1917-07-26

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 117, to authorize the levying of a war tax upon certain incomes.
He said: This is the Bill founded on the resolution which I introduced yesterday.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. W. J. Roche (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 107, to amend the Dominion Lands Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
On section 1-Cancellation and compensation for- improvements.
Mr. OLIVER:: This Bill contains a large number of details, and it may be that I have been remiss in not following up the work, but I would not like to be compelled to consider all these many details to-day, not having seen them before.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: There is no need of going into any of those sections to which my hon. friend objects. We might run over the Bill and see what part is not controversial. There is no other business ready just at the moment.


Frank Oliver: Has the Bill been available to hon. members in the shape in which it is now laid on the Table.


Mr. ROCHE:: It has been distributed.


Frank Oliver: When?


William Roche: Only to-day.


Frank Oliver: That bears out my point. I was saying that the Bill contains a large number of details which require careful consideration before hon. members can be in a proper position to assent to or dissent from them. I would very much rather have had some little time to study these details before being compelled to take the Bill up and go through it in committee.


Robert Laird Borden: No doubt the Minister of the Interior will agree that any of the sections as to which my hon. friend thinks further consideration will be necessary can stand, and the minister can give
his explanations which will assist my hon friend in his consideration.


Frank Oliver: Under the circumstances, the Bill having just been distributed, it being a Bill of detailed amendment and we not having had an opportunity to compare it at considerable length with the present Act, we shall have to ask you, Sir, to be good enough to read each section.
1. Subsection two of section fifteen of The Dominion Lands Act, chapter twenty of the Statutes of 1908, is amended by inserting after the word "latter" in the tenth line thereof, the words "or to any other person or persons adjudged by the minister to be entitled thereto as dependents of the former holder of the land," and by adding the following at the end thereof:
"The person who may subsequently secure the land, either under entry or by sale or otherwise, may be required to pay any and all amounts due for principal and interest then charged against such land for seed grain, fod- ' der or other relief advanced by His Majesty to the former or any preceding entrant or holder of such land, in such manner as the minister may direct."


Frank Oliver: Will the minister give an explanation in regard to this amendment?


William Roche: The members of the
House will see that in the Bill as it has been distributed, in addition to the amendments that the Chairman has just read, there is in one column the reading of section 2 of the present Act and in the oppo-' site column the reading of the section as it will be afteT amendment, the portion that has been added being in darker type. The explanation of the first change is to clothe the minister with authority to order that moneys collected for improvements made by a former entrant shall, instead of being refunded to the said former entrant, be paid to his wife. In many cases of desertion the woman is unable to obtain an assignment from her husband, although it may be shown in some instances that she has advanced money to her husband to effect improvements. As the law now stands, she has no redress.
There may be other cases where it would be advisable to make a refund to the father or mother or some other near relative of the former holder of the land, on proof being furnished that such relative is the person most entitled to receive the money.
The practice of the department, where the wife has been abandoned, is that after she has been abandoned* for two years, she will be allowed to make entry for the land in her own name. At present the practice is that a woman who is allowed entry is supposed to have her residence count from

the date of entry, but we desire to take the opportunity of allowing the woman to have her residence count even before she has received her entry if she has been residing upon the land subsquent to her desertion. This particular provision means that where the husband has made certain improvements under the existing Act, those improvements may be collected from the next entrant. We do not desire to collect from the deserted wife, but to have authority to pay over the value of the improvements to the wife.


Mr. NESBITT:: Less the amount of indebtedness?


William Roche: Yes, if there was anything due. The second change is in connection with the advance of seed grain, fodder and relief made in 1914 and 1915. In'
[DOT] some cases the party obtaining the adv .nee failed to complete the duties in connection with his entry, and such entry has been cancelled. In cases of this kind it has been decided that any one taking up the land later on will have to pay the amount of the advance. In every case, a person obtaining entry for cancelled land is required to pay the value of the improvements remaining upon the land at the time he secures the entry. The amount so collected for improvements is applied on the seed grain debt, 'but if the value of the improvements is not equal to the amount of the seed grain indebtedness, the party securing the land is required to make up the remainder of the indebtedness. For instance, we have a lien on the land of any one who received advances from us in 1914 and 1915 under our seed grain distribution. If the homesteader abandoned that land and we had no lien upon it, the next entrant who applies for cancellation would receive a free entry for that homestead. But when we have -a lien upon the land, in order to protect the treasury we insist that whoever takes up the land must assume the indebtedness over and above the value of the improvements.


Frank Oliver: If I have been able to
correctly gather the purport of the minister's remarks, I would say that the first change with Tegard to the dependents of a homesteader is a very proper one. But there js no doubt in my mind, in regard to the second change, that the charging of the whole indebtedness against the subsequent entrant for an abandoned homestead will in many cases have the effect of preventing the entry from being made. There 	,
are many cases in which a large indebtedness has been incurred on account of seed grain and fodder, and if another bad season occurs this year-and I ami afraid that some parts of the country may be facing a bad season-many homesteads may be abandoned, particularly those on which the Government has a lien. I think the Government would be well advised not to charge against the incoming settler the indebtedness incurred by the previous homesteader in regard to seed grain and fodder relief, beyond the fair value of the improvements upon the homestead, because if more than the value of the improvements is charged against the incoming settler he will to that extent be deterred from taking the homestead. I am quite sure that the amount of the lien will not be sufficient to deter the homesteader in all oases, but I aim equally satisfied that it will be sufficient to deter him in a large number of cases if the indebtedness is greater than the actual value of the improvements. In that case he will foe required to pay for something that he does not get, and there are very many, people, of course, who object very strongly to paying for. something which they do not get, but which somebody else gets. That sentiment, apart from the actual values, will have a serious effect in deterring the reoccupation of abandoned land. If, on the other hand, the Government undertook to collect from the incoming settler the value of the improvements only which the previous homesteader had made, and which the incoming homesteader would have the benefit of, there would be no such impediment to the re-occupation of the land, and the Government would in all probability get all they possibly could get out of the transaction in a large number of cases. That would encourage the re-occupation of the country, and not deter it, as I am afraid it will be deterred by the provision which the minister is placing in the Act.


William Roche: Unless we take some means of protecting the treasury, we are liable to lose a very large .amount of money. I do not think we should leave any stone unturned to protect the country against such loss when we have at our hand this method of collecting the indebtedness. I do not look at the matter in exactly the same light as my hon. friend, when he says that the subsequent entrant is paying for something that he does not get. In one sense that is true, but the incoming settler does get the land, and land in a thickly settled portion

of the community-and it was here that the distribution of seed grain was made-is more valuable than far-distant homestead land. Our experience thus far would not lead us tc believe that this provision will be a deterrent against the re-occupation of the land. We have had a number of cases where men were only too pleased, in fact volunteered, to pay off the seed grain indebtedness for the privilege of being allowed priority of entry. The land is valuable, though in some cases there are very few improvements. If the improvements were valued at $300 and the indebtedness at $400, the incoming settler pays the $300 for the improvements in any case, and he is then called upon to pay the other $100 in order to release the Government lien. As we have already had many cases where men were only too pleased to assume this indebtedness, I do not imagine this provision will be a deterrent to the re-occupation of the land, and if we do not have such a provision I fear that the country will be liable to a very serious loss.


Frank Oliver: I have no wish to put the Government in the position of failing to collect indebtedness that is due 'to the country, but I am compelled to take a view very different from the minister's in this matter. The minister speaks of the willingness of the incoming settler to pay off the seed grain indebtedness, and, I presume, the value of the improvements besides.


William Roche: The indebtedness over and above the value of the improvements.


Frank Oliver: I do not gather that that is the wording of the section.


William Roche: He would have to pay for the improvements in any case, and the amount he pays for improvements is applied on the seed grain indebtedness.


Frank Oliver: I do not think that is made clear in the section. However, the policy of the department is good enough in that particular. The minister speaks of these seed grain liens having been taken in thickly settled districts, where the land is of sufficient value in itself to make it a business proposition for the incoming settler to pay off the lien.
Under such circumstances of course that is the business way for the transaction to go through, but/ I am compelled to take the view that the large majority of those oases aTe not in the thickly settled parts, but aTe rather in the isolated sections, otherwise the men would not have abandoned
the land. The land is worth just as much to the farmer as it is to the incoming settler, as land or as a speculation, and inasmuch as no business lien can be held against the land there is no reason why he should abandon it. The outlying localities, where the pressure of settlement has not given value to the land, are where abandonment will take place largely, and where it is important that the Government should secure re-occupation of the land. In those localities it is very much more important to secure re-occupation and production of the land than it is to secure the repayment of the balance of the seed grain lien. I would not ask the minister to delay this section, because I think its purpose as explained by him is perfectly clear. I have made my protest against the view taken by the minister, and I am willing to have the section pass. At the same time I must contend strongly that the minister has made a statement of the case which, in my judgment, is not generally applicable, and it will not work out as he suggests, but will act as a deterrent to re-occupation and cultivation of the lands.


William Roche: This legislation was intended to harmonize with our existing practice. I do not know that there have been very many cases of this character, but there have been instances where the applicant for cancellation voluntarily desired to assume the obligations for the sake of getting the land. The laot distribution of seed grain was largely in the south, in the pre-emption area. As the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) well knows, many of those men abandoned the land because of getting into difficulties in other respects, for instance, because of a poor crop, or getting out of their depth financially, or because of indebtedness to implement dealers, merchants, or ^others. Personally I would not be in favour of throwing that land open and losing money, and the only other thing we could do would be to sell the land outright by public auction, to the highest bidder. It is much better to let them get the land free by assuming the seed grain obligation, rather than put it up at public auction with that obligation as the upset price. In the oases which have come before us so far we have been allowing this to he done. I do not anticipate the difficulties my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) foresees in this regard.


Frank Oliver: I am aware that has been the practice in the past, and it is because of the instances which have come to my at-



tention thiat I have spoken of. The minister has, no donbt, heard of cases where the incoming settler has come forward and offered to take over the land at that price, but he has not heard of the number of cases where the land has lain vacant year after year simply because of the lien against it, which is a condition very much more detrimental to the welfare of the country than the mere matter of the collection of the balance of the money. Of course, I do not wish to see the money lost if that can be avoided, but neither do I want to see the land kept out of production, or settlement deterred, because of this condition. It very often happens that a business man has to take the -position that the first loss is the best, and that it is better to close the account, take the loss, and start afresh. This is my view in regard to this matter. It is better not to hold the land out of occupation in the hope of collecting the balance of the lien. I admit there are special exceptions, but they are a very small minority.
In regard to the suggestion that the land should be sold for the purpose of realizing the seed grain lien, I would protest most strongly against any such action, because I think it would create a most unfortunate condition of affairs.


Mr. SOHAFFNER:: How does the hon. gentleman expect the Government will obtain repayment of the money it has lent to the farmer on the security of the farm? Does he suggest the Government should relinquish the security?


Frank Oliver: Yes. Take the case of a farmer who owns a piece of land which he leases to a tenant on crop payment, and this tenant, by some means or other, finds a means of beating him on the deal. What does he do? He takes the loss and re-leases the land to a man who will produce from it at the first opportunity. He does not hold the land vacant until somebody comes along who will pay him the loss he made through the previous tenant and also assume obligations for the future, which is the position the minister is taking on those abandoned homesteads against which seed grain liens are outstanding. My hon. friend (Mr. Schaffner) would not do it in his own business, and it is not good business for the Government.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The case suggested by my hon. friend is not a parallel one. I could understand the argument in. regard to other debts apart from the Government

loan, but in the case of the seed grain lien, for which the land is security, it is practically money belonging to the state.


Frank Oliver: Surely.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Holding by husband deemed holding by wife in certain cases:
Mr. PUGSLEY:: Will the minister explain that section?


William Roche: My experience has shown that the department should be given authority to issue patent for a homestead within three years from the date of entry. In the case of a deserted woman, the department grants her an entry upon proof being furnished of not less than two years' time. In the meantime she is required to make the land-for which her husband held entry-her home and also to keep up the improvements. As the law is now constituted, a woman in this position is not entitled to patent until after the expiration of three years from the date she is granted legal entry. Inasmuch as she is required to make the land her home for two years 'before being granted entry, if is desirable that the department should have the right to grant her a patent immediately on proof being furnished thiat she has completed the required six months' residence in each of three years calculated from, date of desertion, in addition to the other requirements of her entry. It seems too bad not to allow the time she has spent doing the duties prior to the date of entry in her own name and therefore we desire to issue the patent three years after the date of desertion.


William Pugsley: A person might put in five years on the land, or five years might pass, and if he actually put in six months in three of these years he would be entitled to his patent. The amendment is not limited to the case of :a wife deserted by her husband; it is general in character and it provides that a patent may issue after six months' residence in any three years, not three years immediately preceding the date of entry. Therefore one might go on the land, be in occupation this yeaT, perhaps spend a month on it next year, then go off to work isomewhere else, probably in the United States, come back, remain a little time and the next year after that put in six months, be absent again the following year and the year following that again put in six months. As long as he puts in six months in. one of the three years before he applies for the patent he will get it. If

this amendment were limited to the case o.f a wife who was deserted by her husband I could understand the propriety of it.


William Roche: Prior to September, 1908,
the practice followed under the Dominion Lands Act permitted settlers to count residence in any one of the following ways:
(1) From' date of entry; (2) from date of commencement of residence either before or after date of entry, or (3) six months' residence in each of three calendar years.


William Pugsley: Must they not be succeeding one another?


William Roche: I do not think that is
compulsory.
(4) Homestead year and calendar year combined, or otherwise shifting the date for the commencement of the term as may be most satisfactory to the settler.
When the Act of 1908 came into force the methods of calculating residence were restricted to the first two.
In some eases a settler, by a technicality is deprived of a portion of his residence, and it is, therefore, desirable that the former method should be re-established, as it is often found that while .a settler may not have performed six months' residence, in each of three years, counted from date of entry or from date of commencement of residence, either before or after date of entry, he- has performed six months' residence in each 'of three years, calculated from some other date than is allowed by the Act of 1908.
This is in effect going back to the practice of the department prior to September, 1908, and it is to deal with cases of hardship where a man through some technicality is deprived of his period of residence by reason of not complying with the existing legislation. We thought it was only right to have this amendment to enable us to revert to the old practice.


Frank Oliver: I think the amendments go very much farther than my hon. friend has suggested to the committee. Let me compliment the minister on the preparation of the Bill for presentation to the House. It certainly is in very convenient shape for a thorough understanding of its purposes. The explanations and. comparisons are very desirable. But, I desire to make a comparison between subsection (b) of the present Act and subsection (b) of the amended Act as they appear in parallel columns. Subsection (b) of the present Act recites that:	'
241$
To have resided thereon at least six months in each of the three years from the date of entry or date of commencement of residence. _
As it is proposed, subsection (b) will read:
To have resided thereon at least six months in each of three years.
The difference between the two is that there is no fixed starting point as to residence in the new section while there is a starting point provided in the present Act. One As the commencement of residence and the other is the date of entry. Whichever occurs first is the date that will be taken as the basis of the term during which residence must be performed. There is no other conceivable right under which a homesteader can earn a patent than that of his residence or under his date of entry. When these two definite starting points are abandoned there is an uncertainty in the requirements of residence to be met by the settlers which' does not make for the good administration of the Act, for the good settlement of the country, or for the satisfaction of settlers. My hon. friend has spoken of the desirability of there being a greater elasticity in the fulfilment of residence requirements. I agree that it is desirable that there should' be some measure of elasticity, that there should be a considerable amount of discretion left to the administration in that particular. But I maintain that for the satisfaction of the settlers themselves, it is in every way desirable that whatever may occur in regard to the completion of residence duties there should be no uncertainty about the date of commencement. The date of commencement should .be a fixed date for definite reasons as provided in the present Act, namely, it must be the date either of the commencement of residence or the date of entry. I would certainly urge very strongly that to omit that fixity of date is a very great blemish on the Act as it is proposed and will do incalculable damage in deterring the settlement of the country because in the administration of the land there will be cases of dissatisfaction on account of the different treatment that one settler will get as compared with the otheT. The -success of homestead settlement depends largely upon the confidence that the homesteaders have in the granting of the rights that they earn, and in order that there shall be that satisfaction it most be known beyond question what these rights are and when they begin although there must always be a certain amount of discretion left as to the time In

which these duties are completed. I consider that the minister is making a great mistake in making the changes which he proposes in the particulars I have mentioned.


William Roche: The hon. gentlemen takes it for granted that we are abandoning the two methods in use under the old Act. We are not doing that at all; we are simply adding another option to the terms of residence. Because of cases that have been brought to the attention of the officials of the department in which grave hardships would have been imposed on settlers had the rule been strictly followed of counting the time of residence from the date of entry or the date of the commencement of residence either before or after entry, and in which cases there has been some elasticity in the application of the rule, this amendment has been proposed. We are nor foregoing anything, but simply restoring, in addition to the existing options, the condition that existed before the legislation of 1908.


Frank Oliver: The minister has a majority and can force the Bill through, and I do not wish to delay its passage. But I point out to him that it was under the provisions of the Act of 1908 that the largest settlement in our history occurred in the Prairie West, and that there was the greatest satisfaction in the relations between the homesteaders and the department. Had there not been such satisfaction there would not have been such extensive settlement. I am not going to ascribe a sinister motive to the minister or to the Administration, but I am going to assert that only sinister results can follow from a condition in which the point of commencement of the rights of the homesteader is left in doubt or in question.


William Roche: There is no doubt. Why did not those sinister motives exist prior to 1908 when there was similar legislation?


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to rake up past memories, but the provision of 1908 was adopted because, under the Administration that my hon. friend proposes to revert to, there was dissatisfaction, which had been a deterrent to settlement, and I point out that it was under the changes in the Act of 1908 that the great progress in western settlement was made, showing beyond question that the Act had not been made less adaptable to the conditions, but if anything more adaptable. I am not assuming sinister motives, but pointing out the certainty of sinister results; that when the
'
homesteader goes to the land office and asks for his patent and he does not know when his rights begin, they will begin when the Administration say they ought to begin.


William Roche: Oh no, they will be published in regulations and sent broadcast.


Frank Oliver: This is the Act, this is not a regulation, and the Act provides that the settling of points in reference to men's rights shall depend on the judgment of the department.


William Roche: No.


Frank Oliver: I shall have to disagree with the minister; that' is what the Act says and provides. That is an unfortunate provision and is bound to lead to dissatisfaction and complaint on the part of settlers who have been treated differently from their neighbours, and who will ascribe such varying treatment to sinister motives, where they consider they have had the worst of the deal. I suggest that the minister leave subsection (b) of section 16, where :t is today. It will not interfere with the exercise of reasonable discretion in the relaxation of conditions when the patent lias to he issued. I say it is bad administration not to make specific provision in the Act so that every man will know exa'cfcly when his rights begin.


William Roche: To show that there is no sinister motive behind this, I wdl take the hon, gentleman at his word and place the responsibility on his shoulders for any lack of elasticity in the future. My suggestion of this legislation was in order to make it easy for the homesteader, and to give the department a little more elasticity. At present they have the option of 'counting residence from the date of entry or from the date of commencement of residence either before or after entry, and my suggestion was simply to add two other provisions. They would be under the same conditions as the other two, only there would be two more options. But the hon. gentleman thinks there is something sinister behind this, and I am agreeable to leave the section as it is.


Frank Oliver: I expressly said I did not suggest sinister motives, but I did suggest sinister results.


Mr. TURRIFF:: The people I represent are not now much interested in the working of the Homestead Act as practically all patents have been issued for homesteads in my constituency. But I should not like to see the minister drop this amendment.

I 'think it is perfectly Tight, as it leaves the homesteader all the opportunities he had before to count his residence from the date of entry or from the date when he went into residence on his homestead. He has all the advantages he has had up to the present, and he has one more opportunity, of getting his six months in in each year for three years. He had not that option before and to that extent, in my judgment, the amendment is to the advantage of the homesteader, and I think it should carry.


William Roche: That was the idea.


Frank Oliver: I want to say that I probably represent a larger proportion of homestead area than any other member, and in my judgment I would desire that the minister should make the change as suggested.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Is the argument presented by the hon. member for Assiniboia that it gives the homesteader one more advantage, correct? If it is, for Heaven's sake let us give it to him, he has hard times now.


