an item on which drawback formerly applied. It runs in my mind that it has changed slightly, but for the minute I cannot put my finger on what the change is from what it was five years ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This item was not changed by the late government; my memory is that it has existed since 1922. The point is that if the item is bound it is idle to ask for free entry of this type of paper. When I was reading the item over I thought magazine publishers could not hope to get free entry.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend is not serious, I know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I am.


Charles Avery Dunning: The binding with the United States is, of course, that it shall not be higher.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But we are binding it; I see the point of the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: I thought the right hon. gentleman was joking with me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It could be reduced by order in council?


Charles Avery Dunning: Parliament could do so, at all events.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How much was imported under this item in the last fiscal year?


Charles Avery Dunning: Total imports amounted to 35,000 pounds, valued at $1,900, of which
29,000	pounds, valued at Sl,600, came from the United States.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How much was exported during the same year?


Charles Avery Dunning: This item is not separately classified, but our total production of all kinds of book paper in Canada in the calendar year 1934 amounted to 32,900 tons, valued at $3,790,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the minister giving the imports?


Charles Avery Dunning: No; the total production.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What were the imports?


Charles Avery Dunning: Very small. I gave the figures a few moments ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason I ask is that I dare say hon. members will recall receiving a document stating that the duties imposed involved an expenditure of $35,000 a year in

payment of duty on paper brought in for the purpose of printing these magazines. My understanding was that it was now supplied in Canada, and the figures the minister has given would seem to indicate that that is true, in view of the fact that importations were negligible.
Mr. DUNNING There are a great many ins and outs in connection with this matter, as the right hon. gentleman knows.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I regret to say that it would seem to be mostly out.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was not referring to the incidence of the tariff. With respect to the relation of publishers with the manufacturers of products they use may I say that the argument is not altogether one-sided. There are two sides to the story, and sometimes it is difficult to decide just what the fair line may be.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the minister any idea as to the price charged publishers by Canadian and American manufacturers of this paper?


Charles Avery Dunning: There would be hundreds of quotations. Unless we can speak of comparable grades the information would not have any value.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister will understand why I ask the question. It arises out of some remarks I made this afternoon on a somewhat similar item. A complaint was made that Canadian publishers of newspapers and periodicals were saying that they were paying more for their newsprint and paper than were American publishers of similar magazines and papers. I do not know whether there is any truth in the suggestion, but if the minister has not the information we will have to leave the matter at that.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want to give misinformation.. I wo-uld rather refrain from answering than take a chance on giving wrong information. My hon. friend's last remark illustrates the difficulty. He used the words magazines and newspapers in the same sentence, and of course there is a wide difference between them and a great difference in their value.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are free in both
countries, both ways.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, so far as that is concerned.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is not the price fixed as a rule by the manufacturer?


Charles Avery Dunning: If I might speak for a moment from some experience in trying to

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement
act the business doctor on behalf of some thirty or forty thousand poor investors, I can assure my hon. friend that the price of newsprint has not been fixed by the manufacturer for a great many years, and I think anyone familiar with the difficulties of the situation will bear that out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister
should describe himself, not as the doctor, but as the undertaker.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I notice that nowhere in the schedules is anything mentioned regarding the material used for covering and binding books, much of which is made, of course, of various types of cardboard or imitation leather with a paper base. I have this in mind, that while the manufacturer can get a drawback on various of these items, many of our public libraries spend a great deal for this class of material and are subjected to comparatively high rates of duty. I am bringing this to the attention of the minister and the department so that on the appropriate occasion it might be considered.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish my hon. friend would get particulars of it for me. I am not quite sure whether there is correspondence bearing on it, but I do not recall having had it brought to my attention. If I could get the information in detail-


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is correspondence in the department about it.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the National Revenue department, I suppose?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know which department, but I know there is correspondence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-199. Papeteries, envelopes, and all manufactures of paper, n.o.p., 30 per cent.
John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the reason for going below the intermediate rate on this item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reduction is five per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: To give a reason in so many words might be a little difficult, but when I draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that in the United States tariff against Canada this item is free perhaps he will not object to this thirty per cent duty in our tariff as against the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The simple answer is that we do not export any to the United States, is it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: The exports are not separately classified, but we did not, as a matter of fact, export any to the United States. I assume that our paper manufacturers would be very glad to be able to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid that we would not be able to invade the United States market for envelopes and that sort of thing in our lifetime.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a matter of technique and volume of business.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And demand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-210.	Peroxide of soda;
silicate of soda in crystals or in solution; bichromate of soda; nitrate of soda or cubic nitre, n.o.p.; sulphide of sodium; nitrate of soda; arseniate. binarseniate, chlorate, bisulphite and stanuate of soda; prussiate of soda and sulphite of soda, 15 per cent.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is not the same wording as formerly.


Charles Avery Dunning: This item includes
quite a number of materials. There are probably a dozen items, and unless any member of the committee is interested in the details of imports I do not want to clutter up the record with a mass of figures. The duties on this item, free, fifteen per cent and twenty per cent, were imposed following the imperial economic conference, prior to which these commodities entered free of duty under all tariffs. The item in schedule I with which we are now dealing is precisely as it stands in the tariff as to both rates and wording.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a little difference in the wording, is there not, between this item 210 and the item as formerly? Perhaps not.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no intention of a difference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only one point strikes
me about that. We have to maintain, of course, the spread between free and fifteen per cent in the British preference, and all we have done here is to bind this item.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is free not only to
Great Britain but to other parts of the empire as well; I am speaking subject to correction.


Charles Avery Dunning: Free to them all under the British preference.
Canada-U-S. Trade Agreement


Richard Bedford Bennett: Each dominion-South
Africa, Australia, indeed, most of them-has a separate agreement. So you cannot speak of the matter in that way.


Charles Avery Dunning: All of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any chance of
this interfering in any manner with the development of our own industry? We have been making desperate efforts to do something in this regard. The hon. gentleman knows what was endeavoured to be done in Saskatchewan.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I might say for
the information of the committee that the production of silicate, arseniate, and chlorate of soda has been materially increased since the conference, but in most cases the figures are not available because fewer than three firms are yet reporting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What are the United
States rates on these items, at present and prior to 1930?


Charles Avery Dunning: The present United
States rates are three-eighths of a cent, 14 cents, three cents, 44 cents, one cent,_ li cents, two cents. That is, for the various kinds of soda.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What were the rates
before 1930?


Charles Avery Dunning: No change.
Mr. STEWART; Those rates are per pound?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has the minister any
record of the exports of these commodities to the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: No; we are just commencing production in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-213. Acetic acid, containing by weight more than 65 per centum of acetic acid, li cents per pound.
Charles Avery Dunning: Acetic acid is of increasing importance. Our imports amounted to $900, and our exports to $3,050,000, produced altogether, I think, by a firm in Quebec. The duty arranged for here is reciprocal with that in the United States. Our great market for this commodity is in the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the present
Canadian duty on acetic acid coming in from the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Our duties are ten,
124 and fifteen cents per gallon up to the strength of proof.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that is the same
item we are now reducing to 14 cents per pound?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; but there is a complication because for each degree of strength over proof the duties are one and one-half cents, one and three-quarter cents and two cents per gallon. That would be in the neighbourhood of one dollar per pound. We are binding this to the one and a quarter cents per pound.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that not a rather
serious thing to do?


Charles Avery Dunning: The concession from the United States is regarded as of great importance to this industry. The rate is reciprocal.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How much does a gallon weigh?


Charles Avery Dunning: About ten pounds.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-236. Surgical dressings, antiseptic or aseptic, including absorbent cotton, lint, lamb's wool, tow, jute, oakum, woven fabric of cotton weighing not more than seven and one-half pounds per one hundred square yards, whether imported singly or in combination one with another, but not stitched or otherwise manufactured; surgical trusses and suspensory bandages of all kinds; sanitary napkins, spinal braces and abdominal supports, 25 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is binding the intermediate tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a reduction of
ten per cent and I believe this matter is of considerable importance to Canada. Most of these articles are now being produced in this country in branch plants of well known British and American firms. I am rather curious to see what the effect of this reduction of ten per cent will be upon branch factories located near the border in western Ontario and in other sections of the dominion. The production of surgical dressings and other articles of this sort is of great interest to countries in which cotton is grown and the many branch factories of the American industry will now be confronted with this reduction of ten per cent; instead of a thirty-five per cent protection they will now have only twenty-five per cent. I am curious to know what our importations were under the thirty-five per cent tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: Prior to 1932 the maximum rate under the general tariff was only twenty per cent, so that the present rate will

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement
still be five per cent in excess of what it was prior to that time. Our imports have been mostly from the United Kingdom, which enjoys a still lower rate. In the case of surgical dressings, 8138,000 worth out of a total of
8173,000	came from Great Britain. From the United States we imported only $31,000 worth. Importations of surgical trusses were very small: $2,500 from the United Kingdom and 811,400 from the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the home production?


Charles Avery Dunning: In the case of absorbent cotton it was 8125,000; in the case of trusses, surgical supports and bandages of all kinds, it was 8678.000, and in the case of sanitary towels, it was 8876,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Were there any exports
under this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are not separately recorded.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-239. Lamp black, carbon black, ivory black and bone black, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change here
except to bind it?


