1917-06-04

LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have directed the Clerk of the House to lay upon the table of the House the Report of the Joint Librarians of Parliament with reference to the appointment of Herbert Charles Stock as a messenger in the Library of Parliament at $800 per annum. Mr. Stock has received the certificate of qualification required by the Civil Service Amendment Act in that behalf, and I recommend that the said appointment be concurred in.



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. SEXSMITH (East Peterborough) presented the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization as follows:. '

The Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization present the following as their first report:
Your Committee reports for the information of the House, the following evidence taken during the current session of Parliament:	The
evdence of Mr. J. H. Grisdale, Director of Dominion Experimental Farms, on "Farm management of Dominion Experimental Farms", and on the "Feeding and Raising of Stock" and would recommend that 25,000 copies of said evidence he printed in separate pamphlet form, for distribution forthwith in the usual numerical proportions of English and French, and that rule 74 with reference thereto be suspended. Your Committee would further recommend that it be divided into the following numbers, viz. 22,000 to Members of Parliament, 2,800 to the Department of Agriculture and 200 to the use of the committee.
He moved:
That the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, relating to the printing of evidence taken before them during the current session of Parliament, be concurred in, in accordance with the recommendation of the committee in said report.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Will the hon. gentleman explain the tenor of the report?


Mr. SEXSMITH:: We had before the
committee Mr. Grisdale, Director of Dominion Experimental Farms, who addressed the committee on farm management of the different experimental farms throughout the Dominion. The committee invited him to come back and finish his address, and on the second day he addressed the committee on the breeding and feeding of live stock. It was the unanimous opinion of the committee that we should have some twenty or twenty-five thousand copies of the evidence printed, so that they might be distributed throughout the various ridings of the country.


Mr. CURRIE:: As chairman pro tern, of the Printing Committee, I oppose this motion because we are trying to keep down the expenses of printing, and if this matter is left,to the Printing Committee, we will seriously consider whether it is worth while spending eight or ten thousand dollars on printing this report. Many other committees are anxious to have their reports printed, but the expenses are being cut down. I hope the House will not consent to this motion until the matter comes before the Committee on Printing.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a motion that should properly be passed only by the unanimous consent of the House, because if I understand aright the remarks of the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Sex-smith) it is a motion to suspend Rule 74.

Mr. SEXSM1TH: The hon. member for North Simeoe has mentioned the sum of $10,000 in regard to printing this evidence. Such an amount is entirely absurd. I think it is very important that this evidence should be printed. Of course, I am just speaking on behalf of the committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, before you dispose of this, may I remind the hon. member for North Simeoe that last year he presented a very important report from the Committee on Printing, and that that report was held up and has not yet been considered. As the matter is one of great importance, I hope he has not forgotten it.


John Allister Currie: No.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: That report was referred by resolution of the House to each department of the Government, and the deputy head of each department was instructed to make a report as to carrying it out, and to have that report ready for the present session of Parliament. I think my memory is correct in that respect. I do not know whether those reports have been made and referred to the committee or not, but I will make inquiry.


Wilfrid Laurier: My memory
is at variance with that of the Prime Minister, but he may be correct. I understand the matter was allowed to stand over in the absence of the hon. member for North Simeoe.


John Allister Currie: Action has been taken by the various departments along the line mentioned by the Prime Minister, but this motion is an attempted evasion of Rule 74.


John Albert Sexsmith: This is not an attempt to evade the rule; it is simply an endeavour to get the evidence printed in order that members may have copies of it before the close of the session.


Robert Laird Borden: The Clerk of the House informs me that my recollection of what took place last year is correct.
Motion stands.



REPORTS PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1916, part IV.-Sir George Foster.
Supplement to the Sixth Annual Report of the Department of Naval Service, Fisheries Branch, Contributions to Canadian Biology.-Hon. J. D. Hazen.

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

Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Has the Government seen an advertisement in the Toronto Telegram of the 4th of May, which also appeared in the other papers to the effect that ultramarine dyes have been used in the colouring of sugars?
2.	Has the Government reason to believe that ultramarine dyes have been so used?
3.	If so, what action, if any, has the Government taken up to the present time to prohibit the use of ultramarine dyes or other) poisonous materials in the colouring of sugar?
4.	If the Government has taken any steps, when did they take them?
5.	What is the scope of such action?
6.	If the Government has decided to prohibit
the use of ultramarine dyes or other poisonous materials for the purpose of colouring sugar, what steps will the Government take in regard to the sugar that might be on hand in refineries or elsewhere which are coloured contrary to law?	-
7.	If the Government have passed an order to the effect above suggested, will they allow this sugar improperly coloured to be sold in Canada?
8.	If they do allow it to be sold in Canada, will the Government insist upon it being labelled so that the public buying the sugar may not be deceived in what they are buying?


Mr. SEVIGNY:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes. During the months of December, January and February, 1916, our food inspectors made a collection of 175 samples of sugar throughout the country. These samples were analysed at the laboratory, and 169 were found to be genuine, and 6 were adulterated as containing a dye, without declaration of the fact, and in violation of the standards of sugar fixed by Order in Council on the 7th day of September, 1914, which declares that sugar which is sold as granulated, loaf, cut, milled or powdered sugar shall contain at least 99.5 per cent of sucrose, and 3hall be free from any artificial colouring matter. These six samples were found to conform to the standard, with the exception of the addition of the colouring matter.
3.	The Chief Analyst of the Department has declared that sugar containing ultramarine may be regarded as being quite harmless to health, and there is no particular objection to this dye provided that its presence is declared to the consumer; in other words, as the dye is used to hide a less advanced state of refinement, this fact should be made known to the consumer in all justice to the more highly refined sugars. The six samples above re-



ferred to was bought from retailers, and they were found to come from stock bought at the same refinery. The attention of the retailers and refiners was called to the standards established for sugar in 1914, and they were warned that unless they conformed to these standards in future they would be prosecuted. The department issued Bulletin No. 343 containing the report of the chief analyst on the result of the analysis of the 175 samples, and containing also a list of the names from whom these samples were bought, the names of the manufacturers, the result of the analysis, and also remarks indicating as to whether the samples were genuine or adulterated, etc. Opposite each of the six cases - reported as being adulterated, the following remark is printed, "containing a blue dye."
4.	The bulletin above referred to was printed and distributed throughout the country in the early part of this year.
5.	The collection of samples made last year and the distribution of the bulletin were the first steps taken in reference to this matter, since the establishment of the standards in 1914.
6.	The fact that there is in refineries coloured sugar is not illegal. The illegal act is committed when this coloured sugar is offered for sale without a declaration of the fact on the label, etc.; therefore, the department can take no action in regard to coloured sugar on hand, unless it is offered for sale without declaration of this fact.
7.	The standard declared in September, 1914, does not prohibit the absolute sale of coloured sugar, provided that the fact of the existence of the colouring is declared.
8.	Yes.


MAJOR G.' P. DILLON.
Mr. PEOULX:: 1.	Is G. P. Dillon, Montreal, purchasing agent for the Dominion Penitentiaries?
2.	If so, what is his salary?
3.	Is this the same G. P. Dillon who was looking after the prisoners in the internment camps of Ontario, with the rank of Major?
4.	Does he draw his salary of $3,000 as Purchasing Agent for the penitentiaries, and also his salary as major?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Three thousand two hundred dollars.
3.	Yes. Major Dillon has acted as purchaser for the internment camps, and in addition rendered valuable service in connection with transportation of prisoners and the establishing and maintenance of economy in connection with the camps.

4.	No. He draws the military pay of captain for his services as purchaser for the internment camps. This arrangement has the advantage of securing the services of an exceptionally qualified purchaser, and is much more economical than would be the appointment of a separate purchasing agent for the work of the camps.
MAPLBOL AND MAPLEINE.	.


Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Has the Government prohibited the sale of (a) Mapleol and (b) Mapleine?
2.	If the same has not been prohibited, is it because the Government considers that the nature of these compounds conform to the law respecting adulteration?
3.	What is the number of samples of (a) maple sugar and (b) maple syrup which have been analysed during the year 1915-16?
4.	How many of these samples have been found adulterated?
5.	Have proceedings been taken against those
found offending?	-
6.	If so, what is the number of such persons, and what are their names?
7.	Have they been convicted and fined?
8.	If so, to what amount?


Mr. SEVIGNY:: 1.	(a) Mapleol, nothing on record; (b) mapleine, no.
2.	(a) Mapleol, answered by No. 1 (a); (b) mapleine, yes. This'is an essence in no way resembling maplci syrup.
3.	(a) Maple sugar, 234; (b) maple syrup, 243.
4.	(a) Maple sugar, 25; (b) maple syrup, 46.
5.	(a) Maple sugar, yes; (b) maple syrup, yes, in 5 cases out of 46. Under the advice of the chief analyst no departmental action w.as taken in the case of 41 samples of maple syrup which were found adulterated, because the order for collection preceded the date (May 15, 1915), at which the standards for maple syrup became legally effective.
6.	7 and 8, answered by statement attached.
The following statement shows the number and names of parties who have been convicted and fined for having in their possession adulterated maple sugar and maple syrup:

Maple sugar: S. Smith & Son, fined $25; Bauld Bros., Ltd., fined $25; Coleman & Eisener, fined $25; John Mclver, case stands; J. W. Philips, suspended sentence; J. A. Provencher, fined $25; N. Trudeau, fined $5; H. Pepin, fined $25; H. Robinson, fined $5; E. E. Biron, fined $25; P. J. Roy, fined $25; H. Brydge, fined $25; P. J. Frood, fined $25; L. Malette, fined $25; J.
S.	Ireland, fined $25; A. Fedy, fined $25; W. D. Stephens, fined $25; J. Cherpaw, fined $25; Willard & Co., fined $25; S. Bourgeman, fined $25; B. H. Walsh, fined

$25; W. R. Cole, fined $25; W. H. Tricker, fined $25; Hardy & Buckanan, fined $25; Chaston & Treteau, case before the court.
Maple syrup:-The following cases are before the court: H. A. E. Morin, L. Ar-chambault, Mont La Salle Grocery, C. H. Fournier, Choquette & Frere.


RECRUITING EXPENSES.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	What was the total cost to the Government in salaries, houses, rental and other expenses, over and above the pay and allowances of enlisted officers and men employed in recruiting for overseas service, from August 4, 1914, to May 1. 1917?
2.	What was the total amount of money contributed by persons or organizations and not chargeable to the Dominion Treasury, which was used by the recruiting agencies of the Government in recruiting for overseas service from August 4, 1914, to May 1, 1917?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	The- claims for travelling expenses and
transport in connection with recruiting have never been segregated from other items of war expenditure under the same headings, and to separate these charges now would necessitate wading through some hundreds of thousands of vouchers and would occupy the time of a very large staff of clerks for a considerable period.	~
2.	This information is not available in the department


CAMPBELLTON-GASPE STEAMSHIP SERVICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: Is it the intention of the Department of Trade and Commerce to insist upon the steamer doing the service between Camptoellton, N.B., and GaspS, Quebec, to stop at way ports both going and coming?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: All steamship contracts made by the Department of Trade and Commerce stipulate certain ports of call. In many cases calls are not possible in rough weather. The department insists upon calls being made when possible. No complaints as yet this year have been received relative to the steamship service between Gaspe Basin, Balhousie and Camp-bellton.


RURAL MAIL DELIVERY ROUTES. ,
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	(a) How many rural mail delivery routes were in operation October 1, 1911, (b) and how many boxes were served on such routes?
2.	(a) How many rural delivery routes were
in operation March 31, 1917,	(b) and how
many boxes were served on such routes?
3.	How many new post offices were opened from October 1, 1911, to March 31, 1917?
4.	(a) How many new money order offices, (b) and how many new postal note offices have been opened from October 1, 1911, to March 31, 1917?
124}


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	(a) 614 rural mail delivery routes; (b) 16,015 boxes.
2.	(a) 3,586 rural mail delivery routes; (b) 165,043 boxes.
3.	2,682 new post offices.
4.	(a) 1,335 -money order offices; (b) 2,391 postal note offices.


THEOPHILE FISET.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Has Theophile Fiset, of the Parish of St. Bazile, in the County of Portneuf, been paid the sum of $1,100, the amount awarded to him for land sold to the National Transcontinental Railway ?
2.	If so, when?
3.	In whose name was the cheque made out?
4.	If there was more than one cheque issued for the said sum of $1,100, in whose names were the said cheques issued and for what sum to each person?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	January 24, 1917.
3 and 4. One cheque was issued in the name of Theophile Fiset and Lucien Mo-rand, solicitor for the Crown.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: For a copy of all letters, petitions, telegrams and other papers or documents in possession of the Government relating to the dismissal of Stanley McCutcheon of Senora, N.S., Preventive Officer, and the appointment of his successor.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other papers in connection with the closing of the post office at Horseshoe Canyon, Alberta.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: For a return showing the names of persons in the County of Inverness who have been receiving separation allowance and assigned pay, from the year 1914 to the present date.


John Howard Sinclair: For a copy of all tenders, correspondence, reports, telegrams, papers and documents in' the possession of the Post Office Department bearing date after January 1, 1917, relating to the contract for mail service between the Intercolonial Railway station and the post office at Heatherton, N.S.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: For a copy of all correspondence between the chief of the Hansard translation staff of the House, the Clerk of the House and the Speaker, since April 19, 1917, to date.


RELEASE OF EDWARD LEVI BAUGH.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY moved for:
A copy of the reports made by the trial judge and the penitentiary surgeons in connection with the release from penitentiary of Edward Levi Baugh.
[Stage Direction]
IfiGO
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: I notice that the motion asks for
the production of the report made by the trial judge. I would point out that it has never been the practice to produce the reports of the judges upon these applications for tickets of leave. The matter has been discussed in the House on more than one occasion, and I think the consensus of the House has been that these reports should foe treated as confidential. I therefore desire to enter my objection against that part of the motion being passed. As regards the repprts of the penitentiary surgeons, I see no objection to their being produced. I am not suggesting that Parliament could not possibly order the production of these documents, but I am pointing out that it has been the well established practice of Parliament ever since the Ticket of Leave Act came into force, to treat such documents as confidential.
Motion stands.


BANK ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion, of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Rainville in the Chair:
That it is expedient to amend the Bank Act by repealing subsections twelve to twenty, inclusive, of section eighty-eight and the schedule thereto as enacted by section two of chapter ten of the statutes of 1916, and to provide in lieu thereof that the chartered banks may loan money to farmers, and those engaged in raising stock, upon the security of their live stock, that is to say, horses, cattle, sheep and swine, and the offspring of any such animals, and including wool, clipped from sheep while such sheep are subject to such security, and further to provide for the filing of the security and the priority of the Bank's claim, and entry, seizure, and sale in case of default in payments due, and disposal of the proceeds.
Sir THOMAS WHITE:: It may be convenient for me at this stage to explain the
jason for this amendment to the Bank Act. Last year, in order to facilitate the making of advances to farmers and others engaged in the raising of livestock, we amended the Bank Act (by providing that banks might loan to farmers or persons engaged in the livestock industry upon the security of such livestock, taking as security bills of sale or chattel mortgages upon such livestock. It -was provided in that legislation that such bills of sale or chattel mortgages should be registered in accordance with the laws of the several provinces in which they were taken. The measure was

considered pretty carefully by the House and by the Banking and Commerce Committee, and it was thought at the time that it would reasonably meet the situation. That legislation was introduced at the request of the United Farmers of Alberta, who were interested in the matter of obtaining advances on livestock. But the legislation in its working out has proved to be cumbrous and expensive, and has not been taken advantage of to the extent we expected, for the reason that many farmers have a strong objection to executing chattel mortgages, and for the further reason that the drawing and registration of these chattel mortgages entailed considerable expense. During the past year I have had a further request from the farmers of Alberta to reconsider the matter and enact legislation enabling the banks to make loans upon the security of livestock, taking a simple form of assignment which might be registered at a trifling expense. I have given the matter a good deal of consideration with the result that when this resolution is adopted I purpose introducing a Bill enabling the banks to make loans to farmers or persons engaged in raising or feeding livestock upon the security of such livestock, taking an assignment in simple form of such livestock. The legislation will also provide that if under the provisions of any law in force in the province in which are the livestock mentioned in any security taken under the Act, any such livestock shall be exempt from seizure and sale under any writ of execution, then it shall continue to be exempt.
In this legislation, as in the legislation of last year, we shall have regard to the provincial law in force in the province in which the security is taken. There will be a further provision in the Act that in any province in which there are statutes or laws of the province in force relating to mortgages of goods and chattels or bills of sale, if the officer or person with whom or in whose office a chattel, mortgage or bill of sale may he registered or filed is authorized and empowered by the legislature of the province to receive and file the security taken under this resolution, then it shall be so filed. In other words, we purpose to permit the bank to make advances to farmers and others engaged in the live stock industry upon the security of the live stock, the bank taking a simple form of assignment. That form of assignment could not now be registered in any of the provinces, so far as I know. Nor have we the power to compel any provincial

officer to register sucth assignment. In order that the province m-ay, if it sees fit, protect the rights of creditors against the lien, we provide that the officers charged with the duty of receiving and filing mortgages and -bills of sale, being so authorized, may receive -and file an assignment given as security for a. loan under this law. In this way the matter will -really be in the hands of every provincial legislature. The subject, has been an exceedingly difficult one to deal with; but I think that this Bill will meet the situation satisfactorily and will enable the farmers to obtain loans from the bank upon the security of their live stock, giving a simple form of assignment which, in the province so requiring it, may be filed in an inexpensive manner.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do I understand that the main difference between this proposed legislation and the legislation of last year is simply the substitution of an assignment for a mortgage or bill of sale?


William Thomas White: That is one difference.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the main difference?
Sir THOM-AS WHITE: Possibly it may be, but I should not like to say so without an opportunity to explain further.


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot see what is the object of making this distinction between a bill of sale or chattel mortgage on the one hand and an assignment on the other. There may be some technical reason for it, but I do not know what it is.


William Thomas White: So far as the bank is concerned, there is no difference. Under the existing legislation, the bank may make advances upon live stock and may take a *chattel mortgage, which, in any province other than Quebec, has to be registered in accordance with the laws of the province. Provision was made in the legislation of last session that in the province of Quebec the loan might be taken without registration except, I think, publication in the Provincial Gazette; at all events, it was not possible to deal with Quebec as we dealt with the other provinces, as there is no chattel-mortgage legislation in the province of Quebec. The reason for the present legislation is that the farmers are unwilling to take advantage-at any rate they have not taken advantage-of the existing legislation, because, in the first place, they do not like to give a chattel-mortgage, and, in the second place, because it costs a substantial fee.to
draw a chattel-mortgage (which usually follows a well-known form) and register it in accordance with the laws of the province. The result is that the amendment of last session is not working out satisfactorily, and we have been requested to enact legislation which will enable the farmer to obtain loans upon his live stock by executing a lien note or assignment which may be registered if the provincial legislature sees fit to enact legislation under which their officers may receive and file the document.


Mr. PARDEE:: And if it is not registered?


William Thomas White: The lien is still valid.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: And the bank becomes
the holder of a lien, and subsequent creditors are not entitled to notice?


William Thomas White: Not entitled to notice


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Why should that be? Why should not the farmer who mortgages his stock give notice like any other debtor?


William Thomas White: That i-s the effect of this proposed legislation- in the event of the province not passing .uch legislation as is referred to.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: But the province may
pass that legislation or not, is it pleases.


William Thomas White: If the province thinks that the advantage accruing to the farmer from opportunity to borrow on his product, as the manufacturer borrows on his product, does not more than counterbalance the other interests affected, they will pass the legislation. We will leave it to the province to determine whether notice shall be given or not. If the province determines that this lien may not be filed, the responsibility, it seems to me, is theirs, for their jurisdiction covers this subject. All chattel mortgage legislation, so far as I am aware, is legislation of the provinces, not of the Dominion. If there is any better way to overcome the difficulty than this that I have suggested, I shall be only too glad to hear of it when the Bill is in Committee of the Whole, or better still, when it is before the Committee on Banking on Commerce. We are seeking to meet a situation in which the farmer engaged in the all-important subject of live-stock raising is vitally interested.