Frank Oliver: It gives the Administration one more opportunity to grant or withhold, with or without cause, and thereby create dissatisfaction amongst the settlers, and retards settlement. It was 'because of that that the change was made in 1906, and the change was followed toy a stupendous success in the homesteading, net only in the volume of homesteading, but in the satisfaction between the homesteaders and the Government. There was no other period in the homestead history of Canada when there was as much satisfaction between the homesteader and the Government as during that period and under that law. All that I am asking is that that provision, which was placed there for good reasons, toe continued in the interests of the homesteader.


John Gillanders Turriff: At present, when the
homesteader applies for a patent, he either goes to the land office and interviews the official there, or he gives notice, and the homestead inspector comes to the settler. The officials in the land office and the homestead inspector are all well posted as to just how a homesteader can apply for and secure his patent, and I venture to say there is not one case in ten where the homesteader does not consult with the officials and the inspector, and makes his application as prescribed by these officers. Many of the homesteaders do not understand the regulations absolutely, and it
comes back to the same thing, that this gives the homesteader one more opportunity and it does not take away one single iota of the advantage that he has at the present time. If the regulation governing what is proposed here is published, I do not see that any official of the department can vary it once it is published.


William Roche: Apparently the views of the hon. gentleman from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) harmonize with my own views, and I have as much right to pay attention to the views of the hon, gentleman from Assiniboia as I have to pay attention to the views of any other member of the House. I should-like to have his criticism of the section, and also the criticism of other members from the West. I should like to get their opinion on it before consenting to revert back to the former legislation. I have not any strong views myself. I want to do anything I can to aid the homesteader and make it easier for him, whilst imposing the usual duties on him. That is the only object I had in view, and I should like to know just exactly the feeling of the other members from the West with regard to the change I have suggested.


Mr. BRADBURY:: I was not in the House when the discussion commenced, but I do not see why the hon. gentleman from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) is objecting to the amended section. I represent a large number of homesteaders, and I have, time after time, realized that the law as it stood militated against the homesteader, and I for one in this House felt that we should do everything we could to assist the homesteader. The changes are simple, giving the' homesteader another opportunity of making good and performing his work. I think it would be a policy that would be condemned by the homesteaders all through the West, and by every member in this House, if we proposed to do anything at all that would militate against the homesteader, and I should like the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) to reconsider his attitude.


Frank Oliver: I am unable to find any word in this section that gives the homesteader any right that he does not possess under the previous section, but, by the omission of the words in the previous section, I can see very plainly that those who are in charge of the .administration of the law can take away from the homesteader rights which he might very well think he had, and that is something I do not wish to see. I desire to avoid friction between the homesteaders and the Administration, but

my hon. friend opens the door for such friction by taking out of the law that provision which does not, and cannot in any way, interfere with the rights of the homesteader to get his patent, and which only establishes beyond question the date and place and circumstances under which his rights begin. That is w-hat he is taking away from the homesteader, and that is what I object to. In the constituency I represent, and in the adjoining constituency, one of the hon. gentleman's officials, a land agent, has twice been a candidate in the provincial election. In another constituency in the neighbourhood one of his timber inspectors has been a candidate, and in the constituency I represent one of his timber inspectors was a candidate at the last provincial election, and was supported in his candidature by one of his homestead inspectors. Under tho.se circumstances, while I am not accusing, my hon. friend of sinister motives, he will pardon me if, representing a pioneer community, I have some question in my mind as to taking away 4 p.m. from those pioneers the specific right that they shall date the beginning of their right from a fixed point set down in the Act, and make them dependent on inquiry from the homestead inspectors or the land agent, or the timber inspectors, or some- other officials of this Government, to find out when and where their rights begin.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman overlooks the fact that there will be no more doubt in the mind of the homesteader under this section than there is at the present day under the old section. This Act is printed and available for any homesteader, and he can read the Act as it will be amended, just the same as he can read the present Act, and the Act gives him the privilege of having four options. He has one option more than provided under the present Act. There is no taking away of any right.


Frank Oliver: Would the hon. gentleman read the section of the Act with reference to options?


William Roche: I have read it, but I am
telling the hon. gentleman that he still has the same right


Frank Oliver: 
William Roche: The present Act provides
that the time shall count, (I) from the date of entry, (2) or from the date of commencement of residence, either before or after date of entry. Now we propose to add to that.


Frank Oliver: Where do you add to it?


William Roche: We add the words " six months in each of the three years."


Frank Oliver: Will the hon. gentleman read the paragraph where he makes that addition?


William Roche: This is the explanation and object of the Act as it will be administered. The explanation of this section reads:
(3)	Six months' residence in each of three calendar years.
(4)	Homestead year and calendar year combined, or otherwise shifting the date for the commencement of the term as may he most satisfactory to the settler.
If this legislation passes it is intended to give these other two privileges in counting the time, in addition to the provision in the existing Act. That is the result of the Act.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend has stated that certain intentions of the department in matters of administration are contained in the Act. They are not contained in the Act, and the omission does not interfere with the additional consideration that he suggests he is so ready to give to homesteaders. He takes away from the homesteader the fixed date upon which the homesteader knows by Act of Parliament that his rights begin, and he substitutes nothing for that, except the statement that he is going to administer the Act in a certain way.


William Roche: Section (b) at present reads:
(b) To have resided thereon at least six months in each of ' three years from the date of entry, or the date of commencement of residence.
The amended section will read:
(b) To have resided thereon at least six months in each of three years.
And that leaves it-


Frank Oliver: Entirely in the hands of the department to say when it shall begin.


William Roche: Exactly. The hon. gentleman must take it that the Act will be administered by the officials appointed by my hon. friend's (Mr. Oliver) Government in the best interests of the settlers. The officials the hon. gentleman appointed during his regime are still administering this Act.


Frank Oliver: I am sorry to eay that that is not absolutely correct. I do not wish to enter into an argument with the minister, but that does not happen xo be true. The minister has told the House that he is [DOT]withdrawing from the Act, as it stands, that fixity of right which enables the homesteader to say: I began my residence on a certain day, or I made my entry on a certain day; my rights began then, and under the terms of the Act I aim entitled to my patent. By taking out these words, the minister can give or toe can withhold a patent just as. his officials see fit, and ll want to say that in the section I represent, where such a large portion of the people are homestead settlers, this is a serious matter, and when the officials of the minister take the political attitude they do. in connection with elections, it makes it a very much more serious matter. I did not wish to_ bring these matters up, hut I am anxious to secure, within the four comers of this Act, the guarantee of the rights of the settlers I represent. I am very much more anxious to get those rights defined in an Act of Parliament than I am to accept the verbal assurance of the minister that his intentions [DOT]are to give the homesteaders their lands *under more favourable circumstances than in the past.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman sees
sinister results, and it seems strange that in his interpretation of this Act, he sees .something that is going to result so disastrously to the best interests of the homesteaders land probably of his own. political party. I am not at all 'anxious to see any legislation passed in this Parliament that can in any way be utilized by any official to the detriment of the homesteader or even to the detriment of the hon. gentleman's political party. If it will meet his views any better, to have the matter more definite, I am willing to. incorporate in the legislation itself the four explanations that I have given, and to add to subsection (to) which reads in the present Act:
To have resided thereon at least six months in each of three years from the date of entry, or the date of commencement of residence.
The other two provisions:
Or six months' residence in each of three calendar years; or homestead year and calendar year combined, or otherwise shifting the date for the commencement of the term as may he most satisfactory to the settler.
I am willing to incorporate those two provisions within the Act itself, if that meets with the wishes of hon. gentlemen.


Frank Oliver: I do not see where the first two provisions that the minister mentions are contained ifi the Act, but if he does incorporate in the Act those four provisions that he has in the explanations, that will be satisfactory. We shall then know exactly where we stand and it will not then be a matter of discretion on the part of the administration at all.


Mr. CURRIE:: I am not very well versed in the homestead law, but it occurs to me that some change should be made in the law or in the regulations so as to assist those returned soldiers whom we expect to take up this land. Those men will have largely to work together as a community.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Was the hon. gentleman here last night?


John Allister Currie: Yes, but this has to do with the homestead regulations as they stand. If the soldier takes up land under the Bill which was passed last night, be is given a loan. Under this Act, however, he has to conform to the regulations as they appear. The law should be relaxed so that the soldier, if he is in a soldiers' community, may not have to reside on his homestead. The soldier may be a married man and on both sides of him there may be unmarried soldiers, and there should be some method by which those men can form a community, and residence on a man's own farm should not be essential, but he should be permitted to operate his farm and have residence within say one and a half or two miles from his farm count as residence. In that way you would have the soldier settlers in communities. Under the old law the settler was compelled to live on his farm and he was not allowed to go two or three miles away to work for another farmer. Under the present conditions of labour, if a homesteader works his farm and does his duty, he should be permitted to put in residence when assisting another farmer in the neighbourhood.
I know cases of young men who have gone out to the West and taken up homesteads and who have put in their three years' residence. By the time they got their patent, they were so sick of the whole thing that they would mortgage their farms and leave the place altogether. That is why there are so many vacant farms in the West. Some provision should be inserted in the Act to prevent men, when they get their patents, from leaving the community and selling out their farms to the loan companies. I know of sections in Upper Can-

ada where farmers took up land years ago and where they still have the titles vested in the Crown. They will not take their title over because they do not want the land mortgaged. The term of residence in the West is altogether too short, and the tendency is for the settler to get rid of the land and to turn it over to a loan company, which will buy it by way of a mortgage for about $2 an acre. The land lies fallow for years and after five or ten years there is a lot of good land unoccupied, and when any one wants to buy it, the loan companies charge $20 to $25 an acre for it. There is too much speculation. The land should go to the actual settler and he should be made to. settle on the land. Many young men who took up homesteads three or four years before the war did so in order to get a piece of land, and as soon as they completed their residence and got their patent, they sold the land and left the district. Those are sections of the western provinces in which the people do not want to live continuously daily on their land, and we should have some regulation whereby the soldiers will be permitted to live in small communities and work their land.


George Henry Bradbury: You do not seem to think the soldier should live on his farm.


John Allister Currie: I want the soldier to live on the land, but every settler, for the first two years after he goes out to that country should be given a certain amount of latitude so that he can hire labour to assist him in the improvement of his farm. After those two years are up, and after he has hired help to assist him in getting his land broken up, he should be compelled to settle on the land.


George Henry Bradbury: The minister has the power to grant an extension of time.


John Allister Currie: I go out to the West two or three times every year, and I see thousands of acres of land lying vacant. That is not in the interest of the country. Many Americans and many men from Ontario have taken up homesteads, and after putting in three years' residence and getting their patent, they say: we will sell our homesteads for $800 or $1,000 and get out of the country.	.


William Roche: The Soldiers' Settlement Act under which they can secure 160 acres is separate and distinct entirely from this Act.


John Allister Currie: I am quite aware of that.


William Roche: After the soldier or any one else gets his patent, the Government has 
no, jurisdiction over what he may do with his own property. You cannot compel a homesteader who has got his title to reside upon his land or prevent him from selling that land. That would be interfering with personal rights and liberties in a way that nobody would tolerate for one moment. The homesteader who has got his title has just as much right to dispose of his property as the man who purchases land.


John Allister Currie: All I have to say is that as far as the soldier is concerned I think he will be looking after himself pretty well when he Comes back, and any regulations we are making here at this moment will not count for much. The soldier will do what he thinks is right, and he will be represented here by those who will get that done.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Would the minister consider placing a provision in the Bill allowing entry to be made for soldiers by proxy?


William Roche: That.is already allowed.


William Humphrey Bennett: The reason I ask is that I haye received a letter from a young man in a corps now in France, who says that he and his chums all intend to take up land in the Northwest, and they want to be all together. If there is already such a provision in the Dominion Lands Act or in this Bill, I think it will be availed of to a considerable extent.


William Pugsley: To my mind it is absolutely clear that the effect of the amendment would be to allow a man who had made entry for a homestead, to take up his duties at 'the end of two or three or more years if the minister and those representing him chose not to give notice of cancellation. I understand that under the law at present the homesteader must begin his residence duties in the year immediately succeeding the date of entry, and put in six months in each one of the three years.


William Roche: If he does not, somebody will apply for cancellation of the homer stead entry.


William Pugsley: Under this amendment the minister need not cancel the entry, and with all deference to the minister -I think that somebody must have had this provision put in with that intention, so that some favouritism might be shown. The minister is not a party to it, of course, but I cannot conceive of a law being framed in such a way as to allow of that being

done, unless somebody had the provision put in for that very purpose. If it is intended that the three years residence necessary to enable a man to get his patent payment should begin either on the date of entry or on the day he commences his residence duties we ought to put in the amendment " in the succeeding three years." If we do not do that the homesteader will not know what his rights are, and some homesteaders will be getting their patents five or six years after they make entry, while in the case of other homesteaders certain Government officials might insist that their residence duties must commence immediately after making entry. If the amendment is carried as proposed it is very indefinite and liable to interpretation one way by one set of officials and another way by another set of officials.


William Roche: I think it would make the provision entirely too restrictive to adopt my hon. friend's suggestion. There is in the Act at present a provision enabling the Government to cancel a' homestead if patent is not applied for within five years. If a man is away from his homestead for more than six months there is always somebody on the lookout to cancel it, and it is very seldom that we do not receive an application for cancellation in such eases.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Issue of patent to disabled volunteer, a British subject or alien ally.


William Roche: Section 23 of the Act, as it now stands, enables patent to be issued at once to any homesteader belonging to the Canadian forces who is disabled while on active service. It is desired to extend this to apply to members of the British or allied forces. It is further desired to provide, in case the holder of the land is killed while on active service, that the patent may be issued in his name immediately without the performance of further duties.


Frank Oliver: When a patent is issued in the name of a deceased soldier, in what way does the patent reach his heirs?


William Roche: Letters of administration have to be secured in the ordinary course.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Supposing a deceased
soldier left a widow and no will, would she be entitled to only one-third of i the homestead.


William Roche: Letters of administration would have to be applied for just as in the case of a civilian.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Would she get the entire property?


William Roche: That is for the courts to decide. The patent would issue in the soldier's name and the widow would no doubt apply for letters of administration.
Mr. MeCRANEY: Why are letters patent issued in the name of the deceased soldier? Under the law at present I understand that if the homesteader dies, letters of administration are filed with the department, and the patent issues to the person mentioned in the letters of administration. I do not see that the minister is getting anywhere by this departure from the usual practice, because letters of administration must be obtained in any event. When the minister has received notice of the death of a homesteader, I understand that under the present law letters of administration, or letters probate, as the case may be, are filed and acting on that the minister issues the patent. Under this Act, in the case of a deceased soldier the patent will be issued and registered, and no one can deal with the land until the registrar receives the letr ters probate or the letters of administration, as the case may be. The whole thing has to be gone through in the same way in both cases, and I do not see why the minister is making this departure.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman would prefer the old method?
Mr. MeCRANEY: I do not see why you should deal with the homestead of a deceased soldier in one way and the homestead of a deceased civilian in another way.


John Allister Currie: Is it a fact that in some of the western provinces the widow of a soldier who dies without making a will does not inherit the property of her husband?
Mr. MeCRANEY: I do not know of any case of that kind. In any event the law of the province governs the way in which the property shall be dealt with.


John Allister Currie: Is it not true that the
Allberta law still holds against the widow? In other words, the children may inherit, but the widow cannot.
Mr. MeCRANEY:	As I understand it,
the widow is entitled to one-third, and the children two-thirds of the property.


John Allister Currie: Six or seven years ago,
one of my friends told me the first thing he did when he got married was to make

his will in order that his wife might inherit hie property in Alberta, because without a will the law of Alberta did not permit of the wife inheriting from him.


Mr. McCRANEY:: I think my hon. friend is in error. Probably he has in mind the fact that in Saskatchewan and .Alberta, until recently, it was within the power of the husband to make a will cutting his wife out of any interest in the estate. This has been changed, I believe, in both provinces.


James McCrie Douglas: I am under the impression that under the laws of Alberta if a man dies without a will the wife is entitled to one-third of the estate. I should think the minister would be well advised if in the case of a soldier killed on active service a patent was immediately issued to his wife, because the pension will be probaibly her only means of support, and that is only a matter of about -3384 a year, if she gets the full amount. If she had not the land she would be left in a very precarious position. I think the country would not suffer in any way if a patent were issued immediately under such circumstances.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why should it not
be so in every case, whether it refers to the widow of a soldier or not?


Frank Oliver: This is a special provision in regard to soldier's homesteads, and it differs from the action to be taken in regard to the ordinary homesteader, because the patent is issued without further duties or further responsibility, the idea being to close up the transaction at once in favour of the widow.' I think the idea of the hon. member from Strathcona is a very good one, and I would urge that in the special case provided for by this section the patent should be issued to the widow, and that it should not be a matter of letters of administration at all. If she is the widow of a soldier who was a homestead entrant in good standing, the patent should issue to her immediately without any question except as to proof of identity. There is no legal reason why this should not be done. The granting of the homestead is an act of grace on the part of the Government, which has a perfect right so far as authority is concerned, to give the homestead to the widow. Having this right,
I maintain it would be a just and proper thing to do, instead of leaving the widow subject to whatever may be the laws of the different provinces in regard to her heirship of her husband's property. It is but
TMr. Currie.l
fair and just that she should be given the homestead patent, and I think that would be appreciated by our soldiers and their dependents.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: The suggestion made by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) is a sensible one. I do not see why we should make a distinction between the widow of a returned soldier and the widow of any other man, and I do not see any reason why the minister should change his plan. I have every consideration for the .widow, but I have also some consideration for the orphans, and to my mind there is no reason why the orphans should be cut out entirely. I do not know that a soldier's widow is any better than any other man's widow, and I do not know that you are any more positive she will not abuse her rights, if you give her any special rights, than you are that any other man's widow will not. The only safe way is to leave the property to be dealt with according to the laws of the province in which it is situated. It is true there is'sojne difference in the laws of the provinces. For instance, in the province of Saskatchewan, if a man dies leaving a widow and no children, the widow gets the whole of the property, if there is no will. I understand this is not the case in some of the other provinces.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It is the same in Manitoba.


Levi Thomson: I think the legislatures of the different provinces are thoroughly cognizant with all the phases of the matter, and will deal with it properly. I am willing to grant all the concessions you possibly can to the soldier, but there is no reason why you should make a difference between a soldier's widow and any other widow.


William Roche: The practice has been to
issue patent to the administrator when am ordinary homesteader died. The reason we have asked the change is because of the requests which have come in from the estates of some of the deceased soldiers, desiring to expedite the issue of patents. We thought there would be less delay in getting matters wound up if we did not wait for the issue of patents until the letters of administration had been secured from the local courts. The patent is issued in the name of the deceased homesteader, and after the administration papers are gotten out the local courts qf the province take the matter up.


Levi Thomson: Is there a distinction between the widows and orphans of returned soldiers and other widows and . orphans?


John Allister Currie: My hon. friend is making a mistake in referring to the widows and orphans of returned soldiers. There is no discussion except as to the widows of soldiers # who are killed at the front. There is a great deal of force in what has been urged by the hon. member from1 Strathcona (Mr. Douglas), 'SO that title should issue direct to the widow. Take the case of a widow whose husband has had a farm, and the settlement duties are not completed; she has to get letters of administration before she can obtain title to that property, or before she can have it arranged so that she and the children may acquire the property. In order to get letters of administration somebody must go security for her, or she must go to a trust company and pay a large sum of money out of her estate to get them to put up the necessary security. Of course this is very fine, and makes a lot of work for lawyers-and I like to see them get as much work as possible, because some of them need it-but the property should go to the widow of the soldier without any charge whatever; then she will have an immediate security on which she can raise funds to educate her children.
The wives of deceased soldiers are entitled to every consideration. There will not be very many cases that will come under this law because every soldier at the front carries his will in his passbook and if his body is found the will will also be found. Arrangements are made for copies of these wills being sent to an officer at headquarters. There are very few cases in which soldiers do not make their wills, but in case there is no will in the passbook, or if no passbook is available, I think it would be only proper that the state should give the property direct to the widow and avoid having the widow chasing around to get a lawyer or paying a trust company five per cent to look after the estate. I quite appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Douglas). I believe that the wives of soldiers who are at home would very much appreciate it if a concession were made in that regard. I do not think anybody would be hurt by such a change in the law.
Mr. LEVI THOMSON. In case, there are children, they would be cut off entirely.


John Allister Currie: They could homestead
when they grew up..


Levi Thomson: Supposing there were young children they would be cut off. The widow might marry and the children would get nothing.


John Allister Currie: My hon. friend is accustomed to police court cases where mothers abandon their children, but the mothers of Canada and the wives of soldiers ark not built that way. They will attend to their children.