Charles Avery Dunning: Binding the free item,
yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-256. Printing ink, 17| per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is binding the intermediate tariff.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As a result of the duties imposed by the previous government upon printing inks, two plants located in Toronto to manufacture this article, It was announced that the principal reason for opening up these plants was to supply the inks required by Canadian firms or United States branch plants established to print American magazines. I am told that two score men and women, more or less, were given employment in these two plants. While I realize that nothing we can say will alter things, I desire to express my feelings for the men and women who may be thrown out of employment because of this item.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps the information I have before me will comfort my hon. friend a little. I may say that the Canadian printing ink industry is quite efficient and already commands a large proportion of the domestic market. Until 1932 it competed successfully against imported inks from the United States under a twenty per cent protection. Last year
imports from the United States amounted to
309.000	pounds, valued at 8121,000, whereas the home production was 8,465,000 pounds, valued at 81,935,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have reduced the duty thirty per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: The reduction is from twenty-five per cent to 17J per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is thirty per cent.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In 1931 we imported
8300.000	worth of ink, whereas in 1935, when there was considerable additional printing being done in the country, we imported only
8121.000	worth. This shows that our manufacturers have been taking care of the situation fairly well.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It would look as though their margin of safety was imperilled by this reduction of thirty per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the binding feature that gives me concern.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sure it would not if the right hon. gentleman looked into it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-263.	Compounds of tetraethyl lead, in which tetraethyl lead is the preponderant constituent by weight, 5 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is not produced in Canada, imports being entirely from the United States. This is binding the intermediate rate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much did we import
last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: We imported 1,866,000 pounds, valued at 81,062,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Any imports from Great Britain?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With the great lead production which we have in this country, I always thought it was curious that we should have to import this commodity which is the foundation for these high test gasolines. I suppose the real reason is that it is a patented article.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-281. Fire brick containing not less than ninety per cent of silica; magnesite fire brick or chrome fire brick; other fire brick valued at not less than one hundred dollars per one thousand, rectangular shaped, the dimen-
Canada-UJ5. Trade Agreement
[Stage Direction]
sions of each not to exceed one hundred and twenty-five cubic inches, for use exclusively in the construction or repair of a furnace, kiln, or other equipment of a manufacturing establishment, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is binding the free entry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-281a. Fire brick, n.o.p., of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use exclusively in the construction or repair of a furnace, kiln, or other equipment of a manufacturing establishment, 12J per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: Binding the intermediate but preserving the British preferential. We imported $114,000 worth last year from the United Kingdom, and $546,000 worth from the United States. There is no Canadian production as this is of a class or kind not made in Canada.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The item before that, 281, is of a class or kind that is made in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And that is made free?


Charles Avery Dunning: It was free.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And it is continued free? There seems to be an inconsistency.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is an inconsistency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no binding clause with respect to this; we put it on the free list in the 1935 budget.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the British preference it was put on the free list, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-282.	Building brick and
paving brick, 20 per cent.
Mr. BARBER:: In item 282 in the tariff the rates are 12^ per cent, 20 per cent and 22J per cent; and, per ton, $1.


Charles Avery Dunning: The $1 applied under the general tariff only. The intermediate eliminates the $1 per ton.


Harry James Barber: What would be the total rate last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: Last year the combination of the general tariff and the specific represented an ad valorem equivalent of thirty-one per cent.


Harry James Barber: And it is reduced to twenty per cent.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Some years ago the prosperity of the building and construction business had a good deal to do with the industry with which I was associated; and at that time, as I remember, brick of various designs and shapes-that is out of the ordinary-made in the United States was specified by architects in Canada whenever they wanted to have a distinctive building put up. That created quite an agitation among construction people generally for the encouragement of Canadian architects to specify Canadian brick. I do not think the item will have any effect on the ordinary run of brick, but if it induces again the specifying of all kinds of bricks made in the United States, this will work serious injury to the brick manufacturers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What do we import from the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Building brick, 1,300 tons, and paving brick, 1,800 tons; and we exported to the United States, 483 tons. Our production for 1934 was 86,000 tons.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the corresponding rate of duty on brick entering the United
States?


Charles Avery Dunning: There are two classifications here-brick not glazed, enamelled, et cetera, $1 per thousand under the tariff act of 1930; if they are glazed or enamelled it is five per cent but not less than SI.25 and $1.50 per thousand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the Fordney-McCumber tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: The same.


Mr. STIRLING:: Do we get any concession under schedule II?


Charles Avery Dunning: On fire brick, but not on this class.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the weight of a standard building brick?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought it was seven or eight pounds; I believe the lowest weight is five pounds. There used to be a brick, hollow in the middle, that weighed less. We are giving away $1 a ton, and in addition to that-


Charles Avery Dunning: The United States tariff expresses it in thousands, $1 per thousand. Ours is per ton.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
Customs tariff-305.	Flagstone, sandstone
and all building stone, not hammered, sawn or chiselled, and marble and granite, rough, not hammered or chiselled, 12J per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is quite an import under this. The object is to bind the intermediate tariff which at present is \2$ per cent, the general tariff being twenty per cent. Total imports of flagstones, sandstone and all building stone were 59,000 hundredweight from the United States, valued at $14,000; granite, $20,000; marble, $3,000. The total for all items is $85,000, of which $38,000 worth was from the United States.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is for 1935?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How far back can the minister go?


Charles Avery Dunning: Our five year record would not help us much.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a rather serious matter. Queenston stone is the competitor of Indiana stone. There is one large building in Toronto constructed of Indiana stone, and there is in Montreal a large financial building built of Queenston stone. The Queenston building cost substantially more than the Indiana stone building. The Indiana stone came in and paid the duty of that day and was laid down in Canada cheaper than the Queenston stone could be obtained. Tenders were called for in Hamilton and London and the question became very acute. What we have done is to reduce the duty by 37i per cent on that stone, and we have bound it. I should not have so much difficulty if it were not that we have bound it for the period of the agreement by a 37$ per cent reduction, notwithstanding that at twenty per cent substantial quantities of Indiana and other stone from the United States could come in in competition with Tyndall stone, with which this building is lined, and with Queenston stone. Ultimately the contract was let for the Queenston stone, although it actually did involve more money. There was in Quebec a large stone quarry that supplied stone in competition with United States stone coming that long distance. I fear that binding this at a reduction of 37$ per cent will have a serious effect on the stone quarrying industry in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member for Leeds asked for information with regard to imports under this item. In 1931 they amounted to $250,000. That was before the tariff was increased, I think.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What year?


Charles Avery Dunning: That was 1931. The decrease would not reflect there; $250,000. In 1932 it was $135,000, in 1933 it was $16,000 and in 1934 it was $10,000. I gave the figure for 1935 a moment ago, S85,000; there was a pick-up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; that was in connection with the building program. What was the duty in Canada prior to 1931?


Charles Avery Dunning: The general tariff was increased in 1931 from fifteen to twenty per cent, and it now goes back to twelve and a half per cent by virtue of the intermediate tariff.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry, but I did not catch the statement of the minister if he gave us the rate of duty in the United States on similar products.


Charles Avery Dunning: There are several items, some of which are free going into the United States, others of which are fifteen cents per cubic foot, twenty-five cents per cubic foot and sixty-five cents per cubic foot. The item is not really comparable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Queenston stone is really fifteen cents, I think?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; that is true.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. K. BLAIR (Wellington North) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10 to amend the criminal code (death penalty).
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Explain.


Mr. BLAIR:: Mr. Speaker, this is an effort to abolish the process of hanging and to substitute something milder. There is throughout the country a strong sentiment opposed to this method of putting criminals to death. I have very many clippings which, however, I do not propose to read, bub reference might be made to some of them in order to give an idea of the way hanging is carried on. This is a coroner who says:
My examination was made, I am informed', fifteen minutes after the body was cut down. At that time life was not extinct.

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
Other cases are reported where hanging did not bring about death and the man was put on the scaffold and hanged over again. Another one was twitching some twenty minutes afterwards and the hangman had to pull on the body to strangle the man, who was simply choked to death. Hon. members need not be told about the disgraceful happening in Montreal where a woman's head was torn from her body, which fell into the yard, and a minute or so afterwards the head fell down. This was a very repulsive spectacle.
The first time I approached this question was as a boy some forty years ago. At that time we were allowed to see the hangings, which we thought were wonderful. The sight was so repulsive that I was most anxious that some day I should get a chance to speak against that method of putting people to death.
In the last nine years we have had one hundred and twenty executions in Canada, and in the ten years before that we had ninety-two. It is needless to speak of the cost, which is between $700 and $800 each, but hon. members will understand that the other method would save thousands of dollars to the country. However that is a very weak argument. This is another; I think this was sent to the court:
I had the painful duty as attorney of witnessing the execution of Mrs. Sarao. I desire to bring to your attention the horrible fact that the body of Mrs. Sarao was completely severed from her head and crashed into the yard below. A few seconds later the head fell on the ground a few feet from the body.
There are present at the hanging the coroner, the executioner, and the sheriff. I need not give the house the views of a coroner; I have been a coroner for many years, and I would hate to say what coroners say about lawyers in regard to hanging. With all due respect to my legal friends, they are more accustomed to give advice than to receive it, and when they want to know' how to put a man to death they send for a carpenter. Why did they not consult the doctors about how to put a man to death? But they send for a couple of carpenters, who build a scaffold and tie a man with a rope, throw him down and break his neck. For the last two thousand years medical men could easily have told how the death penalty could be carried out in much better ways. What we have in our land today is as bad as the cruellest form of Indian barbarism. People can hardly realize this, but if you are present at one or two cases you will see what the legislation of your country is responsible for.