Mr. GERMAN:: I doubt very much if the reason why the farmers have not taken advantage of the legislation of last year is that they do not desire to have a chattel

mortgage filed. I am inclined to think that they have not required to take advantage of it; the farmers have not needed to borrow so much money from the bank as they did previously; they are better off than they were. The Minister of Finance must see that when he gives the banks preferential trade over ordinary creditors, without notice, he is going a long way to protect a class of people who, I think, do not need protection, at any rate not by legislation. What expense can there be attached to the giving of a chattel mortgage? The chattel mortgage is a very simple thing, equally as simple as any sort of an assignment which a man could contract. A chattel mortgage is simply an agreement on the part of one party to pay to another party a certain sum of money at a certain time and (agreeing that certain chattel property which the borrower has is liable to he sold in default of payment. In any sort of assignment that could be devised the same conditions would be included as are included in a chattel mortgage. That assignment would necessarily have to be filed. There would be no authority on the part of this Government to' enact that the assignment should he registered in any of the county offices throughout, at all events, the province of Ontario. That would have to be done by legislation on the part of the provinces. It would have to be registered. It would be absolutely unfair to other creditors to .allow a fanner to pledge all his livestock to a bank without notice to any other person who might he inclined, or induced, to loan him money. That could not he the law. In so far as Ontario is concerned- I do not know what the law is in other provinces-it would he too unfair to either party to put such a law as that on the statute-book. The assignment would have to be registered as a notice to the world. Why should not a chattel mortgage he used just as well as an assignment? Every condition that is in the chattel .mortgage would necessarily be in the assignment. All the stock, and everything that was covered by the security, would have to be recited in the assignment and that assignment would [DOT]have to be registered, It would cost just as much as a chattel mortgage. The banks could have their forms of chattel mortgages so that when a farmer went to the bank to borrow money on the security of his live stock, the solicitors who are employed in every town and village where there is a branch bank and paid so .much a year by the (bank, could fill up the chattel mortgage and it could be executed without any
IMri German.]
expense. I think the Minister of Finance should hesitate before putting on the statute-book legislation which will allow any man to mortgage his property to a bank without putting the transaction in a position where the public generally will have notice of the encumbrance because he is giving a preference to the bank that does not need a preference, that is not asking for it and I doubt very much if the farmers, when they thoroughly understand it, will he particularly interested in the matter. I doubt the wisdom of such legislation.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 
John Allister Currie: Does this put the farmer in any different position from that of the ordinary 'manufacturer and is not the farmer one of the manufacturers of the country? We are trying to get him put of the clutches of the loan sharks and put him in the position. of the manufacturer.


William Pugsley: In the case of the manufacturer, it is different because of the largeness-of the operations. It has been thought well to make provision in the case of the lumber manufacturers, because of the largeness of the operations and the important interests involved. Provincial legislatures have not made any provision to meet cases of that kind, but they have legislated in
regard to ordinary bills of sale given by farmers and others. But this gets right down to the case of a farmer who might own ten cows. He would get a loan, he would give the hank a secret lien and he could go tomorrow and borrow money on that stock, the lender would lend the money in good faith, he would record his mortgage in the provincial registry office and he might wake up a fortnight or six weeks afterwards and find that the hank, under its secret lien, could take away his security.


John Allister Currie: What would happen to
the farmer if he did that? Would he go to jail?


William Pugsley: It would be very little satisfaction to the man who lends his money, to put a man in jail. It seems to be very objectionable for that reason. If it is desirable to introduce these forms in the Act, why should not the operation of this Act postponed until the legislatures of the different provinces have had opportunity to approve of the legislation?


William Thomas White: There is only
one object in introducing this legislation, and that is to meet a real difficulty which has existed for years past, especially in the West, in connection with the live stock industry.


William Pugsley: You do not limit it to the West.


William Thomas White: I do not think it advisable that any legislation we pass here should be limited to any particular section of the Dominion. On the last revision of the Bank Act, and I think in some preceding revisions, this question has been raised on behalf of those engaged in the livestock industry. It has been pointed out, as the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has stated, the manufacturer, great or small, can go to a hank and by a simple form of hypothecation of his product, 'under section 88 of the present Bank Act, obtain advances. That hypothecation constitutes a secret lien. I have myself always been of the opinion that Parliament should hesitate, unless on public grounds of the greatest importance, to extend that principle of the secret lien. But, on the other hand, we must remember that the great industry of this country to-day is agriculture, that we are asking the farmers to increase their production, and that it is our bounden duty to make such laws as will promote such production, that is to say, provided that the public interest otherwise is not seriously affected or injured. Until

last year it was impossible for the farmer engaged in the raising of live stock to hypothecate or pledge his live stock to a bank and obtain advances on it. Last year, in response to most urgent solicitation on the part of the western live stock raisers, I introduced legislation under which the farmer can give a chattel mortgage or bill of sale upon his livestock. We desire to respect the laws of the provinces, because most of the provinces have desired that, in the ease of a lien being taken upon personal property, notice *should be given to the public through registration, and there is on the statute books of imost of the provinces provision for such registration. The difficulty, therefore, with which we were confronted last year was how to permit the farmer to hypothecate or pledge his livestock and give a security and at the same time afford notice to the public that the security had been given. We thought then that the way out of the difficulty was to enable the banks to loan upon chattel mortgage just the same as an individual can loan upon chattel mortgage, and that the chattel mortgage so taken should be registered in accordance with the provincial laws. It seemed to me last year that it was the only way in which the Dominion could meet the situation, because it was not within the power of the Dominion to compel provincial officers charged under the legislation of the several provinces with the duty of registering bills of sale and chattel mortgages, to register a simple form of assignment such as we now propose in accordance with the laws of the province. Therefore, we enacted, that the bank might take a chattel mortgage upon live stock, and that the chattel mortgage should be registered in accordance with the laws of the several provinces. That is where the matter rested. But it has been pointed out to me, not by the banks but by the livestock raisers, that the farmers do not like to give chattel mortgages-the very words " chattel mortgage " seem to cast some doubt upon their credit.


William Pugsley: Nobody likes that.


William Thomas White: They do not like to give a chattel mortgage, and it is further pointed out that it costs the farmer a substantial fee to have a chattel mortgage drawn. It is a lawyer's work, and there is also a fee for having it registered in accordance with the laws of the province.


William Manley German: No more than this will be.
Thomas White,]


William Thomas White: I disagree with my hon. friend. Therefore I believe that some of the provinces will be quite willing that these liens should be taken and should not be registered. They will not fear that the ordinary creditors will suffer. They believe that the livestock industry is of such importance that the men raising livestock should have the right to hypothecate or pledge their stock in the same way as a manufacturer is to-day empowered to pledge his manufactured product. Let us assume that in New Brunswick it was considered inadvisable that the farmer should have the right to give a secret lien upon his livestock. Then, under this law, the legislature of that province could authorize the officers who now are authorized to receive and file chattel mortgages and bills of sale, to receive and file this assignment, and if that was not done in accordance with that legislation of .the province, then the assignment would be null and void as against creditors or subsequent purchasers for valuable consideration. On the other hand, let us say that in Alberta, the Legislature was content that the farmer should have the right to give this assignment of his live stock to the bank and that such assignment need not be registered, then the province would allow this Act to operate without bringing in such legislation.
The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) has, however, raised a question which did appeal to me and which I am quite willing to have considered when the matter is before the Banking and Commerce Committee, and that is as to whether or not the Act should immediately become operative. I feel that it would be a mistake, although my mind is open to conviction, to enact that it should not come into effect until after the provinces have passed this legislation to which I have referred, because then the matter would not be advanced very much further than it is at present.
The assignment would then be taken in lieu of chattel mortgage, and would be filed in the ordinary way. I do think, however, that there is a good deal to be said for the view that the Act should go into operation on a date to be named, the legislatures of the several provinces being enabled in the meantime to enact, if they so desire, legislation'to compel the registration of the assignments taken under this 1 measure. I have brought this Bill in, as I did the Bill of last year, to meet the urgent requirements of the farming community, especially of the West, engaged in the raising of live stc ck. I should like the

Banking and Commerce Committee to hear the parties interested; they will then be able to reach a better conclusion than we can reach by discussing the matter here. The live stock industry is a great industry in Canada, and we look forward to a much greater development of it. One of the chief complaints made against our 'banking system by the raisers of live stock throughout Canada is the lack of simple means of getting bank credit readily upon almost the best kind of security. Live stock raisers and manufacturers are engaged in raising or producing something that they require not for their own needs, but for sale in the markets of the world. In order to carry on business of either kind, it is absolutely necessary that there should be facilities for credit, and it is to meet that situation that this Bill is introduced. I should have hesitated to introduce it at this session, in the midst of the war, if I had not believed that it was highly desirable and in the interests of the live stock industry, which especially at this time we are endeavouring to promote and increase. If in the view of the Banking and Commerce Committee a strong case is made against proceeding with the Bill, personally I should be disposed to pay a great deal of regard to that opinion. I should like, however, in the interests of the live stock industry, the matter to go to the Banking and Commerce Committee, and there be considered on its merits.
Mr. iMiQLLOY:	The only thing wrong
with the legislation proposed is that it does not go far enough. The banks should be permitted to lend money to the farmer on his live stock without talking either mortgage or assignment. Last year in the district in which I live a sale of eight or nine thousand sheep was advertised. A great many men who had previously been grain farmers only wished to purchase a number of those sheep. Upon going to the bank, they were told that they could have the money, but would have to give a chattel mortgage on whatever stock they bought. As a consequence, they did not buy. Two persons whom I have in mind, however, did purchase the stock, misapprehending what the bank had told them. When they came to make settlement simply by giving a note for the amount borrowed, as they had done that year and many years before, they were told that they 4 p.m. had to give a chattel mortgage.
The result was that the savings which they had put aside in the bank for operations in 1917 were drawn out and used
to pay the amount of the purchase of the live stock. These men will be obliged now to borrow on their note from the bank in order to carry on operations this year. The farmer will not purchase live stock and give the hank a chattel mortgage, paying them, as one farmer said, from $8 to $10 to be advertised. I shall certainly support this legislation, but I repeat that it does not go far enough. Any man who is a bona fide settler and a worthy citizen should be able to borrow from ,a bank $1,000, $1,500, even $5,000, for the purchase of live stock. The banks will not lose, 'because they never lend money to anyone unless they expect to get it back with good interest.
IMr. McOOIG:	I believe that the banks
should lend money to the farmers for the purchase of stock, as is proposed, especially in this particular year. The farmers would buy a great deal of the stock that is on the market in the province of Ontario if they could get the money to purchase. But they protest against giving a chattel mortgage and -advertising themselves, when they are endeavouring to do what is in the best interest's of the country and of their own industry. The idea of the Bill, I believe, is to place the bank in the same position as the manufacturer when he disposes of his machines. The manufacturer has a lien on the machines that he sells; the bank has a lien on the stock which is purchased by the money which the farmer borrows. If I understand the Bill rightly, I am heartily in accord with the proposed legislation and should be glad to see it passed. I believe that it would have a very good effect upon the live stock industry of Canada.


John Allister Currie: This is one of the most important pieces of banking legislation yet offered to the House. The one great obstacle to successful farming in Canada is lack of credit. That obstacle has been largely overcome in Europe 'by the establishment of rural credit banks, and the United States is endeavouring to overcome the difficulty in the same way. There is no reason why the farmer, in regard to his product, should not be in the same position as the manufacturer, because, in a sense, the farmer is a manufacturer. Ninety-nine per cent of the farmers are honest, and will pay their debts. Failures -among farmers are less numerous than among manufacturers. When the farmer wants a comparatively small amount of money he is up against the loan shark. Suppose a farmer who has a good deal of live stock, but is short of feed, wants to buy feed to tide him

over the spring .months. He goes to the bank for $100. As he has nothing to offer in the way of security, the bank sends him to an attorney, or a gentleman who lends money. This gentleman takes the farmer's note for $125 at the legal rate of interest, and a chattel mortgage, which is duly filed. The result is injurious to the farmer, who is not given a fair chance; many prosperous farmers have been ruined by the methods employed by loan sharks. If a farmer is out of debt and has good credit he should be able to finance his business the same as any merchant does. * If he has a surplus of wheat which is of bad grade, as many western farmers have, lie should be able to get money from the bank to buy hogs or cattle to which he can feed that stuff and make from 50 to 100 per cent on the money in a short time. The bank is secured, because it has a first lien on the property, just as it has on logs that are going through the sawmill. It is able to get all necessary information about the farmer's standing and his prospects of success. The farmer needs this legislation very badly.
The quantity of stock in the country is diminishing. Take a man who has a large *farm and a large number of stock, and who, through no fault of his, has a crop failure. At present he is either compelled to sacrifice his stock or to borrow money from a loan shaik at ruinous interest rates. Why should such a man not be able, on the security of one or more head of cattle, to borrow money from a bank so that he may be able to carry over his stock? In Kansas and other Western 'States several banks have been formed for that purpose, and they show the greatest expansion and success of any monetary institutions in the United States; in fact, they have been so successful that they are able to lend to farmers who have plenty of feed, money to buy stock, and after the feed is fed to the cattle, the banks still look after the farmers, and the latter are able to make lots of money and to get rid of the middleman in their hanking just as they are trying to get rid ol the middleman in their buying and selling. This is the most valuable banking legislation that has been brought before this House, and those who are making money drawing up chattel mortgages, and the loan sharks who are lending at fifteen per cent interest are not going to prevent this legislation from becoming law. Had I my way, I would not send this legislation to the provinces; this House can legislate on /banking without any preference to the provinces. This is good legislation

and it will enable the farmer to get rid of a great deal of stuff which is now going to waste around his farm.


Mr. D. D McKENZIE (North Cape Breton):: I am not opposed to the farmer having every opportunity of borrowing money, but I think it is objectionable to create machinery that will enable people to borrow money from a bank and that at the. same time will be different from any other methods of borrowing. If the Minister of Finance will give the banks power to lend money on such security as is mentioned in this resolution, letting them take such security as may be in compliance with the laws of the different provinces in which the banks are doing business, I think he is going as far as he can be expected to go, and I do not see any necessity for going any further. I understand the deficiency in the Bank Act was that banks were not permitted to lend money on security of this character. That being the case, of course, there is a handicap, but this legislation removes that disability and says to the bank: If your directors and managers are willing to lend money on security of this character, you have authority to do so, taking such security as you may deem advisable, subject to the laws of the province in which you are doing business. That is as far as we ought to be asked to go, and we should not be creating any machinery that will put the bank in a superior position to a private individual who may have money to lend. My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) speaks of loan sharks. There may be such people, but there are other people who^are honest, who have money to lend and who sometimes are willing to lend it out at a lower rate of interest than the banks. If a man who has a few thousand dollars in his possession is willing to lend it on security of this kind to a farmer, why should a bank have a private lien so that it is put in a superior position to the private individual? I think we are creating unnecessary difficulties. Banks are well equipped to do business. Their directors and managers are the very best men they can secure; they have the best legal advice obtainable, and if they have power to lend money on this class of security, that is all they should ask from this Parliament. They should bear the burden of looking after the security and complying with forms and proceedings just as other businesses in the various provinces must do. I am strenuously opposed to going any further than that. If you place an execu-

tion. in the hands of a sheriff in any province of Canada, that sheriff, if he is a careful man, may go to the registrar and see if there is anything on record against the personal property of the man against whom the execution is issued. If there is nothing against the property, he has no excuse for not levying, but under this legislation, if it goes into force, there may he a private lien, and a man may go through the whole process of the sheriff's .sale and the whole thing may be abortive because the sheriff could not give title, because there was no title in the naan against whom he had the excution. This private lien renders the whole thing abortive. After the wool has gone through the factory and has been cut and tailored into a coat, it may turn out that the bank has a lien on the wool and a man may have his coat taken off his back because he had no title in it. This is most extraordinary legislation. I am not at all claiming that the minister has no power to compel or to ask the officers in the different provinces to file this lien, I will point him to a similar case in a different way; the registrar of deeds is under no greater obligation to the Department of Railways and Canals than he is to the Department of Finance, but if the Department of Railways and Canals wishes to take over land in the province of Nova Scotia, the engineer makes a plan of that land under Dominion legislation; he goes into the office of the registrar of deeds; that officer takes it; and puts it on record, and he in a way vests the title to that land in the Crown as represented by the Department of Railways. That is because the taking over of this land and the filing of the plan are incidental to the building of the railway. If the minister makes taking security on personal property an incident of banking,-and we have absolute power to deal with banking-I see no reason why the same argument would not apply, and when a man presents that authority from the Department of Finance, under legislation passed by this Parliament, I see no reason why an officer of any province would not be obliged to put it on record just as he is obliged to put on record the plan that comes to him from the Department of Railways.


John Allister Currie: The ho'n. gentleman knows it is a rule of banking that there is a difference between taking security on productive property and non-productive property. Non-productive property is personal property such as jewels, furniture, and that sort of thing, and a chattel mortgage is required
in order to borrow money on it; but for productive property, such as cattle, that increase in value by being fed, I cannot see any difference between that and say logs, or pig iron, or raw lumber, and I think this legislation is along the right lines. A distinction is made by foreign banks which, will not lend on jewels, furniture, or anything of that kind.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hoi., gentleman had no occasion to interrupt me because I knew before what he told me. All that I ask is that the banks should look after themselves as to the kind of security they 'will take, and all that we are called upon to do is to authorize them to take such security, and, upon such security, lend money if they are willing. In the particular part of the province of Nova Scotia from which I come no substantial farmer has any difficulty in getting the money he requires. Of course we have no large cattle ranches such as exist in the West where such legislation would be serviceable.
As far as publicity of the form of security taken is concerned, there should be no discrimination in favour of the bank. If the minister' comes to the conclusion that he cannot force the officers to put this form of security on record, this legislation should not go through at all, and the banks should be left to take security in any such form as they deem advisable, after consultation with their legal advisers.


Mr. TURRIFF:: What is the opinion of the farmers' organizations with regard to this legislation?


William Thomas White: I believe they are in favour of it. Speaking from memory, the matter was first brought to my attention by the United Farmers of Alberta. My hon. friend will pardon me, I hope, if I first reply briefly to the hon. member for North Cape Breton. I think he is probably correct in stating that the Dominion Government could designate a provincial official as the party to file the form of assignment provided for in banking legislation. The matter, however, does not rest there. In the legislation of the several provinces there are usually additional safeguards thrown around chattel mortgage transactions. In some of the provinces, for instance, it is provided that there must be an affidavit of bona fides, and filing must take place within a certain number of days. In some of the provinces it may be the clerk of the county court who receives and files the chattel mortgages, and in others a different officer. I hope my hon. friend

will take it from me that we have considered that phase of the matter very fully, and that there are very great difficulties indeed in the way of drafting Dominion legislation providing for the registration of an assignment such as is provided for in this legislation, if it is to be in accord with the legislation of the several provinces. This matter has been given the best consideration by the farmers, I believe, and especially, by the representatives of the banks at Winnipeg, who have had frequent conferences with the farmers, and who desire to promote as far as possible the livestock industry. I shall be very glad to have all these matters most carefully considered when the Bill is before the Banking and Commerce Committee. I do not want to be responsible for legislation that will do any harm to creditors, but I do think that our legislation must be more and more advanced as the country itself advances. I think that what were regarded as necessary safeguards if) the public, say a few years ago, may be unnecessary to-day, having regard to the changed conditions in agriculture and in business. The farmer will more and more get into the habit of doing his business with the bankers, and paying his grocery and other bills by cheque, just as business men do; in other words, farming will become more and more a business. We must not conclude that what has been true of the past must necessarily be true of the future. I think our legislation must take a step forward from time to time to meet the changed conditions, if the country is going to do its utmost along the line of agricultural development.
Let me point out what happened two pr three years ago. At that time banks, while they could loan on warehouse receipts, could not make a loan to the farmer upon a pledge of the grain ,on his farm. We introduced legislation, first of all for one year,-I think it was introduced in 1915- under which a farmer having grain upon his premises could pledge it to the bank, just as a manufacturer can pledge his product to the bank. The question was raised at that time. What about the farmer's creditors, what about purchasers of value without consideration? Precisely the same questions that are raised to-day were raised then. However, we enacted the legislation, first for one year, and afterwards permanently, and so far as I know np untoward results have followed; I have had no complaints from any creditors that they have been defrauded by the

farmers. The legislation seems to have worked out satisfactorily, and as a result the farmers have been securing loans on grain which had not left their farm, and on which they could not obtain loans previously. The banker naturally has to protect himself. When he can get a lien upon grain he will make a loan that otherwise he would not make for fear the farmer might sell the grain or some other creditor seize it. Under the legislation that was passed at that time it would be fraudulent, and consequently criminal, for the farmer to dispose of his grain in violation of his pledge. What is the difference between that and live stock? The grain farmer can pledge his grain to the bank, but at present the live stock farmer cannot pledge live stock, and the question is, shall he be allowed to do so? This Bill will enable him to do so. But we are so solicitous of the rights and so regardful of the policy of the several legislatures of Canada, knowing as we do that most of them have placed chattel mortgage legislation upon their statute books, that we provide that if the legislatures of the several provinces, or any of them, enact that this lien shall be registered by the officers in that province whose duty it is to register chattel mortgages and bills of sale, then this security must be registered, and if it is not so registered it becomes null and void. That is the intention and effect of this measure.