James McCrie Douglas: A case I have in mind is one of a mother with two or three small children. The husband was killed at the front He had a homestead. I wrote to the department to know what disposition would be made of the land and they said that the homestead would go to the heirs of the husband on letters of administration or of probate being taken out. This woman was depending on the farm for her livelihood. Her husband was cut off without any notice and there was no accumulation of savings. The cases of a civilian's wife and soldier's wife are not parallel. I think my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle has not fully considered the matter when he says that soldiers and civilians' wives should be treated the same way in connection with a patent for a homestead. This man to whom I have referred went out to do what he considered his duty to the country. It is to be supposed that if he had remained at home he would not have been killed. The widow is left with two or three small children and under the letters of administration she has to retain that land until these children become of legal age. In the meantime it is a source of expense instead of revenue, whereas, if the patent were issued to heTself, she could dispose of the land and use the proceeds for the education of hear children and the maintenance of hex-self until her children were able to take care of hex. As the hon. member for North Simeoe (Mr. Currie) says, the cases will be very few and everything should be done to assist the dependents of those who have given their lives for the cause of the country.


William Roche: This amendment wtas introduced at the request of some of the estates of deceased soldiers. There .are two alternatives-continuing the usual practice of issuing patents to persons who have taken out letters of administration or issuing them as proposed in this legislation in the name of the deceased homesteader leaving the disposition of the estate to be provided for under provincial law. I am afraid that if we were to issue a patent in the

name of the wife a grave injustice might be done to 'the children. Such a proceeding would practically confer on the department the 'functions of a court and might land us in difficulties. We have two alternatives- we may stick to the present practice of issuing the patent in, the name of the party who has taken out letters of administration or issue it in 'the name of a deceased homesteader, sending out the patent, and leaving the letters of administration to be dealt with subject to provincial jurisdiction.


Hon.   M@: I see there is a difference between the estate of an ordinary homesteader and that of a deceased .soldier where the duties not only of residence but of cultivation are remitted. From the departmental standpoint it would result in cleaning up the books of the department if the patents were issued directly in the name of the deceased soldier but when, it went into the registry office it would have to be dealt with under letters of administration.


Frank Oliver: 
John Allister Currie: She generally works the land in place of her husband who has gone to the war.
. Mr. OLIVER: Many of them have not done so but they have suffered deprivations that, entitle them to consideration at the hands of this House. While there may be exceptional cases, I maintain that, on the average, the mother can be even better trusted to care for the children than the father. It is true that sometimes mothers desert their children, as occasionally fathers do, but as a rule, in this country, we trust either the mother or the father, and the one as much as the other, to see that the children are cared for. I cannot see that there would be any detriment to the children if the patent were granted direct to the mother, and I can see a great disadvantage in restricting the mother and children in the full enjoyment of the land, and putting them under expense in merely holding it.


John Allister Currie: I might add that I have witnessed several hundred wills made by soldiers, and I think in every case but one the soldier willed all his property and everything of which he was possessed to his wife. I think the law should be such that the department could grant the patent direct to the widow. This would avoid expense and inconvenience to her in having to apply to an official referee every time she wishes to spend money. There is no reason why this should not he the law, unless we believe that the women of Canada have not the instincts of motherhood. I

should like to see an amendment to the effect that the title should go to the wife, or that she should be named as administratrix. Otherwise she may have to go to great expense in securing the administration of the estate. I know of dozens of cases in Ontario where women have had to undergo great hardships and to live almost on charity because of provisions in wills that there must be an administrator.


James McCrie Douglas: The principle involved in the change suggested is involved in the amendment to clause 16, where in the case of a deserted wife the entry of her husband is granted to her. So I do not think the minister is departing from the spirit of the Act when he grants the patent direct to the wife of a deceased soldier in a case such as that brought to his attention this afternoon.


William Roche: I think that there the deserted wife is recognized as the head of the family, and she performs the rest of the homestead duties.


James McCrie Douglas: In the explanation it says that the patent shall be granted to her on proof being furnished that she has completed the required six months' residence in each of three years.


George Ewan McCraney: If I understood the point taken by my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), the suggestion is, not that the homestead of the deceased soldier shall go to the widow, but that in the case of intestacy, it shall go to the widow, and otherwise to the persons named in the will.


John Allister Currie: In case there is no will.


George Ewan McCraney: Before the department would come to such a conclusion it must have the certificate of the proper Probate Court th^t no probate has issued and no letters of administration have been granted.


John Allister Currie: In the case of a soldier only one signature to the will is required, and on the back of his passbook there is a simple blank form of a will. There is a probate department attached to the W.ar Department here which looks after the estates of deceased soldiers, and ascertains if they have left wills. Probably within three months it would be definitely known whether a soldier had left a will, and if no will had come to light in that time, then his homestead should go to the widow. I am quite willing to trust the widow. Because perhaps one woman in a thousand goes wrong, that is no reason why this Parliament should legislate against the rest of the women.


George Ewan McCraney: My hon. friend states as a fact that one witness is sufficient for a soldier's will. My recollection is that such a will is good so far as personal property only is concerned, not for the purpose of devising lands. I think you will find that is the case not oniy in Saskatchewan but in a number of the other provinces.


John Allister Currie: I do not think that any provincial law or any law we may make will override the Army Act.


William Roche: The Soldier's Settlement Bill provides that the privilege of taking up land is accorded.under that Act to the widow of a soldier just as to a returned soldier, and therefore she would participate in the loan of $2,500-as a soldier would, besides having her pension.


James McCrie Douglas: The minister should not
overlook the fact that the homestead of a deceased soldier is not his homestead, because he has not earned it, and that the department is giving certain privileges to the wives of deceased soldiers inasmuch as they are granted exemption from fulfilling the conditions under which the man got his homestead entry.
Under these conditions, it would only be fair that the department should grant to the wife the complete title to that- homestead, as a mark of favour. She is not earning that homestead any more than the man earned the homestead until the conditions are fulfilled, but, in the unfortunate case of the mam being killed, the department is lenient enough to grant him the homestead. Why not make the homestead issue direct to the wife?


William Roche: There seem to be divergent views in the .House in regard to this section. I do not wish to spend all day on it and we can allow it to stand.
Section stands.
On section 5-issue of homestead letters patent to British subject only:


Frank Oliver: Perhaps the hon. gentleman Would give us a short explanation of the many subsections, and it might not be necessary to read them.


William Roche: Provision is made for:
1.	Issue of patent in the name of an alien entrant killed in action whether he was a member of the British or Allied forces.
2.	Provision for the issue of patent to an alien serving with the British or Allied forces, who has completed his duties but cannot secure naturalization.

For instance, there are some of these men who are perhaps military French reservists, who have completed their duties, but who, by reason of being at the seat of war, aTe unable to become naturalized because they are not in the country. The hon. leader of the Opposition brought a case to my attention, and under the War Measures Act we took steps to allow the patent to issue. This legislation will affect that person.
Provision is also made foT the issue of patent to an alien female homesteader who is debarred from the right to receive patent under the present Act unless she is a British subject. A widow of British nationality, who enters for a homestead in her own right, would cease to toe a British subject should she subsequently marry an alien, and, unless her husband then became a British subject by naturalization, she would be deprived of the right to obtain patent for her homestead by the present law. In the same manner, the deserted wife of an alien would be unable, during the lifetime of her husband, or during the continuance of her marriage, to become a British subject, and under the present law she is also debarred from the right of receiving patent for a homestead.


Frank Oliver: There are three explanations and six subsections.


William Roche: They are all included in
that, except that (f) is not a new provision, but is merely transferred from chapter 28 of the statutes of 1914.


Frank Oliver: This explanation of paragraph (f) seems to be very' lengthy. Could the hon. gentleman state what it is?


William Roche: In 1914 the naturalization Act was amended by providing for worldwide British nationality, after five years' residence in Canada. At the present time, in order to earn a patent for a homestead, it is only necessary to put in three years, and then proclaim the intention to become naturalized. The explanation of paragraph (f) is:
Notwithstanding anything in the Dominion Lands Act, chapter 20 of the statutes of 1908, or any other statute, any alien who has not resided in the British Dominions or been in the service of the Crown for the period necessary for naturalization, shall be entitled to obtain letters patent for a homestead in the same manner as if he were a British suibject: Provided that he satisfy the Minister of the Interior that in all respects save such period of residence or service he is qualified to be naturalized
[Mr. Roche.l
and declare upon oath his intention to be so naturalized as soon as he has completed such period of residence or service.
2. This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifteen. [DOT]
In preparing the present amendment to section 25 of the Dominion Lands Act, it was thought advisable to include in one section all the cases where naturalization is not necessary before obtaining a homestead patent and therefore chapter 28, above quoted, is being repealed and the wording of it included in the present proposed amendment to section 25 under paragraph (f). This is merely a transfer for convenience in referring to the statutes.
With reference to paragraph (f) it might be stated that during the present war subjects of enemy countries are not allowed to take advantage of this provision, but must submit a certificate of naturalization before patent is allowed..


Levi Thomson: Is there any provision for compelling the patentee to carry out his promise and his oath that he will become naturalized, and is there any punishment in ease he fails to do so? It seems to me that an alien might sometimes make oath in order to get his patent. Would it be advisable, in the minister's opinion, to have some punishment inflicted upon him, in case he should violate his oath and not carry out his promise?


William Roche: There is no penalty for that.


Levi Thomson: Is the question of whether there should toe a penalty or not worth considering? I merely throw it out as a suggestion.


Frank Oliver: I think this section is of sufficient importance to warrant a little discussion. Up to the time of the passing of this law in 1914 it was understood to be the foundation principle of our homestead law that we did not give homestead patent to any man who was not a British subject. That was, I think, our foundation principle,
I believe it was a sound principle, and I do not think it should be departed from, if the interest of the country can by any means be otherwise served. When we brought in the Naturalization
5 p.m. Act of 1914, requiring five years' [DOT] residence to secure naturalization, there at once arose a clash between the terms of the Homestead Act and the terms of the Naturalization Act, and, in order to get over that difficulty, this

section was added to the Dominion Lands Act, which grants homestead patents to aliens. We can make the homesteader take all the oaths we require, but we do not compel him to become a British subject, because, when he has put in his three years' residence, there still may be reasons why he should not become a British subject, and the great principle at the very foundation of our Dominion Lands Act has been departed from in a most important particular. I should like to know 'how far the minister has recognized that condition, and in what way he does recognize it, because circumstances have come to my attention where aliens were refused patents, or were unable to get patents, because they were not able to become naturalized. The man had put in his term; he had fulfilled the conditions of his entry, but still he was not able to get his patent, because the department was not willing to carry out the letter of the law, as it appeared on the statute; that is to say, while the law said: " this man is entitled to patent at the end of three years," as a matter of fact he could not get it. Has it been the policy, or is it going to be the policy of the department to grant patents to aliens on the fulfilment of their homestead duties?


William Roche: The hon. member is not
referring to alien enemies?


Frank Oliver: No, to aliens.


William Roche: As the hon. gentleman
states, since the Naturalization Act of 1915 was passed, we have been granting patents to aliens, and it was provided by an amendment to the Dominion Landis Act that patents would issue upon the declaration of their intention of becoming British subjects. There may be a certain weakness in that in not providing a penalty if a man does not take out. his naturalization papers, but I do not know that any cases have occurred in which at the end of five years they have failed to take out naturalization papers. The alternative is that we should issue patent at the end of five years. We did not extend the time because we thought that if settlers had to put in five years' residence and do the duties, before they could get patent, that would probably retard immigration. We decided that the best way to deal with the subject was to issue patents at the end of the accustomed period of three years providing all the duties were done, and providing that the homesteader declared his intention of becoming a British subject. Whether, in the opinion of Parliament, it is necessary that
the time should be extended so as not to issue patent until the end of five years, or whether it is necessary to impose a penalty, is of course, another consideration, but even if at the end of thre years we do compel an alien to become naturalized, there is no reason whatever why such person, as soon as be receives his patent, might not dispose of his land to another alien thus leaving the land still in the hands of an alien. If, however, it is considered there is a weakness .in the existing Act, I am open to suggestions, as to the best methods of remedying the same.


Frank Oliver: I am not criticising from the point of view the minister has indicated, but am stating that in 'administering this Act during the past several years, the department has apparently, by raising impediments, Tefused to give to aliens the benefits of the Act. The alien, for one .reason or another, was not able to get naturalized, and difficulties were thrown in the way of getting his patent, so that he did not get it. Was that an accident, or did it happen by design? What was the policy of the department in the past, and what is to be its policy in the future? Is it to be the policy that an alien-not an alien enemy-on fulfilment of his three years' duties, may get and will he given his patent?


William Roche: Upon inquiry, I do not
know of any cases of the nature suggested by the honourable gentleman unless the parties were alien enemies During the war, of course, some difficulties have been thrown in the way of alien enemies. In war time, under the War Measures Act, alien enemies cannot secure patent. I am not aware that the department have thrown any difficulties in the way of aliens securing their patents. If the hon. gentleman can bring any such cases to my knowledge, I shall be glad to have them looked into. It is not the policy of the department to throw any obstacles in the way of aliens securing patents.


Frank Oliver: The policy of the department then is that if the alien has fulfilled his duty, and if he is not an alien enemy, he can get his patent. The other position is that the alien has received the material advantage .of citizenship, although still an alien. What I want ito get at is this: Is there any mutual obligation existing between the alien and the Government on the one part or on the other as a result of this material advantage which the alien has secured?


John Allister Currie: This has to do with the Naturalization Act which used to give a man the privilege of becoming a citizen after three years' residence The Naturalization Act which is in force in this country now is virtually a subject of treaty with Great Britain, and it extends the time to five years. I suppose the view of the department was to continue to grant the patents at the end of the three-year period, following the American practice. A man has to put in six or eight years' residence in the United States before he can become a citizen. After he goes to the United States and has been resident there for some time, he can take out what is known as his "intention." He can go before a justice of the peace or some other federal officer and subscribe to a declaration that he intends to become a .citizen of the United States, and in that declaration he foreswears allegiance to the country he has left. The federal law will not allow a man to be a captain or to hold a certificate for various things unless he is a citizen of the United States. Some of the States make matters easier. For instance, the state of Michigan declares a man eligible to do everything under the Federal Act, who has made a declaration of his intention and who was a citizen of contiguous territory. That throws the citizenship open to a Canadian. In the state of Washington or some of the other western states, they go so far as to say that if a man makes a declaration of his intention to become a citizen, he is entitled to all the rights of citizenship and can not only hold land but vote. The idea in this Bill is to follow the American practice, and it would enable Americans to obtain title to their land, if they made a declaration of intention at the same time as they applied for their land. They will have to put in three years' residence after that before they can become citizens. I do not think this Parliament has anything to do with whether the term of residence for naturalization is to be three years or five. That was settled with the British House of Commons by arrangement. If a man goes through all the same motions as he would before a justice of the peace when becoming a full citizen, he should get his land just as before he could in three years become a citizen and get his land.


George Ewan McCraney: Are those who declare intention to become citizens of the United States liable to be drafted under the law - which has just been put into force there? This question brings up the very point as to whether a person who is an alien and

who has not completed his citizenship duties, while receiving the advantages of citizenship, may not, if an alien, be liable to draft.


John Allister Currie: I understand that question has been answered in the last day or two in the United States by the statement that they are going to draft all aliens, and if the aliens do not wish to serve, they will be deported. That is a simple method of settling the problem.


Frank Oliver: Under this law, the alien gets the benefit of all homestead rights. I understand from the minister very definitely that it is not the intention or part of the policy of the Government to withhold in any degree his homestead once he has earned it according to the terms of the law. He is on an absolute equality with every other man. Am I correct in that?


William Roche: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Does this declaration of intention make the homesteader subject to obligations to the state other than are imposed on any other alien?


William Roche: Obligations as to military
service?	.


Frank Oliver: Take that, for instance.


William Roche: I should not like to give an opinion offhand on such a delicate point as that. It has never been brought to my attention before, and has nothing whatever to do with the administration of the Dominion Lands Act. I really could not say definitely whether or not he would be amenable to our Military Service Act.


Frank Oliver: I think it has everything to do with the administration of the Dominion Lands Act. It is a fundamental principle of the Dominion Lands Act that we do not give our free land to anybody unless and until he is ready to assume all the obligations of citizenship. That was the fundamental principle of the homestead law during all the years previous to 1914, and I want to know if that principle is being absolutely departed from-or is there some saving provision that will protect the public interest in that regard? It is a matter of very great interest to know whether the man to whom we have given all the privileges of citizenship in our power, as regards the ownership of land, renders himself liable, for instance, to military service to the state. Does this declaration of intention bring him under any such obligation in any way?


George Ewan McCraney: This discussion suggests to me that perhaps we had better revive our three-year citizenship, which was' a citizenship as regards Canada only. We have now a five-year citizenship, which is a citizenship in the British Empire. I can see there is a hiatus here between the three years and the five. We may have gone too far in doing away with our three-year citizenship, as regards' the imposing of the obligations of citizenship on those who obtain free-grant lands from this country.


John Allister Currie: I do not think that can be changed, but the man could take an oath that he would take out his citizenship papers at the end of five years, and he could at the same time obligate himself not to claim citizenship in any country in the meantime. He could take oath that he would be amenable to all the laws of the state, military service included; in other words, he could take oath that he would become a citizen or assume all the obligations of citizenship. Then, if at the end of the five years, he did not take out his papers as he had sworn to do, he could be punishable under the Criminal Code for having taken a false oath.


George Ewan McCraney: I do not think any court would prosecute a man who in an affidavit expressed an intention to do'some act in the future.


John Allister Currie: He swears definitely that he will take out his papers at the end of five years; that is taking an oath, not expressing an intention. The oath taken in the United States is very, very rigid. Not only does he declare his intention of taking out papers, but at the same time he foreswears any citizenship that he at that time holds. I have seen lots of copies of the oath of intention in the United States; they can be seen in the Library here. The declaration of intention is a solemn oath that from that minute forward the man forswears-not that he is going to forswear, but forswears then and there-all his privileges as a citizen in any other country, and more particularly, he takes an oath against the sovereign of the country to which he at that time belongs. So it is a most solemn oath. I >. should think that if a man obtains under false pretenses all the rights of citizenship as regards free land, he could be punished under the ordinary law of the land if he took such an oath falsely.


Levi Thomson: I think my hon. friend should study the law before he attempts to lay down legal propositions.


John Allister Currie: What is the law on this point?


Levi Thomson: I do not think you can prosecute a man for false declaration of intention. I have had some experience myself, and I know positively that you cannot prosecute a man for obtaining anything under false pretenses, if the false pretenses relate to the future. It would he impossible to prosecute a man for obtaining his homestead under false pretenses in the way that my hon. friend suggests. There may be some other way of doing it-and I am merely throwing this out by way of suggestion. It seems to me that rather than go through all the rigmarole suggested by the hon. member for Simcoe, we might better adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Saskatoon and revert to our old plan of three-year citizenship for this particular case. We might allow Candian naturalization only-not British citizenship-to the person who required it for the purpose of taking out his homestead patent, or we might provide a penalty in case the homesteader failed to take out naturalization papers within a reasonable period after the time set. It seems to me there should be some compulsion on a man who gets the benefits of Canadian citizenship, and refuses to carry out his undertaking to the department given in the agreement conferring on him those benefits.


William Roche: There appears to be a
weakness in our existing law in that one point. The Act, of course, was passed when no war was in sight. I think perhaps the besit way out of the difficulty might be for the man to obligate himself, in the declaration of intention, to discharge the duties of citizenship, and penalties could he provided in case of his failure to do so.


Frank Oliver: What is the position in
regard to alien enemy homesteaders? I have no doubt that many homesteaders of alien enemy nationality have taken up land and were continuing to take up land until they were prohibited by the order in council in December last.


William Roche: Under the order in council, which was passed under the authority of the War Measures Act, no alien enemy is now allowed to secure a homestead entry, but those who had secured homestead entry prior to the passng of the order in council are allowed if, tbev can eet naturalized in the meantime, to secure their patents. We did not think it right, when they had made their entry under normal conditions and ac-



cording to the regulations, to withold the patent if they could get naturalized.


Frank Oliver: I suppose a man of alien enemy nationality would have to reside in the country for five years before he could become naturalized and before he could get his papers?


William Roche: Three years, up to the end of this year. There were some who had made entry prior to the passing of that Naturalization Act, and the time will expire at .the end of this year.


Frank Oliver: Until the passage of the order in council no distinction was made between a homesteader of alien enemy nationality and a man who is only an alien?


William Roche: No.