This is a line from our hangman, Arthur Ellis. He is writing to Mr. Lawrason who sent this to me. Mr. Ellis is in favour of abolishing the present way of hanging. He is also in favour of centralizing executions. It is dreadful that people in small towns and villages can hear the building of the scaffold on which one of their neighbours is to be hanged. Children on their way to school see it. I shall never forget my sensations when I saw a man hanged. The first impulse is that you must go and help; the second is one of antagonism to constituted authority; the spectacle arouses resentment in the minds of the people. I do not believe in encouraging that resentment.
Hon. members will remember Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables in which he pictures the vindictiveness of the law. The law should not be vindictive. The law's purpose is to prevent the repetition of wrong by the person convicted or by others; its purpose is not primarily to punish; it looks to the future, and the vindictiveness of the law and of Javert in that story as shown in the theatres gives an entirely wrong idea of the spirit of the law. This is a relic of barbarism. May I say to my legal friends that they, like the Chinese, have a tendency to worship the gods of antiquity. People throughout the country write me letters asking me to press this bill through, and I have had sent to me editorial after editorial. The people are anxious, but the lawyers have that tendency to worship antiquity; if you give a lawyer something that he can refer back to, he does not have to think; he can read. The tendency of lawyers is always to revert to an old precedent. Once I asked a lawyer's advice and he went back to James I. I said, "Thank heaven, our earliest history is traditional." But aside from that I say that this hanging practice is the worst relic of antiquity that we have. I am more in sympathy -with the Indians, who used to let a man run and take a drive at him when he passed; he had a chance, at any rate. We have gone too far back in having this barbarism in our law. The whole country is opposed to it, and I am sure that the people will be grateful to this government if they pass this bill.
Now, there are many articles expressing the same opinion. Arthur Ellis denounces the present method very strongly throughout this letter, which I do not think I should read. This is an observation by Mr. Lawrason, the sheriff in Hamilton for Wentworth county:
History shows that in mediaeval days the intention expressed in executing the death penalty was to make it appear as cruel as

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
possible and to give it extensive publicity, but the method has been improved to such an extent that the publicity has more or less been done away with.
Feeling strongly on this question, as I do, at the last meeting of the Sheriffs' Association held in Toronto on November 29, 1935, I sponsored and was successful in having unanimously adopted the following resolution:
"That in the opinion of the sheriffs of Ontario in convention assembled, the method of inflicting the death penalty in use in Canada is a relic of mediaeval days, and the advance in humanitarian civilization calls for the substitution of a more human method.
Furthermore, in our opinion a central place in the province should be provided for imposing the death penalty, thereby ensuring and facilitating the proper administration of justice and materially reducing the considerable cost to the public of the present gruesome method."
The cost is not so great, but the effects of the hanging process are certainly detrimental to the people of Canada. He appeals to me to urge that the suggestion be adopted, as everybody seems to be in favour of it. Then he adds this extremely important appeal:
Since assuming the office of sheriff at Hamilton it has cost $700 or $800 on an average.
I made inquiries from the remission branch, and was given the same information.
The suggestion has been made to me that scientists claim that for the purposes of effecting executions monoxide gas could be used. They say that it is entirely odourless and could be easily manufactured for the purpose. However, we will leave the scientific angle to be discussed at a later time.
May I now outline a few ideas prevalent in the minds of Canadian people, the first of which is that when a man is hanged he deserves to be. No; people are not put to death altogether because they deserve it. That is the law of retribution. If that law were applied to hon. members in this chamber none of us would be here.


Mr. SPENCE:: Speak for yourself.


John Knox Blair: I am not speaking politically; I am approaching the matter from a physical standpoint. We have made sacrifices on the altars of Bacchus, Vulcan, and other strange gods. We would not be here; we would be dead and buried if in this universe there were meted out justice according to the laws of retribution. We disobey the laws all the time. The laws of nature are extremely kind and generous to us, and it is through the salvation of nature that we are sitting here. So I say that we must be careful and guarded in our use of that law of retribution. In my view the law of retribution is wrong in its
conception. It was all right for a Kant and a Hegel, and those old Scotchmen who wrote the Confessions of Faith, and all that sort of thing. That was the spirit of the times.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They were Germans.


John Knox Blair: They crucified and massacred one another. Kant's philosophy was that the law of retribution should be maintained in our courts and that philosophy to some extent still prevails in our British government and has its influence upon Canada. It is high time that Kant was set aside, and that we used the philosophy proposed by Jeremy Bentham, or some of those modern fehows who had utilitarian viewpoints, who look to the future, and look forward to social questions.
The law of Kant refers more to the criminal; it concentrates upon him, and punishes him because he deserves punishment. That will not do. Any time when pain is inflicted upon an individual without having a purpose to be achieved in the future it is a sin against humanity. I am saying that it is a sin against humanity if we inflict pain upon any creature without having a purpose for so doing. Pain was not intended to be used as a punishment. The law of nature was never intended to be a punishment. Some people think it was, but that is not so. The battles of life are going on within us all the time, and when our constitution is unequal to the task of fighting some battle, we have to suffer. Pain is the sentinel on the high tower calling for help.
It is not a curse, nor is it a punishment; it is intended to be a signaller, not an affliction.
In the present instance we are concentrating our attention upon the criminal and his punishment because some people say that he deserves it. Let us get away from that old law of retribution and move forward to the law of utilitarianism. That would act more in the way of a deterrent. The criminal is punished because we want to protect the social order of things. It used to be thought that a deterrent would stop people from committing crimes, and there may be some truth in that belief. However the deterrent theory has its limitations, because if you . punish a man as a deterrent to others you are using that punishment for the benefit of the social order. That practice must not be carried too far. In the criminal's interests as well as in those of society you have to bring him to justice. But when you are punishing a criminal as a deterrent for the benefit of the social order you must not overdo the punishment. If it is overdone it will react.
Criminal Code-Death Penalty

and the jury will not carry out the mandate indicated in the act. A severe punishment will work against itself. The public would sympathize with the criminal. The deterrent effect is quite right and natural. Our laws are fashioned after the form of our religion and the laws of nature. They are the foundation for our law.
No; I cannot say that a man should not be put to death. I will not say that, because when an individual in a community follows Bacchus and Venus and is a menace to the community, what does nature do? She begins to paralyze him. She paralyzes his feet so that he cannot walk, and eventually they carry him to the cemetery. Nature eliminates him. I cannot say that the courts are wrong when they do the same thing. I will not say that, but will leave that question aside. I will say, however, that if punishment has not some purpose to fulfil in the future, and if that is not a utilitarian purpose, it is a crime and sin against humanity to perpetrate a punishment.
The next theory I would suggest is that of emulation or disapprobation, whichever you wish to call it. This is the theory which satisfies the public mind. People believe a prisoner should be punished, and perhaps a certain amount of punishment should be administered. On the other hand this theory should not be carried too far. You can go only so far, because if you go further the public mind will turn against you. There is a limit to what you can do. Your punishment must be in line with what the public mind believes the punishment should be. In the southern states when they will not punish criminals, lynching is resorted to.
One must recognize public sentiment as well. On the other hand that must not be carried too far, because in that event when a man is convicted you could not administer justice because public sentiment would determine what justice should be meted out to him. Consequently, you have to give a man a certain amount of justice. It is unfortunate that we have to have crime, but certainly it is true that the more intelligent we become, the higher we ascend in the scale of knowl-. edge, the more crimes we shall have because crime is the product of civilization. As we advance, the circle of crime is enlarged, with the result that we are obliged to mete out punishment to many more people. We have lessened the severity of punishment, but at the same time the radius of crime is very much greater. In the time of King Henry VIII, 72,000 people were hanged, a pretty good record for one king. It was quite common in those days to hang people by the thousand, 
and this was done as a deterrent, but to-day we do not think it is so effective as a deterrent.
I should like to quote a passage from a little book entitled The Death Penalty Inquiry, by E. Roy Calvert, which reviews the evidence that was taken in England in 1931 by a select committee of the House of Commons, appointed to ascertain the facts relating to countries which had abolished capital punishment. In its written memorandum, handed in to the committee, the national council for the abolition of the death penalty proceeds to show that the death penalty had been:

legally abolished or completely abrogated by disuse in a large number of countries, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Holland, Norway, Portugal, Roumania, Sweden, most of the cantons of Switzerland. Queensland, and eight states of the American Union. It is recognized that certain of the abolitionist countries differ widely in race and social life from this country. On the other hand, many are closely allied to Britain in race, culture, and ethical ideas. The council submits that if, in countries where conditions are not greatly dissimilar to our own, the abolition of capital punishment has not been followed by a large increase in violent crimes, it is not unreasonable to conclude that such a result would not follow its abolition in this country.
I have quoted that, Mr. Speaker, to show that capital punishment is not as great a deterrent as some people seem to think it is.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it the abolition
of the present method of hanging or the abolition of capital punishment that my hon. friend desires? [DOT]


John Knox Blair: This committee of the House of Commons met for the purpose of inquiring into the facts as to capital punishment, and I say that if capital punishment does not act as a deterrent to crime if we are going to maintain it we should adopt a more humane way of putting people to death. This select committee of the House of Commons in England took evidence in regal'd to capital punishment in Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, from seven distinguished witnesses, in most cases the accredited representatives of their respective governments. I quote:
Each of these gentlemen was chosen because of his office and knowledge, and not for his opinions on the subject, which, in most instances, were completely unknown prior to the inquirv. Each of them without exception confirmed that abolition had not led to an increase in murder.
I contend that if complete abolition of capital punishment does not tend to increase crime, a milder method of punishment than

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
our present one would not lead to an increase in crime, and I do not think that conclusion is too far-fetched. I quote further from the same book:
The argument that the abolition of capital punishment would lead to the increased use of lethal weapons, particularly firearms by the professional burglar, is necessarily based only on opinion. It is not borne out by the experience of other countries.
As to the method of putting people to death, I have before me one item which shows that in the United States a man struggled for eight minutes under lethal gas, and was finally smothered to death. Most hon. members have seen people put under an anaesthetic and know how easy and pleasant it is to go under it. I think it is much harder to go under an anaesthetic than it is to be put to sleep by lethal gas. Most people are familiar with the effects of carbon monoxide, which will render a person unconscious very quickly, and without their being at all aware of it.