John Gillanders Turriff: I have no doubt that the legislation may accomplish some good, although to my mind there are some very serious objections to it. I think it is undesirable to give the banks a preferred position over other creditors. . This legislation will accomplish some good, no doubt, but I do not think the Government is going about it in the right way. We have heard a great deal of late years about credit for the farmers of the West, and the local governments have undertaken to find cheaper money for the farmer in the way of farm loans. In the three prairie provinces the legislatures have made arrangements to provide farmers with money at actual cost plus the cost of administration, thereby cutting out all profit. That is going to be a boon to the farmers. What they need more particularly at this time is a bank credit for short term loans, and it seems to me that that is purely a matter of banking, though it will never be accomplished by the present chartered banks. Our banks have branches all over the country. A young fellow will go from Ottawa,

say, to take charge of a branch bank in the West. He understands banking all right but he knows nothing about farming and the raising of stock, and besides he is hampered by hard-and-fast rules from the head office. I think the time has come [DOT]when the Dominion Government ought to do something in the way of assisting to establish farmers' banks throughout the country from which farmers could get short term loans. But I would point out to the minister that if that were done it would be absolutely necessary to protect these farmers' banks from the chartered banks. For there is no doubt that if a bank were started for the purpose of doing only this business with the farmer, it would be only a small bank, something along the line of the state banks in the United States; and if it were not protected in some way, so that its securities could be re-discounted, it would be an easy matter for the chartered banks to do with it exactly as they do now with any new bank which starts in .a small way-they make it almost impossible for that bank to succeed. So, while this legislation may be all right, while it may be a step in advance, I do not know that it is at all a solution of the problem of short term banking credit for the farmer. While it is too late, I suppose, to attempt anything in this way this session, I would suggest to the minister that the matter should be looked into between now and next session with a view to evolving some system by which small hanks may be established to supply the necessary credit for the farmers ip. their ordinary business, particularly for the very important object for which this Bill is introduced-to enable the farmer to buy stock, feed it, and sell it again. In many oases in the West a farmer will have a good deal of poor wheat which cannot be sold to advantage, but if he is in a position to buy cattle, hogs, or sheep, and feed this grain, he may be able to make more money out of it than if he sold a crop of first-class wheat. So, while this legislation is all right, I think it is not a solution of the question, and I would urge the minister to consider the whole subject between now and next session.


Mr. MORPHY:: I congratulate the Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) on having taken a step in advance in this matter. As I understand it, this law will enable farmers to be assisted to meet conditions that probably no bank, particularly in the province of Ontario, *would help him to meet. The chartered banks will have the power to advance money by way of warehouse receipt or assignment, to take a first lien, without registration of any kind. Here is a Bill that gives to the farmer an advantage that he has not had before in any province of Canada under the Bank Act, viz., the power to borrow money from the bank upon chattels upon which the hank heretofore could not loan.


William Pugsley: -The bank could loan on this security under the legislation of last year.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Not in the way now proposed by this Bill. The whole question, to my mind, comes to this: If the .provinces wish to aid the farmers they will bring their legislation into line with what this Bill provides, especially under section 17. That is to say, the province may enact a law that will compel the hank to register the assignment under this Act in case of a loan to a farmer upon his live stock. I think this is a clear advantage and benefit to the farmer.


William Manley German: Wherein would the farmer be better off if an assignment had to be registered than he would be if a chattel mortgage had to be registered?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is less expensive, for one thing.


William Manley German: No.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Absolutely so, I think-


William Pugsley: What does it cost to register a chattel mortgage in Ontario?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Fifty cents.


William Pugsley: It costs only ten cents in New Brunswick.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Then, the assignment is drawn for nothing-


William Pugsley: There is no expense in it now.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Are the lawyers drawing these documents for nothing?


William Pugsley: They have a form-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The banks do not take chances iby drawing such documents in their offices, but depend upon their legal advisers. A chattel mortgage costs from four dollars to six dollars, according to its length.


William Thomas White: And more in the West.	.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I speak of what it is in the larger centres; I do not know what it is- in the West. This Bill is not for the benefit of large ranchers alone. We have thousands of farmers who cannot to-day

borrow a dollar on their livestock without too much expense for the small sum involved. The result is that the curb broker gets the benefit in large rates of interest. There is one feature of the Bill that, it occurred to me, should be considered. If there is no registration, it will be a serious thing in the case of farmers having different bank accounts. While farmers, as a class, are extremely honest, once in a while one crops up who is not above attempting a fraud, and, unless there is protection for the lending bank, he may deal with two or three banks. So, I think there should be some provision for filing.


William Pugsley: That is exactly what we have been saying. My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) would give the impression that this legislation would be a panacea, that under it the farmer will get all the money he wants from the bank. I do not believe that at all. To-day the bank that is prepared to loan to a farmer bases its loan upon personal credit rather than anything else. While the banks have regard to the prosperity of the farmer, they consider particularly his reputation for honesty and industry. We ought to be very careful when we seek to alter, as we now propose to do, the provincial laws with regard to a bill of sale. We must avoid interfering with the farmer getting credit in other directions. It is very important for the farmer in my own province, and I suppose the same is tiue elsewhere, to be able to get credit with others besides the banks. The man who buys "Stock from another farmer often gives his note for the stock. He needs credit with the storekepeer for flour, sugar, clothing, and other articles. If people know that a law has been brought into force under which a lien may be given to the banks without notice, I am afraid it will have the effect of curtailing the farmer's credit among other people from whom it is necessary for him to borrow in order to get along comfortably. The Minister of Finance is making a law which may be of benefit to the large farmers, but he does not confine it to this class but makes it apply to even the smallest farmers anywhere in Canada.
The minister himself recognizes by his Bill that it is desirable to give notice because he says: after the provincial legislatures have made provision for the filing of the mortgage-


William Thomas White: " If " and "after."


William Pugsley: But it is the filing of a mortgage not in the form the legislature

provides, but in the form the minister provides.


William Thomas White: Read the Bill.


William Pugsley: I have read the Bill. The schedule is the form of mortgage. It is a little bit shorter and cheaper than the ordinary form of chattel mortgage which the legislatures have provided for. The banks, I suppose, will keep printed forms of this mortgage.


William Thomas White: It Mill be
cheaper than the ordinary chattel mortgage.


William Pugsley: Perhaps it will cost
fifty cents or a dollar less. But the bank could keep a form of the printed chattel mortgage, as it could keep the form of this mortgage, and the expense would be very little less. I have no objection to the form of chattel mortgage that the minister proposes to adopt. It is perhaps simpler and a little bit cheaper than the form the legislatures have adopted. But what I do object to is that under the proposed legislation adopting this particular form of chattel mortgage these secret liens can be given and bona fide securities seriously affected. If the minister would change that and provide that in any province where legislation along the lines suggested has not been passed the present law should prevail I think it would be all right.
But let me refer to the suggestion of my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) as to what the minister must do to confer a real benefit upon the farmers; that is the introduction of a Bill providing for the establishment of farmers' banks. That is the way in which relief could be given. The minister stated at the last session of Parliament that the Government were earnestly thinking of this question. I think this might be an opportune time for the minister to tell us what has been the result of that thinking in which the Government were then engaged and if during the present session the Government will be prepared to submit to Parliament a Bill for the creation of farmers' banks. That has been done in the United States and it has accomplished wonders. It has greatly increased the production of the farmers. It is enabling them to get credit at a low rate of interest and they are buying agricultural machinery and stock and develop-, ing their farms and 1jhe result is proving enormously beneficial not only to the farmers alone but to the people generally.


John Allister Currie: Where is that?


William Pugsley: In the United States.


John Allister Currie: It has just been in force about six months.


William Pugsley: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I am familiar with what has been going on there and I can tell my hon. friend that as a result of that legislation the farmers are enlarging their production enormously. That is a way in which the Government could confer a great benefit on the farmers, but I doubt very much if they will be able to do it by this law allowing these secret liens. It may result in the farmers being deprived of credit rather than enabling them to get additional credit at the banks.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.	.
Sir THOMAS WHITE introduced Bill No. 65, to amend the Bank Act.
Motion agreed to and the Bill read the first time.


RUMOURED POLITICAL DEADLOCK.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: I
should like, with your permission, to address a question to my Tight hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) based on what I conceive to be two most important items in the morning paper. The first of these is one in which we all take great pride and it is to the effect that the Canadians at the front have taken an important place in the neighbourhood of Lens, marching through a shell-swept area as if they were engaged in manoeuvres. The second item that I conceive to be of importance is that in certain other operations nearer home than France-which, I hope, I shall not be offensive in designating as manoeuvres.-there is a deadlock existing. The question I desire to address to my right hon. friend I address partly as one of the unambitious rank and file of this House and in some degree on behalf pf an anxious, waiting, and expectant public, and, I think as well, in some degree on behalf of the men at the front. The question I wish to put is:	Has my right hon. friend any
communication to impart to the country pr to the House as to whether this deadlock is likely to come to an end one way or another within a reasonable period of time? I suppose all deadlocks end some time, somehow, but I am perfectly sure that there is a great desire that this one should end one way or the other within a reasonable period of time.


Right Hon.   S@: I should be glad indeed to give my hon. friend (Mr. Clark), the House, ,and the country any information that was available but I hope he will regard me as not in the least wanting in respect for him, or in the desire to give all information possible, when I say that there is not at the present time any announcement to make.


PURCHASE OF CHEESE BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there has also
been a little deadlock in regard to the matter of the purchase of cheese by the Imperial 'Government and perhaps I might make a statement on that matter because last week when unfortunately I was not [DOT]able to be present in the House the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. McMillan) made a statement which was substantially correct and I think my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy) also put a question to the House which was answered by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) who, I noticed, in reading Hansard, stated that I would give further information if I had it. If you will permit me, I would like to give a very short review of the situation without which the present condition wpuld not be very intelligible.
Last autumn the British authorities communicated with tire Canadian Government with the idea of seeing whether it would be possible for them, in some manner or other, to secure the whole exportable surplus of Canadian cheese. We pointed out that as it was the close of the season it would be practically impossible to do anything and that if they did wish to achieve anything in that way another season it would be very desirable to commence in January or February when the Government here felt it would be quite feasible to make some arrangement which would be satisfactory all round.
Nothing of that kind,however, was done in January and February, and meanwhile the British authorities had commandeered, through the New Zealand Government, the whole of the New Zealand cheese output at a price of 19 cents f.o.b. In March, through the Prime Minister, who was then in England, there was a suggestion that we should secure the whole of the Canadian cheese output for this year by a process of com-

mandeering. The Government, after thoroughly considering the whole matter, advised the Prime Minister and through him the Imperial Government, that we did not consider a process of commandeering cheese would 'be a very satisfactory method in regard to Canada, whose conditions were entirely different from those in New Zealand. We pointed out that New Zealand oiperated through a limited number of factories which were all not only manufacturing agencies but selling agencies as well, and that this system was an entire contrast to that in this country, where we have
3,000	factories and where the whole trade is done through cheese buyers and an organized trade. Therefore we said it would not be practicable to commandeer the cheese. Some correspondence went on by cable, and it was then suggested that a commission should be appointed, on which the British authorities would have one representative, with the idea of carrying out the suggestion we had made, namely that in any arrangement to secure the whole cheese production of Canada on satisfactory terms it would be desirable to operate through all the existing trade channels that had carried on their business from time immemorial here. As a result of that, a commission of three was finally appointed. The British authorities-appointed Mr. James McGowan, and informed us by cable that he was sailing for Canada. It was quite obvious that nothing could be done until that commissioner arrived from England. Speaking from memory, I think he did not arrive until the middle or end of April. Meantime the eheese market in Canada had opened, and though there was no heavy demand, as not much cheese was being manufactured, yet the maximum price that had been fixed in England permitted a condition to exist which allowed competitive bidding on this side for the small business that was offered, at a price even in excess of that at last fall, and far in excess of the price at which the New Zealand output had been secured for the Imperial Government. Meantime the shipping problem was also growing very acute, and some what later the British authorities practically ceased permitting -any space to be taken up by Canadian cheese from Canadian ports. There were reports that American and Canadian cheese was going by British and United States ships through American ports, and I think it probable that to some extent these reports were true. At all events, we advised the British authorities of those reports.

It is not necessary for me to say-because every member who has farmers engaged in the dairy business in his constituency has probably had many letters-that all manufacturers of cheese and cheese -buyers were by this time, well on in May, becoming very uneasy for one or two reasons. They were uneasy as to whether it would be practicable to get rid of their cheese at all if no space was to be given to it, and they were also uneasy as to the price, th market was fluctuating, one day it was 26 and 27 cents and later down to 20 cents simply because there was only -a nominal market, and the whole situation was uncertain and vexing. They were beginning to store cheese; storage space was being filled up; they did not know whether to manufacture to a large extent, and in short no one knew where he stood. I would say, in regard to the Commission and its relations with the Government, because there has been a lot of misconception, that obviously this Government could not be responsible for the price the Imperial authorities might be disposed to or could offer for Canadian cheese. It was our idea, so far as the Commission was concerned, to advance the legitimate interests of the cheese producers of this country and to facilitate the action of, and help the British authorities -by arranging the very complicated conditions in regard to the purchase of a commodity like cheese in this country in order that it might all be done with the least possible friction and the greatest possible advantage to both Canada and Great Britain.
Then quite recently it was stated that the British authorities had decided to commandeer all cheese, whether from the United States, or Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand, or any other point, directly it arrived at British ports, and that they had changed their maximum price and were now putting on the market for civilian use, cheese at such a price as would permit it to be retailed at about 16 pence a pound, and naturally there was practically a suspension of business in this country, and nobody knew exactly what was going to be done.
May I assure the House that, in so far as this Government is concerned, every single fact connected with the whole matter has been placed in the fullest possible way before the British authorities, and we have taken this ground, that while we conceive it to be our duty as patriotic and loyal Canadians to assist the Mother Country in every possible way to get those food supplies which are so vital to Great Britain

at this time, it was also our duty to conserve, so far as we could on right lines, every legitimate and fair interest of the producers of this country, and we wanted to achieve, if possible, both those objects.-We pointed out also that if so low a price as 19 cents was likely to be fixed by the British authorities for Canadian cheese, they must not overlook the fact that in the case of such a commodity a very low price would simply result in the diversion of the raw material for cheese to other forms of manufacture that might be more profitable, and although the British Government might get all the cheese manufactured for whatever price they paid, because there was practically no other market, there was still the question of the amount produced, as with too low a price, the manufacturers would divert the raw material to other uses. We pointed out all of these things in the fullest way; we showed that our conditions were not like those in New Zealand, and that our trade conditions called for entirely different treatment. I understand that the British commissioner has now been advised by the Imperial authorities that he is authorized to do some buying at once in order to relieve the deadlock which has existed for some time past, and in this connection may I add that I have been particularly pressing upon the British authorities the vital necessity of making some move at once to relieve the congestion which existed, and to end the uncertainty which w^s practically paralyzing the whole business. As a result of this, I understand that the British commissioner has been authorized to go out and buy for a time at a price of 213 cents f.o.b., Montreal, which, i'f not as satisfactory as some of our cheese manufacturers hoped, is at least more satisfactory than the New Zealand price and is about 2 cents better to the factory than the average price of last year. Whether that condition will improve after a time, I am not in a position to say. I wanted to make this statement to the House in order to assure the members that, so far as we are concerned, absolutely no stone has been left unturned, not only to assist the British Government, but in every legitimate way, to protect the Canadian producer.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Agriculture has given us a very interesting statement of the conditions surrounding the purchase of Canadian cheese. Was the question of the purchase of food supplies by the British Government one of the subjects dealt with, or was it under the control of the Imperial War Cabinet?


Robert Laird Borden: The question of food supplies was one of very great interest, but, so far as executive action was concerned, it was dealt with more particularly in a departmental way by conferences with the Board of Trade and, in the matter of transportation, with the Minister of Shipping. The proposals to which the Minister of Agriculture has referred were conveyed to us by a committee under the direction of the Board of Trade. At the request of that committee I transmitted those proposals to the Government here, in order that they, being in touch with the local situation, might give them such consideration as would be possible.


JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), the House went into Committee, Mr. Rainville in the Chair, to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Judges Act to provide for the salary of an additional judge of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan, $6,00-0 per annum, and to provide for the salary of an additional junior judge of the County Court in Ontario, $3,000 per annum; to amend section eighteen of the said Act by providing that a judge who is appointed or assigned to a district for the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction therein and required by law at the time of his appointment to reside within that district shall not be entitled to travelling allowances incurred or made necessary by reason of his residing at any place outside of the district to which he is so appointed or assigned, unless his residence at that, place be authorized or approved by the Governor in Council; and to make the provisions of subsections two, three, four and five of section twenty-eight apply to the Judges of the Circuit Court of Montreal.
Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill which it is proposed to found upon this resolution is rendered necessary, so far as its first two dispositions are concerned, by recent legislation of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario. The legislature of the province of Saskatchewan has made provision for an additional judge of the Supreme Court of that province, and in compliance with that legislation it is necessary that we should amend our Judges Act. A couple of years ago the legislature of Saskatchewan remodelled the judicial system of the province 5 -p.m. by constituting two courts, a Court of Appeals and a Supreme Court. If that legislation, which was to have come into force by proclamation, had Ibeen made effective, the appointment of four additional judges would have been neces-



sary. The provincial authorities, however, seemed to have altered their view, and have recently legislated providing for this additional judge of the Supreme Court. The additional county court judge in the province of Ontario is in the Timiskaming district, a new and growing district where the business, has been increasing to such an extent that it has 'been found necessary to make provision for a junior judge.


Mr. PROULX:: I understand that the
appointment has been made.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. The salaries are not appropriated by the statute to individual judges. There happened to be vacancies, so that a salary was available and the need was so pressing that it was thought better to let some other vacancy stand and make an appointment to that particular district. The necessity of a judge in that district, therefore, requires us to provide for seventy-four county court judges instead of seventy-three.
The first of the other provisions of the resolution is to provide that judges who at the time of their appointment are by law called upon to reside within the particular judicial district to which they are assigned shall not be entitled to travelling allowances if their places of residence is changed subsequently to their appointment, unless the change is approved by the Governor in Council. This is to enable the Government to have some control over the rapidly increasing expenditure in the way of travelling allowances to judges, resulting from the fact that in some provinces the legislatures have changed the residences of the judges, removing them in many instances from places situate within their respective judicial districts to places considered more convenient. 1
The legislative power to fix a judge's residence, I think, indisputably rests with the legislature, but the fixing of salaries and of travelling allowances rests with this Parliament, anid it has seemed to us that it would be well that the Government should not find itself in a position of having imposed upon it very considerable additional financial burdens merely because the legislature, for one reason or another, thinks proper to change the residence of a judge. We do not propose to say that in no such case shall the judge who has his residence so changed, have his travelling allowances, but we provide merely that he shall not have them

unless that change of residence is approved by the Governor General in Council.
The last provision which the Bill contains, which is also one that would not have required a resolution, is to bring the judges of the circuit court of Montreal under the provisions applicable to county court judges throughout the country with regard to the procedure that may be required in the way of inquiry where complaints are made against judges. The present position is that the circuit court judges find themselves neither in the position of high court judges and therefore removable only by the Houses of Parliament, nor in the position of county court judges, of being removable by the Governor in Council after proper inquiry by means of a commission. We think they should be in one class or the other, and it is proposed to 'amend the law to assimilate their position to that of county court judges generally.


Mr. KYTE:: I regret very much that the Minister of Justice has not been able to take up the question of the readjustment of salaries of county court judges in the province of Nova Scotia. This matter has been brought to his attention on several occasions by hon. members representing that province, and while from time to time legislation has been introduced which has resulted in increasing the salaries of judges elsewhere-although I may say that no general- increase has been given-it is to be regretted that the minister has been unable to give some attention to this matter. We have in Nova Scotia a state of affairs that is very different from that which exists in Ontario. I observe that in this resolution there is a provision for the salary of $3,000 per annum for a junior county court judge in that province. I understand that in that province county court judges are in the enjoyment of certain perquisites which flow from other offices which they are permitted to hold. That is not the case in Nova Scotia, where a county court judge is limited entirely to the salary which he receives on his appointment. From time to time demands have been made from all classes of the Civil Service of this country for increases of salaries to meet the increased cost of living that has prevailed throughout this country for some years. I might say truthfully that the county court judge is about the only one enjoying a salary as low as $3,000 whose needs in that respect have not received some attention. The Minister of Finance proposes,

in the course of a few days, to introduce legislation in this House for the purpose of increasing, substantially, I hope, the salaries of certain civil servants who belong to the Inside Service. It is also proposed by the Minister of Finance to provide in the Supplementary Estimates for an increase of salary to certain civil servants who are attached to the Outside Service. I can not understand why judges of the county court in Nova Scotia, whose salaries are by no means in keeping with the cost of living in that province, are not to receive some consideration. They are all gentlemen who, when they accepted their appointments, abandoned legal practices very much more remunerative than the salaries which they now receive. I speak more particularly of the county court judge who ipsido.'- in the city of Sydney and who is the judge for the district comprised by the counties of Richmond, Cape Breton and Victoria. He has a very extensive criminal jurisdiction. In the city of. Sydney his time is taken up almost every day in the year in hearing matters that do not properly fall to the adjudication of a county court judge elsewhere in the Dominion. We have no resident Supreme Court judge in the Island of Cape Breton, and the consequence has been to enlarge the jurisdiction of the county court judge as Master of the Supreme Court, so that his time is at least half taken up in adjudicating matters that in other sections of Dominion are dealt with by Supreme Court judges. I do not wish to make a special plea for the gentleman who discharges so efficiently and satisfactorily the duty of county court judge in the city of Sydney; my argument is equally applicable to' all the other county court judges in the province of Nova Scotia. The Minister of Justice has always been good enough, when this matter has been called to his attention, to give us an assurance that it would be considered by him and that he hoped to 'be able to submit a comprehensive scheme to deal with all those judges who are suffering from the same grievance as are the judges of Nova Scotia. I again remind the Minister of Justice that judges of the county courts of my province are in a vastly different position from that of county court judges in Ontario, and I cannot quite understand why the minister is unable to deal with the situation in Nova Scotia, because he has been unajble to formulate a comprehensive scheme to deal with county court judges in Ontario. The latter enjoy special perquisites from other offices they are authorized 1255
to hold, and, therefore, their position is not such an appealing one as that of the Nova Scotia 'County Court judges.
Mr. MAROIL; How will this legislation affect superior court judges in Quefbec? A large number of judges who seem to have been appointed for outside judicial districts reside in the city of Quebec or in the city of Montreal.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This legislation does not purport to be retroactive.