Frank Oliver: I wish to be very clear on that point, because I am afraid there have been impediments thrown in the way of such men getting their patents, even after they had fulfilled their duties, and I assumed it was the policy of the department. I did not discuss it with the department, of course, but from the difficulties that were raised it seemed to me that possibly the department had a policy on the subject and did not intend to give patents to homesteaders of alien enemy nationality.


William Roche: Not unless they become naturalized.


Frank Oliver: Then I am to understand from the minister that the man of alien nationality who entered for a homestead in good faith previous to the order in council prohibiting such entry is treated just the same as anybody else?


William Roche: Except that he has to be naturalized.


Frank Oliver: The man of alien enemy nationality must be naturalized before he gets a patent, and he can be naturalized on a three years' residence?


William Roche: Yes, under the law at present, and up to the end of this year. ,


John Allister Currie: 

TULY 26, 1917 3S13

[Stage Direction]
So far as I am concerned, and I think I speak tor the soldier in the trenches, we deeply resent the conduct of the people at home who will pander to these alien enemies and will permit them to take up the rights of citizenship when they are of military age and when they still hold their citizenship in Germany and Hungary, and where there is no law which compels them to forswear their allegiance to those countries. I deeply regret that this country has not seen fit, so far, to take the same action as has been taken by all the other Allies with regard to aliens, and to see' that they are deprived of the rights to become citizens during the war. We are at war, and if we do not disturb them or take their property away from them, it is simply because we view these matters with justice. Persons of British origin who owned property in Germany have had their property taken away from them and have been locked up in jail. Dr. Boland, a member of this House, has been treated in that way, and why? Because ihe happened to be a Canadian. I say again that those men who are colonized in the various constituencies of the West, who are of military age and who are alien enemies, have no right to the privilege of citizenship during the war, and I protest most strongly against this Government or any other Government giving them the rights of British subjects while war is on. I do this feeling that I am expressing the views of the men who are fighting the battles of Great Britain, and Canada, and who are trying to play the game on the square, and who do not like this crooked political game going on in different sections of this country. Our men are giving this country and the Mother Country all that is best in them. They are willing to sacrifice their blood, their lives, and while they are fighting in the trenches in Flanders this country goes on making citizens of Germans and Hungarians who are of military age and who are reservists in the German, Austrian and Hungarian armies. I protest with all my force against that, and I say this House should take action before it	closes to see that
those	of alien	enemy birth	who
have been given the rights of citizenship should be restrained from voting during the war; ot, in other words, from putting their' arms up against the men who are at the front because there is not one of these men in the West, who, if given the right to vote, would not vote against any candidate who was friendly to this war or to our soldiers. It is all right 242J
enough to talk, but I have met these Germans at very close quarters and I know them. I am just as willing to fight the German reservist right heTe as I am to fight the German soldier on the plains of Flanders. He is most dangerous at home. I protest, in the name of the soldiers at the front, against permitting these aliens to exert any hostile influence on behalf of our enemies. In the name of heaven, what right have these men to raise their hands and use thete votes against the men in the trenches as they are about to do? I cannot see any difference between the man across the river, in Quebec, who is against conscription and comes out in the open and says: I want a referendum before conscription is put in force, and the man who sits in this House and says: I will vote for conscription but I want to come back to this House with the votes of the German reservists or the Huns. That is straight talk and it might as well come out here as anywhere else. I believe that I speak on behalf of the man at the front who is ready to lay down his life, and I say that it is an insult to him that this House of Commons should pander to the votes of aliens of this description who are being made British citizens and whose votes fob winning the war may overbalance the votes of the soldiers at the front. I call upon this House, I call upon the minister, to see that none of these aliens are granted their land until after the war is over. They would not be citizens in their own country entitled to vote, so we are not taking away from them anything they would have in their own country. Nor, would they he able to take land in their own country unless they belonged to a certain select class. Therefore we are not taking anything away from them in that respect. Many hon. members of this House, who are fond of declaring themselves to be supporters of soldiers and returned soldiers, especially hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of this House, take the stand that these aliens are entitled to take possession of their lands, be naturalized and vote. Those who should be citizens and entitled to take land and vote in Canada should not be alien enemies.
William Roche: I did not expect that the Naturalization Act would come up for discussion while the Dominion Lands Act was under consideration. At the present time alien enemies are not allowed to make entry for land in Canada and they have not been allowed to do so since the passage of the order ip council under the War Measures Act. The question' of issuing naturali-

zation certificates is one that is within the discretion of the courts. Some judges have taken the view that aliens, when they applied for certificates of naturalization, were entitled to have those certificates issued, in the usual order of things, in peace times as in war times. On the other hand, Chief Justice William Meredith took the position that he would not issue a certificate of naturalization during war time. It is a matter of discretion with the judges as to whether naturalization should be conferred upon an alien enemy during war time or not. After this year that will disappear and the Government will have more jurisdiction in the matter. At the present time it remains with the courts to exercise their discretion but under the proposed amendment of the Naturalization Act the judges will refer the matter to the Secretary of State and he will have jurisdiction over the question as to whether a certificate of naturalization shall be issued or not.


John Allister Currie: 
John Gillanders Turriff: There is a great deal in what my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) has said that I do not agree with. We invited people to come to this country from different countries of the world. A great many Austrians, Galicians and Germans came into Canada. They came on our invitation and on our agreement that if they did certain things we would do certain things. They were promised that if they came in they would be allowed to get a quarter-section of land as a homestead on a payment of $10 entry fee, and that if they lived .on the land for six months each year for three years and applied for their naturalization papers,

they would get their naturalization papers, become British subjects, Canadian citizens, and would also get the patent for their land. I do' not believe that the fact that war has been forced upon the world by the ruler of one of the countries from which these people come is a sufficient reason why Canada should adopt the German principle and make a treaty, of a bargain, simply a scrap of paper to be burned up whenever it suits one's purpose to do it. The Austrians, the Galicians, the Polanders-the bulk of those people would not go back if they could go back; you could not force them to go back. They came away from these countries to avoid being conscripted and forced into war whether they wanted it or not. That does not apply to the same extent to the Germans; I agree that some of them would go back. But a very considerable number of Germans from the West are to-day fighting in the Canadian ranks, on the Canadian side. When I was in the West within the last month, I came across one man who>
was bom in Germany, who has been out here for a number of years, a man 33 or 35 years of age, married and with a family of children. This man's father and mother are in Saskatchewan. His mother cannot speak any English, and his children cannot speak any German. That man's two younger brothers enlisted in a Canadian regiment in the town of Oxbow, and they are in the trenches to-day fighting for Canada and for the British Empire. I ask any member if he would disfranchise these men and their brothers and their fathers. There aj;e many such cases. I saw a statement some time ago that six per cent of the voluntary enlistments in Canada were foreigners. I do not mean to say that six per cent hi them were foreigners from enemy countries, but a very considerable percentage were. I know quite a large number in my own constituency, of Germans and Austrians, Germans chiefly, who have gone to the front with Canadian regiments. It is quite probable that it is advisable now to so change the law that men from these countries will know that if they come into Canada they will not have the same privileges as they would have had if they had come earlier. But to enact a law now that shatters the arrangement we made with them, that goes back to our agreement with them, I think would be very poor policy. We hear a great deal in this country about living in harmony and about conciliation-well, well, that is not the way to bring that about. If Great Britain had taken that stand in
South Afriea we should not have had South Africa to-day as one of the strong pillars of the Empire. The one thing that has made Great Britain the greatest colonizing power in the world is that she has treated people from all parts of the world well and fairly, and has carried out her agreements with them, whatever those agreements may have been, and 1 do not think the Government would be justified in breaking an agreement that they made with these people who happened to come from countries with which we are now at war.


John Allister Currie: I will answer the hon., gentleman in one or two words. He, in common with a great many others who are pandering to the pro-German vote in the West are going about this country saying: Oh, we made an agreement with these poor people; they come under a special agreement with the Government, and we must do this and that for them; it does not do to break an agreement. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that, so far as civil contracts are concerned, there is not a contract in this country with an alien enemy that holds during the war. That is the law. Why should we place a weapon in the hands of these men in the West, as we are doing day by day, whereby they are going to strike down the men in this House and those people in this country who are sending their sons and brothers to this war? There is no law that I have ever been able to discover, international of otherwise, that justifies a course of that kind. I am very pleased that the hon. gentleman got up in his place to defend pro-Germanism in the West. I am sure that I, in common with a great many other people in this House, are not being very greatly amused, but very greatly alarmed, at the extent of the movement that has recently been organized in Canada for the purpose of destroying the historical Conservative party and putting in place of that party a so-called Unionist party. Does this new party hold the same views as the hon. gentleman?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: May I-


John Allister Currie: I beg your pardon. Let me speak and after I have: finished the hon. gentleman can make a speech if he pleases. I was going to say a great movement is organizing, with many newspapers subsidized from one end of the country to the other to bolster up a Union Government. We will all welcome a Government of any kind in this country, call it what you like,

that will end this wai; one day sooner, or save one life, but I, in common with others who have done a little (bit for the w.ar, dread that this may be -a wooden horse that has been saddled and prepared, inside of which we may find something like 40,000 or 50,000 pro-German votes in the West which are going to send down forty or fifty members to support us in this House in carry- ' ing on the war. I cannot see anything like win the war in that. I say that, so far as I am concerned, as a soldier I denounce any attempt to pander to these Germans in the West, and that any man who stands up in this House or on the hustings in this country to advocate that these Hun reservists should have votes or should have any rights except those of minors is deserving of condemnation. They should not have the full rights of British citizens during the war. I say without any reservation that I have no confidence in any man who stands up in this House and says that they should have those rights,
, nor in any man who is a supporter of a propaganda in this country to win the war, for which apparently there are millions of dollars. May I Ibe permitted to suspect very much where that money is coming from. Why, pray, should any British gold be spent to get German votes in the West to send members to this House? What is the object? When the hon. member went to the West years ago there was one tribe of Indians up there called the Blackfeet, and often when they were on the warpath they turned their snowshoes so that if a scout of the enemy ran across their tracks he would think they were travelling in the opposite direction to that in which they were going. I have travelled long enough in politics in this country not to be deceived when any individual or parties turn their snowshoes.


Frank Oliver: I wish to correct the hon. gentleman-the Blackfeet did not use snow-shoes.


John Allister Currie: What did they use?


Frank Oliver: Ponies.


John Allister Currie: It was the ponies, I acknowledge it. Perhaps it was another tribe that used to turn their snowshoes and so try to deceive people as to the direction in which the warpath was being taken. That cannot go On in this country. No win the war party can pander to the votes of Hun reservists, and I say this so far as my party is concerned, even if I speak alone, and so far as any man in the Liberal party is con-
TMr. Currie.]
cerned who wishes to see the war end, I say it is our duty to take .cognizance of everything peculiar that is going on and to stand to our arms to-day in defence o<f this country and our soldiers, and in condemnation of those who stand up in this House or elsewhere and support the Germans voting in this country or having the right to be made citizens of this country or of exercising any political influence during the war.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend need not undertake to lecture me in this House. I am supporting the war as much as my hon. friend is, and the Germans of my constituency will support me in supporting the war. There are not many in my constituency, but those that are there will support the war. I have Germans in my constituency who went across with the first contingent to fight for Canada; and they are fighting there still.
Mr. (CURRIE:	I want to tell the hon.
gentleman that every German who went over with the First Contingent, -and I believe every man of German birth who has yat gone over, has been detained in England or else has been sent back here. With very few exceptions, unless they had the special (permission and authority of the minister, they were not allowed to go to the front. There are no men of German birth in the trenches. I know of only one man of German birth from Canada who entered the trenches, and he was a young man from Stratford, Kahn, or from that district. To tell me what I know is (absolutely not right and absolutely not true- that these men of German birth, German reservists, are sent over to the front to fight in the trenches-it is inconceivable: they cannot get within twenty miles of the trenches. The hon. gentleman says that, because there is an exception, because a few of these men have gone over to England where they are under observation, we should take the whole lot of these reservists to our bosom, and all that sort of thing-and let them vote. We have the evidence plainly before us in the late provincial election that, in the province from which he comes, every one of these Huns has his knife out for the Conservative party and the win-the-war party. He cannot stand up and tell me otherwise, because I know it, 'and I say it is no reason, because some Germans have enlisted and gone over to the war-because there are two or three exceptions of that kind-that we should shut our eyes. A few exceptions do not

prove the case. In fact, the hon. gentleman gave his own case away when >he said the Germans would go over and fight against us if they had a chance. Still he wants them to vote against our -soldiers. There is no distinction in this country between Germans and Hungarians. We no w learn with 'astonishment 'that if a German has resided for three years in this country he can get his citizenship papers and vote at the next election. I -appeal to hon. gentleman of this House: do you think it is fair and right to our soldiers? Do not you think it is an insult to the men you have sent to the front? If you do this, you will put it in the hands of German alien enemies to snipe our soldiers in the hack. That is what they will do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was going to say to
my hon. friend that, although the hon. gentleman from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) does not hold exactly the same views with regard to the measure passed the other day in this House as I do, I resent, as every hon. member in this House should resent, the insinuation of my hon. friend (Mr. Ourrie), when he said a moment ago that the member for Assiniboia was defending pro-Germanism in the West, when everybody knows that his son died for the cause a few months ago. I hope the hon. gentleman will withdraw.


John Allister Currie: I saw a wounded German-Canadian come back to this country, and I have seen his father, a German, deny him admission to his house. The son, if alive, would disown him.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. member for
North Simcoe is a gentleman, and I think he should withdraw the statement he made with regard to the hon. gentleman from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff).


John Allister Currie: It is my word against
the word of the hon. gentleman from Assiniboia. I say be is supporting the German party, the Hungarians and the Germans of the West, in this House, and that he stands for them, and that he thinks they should have the same citizenship and rights as the Canadian who is fighting in the trenches, and I say he is wrong and the people will not support him.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman
said that the hon. member for Assiniboia defended pro-Germanism, which is quite a different thing.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am glad the hon. member for North Simcoe said there were some exceptions, because I was going to tell
him that I knew one who, not only was in France, bust was severely wounded, and was just as brave a young fellow as ever stood in clothes.


John Allister Currie: And those very men
would be the first to vote for and support what I suggest.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Excise-Salaries of officers and inspectors of Excise, and to provide for increase depending on the result of excise examinations, $581,-31S.75.
['So that we have by our efforts here to-night saved the Minis-j ter of Finance from the necessity of taxing: some person $10,000.']
Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister explain the increase of $5,442.50?


Mr. SEVIGNY:: It is due to statutory increases.
Mr.>
LEMIEUX: How many excise officers has the minister in the district of Montreal and how many in the district of Quebec?


Albert Sévigny: Thirty-five to forty in Montreal and ten to fifteen in Quebec.


Mr LEMIEUX:: I should think there was a larger number of officers both in Montreal and in Quebec. How many inspectors of excise are there?


Albert Sévigny: We have only one inspector in the district of Montreal and one in the district of Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have any new appointments been made recently in those two districts?


Albert Sévigny: We have recently appointed four new officers in Montreal-four returned soldiers.
' Mr. LEMIEUX: What are their names?


Albert Sévigny: Mr. Barbeau, Mr. Gariepy, Mr. Gallaher and Captain MacKay Papi-neau.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have lately read a very severe arraignment of a new patent medicine which is largely advertised in Montreal and Ottawa papers. The name of the medicine which everybody has seen advertised in the papers is Tanlac. In this criticism it is stated on good authority-I do not accept it as being true, because I do not

know myself-that this Tanlae is nothing but a substitute for liquor; that it contains a very large percentage, of alcohol. It is being very severely criticised by the friends of temperance. I do not know whether I read this arraignment in the organ of the prohibitionists or not, but I suppose the attention of the minister has been called to the matter. If Tanlae is really nothing but a substitute for alcohol, the department ought to look carefully into the matter and see that no such medicine is offered for sale, especially in provinces, counties or cities in which the sale of liquor is prohibited.


Albert Sévigny: No representations have yet been made to the department in regard to that patent medicine, but the department will certainly take the remarks of my hon. friend into consideration.


Mr. PROULX:: Are all proprietary medicines analysed in the department?


Albert Sévigny: Some of them are, but not all.


Edmond Proulx: I thought a law was passed some years ago compelling manufacturers of proprietary medicines to give their formulae? [DOT]


Albert Sévigny: It is still the practice. Every proprietary medicine should be registered with the department, and if it is not registered an analysis of the medimne must appear on the label.


Mr. BOIVIN:: Will the hon. minister give us the names of the employees who were dismissed to make room for the four returned soldiers whose names were given to the committee?


Albert Sévigny: None were dismissed.


Georges Henri Boivin: I understand then the
amount of $5,442.50 is to pay the salaries of these new employees?


Albert Sévigny: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: How are their salaries provided for?


Albert Sévigny: From the contingent account.


Georges Henri Boivin: Can the minister give us any idea how it happens that, after the excellent temperance legislation which was put into effect by this House at the instance of the Minister of Justice last year, doing away with the consumption of liquor in seven or eight of the nine provinces, it is now necessary to have more employees to inspect the output of the distilleries than

were necessary before this legislation came into force?


Albert Sévigny: As my hon. friend knows, we have no prohibition in the province of Quebec.


Mr. GRAHAM:: You have, after nine o'clock.


Albert Sévigny: After nine o'clock, yes. It is not improbable that having prohibition in other provinces the liquor trade in the province of Quebec has increased.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does the minister mean to tell us that there is more liquor consumed in the province of Quebec now than there was heretofore?


Albert Sévigny: That is not what I said.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does the minister mean the trade has increased? Has the number of distilleries in the province of Quebec increased?


Albert Sévigny: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: Has the number of distilleries in any other part of Canada increased?


Albert Sévigny: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: Has the output of distilleries increased?


Mr. EDWARDS:: Is it not the'case that even in provinces where prohibition is in force the distilleries are engaged in the manufacture of alcohol for munitions purposes?


George Perry Graham: Were any of those
officers employed in Hull?


Albert Sévigny: No. They were employed in Montreal.'	[DOT]


Georges Henri Boivin: Can the minister tell us from the excise figures whether the consumption of alcohol or of alcoholic beverages manufactured in Canada has increased during the past year? He surely must have the figures from the department.


Albert Sévigny: I understand the trade
has diminished slightly during the last three months.


Georges Henri Boivin: And, with the trade diminishing, and this Government preaching economy, it is appointing other employees where they are not required, to do work that was done by a smaller number of employees when the output of the distilleries was greater. Although the minister admits the traffic is diminishing, still the Govern-

ment is increasing the number of employees, and at the same time preaching economy. Will the minister explain why those extra men were appointed?
Hon. Mr. SEVI'GNY (translation): Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend knows that the city of Montreal is the largest in the Dominion, and it is in the Montreal district that my department collects the bulk of its reyenue; I will go further, almost half of its revenue comes from the Montreal office. I may add that Montreal's liquor trade has increased substantially on account of the material increase in the shipments to the province of Ontario.


Georges Henri Boivin: Montreal
shipments to Ontario?


Albert Sévigny: YTes.


Georges Henri Boivin: Can the hon. minister tell me whether the Ontario distilleries have ceased doing business?


Albert Sévigny: Two of them have shut down.


Georges Henri Boivin: And the others which have no right to sell in their province' ship liquor to Montreal iamd, under the frendly eye of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) these beverages are sent back into Ontario.


Albert Sévigny: I cannot tell imy hon. friend what is going on, but I have heard the wine and liquor dealers of Montreal say that they were doing quite a large business with Ontario.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Although the province of Quebec has not adopted prohibition, it is well known that the number of licenses has been decreased materially within the last five years. During the past year there has been a still greater decrease on account of the very severe policy inaugurated by the Gouin Government. In Montreal and in Quebec the number of licenses has been decreased as the result of new legislation. Outside of four or five large centres in the province there are no licenses. If you travel on the Intercolonial from Levis to Matapedia and from Matapedia to Gaspe, you will not find a single licensed establishment. There is one license at Gaspe, but it is not a license to serve liquor over the bar. Between a province that? has adopted prohibition and my own province, which is on a fairly temperate basis there is not a very material difference, because I aril pleased to say that in the province of Quebec within the last ten years the movement in favour of temperance has been so well managed by the churches and by the Government that almost every municipality is under temperance legislation. I might mention as instances the city of Three Rivers, the city of Joliette, and the city of Hull, where a vote was taken lately. One can see the wave in favour of temperance. People have decided that they will eventually banish the bar. Treating has been abolished in Montreal


George Perry Graham: And in all Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, that is so. The step was especially important in the city of Montreal, because it has a population of about
700,000.