James Earl Lawson: May I ask if the hon.
gentleman has ever taken a general anaesthetic?


John Knox Blair: I have given it to thousands.


James Earl Lawson: I appreciate that, but the hon. gentleman says, "You know how pleasant it is to go under an anaesthetic." I have had every anaesthetic known and they are not pleasant. It is a very unpleasant experience, extremely unpleasant.


John Knox Blair: We have had scores of
cases brought to the Toronto hospital of people suffering from carbon monoxide gas, which they have absorbed perhaps from a furnace or from the exhaust of a motor car when the engine has been left running with the garage doors closed. In a very few minutes they would become unconscious from the carbon monoxide gas, and have to be resuscitated. When asked why they did not leave the room they invariably said, "I did not know I was going to sleep." That is one of the characteristics of carbon monoxide poisoning. You go to sleep very quickly and are quite unaware of the danger.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Would the hon. gentleman give an experiment here-


John Knox Blair: No; it cannot be experimented with readily. It is a very dangerous gas, odourless, invisible and tasteless.
I should also like to give a quotation from a speech made by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in the House of Commons on April 4, 1935, as reported in Hansard at page 2440. He said:
The minister said the other day-
He was refering to the Hon. Hugh Guthrie, Minister of Justice in the former government, a man for whom I know the present minister has a great respect, and by whose opinions he is guided as much as by anybody's:
The minister said the other day, in connection with a ghastly incident relating to the hanging of a woman in Montreal, that this was under provincial jurisdiction. He is quite right as to that, but I wonder whether we should not, if we retain a capital punishment -and I am not prepared to say that we should do away with it-have a change because this is the criminal code of the country in the method of execution, so that it should be carried out only in a penitentiary and not in any district.
I believe the electric chair, or some other device, might be preferable to this remnant of old days when such things as we have read about in the papers recently are likely to happen. I just suggest to my hon. friend that the question ought to be studied.
I remember the Minister of Justice making that statement in this house. I would suggest this to the lawyers, not to send for a couple of carpenters the next time a man has to be put to death, to tell them how to do it, nor for a school of science man, but to get a doctor to tell you how to put a man to death.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Knox Blair: I am sure that this bill would appeal to the doctors and coroners of this country more than to any other class of human species on earth because they all know what pain and suffering mean. For thirty years I have been trying to save life, and I know what it is to see people suffer. We should do what we could to end useless pain and suffering. Let us not use the law to inflict punishment on a dying man. Remember what Shakespeare said:
Vex not his ghost: 0! let him pass; he hates him
That would upon the rack of this tough world
Stretch him out longer.


James Earl Lawson: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to advise me and the house how long it takes to produce unconsciousness in the case of hanging; that is, what space of time must elapse from the drop until a man is unconscious? Would he also tell me how long it takes to produce unconsciousness by means of lethal gas; that is, what time elapses from the time a man is pushed into the chamber until he becomes unconscious?
Criminal Code-Death Penalty


John Knox Blair: It may vary considerably. Take the case of the fellow who followed that woman in Montreal; he did not fall through at all and he lived for a long time.


James Earl Lawson: I was referring to unconsciousness.	.


John Knox Blair: A man can be kicking around; he cannot talk as he has a rope round his neck. If the executioner is pulling on his body down below, is he going to tell him to quit? In the case of ethyl chloride you would not take the second breath before you would be unconscious. With carbon monoxide you would not know when you were taking it; you would go to sleep and you would not wake up; it would be your last sleep.


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two on this bill. In fact, the hon. member invited me to second his motion. I thank him for that honour and I congratulate him upon having brought this very important matter before the house. I shall refer for a moment to the question asked by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) as to the comparative time it takes to become unconscious with hanging and with the use of an anaesthetic. So far as hanging is concerned there is no way of knowing as no one has come back to tell us. As soon as pressure is brought to bear upon the spinal chord immediately below the head, life rapidly becomes extinct because the great centres of respiration and circulation are paralyzed. As soon as they are paralyzed the system does not get its necessary supply of oxygen and rapidly ceases to function, I would put the time at probably a couple of minutes. In the case of chloroform it takes from four to five minutes to go under, and in the case of ether, ten to fifteen minutes. With nitrous oxide you go under in a very short time, within two or three minutes. I think those are fair estimates of the time required to lose consciousness under the anaesthetics I have mentioned. However I did not rise to discuss this phase of the matter.
The bill deals with capital punishment which, I take it, is imposed in cases of first degree murder. I do not know the definition of murder, but I assume it to be the destruction of a fellow human being.


James Earl Lawson: With intent.


John Power Howden: I was going to say that it matters not whether the act is done with intent or because of a sudden spleen or anger.


James Earl Lawson: In one case it is manslaughter; in the other it is murder.


John Power Howden: I am not a legal man and I cannot discuss that matter. I do not think it is particularly important. As I understand it, capital punishment is imposed only for first degree murder. The age old law of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life, still prevails pretty universally. The only thing to do with a killer is to put him where he cannot kill, and the only safe way to do that is to destroy him. It may be that the present practice of killing killers is done more in the spirit of retribution than to safeguard the public, but that is the usual practice. In former times men have been put to death for murder in the most gruesome and horrible manner. They were beheaded, boiled in oil, burned at the stake, drawn and quartered as well as destroyed by the ever convenient and spectacular method of hanging. This is still a favourite method. With the advance of civilization we have got away from many of the cruder methods, although men and women are still beheaded in some parts of the world and for lesser crimes than murder. Most of the American states have adopted the electric chair, but hanging as it is practised to-day-the idea is to dislocate or break the spinal column immediately below the head, as distinguished from the method of slow suffocation brought about by the old time hangings- is pretty generally practised. If this method is carried out properly there should not be much cruelty; unconsciousness should be brought on in a couple of minutes at the most, but there has been a series of unfortunate hangings which, would seem to indicate that some of the hangmen have either forgotten their art or never learned it.
I think we should assume that the purpose of an execution is not so much to punish an offender as to eliminate a dangerous menace to public life. The only way in which this can be done is by total destruction. Once guilt is definitely established, the more quietly and quickly the accused is put away, the better. Unfortunately in the country to the south, and even in our own country, so much headline publicity is given in the press to malefactors before the trial, during the trial and after the trial, that they are often raised to the status of public heroes. Full details are usually reported of their forebears, their family affairs, the features of the crime, the trial and the subsequent incarceration, and the whole episode vies for public interest with first place sport news, leading political activities and other legitimate topics of interest. It is just possible that because of this hero worship many youths are induced to indulge in crime.

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
When a person is caught after the act of killing and cannot furnish any reason to exempt him from the statutory penalty, he should be destroyed with the least possible fuss. This should be the procedure after a person has been convicted by a fair and unprejudiced trial. It is pretty evident that once a killer, always a killer. This applies to the man-eating lion, the sheep-killing dog or the human homicide. The latter will shoot his way out of a tight corner or out of gaol whenever the occasion arises. He will scarcely think twice before destroying one who does not comply immediately with his demands. Such a person is a public menace, an ever present danger to society, and as such should be disposed of without delay. However, in so doing, it should be no part of the penalty to expose such a person to unnecessary cruelty. The early morning call; the ghastly procession to the gallows; the fixing of the hands and feet; the black cap; the adjustment of the noose with the knot behind the left ear, may all be very necessary to an execution by hanging, but they must cause extreme terror and untold mental anguish to the victim. These would all be eliminated if some other form of destruction were adopted. No doubt the lethal chamber would have plenty of horror also for its victim, but a comparatively small dose of narcotic if permitted by law would remove most of the apprehension and confer comparative mental quietude.
I do not see why this matter should not be verjr carefully and seriously considered by the house. Certainly the only thing to do with dangerous killers is to get them out of the way, but I do not see why in this modern age of civilization and culture we should try to inflict torture in the process of destruction.


Ernest Lapointe: The subject matter of this bill is indeed a very important one. This is the first time that such a suggestion is embodied in a proposed legislative measure. Both the mover (Mr. Blair) and the seconder (Mr. Howden) have argued their case with great sincerity and strength of conviction. Both have stated that they are not opposed to capital punishment, though some of the arguments of the hon. gentleman who moved the second reading of the bill were rather in the direction of doing away with the institution itself than with the method of carrying it out.
This is a subject which it is always very sad to discuss, and in the numerous duties which the man who holds the position I do has to perform, all that relates to the ques-12739-70
tion of capital punishment is most painful. But we take the oath to uphold the laws of Canada, and so long as this is the law it has to be upheld. As regards the death penalty, the subject was discussed a few years ago in this house, when a very protracted and able debate took place. At the conclusion of that debate when the division came the vote stood ninety-two to twenty-nine in favour of maintaining capital punishment as a deterrent against the crime of murder.
I agree with my hon. friend from North Wellington that capital punishment should not be regarded as an act of vindictiveness on the part of the state or even as a measure of retribution; it is a protection, protection of society, and a deterrent. I may assure my hon. friend that while I am a lawyer I am not a worshipper of the gods of antiquity, as he suggested. But though I am in favour of changes, before I accept them definitely I want them to be improvements upon what exists. If capital punishment must continue there is no doubt that some happenings in one or two instances have aroused a certain degree of public feeling against the present mode of execution, and it is the consensus of opinion that everything should be done to render the taking of life of the condemned person as little cruel and brutal as possible.
I agree-and my hon. friend even quoted words of mine in a debate in a previous session-that anything which would lead to improvement in the mode of execution so as to make it less cruel than it happens to be should be adopted. But opinions differ as to the mode suggested by my hon. friend. The two alternative methods which are usually suggested are electrocution and the one which the hon. gentleman proposes. Both are comparatively new, especially lethal gas, and I am informed that there has been a good deal of bungling in the handling of both. I read an article in the American Law Review of 1926 entitled Recent History and Present Status of Capital Punishment in the United States, in which reference is made to the then new method of lethal gas in Nevada. Referring to the first execution that had taken place in that state by this new method the writer says in his last words:
It is contended by some persons that electrocution is in fact no less brutal than hanging, and most commentators on Nevada's lethal gas experiment have expressed the view that it is even more barbaric.
That was in 1924. I have before me the American Mercury of May, 1933, in which there is an article, Capital Punishment by Lethal Gas, in which it appears that since that first execution in 1924, other incidents