Charles Marcil: It will apply only to new appointments?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will apply only to the future, but its purpose is, at all events, to withdraw the temptation, from a judge to seek to have the legislature move his residence outside of his own judicial district, which temptation is afforded by the fact that when he is moved out by the legislature, then, under the law as it stands at the present time, this Government finds itself obliged to pay him travelling allowance every time he goes to that particular district to which, 'by the statute of the province and by his commission, he is assigned. Recent events would justify one in saying that the power of the legislature in one of the provinces, at all events, to change the judges' residences has been exercised without any regard to the fact that by those changes they were imposing this additional financial responsibility upon this Government, and I may say that was done notwithstanding the fact that before their action was taken such result was pointed out to them.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister made a calculation of what this additional cost has been to the treasury as regards Quebec?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not made a detailed calculation, but I was very much struck with the figures, which quite recently were brought to my attention, of the amount paid in the course of a year in the way of travelling expenses to three or four of the judges with regard to whom the questions was asked, and that rather went to strengthen the impression made upon my mind by the legislation last session of the Quebec Legislature.
Changes were then made in the place of residence of not less than three judges of the Superior 'Court, centering them in the city of Quebec. Before that was done I was communicated with by the Attorney General of the province, and I felt that I had to concede that the legislature of the province had the right to determine the

residence of the judges, but I pointed out that unless there were some major reason in connection with facilitating the administration of justice, weight ought to be given to the consideration that by this moving of judges they were adding to the expenditures of this Government in the way of travelling allowances. That representation does not seem to have carried weight, and the fact of the enactment of .the legislation I refer to makes it, I think, quite , clear that this Government should place itself in position to have some control over this expenditure. If, to-day, a legislature chooses to say that a judge shall live a thousand miles from the place where he exercises his functions, it automatically imposes upon this Government the obligation of paying the travelling expenses of that judge every time he goes up and down, and paying him also a living allowance while he is in the district in which Ill-duties are performed.


Mr. BARNARD:: I should like to say a word or two along the same line as my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) with regard to the salaries of the county judges in the province of British Columbia, and in doing so I would point out to the Minister of Justice, that not only do the county court judges in that province do the great majority of the criminal work of British Columbia, but their civil jurisdiction is also very considerably greater than the civil jurisdiction of the county judges of the province of Ontario. They have jurisdiction in contract cases up to $1,000 and in equitable jurisdiction and jurisdiction in court to an amount not exceeding $2,500, which I think is considerably greater than the province of Ontario. In addition to that the province of British Columbia has taken the stand quite rightly I think, that it is no part of their business to pay any portion of the salaries of the judges, that the judges' salaries should be wholly provided for by the Federal Government. The result is that they have refused to give anything in the shape of Surrogate Court fees or other perquisites to the county judges. In the larger cities, such as Vancouver and Victoria, and I am speaking more particularly of Vancouver, there are three county judges who sit continuously, except in vacation, from Monday morning to Friday afternoon. To expect a man to do that work efficiently, to keep up the dignity of his position, and live in a large city like Vancouver or Victoria on a salary of $3,000 a year, is I think unfair and unreasonable, and I submit that the minister would do well to take into consideration the whole question of the salaries of county judges. If Ontario chooses to put its County Court judges in a more favourable position than those of any other province, I suppose that is a matter that rests with the province of Ontario, but it certainly does not excuse this Government from paying a proper salary to the other county court judges throughout the Dominion who are doing just as important work.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Of course this is an old story, for we have been talking to the minister about this matter for some years. I understand that a delegation of county court .judges from Nova Scotia waited on the minister some four or five years ago, and I remember the minister telling me in conversa-ation after he had met that delegation, that he hoped to evolve some scheme which would satisfy to some extent the demands made by the judges. I am sorry the minister has not been able to carry out what he then intended, but I suppose he has had some good reason. I am not familiar with the salaries and conditions surrounding the office of county court judges in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I know something about the situation in Ontario, buf nothing at all about the situation in Quebec, and as the hon. member for Richmond has pointed out, conditions in the province of Ontario in regard to county . court, judges are quite different from conditions in the province of Nova Scotia, and I think the minister should give some attention to the conditions in the province of Nova Scotia apart from the reflex influence which his action might have on some of the other provinces of the Dominion. In the first place the minister will find that the administration of that branch of the law is very much cheaper in the province of Nova Scotia than in any other province in the Dominion, by reason of the smaller number of judges. I understand that in Ontario there are two judges to each county. In Nova Scotia we have only seven judges to eighteen counties, which shows that when the province was divided up into districts care was taken to give a reasonably large territory and a reasonably large amount of work to each- judge. Our judges in the province of Nova Scotia have a great deal of work to do. As the hon. member for Richmond has pointed out, we have no Supreme Court judges anywhere ih the province of Nova Scotia except in the city of Halifax, and the legislature of the province have conferred wide jurisdiction upon the county court judges to enable them to
[Mr. Dohertv.l

perform a great deal of the work of a Supreme Court judge. If there is any difficulty, about the setting aside of pleadings, of any contests of that kind, in districts remote from Halifax or in any part of the Island of Cape Breton, these cases, no matter how big the issue, are fought out before the county court judge. In the county of Cape Breton there is a very large foreign population, and I regret to say that for the last ten years the criminal business of that county has been simply en.ormous. Seventy-five per cent of that criminal business is dealt with by the county court judge, and handled very satisfactorily. Every one has such implicit confidence in his integrity and in his power to deal with these matters that except in extreme cases where he has no jurisdiction all these cases are tried before him. So that my hon. friend from Richmond was putting it mildly when he said that the county 'Court judge was engaged on these cases perhaps half his time every day; as a matter of fact he is engaged every day in the week with no let up at all, and he is paid the very small salary of $3,000 a year. There is no part of Canada that has been more expensive to live in during the last four or five years, or since the price of, foodstuffs began to go up so rapidly, than the city of Sydney, and I am sure that what may he said of the cost of living in Sydney is equally true of the other six districts of the province of Nova Scotia. As has been pointed out iby the hon. member for Richmond-and it is not- necessary to tell the minister this-there are certain things expected of a man who occupies the position of a county judge. He is the first citizen of his locality; everybody so regards him; and he must live up to, what is expected of him. I submit that it is the duty of the State, when it puts a man in the position to administer justice, to place him beyond temptation so far as money is concerned, independent in every respect, and able to maintain the dignity of his position. That, in some cases, the judges are not able to do pn the meagre salaries paid them. It would not involve a very serious expenditure to grant a substantial increase to the judges of the Dominion, much less would it be serious if something were done to put these men in a position to be comfortable and to live in comformity with what is expected of them.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I object on principle to a spirit which seems to pervade the life of this country. The hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) seems to regard it as necessary that there should be a fictitious glamour about the position of a judge. This is really net tjie case. It is the integrity and learning of the judge which carries conviction to t'he hearts of the people, not that he is able to put on a certain amount of style, not that he is able to wear purple and fine linen, or play cards, or use high class wines. I do not wish to play the demagogue in this matter, but I think this principle should he asserted. If we desire to make use of the education which we have received, which has continued from the very earliest times in history, let us make use of it. We find from year to year that there is an inclination on the part of the authorities to decorate. This system of decoration in itself carries no conviction, and we know it. Therefore, it should he cut out.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would say on behalf of the judges, that they would be willing to forego the decorations if they got decent salaries.


John Hampden Burnham: And	I	say for thecounty court judges that they would not sell themselves for mere lucre, let alone the decorations. The man fit tp be made a county court judge is a man with a high sense of duty. And it should he considered that there is such a thing as duty to the State. Let such a man he provided with a salary sufficient to keep the wolf from the door and tp educate his children in a manner	commensurate,	with	a	standard oflife	which we approve	of.	It shpuldnot	be dangled	before	his eyes
as well, as before the eyes of the great proletariat, that there is something so stupidly self-seeking abbut our lives that we cannot get away from it-this self-interest, this inclination forever to have as much money as we possibly can get. The idea that there should be a certain mock solemnity, about a judge means that a judge is to be regarded as the people of an African tribe regard their medicine man. That reminds me of a yarn I read in a book the other day, about a man who carried such great weight with the natives of Africa that he was able to go from tribe to tribe without a guard. And the reason was that he could take his teeth out and put them back again. Are we never to get out of this way of regarding our public life? Are we never to understand and realize that we have some duty to the state, some duty to humanity, outside of these miserable little things?


Charles Marcil: Would the minister explain the position with regard to the Circuit Court judges of Montreal?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As the position now
stands the Circuit Court judges of that particular court are neither in the same position as the County Court judges nor in the same position as the Superior Court judges with regard to their removability. The proposition of this Bill is to assimilate their position in that regard to the position of the county court judges throughout the country, and to place the Government in a position where, should the question arise, the Government will he able to deal with the judge of this particular court in the same way in which it is now in a position to deal with the County Court judges generally.
Resolution reported and agreed to.
Mr. DOHERTY thereupon moved to introduced Bill No. 66 to amend the Judges' Act.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Rainville in the Chair:
1. That it is expedient to declare that the Customs Laws have applied and do apply to the Crown.
. 2. That it is expedient to amend the Customs Act by inserting- the following section immediately after section two hundred and thirteen thereof:-
"213A. If any imported goods seized in any buildfing within one hundred yards from the frontier between Canada and any foreign country are forfeited according to law, such building shall also be seized and forfeited, and shall be forthwith taken down and removed." -Mr. Reid.
Mr. REID:: The object of this legislation is to place on the statute book a provision that goods imported by the Crown shall be liable to duty the same as goods brought in by a private importer. We have been collecting duties on goods imported by the Crown for some years.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Does my hon. friend mean the Crown in the right of the Imperial Parliament, the Dominion Parliament or the Provincial Parliament?


John Dowsley Reid: I mean goods imported by Canada and not goods imported by the Crown in the right of the Imperial Government. Imperial importations are exempt under the Customs Act.
[Mr. Burnham.!
Mr. PUGSLEY Does raw material, which [DOT] the Imperial Munitions Board may bring in for the manufacture of fuse, pay duty?


John Dowsley Reid: If it is imported for, and in the name of the British Government, it does not pay duty but if an article is imported to be manufactured by a private individual for the Imperial Government the duty is paid and we refund 99 per cent of it to the manufacturer the same as is done with regard to the duty on all other material imported and manufactured for export.


William Pugsley: The Munitions Board,
I understand, have established a factory for the manufacture of fuses and it is necessary to import large quantities of raw material. Does that raw material pay duty to the Canadian customs or will it under this law?


John Dowsley Reid: They would pay duty if they were manufacturing for use in Canada, but if they were manufacturing for overseas, or for the British Government, they would get a refund of the duty, or they would not be liable for duty.	*


William Pugsley: Do they pay duty and
get a refund or does it come in free?


John Dowsley Reid: They get a refund.


William Pugsley: Then they do pay it?


John Dowsley Reid: They pay duty and get a refund.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is the same as
with another importer?


John Dowsley Reid: The	same as with any
other importer. If the Imperial Government owned an industry in this country and manufactured goods for their own use, or if they bring in goods for their war vessels, say, at Halifax, and they are delivered to the British Government they do not pay duty. That is mentioned in the Customs Act.


William Pugsley: I understand that the
Munitions Board are simply the agents of the Imperial Government and I speak of them because large quantities of material must be brought in. I understand the Minister to say that they pay duty on the goods and that the duty is refunded when the goods are manufactured and exported.


John Dowsley Reid: The Imperial Munitions
Board have industries in Canada that are manufacturing for them, and one case that came before me was that in which there was an industry manufacturing large quantities of explosives. The goods would come in and pay duty and the manufacturer would get a refund. We have assisted some

of these manufacturers where the duties were very large by .placing a customs officer in charge of the industry.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the making of
shells the Imperial Munitions Board are really the agents of the Imperial Government. They have imported from the United States large quantities of steel which have gone to Canadian manufacturers to be turned into shells. Do these articles pay duty and is a refund made just the same as in the case of any other importer who manufactures the goods imported and exports the product?


John Dowsley Reid: If the Imperial Munitions
Board imported steel for the use of the Imperial Government it would come in free under the tariff.


William Pugsley: Does the Munitions
Board have to bring it in in the name of the British Government?


John Dowsley Reid: It is really the British Government, and they import it in the name of, and for, the British Government. We give them that right and we place a customs officer in an industry to see that the goods are all exported after they are manufactured into shells.


William Pugsley: What is the object of
compelling the Crown in the right of the Canadian Government to pay customs duties if the revenue received is simply taken out of the treasury and paid to the Customs Department?


John Dowsley Reid: It does not increase the customs duties because we are collecting duties now and we have been doing so for some years.	-


William Pugsley: Illegally?


John Dowsley Reid: It is said illegally.


William Pugsley: Who said illegally?


John Dowsley Reid: There has been a question
raised as to whether goods coming in-


William Pugsley: This is to remove doubts?


John Dowsley Reid: To remove doubts. It does
not increase the receipts of the customs in so far as goods imported by the Crown are concerned, for the reason that we have been collecting duty on goods imported by the Crown for some years. But a question has arisen as to whether the Crown in the right of Canada would have the right to collect duty. Therefore, to. remove that doubt we are mentioning the Crown in the Act the same as we do any other importer under the tariff.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Crown would
not be affected by the Act unless it was especially named. I was under the impression that some years ago an Act was passed which provided that In the case of certain departments, the Militia Department for instance, duties were to be collected on articles imported by them. Is there not some statute on the subject now?


John Dowsley Reid: I remember the circumstance. Prior to the time that the hon. gentleman mentions, goods imported by the Crown came in free. But the trouble there was that some people were importing goods, such as American goods, and adding the duties, and there was the possibility of irregularities occurring. At that time the Government decided that in future duties must be collected on all goods whether imported by the Crown or not, and they simply notified the Customs and all other departments that they were to collect these duties in future. Although that order was given there was no Act on the statute book stating that the Crown must pay duty. -Mr. PUGSLEY:	What has emphasized
the necessity for this?


John Dowsley Reid: The question has arisen because some of the provincial Governmsnts took issue on the question as to whether goods imported by the Crown were dutiable. For that reason we feel that it would be better to place it in the statute so as to remove any doubt in the future.


William Pugsley: This is intended to apply to the Crown as represented by provincial governments?


John Dowsley Reid: Or the Dominion. That is
the main object for this Bill.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend intend that goods imported by a provincial government, that is by the Crown in right of the province, will pay duty?


John Dowsley Reid: I say they have always paid duty since Confederation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is more a matter of practice, but has there been any law? The original idea in regard to the status of provincial legislature, as a lawyer knows, was that the Crown was not represented there. But I thank the principle is, also good that no Statute applies to the Crown unless the 'Crown is specifically mentioned. Why does my hon. friend want to have this legislation? What is the reason for it? Is it simply confirming the usage?


John Dowsley Reid: The local Governments have always paid duty since Confederation, and

some of them now claim that they should not have to pay. As the question has arisen whether the Crown should pay duty, the Government-


William Pugsley: Would that not be provided at the time of Confederation?


John Dowsley Reid: At all events we see no reason why we should not place it on the statutes. It can cio no harm, even if it does no good.


William Pugsley: Why, if there has been no question?


John Dowsley Reid: There has been a question.


William Pugsley: The minister said that
the provinces always paid on their importations. That has gone on for the fifty years of Confederation. I think it is in the British North America Act that the Grown as represented by the provinces must pay customs duties, because the right to collect duties was by that Act transferred to the Dominion Parliament. The minister says there has never Been any question so far as the Dominion is concerned in respect to paying duties. It seems to me a little mysterious that this legislation should be introduced. Perhaps this is to cover the case of the open door on the island in the St. Lawrence where vast quantities of goods were brought in in the night free of duty, ostensibly for the Militia Department.


John Dowsley Reid: I thought I had explained the matter. I say that the provincial governments have been paying duty since Confederation, but .some of the provinces have raised the issue.


William Pugsley: Which province?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot say, I think that two have taken issue.


William Pugsley: Will the minister give any information which provinces?


John Dowsley Reid: Manitoba is one, and I think Quebec. I do not know whether there is another or not. But these two at least Have claimed that goods imported by the provincial governments should not pay duty, and the Justice Department took the position that probably we had better put an Act through making all goods imported fo>' the Crown liable for duty.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Am I correct in
stating that there w.as some legislation on this subject some ten years ago? I have a recollection of some discussion on the subject when Sir Charles Fitzpatrick was Minister of Justice.
 '


John Dowsley Reid: There was nothing on the Statutes. I have taken it up with the Justice Department and the Customs Department. There is nothing to show that goods imported by the Crown shall be dutiable. I think it was done by orders given to the several departments that goods imported by them must in future pay duty. But this question has been raised by some of the provincial governments, and the Justice Department-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is there any litigation pending about it?


John Dowsley Reid: They ask for litigation.


William Pugsley: Would not the minister think that he would accomplish his object if he said that goods imported for the Crown as represented by the Dominion or provincial governments shall be liable to duty the same as if imported by the ordinary individual? But to say as the minister does in this resolution, that the customs laws have applied-to make it retroactive- and do apply to the Crown, strikes me as peculiar, because it is the Crown that is imposing the customs law. The words are not applicable to what my hon. friend wants to accomplish, that is that goods imported by the Crown shall be liable to customs duty the same as those imported by private individuals.


John Dowsley Reid: The Bill that I have prepared provides:
The rates and duties of customs imposed by this Act or the Customs Tariff or any other law relating- to the Customs, as well as the rates and duties of customs heretofore imposed by any Customs Act or Customs Tariff or any law relating to the Customs enacted and in force at any time since the 1st day of July, 1867 shall be binding and are declared and shall be deemed to have been always binding upon and payable by His Majesty, in respect of any goods which may be hereafter or have been heretofore imported by or for His Majesty, whether in the right of His Majesty's Government of Canada or His Majesty's Government of any Province of Canada, and whether or not the goods so imported belonged at the time of importation to His Majesty-
And so on.


William Pugsley: That is mighty different from the resolution.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Loes my hon. friend think it a sound principle, if an issue lias been raised by the Crown as represented by a provincial government or in the right of a provincial government as to the right of this Government to collect duties on things imported by the provincial governments, to come in with legislation retroactive in its character and declare that to

be the law which is not the law? I submit that we in this Parliament should not lightly enter upon any policy which would involve retroactive legislation, taking away any rights or creating any impositions or anything of that kind where the law did not permit of their existing before*, and more particularly where we are dealing with another jurisdiction which, within its own powers, is as supreme and definite as the Federal one is in its jurisdiction. I do not think that legislation of that kind is right. Such legislation, before being submitted by the House, ought to be considered by a committee. The provinces affected ought to be notified and ought to have ah opportunity of making representations, and Parliament should have an opportunity of hearing their views. In other words, we in this Parliament are assuming the right to impose upon another fully developed and constituted jurisdiction in this country exactions which were not provided for in the Confederation Act. We have come to the conclusion that it was not intended that these powers should be conferred by that Act and we are seeking to secure them in a retroactive way, without notice to these other jurisdictions. My hon. friend's legislation might be considered if it related to the future only, but it is a very serious proposition in its retroactive features. I think my hon. friend will be well advised to leave the legislation in committee until the authorities of the provinces which will be affected are given an opportunity to make representations.


Robert Laird Borden: Although I do not know very much of this matter, I understand from what has been said by the minister that it has been the universal practice since Confederation to receive payment of duties on goods imported into Canada by the Crown in the right of a provincial government. There has been no exception to that, as far as I know. Under the late administration, if I am not mistaken, it was questioned once or twice, but nothing happened; the duties were imposed and were paid. About ten years ago it was regarded as a wise course to insist on the payment of duties upon goods imported b'y any department of Government in the right of the Crown, and that has been carried out.. It is desired, in the first place, to give effect to that course by declaration that it is sanctioned by the law. It would, of course, be quite incongruous that the Crown in the right of the Dominion should be paying duties on imported
goods, while the Crown in the right of the provinces should not; or that the right to impose such- duties should be questionable in the latter case wrhen a universal practice sanctioned by law had been established in the case of goods imported by the Crown in the right of the Dominion. So it was thought best to sanction by this declaration a practice which has been uniformly carried out in the case of the provinces ever since Confederation, and, in the case 'of goods imported for the Dominion during the past ten years. The policy adopted by the late Government in that regard has been carried out by the present Administration since it assumed the reins of office. Further, it would seem undesirable that there should be general liberty on the part of the provincial administrations to import goods for all purposes free of duty, because it might-I do not say that it would-easily lead to abuse of that power. As we limit ourselves here, therefore, by the same restriction which we think should be applied to the provincial governments in the case of the importation of goods, it does not seem that there is any legitimate cause for complaint against the making of this declaration.