Georges Henri Boivin: The minister said that two of the large distilleries in the province of Ontario had been closed?


Albert Sévigny: That is my information.


Georges Henri Boivin: Will the minister tell us what has become of the employees who were attached to those distilleries? Are they still drawing salaries from the Government?


Albert Sévigny: We are reducing the staff every day.


Georges Henri Boivin: I understood the minister to say that nobody had been dismissed.


Albert Sévigny: In Montreal.


Georges Henri Boivin: Have they been dismissed elsewhere?


Albert Sévigny: When they are no longer required, their services are dispensed with.


Georges Henri Boivin: How many employees have been dismissed?


Albert Sévigny: Four employees have recently been dismissed in Ontario because their services were no longer required.


Georges Henri Boivin: Four employees have been dismissed in Ontario recently, and four have been added in the province of Quebec, and yet there is an increase in salary of $5,442.


Albert Sévigny: This increase is not on account of new employees, but on account of the annual statutory increases.


Georges Henri Boivin: Do the employees of the Department of Inland Revenue ever die, or are any of them ever dismissed from the service? I have been in this House for six years, and every year since this Government has been in power there has been an increase in the estimates, under the head of excise, of about $5,000 on account

of statutory increases. I should have thought tliait when the older' employees leave the service through death or otherwise, the new men taken on in their places would be started at lower salaries and that there would consequently be a decrease in the amount required for statutory increases. In the ordinary course of nature the older employees must gradually be leaving the service, and new employees added. The expenditure incurred by this department is continually growing, although the revenue is decreasing. The minister tells us that the distilleries are being closed, that there is less liquor being consumed in Canada as a whole, yet in spite of this decreasing revenue the expenditure increases-and this at a time when the Government is preaching economy and imposing taxes. If the minister can explain this perpetual increase I shall be obliged.


Albert Sévigny: The increase 6n account of salaries is very small, but the increase in the revenue is very large. In excise alone we have an increase of $1,000,000 this year.


Georges Henri Boivin: If the consumption of liquors has been decreased, where does the increase in revenue come in?


Albert Sévigny: There is a decrease of about $200,000 on the liquor traffic, but there is an increase of $1,000,000 on tobacco.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it not a fact that the increased returns from tobacco are due to the special war taxation which was imposed upon tobacco during the first year of the war? I think the minister knows well that the excise duties upon tobacco, cigars, cigarettes and every other form, were increased by the Minister of Finance. That extra taxation is collected, I understand, by the same employees who collected this taxation before the increase of about 10 per cent. If there is an increase in the excise duties upon tobacco, it is due to the fact that the duties are higher. Why is it that extra employees are put on to collect the extra money coming in from this source?


Albert Sévigny: The increase in the excise returns upon tobacco is not due to the higher duties but to the increased consumption.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it not a fact that the duties upon tobacco are higher than they were three years ago?


Albert Sévigny: The duties were increased in 1915.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is the increase just mentioned by the minister an increase over the consumption of last year or over the consumption of 1915?


Albert Sévigny: It is an increase over the consumption of last year.


Georges Henri Boivin: How much of an increase?


Albert Sévigny: The increase is $975,000 on all sorts of tobaccos, cigars, cigarettes, chewing tobacco, etc.


Georges Henri Boivin: Has the minister any idea pn which form of tobacco the increase has been the greatest?


Albert Sévigny: I cannot say offhand, but I shall be only too pleased to let my hon. friend know if he will come over to the department to-morrow.


Georges Henri Boivin: What has been the decrease in the revenue upon alcoholic beverages?


Albert Sévigny: About $200,000 for the last fiscal year.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is the number of employees the same as the year previous?


Albert Sévigny: The number in Ontario has been decreased and the number in Quebec increased.
Excise-For extra duty-pay at large distilleries and other factories, $16,000.


Albert Sévigny: Officers, not only of my department but of every department, are entitled to extra pay for overtime, and that accounts for this item.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose officers of the department are doing extra work at the large distilleries which are turning out alcohol for the Imperial Munitions Board? Last winter I ivas at Renfrew, and saw the very large plant that is distilling alcohol there for the board. I suppose you would have an officer there, for instance?


Albert Sévigny: We have one officer in each of these establishments.
Preventive service-Contingencies, $15,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What are the contingencies?


Albert Sévigny: This amount is required to pay the salaries of our preventive service officers. The service has been reorganized and rendered more effective within the last year and a half.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many officers are there?


Albert Sévigny: About 150 all over Canada.


Mr. MACDONALD:: The minister will remember that when his Estimates were last before the House he promised to give us an explanation in regard to the increase of $142,000 under Excise, $26,000 under Weights and Measures, and $10,000 under Adulteration of Food.


Albert Sévigny: I have the explanation here and when we reach these items I shall be only too glad to give the information.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There seems, apparently to be a new system of grouping these items. We have only one item under the heading of " excise," while in the estimates as formerly brought down, .there was a separate resolution for each one of these items. Why is the minister asking for $54,000 more this year than he asked for last year?


Albert Sévigny: This fund of $101,000
was created last year, and voted in the Estimates for the year 1916-17, for the purpose of bringing under one service all the preventive officers of the different branches of the department. Most of our preventive officers were temporary employees, who had been paid up to the moment of their permanent employment, out of the contingencies account of the excise! weights and measures, and food branches.
There have been appointed to date, in that service, about 106 preventive officers, who had been on the temporary list of officers for several years past, some as long as fifteen' years. The average salary of these officers is to $950 per year; therefore, the sum necessary to pay them reaches $100,700.
This service is still in the course of organization, and there are still about sixty-four temporary officers, receiving a total salary of a little over $51,000. A large proportion of these officers will be appointed permanently in the near future, to complete the organization, and a certain number will be dismissed as excise work diminishes on account of prohibitory laws.
Nearly, all these are temporary officers. Most of these temporary officers are, at present, employed in the Excise Service. It has been the policy of the department to transfer these officers to the preventive service, when they can be spared from excise.
The department has under consideration at present, the project of embossing promissory notes, checks, etc., with the two-cent stamp, free of charge. At present these commercial instruments are embossed by the British American Bank Note company,
at the cost of $1 per thousand, when an order is above 15,000, and $1.50 per thousand, when undeT that figure, with a minimum charge of $5. The Banker's Association claim that they should- not be called upon to pay the cost of embossing the checks, apy more than the consumer is called upon to pay the printing of the war stamp. The department is inclined to favour the request of the Banker's Association. If the project is brought into practice, it will be necessary to purchase five or six embossing machines. Each machine will have to be manned by an officer skilled in the work of this nature, and additional employees, besides the operator, will be necessary. The salary required, undeT that heading, would probably amount to about $15,000. As this is an entirely new undertaking for the department, it has been thought advisable, for the present, to pay the salaries in connection with this additional staff of the stamp branch of the department, out of this preventive service fund. Therefore, the $54,000 of an increase, under this heading, is to cover the payment of the additional permanent preventive officers to be appointed, and also the salaries of the new stamp staff.
That this new preventive service has proven effective is apparent by a comparison of the revenue from the war stamp duty, and from the excise duty on tobacco and cigars. The preventive service within the last two years was instructed to see to a strict application of the tobacco laws and regulations, a matter which had received but little attention in the past.
Moreover, after the Special War Revenue Act was introduced, the department undertook a campaign of education, which lasted several months. Then it became evident that this law tvas being violated by a very large number of druggists and merchants, without any excuse whatever, and the dis-covry of violations of the law.
In comparing the figures below, with regard to the revenue from tobacco, one must take into consideration that the enlistment of 400,000 men has taken away from Canada, a large number of tobacco consumers; also that the department has consented to give t-o the soldiers in training, or going overseas their tobacco duty free, at a loss of revenue to the extent of four or five hundred thousand dollars, for each of the last two years. Notwithstanding all this, the revenue from tobacco has increased, thanks to a better and stricter observance of the tobacco laws, through the agency of our preventive service, as may be readily seeD by glancing at the following figures:

Tobacco Revenue.
Revenue on tobacco for 1915-16.. $10,222,783.78 "	"	1916-17.. 11,197,102.52Increase	$	974,318.74
Revenue on tobacco for April and
May, 1916	$	1,746,042.44
Revenue on tobacco for April and
May, 1917	 1,887,129.52
Increase for April and May this
year	$	141,087.08
War Tax Revenue Stamp on Patent Medicines, Cheques, etc.
War Tax for 1915-16	$1,550,488.35
"	"	1916-17	 2,072,441.42
Increase over last year	$ 521,953.07
War Tax for April and May, 1916.	308,658.11
"	"	"	1917.	351,562.58Increase this year	$	42,904.47


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it not a fact that the
increase the minister has just mentioned in the war tax on patent medicines is due to the fact that when this tax was first put into operation the department had no istamps printed, and the revenue from that branch w,as included in the receipts of the Post Office Department because postage stamps were used?


Albert Sévigny: Our stamps were printed within two months of the passing of the Act.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it not a fact that the war tax stamp is more generally used now and is better known than it was two years ago?


Albert Sévigny: Yes, because the preventive service of my department has seen to the application of the law.


Georges Henri Boivin: So that this large increase in expenditure has been for the purpose of making people buy war stamps instead of postage stamps to put on patent medicines?
iMt. SEVIGNY:	Oh, no.


Georges Henri Boivin: The minister told us that $101,000 which was set apart in the Estimates for 1916-17 for this service had not been sufficient and that there was a balance of some $35,000 or $40,000 which he had been obliged to take last year out of another fund to pay for this service.
He was requested by the bon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) to explain exactly how this money had been appropriated, and he promised that he would give this information on the items of Preventive Service and War Stamps. I think this would be the proper time to

say where that balance was obtained and how it was appropriated to this service.
Mr. 'SEVIGNY:	I have a memorandum
about this matter. This item for 1914-15 was $151,000. It was reduced the next year by $21,000, and left at $130,000. It was still further reduced last year by $70,000, and left at $60,000.


Georges Henri Boivin: I was referring to the
item immediately preceding the one with which the minister is dealing. I would like to know where the minister got the money to pay these employees.


Albert Sévigny: For many years, for over fifteen years, there were in the department temporary employees who were paid from the contingent fund. When the House passed the new Act to increase the revenue, we availed ourselves of these temporary employees to educate the people, to look after the proper administration of that Act, and we have come to the conclusion that it would be clearly in the interest of the department to retain this staff who were performing such a good service and so, instead of keeping them on as temporary, the department intends to appoint them as permanent employees. In the past, they were paid from the contingencies; in the future, they shall be paid from this sum of $155,000 which we ask for this year. Last year, we asked $101,000 for the temporary clerks whom we have made permanent. We sti'll have fifty temporary employees. We intend transferring several of these clerks to the permanent staff, and it is for that reason that I am to-day asking the House a sum of $155,000, in order that this staff of permanent officials he paid out of this same item.


Georges Henri Boivin: I quite
understand the horn minister's remarks, only he is not answering my question at all. I asked the hon. minister if that service had cost him more than $101,000 last year, and if that service has not cost him more than $101,000 last year, why should it cost $155,000 this year? He answers the second portion of my question by saying that he intends making the temporary clerks permanent .and paying them larger salaries.


Albert Sévigny: I did not say that. Not a larger salary and from this amount of $155,000.


Georges Henri Boivin: But when the Estimates were before the House, on June 15, the same hon. minister told us that there had been an error in making the estimates last year, and that this amount of $101,000 last year had not been large enough

to pay these employees, that it bad cost $155,000, that he had been forced to take the money somewhere else, without telling us where he had taken that money, and that is the explanation we would like to have to-night.
In order to refresh the hon. minister's memory, he has stated, on page 2470 of the Hansard, unrevised edition:-
Mr. Sevigny:	I am informed, by the officers
of my department that last year an error was made by the accountant of the department in making an estimate of $101,000, and that we have had, on account of that error, to make an expenditure from the War Fund. It is to meet the exigencies of the service that we ask for $155,000 this year.
Now, a debate ensued in the House. The hon. minister has not been able to satisfy the Opposition members as to the right he had to take that money from the War Fund to cover an error, to make up a deficit in the amount entered in last year's Estimates, by reason of an error made by one of the officers of his department. He promised to give us some further explanation; to-night he tells us more employees .are needed this year, or if more are rot needed, that some temporary ones should be appointed as permanent and to pay them under a new heading, if you may so call it. That portion, if I understand it right, refers to the coming year, but it is the explanation as to last year that is not yet given us and that we would like to have.


Albert Sévigny: As to the explanation for the last year, heTe it is: Last year, we had an amount which had been voted us and which was not adequate to pay the employees on duty in my department. Seeing that we were without sufficient funds, that we needed revenue as it was impossible to leave unpaid those working for the department, as it was impossible to discharge them, we have sought some means to pay them.
After consulting the Auditor General, the latter authorized us-the department-to pay them from the War Fund. I have used the expression " War Fund " because the $125,000 item! in the estimates is: called the "War Fund," in my department. This fund is generally known as the "War Fund " in the department, and, on account of the error I have mentioned, seeing that we had not enough money to meet the expenditure, we were authorized by the Auditor General to take a sum of $27,000 from that war fund.


Georges Henri Boivin: That fund is the vote which reads as follows:-
To provide for stamps, stationery, salaries, travelling expenses, etc., in connection with war tax.


Albert Sévigny: Yes.
Mr. BOIVIN (translation) f^Well, if the hon. minister was obliged to take from 'this fund the sum of $54,000, how is it that, this year, it is not reduced by this 'amount of $54,000, for I see that this item is still for the same amount, this year?


Albert Sévigny: It is because, as I have just stated, the Government intend to put in an outfit to print the stamps to be used upon the cheques and the notes. Now, to set up this service, we must purchase five or six machines which we can get only in England. '


Georges Henri Boivin: How much do these machines cost?


Albert Sévigny: From $1,300 to $1,500 each.


Georges Henri Boivin: Six machines like these at $1,500 would amount only to $9,000. That leaves quite 'a margin, and I would like to know how the hon. minister intends to expend it.


Albert Sévigny: Does my hon. friend .mean the balance of the $54,000?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


Albert Sévigny: As I have just said, there are in my department some temporary employees.


Georges Henri Boivin: We have provided for that. In last year's estimates we had an item:-
To provide for stamps, stationery, salaries, travelling expenses, etc., in connection with war tax.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. gentleman says
that there was a mistake, that that item should have been $155,000. That is admitted. He took the balance of $54,000 last year out of the vote to provide for stamps, stationery, travelling expenses, etc., in connection with the war vote, which viote last year was $125,000. That closed the books last year. Whether it was or was not right to do what the hon. gentleman did, I do not propose to discuss at present; I will leave that to other hon. gentlemen. But the fact remains that the hon. gentleman now admits that he took $54,000 from the item to provide for stamps, stationery, and so forth, and applied it to the item of Preventive Service salaries, which, owing to mistake, was not large enough. This year he tells me he will increase this item of $101,000 to $155,000 in order to provide for the $54,000 he had to take out of another item last year. I now ask the hon. min-


An hon. MEMBER:: And imposing an
income tax.


Albert Sévigny: From what my hon. friend has just said, we would have spent last year more money than we had. There is one point which my hon. friend forgets: in February last, my predecessor had asked the House a certain amount of supplementary estimates- in order to make up for .the difference in the votes we needed in 1916-17; the House granted the amount asked for. My hon. friend will now allow me to read to this House a memorandum which I caused to be prepared in order to reply to the questions which were- put to me when this item was first submitted to the House. This refers to- the $90,000 item.
This item for 1914-15 was $15!,000. It was reduced the next year by $21,000, and left at $130,000. It was still further reduced last year by $70,000, and left at $60,000. The preventive service was, at that moment, in the course of organization, and as it was necessary to create a special fund for special service, it was deemed that $70,000 could safely be taken from that item and transferred to the preventive service fund, which would be paid the permanent officers after being transferred from this temporary service. The total expenses under that heading amount to $107,954.9 p.m. 80, in which is included the ex

penditure for special assistance of $27,697.12. This latter amount was used to pay temporary preventive officers, whose duties were more especially connected with the observance of the Special War Revenue Act, and was, after consultation with the Auditor General, transferred to

the item of $125,000 voted in connection with the War Tax. This left a balance expended of $80,257.68, or $20,257.68 of a deficit. This was covered by a supplementary estimate of $30,000, which was asked for two or three months before the end of the fiscal year, at a time, when the exact amount of the deficit, could not very well be ascertained. The item is brought to $90,000; that is to the amount actually voted last year-$60,000 in the main estimates, and $30,000 in the supplementary estimates, above referred to. It is deemed that this amount of $90,000 will be about sufficient, in view of the general increase of divers items, such as travelling expenses,
(Translation): So that my hon. friend can see that with the amount of $30,000 which -was voted us in the -month of February last, and with these $60,000 voted at the last -session, we. are asking, this year, the same amount exactly.


Georges Henri Boivin: That makes $90,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the -sum
total of the minister's explanation? Will he tell us why he asked for $54,000 more to carry out the work of the department in connection with the salaries of preventive officers. He tells us that the auditor of the department -miade -a mistake last year, and only asked for $101,000 instead of the necessary amount; then he -proceed-s to read a memorandum in which -he confuses, these items, travelling expenses, etc. There was an increase of $30,000 last year, and he proceeds to tell u-s hi-s department spent -some $20,000 more th-an they asked for last, and that when they found they were spending this $20,000 more, they got a vote -for $30,000, not knowing how much the deficit was going to -be. Then he refers to the following item, which is the one which -specially relates to the war tax, and which is the vote Parliament gave for the enforcement of the war tax, and whi-ch ha>s nothing whatever to do with th-e preventive staff, -stamps, stationery, salaries, travelling expenses in connection with the war tax. My hon, friend asked for $125,000 and he tells- us a certain amount o-f money was taken to -pay the deficit on so-me previous vote, -but he does not tell the Ho-u-se what it was. When this matter was befo-re the committee on a previous occasion all -these figures were gone into. He tell-s us this deficit, which was due to an error of an accountant of the department, was taken out of the war fund, out of -the money voted under the War Measures Act. That is what he believed a month ago. What possible right has the minister to take out of the money which

was voted under -the War Measures Act any sums of money whatever?-because -that is the money upon which this country is going to pay interest for all time, or until the debt is wiped out.
But that is what he told us before. Now he confuses those three items, giving us an explanation which is no explanation ait all. The result of the whole thing is that t'he minister is asking the country to give him, for those items which have no reference to this item for expenses in -connection with the war tax, $84,000 more than was voted last year. The proposition is ridiculous. The minister has the greatest possible temerity in coming to this House with such a proposition.


Albert Sévigny: Last year, as I have
already stated we had to pay the temporary preventive officers of my department, and when we saw that there was not enough money to pay them, we inquired of the Auditor General and he told us that there was no objection at all to paying them out of this item:
To provide for stamps, stationery, salaries, travelling expenses, etc., in connection with war tax.
And that was done by the department with the authorization of the Auditor General.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the minister had
so much more money than was necessary for the purpose of providing for stamps, stationery, salaries, travelling expenses, etc., in connection with war tax, why is he asking for the full $125,000 this year? Why did he pay, under the item of " preventive service, salaries," employees for services rendered under this other item in connection with the war tax?


Albert Sévigny: It is because the service is permanent now. We wanted an amount to pay the permanent service. That is something new that we did not have last year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That has nothing to do with the matter at all. My hon. friend's predecessor obtained from Parliament $125,000 for the purpose of paying expenses in connection with the administration of the war tax. He did not need to spend more than one-half of that amount for the purpose of enforcing the war tax. Now he says that he desires to employ permanently a number of preventive officers, the necessity for whom nobody has yet ascertained, and because he employee! a number of temporary officers who are called preventive officers under that item, he diverts the money from the
war tax item for the purpose of paying his preventive officers. He a-sks Parliament to vote $84,000 more than last year to pay these officers, and at -the same time he asks for $125,000 mo-re for the purpose of enforcing the war tax, when he expended only half that amount last year.


Albert Sévigny: We are not employing
new officers. We have for many years past had temporary officers.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where are they?


Albert Sévigny: Throughout the whole
country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What are they doing?


Albert Sévigny: We have 150 temporary officers throughout the country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What are they doing?


Albert Sévigny: They are engaged in the preventive service, and they are performing their work very well, as shown by the fact that our revenues are increasing every day.^


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where are they?