Criminal Code-Death Penalty

that have occurred do not speak strongly in favour of the change which is suggested. The execution in 1930 of Robert H. White is discussed in that article from which I will quote a few words that appear in the report of Doctor Erwin J. Hund of Reno, who describes the heart action recorded by means of an electrocardiograph:
There was evidence of strangulation, indicating that this form of death is not painless nor as rapid as is claimed. The time of possible pain is certainly much longer than in successful executions by hanging, the guillotine or electrocution.
And further:
It may be true that some of these reactions were unconscious and that they also accompany other forms of executions, but the point is that they are obstreperous enough to dispel the popular notion that death by lethal gas, under the present formula and method, is an instantaneous or peaceful dropping to sleep.
In brief, it seems to be plain that the new method carries no humane advantage over a well-performed hanging, and much less over a competent electrocution.
I must say, however, that a gentleman from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, sent me a letter which he had received from the warden of the Colorado state penitentiary, where they now have this form of execution. In that letter the warden states that their experience with executions in this gas chamber has been very successful, and they feel it to be the most humane method.
Since this is very new as far as we are concerned in this parliament, and since this is the first proposal of this kind to be made, I think it well, before coming to any definite conclusion, that the Department of Justice should gather as much information and data as possible from the states in which this method is in force. I think we should also communicate with the various attorneys general in the provinces in order to secure their opinions. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the carrying out of sentences is under provincial authority, and the provinces are also mainly responsible for the administration of criminal justice. I might perhaps, however, give the house some information as to methods of execution in the various states of the American union.. In only four states, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and Wyoming, is the lethal gas method in force. The practice followed in the states is as follows:
Alabama	Electrocution
Arkansas	Electrocution
California	Hanging
Connecticut	Hanging
Delaware	Hanging
District of Columbia.. Electrocution
Florida	Electrocution
Georgia	Electrocution

Idaho	
Illinois	
Indiana	
Iowa	
Kansas	
Kentucky.. .. Louisiana.. .. Maine	 Maryland.. .. Massachussetts.. Michigan.. .. Minnesota.. ..
Missouri	
Mississippi.. ..
Montana	
Nebraska.. .. New Hampshire New Jersey.. . New Mexico.. , New York.. .. North Carolina. North Dakota..
Ohio	
Oklahoma.. ..
Oregon	
Pennsylvania.. Rhode Island.. South Carolina. South Dakota.. Tennessee.. ..
Texas	
Utah	
. Hanging . Electrocution . Electrocution . Hanging . Hanging . Electrocution . Hanging
. Life imprisonment . Hanging . Electrocution . Life imprisonment . Life imprisonment . Hanging . Hanging . Hanging . Electrocution . Hanging . Electrocution . Electrocution . Electrocution . Electrocution . Life imprisonment . Electrocution . Electrocution . Hanging . Electrocution . Life imprisonment . Electrocution . Life imprisonment . Electrocution . Electrocution . Hanging or shooting
In Utah they give the prisoner the choice, which appears to me to be a rather doubtful
privilege.
Vermont	Electrocution
Virginia	Electrocution
Washington	Hanging
West Virginia	Hanging
Wisconsin	Life imprisonment
As far as the spectacle is concerned, the sense of brutality to which my hon. friend has referred, it is quite true that this exists, and it was with regard to one of those painful experiences that I made the remark I did make during last session. However I must say that of all the executions that have taken place in Canada since 1929, in only two cases have there been these painful experiences that have been related. In the other methods, electrocution and lethal gas, as far as I can see from the little reading I have done there have been just as painful experiences as under the method we now follow in Canada.
I will ask my hon. friend from North Wellington (Mr. Blair) if he will kindly agree to let , this bill stand in order to give me an opportunity to secure the information I should like to have from the authorities in the different states of the union where this method is in force, and also to allow me to communicate with the provinces in this regard.


John Knox Blair: I shall be pleased to let
the bill stand, knowing the ideas of the min-

Supply-National Health
ister. I think I can assure him, without information from a lawyer, that we of the medical profession know how much it takes to put people to sleep, and how easily they go to sleep.
On motion of Mr. Veniot the debate was adjourned.




[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Progress reported.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Grant to the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare, $13,100.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not carried. Some time ago the government told us about the superannuation of General McNaughton and Colonel Steel, the former presently of the national research council and the latter of the radio broadcasting commission. Mr. Chairman, this item of $13,100 for the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare is too low, and General McNaughton, who was well known as the brain trust of the former Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and who was responsible for most of the blunders that were made by the late government during the last five years, should be sent back at once to the Department of National Defence and retired at the lowest rate, thereby enabling this item to be largely increased. If General McNaughton is sent back right now to the Department of National Defence in which he has, not one foot or one toe, but one nail of the little toe, it would be much better because it would give $4,500 to the government to apply on child and family welfare, and that wrould be in the public interest. It is a shame, sir, to think that that man, who should be condemned and punished for having given wrong advice to the government of the day for five years, should enjoy such privileges. I am strongly against bureaucracy; I am strongly against pickings of that kind. That man should go back where he was. He is not qualified to be president of the national research council because that council has to do, among other
things, with chemical research and that man is not an expert in chemistry. He taught physics in Montreal a long time ago but has forgotten all that; yet now he is president of that very important body. Sir, the first thing that should be done now is to send General McNaughton back to the Department of National Defence, where he has the nail of his little toe, and then superannuate him right away, and do the same with Colonel Steel of the radio broadcasting commission.
I remember, sir, how when you yourself brought up this question in the house last year, you did not get a satisfactory answer from the late government, nor did I, although we tried to crucify them on that great scandal. It is a shame, sir. How is it the matter has not been settled since October 14? It is a shame. It is a shame also about Colonel Steel of the radio broadcasting commission, a man who was the brain trust of Mr. Herridge every time he came to Ottawa. Here are the two brain trusters, one of the late Canadian minister at Washington, the other of the former Prime Minister, and because he is a sixth cousin of a tenth cousin who is a Liberal he enjoys such privilege. Sir, it is shameful. The first rule for any party should be, equal rights for all.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The hon. member is out of order in this discussion and I would ask him to confine his remarks to the item before the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: Sir, I am carrying on now the same battle as you and I carried on together last year.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member is entirely out of order. I ask him to confine himself to the item under discussion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There was no battle last year.


Jean-François Pouliot: There was no battle?
There was no general?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry, but I think in fairness to a gentleman who is absent-


Jean-François Pouliot: Absentminded mostly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -I must at least make some observations. Since you permitted the hon. member to make the statements he made I must be permitted to answer them. During the period of five years, apart from the time the imperial conference was here, I do not think I discussed with General McNaughton any matters of public business on an average of once a month. I heard recently that
10S6
Supply-National Health

reports were being made and rumours circulated that I was constantly in communication with General McNaughton. General McNaughton was chief of staff, and as such he was not responsible to me except as all officers of the public service were. He did undertake the setting up of the camps for the single unemployed through the various provinces. He did that through the Minister of Labour. Whenever I sent for him he always came, but I very rarely saw him. Further, I did not communicate with him except on very few occasions by telephone. To show the extent to which these stories will sometimes go, it was asserted that I had a private telephone between my office and that of General McNaughton. General McNaughton. Was the most distinguished graduate, except one who ranked with him, of McGill university. No man but one has had a more distinguished academic career than had General McNaughton at McGill university.


Jean-François Pouliot: Academic is useless.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a soldier he did work on the western front in connection with electrical apparatus and communications that won for him the warmest approval of those who are able to speak with authority. I heard one distinguished Englishman say that as far as he knew-I was most surprised at his statement-if the command of the British forces were to be given to any living man he did not know a more distinguished man than General McNaughton. That was a very strong statement, one at which I wondered at the time. General McNaughton was honoured by his sovereign and was held in the highest esteem by all who had contact with him. I think scholars in every part of the world who know his work recognize his fitness for the particular position which he now occupies. But, Mr. Chairman, I am not concerned about that at the moment; I am concerned that one who cannot speak for himself should be charged with grave offences, because he is said to have been the brain trust of the late government. I would not have him suffer because he has happened to know me, and I would not like to have him suffer because I have known him. I do resent the idea that a man who has such a distinguished record in peace and in war, who offered his life for his country, should be attacked in this chamber in the way he has been to-night, when the allegations made against him are intended to deprive him of a position by endeavouring to link him so actively with the late administration as to charge him with political intrigue or political

activities. Such I assure you, sir, has not been the case.
With respect to Colonel Steel, who happens also to enjoy a rather distinguished reputation and who received the Military Cross for his military services, his offence is that in days past when the Canadian minister to Washington was in Ottawa he consulted with him. I have no hesitation in saying that he did, and the issue was the question of wave lengths in connection with our broadcasting. An agreement was arrived at with the United States authorities, and I can assure the committee that the communications I have received as -to the ability, knowledge and capacity of Colonel Steel in dealing with technical questions connected with wave lengths were of a kind of which Canadians would be proud. I mention these matters, sir, because in view of the observations which have been made in the form in which they were made, I should be lacking in a sense of decency and fair play if I did not rise in my place and say these things.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of privilege. How is it that the leader of the opposition was not called to order, when I was? He was speaking about that man, and was defending him. There is no standing order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: I must insist that the hon. member for Temiscouata confine his remarks to the item under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: How is it that you did not call the right hon. gentleman to order?


