Mr. EULER:

It is the legal way. My hon. friend knows this, that if goods are coming into this country at a less value than they legally ought to for the purposes of duty, it immediately becomes the duty of the minister, if you like-and I will take responsibility for that-to give instructions that new appraisals be made. That is exactly what was done. My hon. friend may think that on a new appraisal an added appraisal of 40 per cent is too high. That is a matter of opinion. If it is shown to be too high, those who have had to pay those duties will get their refunds, and that is all there is to it.

I should like to add just one further word in regard to the responsibility of the minister. My hon. friend says the minister does not know his business. Perhaps he does not know it quite so well as the hon. leader of the opposition, but he is doing his best. I may say this to him, and he knows it is true because he has had a little experience himself as a minister: no minister in this or any other government could function if he tried to attend to all the little details in his department. I will give him an example. The hon. gentleman was a member of the committee which investigated the customs department four years ago. He was one of those who said-I think I am doing him no injustice when I say this, and he will correct me if I am wrong- that whereas the minister is supposed to pass on all seizures, some five hundred or six hundred of which occur every month, the minister should not do that but should leave it to his deputy.

Mr. BENNETT:

No, that was not the way it was put. However, go on and I will deal with it later.

Mr. EULER:

Yet under the law the minister, as my hon. friend from Lincoln knows, is supposed to sign every decision on the seizures.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

It was impossible.

Mr. EULER:

Of course it was impossible, and this particular minister in charge of the customs department divested himself of that authority and gave it to the Commissioner of Customs, which is exactly what the committee desired.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

I did that myself.

Mr. EULER:

And yet it is well known that the minister has to take responsibility under the law.

Ways and Means-Supply Bill

Mr. BENNETT:

The hon. gentleman has not quite understood. Questions of taxation must be approved by the minister. Questions involving taxation must be considered by the minister, because it is the executive action of the government; it is something for which the government must assume responsibility. Surely the minister will admit that. Questions of routine we did report should not be dealt with in that day; we recommended that the minister should not be concerned with questions of routine and seizures and so on. That we put as strongly and fairly as we could, and it is because I believe that the whole theory of responsible government is concerned that I put it to the minister myself. That is, the executive substitute, its functions for those of parliament, but when it does so the minister must assume the responsibility.

So much for that. I should have liked to get some assurance from the minister as to what his contemplated action may be, but he has told us that he has not given the matter any consideration and therefore has no contemplated action in mind.

There is one further matter with which I should like to deal, although the Minister of Labour is not in his place. I asked him what steps were being taken in connection with the introduction into this country of a monopoly in films, and he said the matter was under consideration and that we would get some further information on that point. It is possible that some other member of the administration may be able to answer the question and I should like to know whether that investigation is being proceeded with. I hold in my hand a few of the telegrams which I have received from various organizations, women's organizations being particularly concerned about the films and asking whether we are to be at the mercy of an alleged monopoly. If so, then of course we should know it, and I have asked the question for the purpose of eliciting information with which the people of Canada are vitally concerned.

Mr. EULER:

In order that the house may be informed of the scope of this furniture regulation, I may say that the order applied only to furniture coming from quite a restricted area in the United States. I am not sure that I mentioned that before, but I think it applies to North Carolina and possibly one or two other states; with regard to importations from Michigan or any other of the United States, or any other country, the regulation does not apply at all. If we find that we were wrong in adding the 40 per cent as I said before, refunds will be made upon application.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

I think the whole question rests upon the point whether the goods were sold in the territory named by the minister below the regular market price. That is the whole point.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

So far as the films are concerned I may say to my hon. friend that I understand the Minister of Labour is now exercising such authority as he has under the combines act to investigate the position of matters to see if a combine exists. If it is found that there is reason to believe that a combine exists in contravention of the provisions of the act, then proceedings will be taken under the act.

Mr. BENNETT:

I thank the right hon. gentleman for the information he has given. I was pressed to ask before this parliament prorogued whether or not the minister had directed proceedings to be taken. If an investigation is held and it is found that the conditions are not as alleged, that would be the end of it. The right hon. gentleman has said that action will be taken and that is all that can fairly be said.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

I was not present in the

committee when the question of furniture was first brought up. Do the investigations carried on by the minister show that the articles in question were being slaughtered across the line, or that the price at which they were brought into Canada was less than the fair market value?

Mr. EULER:

The report has not been

received; if it has come in during the last day or so, I have not seen it.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

How did the minister come to take the initial step?

Mr. EULER:

Complaints were received

from Canadian manufacturers of furniture that goods were being slaughtered in Canada. I do not think there is any doubt that in some southern factories great stocks of furniture have accumulated and under the stress of circumstances they attempted to dispose of the goods, and did dispose of them in Canada. That is how the whole matter came about.

Mr. STIRLING:

Were they being sold

in Canada at a price lower than that charged in the country of origin?

Mr. EULER:

That is the complaint which

is being investigated.

Mr. BENNETT:

They were being sold at

the same price in some cities.

Privilege-Mr. Bennett

Mr. CAMPBELL:

Is it not a fact that the officers of the department reported that the American Furniture Company were selling furniture in Canada at the same prices charged in the United States? The minister refused to permit an order of the house to pass stating that the information asked for was confidential. I contend that it is a matter of urgent public importance that those papers should be brought before this house. If my information is correct, those papers in connection with the investigations into the prices of furniture sold by the American furniture companies were in the hands of the department at that time.