Albert Sévigny: In Montreal, Quebec,
Toronto, Halifax.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend must have employed many of his political heelers.
Mr. SEVIGNYr:	We have an officer in
Pietou.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Kami oil raska) (Translation) :: Mr. Chairman, the hoii. minister states that he had -much difficulty in finding the money needed -to pay those employees, the preventive officers; that he had to take tlhe money from the next following item. Those employees were temporary ones whom he made permanent, because, among other things, their services -are essential to educate the people. Has the 'hon. Minister the list of those employees?


Albert Sévigny: No, we do not have it h-e-re.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. Minister has in my county one of these preventive officers to educate ,tihe p-eople. In the county of Ka-mouraska, there is a man named Pantaleon Courcy, preventive officer for the Inland Revenue Department. This gentleman draws a salary from the Department. He was appointed before the war; he continues drawing his .salary, and he does absolutely nothing for the department. His name is Pantaleon Courcy, of St. Pacome, Kamouraska county. I pray the hon minister -to remember that name. He is drawing a salary at a time when the country evidently need's all its -avail-aMe funds;

when we iasre obliged to impose new and very heavy taxes upon the people. The department is employing election people and pays them salaries, when the strictest economy should exist. The hon. minister says that there ore one hundred and fifty of these preventive officers. If the 149 others are doing what Pamtaleon Courcy is doing in the county of Kamouraska, to earn his salary, I do most strongly protest, and I ask the hon. minister to put an end to paying useless salaries to people who aTe doing absolutely nothing for the department.
I believe: I may challenge the hon. minister to -produce any report whatever from that gentleman to the Inland Revenue Department, unless it be One in which he claims 'his salary.
In the neighbouring parish of fit. Philippe-de-Nery, there is another gentleman who was postmaster, who had been appointed postmaster after the last general elections:-the Liberal postmaster having 'been dismissed- h certain Mr. Roy was appointed in his stead. That appointment was not very popular in the parish, .and in order to rally the Government's partisans who were refusing to vote in a local by-election which was subsequently held, they divided the St. Philippe post-office, and they established [DOT]another one, two .arpents from- the first, in the village of St. Philippe-de-Nery. There are two p'ost-offices, one in St. Philippe West, and the other has the pompous name of St. Philippe East. There are a few feet separating one from the other. Thais, Mr. Chairman, still exists during the w.ar.
The first postmaster, Mr. Roy, was very angry to find his revenue out down by the establishment of an extra post office. The Inland Revenue Department was just the one to heal his wounds, and -a position was given to this man also. He i.s now food inspector. He draws a salary from the department; that is to say he resides in St. Philippe parish, he never travels, he does nothing for the department, he draws a salary and they keep on imposing taxes in the county of Kamiouraska, as in 'all other sections of the country.
In the Custohis Department there is one Mr. Desjardins, who draws a salary as a preventive officer for that department, who does absolutely nothing, his services are in no way required, mot more than those of Mr. Roy; all these parties are drawing salaries from, the public treasury during the war, when everybody is paying heavy taxes, as I have just said.
[Mr. E. Lapointe.!
My hon. friend states that he has made permanent these temporary employees, and that he is obliged to take from1 an item voted for some other ends the money required to pay these gentlemen.
For my part, I wish to protest as strongly as I can on behalf of my county, of those whom I represent. The hon. minister should put an end) to this scandalous .system; he should suppress those positions which do not exist as such, which are nothing but a trick to pay salaries to Government creatures. This should he immediately done, rather than to continue imposing new taxes.


Hon.   M@: I must say to my hon. friend that the observations he has just made will be taken into consideration. It is the first time I have heard of Mr. Courcy, and: moreover, I am informed by my deputy minister, that he dloes not believe that thiis party named Courcy is still in the employ of my department


Georges Henri Boivin: I understood the Minister to say in connection with these three items: preventive service, travelling expenss, etc., that the employees made permanent this year were in the service last year, but that last year they were paid out of the. fund known as Contingencies.


Albert Sévigny: Those employees are also engaged to see that the war measures are enforced, such as are under my department; then we have paid from the item

To provide for stamps, etc., in connection with war tax.
-with the Auditor General's authorization.


Georges Henri Boivin: Then, with the Auditor General's authorization, these employees were paid from another item?


Albert Sévigny: There is also the word " salaries."


Georges Henri Boivin: Then, the hon. minister idmits that he has in his department, this year, with a few exceptions, the same number of employees he had last year, except that this year, without increasing their salaries, to reward their good1 services and in the country's interest, he has appointed them as permanent employees; but that it does not cost any more to the country, whether they toe permanent or temporary clerks.
Will the hon. minister explain to us how it is that, for the same number of employees, he is asking this year for $87,000 more than he asked last year?

I Hon. Mr. SEVIlGNY <translation): I am not asking for $87,000, the hon. gentleman forgets that in February last, the House completed the (amount. Therefore, it does not make $87,000.


Georges Henri Boivin: How much short were you? Is it not true that the supplementary estimates called for $30,000, and that these supplementary estimates were accompanied by an explanation from the minister, stating that he had 'been obliged to spend1 $20,000 more; that in order to provide for any contingency, he is .asking to-day, in hi's supplementary estimates, $30,000?
In the supplementary estimates, $30,000 is applied for the House of 'Commons is informed that there is no intention of increasing the number of employees nor the salaries. Instead of increasing salaries by $30,000, they are increased by $87,000, even should i't be necessary to present, as it will surely be done, some further supplementary estimates.


Albert Sévigny: I pointed out to my hon. friend1 that we intend making a new departure in my Department; we intend buying machines to emboss notes and1 cheques. This improvement is being urged upon us and, of course, a staff shall be required for this new service.


Georges Henri Boivin: 
Georges Henri Boivin: 

[Stage Direction]
vie© salaries last yeaT there was $101,000 voted, and for travelling expensesi, rent, fuel, and stationery, there was $60,000 voted. The year before, for the three items, there was only $143,000 voted. In, 1916-17 there was $161,000, or an increase, of $28,000 for that particular service.
Albert Sévigny: Will my hon. friend permit me? In addition to this item of $60,000 voted last year, we had another amount of $30,000 voted in February last.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I quite understand that.


Albert Sévigny: So, this item should read $90,000 instead of $60,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend will look at th estimates of last year he will find his predecessor got $161,000 for carrying on the preventive service, whereas the year before it only cost $143,000. My hon. friend tells us he had a Governor General's warrant out of some fund which gave him $30,000 more, and that was passed at the beginning of this session. This means my hon. friend spent last year $191,000 on a service which only cost $143,000 the year before.


Albert Sévigny: Our increase in revenue last year was a million and a half dollars.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The increased revenue was either from excise or from war tax. When we asked my hon. friend what these preventive officers did, he said he employed 150 extra men to educate the people, and he got the Auditor General to let him take so much money out of the war tax fund. Speaking on this subject last year, my hon. friend's predecessor said in answer to a request by the hon. member for Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux) for an explanation of the increase:
There is an increase of $5,051.25 in the first item, which is due to statutory increases and changes. There is no increase outside of that. On the second item, for extra duty paid at large distilleries and other factories, there is an increase of $1,000 due to increase of business. The same explanation applies to the increase of $500, in the third item, duty paid to officers serving longer hours at other than special surveys. In the fourth item, preventive service contingencies, the increase is only apparent because it was made up of several items. The department is creating a new fund, so as to bring the preventive service under one heading. The creation of this fund does not occasion an increase, because certain amounts are taken from other funds, such for instance as the appropriation in connection with the adulteration of food. In preventive service contingencies, there is a de-

crease of $3,050, in excise contingencies a decrease of $70,000, and in gas and electric light inspection, a decrease of $11,000.
Mr. Lemieux:	You take from other services
and apply to this new service?
Mr. Patenaude:	Yes.
Mr. Lemieux:	And you do not increase the
general vote.
Mr. Patenaude:	There is no increase at
all. You will find a, decrease in all these items.
The result was that this Government came to the House last year and said: We are going to reorganize the preventive service, and it is not going to cost the country a single dollar more. Yet although the department had a vote for preventive service of $28,000 more last year than it had the year before the minister (Mr. Sevigny) tells us they spent $50,000 more on that service, and employed 150 men throughout the country. What were these men employed for? The money is voted for those services in the vote for salaries, extra duty pay at large distilleries, duty pay to officers serving longer hours, and' so on. My hon. friend talks in an uncertain way about war taxes, and about tobacco, and so on-matters which have no relevancy whatever to this question. Why did my hon. friend spend $58,000 more last year in employing extra preventive officers, for which he had no warrant or authority, when his predecessor declared in Parliament last year that what was being done would not cost the country one cent more? In addition, having admitted to the House that out of the vote of $125,000 which was taken for the administering of the war tax last year, he had sufficient surplus to repay the $50,000 which he had overexpended for preventive services, my hon. friend is now asking to take this full $125,000, which is $50,000 more than was needed last. year. I submit, he must place upon the Table a statement of the number of additional preventive officers he employed, where they were employed, and what their particular duties were, and a statement of what possible reason there could be to spend $60,000 in preventive service, without authority and in the face of the representations that anything that was to be done would not cost a single cent more. The Minister of Finance is taxing everybody, yet the Minister of Inland Revenue comes along with heavy increases in his Estimates, without any warrant whatever, and spends this money, as my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) said the other night regarding another matter, like a drunken sailor.


Mr. C. A. WILSON:: Would the minister tell me if there are any preventive officers

in the county of Laval, and if so what are their names and what salaries do they draw? If the minister has not the list with him to-night, I would be pleased to have the information later on.


Albert Sévigny: I will see that a list of those officers is prepared and sent to my hon. friend to-morrow.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think this committee is entitled to know who those additional preventive officers were, where they were employed, and their salaries, in order to find out where the $87,000 has gone. The committee is entitled to that information before the vote passes.


Albert Sévigny: I would be glad to give my hon. friend the information but I have not the list before me.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then let this particular item stand and go on with the others.


Albert Sévigny: I have a list of the temporary employees of the department.
Mr. MACDONALD': But my hon. friend seems to forget that he has a vote, and his predecessor had a vote which will be found at page 20 of the Estimates of this year- which provided for the officials of the department in the Inside Service and for contingencies. This year the amount is $202,412.50, which is an increase of about $9,000 over last year. It has no relation to this vote. This is 'a vote for the Outside Service altogether. If it is not, my hon. friend should ask for his money under the Civil Government Estimates and not under this.


Albert Sévigny: Here is a list of the preventive officers in the Outside Service.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I want the additional ones on which my hon. friend is spending this $87,000. I do not want the whole list. We can get that in the Civil Service list.


Albert Sévigny: I think my hon. friend is wrong when he says that $87,000 was paid to temporary officers last year. I am informed by my deputy minister that the amount paid was $27,000. If my hon. friend wants the list of preventive officers I can read it.


Charles Avila Wilson: If it is not too long you might as well give it now.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend only paid $27,000 for these officers, why is he asking for $87,000 more this year?


Albert Sévigny: I am not.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: By reference to page 84 of the estimates it will be seen that my
hon. friend is asking for additional amounts over last year as follows:
Preventive Service-Contingencies	 $3,000
Preventive Service-Salaries, rent, fuel,
stationery, etc	 54,000
Travelling expenses	 30,000
Total	 $87,000


Albert Sévigny: What about the $30,000 voted in February for last year?
Mr. A1ACDONALD: That is so much more.


Albert Sévigny: That is for last year.


Georges Henri Boivin: The minister says that there was a special vote in the supplementary estimates put through in February last, of $30,000, for the purpose of paying salaries last year. He tells us that these salaries, which were not provided for in the estimates last year, amounted to $27,000, and that they were provided for by the $30,000 vote. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) asks the minister if the estimates last year were short $27,000. If that is so, and if there are increases this year to the extent of $87,000, there is a discrepancy of $60,000.


Albert Sévigny: 
Georges Henri Boivin: But I was referring to
the increase. I take it for granted that what was voted in 1916-17 was more or less honestly expended and that the department was justified in asking for as much this year. But, if the department asks for $87,000 more this year than it had last year, we want to know what is to be done with the money, especially in time of war when we have new taxes imposed upon us every other sitting of the House.


Albert Sévigny: Last year there were the following items: $101,000, $60,000, $125,000, and in February last $30,000 making a total of $316,000. This year we are asking for $155,000, $90,000 and $125,000, making a total of $370,000. Consequently, there is an increase of $54,000. It is the intention of the department to establish a plant for embossing cheques and it is probable this new organization will cost at least $25,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A plant in Ottawa?


Albert Sévigny: A plant in Ottawa for
embossing cheques.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think there is a contract between the Government signed by the

Finance Minister and the American * Bank Note Company for the printing of all bonds, stamps, etc.


Albert Sévigny: I do not know exactly
what the contract is (between the Government and the company, Ibut I am -informed that the company prefer not to emtooss cheques, and are -willing that the work should be done toy my department.


Georges Henri Boivin: What about the difference between $25,000 and- $54,000?


Albert Sévigny: It is for the complete
organization of the preventive service in my department, which is very important. This service is doing well and we have only to look at results to realize it. The revenue, on account of the good service of the employees, is increasing every year, and the department should get some credit for that.


Georges Henri Boivin: The minister omitted from his calculation an increase of $3,000 under the head of contingencies for the preventive service. If he will add that to the $54,000 he will have $57,000 as the exact- amount of the increase.


Albert Sévigny: A few moments ago my hon. friend said it wae $87,000.


Georges Henri Boivin: That was before we had
deducted the $30,000 provided for in the supplementary estimates and which should-have been $27,000 instead of $30,000. Leaving out that $30,000, we still have a difference of $57,000. The minister tells us he is going to -provide for the installation of this plant for -embossing cheques, which, I understood him to say, was going to cost $25,000. The minister will reme-mber that he told the committee about an hour ago that it was ndt his intention to increase the personnel of his department.
Mr. 'SEVIGNY: It is not my intention, but if it is necessary I will do it; if it is not necessary, I will not do it.


Georges Henri Boivin: Therefore, without having any idea whether it is going to toe necessary or not, without having any idea of the number of employees Which must be added, without having any intention of increasing salaries and without any intention of increasing the personnel unless absolutely necessary-and with the right the minister always has to come back to this House with hi-s supplementary estimates next year to provide for any slight increase in the number of employees who may be employed-he asks us

to-day for an additional vote of $57,000, and the only explanation which he gives to us is that it is the -intention of the Government to instal -machinery for embossing cheques for the advantage ot banks and large financial corporations.


Albert Sévigny: And for the advantage
o-f my hon. friend, too.


Georges Henri Boivin: Not at all.


Albert Sévigny: For the advantage of
everybody.
Mr. BOIV'IN: Yo-ur hon. friend can continue as he h-as been doing, buying the war stamps at two cents each and placing them upon his cheques when he has -any funds in the banks to issue cheques -upon. That is wh-at your hon. friend will continue to do and what most of your hon. fripnds on both sides will do. But the large corporations, and especially the trust companies, may find it more convenient to have their cheques embossed. The Government is going to -spend $25,000 fox- their convenience, and the balance o-f the $57,000 is placed there in case it may suit the convenience of my hon. friend to hire more employees, like the one referred to- a -moment ago, who does absolutely nothing. Why not make the employees now in the department work before new ones -are taken on? W-hy employ useless -men, men who do nothing from the beginning of the ye-ar to the end? The minister said that five of these machines could be purchased for $1,300.


Albert Sévigny: I said $1,300 and $1,500.


Georges Henri Boivin: Now the plant is to cost
$25,000. It m-ay -be that the personnel will eat up the balance. If so it is a bad investment for this Government.


Albert Sévigny: We expect to make lots of -money for the Government with th-isinew organization.


Georges Henri Boivin: How much find in wh-at
way?
Mr. -SEVIGNY:	The Government will
not have to pay a -commission o-f from twenty per cent to fifty per cent on the sale of postage stamps.
Mr. BO-IVIN:	I understand that that
commission is paid only in- small country post offices where the war stamps used on cheques wi-ll be very few. The minister cannot get away from- the fact that these cheques are to toe embossed for the convenience o-f ' the big co-r-porations. If these corporations do not wish to pay employees for affixing

the stamps to their cheques, they should pay for the embossing of their cheques But, passing over the $25,000, what of the other $32,000? My hon. friend says it is for employees whom he may engage later on. He cannot say whether it will all be needed, or not for employees who may be taken on upon the eve of a general election. It is cunently reported in the House that we shall have a general election this year, and here is the minister asking us to place $57,000 in his estimates to employ people during the course of the year if it becomes necessary to do so. Who is going to decide, after this House has been dissolved, whether those employees are necessary or not? It will be the minister. How many preventive officers will be employed in Dorchester out of the $57,000? Nobody knows. The vote should not be passed if we cannot be told why the money is needed by the Government.


Albert Sévigny: It is needed by the department to organize the preventive service.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Was there no preventive service before?


Albert Sévigny: Yes, but the business of the department is increasing all the time.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In what way?


Albert Sévigny: I am informed by the deputy minister that two years ago we had no well organized preventive service. Since we have organized the preventive service all over the country the laws of the department have been better enforced and the revenue has increased every year. It is the opinion of the department that this preventive service is rendering very valuable and important service.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the minister
thinks there never was any preventive service until he took charge of this department he is under a strange and weird delusion.


Albert Sévigny: I said two years ago.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We have had a preventive service since Confederation. My hon. friend's predecessor did not talk of creating a service but of bringing the preventive service under one head. He said that was not going to increase the cost to the country. My hon. friend said that last year he employed additional men. I asked for the names, and he said he would give them. I should like to have them. If the information is to be of any value, we
must have the names and 'places where these men are working, and the increased amount my hon. friend is asking, together with an indication of the number of new men who have never been employed, who are now to be employed by him. My hon. friend has not the statement ready, and as it is a warm night, I am willing to let the three items in regard to preventive officers stand, and let him proceed with his Estimates.	*