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Your balance is wrong; call an inspector.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it that for the grant made to them certain services are rendered to the country by the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare. Perhaps the minister would give some information in this regard, because last year a question was raised which I endeavoured to clear up. I believe I did so.


Charles Gavan Power: The Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare was formed in 1920. The work of the council is the preservation of the health of the child, and social welfare. It was incorporated by letters patent, and there are eight divisions of the work. The first is maternal and child hygiene; the second, child care and protection; the third, family

Supply-National Health
welfare and relief; the fourth, delinquency and services; the fifth, community chests and counsel; the sixth, leisure time and recreation; the seventh, public welfare administration, and the eighth, the arranging of special services. The budget for the year is 835,000, of which we contribute the amount of $13,100.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had some knowledge of these facts, but I understand wTe get something for the grant, do we not? There was a distribution of literature which took place in the department and departmental officials believed that through this medium it would effectuate its purpose. As I understand the matter, the work is done by the welfare board.


Charles Gavan Power: This year the council has made a special study of maternal care. The book is entitled, Need Our Mothers Die?, and a very large number of copies have been distributed to the medical fraternity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And to nurses.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


John Power Howden: Are the activities of this institution confined to the distribution of literature, or are any other activities performed by them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have branches
throughout the country.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is an item worthy of our support, and the government should be commended upon the expenditure of $13,100 here recommended. We cannot steal anything from the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare. No hon. member would object to an increase in the item, because the organization does a marvellous work. Many children are in need, not only where the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare exercises its activity but also in other parts of the country. There are settlement posts where children are in great need, and at times they have not even milk to drink or enough to eat. They cannot go out in the winter time because they have not sufficient clothing. Their needs are attended to by charitable souls who do all they can for the relief of these children.
I ask hon. members to think of the worry in many homes where fathers and mothers do not know what will happen with the young children whom they cannot feed, clothe or shelter. There are places in the back country where there are whole settlements of people complaining that the rain comes into their houses through leaks in the roof, and in winter
they find no shelter against the severe climate. In some camps one can see the moon through the roofs, when they are not covered with snow. In those places there are many children not sufficiently clothed. For these reasons I say that any amount of money subscribed by the government to carry on a work for the relief of these needy people deserves the highest praise, and my deepest regret is that the amount is not greater. No government could be blamed for subscribing any reasonable amount for the relief and assistance of young children.
There is nothing so sad as to think of poor children suffering. Sometimes they are so young that they cannot explain their reasons for their discomfort. Mr. Chairman, you live in an older constituency, one which has been settled for many years, but if you were to travel in the new districts and go from camp to camp you would find boys and girls, sometimes even babes, who are suffering a great deal through lack of food. They cannot describe their sufferings, but they are human and they suffer just the same.
The good health of our population is worth preserving. We know of many cases of tuberculosis caused by underfeeding. Children grow like the stem of a plant. However, some are undernourished and underfed and for that reason are exposed to many diseases and infections. I hope that the minister will bring this great need to the attention of his colleagues in the cabinet, and that he will tell them to cut what has to be cut. Tell them to cut the dry branches in the budget in order to give new vigour to the young stems. When a man in the civil service has proved to be useless, retire him, and in that way you will be giving a chance to younger men who will be the men of to-morrow.
Any subscription given to the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare will serve that purpose. This is what is done in the older countries in Europe, and a beginning has been made in Canada. The more that is done in this instance, the better. I am sure every hon. member agrees that the more that is done by the Department of National Health for the help of children, the better will that department be serving the interests of Canada. May I say one thing more? In the province of Quebec there are health units in each constituency. A doctor and several nurses are in charge.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Who pays for it?


Jean-François Pouliot: Partly by the provincial
government. At first it was a work of the Rockefeller foundation. Now it is paid partly by the province and partly by county cor-
Supply-National Health

porations. Sir, I am not asking the committee to strike anything from the vote. I ask you, sir, to make some contribution to the health units in every constituency of Quebec. And why? Because if there is an epidemic of smallpox or scarlet fever or diphtheria, the whole staff goes to the district affected; all the school children are vaccinated, and the health units perform a splendid service. Therefore may I suggest that the minister exercise his own good judgment in making recommendations to his colleagues in the cabinet when his estimates are under consideration.
If any particular service, or the service of any particular man, is no longer useful to the community, the vote for that purpose should be drastically cut without fear or favour. On the other hand, where there is a service that is of great benefit to the community, the vote for that purpose, if it is not large enough, should be increased because the Canadian people are ready to pay taxes for the public good. They are not ready only to fill the pockets or fatten the bank book of a few private individuals, but they are prepared and willing to make this country richer in the general welfare of its citizens.
The purpose of the Department of Health is to look after the welfare of the Canadian people, and I would urge upon the minister that he could start at no better point than with the young. Start with them when they themselves start to grow. They need good food, warm and comfortable clothing, and good shelter. The minister of this department has a great responsibility and I would urge upon him not to listen to any canvassing to the contrary. I hope he will turn a deaf ear to all those who make academic speeches when w-e need action. This is not a competition in oratory, no sir. That was all right in our school days, but now I leave such things to those people who still listen to themselves when they speak. But, sir, it is important to be listened to by the country at large.
In Canada, as in the United States, every man. whether he was or is Prime Minister, counts for one in our ten millions of people, and every baby in the cradle counts just- as much, having regard to the future of our country. That is something which should never be forgotten, that a young Canadian in his cradle is as much a national asset as a has-been Prime Minister. It is not sentimentality; it is a public duty, to remind every member of this house and every Canadian citizen of these elementary facts that should never be forgotten. The young
rAIr. Pouliot.l
children who are helped by the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare may not wear a row of medals across their breasts, or be decorated with a wide ribbon. Perhaps they have not even enough clothes to protect them from the inclemency of the weather, yet we never know but that the young child who is now being assisted by the child and family welfare council may not become the most distinguished Prime Minister Canada has ever had.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the
minister whether any direct relief is given by this organization?


Charles Gavan Power: Not so far as I am aware.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What is the total
budget of the organization?


Charles Gavan Power: I have given that, $35,000.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Is that in addition to
this 813,000?


Charles Gavan Power: No; the 813,000 is included in it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would ask the minister what other sources of revenue this organization has besides this grant from the dominion, and whether it makes to the department an accounting of its expenditures. The other night we had a discussion about the Last Post fund, and the minister was good enough to send me a letter with enclosures showing the receipts and expenditures, together with a recent order in council setting out the regulations under which the organization operates. Is there any similar system or are there regulations by the department dealing with the financial side of this organization's activities?
I should also like to know how far this organization works in cooperation with the provincial authorities. It is dealing with public health, a subject in which the provinces are interested, and in which they have perhaps primary responsibility. We have from time to time heard that there is a great deal of overlapping in the activities of the dominion and the provinces in the matter of public health. I think conferences have been held with a view to coordinating the activities of the dominion and the provinces in that field. What relation has this organization to the provincial authorities, and how is its work related to the activities of the provincial health departments?


Charles Gavan Power: In answer to my hon. friend's first question, this organization does make a report to the department. As a matter of fact, it is in constant liaison with the department in that meetings are held every month at which

Supply-National Health
the director of health branch assists. Besides that, the council is in communication with provincial bodies at all times. It has undertaken services for the provinces and for the municipalities, and its services have also been made use of in an advisory capacity by provinces and by municipalities.
In respect to other grants to the council, I understand that the life insurance companies of Canada consider its work of such importance that they make to the organization a grant of some $8,000 per year. From what I can gather since I came into this department, this is possibly one of the most important organizations allied to it. It carries on a great deal of work and has always had the support of all governments which have succeeded one another since it first started its work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I thank the minister for his explanation, which entirely confirms my impression of the work of this organization. I can think of no other service more important, and I am glad to know that as time goes along its relations are being extended and brought into harmony with the work of the provincial authorities. I think the vote is for a very deserving object and I have no opposition to its being passed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Whatever contacts I have had with social service workers have shown me that they speak very highly of the work being done by this organization. It is a work of correlation and information is disseminated among those municipalities seeking to set up local nursing services, particularly in connection with the schools. This work has been most invaluable. It must be remembered that Canada is somewhat backward as far as social service is concerned. We are among the three worst of the civilized nations of the world as far as maternity deaths and infantile mortality are concerned. This item is quite small in view of the stupendous amount of work carried on by this organization, and I think the minister should take this up with the government. We see millions of dollars being voted for the militia and for the royal air force while only a few paltry dollars are voted to take care of our maternity death rate and infantile mortality problems. The thing is ridiculous. These people are doing an excellent service and the problem should be how to expand this vote rather than how to curtail it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
G-rant to the Canadian National Committee for Mental Hygiene, $10,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister will permit me to make one or two observations with respect to this and the next item. As is
well known, this is a grant to an organization which for a long time was presided over by the most distinguished authority there was in Canada. This organization has been aided largely by a grant from a trust fund founded in the name of the mother of John D. Rockefeller, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial. The difficulty in connection with this work is that the citizens of the different provinces are now being compelled to pay large sums in taxation. I had made up my mind, for whatever it might be worth, that if a grant was to be given in connection with these matters it should be made to the provinces and not to the organizations, such as I have mentioned.
The organization concerned with this vote and that concerned with the following vote are doing a certain amount of propaganda work which is overlapped by the work of the provinces. Only the other day, the governor general pointed out in Montreal that his experience had been that great dangers arose from overlapping. The western provinces in particular have been carrying on an advanced work in this regard and the citizens of those provinces have to pay taxes so that the work can be carried out. As I said before, I had made up my mind that if we had to provide grants, we would give them to the provinces on some basis of fair distribution in order that those provinces which had the responsibility might have additional funds to enable them to do the work. My observation has been that the provinces are cramped very much in their work because of financial limitations.
We have one obligation cast upon us in the Victorian Order of Nurses. As hon. members know, this was founded by Lady Aberdeen and the country has given it assistance from the day of its establishment, as I hope it will long continue to do. Another obligation is placed upon us by article 25 of the peace treaty which reads:
The members of the league agree to encourage and promote the establishment and cooperation of duly authorized voluntary national Red Cross organizations having as purposes the improvement of health, the prevention of disease and the mitigation of suffering throughout the world.
There was difficulty in determining what national organization would be selected, but finally the Red Cross was selected. The work of the Red Cross has been most conducive to two things. First, there has been an improvement in the relations between children of the various countries of the world, and, second, there has been a steady improvement in health instruction. It would prove amaz-
Supply-National Health