William Pugsley: Have the provinces
made any claim for refund of duties? How did the matter come up?


John Dowsley Reid: At least two of the provinces have raised the question, suggesting that they did not think they should pay the duty.


William Pugsley: Did they demand a refund?


John Dowsley Reid: They asked that the goods
be allowed to come in free of duty. They claimed that under the British North America Act they were not required to pay duties on anything that they imported.


William Pugsley: If under the British
North America Act they are not required to pay, how could we provide otherwise? We could not amend the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: We are not amending it. If any provision under the British North America Act applies to the case, the provinces will still be free to assert it, notwithstanding the passage of this legislation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I suggest that the
Minister let the matter stand until after six o'clock, when he will let us know what provinces are- affected. I am strongly of the opinion that a statute regarding this

matter was passed about ten years ago in respect of the Militia Department.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
After Eecess.
The Committee resumed .at eight o'clock, Mr. Rainville in the chair.


Mr. GRAHAM:: This resolution is, of course, retroactive?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.
\Mr. GRAHAM: On general principles, is that good legislation?


John Dowsley Reid: As the hon. member was not in the House this afternoon when this matter was under discussion, I will explain it to him. The object of the resolution is that goods imported 'by the Crown shall be liable to customs duties, the same as goods imported by any private individual. Up to this date there has been on the statute books no provision that goods imported by the Crown are liable to duty, although duties have been collected for eight or ten years. I have not the exact date when the Customs Department wais instructed by the Government to collect duties on goods imported by the several departments. Since Confederation duties have been collected on all goods imported by provincial Governments. In 1909 the then Nova Scotia Government took exception to the right of the Dominion. Government to collect duties on goods imported by the provincial government, and the Dominion Government of tnat day took issue with the provincial government, and the matter dropped, no further action being taken.


Robert Laird Borden: Were the duties paid?


John Dowsley Reid: The duties were paid at that time and thereafter, not only by the Nova Scotia Government, but by all the other provincial Governments. The Commissioner of Customs informs me that the Minister of Customs at that time brought the matter up in Council; that the Prime Minister of the day, now leader of the Opposition, agreed with his view, and that they took the ground that the position taken by the Nova Scotia Government was not in accordance with their interpretation of the law. The matter rested until 1916, when the province of Quebec raised the same issue as the province of Nova Scotia had raised, but I took the same ground as that taken by my predecessor, and no further action was taken by the Quebec Governor, Macdonald.]
ment. Later on the Government of Manitoba took the same position, and only a month or two ago the Alberta Government also brought up the matter, so that the situation has become .a little acute in regard to arriving at a final decision as to what should be done. Section 125 of the British North America Act reads:-
No lands or property belonging to Canada or any province shall be liable to taxation.
I took the matter up with the Department of Justice, and as the matter, no doubt, will go before the several courts of the country and the Privy Council for final decision, the Department of Justice advised me that I should have the statute amended so that goods imported by the Crown as represented, not only by the Dominion Government, but by the provincial governments, should be liable to payment of duty. They advised me that it should be declared that the matter is in the same position as it has been since Confederation, so that if the case came before the courts and it was decided that the position taken by the provinces was not justified, there would not be any possibility of a claim for the duties which have been collected from Confederation up to the present time. The Department of Justice also advised me that this amendment does not affect any rights in any other way than I have mentioned.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In introducing this resolution my hon. friend has precipitated a very interesting constitutional point; and not in any political sense other than what is best as a matter of policy, I would like to point out how important it is that the House should give the matter serious consideration. During past years, and probably more particularly recently than at any other time, the provincial governments, in dealing with the particular agricultural matters under their control, have imported thoroughbred stock of various kinds for the improvement of livestock.


John Dowsley Reid: Thoroughbred stock comes in free.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Thoroughbred stock comes in free if imported for particular purposes, I assume. There are, however, other matters which pertain particularly to the functions of the provincial governments in dealing with matters, under the British North America Act, come under their care, and for the development of which they may be compelled to go abroad for the purpose of getting machinery or other articles necessary. As I said, speaking before recess, it

seems to me that, under the old principle of law that the Crown is not affected by any legislation unless the Crown is particularly named, the right of the province to be free from taxation on importations, would be conceded.
Then there is section 125 of the British North America Act, which my hon. friend quoted, and which especially declares that no lands or property of the Crown, of Canada, or of the provinces, shall be liable to taxation. Now, unquestionably the tariff is a tax, and that being so, the proposition of my hon. friend to bring the property of the different provinces within the purview of the Customs Act is a subversion of the section to that extent. It seems to me that the advisability of a policy of this kind is worthy of the most careful consideration of the House. My hon. friend tells us that as a matter of practice this property has always been taxed in the past. I lay aside for the moment the consideration of the question of taxation of property of the Imperial Government, or of the Federal Government, because that does not seem to be in contemplation by the Act. I doubt the wisdom of the Federal Parliament entering upon a policy which involves taxation of the provincial governments through the tariff. If, as a matter of fact, the four older provinces of the Dominion did not in the earlier days have very heavy importations for this Government to tax, that does not prove anything in regard to the policy of the country. In .the newer portions of the Dominion the provinces are entering upon lines of policy which involve importations. For instance, I think all the western provinces are engaged in operating a Governmeilt-owned telephone, and the tendency in certain of our provinces is undoubtedly along the line of Government operation of public utilities. The material used in the operation of these utilities has of necessity to be imported in some cases. So the question is becoming more and more important every day, and though we are here dealing only with the resolution-my hon. friend will later introduce a Bill-I would suggest to him the advisability of looking into this section very carefully, and I should like to hear from the Minister of Justice as to the constitutionality of legislation of this kind.
In the next place, while my hon. friend speaks of the JSill as being merely declaratory in its character, it is undoubtedly retroactive. While it merely purports to say that a certain thing has been the law, it
seems to me that that is going a very long way, and although I have not given the deliberation to this question that I should like to give as a lawyer, I do not think my hon. friend should go so far as to declare that a certain thing has been the law. It is really retroactive legislation that my hon. friend is attempting to put on the statute book.
There is this third consideration which is worthy of attention. The province of Manitoba, according to my hon. friend, has raised the question whether they are liable to taxation on certain importations they have made recently, and the question of the right of the Customs Department to impose that taxation is now before the courts, or will be shortly. I submit that it is a matter of sound policy that this Parliament should not, as against provincial authority, undertake to declare what the law is in a question which is now sub judice, or which will shortly form the subject of litigation before the courts. It is only in the most extreme cases that Parliament or any legislative body should interfere in pending legislation. Having regard to the constitutional aspect involved, and the possible consequences, I think my hon. friend should hesitate before taking the position he does. Having regard to the development by the provincial governments of their operation of public utilities- and this subject has been under frequent discussion in the Railway Committee for a great many days-I submit that this resolution with all its ramifications is well worthy of the attention of hon. gentlemen before we should enter upon a policy which might give rise to grave constitutional questions as to our right to tax the provinces.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As to the policy of imposing taxation upon property that may be imported by or for provincial governments I do not know that I desire to enter into a discussion of that at the present time. The faot would seem to be that though the Customs Act does not appear to specifically mention the Crown, everybody has understood that its provisions apply to the Crown in regard to its right to tax the provinces as well as everybody else, am so far as it is a question of policy in the carrying out of the Act all the successive governments of Canada, as I understand it, have acted upon the policy of collecting duties on importations by the provinces, just as on importations made by other people. With one or two exceptions the provinces all seem to have acquiesced in

the view that the customs taxation did apply to them so it is not a question of entering upon a new policy of imposing duties upon the importations of the provinces, for that is the policy which has been consistently followed since Confederation.
The hon. member has referred to this
legislation as being retroactive, and has further suggested that there is something unconstitutional in it by reason of section 125 of the British North America Act. The latter of those two questions is precisely the one which the provinces raise, their contention being that Parliament is without power to impose taxation upon them. I ne'ed not say that this legislation will not affect their Tights in that regard in any degree. If Parliament is without power to impose taxation upon the importation of provincial governments, then the fact that we enact this legislation will not give us that power; we cannot lift ourselves by 01 own boot-straps, and the purpose of this legislation is not to endeavour to do that at all. It is necessitated by the fact that whether this Parliament has the power or not, the Customs Act, not having specifically mentioned the Crown on the principle which the hon. gentlemen mentioned, it might 'be open to any province to-day seeking to invoke exemption to claim that, even though it turned, out that this pretension that Parliament had no right by reason of section 125 to impose customs duties were entirely imfounded, nevertheless, it should succeed on what might fairly be described as the purely technical ground, that Parliament had not as a matter of fact specified the Crown, and that even if it had the power it had not exercised that power. Now the purpose of this legislation is to anticipate the raising of that question, ' which so far as I know has never been raised.
The contention, so far as I know, has not been based upon that oversight in the legislation. It raises the broad question whether Parliament can impose custom duties upon the importations by the Crown in right of the provinces. Now, as I have said, no legislation of ours will affect the law upon the question of our power to impose these duties upon the property of the Crown. The full effect of this proposed legislation, if adopted, will be to put out of the way what, it seems to me may properly under the circumstances be described as the technical question, whether the provinces can escape merely because the Crown was not mentioned in the statute. It will enable us, if we go into Court, to go upon the real, sub-

stantial question, which is, whether Parliament can or cannot levy customs duties on the importations of these provinces, and to fight it out upon that real, substantial question, [DOT] not leaving us exposed to the raising of this other pretension which, so far as I am aware, never has been raised, and which is purely technical, but which would prevent, possibly, pur obtaining tmy decision upon the broad question. Now, tfbat broad question is one that it is important to have determined. Whatever may be the policy pf Parliament, now or at any time, upon the exercise of the power, it certainly is a matter of importance to have it made clear whether th^t power exists or not, and it is purely that power on the part of Parliament that is challenged by the province of Manitoba. . Under these circumstances, it seems to me that we ought to set the law in such a condition that any issue that might be raised would turn upon this substantial question. As 1 have said, I am not aware that any of the provinces has based any claim upon the absence of mention of the Crown in the Customs Act, but on our part, as a matter of prudence, it seems to us wiser that we should make impossible the raising of that question, so that we may have the real, substantial issue alone dealt with.


William Pugsley: 
Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps we could pass the resolution and have the Bill introduced, and the observations of my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) can be taken into consideration.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. REID introduced Bill No. 67, to
amend the Customs Act.	,
Motion agreed to and Bill, read the first time.



SUPPLY.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Robert Borden for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
George William Kyte: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I desire to direct the attention of the Government to certain grievances that organized labour in this country appears to have against the Munitions Board. At a meeting held in the city of Ottawa within the last few days, certain statements of fact have been disclosed which would seem to indicate that the Munitions Board is not treating organized labour with the consideration which, under the circumstances and conditions that exist to-day, it ought to be treated. The substantial grievances which the labour men allege are as fol- ' lows:	,
"1-Violation of sanitary requirements 

 gross negligence in regard to the protection of the health of the workers, in camp and plant construction.
"2-Lowering the wage standards already established in different sections of the Dominion.
"3-Elimination of the eighc-hour day and the introduction of the 10, 12 . and 14-hour day, and seven-day week.
"4-The unnecessary dilution of labour by the introduction of female labour, before proper steps have been taken to utilize available skilled mechanics.
"5-Where dilution has occurred no general effort has been made to maintain the same standard wages as received by the men.
"6-Substitution of cheap, semi-skilled labour from rural districts for construction work, because of their willingness to accept less than the trades union rates.
"7-A declared policy of refusing to recognize trades union representatives in determining the wages and hours on.contracts let by them.
"8-Challenging trades union officials to obtain reasonable conditions by use of their organized power instead of through negotiations which would result in strikes.
"The unanimous conclusion was reached that the time had arrived for the re-organization of this board on the basis of equal representation of labour with the employing interests."
This is "the list of complaints which organized labour has against the Munitions Board at the present time. It is of the utmost importance that harmony between the Munitions Board and organized labour should exist. Since the outbreak of the war a very large number of munition

plants h'ave been established in Canada in which large sums of money have been expended for the purpose of supplying such munitions of war as are required by the allied countries. The rate of wages, it would appear, has not been kept up in proportion to the profits which have been obtained by the manufacturers of munitions. We do know that since the outbreak of the *syar this has been an extremely profitable industry to those who were fortunate enough to be able to engage in it. The question of adequate remuneration to those engaged in munition plants is certainly one that ought to receive the consideration of the Munitions Board and which, if not dealt with by them, should receive the attention of the Government. In all works under the supervision of the Government, for instance, all contracts that are let by the Public Works, Department, there is a fair wage schedule which is a part of the contract. Under that fair wage schedule those who are employed on public works are entitled to a fair remuneration for their services. No distinction ought ' to be made between the relations existing be-' tween the Munitions Board and the Government than between the Public Works Department and the Government. Fair remuneration ought to be allowed those who are employed in munition works and reasonable hours of labour ought to be determined as constituting a day's work in that employment.
The reasonableness of the complaints which have been made by organized labour, it seems to me, will appeal to every hon. member of this House. The first one has reference particularly to the sanitary requirements which ought to be provided in these munition plants. I cannot understand how the Munitions Board could refuse to give ear to any fair representations that might be made by the labouring people with respect to that matter. It is certainly not one about which there should be any controversy if a substantial complaint is made on behalf of those people and it does appear to me that there is no reason why some such action should not be taken for the purpose of removing the grievances in that respect. I shall not go over in detail all the matters that have been referred to, the list of which I read at the beginning of my observations, and I shall do nothing further than impress upon the Government the desirability of having some action taken by the Munitions Board which will result in substantially
[Mr. Kyte.J
meeting the complaints which are alleged by the representatives of labour. At this time it would appear to be desirable that the large body of our population who have enrolled themselves within the ranks of organized labour should receive a reasonable hearing and every substantial ground of complaint ought to be remedied.
With respect to the particular grievance that arises out of the employment of women in these munition plants, I do not assume that organized labour has any special objection to the employment of women provided it is not made the subject of competition in the matter of wages between the men and women who are employed. If women are able to perform the work that is required of them in these munition plants, I see no reason why they ought not to be. employed. On the contrary I believe their service ought to be encouraged but their employment ought not to be considered a ground for reducing the remuneration of men employed in these plants. It may be argued that the demands made upon women in respect to their earnings are not as great as those on men and that they are not entitled to the same scale of wages, but if as a result the wages of the men were lowered then it is a substantial grievance. All through, the indictment which organized labour has drawn up against the Imperial Munitions Board seems to be one which is entitled to fair consideration, and I would urgently request, on behalf .of those who allege these grievences, that steps be taken to give them a fair hearing and to accede in every reasonable way to any proper demands for which they have made improvement.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has put forward his observations in a very reasonable and moderate way, and I shall at once direct the attention of the Imperial Munitions Board to what is urged. We, of course, have no control over the form of contract which the Imperial Munitions Board uses, nor over the prices that they pay for the munitions turned out. Seme of these matters to which my hon. friend alludes have, however, come up, more particularly with regard to the question of wages. It has been the duty of the Minister of Labpur from time to time to make representations to the Imperial Munitions Board with regard to certain matters, and I know that oil at least one occasion the board did cancel a contract by reason ,of the unfair treatment, of which there was ample evidence, by the company's manager of

persons in its employ. I think it is not going too far to say that the Imperial Munitions Board have given pretty careful attention to representations that have been made to them on these matters, and, so far as we can judge, they have endeavoured to improve the conditions when those conditions were not what they should he. The first indictment that is set forth in the memorandum is,
*Violation of sanitary requirements, gross negligence in regard to the protection of the health of the workers in camp and plant construction.
I say at once, that there ought to be the most careful regard for sanitary conditions and for the health of employees, and if there is anything lacking in that Tegard I hope the Imperial Munitions Board will set themselves to Tedress it with the greatest possible expedition. I entirely agree that conditions such as are alleged here .ought not to be allowed to continue. Another charge is,
Lowering the wage standards already established in different sections of the Dominion.
I would not venture to make any observation with respect to that until the answer of the Board with regard to it has been received.
I may say that in December, 1915, and again in March, 1916, I brought to the attention of the British Government the importance of having inserted in contracts made by the Imperial Munitions Board a fair wage clause such as obtains, I think, in the United Kingdom and such as is used in. all contracts which are entered into by the Government of Canada. For some reason that I have never been able fully to understand or appreciate, it would seem that this has not yet been done. There was, however, a suggestion that the Government of Canada should adopt some such system as that which prevails in Great Britain with regard to wage conditions. ' We considered that very carefully and went into it at a number of interviews with representatives of organized labour. We came to the conclusion that such matters had better be dealt with in Canada along the lines which had been adopted by the late Administration and continued by the present Administration, and so we passed an Order in Council applying the Industrial Disputes Act to all disputes in connection with contracts made by the Imperial Munitions Board. We did that after a good deal of consideration and many interviews with the representatives of organized labour, and we
did it in the belief, whether right or wrong, but which I think is sound, that it would be better for us in dealing with such matters to keep along the lines already tried and tested in this country instead of undertaking to establish an organization of a character of which we knew practically nothing, which, although it might suit the British Isles, nevertheless might - not prove very satisfactory in this country. And so the course to which I have alluded was taken in the hope that it would afford a means for settling disputes with regard to various matters that continually arise in the relations between the employers and the employed in this country.
The unnecessary dilution of labour by the introduction of female labour, before proper steps have been taken to utilize available skilled mechanics,
I am not in a position, nor do I suppose is my hon. friend who has made the motion, to speak with any authority in regard to the facts. I believe a considerable amount of female labour is being availed of in this country, but nothing like to the same extent as in Great Britain.


Michael Clark: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I 'had the
privilege of going through a very large munitions factory in Manchester, the Arm-strong-Whitworth Company's works. I understood that in that particular plant, which is not by any means the largest plant and is only one of many operated by that Aim, they employ 10,000 persons; and they told me that of the 10,000 not less than
3,000	were women. And, further than that, it appeared that the women were doing very important work and sometime^ what seemed to be very heavy work. They were doing it, I believe, very satisfactorily, and I am thoroughly of the opinion that it would have been impossible for Great Britain to accomplish what has been accomplished in the production of munitions of all kinds during the past two and one-half years if it had not been for the employment of female labour there.
This report goes on to charge:
The substitution of cheap semi-skilled labour from rural districts for construction work, because of their willingness to accept less than the trades union rates.
It also alleges:
That there is a declared policy of refusing to recognize trades union representatives in de-

termining- the wages and hours on contracts let by them.
It further declares that there is a practice of:
Challenging trades union officials to obtain reasonable conditions by use of their organized power instead of through negotiations which would result in strikes.
All of these matters I think in fairness ought to be submitted to the Imperial Munitions Board and' their answer asked. We .shall be very glad, so far as the matter is under our control or within our power, to take it up with them. My hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Labour has done that many times already. I am very glad that my hon. friend (Mr. Kyte) has brought the matter to the attention of the House. It is more than his duty to do so, and it shall also be my duty to commend what he has said to the attentive and immediate consideration of the Imperial Munitions Board in order that we may learn what is to be said from their standpoint. I may add that I had a recent communication from representatives of organized labour with regard to the fair wage clause, and I have already dictated a letter to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on that subject. I looked for the documents upstairs so that I might state the matter a little more fully, but I find that I have not at hand the communication from the representatives of organized labour. I shall,' however, see that the communication which I have already drafted, after necessary revision, is sent forward at the earliest possible moment to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Possibly, by means of his good offices and his immediate attention to the subject, we may obtain a better arrangement in the matteT of wages than that which has prevailed up to the present time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am glad to learn that the Prime Minister is establishing machinery under the control of the Government to deal with this subject. I was not aware that an Order in Council of the kind mentioned had been passed. Generally speaking, any branch of organized labour in this country comes within the scope either of this Parliament or of the provincial legislatures. I myself am in favour of organized labour, but I was always opposed to any organized labour that *would not subject itself to federal or provincial laws. It is better that organized labour in Canada should come within the scope of our own laws and regulations than that it should be subject to the control of legislation or regulations .made by bodies

outside of the Dominion. I am sure that this Parliament recognizes the great obligations that we owe to labour in Canada, whether organized or not. It was within the power of labour and its leaders to cause a great deal of trouble by taking advantage of a time *' of stress and adversity to further their own interests, and it is much to their credit 'that they did not take any step in that direction. In Nova Scotia we have great iron and steel making industries which are right at the heart of munition making. Behind that are the coal miners, a cessation of whose operations would cripple our iron and steel plants. The stopping of many other activities directly and indirectly connected with the manufacture of munitions and other war supplies would have very serious effects. It is due to the workingmen, the labour classes and their organizations that this Government and this Parliament should afford any possible remedies or exercise any legitimate powers in response to claims that are proper and reasonable. I hope that the Minister of Labour will always be ready to lend a helping hand to the working classes as against any person, body or Government employing labour in Canada and that the working classes will find the machinery of his department ready to adjust any difficulties that they may encounter.