Albert Sévigny: I will see that the lists are sent to Hansard.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to call the atten tion of the Minister of Finance to this item, " Preventive service-salaries, $155,000." That sum is being asked to cover the salaries of preventive service officers, as against $101,000 a year ago. The Minister of Inland Revenue tried gallantly to defend the item, but he will admit that it is no1 defence. It is election gold, and nothing else. Here we are asked to vote this year $54,000 more than last year for the preventive service of the country, when my hon. friend is coming before Parliament with this legislation imposing a new burden on the people of a most drastic nature. The item may not appear very large to my hon. friend, but if so, it is because at the present day he is dealing with millions and hundreds of millions. But the item will strike the popular imagination as a large amount, and it is by pruning away such useless expenditure, such election expenditure, that my hon. friend will really be what he ought to be, the faithful watchdog of the treasury. We are living in extraordinary times. We are asked, day in and day out, to pay from our income in order to maintain our position at the front and help the Allies to win the war, and this should be the primary consideration of the Government. I said yesterday, when my hon. friend introduced his income tax resolution, that I considered it was a logical sequence of our entering into this war, that while I would approve of the measure, yet the public and the taxpayers of this country would expect that the chief tax gatherer would cut off all unnecessary expenditure. We are this evening discussing an item which is not a very important one, I confess, but looking at the figures for the preventive service salaries this year, we are asked to vote $155,000 as against $100,000 last year. The minister has explained that with this $54,000 additional he would, if need be, pay extra officers. Now we are not in a mood to accept such a vague

explanation, and the people will not listen to such a lame explanation. Let my hon. friend do the heroic thing, and drop this increase of $54,000, which evidently is put in the estimates in view of the general election. On the eve of that election we shall have a crop of preventive officers from one end of the country to the other. Extravagance is always to be condemned, but if, perchance, extravagance had to be condoned, and not condemned, it would be whilst we were in prosperous times, when there was no war, when the Government did not require to have recourse 10 p.m. to drastic taxation measures. Surely, Mr. Chairman, I expect from my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), in whom 1 have,
I must say, some confidence-I should even say, much confidence-better things. It is true he has erred; it is true that he is not with the party with whom he was long associated. I believe he has erred, but I believe that he is honest, that he means [DOT] well, and that at the present time he is doing his best to weather the storm which has gathered around him. I appeal to him, and I am in earnest and sincere about it. The hon. gentleman is taxing right and left, he is taxing the war profiteers, and he has done well in doing so. He is taxing,
I hope, the gentlemen, the patriots who were so sternly rebuked by the officer of the Government, Mr. O'Connor, the other day. He is taxing the common people. The income tax will reach the common people, and the country is patriotic enough to accept those taxation measures, but with some apprehension, I must confess. The country is so patriotic that there is no revolution in sight. On the other hand the country will expect from the Minister of Finance that there shall be no trifling, as in the present instance, with the ordinary expenditures. I said yesterday that you could reduce by fifty per cent the ordinary expenditure of the Government until the war was over, and I stick to my statement, and I say that here is one instance where my hon. friend should cut off this $54,000, which is an absolutely useless expenditure.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I must confess
that I am somewhat overwhelmed by this unexpected compliment by my hon. friend from Rouville. I think there must be something very peculiar in this case, when he finds it necessary to resort to such an unaccustomed and such an unusual course as that which he has pursued. He has stated that the Government might cut the ordinary expenditure of the Dominion in

half. He might just as well have said that we could cut it down to 25 per cent of the present amount. There would be just as much truth in the one statement as in the other, for a statement that the Dominion Government could cut down the expenditure toy one-half is simply an absolute absurdity. Since the war has broken out the Dominion Government, as a Government, and myself, as Finance Minister, have endeavoured in every way possible, so far as the ordinary expenditure and the capital expenditure of this country is concerned, to keep within the closest possible bounds, because we have been awaTe of the burden which the war has imposed and will impose upon us.
I need not go into figures, but I can make this general statement, that, except in so far as the Dominion Government was committed on capital expenditure so that withdrawal would mean heavy loss in work partially completed and in contracts that had been entered into, we have in every way possible reduced our expenditure. There is a matter in connection with our war time expenditures that is not appreciated in this House. It is generally assumed that all ordinary expenditure should be reduced. Upon many of the departments, apart altogether from the wrr, the expenditure has necessarily been increased, the cause indirectly being the war. In addition to that, we must remember that the trade of this country is double what it was before the war, and that means that the public services of this country have had to rise to the occasion. Take the Post Office Department. Does any one mean to suggest that with the enormous volume of business that is being done to-day the expenditure of the Post Office Department could or should be decreased? The other day, when I had the Civil Service Bill before the House, the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) and others protested that we did not pay the 'Civil Service of this country enough. Now we hear to-night that we should cut the expenditure in half. The expenditure of the Post Office Department is necessarily increased by reason of the increased volume of business. My hon. friend is thinking of 1911 and 1910, when the trade of this country was $750,000,000. To-day we are confronted with a situation in which the trade of this country is $2,000,000,000. All the departments administering the Government's functions in connection with that trade naturally have an increase in their expenditure. Take the enormous revenue we are deriving from the Customs Depart-

nient to-day as compared with 1914, or
1910,	or 1911. Does anybody say that there should be a reduced staff in the Customs Department today, seeing that it is swinging the volume of business it does? You cannot expect .a reduction. The same is true of the other departments. Take my own department. The other day the question was asked, no doubt to make it do service on the election platform: How many employees had you in 1911, and how many employees have you to-day? The answer which I gave indicated that we had considerably over 100 more temporary employees in the department than we had in
1911,	.and the statement is sent out to the country that the Department of Finance has over 100 more employees than it had in 1911. Of course, we have over 100 more employees, and if we had'an. additional fifty, we would not have too many to handle the volume of work in the department in connection with the war loans of the Dominion. The administration of the department has necessarily been increased. I had to create .a staff throughout all Canada for the purpose of administering the Business Profits War Tax Act. I had to have a commissioner in every province to represent myself, and those men, had to have with them assistants for the purpose of administering the Act. Does the Dominion lose anything-does the taxpayer of tlie country lose anything-by reason of the fact that we have created a staff for the administration of the Business Profits War Tax Act? Is it good business or *bad that we should spend $100,000 in the administration of the Act, and as a result of the taxation take in for the Dominion of Canada twenty, twenty-five or thirty million dollars a year? The Minister of Inland Revenue has explained to the House the item for preventive officers. What does he want preventive officers for?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What explanation
has he given?


William Thomas White: I was not in at
the time, but I know what explanation he would give, because I know the only explanation lie could give.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He has not given
any.


William Thomas White: The only explanation he could give is that they were required for the purposes of his department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He did not say that.


William Thomas White: The very fact
that the item, is in the estimates indicates that they are required.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is wrong.


William Thomas White: How am I wrong?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Minister of Inland Revenue is not asking for $54,000; he is asking for $155,000 as against $101,000 a year ago, when the War Tax Act was in force. There is an increase of $54,000.


William Thomas White: Let us assume that that is so. The Minister of Inland Revenue estimates that he will require that amount because it is necessary to protect our revenue further than it is protected at the present time. Why does the Minister of Customs appoint additional officers? He appoints them because they are required in connection with his department, to safeguard the revenue of the Dominion. The same thing is true of the Minister of Inland Revenue. My hon. friend (Mr. Lem-ieux) is beside the mark when he speaks of voting $54,000 for the purpose of promoting the political ends of this Government, because that is not the fact; it is not true.
' My hon. friend should be reasonable in his criticism. This $54,000 will not necessarily be expended unless it is required.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is manufacturing an explanation for the Minister of Inland Revenue. He has indulged in one of his flights of eloquence about the war and other subjects which have no relation under Heaven to the explanations which we have been endeavouring to secure from the Minister of Inland Revenue in regard to this matter. What we have been trying to get from the Minister of Inland Revenue is some explanation why he wants $87,000 more than last year.


William Thomas White: Will my hon. friend allow me to suggest to him that I was answering a direct question asked me by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) and a direct criticism which he passed upon the ordinary expenditure of this Government, and that I confined myself absolutely to the point at issue which he raised in his speech?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then am I to understand that the Minister of Finance was not undertaking to help the Minister of Inland Revenue out of a dilemma?


William Thomas White: The Minister of Inland Revenue required no assistance from me. I was answering the hon. member for Rouville.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Beautiful, beautiful! For the last two hours we have been endeavouring to get some intelligible explanation from the Minister of Inland Revenue of the increase in the expenditure of his department. He has already given

us three or four different explanations, and at this moment I defy any hon. gentleman in this House to tell us why this increase was made. The minister gave us as one explanation that last year the accountant of his department made a mistake and the expenditure had to be made up from the war fund. The predecessor of the Minister of Inland Revenue, on whose behalf the Minister of Finance would no doubt have talked just as eloquently as he has to-night, last year had an increase of $28,000 over the year before, and, speaking on this item, said:
The department is creating a new fund so as to bring the preventive service under one heading. The creation of this fund does not occasion an increase because certain amounts are taken from other funds, such for instance as the appropriation in connection with the adulteration of food.
Now either the accountant made a mistake last year or he did not, and if the explanation of the Minister of Inland Revenue is correct, then the remarks of the Minister of Finance are wholly irrelevant. Who was the official that made this mistake, and how did the mistake occur? I find that this matter was before Parliament last year at the time Mr. Patenaude was in charge of the department. The Minister of Public Works also took part in the discussion, and if, after the full and free discussion that was had then, the accountant again made such a mistake, all I can say is that you have a pretty state of affairs in the Inland Revenue Department.
Talking about the war does not do away with the absolute necessity of hon. gentlemen finding out what was the reason for the statement made by the Minister of Inland Revenue as to the error made by the accountant. Let us know what the facts are. The minister says on account of this error $50,000 was taken out of the war fund.
Mr, SEVIGN.Y: Not $50,000, tout $27,000; I have said that more than three times already.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend went on to say:
I am informed by the officers of my department that last year an error was made by the accountant of the department in making an estimate of $101,000, and that we have had, on account of that error, to make an expend!, ture from the War Fund. It is to meet the exigencies of the service that we ask for $155,000 this year.
That is what the Minister of Inland Revenue stated in this House only four weeks ago. He says now that it was only $27,000.

If that is true, why does he want this $28,000 (more. The minister should give us some intelligible explanation as to what he is going to do with the $54,000 increase over what his predecessor asked the House for last year. We have no objection on this side of the House to the minister getting his estimates through, bu.. let us have some sensible explanation of a condition of affairs which my hon. friend himself says exists.


Albert Sévigny: The increase asked for
by my department this year is $57,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Pardon me-$87,000;
made up of $3,000 for preventive service contingencies, $54,000 preventive service salaries, and $30,000 travelling expenses, etc.


Albert Sévigny: My hon. friend will remember that in February last an amount of $30,000 was voted by the House for my department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That makes $117,000 of an increase this year.


Albert Sévigny: That amount of $30,000
was voted for 1916-1917, so that only leaves an increase of $3,000 for contingencies, and $54,000 .for salaries, or $57,000 altogether.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The $30,000 that was voted was for travelling expenses?


Albert Sévigny: Last year $60,000 was
voted for travelling expenses, rent, fuel, stationery, etc. When the department saw that that amount was not sufficient, we decided to take $27,000 out of the $125,000, with the approval of the Auditor General, to pay the preventive officers. Before doing that, the accountant of my department had a consultation With the Auditor General and was advised that there was nothing wrong in arranging matters that way. The officers were doing the .same work that is covered by this item for stamps, stationery, salaries, travelling expenses, etc., in connection with war tax. When the accountant of my department, who is a very good official, saw that he had the authority of the Auditor General he had no scruples about taking this amount of $27,000 out of the $125,000. This year, in February, we asked Parliament for the sum of $30,000 to pay the expenses of 1916-17, that is last year, and the amount was voted. This year there is an increase of $57,000 over the amount voted last year, and out of this $57,000 it is the intention of the department to organize a plant to emboss cheques, which it is estimated will cost about $25,000. That leaves
a balance of about $32,000 of an increase for this year.
It is all very well for my hon. friend to say that the expenditure of the department is increasing all the time, but he should not forget that the revenue of the department is also increasing. In the preventive service as organized by my department there was an increase in revenue of $1,500,000 last year. Now I put it to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), is it not wise to spend $50,000 ot $100,000 if by so doing we can increase the revenue by $1,500,000? Competent officials of my department assure me that next year they anticipate an increase in revenue of $2,000,000, instead of $1,500,000. Under these circumstances I think it is only reasonable and businesslike to make the expenditure asked for in these estimates.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The pyrotechnics indulged in by my hon. friend, and which he has learned from his colleague, have no relation whatever to this item. My hon. friend has a. separate item covering the payment of salaries of officers and inspectors of excise, who collected the extra money that came into that department, and there is an increase of $5,442,50 in that item.
But my hon. friend's explanation is that in the item of travelling expenses, rent, fuel, and stationery-for which $60,000 was added last year-he spent $27,000 more, and that was the money which he says he took out of the item in connection with the war tax. He told us earlier in the evening that it was on account of extra salaries paid to extra officers, and now he tells us that the $27,000 was on this item for which he is asking $90,000, namely, travelling expenses, rent, fuel and stationery. It is clearly evident that my hon. friend thought he would follow the example of his colleague, but he was entirely out of touch with his explanations, because he was paying travelling expenses, rent, fuel and stationery, and he paid $27,000 more last year than his people estimated. If his explanation helps the House, or helps his friends, and if he has told us anything, they are perfectly welcome to the information.


Mr. BUREAU:: May I ask the minister if in the increased expenditure he includes the salaries of the people employed to go around the drug stores and see if the war tax measure is being enforced?


Albert Sévigny: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: If that be so, and if there is such an increase, it was unnecessary for

my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to get wrathy about the accusations made by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lem-ieux), 'when he said there might be some election game in it. I was very much surprised when I saw the hon. minister get somewhat heated over it. May I give an example of what is taking place? In the city of Three Rivers where I live, they had an officer who came and bought Blue Jay corn plasters from eight or nine drug stores. Next morning the proprietors of the stores had summonses to appear before the magistrate. Now all the gentlemen who keep drug stores in Three Rivers are not of the same political complexion, some of them are Tories, some are Grits. So far as the Tories were concerned, this officer seemed to forget the war was on, because while all the Grits were before the magistrate not one Tory came. I went to court and put the question to this officer as to how he happened to forget the defeated candidate in the last Three Rivers election and did not buy any Blue Jay corn plasters from him. I may state here that these men were not drug store keepers, not druggists properly speaking. They sold patent medicines, toilet articles, etc. They did not know there was a chemical composition in this corn plaster, and advantage was taken of it.


William Thomas White: Will my hon. friend permit a question? If this additional expenditure for preventive officers was intended to promote the interests of the Government at,the coming election, is my hon. friend aware that those estimates were brought down before an extension of term of Parliament was denied by the other side of this House? Ifhe hon member for Rouville says that the intention of this item was to engage preventive officers to assist in the coming election. On this side of the House we have not wanted any election, and when those estimates were brought down there was no election in view.


Jacques Bureau: That is not an answer. We knew public opinion wanted a general election. If the Minister of Finance was asleep, we were not. Every one was clamoring for a general election.


An hon. MEMBER:: Only in Quebec.


Jacques Bureau: This "only in Quebec" business is played out. The difference is that in Quebec people speak their minds and you daren't. 'Go outside of Quebec and you will find that the hypocrites, when they get behind the door to make their mark will not make it for "no election;" and they will not make it for conscription 
either. The Minister of Finance is quite a financier, but he has given an explanation here which I do not quite understand. He justifies greater expenditure because we get greater revenue from the Customs Department. May I ask if it takes a man more time to figure out fifty per cent than it does to figure out twenty-five per cent? If you increase the duty from ten per cent to twenty per cent, does the minister say that will justify the doubling of the staff of the Customs Department?


William Thomas White: What about the increased volume of business?


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend spoke of the increased revenue. He said the revenue from the Customs Department was greater.


William Thomas White: Increased revenue comes from increased volume of business.


Jacques Bureau: It comes from increased duty also. Let me come back to my Three Rivers merchants. Will the Minister of Inland Revenue tell me what instructions he gives those gentlemen when they start out	on work of that kind? Is
there a regulation to the effect that they are to protect all the Tories, and haul up .all the Grits, or are there any special instructions given? I would also like to know where he gets his men, who recommends them, and how they are appointed? If I have to see $55,000 of .an ip-creased vote passed to get a party a lot of political friends I want to know how they proceed.


Albert Sévigny: I have before me a memorandum showing that in Three Rivers proceedings were taken against: A. Beli-veau, .P. Dufresne, C. Kleiner, M. Nassif, Pharmacie Pelletier, Pharmacie Williams, A. Boisseau, E. Briere, E. DesBois, Genest and Cloutier, E. Moise, C. Prince and R. O. Dumont.


Jacques Bureau: What about the Pharmacie Normand, the proprietor of which was the Tory candidate in 1911?


Albert Sévigny: There was no report to my department against the Pharmacie Nor-mand. At present we have six cases pending, and seven others resulted in a fine of $50 each. There was no exception.


Jacques Bureau: I may tell my hon. friend that the people who paid the $50 pleaded guilty, and there are no cases pending in Three Rivers. The other complaints were dismissed.


Albert Sévigny: When were they dismissed?


Jacques Bureau: When they were tried.


Albert Sévigny: When was that?


Jacques Bureau: At the time you summoned them. You know the date. It was during the course of last spring. That very same day11 sent a man to buy some Blue Jay corn plasters at the Pharmacie Nor-mand, .and there were no war stamps on it. My hon. friend's officer was not aware of that.


Albert Sévigny: In that case the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) failed in his duty.


Jacques Bureau: There is no use in my hon. friend talking that way. He is not in Dorchester now.


Albert Sévigny: The next time my hon. friend goes to the Pharmacie Normand and finds they do not put stamps on articles which should be stamped, if he will take it up with me, we will institute proceedings right away.


Jacques Bureau: The men employed by the Minister of Inland Revenue were apparently unable to find Mr. Normand's place of business. I forget the exact reason why the other cases were dismissed. I believe it was because of some technicality in the laying of the complaints. Proper instructions were not given to the officers, and the informations were badly laid.* I believe that w.as why the actions were dismissed. Those who paid the $50 pleaded guilty to not having put the stamp on these Blue Jay corn plasters.


An hon. MEMBER:: All Grits?


Jacques Bureau: They were all Grits.
There were four other stores but they were not brought up. I do not know why, unless it was that they were Tories.


Mr. GLASS:: I suppose the Tories put the stamps on?


Jacques Bureau: I tell you they did not. I went around myself, got the stuff, and there were no stamps on it. The Tories are being protected by my hon. friend. It need not bring such a laugh to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance or such-a broad . smile to the faces of my hon. friends opposite. It is an absolute fact. It is only by deeds of the past that we are enabled to judge what will take place in the future, especially with an election pending.


Samuel Francis Glass: Assuming that the statement of my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) is true, and that the hon. Minister
of Inland Revenue has been showing partiality to the Conservatives in Quebec, I feel that I have a grievance against the minister, for in the part of the country from which I come the proceedings that were taken against merchants for infringements of this Aot happened to have been taken against Conservatives.


Jacques Bureau: They are too far away from the minister; he cannot keep his eye on them.


Georges Henri Boivin: Upon what system are these employees, these informers, paid for laying these complaints and for travelling around the country?


Albert Sévigny: They get half the fine.


Georges Henri Boivin: Do they get a salary apart from getting half the fine?


Albert Sévigny: Yes, $900; too small in my judgment.


Georges Henri Boivin: In cases where prosecutions are not proceeded with under orders from the department, do they get any portion of the amount that they would have received had the case gone on?


Albert Sévigny: They receive nothing except their pay.'


Georges Henri Boivin: In that case who pays the travelling expenses?


Albert Sévigny: In many cases, when it is a first offence, and when an affidavit is sent to the department stating that there was no intention to disobey the law, we are not severe, and I think my hon. friend knows it himself.	[DOT]


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend has said
that in some cases where an affidavit is sent by the person complained against to the effect that he had no intention of disobeying the law and that it was only an occasional infraction, the department have remitted the fine on payment of costs. What becomes of the costs in those cases where his own political friends are not proceeded against?


Albert Sévigny: In all such cases the
costs are paid by the defendant. In the two oases that are very well known to my hon. friend from Sheftord, that is what happened.


Georges Henri Boivin: For the benefit of my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) I have explained the case of two friends in whose behalf I applied to the department in connection with a fine. In those two

cases the fine was not collected when an affidavit was filed to the effect that the violation was not intentional, that it was not customary, that the sale was made by a young employee during the absence of the merchant. In those eases the fine was not collected, but the costs were collected. Who paid the costs in the case of the complaint laid against Mr. Welch, druggist, of Waterloo, where the complaint was withdrawn? Were any costs paid by the defendant Mr. Welch who happened to be a Conservative?


Albert Sévigny: I will inquire about this special case.


Georges Henri Boivin: It will be very interesting to the electors of Shefford, especially those who have paid their fines.


Albert Sévigny: Who was representing
Mr. Welch?


Georges Henri Boivin: I think that Mr. Davidson, the defeated Conservative candidate, represented Mr. Welch.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is he a lawyer?


Georges Henri Boivin: He is not a lawyer, but [DOT]
he administers the patronage in Shefford county.


Albert Sévigny: Is Mr. Davidson a lawyer?


Georges Henri Boivin: He is not a lawyer, but
the case never went into court.


Albert Sévigny: Then there would be no costs?


Georges Henri Boivin: There was the cost of
making the complaint, of reporting it to the collector at Sherbrooke, of sending notices from Sherbrooke to Ottawa and the salary and travelling expenses of the officer.


Albert Sévigny: Unless they were paid
by Mr. Davidson.


Georges Henri Boivin: They possibly may have
been paid by Mr. Davidson, but I have my doubts about it.


Jacques Bureau: I understand from the
minister that half the fine goes to the informer or excise officer?


Albert Sévigny: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: And that man gets besides $900 a year?


Albert Sévigny: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Plus travelling expenses? Mr. SEVIGNY: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Does the minister think that it is the proper way of administering his department to give the informer half of the fine? And will he givq us the reasons for that policy?


Albert Sévigny: It is considered by the department the only effective way. It is nothing new. You will see it done every day in our province under the license law.


Mr. DELISLE:: Not half.


Albert Sévigny: I do not know exactly *what the amount is.


Jacques Bureau: Officers under the license law get fifteen per cent. They used to get half the fine but they are doing away with that. What can one think of the minister's statement that the only effective way of carrying on the administration of the department is to give fifty per cent of the fine to the informer? I think that to give $900 to the man who does what this mam did in Three Rivers, plus his travelling expenses, is overpaying him unless the money is to be turned over to the Dorchester election fund or some other fund unknown to the House. You cannot get men who will go around and fish for information for "half the fine, and if you do, you get a class of men who are mot a credit to the department. If you have a good officer and if his salary is not sufficient, raise it. Out of this $57,000 that is being asked for by the minister, there should be enough to raise the salaries of each of these officers to such a point that it will be possible for him to live and do his duty.
I do not believe in giving the informer one half of the fine because those who will do that are generally not the class of men required for this sort of duty. If 'they were paid a salary and travelling expenses I think the Government should get the benefit of - all fines collected.