ing to hon. members if they could see some of the communications that came from children in Japan to children in Alberta, and to see the contributions made by school children for the purpose of founding hospitals.
However, when it comes to these other matters of health education, to which I have referred as being obligations cast upon the provinces, I cannot but think that instead of maintaining an organization in the city of Toronto, for instance, where there would be a few officials receiving salaries, it would be much better to make a grant to the provinces. I had determined to do that, and I am bound to say that the representative of one of these organizations selected me as a target for his attacks on the theory that because I differed with him I must have some personal feeling in the matter. That is not the case; I have no interest beyond what I concede to be the public interest. In the case of many of these health organizations there is a duplication of activities which must rest upon the provincial authorities except to the extent mentioned by the minister. I repeat that moneys should be granted to the provinces to enable them more fittingly to discharge their duties.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Chairman, may I say that my first reaction on entering the department and on looking over the grants to different organizations was somewhat similar to the conclusion arrived at by my right hon. friend. I am not so sure that I shall not eventually come to believe that these grants should be made directly to the provinces. The greatest difficulty is that organizations such as this one, being non-governmental, give the civilian or the non-professional man or the non-departmental person an opportunity to take part in the development of a particular work. However I feel there is a field open for extra departmental or governmental activity. Citizens who wish to be of some assistance to the community at large can join these associations and help to bring about some of the objects which it is desired to bring about. It is also possible to obtain subscriptions of public money which assist materially in the work. Apart from these considerations, I think the observations made by my right hon. friend are quite sound1. If I could get over that difficulty of not wishing to set aside the zeal of well-intentioned persons, I think I would agree heartily with him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am anxious to assist the minister in passing his estimates, but I should like to make one further observation. This item concerning mental hygiene was one
IMr. Bennett.]
in connection with which pressure was put upon the minister to include it in his estimates or the grant from the source I have indicated would be lost. That story has been told to successive governments. I am quite satisfied that that grant would be made to the provincial governments to enable them more fittingly to carry on their work.
On the second point, as long as taxation was moderate private benefactions were numerous, but men cannot now pay taxes and make benefactions at the same time. There is a field which used to be served entirely by private benefactions. For instance, hospitals in London are all maintained to-day by money that comes from endowments and private benefactions. The King Edward VII Hospital Fund has grown considerably; it has been contributed to from many sources, one of the largest being the contribution of Lord Mount Stephen, the first president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The point is that we must face the fact that the provinces are overburdened with taxation and that we cannot hope to obtain results by means of taxation upon and private benefactions from the same people, because they cannot give and at the same time pay taxes for the same thing. The relief afforded by the Income Tax Act with respect to ten per cent of income has enabled those who desire to make benefactions to do so and there has been a great improvement since that provision was made in the act.
It may sound strange, but the fact is that since the war, in Alberta the Red Cross has expended over $1,200,000 for the work mentioned in the article from which I have quoted. That money came from many sources, the head office, provincial grants, assistance from the municipalities, and private benefactions. These are becoming less and less; they are drying up because of the burden of taxation imposed upon individuals, which has become greater. In most of the provinces you find an income tax. They had an income tax in British Columbia before we had a federal income tax. They pay three taxes: income tax in the provinces, dominion income tax and municipal taxes, even school taxes sometimes. Therefore the matter has become very serious.
If the minister says that he is giving the matter consideration, looking it over in order to arrive at a conclusion, one can hardly expect him to have made his decisions with respect to these estimates, which had to be prepared so soon after his taking office. But on looking into the question I think he will conclude that the best interests of the country will be served by assisting those who are

Supply-National Health
charged with responsibility in this matter, because the federal Department of National Health can exist only if it is a coordinating influence between the various provinces and in the distribution of literature, coordinating all the activities of the provinces to secure some measure of uniformity in dealing with health problems. In discharging that true function of the Department of National Health it will be found that the department is serving the best interests of the dominion by encouraging the provinces, through financial assistance, in the great task which they have to perform in connection with public health.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have one or two observations to make in reference to what the leader of the opposition has said. After all, these grants being made by the house are not sufficient to do any of the real work which the provinces are supposed to be doing. At the very most they can do only the very inefficient work of correlating the activities of the provincial organizations. I think there is a field for some central bureau at Ottawa not only in the sphere of child welfare but also in that of public health. I am not very much concerned whether the work is done through the provinces or through the dominion. I do not think there is any very clear indication that the British North America Act relegates public health work to the provinces; at any rate that is my reading of it. But I am more concerned about getting the work done. I can understand that a good many activities can be carried on better by the local authorities; but as the leader of the opposition has pointed out, the fact is that these local authorities are to-day practically bankrupt, and under these circumstances it seems to me that the dominion government ought to be making much larger grants either directly to the organizations or indirectly through subsidies to the provinces. I think the matter is most serious.
I glance down ten items in a block for these various philanthropic agencies dealing with public health and I find that the dominion government is contributing only a paltry $100,000. Two or three items further on I find in the estimate that, in order to assist in promoting the 'tourist business, an item $250,000 is granted, two and a half times as much. I have no particular objection to promoting the tourist business, but I do call attention to the fact that -that is more or less commercial. It may bring some money into the country and it benefits a great many people; but it does not touch nearly so closely the welfare of tens of thousands of our people as do these other items, and yet. so far as
the dominion is concerned, we are making no great provision for public health.
I do not want to go very fully into the matter to-night, but I think the time has come when the needs of the people across the country will have to be met more generously. Owing to the depression which has prevailed so long, about the only source from which we can hope to derive any assistance is the dominion government. I know it may be said that we ought to depend to a certain extent upon philanthropy, but private philanthropists have not come forward, and in any case it is a public obligation. It is a great deal better to tax people of great wealth than to leave the matter to voluntary contributions. We can be sure then that the money will come in; we are not sure at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, $18,000.
Mr. WALSH:: Does this organization
embrace those that are centred in and around Montreal?


Charles Gavan Power: It cooperates with and assists all the organizations. There are certain organizations in Montreal, in Ottawa-there is a shop in Ottawa

and in Toronto.


William Allen Walsh: The Montreal Institute for the Blind is working in cooperation with this?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Caandian Tuberculosis Association, $20,250.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is an item which the minister will find it desirable to deal with in the manner I have indicated. There is no work which the provinces are more anxious to carry on, but they are prevented through lack of money. There is a great sanatorium in Saskatchewan-


An hon. MEMBER:: Three.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -one in Calgary and one near Kamloops. If we are to help that work this department must coordinate the various activities. It must be this department and not some voluntary organization, and the assistance we give will then be for the purpose of enabling the provinces properly to do their work.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not want to delay my own estimates, but as I understand it, this is really a propaganada organization; the function it performs is to arouse public opinion in favour of sanatoria and the provision of
Supply-National Health

funds by the provinces for sanatoria. I believe this is about all the work that is carried on by this Canadian Tuberculosis Association.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They also sell stamps.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; they sell stamps at Christmas time; I thank the right hon. gentleman for giving me that information. They perform a useful function in that way, in [DOT]persuading the average taxpayer that the work of combating tuberculosis is worth while, and from that standpoint perhaps they deserve the encouragement of this department and of the federal government, but it may be that the amount voted could be put to better use if it were subscribed directly to the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And greatly increased.


Charles Gavan Power: And made much longer.


Air. CAMERON (Cape Breton):: I was glad to hear the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition. Personally I am doubtful whether any value is received for this grant, or in any case whether the value is sufficient. In Nova Scotia we have some very good sanatoria and in several of the towns we have tuberculosis annexes. There is no lack of public opinion as to the desirability of having tuberculosis patients looked after, but there is a tremendous lack of ability to have that done. I know that Nova Scotia provides a substantial sum, through the local legislature, and I also know that the municipalities make substantial contributions as well, but notwithstanding all that there are many patients who are unable to take advantage of the privileges of the sanatoria because that is beyond their means. A more substantial grant to the province would enable it in turn to reduce the charges to patients, and thus the privileges of the sanatoria would be placed within reach of those now unable to take advantage of them.