Mr. W. E. KNOWLES:: May I ask the Minister of Labour wheiher he intends to bring down a Bill along the lines of the Bill which I, as a private member, introduced to prevent the making of price maintenance agreements? The minister was not present when the matter was debated in the House two weeks ago to-night, but the Minister of Justice asked that the debate on my Bill should be adjourned on the understanding that it should be dealt with and referred to a special committee, either of itself, if the Minister of Labour did not bring down a Bill, or in conjunction with the minister's Bill if he did bring one down. Has the minister any information to give us on the subject?


Mr. J. W. CROTHERS:: I am very sorry indeed that I am not able to inform the hon. member for Moosejaw when the Bill will be brought down. I shall be glad to inform him as soon as that has been determined.


William Erskine Knowles: Is the minister still uncertain as to whether there will be a Bill of that kind?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am still uncertain as to that also.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Did I understand the Prime Minister to say that the provisions of the English Fair Wage Act
9 p.m. were applicable to munition workers in Canada?


Robert Laird Borden: The cdrrespond-ence which I had with the Imperial Government in the autumn of 1915 and the spring of 1916 was with a view to urging upon them the desirability of including a fair wage clause in the contracts made by the Imperial Munitions Board. Some one had conceived the idea that the Government of Canada objected to the Imperial Munitions Board inserting such a clause in the contracts. I sent a memorandum stating in the most specific and definite terms that we included it in our own contracts and that we therefore could not possibly object to their doing the same thing. That did not produce any effect, and I repeated the statement in the spring of 1916 in order that there might be no misapprehension on the subject. I am now about to send a further communication on the same subject to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Up to this time no fair wage clause has been inserted in the contracts made by the Imperial Munitions Board?


Robert Laird Borden: I understand not, though I have no personal knowledge of that. On March 22 I .addressed a communication .on the subject to the Colonial Secretary, in consequence of a telegram that I had received from the President of the Trades and Labour Council of Canada, in which I urged attention to these considerations.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is a fair wage clause in contracts made by the Imperial Government in Great Britain.


Robert Laird Borden: So there is here.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The complaint which the workers make is that while a fair wage clause is inserted in contracts made in England and in Canadian Government contracts as well, there is none in these contracts made by the Imperial Government in Canada. I was anxious to know, therefore, whether any conclusion had been reached in the matter, and whether the fair wage clause was being inserted.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it has yet been inserted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.

[Stage Direction]
I.abour.-Combines Investigation Act, $2,500.
George Perry Graham: We see a good deal in the press these days .about the naming of a food controller. Some despatches say that the power is to be given to one individual; others tell us that the power is to be given to a commission. Could the Minister of Labour set all this talk at rest by telling us what he is going to do? If he has decided on appointing a food controller who is he to be, and what are to be his duties? If he has decided on having a commission, who are to comprise it and what are to be their duties


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The matter has received considerable consideration, but it has not yet been determined whether a commission composed of one or more will lbe appointed. I have no doubt that something in that direction will be done in the near future.


George Perry Graham: Will either a food controller or a commission be appointed?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am not able to go into all the details with my hon. friend.


George Perry Graham: That is a principle, not a detail.


Mr. VERVILLE:: The minister should tell the House and the mass of the people whether he is going to do anything of that kind or not. The people have been expecting that a food controller will be appointed. When I say " the people," I do not mean only organized labour.


George Perry Graham: The organized leaders.


Alphonse Verville: I might say " the organized leaders," as my hon. friend says. Prices are increasing all the time, and my hon. friend knows that either wages are not going up, or if they are, they are not keeping pace with the increase -in the cost of the necessaries of life. The minister has been asked by members on that side of the House as well as on this that maximum prices on foodstuffs be established. The minister may believe that this is a radical thing to do, but these are times when one has to do radical things, and maximum prices should be established on the necessaries of life. There has been a demand from the people, not only in large cities, 'but in small towns throughout the Dominion, that a food controller or a commission " be appointed. This is, perhaps, the last opportunity that we shall have to ask this question of the Minister of Labour as he may get through his estimates to-night, and it seems to me



that he should tell us to-night whether it is the intention of the Government to take this step. As he has said, the matter has taken up a lot of his time and the Government have had it Under consideration, but I do not want the minister to keep considering all the time until finally the cost of the necessaries of life rises to such a height that people will not be able to buy them. The minister should tell ue definitely (whether the Government are going to appoint a commission or some one to regulate the price of food. I do not know what the duty of a food controller may be, but if the question is one of controlling the quantity of food the workingman is to put on his table, I will tell my hoii. friend that he should not do that. If, however, the question ie one of controlling the prices of foodstuffs, I would ask the minister to tell us to-night what he is going to do so that the country will have the information.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am very sorry that
I am not able to give my hon. friend a definite answer as to the exact moment or (hour when a food controller or a commissioner of supplies or something of that nature will be appointed, or whether any will be appointed at all. The matter has received a good deal of consideration; it is open to further consideration, and when a conclusion is reached, it will be announced to the House.


Alphonse Verville: Does my hon. friend
admit that there is at the present time a 'necessity for the appointment of a food controller?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am not admitting
anything of that sort just now. I have two or three reports here of investigations that have been made under the authority of the Order: in Council which was passed on the 10th of November last concerning food, fuel and clothing. .One of these concerning sugar is ready, and I will ask leave, perhaps to-morrow, to lay it on the Table. Another one is in regard to anthracite coal, and there are in course of preparation several others concerning cold storage commodities, canned goods, flour, and ice.


George Perry Graham: Is there any report on (bread?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, we are getting a report ready on bread and cereals, the producing and marketing of bread.


John Gillanders Turriff: Is there a report on
water?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am afraid that is too thin for my hon. friend.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member means the kind that is put in stock.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I was about to say
that it was not and is not, I think, believed or expected by any sane man that the administration of this Order in Council or of any .other legislative enactment could or would suspend the influence upon the prices of the universal law of supply and demand, or neutralize the natural effects of the world-wide war, or of the world-wide shortage in food crops, or of the transfer of mil- -lions of men from productive to destructive employment, or of the wastage of scores of millions of tons of foodstuffs in the ocean. The administration of this Order in Council thus far has not accomplished any of these, impossibilities; neither was it designed for such a purpose.


William Erskine Knowles: Was it not designed
even partially to neutralize those effects?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am just coming tp
that. The belief that the administration of this Order in Council or of any other legislative enactment could accomplish the impossibilities that I have mentioned would require as much credulity as the belief that a man could stay the incoming tide. We all know that the prices of food and other articles have gone up very rapidly, and we all know what the main ' causes of those increases have been. This Order in Council was designed to prevent undue and unnecessary accumulations pf foodstuffs and other articles and the withholding of them from sale.
It was intended to prevent as far as possible the restraint of competition and the enhancing of prices, and in these respects I think the Order in Council has succeeded fairly well.
Clause 3 says:
(1)	No person shall accumulate or shall withhold from sale any necessary of life beyond an amount thereof reasonably required for the use or consumption of his household or for the ordinary purposes of his business;
(2)	Every person who shall at any time hold any necessary of life beyond an amount thereof reasonably required as aforesaid, and every person who- shall hold for the purpose of sale, whether as manufacturer, wholesaler, jobber, retailer or otherwise, any stock-in-trade of any necessary of life, shall offer for sale the said excess amount, or the said stock-in-trade, as the case may be, at prices not higher than are reasonable and just. :
That clause was intended to make it an offence to withhold from sale' anything he-

yond what a man might acquire for his own use or for the ordinary purposes of his business. Any violation of that 'clause is punishable 'under clause 9, which says:
(1) Any person w,ho contravenes or falls to observe any of the provisions of these regulations shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable upon indictment or upon summary conviction under Part XV of the Criminal Code to a penalty not exceeding five thousand dollars, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years, or to both fine and imprisonment as specified; and any director or officer of any company or corporation who assents to or acquiesces in the contravention or non-observance by such company or corporation of any of the provisions of these regulations shall be guilty personally and cumulatively with his company or corporation and with his co-directors or associate officers.
Mr. MARCH.:	Has action been taken
under this Order in Council in any one case?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Not that I am aware of.


Charles Marcil: Was any attempt made
under this Order in Council to control the export of food. We have heard of large quantities of potatoes being sent to Cuba when potatoes were selling in Montreal at $7 a barrel.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There is no provision in this Order in Council for preventing the exportation of potatoes or any other article.


John Gillanders Turriff: What is the Order i:
Council for?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I told my hon. friend a moment ago that it was to prevent the accumulation and withholding of foodstuffs from sale, and the enhancing of prices. -Those are the three objects we had in view.


George William Kyte: Has any result been accomplished in that direction?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am not able to put my finger on any particular case. I wonder if my hon. friend would suggest that a police officer in the city, John Brown say, could put his finger on the number of burglaries that he has prevented by being on watch every night.


George William Kyte: If there were many burglaries committed, he would likely catch somebody.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: If John Brown could
not point to any one, would my hon. friend suggest that the police should be abolished?


George William Kyte: If burglaries still continued on John Brown's beat, he would proba-blv
be dismissed and some one else be appointed who was more watchful,


Thomas Wilson Crothers: If my hon. friend
knows of a case that comes within clause 3, it is up to him to prosecute and secure a fine of 85,000 or imprisonment for the man who has violated these provisions. My hon. friend smiles. I do not suppose when a crime is committed down in his county he writes to the Minister of Justice to prosecute anybody. As a lawyer he knows that under our constitution it is the duty of the provincial government to enforce the criminal or quasi-criminal laws made by this Parliament. It is no part of the duty of this Government to prosecute in the case of every crime committed in Canada.


George William Kyte: Does the minister contend
that it is no part of the duty of this Government to see that grievances complained of are not remedied?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am speaking of clause 3 now. Wait until I get through. It is no part of the duty of this Government to enforce any of the criminal or quasi-criminal laws passed by this Parliament. Hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were in power, enacted what was known as the Alien Labour Act, and they attempted to enforce it for a very short time, but they soon found that impracticable, and amended the Act, and never thereafter attempted to enforce it.


George William Kyte: That is what you had better do with your Order in Council.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It was never provided in the Order in Council, and never intended that this Government should enforce its provisions; but it was provided in the Alien Labour Act that the Government should enforce it. They attempted to enforce it, and made a failure of it; I am not blaming anybody for that. The Act was amended and neither that government nor their successors have attempted to enforce it.


Charles Marcil: As Trade and Commerce come within the jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament, any act in restraint of trade and commerce could be prosecuted by the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Government.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not remember any particular cases.


Charles Marcil: I understand that it can be done, because under our constitution this

Parliament has control of trade and commerce.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have not contended that it could not be done. I supposed this Government could ask an officer to lay an information against John Brown for stealing Tom Smith's horse, but the usual course would be for Tom Smith to get the Crown .Attorney to prosecute, it being his duty to enforce those laws.


William Erskine Knowles: Do I understand the
minister to say that his department is quite inactive in cases of infraction of this Order in Council? If so, it follows that it was only child's play for many of my constituents to report certain eases to his department with a view to their being investigated and a penalty inflicted in the event of a violation of the Order in Council. Am I to understand that the department leaves it entirely to the provinces?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I was coming to that; I am dealing with Clause 3 at the moment, t will give all the clauses that I consider material, and any others that may be desired. Clause 4, for instance, says:
The Minister of Labour may, by notice in writing under his hand or that of his deputy, require any person who operates, controls or manages any cold storage plant, packing house, cannery, factory, mine, warehouse, or other premises in which or in any part of which any necessary of life is prepared, manufactured, produced or held by such person for himself or for another, or who in any manner deals in any necessary of life, to make and render unto such minister, within a time set in such notice, and such person shall make and render unto sudh minister precisely as required1 by him, a written return under oath or affirmation showing in detail-
(a)	the species and amount of any necessary of life held by such person at any indicated time or times, including any time preceding the making of these regulations, where and for whom said necessary is held, and if held for another, upon what terms held;
(b)	the time when any or all of such necessary of life was prepared, manufactured, produced, acquired, or taken into possession;
(c)	the cost of such necessary of life, including all charges and expenses of an overhead or other nature, affecting such cost;
(d)	the price at which such necessary of life, if already sold, has been sold, or, if unsold, is held for sale;
(e)	such other information concerning any necessary of life as the minister may require, including a full disclosure of all existing contracts or agreements which such person, or his principal or agent, may have at any time entered into, with any other person, touohing or concerning the sale or resale prices of any necessary of life, or the period of time during which any necessary of life should be held, as bailee or otherwise, before sale or resale, or limiting the quan-
tity of any necessary of life which should
be sold to any one buyer or combination of
buyers or within any limited district.
In addition, it is provided:
6. (1) If, after the receipt by the Minister of Labour of any return made to him or to any municipality in purported compliance with these regulations, such minister shall consider that any circumstances so justify, or if, after a return under these regulations has been required, none is made or none is made within the time set in the notice requiring such return or within such further time as the Minister of Labour may upon special application to him allow, the said minister shall have power to investigate the business and to examine the premises, books, papers and records of the person making or failing to make such return, as the case may be, and, for those purposes such minister may appoint an examiner or examiners and may authorize in writing any examiner so ap-* pointed to enter and examine the ' premises, books, records and papers of such person, and to take evidence under oath or affirmation of any person who such examiner may believe has knowledge relating to such matters as ought to have been included within a proper return according to circumstances.
(2)	Every person who is in possession or control of any such premises, books, records or papers shall give and afford to such examiner admission and access thereto whenever and as often as demanded.
(3)	No person shall in any manner impede or prevent or attempt to impede or prevent any such investigation or examination.
(4)	Every person in any manner required by such examiner to give evidence under oath or affirmation touching or concerning the matters committed to such examiner for investigation shall attend before said examiner and give evidence whenever so required.


Mr. COPP:: Have any offences under this clause been drawn to the attention of the minister?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think not. No municipality that has followed out the provisions of clause 5 has made application to us to proceed under clause 6. Now, I wish to call the attention of the House to what we have done in regard to inquiries as to sugar. Under the provisions of section 4, we have sent out questions to about three hundred wholesale men and refiners. 1 wish to give the House a sample of one of these questionnaires, as we call them, that we send out for return under dath:
Sugar.
You are hereby required, on or before the day of February, 1917, to make return in writing under oath to the undersigned, giving answers to the following questions propounded under authority of Order-in-Council No. 2777, dated November 10, 1916, of which a copy is herewith enclosed, and to obey under the same authority all directions of this questionnaire.
Minister of Labour of the
Dominion of Canada.
' 1. When were you incorporated?

2.	By what authority were you incorporated?
3.	State name and addresses of your officers and directors ?
4.	State the various grades of sugar produced by you. Show as accurately as you can the cost of each thereof, including all overhead and other charges affecting cost, and the price at which you sell the same. If your prices vary in different places show such variation. Make your statement upon the basis of 100 pounds. Annex your answer as Schedule "A" to this questionnaire giving details as far as possible as demanded, supplementing, qualifying and explaining in such manner as you see fit by additional matter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does not the minister think that he could have dealt much more directly and more effectively with the prices of sugar and other staple articles by simply passing an Order in Council fixing the price and prohibiting the export of the article? That would be better than these Orders in Council and questionnaires.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Just pass an Order in Council determining how much every man in this city, for instance, shall charge for cheese, butter, eggs, tea, and other things? Is that the hon. gentleman's idea?


John Gillanders Turriff: They have done that in England.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am asking if that is the hon. gentleman's suggestion?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I say that the hon. gentleman might have dealt much more briefly and effectively with the prices of staple articles by simply prohibiting the export and fixing a maximum price. How much better that would be than sending out people to ask questions who come back with nothing. For the hon. gentleman is back to where he was three weeks ago-he has not got anything more than he had at that time.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The hon. gentleman cannot know whether I have any additional matter or not, until he has heard me through. I wonder whether he would suggest that we prohibit the export of foodstuffs to the Allies, in order that we may have enough here and so reduce the prices to the people of Canada? I do not suppose he would suggest that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But, as my hon. friend beside me has pointed out, the Government should long ago have prohibited the export of foodstuffs except to Britain and the Allies.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: This Government has taken measures under which wheat and wheat flour come in free from the United
States and ours go free to the United States. The hon. member for years insisted that this Government should secure the free entry of our wheat and wheat flour into the United States, but now he thinks it all wrong.
' Mr. MACDONALD: I will give the hon. minister, if he wishes it, a statement as to how wheat and wheat flour-


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Just a moment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Of course, if the minister objects-


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have no objection to the hon. member asking a question, but I do object to his making a speech every two or three minutes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman asked me a question.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not think I put it in the form of a question. But I do say that for years the hon. gentleman insisted that the Government should arrange matters so that wheat and wheat products would come in free from the United States, and that our wheat and wheat products should go free to that country. Now, he suggests that we were all wrong in doing anything of that kind, that what we should have done is to prohibit the exportation of wheat and wheat flour to the United States. We did not do that. Perhaps , we were all wrong in not doing it, but we did not. I want to show the nature of the questions we sent out in reference to sugar:
5.	What amount of sugar have you on hand for sale? If necessary to answer by way of schedule annex your answer to Schedule "B," adding such explanations as you may see fit.
6.	How does the quantity on hand for sale compare with what you had on hand for sale at an equivalent date of the years 1914, 1915 and 1916?
7.	What was the amount of your gross business (a) in tonnage, (b) in price, for the year ending December 31, 1916? Answer with accuracy if possible. If not, give your best approximation.
8.	Compare your gross business as to tonnage and value for the years 1913, 1914, 1915 and 1916. If necessary to answer by way of schedule annex your answer as Schedule "C."
9.	What contracts, agreements or arrangements, orally or in writing, exist or have, since the 10th day of November, 1916, existed between you and any person, firm or corporation doing business within the Dominion of Canada, (a) as your competitors, and (b) as buyers from or sellers for you, touching or concerning the sale or resale prices of sugar, or fixing or providing for periodical fixing by you of prices at which sugar may be sold or resold, or touching or concerning the limitation of territory within which you or any other person, firm or corporation shall exclusively

or to a limited extent sell sugar or sell such sugar as you or such other person, firm or corporation may produce or have for sale? Annex your answer as Schedule "D," and annex true copies of all such agreements or arrangements as shall be in writing, marking such last mentioned annexed documents as Schedule "E." Give the names and addresses of all such persons, firms or corporations with whom you may have such agreements or arrangements as may be oral, and in case the address of any person, firm or corporation with whom you may have written agreements which have been annexed as aforesaid do not disclose the address of such persons, firms or corporations, give the addresses of such persons, firms or corporations, repeating, along with each address, the name.
10.	Give a list of the names and addresses of all persons, firms and corporations to whom you have, since the 4th day of August, 1914, sent out for signature and return any printed or written forms addressed to you or to any agent for you-
That question had for its design the ascertaining whether there was any -agreement between the wholesalers and retail men as to price.
-whereby, in consideration of your offer to such persons, firms or corporations of a discount from monthly or other purchases and certification by such persons, firms or corporations that, from and after any certain date to any other time, such persons, firms or corporations have not sold or permitted to be sold at a lower price than prices fixed and communicated by you from d'ay to day, nor on more liberal terms than certain fixed terms, you will pay or allow to such persons, firms or corporations a discount of value in money. Or, if you arrange for fixing or resale prices in any other manner than indicated or engage to pay premiums or to give discounts for maintenance of set or periodically communicated prices. Explain your system of operation and give a list of names and addresses of all persons, firms and corporations who have since August 4, 1914, received such premiums or discounts, or have engaged to maintain such set or communicated resale prices. Annex your answer as Schedule "F."
11.	Give a list, with addresses, of such persons, firms or corporations as, having signed and returned such written or printed forms, or otherwise agreed to maintain prices, the agreement or arrangement thus constituted <a) remained in force on the 10th day of November, 1916, and (b) now in force. Annex your answer as .Schedule "G," including within it true copies of all such signed forms as remained operative on the 10th day of November, 1916.
12.	Explain fully your sale system, showing the class of vendees with whom you deal, whether entirely with jobbers and manufacturers, or otherwise, your ordinary terms of credit, what discounts or bonuses you allow, and the purposes thereof. Annex your answer as Schedule "H."
13.	Are you aware of any combination within Canada of persons, firms or corporations from whom you purchase your products whereby such combination agrees upon fixed prices or among the members thereof, which fixed prices you must pay. If so give such particulars concerning sudh combination as are known to you or concerning any other combi-

nation affecting known to you. "I."
the sugar business as may be Annex your answer as Schedule
14.	Add as Schedule "J" any observations of a general or other character as you may see fit.
That questionnaire was sent out to three hundred wholesale men and refiners. and a form of affidavit to accompany their re-* plies was attached. We got replies and many of them were satisfactory as soon as we received them. But, a great many were defective. We pointed out by correspondence that they did not answer the questions fully, we required further information and we got it. After correspondence of that kind we got satisfactory answers from all of these men to whom we sent out the questionnaire. This is the form of affidavit that they had to make:
I	, of the	 of
	 in the Province of	
make oath and say as follows:
1.	I am	 t0 whom
the questions to which answers are, in whole or in part, returned herewith, are addressed.
2.	I have knowledge enabling me to say, and I do hereby say, that the answers given to the said questions are candid and true, that such answers are as complete as I can provide, and that I have made all enquiries and consulted all records reasonably necessary to enable me to answer the said questions truthfully andl candidly as aforesaid.
Sworn before me at the ... ;____ of	
in the County of	, this .... day
of	 1917.
Notary, Commissioner for taking affidavits, or Justice of the Peace.
As a result of these questionnaires and answers, we got a great deal of information which is contained in the report. I do not propose to read the report but I am going [DOT]to put it on the Table and I am going to give a few facts from it which may be interesting to the committee. Section 5 of the Order in Council is in these words:
Whenever the council of any municipalicty shall declare by way of resolution that in its opinion excessive prices are being demanded within the limits of such municipality for any necessary of life, such council may, by notice in writing under the hand of its clerk or other authorized officer, require any person dealing within the municipality in such necessary of life, and locally situate therein, to make and render unto such council within a time set in such notice, and such person shall make and render unto such council, precisely as required by it, a written return under oath or affirmation, showing in detail


William Erskine Knowles: What did the one in Vancouver make?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have no doubt it is given in this report, but I cannot say at the moment.