Mr. MICHAUD:: How much was paid
to the informer at Three Rivers during the last twelve months?


Albert Sévigny: Seven people were fined $50 each; that would mean $175 to the informer.


Jacques Bureau: The minister says there are other cases pending. What are they?


Albert Sévigny: The cases of A. Belineau, P. Dufresne, C. Kleiner, M. Nassif, Phar-macie Pelletier, Pharmacie Williams.


Jacques Bureau: Has there been any report to the department about these cases?


Albert Sévigny: Not yet.


Jacques Bureau: When were the complaints made?


Albert Sévigny: During last spring.


Jacques Bureau: Is not the minister aware that all those cases were dismissed by the magistrate last spring at the time the others pleaded guilty?
Mr. SEVTGiNY: We have no report from the lawyer.


Jacques Bureau: I will not make a report, it is not my duty. To whom was the 5175 paid?
Mr. SEVIGiNY:	I think to Mr. Hardy,
of Quebec.


Jacques Bureau: Has any inquiry been
made by the department about the cases now under advisement before the court?


Albert Sévigny: Probably.


Jacques Bureau: What is the probability
and what was the kind of inquiry? Probably it will rain to-morrow.


Albert Sévigny: This matter is handled
by the secretary of the department, .and we have confidence in our lawyer. When we send a case to a lawyer we ihave confidence in him, and we are waiting for the report.


Jacques Bureau: That is not an explanation. A client generally inquires of his lawyer how his case is progressing.


Albert Sévigny: That is what we do.


Jacques Bureau: Those cases were all tried at the same time and some pleaded guilty.


Albert Sévigny: Were you there at the time?


Jacques Bureau: I was there in Court last spring, and the cases were dismissed because the informations were not properly laid. Why did the minister not inquire about the cases?


Albert Sévigny: Were you there when the others were fined?


Jacques Bureau: The cases were never tried, the defendants deposited their $50.


Albert Sévigny: And were the cases of those fined pleaded at the same time as those dismissed?


Jacques Bureau: I have sat here for seventeen years, and this is the first time I have heard a minister o ill on the Opposition to give him information about his estimates. The minister does not find it worth while to look after this business, after bringing practically all the men in
a particular business in the town into Court. There has been ample time for the minister to get reports about status of the cases.


Albert Sévigny: I do not quite understand my hon. friend. He stages that these cases have been dismissed and at the same time that some of the parties were fined.


Jacques Bureau: They pleaded guilty.


Albert Sévigny: They
pleaded guilty and have been fined $50. Once more my hon. friend* maintains that these cases have been dismissed, whereas from the reports in the department, they would still be under advisement. How could we have a report stating that seven parties . have been fined $50 as provided by the Act, and no report concerning the cases which, according to my hon. friend, have been dismissed?


Jacques Bureau: I see the
point that the minister is trying to make.
I will answer him in English.
The minister asks how it is he has received the money when fines were imposed and that he has no further report about the cases dismissed. That is just the question I am asking the minister. He has been derelict in his duty if he does not know what was done in these cases.


Albert Sévigny: My hon. friend says the cases were dismissed, and my answer is that the cases were not dismissed.


Jacques Bureau: All right.


Albert Sévigny: And the information we have in my department is that the cases are pending.


Jacques Bureau: When did the minister get the last report on these cases?


Albert Sévigny: I am sorry, I have not the date before me tonight.


Georges Henri Boivin: How is it he has let the cases drag on since February last without asking for a report?


Albert Sévigny: We have asked for reports. We have many cases, not only in Three Rivers and Quebec, but all over the country. We follow them as well as we can, and we ask for reports. We have every confidence in the lawyers who represent us.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does the hon. minister
want the House and the country to- believe that, when a case is taken in the. month of February, and he receives fines from a certain number of cases tried at the same time, and asks for a report concerning the other case, and there is no report received up to July, he is going to continue his confidence in that attorney, and to continue to entrust the business of the country to him?


Albert Sévigny: My hon. friend knows very well that if you take an action say in Montreal, it may come before the court three years from now.


Georges Henri Boivin: If my hon. friend had practised law as much as he wishes us to believe we would know that there is a great deal of difference in cases before a Superior Court and cases before a district magistrate. A case may drag along in the Superior Court in Montreal for years, but a case before a district magistrate does not drag along for two or three months or two or three weeks in any place in the country. There is no congestion in the district magistrate's court.


Albert Sévigny: How long did the Lepage case continue in my hon. friend's own district? My hon. friend knows that it was about a year.


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend knows that the Lepage case had nothing to do with the administration of his department, and it would be altogether too long to- explain to this House and the country the good fortune that attended Mr. Lepage in his liberation from the jail, through the good offices of the present Minister of Inland Revenue.


Albert Sévigny: Under the hon. gentleman's recommendation.


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes, it was asked for by the minister. The Lepage preliminary inquiry did not take a year, or six months, or two months. It was over in a month. Lepage was condemned to stand his trial. He remained under bonds for practically three years, awaiting a term of the Court of King's Bench. And when that term was held he refused to come before the court. He obtained an order for speedy trial before the district magistrate, and- after that the trial was over inside of six weeks. Why did not the minister ask for a report in those cases at Three Rivers? Upon what date did my hon. friend rechive the fine in the cases in Three Rivers?


Albert Sévigny: The date is not mentioned here.
CM. Sevignv.]


Georges Henri Boivin: I rose to ask a question a little while ago, and I think it is very important information for the House. What amount has been collected by the
11 p.m. department in general, not from any one section of the country, but from the country as a whole, in fines for infractions of this Act? And how much did the collection of those fines cost the country?


Albert Sévigny: I will add it up.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am perfectly willing that it should be brought down later. I thought it would be a good thing for the country to know.


Mr. McKENZIE:: The last night we discussed the hon. minister's estimate [DOT] I brought to his notice certain correspondence that took place between his department and the Auditor General. This correspondence is found on pages 37, 38 and 39 of the fir=t volume of the Auditor General's Report for the last fiscal year. In the correspondence the Auditor General complains that the department has been employing temporary assistance without complying with the law. The Minister of Finance told us that every thing in connection with the employment of men in the hon. minister's department is performed with mathematical accuracy, on chronometer time, and that being so, I am surprised that the Auditor General found it necessary to engage the attention of the department in many cases to find out how it was that some eleven men, as appears on page 38 of this correspondence, were employed without any apparent authority, or without complying with any regulation. I understood the hon. Minister of Finance to say to-night, in the language of the law, which he was throwing around the Minister of Inland Revenue, that that very learned and responsible body, the Treasury Board, had to have a hand in this before anybody was appointed.


Albert Sévigny: What is the date?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The date of the letter is the 21st December, 1915. This is the latest report of the Auditor General, and up to the end of this correspondence no satisfactory answer is given why those men were taken on without authority and retained without any authority. I did not press this inquiry on the former occasion, because the minister could not be expected to know at the time, but that is now. nearly a month ago. Perhaps the minister forgot that I brought this matter up on that occasion. I was promised some information in regard to it. I find on page 1-39 of this

volume what appears to me to be an irregularity in view of the high standard set in these matters by the Minister of Finance. I find this letter:
Audit Office, November 15, 1916.
Sir,-I have again to call your attention to the correspondence between your department and this office in regard to the employment of Mr. J. A. Cantin as a temporary excise officer. The objection taken was that he could not be properly employed except under the authority of an order in council.
The only action I can find that has been taken was his transfer to the position of temporary acting inspector of electricity at Quebec at the same salary of $1,400.
Was that appointment made by order in council and has he passed the necessary examination prescribed by section 11 of the Electricity Inspection Act of 1907, which states that the Governor in Council may appoint inspectors or assistant inspectors, but not until they havo passed a qualifying examination?
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
E. D. Sutherland, for A. G. The Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue.
I find on 17th November, 1916, this answer from the Department of Inland Revenue:
Dear Mr. Sutherland,-I have your letter of November 16, concerning Mr. J. A. Cantin, Acting Inspector of Electricity at Quebec, at the salary of $1,400 per year.
I may say that Mr. Cantin is a very efficient officer, and has been preparing for his examination ever since he has been transferred to the Gas and Electricity Branch. He will be in position to pass this examination about the 15th of January next, when his position will be rectified.
Hoping this will be satisfactory.
This letter is signed by the deputy minister. Mr.. Sutherland replies to that on 21st November, 1916, stating that the explanation is not at all satisfactory. There is scarcely a young man in Canada but would be glad to join the Civil Service and then attend some educational institution in which he would prepare for an examination while being paid at the rate of $1,400 per annum. The explanation given here is not satisfactory.
The reason for passing the Civil Service Act is that men shall join the Civil Service only after they have properly qualified. When inquiry is made in regard to the matter I have mentioned, not by a party who might be captious about these matters, not by a man like myself who might be trying to find fault, but by the Auditor General, the only explanation given him is that there is a young man, or an old man, or whatever he may be, attending school for the purpose of passing an examination, and in the meantime he is receiving $1,400 a
year from the department, without the slightest pretext on the part of the minister of complying with the Civil Service Act. At all events, there is no pretext to be found in the explanation given by the deputy minister. When these estimates were before the committee on a former occasion I .asked for, and was promised, an explanation. I may say, not only to the Minister of Inland Revenue, but to every minister in the Government, that there is a great deal of complaint about the infraction of the Civil Service Act, .and the criticism is made that the Government apparently consider it is really on the statute book for the purpose of being violated and evaded rather than observed. It would be much better to throw the thing open .altogether than have the farce or pretext of a Civil Service Act when the Act is not observed, when not the slightest attention is paid to it. When it suits the minister to make room for a friend, that friend comes in; he is paid a salary, and the explanation is given that he is at school somewhere, .and while he is at school he is getting .a salary. That is not good government; it is not fair to the people, who, ,at their own expense, are studying in order to pass .the examination, that others should be permitted to become qualified at the expense of the Government and be placed in positions which they do not deserve and for which they have not the required qualifications under the law. I protest against such things, and I hope they will be remedied, and that we shall not be met with such conduct as this again. I hold responsible for this line of action the Minister of Finance, .as he is, ex-officio, a member of the Treasury Board. He told us that not only had we the Apdi-tor General and the head of the department, but we had this higher and stronger protection, this great bulwark for the protection of the people, the Treasury Board, of which he himself is the head and front- but over his head evidently goes this man with his $1,400 a year, although he has not [DOT] the slightest pretext of qualification for the position. I would invite the Minister of Finance to make another eloquent speech in the endeavour to explain away this situation.


William Thomas White: It is too late and too hot.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Minister of Finance speaks with such vim and absolute disregard for time or hot weather.


Albert Sévigny: Mr. Cantin was in the
service at Quebec when the position of in-

speetor of gas and electricity at Quebec became vacant, and Mr. Cantin was transferred to that position at the same salary on the understanding that he would pass his qualifying examination in electricity. I am glad to say that he aid pass an examination and consequently he is to-day legally appointed.
Weights and Measures, gas and electric light inspection, $393,950.


Georges Henri Boivin: I understand from the
note I have just received from the minister tlfat he will give us to-morrow the information that I asked for a -moment ago. I have no objection to the item passing if the minister will give [DOT] the committee the information before his Estimates are finally passed.


Albert Sévigny: The deputy minister informs me that it i-s $10,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the list of officials that the minister -promises to put on Hansard contain the dates of appointment and the addresses of the -appointees?


Albert Sévigny: Yes.
(Mr. MACDONALD: Un-deT which one of these items does the $27,000 come?


Albert Sévigny: Under- salaries.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is
asking for .an increase of $26,000 in the Weights and Measures branch. I could understand there being -an increase in expenditure under Excise, owing .to the -additional revenue, though my hon. friend did not put it on- that ground. But I cannot understand why there should -be this increase of $26,000 under Weights and Measures. I find that l-ast year his predecessor, in war time too, asked $145,000 for salaries of officers, inspectors and assistant inspectors of Weights and Measures, which w-as an increase of $52,650. The minister is now asking for an increase of $10,000 on that one item, and for an increase of $15,000 for rent, fuel, etc. What is -the reason -for that increase?


Albert Sévigny: The actual expenditure
in connection with this item of $80,000 last year was $73,229. The deficit was covered by supplementary estimates voted previously to the adjournment of the House on account of the departure for England of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden). It is estimated that the department will need the amount asked for this year -as travelling expenses have been steadily increasing, and as the branch is developing constantly to keep p-ace with the industrial .activities of

the country, as is evidenced in the increased fees collected for the l-ast three years as follows:	Fees collected in 1915,
$105,000, in 1916, $112,000, and in 1917, $131,630, -showing an increase of $20,000 of fees collected by the department over last year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And my hon. friend proipoises to .spend $25,000 more for the sake of that $20,000?


Albert Sévigny: This branch is not considered by the department as a revenue producer, but a -service that is run in the interest of the public.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why are you putting it forward, then, as a revenue producer?


Albert Sévigny: I quoted the fees collected merely as an evidence of the increased work the department is doing.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend really attempt to say that it is going to cost this country $25,000 more in order that the officials of the Weights and Measures branch may collect $20,000 more fees all over the country? It would not take the officials of the department ten minutes to collect that $20,000 if it was scattered all over the country.


Albert Sévigny: To illustrate how the work of the department is increasing, last year we had to examine 300 more elevator scales in the West than the year previous. This service is run in the interest of the public. The officers must be paid their salaries and travelling expenses, and the only reason we are asking for an increase is that the service is expanding.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend says that there was an expenditure of $73,000 last year, which was $8,000 more than the vote. On June 15, in answer to a question in the House as to this increase, he said:
We were given $65,000 last year by Parliament, but we were short by $15,000, and it is to cover that deficit that we are asking for $15,000 more this year.
Now my hon. friend tells us that it was not $15,000 more than they spent last year, but only $8,000 more; still he asks for $15,000 when the over-expenditure last year, according to the written statement he gave, was only $8,000. What is he going to do with the other $7,000?
'Mr. SEVIGNY:	These estimates -were
prepared in November last, before the end of the fiscal year, and at the time we had not an exact idea as to how we should come out. Our total expenditure last year was

$73,229, and it is figured that the amount required in my department this year will be about $80,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The explanation
about these estimates being prepared last November has no relevancy at all to the matter. On 15th' June my hon. friend told me that the over-expenditure was $15,000; to-night he tells us it is only $8,000. It was on account of the fact that the overexpenditure was said to be $15,000 that he attempted to justify asking for $15,000 more. If the hon. minister wanted to pay the slightest attention to economy, upon what principle does he attempt to get $7,000 more for a service when he would be amply in funds to provide for it, according to his prepared and written statement to-night, with $73,000 instead of $80,000? My hon. friend need not speak about the Estimates having been prepared in November. On 15th June, with his deputy sitting beside him, and after the financial year had ended, he told us it was $15,000; now on reflection he finds it is only $8,000.


Albert Sévigny: I can assure my hon. friend that economy is practised in my department. I must say that generally speaking the officers in the department are underpaid, considering the high cost of living. This applies particularly to the officers in the Outside Service.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't they get half of the fines?


Albert Sévigny: We have about 150 preventive officers, and we have collected about $10,000 in fines. That does not give a very large dividend to each officer. Every day I receive requests for increases in salary, and it is my intention to go before the Minister of Finance shortly and ask him to increase those salaries. We have practised economy to such an extent that we now realize that our officers are not sufficiently paid.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is
coming back to that again, and is giving us this homily aiborut salaries. We are not talking about salaries at all. We are now discussing rent, fuel, travelling expenses, and stationery. Not a cent of that is salaries. It is simply an extravagance of $8,-
000.	The minister could facilitate the passage of his estimates if he would decrease this item by $7,000, which, according to his statement, is surplusage.


Albert Sévigny: It would be a pleasure
to me if I could decrease it, but I am informed by the officers of my department,
who are very competent officials, that the service is increasing and that these amounts are required. It is very easy to show this. In 1915 the fees collected were $100,500. In 1916, the fees collected were $131,000. That is a big increase.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But, you are spending $25,000 more in order to get the $20,000. I have been a member of Parliament for a good many years, and I never saw any minister come here with evidence of such incompetenoy in his department as the minister has shown here on the two occasions he has come to the point. Either be is absolutely incompetent himself, or his officials are incompetent. How does the minister explain the fact that a month ago he told us he had spent $15,000, and on that basis he asked for $15,000, and now he comes and says he spent $8,000, and although he only spent $8,000 he wants $15,-
000.	In justification of that he says, " We collected $20,000 more in fees"-and the next moment he says he wants to increase the salaries of his officials. He is increasing salaries to the extent of $10,000, and his predecessor increased them to the extent of $32,000 last year. My hon. friend has shown clearly in his own statement that he is asking for $7,000 for which there is no necessity under competent administration, and he ought to reduce the vote.


Albert Sévigny: We consider this amount required. It is not my intention to answer the compliment paid me by the hon. member for Pietou.


Mr. COPP:: I would like an explanation of this item:
Provisional allowance of not more than $150 each to officers in Manitoba and provinces west thereof, whose salaries from any government service do not exceed $2,500 .	.	.	$11,000.


Albert Sévigny: It is considered that west of the Great Lakes the cost of living is higher than in the eastern provinces. This practice is followed not only in the Inland Revenue Department but also the Post Office Department.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I think it is absolutely unfair that officials in the western provinces should be given more than those in the eastern provinces. Living expenses are no higher in the West than in the East. Men living in the Maritime Provinces and Quebec are under the same expenses as those in the West.


Albert Sévigny: According to the' information we have in the department, the cost



of living is higher in the West than the East-(I am ready to admit that the cost of living is very high in the East too). It is for that reason that we grant this amount.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have not yet been able to learn that the cost of living in the West is any higher than it is in the East. The time has arrived when preferences of this kind should he cut out, and officials all through the Dominion treated equally in regard to salaries, instead of a little gift and sop being given to officials in one portion of the Dominion while similar treatment is denied to others. Referring to the minister's reply to my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), that it was his intention to give increased salaries to the Outside officials, it seems to me that the argument is not sufficient to justify this increase. Any hon. gentleman who has anything to do with patronage is always able to find numerous applications for any vacancies that occur. It is easy to get applications for these positions from men who know what the salary is, and therefore the argument in that regard does not afford any answer to the question as .to why this increased vote is being asked for. Not only have we not found any difficulty in securing applications to fill these vacancies, but my experience has been that we have too many applications. The minister would be starting out in the right direction if he would put all the officials in his department in the same position, give them equal salaries, and cut out this gift of $150 to western officials.


Albert Sévigny: I can promise my hon. friend that I will give my best consideration to his remarks.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I see an item here of $80,000 in connection with the metric system. In Nova Scotia the Department of Education -and our superintendents of education do not give any recognition practically to the metric system. There has been some agitation in favour of it. I was always against it myself as an innovation that is not workable at all, and one which will create a good deal of disturbance if there is an attempt made to put it into force, at least in the province from which I come. Why are we sperfding money in connection with the metric system?


Albert Sévigny: This is to meet the wishes of teaching institutions all over the country. It is not the intention to establish a new system.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the minister would be good enough to bring down a statement

of the objects to which these increases of $10,000, $15,000 and $1,000 are to be devoted, I think, considering the lateness of the hour, we might allow the item to pass.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I .am really serious
about the metric system. We had it up a couple of years ago, when the Hon. Mr. Nantel was Minister of -Inland Revenue. I always make a fierce attack upon the metric system when it shows its head. I can tell the minister that if he wants rebellion and revolution he will impose upon the Scotchman of Nova Scotia the metric system.


Albert Sévigny: I will certainly do my best to avoid that revolution.


George Perry Graham: Will the minister bring down that information for the. hon. member?


Albert Sévigny: I do not see what further information I could give. The service is increasing all the time.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why could you not
bring down a statement of what you are-going to do with the money?


Albert Sévigny: It would, of course, be
only an estimate prepared iby officers of the department, as is done in every department-.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister's predecessor provided for the increasing cost of living, etc., when he voted an additional $23,000 for the officials of this department. The minister is now supplementing that w-ith another $10,000, making $42,000 in two-years. That is in a department whose whole revenue is not -more than $300,000.
Adulteration of food, etc., and the administration of the Act respecting fertilizers, $50,0-00.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the minister
make a statement with respect to the $10,000 increase here?


Albert Sévigny: In considering the estimates I decided that $40,000 would be enough for this year, so I will move to reduce the item from $50,000 to $40,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: So that we have by our efforts here to-night saved the Minis-j ter of Finance from the necessity of taxing: some person $10,000.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Thomas White the-House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.

Friday, July 27, 1917.