John Power Howden: I also have no desire to hold up the estimates, but I should like to say a word following the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I do not know the situation in the two wealthy provinces of Quebec and Ontario, but certainly, as far as our western provinces are concerned, and possibly the maritime provinces as well, it is beyond our financial ability to care for the sick to the proper extent and degree. Instead of such grants as appear in these estimates to-night I believe there should be very much more substantial contributions; in fact, the provinces can hope to cope with sickness and

carry on properly only if they are given substantial grants. I do not think we will make any real headway at all in the western provinces, and possibly in other parts of Canada as well, unless the government can find some means of increasing our grants and, perhaps, of placing on the provinces the responsibility for the care of the sick.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: You will note, Mr. Chairman, that these are all voluntary organizations. A good many of us have given this matter a great deal of consideration, and some of us are just wondering whether, instead of leaving the matter to voluntary organizations, this should not become a governmental responsibility. To-night I do not intend to do more than suggest to the minister that this matter is of such great importance that between now and next session, when probably he will be more familiar with his department, he should give serious consideration to the question whether the Department of National Health should not be reorganized to the extent necessary to take over these various activities. I recognize full well that these organizations have done a great deal of good. I recognize also that some of these organizations are carried on for propaganda work. But if it is necessary for voluntary organizations to carry on, and if this is the type of work that should be carried on, it seems to me that the time has come when we should recognize that as a national responsibility and give serious consideration to the question of taking it over as such.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think we all recognize the fact that sometimes governments are slow to undertake new activities, and that from time to time excellent service is rendered to communities by public spirited ladies and gentlemen who form associations for the purpose of creating an intelligent public opinion to be brought to bear upon governments with respect to activities of the kind indicated, because governments await the pressure of public opinion before they act. The chief value I see in many of these organizations is the fact that they create a body of intelligent public opinion in favour of a line of action that may be desirable. We recall the action of one very wealthy gentleman in connection with one such activity in Ontario. He conceived the idea that manual training in the public schools would be advantageous, and for a number of years at his own expense he conducted manual training schools in several centres. Thus he demonstrated their value to such an extent that the province took over the work. I think that is an

Supply-National Health
illustration of the value of these organizations with which we have been dealing to-night.
Coming to the item under consideration, it seems to me that this organization has done its work so well that at the present time every provincial government in Canada is well aware of the importance of this work and the necessity for it, and every province has taken advanced measures along these lines. Perhaps the time has come when this organization has almost reached its objective. I quite agree with the remarks of the medical gentlemen who have just spoken; I believe the time has now come when the work of these organizations might be taken over either by the federal health department or by the provincial authorities on the representations of the federal department.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In this matter we might learn something from the developments that have taken place in connection with social work in some of our local communities. As a great many members well know we have often had a large number of charities spring up, fostered by this or that individual interested in some particular phase of social work. As the years have gone on sometimes these organizations have been found to overlap very seriously. Further than that, some of them, either through lack of trained workers or through the presence on their boards of people who have had not a wide range of knowledge, have distinctly lowered their standards. So it has been found necessary in many of our Canadian cities to create central boards. Those central boards try to correlate the various charitable agencies; they try as far as possible to raise the standard of treatment in these various agencies. In some instances they are entrusted with the task of advising the cities that make grants as to what grants may be given. This board will study the whole situation, study the budgets of the various institutions, the kind of work they are doing, and then will be better qualified to make those grants. We might fairly well undertake some such work as that here in Ottawa.
If, as the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) has suggested, the department could be reorganized, it could perform two or three important functions. First, it could be a clearing house for information as to what is being done in the various provinces and through various departments. That in itself would be a valuable work. Then, if we are to enlarge our grants from the dominion, which policy I am glad to hear advocated by the leader of the opposition, it might very well be that to this bureau
would be entrusted more or less the investigation of the character of the work carried on by the different organizations and the different provinces. If the dominion government were making grants to provinces, to public health services, to tubercular services, they could insist on certain standards being maintained.
The Minister of Pensions suggested that he was desirous of retaining the services of volunteer workers, experts along these various lines. I think he might very well do that if he could appoint them in an advisory capacity on such a central board. We could have some one who was an expert in social hygiene, some one or some group expert in tuberculosis, or in child welfare. If we had half a dozen departments of this kind they would be in a position to give advice as to the lines along which we could advance. I think it must be admitted by anyone who is familiar with the work done in other countries that Canada has lagged, particularly in some departments, and that without the expenditure of too much money our own department could maintain this central bureau, which in turn would be in a position to advise with regard to the extension of the work throughout the length and breadth of Canada. I venture to suggest this to the consideration of the minister.


Malcolm McLean: I have been
listening anxiously for many minutes to see if I could learn something about the work of the tuberculosis association, which I imagine is an anti-tuberculosis association. Could the minister give us the information, which has not been volunteered so far. as to how this money is used and its final disposition?


Charles Gavan Power: The association collects
money to finance campaigns in schools, in cities, in Indian reservations and generally throughout the dominion to educate the people in the care which should be taken in fighting tuberculosis. It also, as has been pointed out by the leader of the opposition, sells the anti-tuberculosis stamps which we receive at Christmas. The campaigns it puts on usually have for their object the education of 'the public on the subject of tuberculosis, the improvement of housing conditions and the establishment of sanatoria for the treatment of active cases. One of the most helpful measures is in continuing the local interest after the public addresses by distributing circulars, bulletins, et cetera, in the community. Also, it aids in the establishment of clinics.
Supply-National Health


Malcolm McLean: It works through provincial anti-tuberculosis associations I
assume ?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Canadian Dental Hygiene Council, $750.
Alexander MacGillivray Young: Would the minister explain this item?


Charles Gavan Power: This organization endeavours to interest the provincial authorities in dental hygiene and to educate the children in schools in dental care. As I understand the matter it goes from province to province; at the present time my information is that it is engaged in Ontario; last year it was in Prince Edward Island, I think. It arranges for lectures to the children in schools, and has a clinic to examine children and teach them the importance of dental hygiene.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there one individual engaged or only half an individual?


Charles Gavan Power: The provinces make grants; this is only to assist.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This is just a joke. If the dominion government representing ten million people grants only S750 to such an organization, I think the grant had better be cut out. If we are going into it we should go into it.


Charles Gavan Power: The total income is some $9,000 or more. The life insurance companies subscribe a certain amount. I will be frank in saying that this council have been asking for more money and will be very well pleased with the hon. member's observations in their behalf, but for this year we did not consider it possible to give them any more. But they are doing a useful work. I think the particular province in which they happen to be working in any year makes a grant that pretty nearly finances the work in that province; this money, I assume, would be devoted largely to the printing of pamphlets-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Purely clerical work.


Charles Gavan Power: -and to purely clerical work in connection with their propaganda.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I ought to say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the minister found this item of $750 there and merely carried it on. The council sought a larger sum, as the minister explained. This sum is merely to assist with printing and clerical work, and is not intended to meet the large demands which under other circumstances they think should be made to meet the work in the provinces. I said to

them, as I say now, that ultimately any grants the dominion can make towards improving the teeth of the people, which is a provincial matter, should be made to the provinces themselves. Ontario carried on a travelling clinic which was one of the finest things I have ever seen. Then there was one operated by the Red Cross in Nova Scotia which was most successful, and one year I think there was one operating in Manitoba ; I am not sure of that. This small grant is simply to indicate that they are worthy of recognition.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But it does not indicate that; I should say that the smallness of the grant indicates that they are a pretty poor outfit. When we consider that in nearly all our larger cities they have clinics in the public schools and that in many provinces there are travelling clinics doing dental work among the children, it seems to me absurd that the dominion government should give so little. I think the minister might give S80 or $90 to each province, and let them take over the work. Why not?


Charles Gavan Power: In all probability the provinces would not have made the advances which have been made in the work had it not been for the association, one which to a great extent is financed by the insurance companies. In Quebec the work is being attended to by the sanitary units or, as we describe them, les unites sanitaires. But assistance is required from the dental hygiene council, and possibly some guidance could be given as to the methods of carrying out the work most effectively. I agree that the amount is not very great, and were it within my power to give more I -would gladly do so. I shall make representations, and see that the hon. member's, representations are carried to the Minister of Finance in the hope that his heart may melt a little, and that he may give an extra $250.


William Allen Walsh: May I commend the words of the minister and the work the organization is doing. I believe it is doing even more than the minister has indicated. I have known this organization through its director, Doctor Thompson, to go into a municipality and encourage it to undertake the survey of children in schools in order to ascertain the dental work which might be required. It has been doing a work which is of tremendous value to that municipality.
May I supplement the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre by stating that if the grant could be increased the efficiency of th.e organization would be improved to a great extent. It would be doing work such as that suggested earlier in the


IS, 1936
[Stage Direction]
Questions
evening, namely, that of helping the child who is unable to help himself. We know that, if not properly cared for, teeth may be the cause of illness. The organization is attempting to remedy defects of that kind, not only by itself, but through existing organizations. May I offer every encouragement possible to the minister in his efforts to secure a larger grant for the organization?
John Power Howden: Before we leave the
medical items there are some matters I should like to bring to the attention of the committee.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the hon. member speaking to this item?


John Power Howden: I shall speak about medical matters, but there is no such item in the estimates. The minister may carry the item if he likes, so long as I am permitted to speak for a moment or two afterwards.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak under the item for administration.


Mr. NEILL:: Did I understand the minister to say that the association, bureau, or w'atever it is, prints articles or pamphlets on dental hygiene?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Would he mind sending a few to his colleague the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs? The dental hygiene among Indian children has been much neglected. In late years, for the sake of economy if you like to put it in that way, they have got it down to little else but pulling out those teeth which are in a bad state of decay. That is not true economy. The Indian agent tells me that since that policy was adopted hospital bills have increased in our damp British Columbia climate, and that the Indians have had to have more treatment for diseased glands, tonsils and the like. It is recognized generally that it is more economical to take care of the teeth, and to treat them in the initial stage of decay * rather than to resort to pulling them out when they get beyond saving.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be pleased to see that the superintendent general receives two or three pamphlets.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries-staff, $3,428,000.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
Monday, March 16, 1936