William Erskine Knowles: If it is in the report it is not confidential?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Oh, no, I am going to place it on the table. The average profit that the refineries had last year was one-fifth of a cent per pound. Of course there was a very large amount refined, and it amounts to a large sum in the aggregate, but it was only one-fifth of a cent per pound on the average.
I have another of these questionnaires which was sent out to wholesale men. I do not propose to read it. The answers are given here and the actual affidavit is here. If there was any suspicious circumstance or anything set forth in the affidavit .or in the replies that did not seem perfectly satisfactory, we corresponded with the parties until we had what we considered a satisfactory answer, and the net result is that the refineries last year made one-fifth of a cent per pound on sugar, although the price was much higher than it had been a few years

ago. I think the last price was 8# cents wholesale, and the reasons I have given fairly explains this price. The principal item in the cost of refined sugar, as hon. gentlemen will all know, is the cane. The sugar cane has more than doubled in price since the war broke out, and, as I have said, the freight on sugar from Cuba has risen fr.om 9 cents to 76 cents, coal has doubled, hydrochloric acid has gone up 300 per cent, and labour has gone up. These items will give satisfactory reasons, I think, for the increase in the price of sugar. It is sold to wholesalers at $8.35 per hundred pounds and retailers are selling it, some as low as 9 cents and some as high as 10 cents, so that the profit does not seem to be very exorbitant.
We have gone into the question of the price of c.oal. We sent out questions concerning coal, not so many or so full as in regard to sugar. We have endeavoured to get the condition aj. the beginning of each of the last four years and then to get a report from month to -month, and we do get it now every month. We sent out to 250 of the principal coal dealers of Canada these questions, and they were requested to answer giving the number of tons of 2,000 pounds each in the yard on the first day of the month in 1916, of egg, stove, chestnut and other varieties of coal. That is for each month. Then they were asked to give the number of tons of 2,240 pounds purchased from each firm during the month and details of each purchase, giving the price per ton for each size at the shipping point, freight and unloading charges, the number of net tons of 2,000 pounds sold and delivered during the month and the price per ton at which it was sold, egg price, stove price, chestnut, and other prices.
These questions were sent to every large coal dealer in Canada, and satisfactory answers were received. We receive cards from them every month; we can tell the quantity of coal m store in Canada at the beginning of every month. Complaints have been made concerning the price of coal in St. John and Montreal. Coal has been sold in Montreal at $15 a ton in the central part of the city and at higher prices in the suburbs. Upon making inquiry, we found that a great deal of coal is sold in Montreal in little bags containing 15 or 20 pounds. These bags are sold at from 15 to 20 cents each, making the price reach from $15 to $20 a ton. The extra charge in Montreal for carrying coal up one flight of stairs is 25 cents, two flights 50 cents, three flights 75 cents, and four flights $1. Coal is

very dear in St. John and Halifax, the price running as high as $13 and $14 a ton. The reason is that the merchants in St. John and Halifax buy not at the mouth of the mines, but in New York, because of their ' being off the line of railway, and they pay as high as $5 a ton for transportation. From the inquiries which we have made and from information received from other sources, we are able to say that the coal dealers in Canada have not charged exorbitant profits. We have been able to ascertain the cost of coal at the mouth of the pit and the cost of freight, and we can readily estimate the cost of discharge, delivery and overhead expenses. Usually the profits made by the dealers do not exceed fifty cents a ton; I think no one would say that that is exorbitant. Sometimes the profit is 65 cents a ton; sometimes 75, but in no case, I think, does it exceed $1.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Does the minister say that there is no hope that the people of St. John will get their coal at less than $15 or $2( a ton in the near future?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: When they shall be
able to get cane sugar from Cuba at nine cents a hundred instead of seventy-six, there will probably be sufficient tonnage to carry coal from New York to St. John at a lower rate than $4 or $5 a ton. Tonnage is scarce, and if you ship by water you ha^e to pay. '


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is there no hope that the
Government will do something in the nea: future to reduce the price of coal in St. John and Halifax?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: They say that hope
*springs eternal in the human breast. I trust that the member for Westmorland is not wanting in hope.
10	p.m. Mr. COPP:	Has the minis-
- ter any hope?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes. The war will not last forever, and when the war is ovei freight rates may be cheaper.


George William Kyte: Then the food controller wil not be able to do anything in the way of reducing the cost of the necessaries of life.
Is that the minister's conclusion?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Not at all. The operations of the influences which bring about high prices cannot be suspended by this Parliament or by a food controller. I do believe, however, that the designs of this Order in Council can be carried out; the withholding of foodstuffs from sale at rea-

sellable prices, the restraining of competition, and the enhancing of prices by artificial means.


George William Kyte: What section of the Order
in Council prevents the accumulation of foodstuffs in cold storage warehouses?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The report on cold
storage, which is in process of preparation, will be ready in a short time. It will cover such commodities in cold storage as eggs, cheese, pork, bacon, ham, beef, mutton, lamb, halibut, creamery butter, dairy butter. An hon. gentleman on the other side said the other day that a certain firm was seeking insurance on $2,000,000 worth of commodities in cold storage, and that was set forth as an instance of the accumulation and holding of foodstuffs until prices went up. I have here information concerning the purchases and sales of one of the largest cold storage companies in Canada.


George William Kyte: Which one?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I would Tather not
mention the names, unless my hon. friend insists. I will show them to him in private if he so desires. On February 24 last the firm to which my hon, friend refers had on hand in one place $2,145,368 worth of such foodstuffs as I have mentioned. In a month they purchased articles of this kind to the value.of $2,427,439, and sold $2,242,290 worth. On the same day they had on hand in Montreal $682,487.09 worth of these articles. They purchased in a month commodities of the kind mentioned to the value of $465,176.61, and the value of the sales made was $484,899 18. On the some date they had on hand, at Winnipeg, $89,051.73 worth of these articles; the quantity purchased that month was $25,230.62; and the quantity sold was $50,698.29. The gross value of the commodities on hand, February 24, 1917, was:
Toronto	$2,145,368.18
Montreal	 682,487.09
Winnipeg	 89,051.73
Total	$2,916,907.00
When we have a firm doing as much cold storage business as this firm is doing, having over $2,000,000 worth of these commodities on hand, and buying in and selling out two or three million dollars worth a month, that does not show that it is holding back any commodities for an increase in price. This firm has a month's supply on hand at a time. This firm is at the present time turning over $3,000,000 a month; in fact, I am told that it is turning over a million dollars a week. The
common idea that these commodities are hoarded up in cold storage for the purpose of keeping them there until prices go up is not well founded. One trouble, I think, is that we have not enough goods on hand. This firm, which is the largest firm of its kind in Canada, has only a month's supply on hand, and if it cannot buy any more goods, it cannot ship any more away, it is buying and selling every month. We have gone into these different commodities, sugar, coal, cold storage commodities, canned goods, and the report, on cold storage, is in process of preparation and will be ready in a few days. I am glad to say that so far as the prices of sugar and coal and the quantities of foodstuffs kept in cold storage are concerned, there is no reason for complaint.. It is a very good thing for the people of this country to know what the conditions are, because statements that are not well founded are frequently made to them. One hon. member has said:	Can
you point to any article on which by your efforts you have reduced the price? I do not know that I can. I cannot point to any particular burglary that police constable John Brown has prevented by walking the streets of Ottawa, for the last five years, but it does not follow that we should abolish the police force of Ottawa. The refiners, the wholesalers, and the retail dealers know that we are on the job.


George William Kyte: Asleep on the job.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, we are not asleep on the job. I want to know if my hon. friend, by sleeping, could send out 500 of these questionnaires-


George William Kyte: Any office boy could do that.
Mr. CROTHERS-and get all the answers back and tabulate them, and if they were not complete ask for further information. I know that cannot be done by little work. A great deal of work is being done. Some days ago we wrote a firm at St. John, N.B., for some further information, and a day or two ago we received the following reply:-
St. John, N.B., May 29, 1917.
We are in receipt of your favour of the 23rd instant and note contents. The writer has been away or your letter would have been replied to before.
The discrepancies you notice between the prices we furnished you with and the American companies mines prices are easily explained :
In the first place we do not buy the coal ex mines, but f.o.b. vessel at tide water. We think the company's prices for April ranged at about $5.50 f.o.b. schooner at New York; but it has been for some time practically impossible to purchase coal from the companies and get vessels loaded promptly, and as vessels will not

wait two or three weeks for cargo, it has been necessary to go outside to individual operators and pay two or three dollars a ton premium for spot coal. Our figures for April were made up of some coal purchased and shipped in March, but which did not arrive here until April and of one cargo purchased and shipped in April, the latter costing us,-coal, freight, insurance and cost of discharging approximately $11.65 per gross ton.
That is what the coal actually cost them per gross ton.
Since then prices have advanced and we have paid as high as $9.<f0 for coal, f. o. b. New York and $5.00 freight. The figures we sent you were the average of a number of cargoes and the reason the stove shows less than the egg is because we happened to get a little better price or a little lower freight on the stove we imported than on the egg size.
You will understand that these prices are fluctuating all the time. When we are able to charter a vessel we have to go into the market and secure spot coal; sometimes the premium we have to pay is greater than at other times and sometimes we can secure a little lower rate of freight than at others.
We are now landing coal that is costing us $14.50 per gross ton at our dock. At the moment we are selling at $14.00 per net ton.; but we expect to advance the price in the very near future.	[DOT]
That is just a sample of scores of letters we are receiving every day from all parts of the country. When we receive an answer that is not satisfactory we ask for an explanation, and we get from other sources information to check up what we receive from these people, so that in the end we are satisfied we get the correct information. I do not desire to take up any further time in dealing with these matters that come under this item.


George William Kyte: I am sure that the people of this country will not receive very much encouragement from the explanation which the Minister of Labour has given this evening. The minister stands as the apologist of all those who have succeeded in forcing up the prices of foodstuffs in this country to a point which it is almost impossible for the ordinary man to reach. The conclusions of his observations are that nothing is done; nothing is to 'be expected, and nothing is possible. He expressed the pious hope that after the war conditions would be such that a reduction in the cost of food commodities *might be brought about.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I was speaking about the freight on coal. The hon. member is covering everything now.


George William Kyte: The minister was speaking about sugar and everything else. The minister and his Government, while expressing some desire to appoint a food controller,
TMr. Crothers.]
have to admit this evening that even although a food controller is appointed, he can accomplish nothing. The minister says that the conditions we have in this country to-day are conditions which have inevitably resulted from the war, and that therefore the Government is unable to do anything to relieve the situation. That is not the language of Mr. Hoover, who is the food controller in the United States. Mr. Hoover, in the last four or five weeks has spoken in many places; he has spoken before the legislature at Washington in support of a Bill to enable the United States Government to take control of these food products, and he has pointed out that in nearly every case proof is available that the increased cost of living is due to speculation and to the undue enhancement of the cost of foodstuffs by those who are engaged in - the business of distributing them. In the United States there is, apparently a live Government, and a live minister who has charge of that particular situation. The Minister of Labour did not make any particular reference to the matter of flour. We know that some weeks ago when the question of flour was brought up in this House, the Minister of Labour, with a wave of his hand, endeavoured to assure the country that something was being done because he had sent Mr. O'Connor down to Montreal to make an investigation, but Mr. O'Connor returned, and instead of the price of-flour going down, it went up until the United States Government took action to close the grain exchange in the city of Chicago.
The reflex result of that was that the price of flour was reduced to some extent in Canada. The Minister of Labour will not deny that the price of flour was boosted in Canada on account of the operations on the Grain Exchange at Winnipeg. That grain exchange has been closed, and I believe the Government has made some effort to eliminate the operations of the speculators, and as a consequence the price of flour has been reduced in some slight degree in the last couple of weeks.
The Minister of Labour has referred to the question of coal. The minister cannot have forgotten that the city solicitors of Montreal endeavoured to hold an investigation under. the Order in Council for the purpose of reducing the exorbitant price of coal. They had not proceeded very far when they were faced with the difficulty of being unable to proceed by reason of not being able to prove that a conspiracy existed for the purpose of ejnhancing the price of flour, for in the opinion of the city

solicitors unless a conspiracy were proved nothing could be done under .the Order in Council.
I was rather surprised that the Minister of Labour ventured to produce his Order in Council again this evening. I think it is the third occasion on which he has read it to the House, but in no single instance has he been able to show that anything has resulted by reason of the Order in Council or from any proceeding taken under it. It is just as well that the Government cease talking about a food controller. There is no use in going to the expense of appointing a controller or a commission to control the price of foodstuffs, because we have the statement of the Minister of Labour this evening that no result will follow any activity in that respect, as the cost of everything in Canada is due to war conditions. But there are other countries at war, and the consumers of those countries fare very much better than we do, the consumers of Canada. In the United States the conditions created by the war are no worse than the conditions created by the war in this country, and the moment war was declared by the United States action was taken for the purpose of dealing with the question.
The price of onions had gone up enormously in the United States. It was stated that the price was due to the supply not being equal to the demand, and apologists for those who were responsible for increasing the price of that article came forward, just as the Minister of Labour has done to-night, with every explanation bnt the correct one. But the moment the food controller was invested with authority-
Mr. CROTH'ERS:	Will my hon. friend
allow me a question? Has not the hon. member been advocating in this House and outside that we should take action to er able the farmers to sell their products in the United States^ so that they could get a higher price?


George William Kyte: They did not get a higher
price in the United States. When our farmers could have realized a better price in the United States the Government refused to allow them to sell their product in that country. It was not until food products had become so high in this country that the ordinary consumer could scarcely buy them at all, that the Government allowed food products to be exported to the United States, when we were paying more for those commodities than ever before.
Coming back to the question of onions, the food controller in the United States held
an inquiry and wa.s able to put his finger on the cause of the trouble. While it had been reported that the high price was due to the supply not being equal to the demand the food controller discovered that large quantities were being warehoused in the United States; the manipulators gave out that the supply was not equal to the demand, and therefore the price had to go up. The moment the food controller took the matter in hand he discovered where the difficulty was, and the price of onions at once came down. There was a gentleman who really understood what his business was, and was really interested in producing results. All these matters- which the Minister of Labour referred to are being dealt with in other countries and perhaps in no other country outside of Germany have prices gone up to the extent that they have gone up in Canada. As I said at the opening of my remarks, we in this country have to settle down to the conviction that nothing will he done to relieve the situation because the Minister of Labour either cannot or will not take action. -


John Gillanders Turriff: I hope we shall not hear again hon. gentlemen opposite charging us on this side with wasting the time of the House, because thte Minister of Labour tonight has taken, two hours simply to repeat, practically word for word, what he has already repeated in the House two or three times this session.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 
John Gillanders Turriff: Whether my hon. friend wished to put us asleep, or out of business altogether, so that he could get his Estimates through I do not know, Jbut the fact remains that though we have been sitting here for nearly four months and the high cost of living has been .brought to the Minister's attention time and again in this House, not one single Btep has been taken by the minister to bring down to a reasonable level the price of any article of food used by the consumers of this country. Not a single thing has been accomplished. The minister indulged in a dissertation to-night about his Order in Council and his questionnaires. Why, any office boy would be dismissed if he sent out such a set of questions as the minister's. Since we have been discussing the cost of living in this House this session, the price of two main articles 'of food has practically doubled; I re'fer to flour and potatoes. All that the Minister of Labour has done has been to send Mr. O'Connor down to Montreal to ascertain the

reason for the rise in the price of flour. After all these months have been wasted the minister tells us to-night that he does not know whether it is advisable to appoint a commission or a food controller to look into the whole question. He read his Order in Council clause by clause, and told us that everything was lovely, that prices were not too high, they could not be lower; and, as my hon. friend from Richmond says, he apologized for those who' were manipulating the food supplies of this country and charging the people double prices. The Government apologizes for these food manipulators; it stands by them, and as much as says to them, "Go on, keep up the prices as high as the people of Canada will stand for. We will defend you on the floor of the House. We will not take any action to bring the prices down." That is the position of the Government tonight. The Minister of Labour says that nothing can be done. Certainly nothing is being done. I imagine this is the only country where the Government is absolutely powerless to do anything, and acknowledges it. Since this House met I venture to say that potatoes have doubled in price, and flour has almost doubled too. Did it cost any more to raise the potatoes that have been sold for such high prices in the last few months, than to raise the potatoes that were sold last fall? Did the wheat that produced the flour that brought from $13 to $15 a barrel only recently cost more to produce than the wheat that produced the flour that sold for $8 or $9 a barrel last fall? Not one cent. And yet this Government say they can do nothing to control the price of flour. In the meantime the people have to pay double the price for their bread. The Minister of Labour tells them he can do nothing. Everything is all right. The men who have been manipulating the market to the disadvantage of the labouring class and every other class have the sanction and even the benediction of this Government. The minister says:
"It's all right, gentlemen; go ahead; squeeze the last cent out of the people who must have potatoes and bread." There is the position. And the bad feature of it, to my mind, is that the minister comes forward to-night and says: We can't do anything; everything is all right; the prices are moderate and you have to pay them: some time, after the war is over, some time in the future, dimly distant or near, conditions may change and food may be cheaper, but in the meantime nothing is being

done and nothing can be done. Well, if the Government cannot do better than that, they ought to acknowledge that they are not capable for the job, and they ought to step down and out. No wonder they want a coalition. It is all well enough to discuss these matters here, but the millions of workers in Canada, who find it difficult to make ends meet and to provide food enough on their tables, see no possible prospect of .anything better after the statement made by the Minister of Labour to-night. I think it is up to the Government, it is right up to the Prime Minister, to see that a change is made in the workings of the Department of Labour and that something is done 'to control and regulate the prices of food. One good able man in charge as a food controller would very soon stop the prices going up here, and m many cases would cut down prices that have been raised by means of manipulation, as has been the case with many food products. The minister tells us that nothing has been decided. After all these years and months they have not decided whether they will appoint a commission, or name a food controller, or do any- . thing. Well, it is a poor lookout for the consumers of Canada when that is the position taken by the Government.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: If my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) could point to some country where a food controller, or commissioner of supplies, or government official of any kind, had reduced by his action the price of foodstuffs, it would be more to the point. But look on that picture and then on this. Until a few weeks ago the hon. gentleman was urging with great eloquence that wheat and flour should be permitted to go into the United States free because it was dearer there. Now, he finds fault with the price of potatoes because they have been allowed to go into that dearer market-


John Gillanders Turriff: I never mentioned potatoes-


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The hon. gentleman
mentioned potatoes only a few moments ago. He complained that they have gone up in price. To a certain extent that is due to the fact that they have been shipped to the United States.


John Gillanders Turriff: I hope the hon. minister will allow me to put him right. I did not mention potatoes going to the United States.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Then I beg his pardon;
I thought he had said so. But we all know that potatoes have gone to the United

States from Canada. And why? Because they are dearer there than here. Then, what about the food controller of the United States, who was to have reduced the price of everything in that country? But it is just the same old story-one day these hon. gentlemen are begging ifor conditions under which the farmer shall be 'able to get more for his wheat, and the next day attacking the Government because the farmer gets so much. It is the same effort to humbug the country. But it failed in 1911, and it fails now, and it will fail whenever it is tried.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: A little while ago the hon. minister was looking all over the world for somebody to tell him-


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I was asking the hon. gentleman to tell us some place where the prices of goods had been reduced.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the hon. gentleman will look at Australia he will find it there. There is a very ready remedy in the case of flour. We in Canada produce, possibly,
200,000,000 bushels of wheat, and our consumption is somewhere about 50,000,000 bushels. Why does not the Government undertake to commandeer the wheat that is necessary for our consumption in Canada at a fair price-


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Oh, certainly.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, why don't they? -and deliver it at a fair price to the millers, and then regulate the handling of it by the millers, so that the people of Canada may get flour at a fair and proper figure ?_
'[DOT]Mr. CROTHERS: Would the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) agree to that?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Never mind the question-it is only the same old business of setting one opinion against another as a reason for doing nothing. What the people are concerned with, and what the hon. member for Assiniboia is concerned with, is how the plain people of this country are to get food at reasonable figures. The hon. minister talks about what the people will listen to and what they will not listen to. One thing they will not listen to is this veriest twaddle that the hon. minister has inflicted on this committee under pretense of dealing with the question of food prices. I say that, as to the price of the flour, it lies in the hands of this Government to commandeer the wheat necessary for consumption in Canada and to see to it that flour made from that wheat is delivered to the people at a proper price. That is a
solution which any business man could work out.


John Allister Currie: There is nothing through which the poor people have suffered more than the high cost of coal, and I would like the hon. member (Mr. Macdonald), as a representative of the coal interests, to say whether he is willing that coal should be commandeered at so much a ton and sold to the people at a reasonable price?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why, certainly. If my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) thinks that this situation, serious as it is, can be met by a silly argument, or suggestion, of that kind, he is quite mistaken. I say that every article that enters into the home consumption of the plain people must be dealt with with a strong hand by this Government, and the country expects the Government so to deal with it.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman goes far afield from his own home for. his illustration and argument on the subject of the high cost of living. He goes away to the Northwest and takes the case of wheat and flour. But why does not he speak on behalf of the poor people in his own province who were faced with the high prices of coal during this cold winter? I have never heard him raise his voice in a single word against the high price of coal until now when he has been challenged.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. member (Mr. Currie) has not been in the House very much this session; he has honoured us only occasionally-


John Allister Currie: I have been in constant attendance every day.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh no, you have not. The hon. gentleman forgets just where he was. He need not worry -about the consistency of my position in this matter; the problem of the high cost of living will not be met by any such argument as that.


John Allister Currie: There is no greater danger in this House than the presence of the hon. member (Mr. Macdonald), sitting here as he does, representing these coal interests, and yet he challenges the high cost of living. The people have paid high prices for coal in his own province and in Montreal. And why? Because the coal is charged for at two or three times former prices. But is the coal miner getting double or three times the pay he got before? No. The statements of the companies for which the hon. gentleman is solicitor show that he knows it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When the hon. gentleman talks about my being solicitor for companies, he makes a statement concerning which he knows nothing whatever and is absolutely unjustified and unwarranted. I will tell him whom I represent in this House. I represent three or four thousand coal miners, who have sent me here for twelve years to speak and act on their behalf.
Let me say to the hon. gentleman who comes here to "wrestle with this problem and to indulge in personal matters of this kind, that the people of my constituency are aroused upon this question of the cost of living, they ward .some solution of it from, this Government, and they will have it. The hon. gentleman *speaks about the price of coal. The price of [DOT]coal in the constituency from which I come is not greater than it should he, having regard to the wages that people should have in order to pay for the produce that is necessary to keep them alive. If the price of coal is greater in Montreal than it should be, and the minister laboured for over an hour to-night to show that it is not, all I have to say is that it is not the coal from Nova Scotia that is being consumed and for which this large price is being paid. Coal from Nova Scotia is not going to Montreal on account of the removal of facilities for getting it there. The coal consumed in Montreal is coal from the United States and not from Nova Scotia. Within the last three days I called the attention of the Government to the fact that it was impossible for Nova Scotia to send, any coal to central Canada on account of the boats being removed. My hon. friend who always pretends to omniscience has something to learn in regahd to that question. The price of coal in central Canada is not dependent on the price of coal in Nova Scotia.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman has just got right down to the point. I know where coal comes from that is- supplied to that province, because I am a large pur- ' chaser of coal, and I know where the coal comes from that is supplied to the West. We have never heard the hon. gentleman who represents the coal interests of Nova Scotia ask the Government to take the duty off coal, although he is always hollering to have the duty taken off wheat and flour. Is he prepared to have the duty taken off soft coal? There is $5,000,000 paid every year by the farmers of the West for the duty on soft coal. Is he willing to forego that duty?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend
wants to discuss the question, I will discuss it with him at the proper time. He talks about the coal consumed in Ontario. There is not a cent of duty on the anthracite coal consumed by the householder in Ontario.


John Allister Currie: Soft coal is very largely
consumed in Ontario-. The very 'bread that is baked in Ontario is baked with soft coal and that soft coal pays a duty of fifty cents a ton and more on account of the war. Yet, my-hon. friend and his friends want to keep American coal out of Canada. Has he the honesty to say:	I will forego the
duty on coal if you will forego- the- duty on wheat? There is the East and there is the West in this country. My hon. friend represents the East. We have never heard him say a word about the duty on coal. He is quite willing to have somebody else'e wool cut-, but he is not willing to have his own, and he cuts a very sorry figure on this question,


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is not the first time the hon gentleman has cut a sorry figure since he came back. It is very easy for my hon. friend to get up and try to create a diversion in order to help the Minister of Labour out of a hole. The Minister of Labour has signally and absolutely failed in bis duty in dealing with this problem of the high cost of living. My hon. friend the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) need not think that in getting up and getting excited he is going to divert the attention of this committee, or this country, or this Parliament, from the main question before them .as to whether the Minister of Labour has not absolutely and ignominiously failed in dealing with this great problem before the Canadian people.


John Allister Currie: The West needs coal and has to have soft coal and I ask my hon. friend now if he will be willing to have the duty. taken off soft coal. We are anxious to know.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If I had the responsibility I would deal with this question. My hon. friend is supporting a Government that has to deal with it and if my hon. friend wants the duty taken off coal he had better go to them to have it taken off. It is not the question of duty that is the issue here. It is the matter of price control in regard to which this minister has failed.


William Erskine Knowles: The fact remains that, as my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Mac-

donald) has stated, there is a great need that something should be done in regard to this question of the high cost of living. What did we learn from the minister? The only thing we did learn was that nothing has been done and nothing will be done. That is all we ever have learned from the Minister of Labour. To-night he gives an exhibition which, in the classic words of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane), might simply be described as hoeh, an expression that seems to be parliamentary because it was used by the Minister of Railways not four days ago. The Minister of Railways and Canals has the advantage over the Minister of Labour in that he says more in less time and inflicts less suffering on those who have to listen to him than does the Minister of Labour. If the minister never laboured before, he might to-night be called the labouring minister. I do not know whether the minister endeavoured to obstruct his own estimates or not. If that was his purpose he succeeded absolutely. The Opposition is sometimes accused of trying to obstruct a minister's estimates but the hon. gentleman to-night obstructed his own estimates. His only purpose must have been to endeavour to tire us out so that rather than be penalized by the infliction of a speech such as he gave us we would allow his estimates to go through and get home out of here. But, we do not look at it in that way, and I am the less inclined to look at it in that way because of the outstanding way in which the minister deals with the whole question. Our complaint always has been that the hon. gentleman's friends, the middlemen, are making an improper and exorbitant profit, and we say that it is his duty to protect the producer at the one end and the consumer at the other, and to see that there is not an unjust tribute extracted by these middlemen. What does my hon. friend say? He says that the people of Canada in 1911 decided that the middlemen should be protected. If his words mean that, I say that the people of Canada decided no such thing in 1911.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I did not say that.


William Erskine Knowles: The hon. gentleman
stated as clearly as he stated anything that in 1911 the people decided for the very things he contended for, and against the things which we contended for. I make the statement that the people of Canada in 1911 did not decide what he says they decided. The people in his own riding
wanted the Farmers' Bank subscribers paid, and he appealed to them on that issue and made promises, and on that he was elected. The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) was elected on the ne temere cry, and the Eucharistic Conference and all these cries were heard throughout Ontario and Quebec. The minister laughs just as he has always done ever since he took the position he holds, and which carries with it the duty of looking after the interests of labour and the interests of the consumer. He laughs as over a joke, although he holds this important position, and he gives no reason, no explanation when his delinquencies in regard to serious matters are brought to his attention. I say again that in 1911 the people of Canada did not decide that they desired that the middlemen should be protected. They did not decide that there should be less of a gap or spread between the producer and the ultimate consumer, because that issue in Ontario and Quebec was carefully kept away from them and was not made an issue of the election. The people decided to vote for the Minister of Labour because they wished their deposit money returned and their subscriptions in the Farmers' Bank cancelled. Yet, he tells us that they decided the trade question in 1911. Again, to use the classic words of his colleague, that is nothing but "bosh." What does the minister tells us in regard to this question of the high cost oF living? It is a serious condition of affairs, says the minister. The minister has a dual responsibility, because he has the guardianship of the protected interests and the labour interests. Did my hon. friend protect the interests of the consumer? What did he say to my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) and my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Copp) when they asked him when there was going to be some relief? He said, After the war is over you can buy cane sugar at the same old figure. Is that not a bright prospect to hold out to the people? What is the use of his regulations number, 13, 15, 14, 4 or 6, or whatever numeral it may be? He says hope springs eternal in the human breast, and we hope that some day the war will be over and that we will get back to old prices. Last year we did not think the war was going to be over, although some of us indulged in the hope that it would.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: All I was talking about -and I think my hon. friend from Moose-jaw knows it-when I was speaking to my hon. friend from Westmorland, was freight.


William Erskine Knowles: Really, I do not know.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, that is the question he asked, when we were going to get any relief for tonnage.


Arthur Bliss Copp: No, not at- all, that was not the question I asked.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Hansard will show it
is.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If Hansard shows that, it is absolutely wrong, because that is not what I asked.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I remember quite well.


William Erskine Knowles: I admit that freight
has as close a relation to the question that was put to him as the Farmers Bank has to Reciprocity, and that, is about as close as we expect the minister to get to anything. He does say, however, that when the war is over things yvill come back to normal and we can buy sugar and other things at the old prices. What is the good of wasting money on all these post cards that he has? What is the good of filling the department up with a lot of information such as he read to us in his most entertaining and fascinating style to-night? It is thrilling to listen to him, a rare treat to hear an address such as we heard, regulation 6, regulation 3, regulation 5, but that is not going to reduce the price of food even in the Minister's own estimation, and I think if he cannot seriously address himself to this problem, he should stop trifling with it. He laid down a principle I was sorry to hear him enunciate, because I do not want the minister to go so far that the Government would let him out. It would be a great loss to us on this side if anything happened to him. One of the greatest friends we have, in a political sense, is my hon. friend, especially among the labour people; a real asset is my hon. friend, and v.e certainly would not want to lose him. But I think if, I understood him his position is that he makes Orders in Council, puts .them through, has them approved of by His Excellency, and then he says to the provinces:	You go on and execute this
and see that it is obeyed. If I understand him aright that is his position. If that is his position, the people of Canada may as well know that he is just trifling with this very serious state of affairs, just trifling, laughing again, because that is all he is doing if he does not address himself to the enforcement of these regulations and the actual bringing aibout of what he wishes to accomplish. Suppose the Minister of -Customs took that attitude, that he simply passed his regulations or laws declaring that it is a criminal offence 
to smuggle, and then left the provincial governments to get after the smugglers and enforce the law. He would soon find that the customs revenue decreased and that the customs laws -were not enforced. And may I not say the same of the Finance Minister? If he did not see that the banks and insurance companies behaved themselves, the result would be very serious. It is a common thing for him to make them obey the laws that have been put in force. And so, with the war upon us, with this great crisis upon us with regard to exorbitant prices, the Minister of Labour has not discharged his duty, not one-quarter discharging it, when be has merely made an Order in Council and has said:	I am
not going to do anything to have it enforced. I appeal to the minister to use some of the machinery in his department -and a very good- department it is in many ways and no doubt he has -many excellent officials-, and no doubt he himsel-f has a good fundamental knowledge of how it should be administered, through his legal training-I appeal to him to use some of that machinery and to say that from now on he will not only make the laws but compel people to obey them, and not say that it is up to the provincial governments. That does not satisfy the people of Canada. He does not do his department or the Government of which he is a member justice by saying: we wall pass an Order in Council and let the provinces enforce it or not as they please. This is a matter of Federal concern and Federal administration, as well as Federal legislation.
My hon. friend also made reference to the food control in the United- States. I do not think his reference was a very -happy one because the food control in the United States has been appointed, and- has been so lately appointed that you could not expect results from its appointment. But the very fact that in the United States they have decided to appoint a food controller shows that they are proceeding to do what they can to control exorbitant prices. But the Minister of Labour here has not decided that he will even take such a step as that. I say that so lately ha-s the food controller in the United States, Mr. Hoover, been appointed, that there is no help to the minister in making such a comparison.
My main motive in rising is -to urge the minister not only to make the legislation, Orders in Council and Acts of Parliament, but really to enforce them; and I am sure that he will find the provincial governments

willing to co-operate, on whichever side of politics they may be, and in that way some good really may be achieved. I ask the minister if he will not take into consideration the matter of not only enacting these pieces of legislation hut of enforcing them throughout Canada.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I certainly was much disappointed to realize that it is absolutely impossible to get any assistance from any. agency with reference to the high cost of living as we have it to-day in Canada. The Minister of Labour says that hope 'Springs eternal in the human breast. I still have hope that the minister is not expressing the absolute, decided, policy of the Government in doing nothing with regard to this very important matter. I am not here to quarrel with the Minister of Labour in regard to his department or his laxity here, there or elsewhere. But I do want to impress upon the Minister of Labour and upon the Government of this country the seriousness of the condition of affairs throughout Canada with regard to the high cost of living as it affects the ordinary common people of this country. When my hon. friend tells me, and I presume seriously, that it is absolutely impossible to reduce the price of coal to be sold and delivered to the common people of the city of St. John and other sections of distribution in my own province in the coming winter for less than $15 or $20 a ton-


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Would you allow the rich peeple to have it at the same price?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: My hon. friend is not a demagogue?
~ Mr. COPP: I am not a demagogue. I say on. behalf of the ordinary poor people of this country that if the rich man can afford to [DOT]pay $15 or $20 for coal, I have not the same sympathy with him as I have with the poor people who cannot pay that price. And I can say to the hon.. gentleman, and I say it as sincerely as I ever spoke, that if, during the coming winter, a number of the common people in the city of St. John and the city of Halifax and other cities throughout 'Canada have to pay $15 or $20 a ton for the coal which they burn, they are facing a coal famine in this country; and if they have to pay $15 and $16 and $17 a 'barrel for their flour, they are facing starvation. I still hope that the Minister of Labour and the Government of which he is a responsible member may yet see their
way clear to change their view and do something, The day is not too late and the time not too far spent for them to do something in the interests of the people who must suffer during the coming year unless something is done to decrease the cost of living in Canada. I am not here to talk politics.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Bliss Copp: No. My hon. friends laugh. L am not here to talk politics in regard to this matter. I am speaking on behalf of men and families under the conditions throughout this country, and I know those conditions and hon. gentlemen opposite know them. I venture to say that there are a number of hon. gentlemen opposite who will agree with me that unless something [DOT]can be done to decrease the cost of living in Canada a very large number of people are .going to feel it and feel it very severely. I do on behalf of these people ask the Minister of Labour and the Government yet to consider carefully if some action cannot be taken that will, in some small degree, assist the people in regard to the reduction of the cost of living.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The increase in the price of coal in Montreal and elsewhere in Canada is due, not to the putting up of the price by the coal companies, but to the increase in the cost of transportation, over which the man who produces the coal has no control. The Dominion Coal Company and the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company had steamers carrying their coal at reasonable cost, but these stearqers have been taken from them and the coal is now put on board cars, the man who takes it away paying the cost of transportation. The coal producers should not he blamed for the cost of transportation.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I was speaking of exclusively anthracite coal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand that even soft coal is extraordinarily expensive in some places. Steps should be taken to yard large quantities of coal at Montreal, St. John and other places. The member for Westmorland points out that a serious condition faces the people in the province of New Brunswick. When a grave condition prevailed in 1905, in the matter of hay, the Government came to the assistance of the people in Nova Scotia by giving them free transportation of hay from Mont-11 p.m. real and other places in the West, for which they were very grateful. I will not object to any expendi-



t.ure the Government may make in an effort to prevent famine. If there is to he conscription of men, no better conscription could be had than that of having the men work in the coal mines and produce enough coal to make the supply plentiful. Ample quantities of coal are available for mining; we have railway facilities under our control, and the question of the supply of coal is not a serious one if properly handled. Pulp, for instance, is no more a natural product of our country than is flour. Everything that enters into the production of pulp is found in our own country, and the same may be said of flour. It was alleged that the price of newsprint had gone beyond a proper figure, and the Government, under the War Measures Act, cut down the price to what the producers of the commodity say is too small a figure. If it is proper to cut down the price of newsprint, why not cut down the price of flour to a proper figure? If they are charging too much for wheat, why not cut down the price? If they are charging too much for milling,- why not cut down the price and enable the people to obtain the staff of life at a reasonable figure? I appeal to the minister on behalf of thousands of coal miners, fishermen, lumbermen and farmers, who cannot get flour without paying $17 a barrel for it. When they were paying $6 and $7 a barrel for flour, the price was regarded as high; I do not know how they will be able to obtain sufficient flour at $17 a barrel. It would not be so bad if the minister could say that he had investigated the price of wheat and the conditions surrounding its milling, transportation and sale, and could announce that it was impossible to sell it at a lower price. But. this is not the case. We, were told not-long ago that over a hundred million bushels of wheat were stored in various places throughout Canada. Before long we shall have a new crop. Is it not extraordinary that with that large quantity of wheat on hand, and with the prospect of another abundant crop in the near future, the price of wheat and flour should be so high? The matter of news print has been dealt with; why not take some steps in the matter of potatoes, flour, butter, fish or any of the other necessaries of life for which we are now paying too much? Why not bring the prices down within the reacn of the poor man; or, at any rate, be able to tell him that we have done the best we could? The evidence submitted by the minister is not enough to satisfy me that proper effort- has been made to make the necessaries of life as ch^ap to the poor

man as possible, under the extraordinary-conditions that now prevail. Arguments advanced in times of peace, plenty, happiness and contentment, are not applicable to these terms of stress and strain. Action-on the part of the Government must be suited to present conditions. The people must be protected, even if, after the war is over, we should have to pay the men from whom we took the wheat, flour and other commodities for the benefit of the people. But do not let there be any suffering amongst the labouring classes and the poorer classes in this country if there is anything in the power of Parliament and of the people that can divert that suffering or produce better conditions.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The proposition of the hon. member for North Cape Breton that we should get information and lay it before the members of this House and the people of this country is quite a reasonable one. It is only a few months since this Order in Council was passed. I have here a full report regarding the conditions as to the price of sugar, I have another in regard to anthracite coal, and perhaps my hon. friend heard me say that we had in process of preparation other reports concerning flour, the canneries and cold storage. I am going to lay all these on the Table; others will follow just as soon as we can have them completed, and we shall secure a great deal of useful information from every one of these reports.


Mr. LOGGIE:: When the minister was telling us about the price of anthracite coal, I understood him to say that the reason for coal being so much dearer at St. John was the fact that the coastwise freight was $5-


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That was one item.


William Stewart Loggie: -and also that coal was very dear at New York city. The minister gave that as a reason why coal was so much dearer at St. John than at Montreal. Am I correct?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes.


William Stewart Loggie: That seems to me rather a far-fetched excuse. I do not doubt as to the facts of a particular case that may have happened in that way, but, as a matter of fact, to take coal from the pit-head to St. John cannot cost but very little more than to take it from the pit-head to Montreal; and if that be true, how can the minister make that an excuse for coal being so much dearer at St. John than at Montreal, if the rail freight from pit-head to St. John is

practically the same as from pit-head to Montreal?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The coal is not taken by rail at all.


William Stewart Loggie: That can be done. People can buy it at New York. I beg to differ in a way from the minister. As a matter of fact, I know that until last year we never igot a car of anthracite coal in my town; but last year we got anthracite coal by rail, and I cannot see why anthracite coal cannot *be laid down at St. John by rail at practically as low a price as it can be laid down at Montreal. The difference the minister stated as to the values at St. John and Montreal is not real in fact; it may 'be so in some special case, but it is not as to actual value, because there is no good reason for such a difference. The difference in mileage is very small, and there is first-class railway communication west direct from St. John. I therefore cannot understand why there should be any great difference in the cost of haulage between the pit-head and St. John and between the pithead and Montreal.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member knows
that the rate from the coal mines in Pennsylvania to Montreal is governed by the water rate from Cleveland to Montreal, and that if he takes coal straight by rail to St. John, the freight is higher. If the hon. member is a shipper, he ought to know that fact.


George Perry Graham: A little earlier in the
evening a matter came up with reference to the application of the fair wage clause to the Imperial Munitions Board contracts, and some hon. members wish to discuss that question. As the only way we can discuss it is by keeping an item open, I would suggest that we let all go through except one.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Leave the last one.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Rogers the House adjourned at 11.12 p.m.
Tuesday, June 5, 1917.