1917-09-15

[Stage Direction]
Copy of an Order in Council approved September 13th, with regard to conditions under which naturalization may be granted to persons who have resided for a long time in this country, although of enemy nationality.-Sir Robert Borden.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 132, to amend The Companies Act.-Mr. Meighen.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I regret having to again ask the Government to lay on the Table the list of tribunals to be appointed under the Military Service Act.


Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of J ustice):: The proclamation establishing the tribunals was officially published in the Canada Gazette of September 12th, and I am producing a copy of the Gazette.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: May I ask if copies will be placed in our postoffice boxes?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am laying it ou the Table now.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I think the Official Gazette goes to each member of Parliament.


Samuel Hughes: I understand so, bnt we never see it. It comes as a newspaper, and is usually thrown in the waste basket.


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid we cannot force hon. gentlemen to read it.


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: May I ask if this
list is subject to amendment, or correction, or increase?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. If conditions should make it necessary it would have to be done. There is a provision in the statute to the effect that it may be done from time to time.


Mr. GRAHAM:: The difficulty about the Gazette going to members is that it goes" to our home address, and we are in Ottawa.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: You are expected to be at home by this time.


George Perry Graham: But the fault is not ours. We have had business here.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will see if I can arrange to have special copies sent to hon. members.


Wilfrid Laurier: According to
what has been published in the newspapers, there seems to be a serious deficiency in the establishment of these tribunals. For instance, it would appear that there were to be 165 tribunals established in the city of Montreal, but there is no indication as to their exact location. It would be somewhat different in the rural districts, for instance in the county of Montmorency, tribunals would be established at St. Anne de Beau-pre, Chateau Richer, and so on. I presume this detail has not been looked into.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In Montreal and, I
think, the larger cities, the intention was that the particular location should be determined by the Registrar, after making inquiry to see what would best suit the convenience of everybody. It is not as easy to fix particular locations in a city as it would be in villages and towns. The intention was that the Registrar should make arrangements for suitable places, and then we would give special notice as to the exact locations.


George Perry Graham: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: I have already stated
in answer to the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) that if conditions show additional tribunals are required they will be provided. This can be done under the statute.


Mr. BUREAU:: Might I ask the minister if the population has been taken into account in the establishment of these tribunals, and if so, how many thousands of population has been determined upon as being entitled to a tribunal?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If my memory serves
me oqrrectly, it was estimated that there should be, generally speaking, a tribunal for about 7,500 of population. Of course, in the larger cities it would not be necessary to 'have as many as that would represent, because of the greater density of population and the greater facility with which people could reach the places established. I understand it was estimated that for every 7,500 of population the largest number of men who would be liable to this call would be about 500. Every one, I presume, will not ask for exemption and 500 ought to be, the maximum of the possible cases which one tribunal would be called upon to deal with.


Samuel Hughes: I understood that a tribunal, if they had a large population or area, could meet in one part of the tribunal area and then move to another without any higher authority intervening?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They will have authority to move from one part to another where there is a sufficient gathering of people at different parts and where such movement will more effectually meet the general convenience.


Samuel Hughes: That is, within their own area?


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Will that only be in the large cities or will it apply to the rural districts also? In Temiscouata there are five tribunals and they are quite distant from each other. Could one of these tribunals proceed to another place and sit there at any time it liked?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, any of the tribunals will be authorized to move from place to place when the exigencies require it. The purpose is to settle the location which shall be the headquarters of the tribunal.


Jacques Bureau: The minister says that it is supposed that no more than 500, out of 7,500, will make an application and that in the cities, the population being denser, they will not have to go far to get to a tribunal. It is not only the question of how far they will have to travel to get to the tribunal that I am interested in for there is also the question of the time taken,to hoar the applications. The question raised by my hon. friend from Temiscouata is a proper one. Take cities such as Hull, Sherbrooke, Three Rivers, Shawinigan or Grand'Mere, which have a population of from 22,000 to 23,000. It would not be so much the inconvenience of getting there as it would be the question of the time that the people would require to take to submit their evidence and have their applications settled. How many tribunals are there in Three Rivers which has a population of 22,000? There are a great many people working in the mills. We have the munition factories, paper mills and various other industries. There should be quite a number of applications. I do not think one tribunal of the kind mentioned in the proclamation will be sufficient. I do not think proper time will be afforded to give due consideration to all the applications. My demand for information is not so much as to the distance to be covered by eacft one who desires to go before the tribunal as it is to the time which it will take to enable the people to .make their applications and to have them properly considered.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no finality
about this list. Tribunals may be established from time to time and after the tribunals have proceeded to their operations, if there is reason to believe that there ;s need for further tribunals, they will be provided. I was under the impression that there was more than one tribunal provided for Three Rivers but I do not speak with any certainty. My own impression would be that more than one tribunal would be required but I will make inquiry. These

things have not been dealt with personally by me but the hon. member can feel quite satisfied that a sufficient number will be provided.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: I notice that in St. John county the parish of St. Martin's has been omitted altogether. Perhaps the minister will take notice of it? I think the Minister of Marine (Mr. Hazen) will agree that there should be a tribunal in St. Martin's. There is one in the parish of Simond's but St. Martin's is a very important section of the county.


Mr. HAZEN:: They thought maybe, that one tribunal would be sufficient for the two parishes of St. Martin's and Simond's. 1 would be disposed to believe that the parish of St. Martin's being the more distant there should be a further tribunal for that parish. It might suit the convenience of the people of Simond's to come into the city because they all come in to do their business. However, I think the matter ought to be looked into.


Charles Murphy: There has been an intimation in the newspapers that a scale of fees has been determined, for the members of the local tribunals. Is that correct?
. Mr. DOHERTY: The matter has not been absolutely settled but I will be able to give the hon. gentleman a positive answer on Monday.


Samuel Hughes: They are not fees, are they?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is a question of remuneration of some description.
PRIVILEGE.	.
Statement by Mr. Boivin denying imputations.
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. G. H. BOIVIN (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In his remarks last evening the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) is reported in Hansard to have spoken as follows:
I was surprised the other night to listen to the speech of the hon. gentleman from Shefford (Mr. Boivin), who seemed to treat with scorn the sacrifices which the relatives of the sol

diers had made in this war. He said they stayed at home and drew separation allowances from the Patriotic Fund. He must have come from a district where men have not gone overseas in large numbers.
The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) also used somewhat similar language. I would ask these hon. gentlemen to read my remarks in Hansard of Monday last,

'and they will be convinced that I did not treat with scorn the sacrifices made by the relatives of soldiers. In my remarks I was making a comparison between the sacrifice made by some soldier's wives and the other women of Canada, who, since the beginning of the war, have given of their time, energy, and means to the cause of the soldiers, but who have had no sons to offer to the cause.
I realize as well as any hon. member of this House, with the probable exception of those who have sons of their own at the front, the enormous sacrifice which mothers and sisters must make to see their loved ones take up arms in defence of the Empire. I resent such interpretation being put upon -my remarks, and such imputation being cast upon me, that I would ever think of treating with -scorn the sacrifices made by the relatives of soldiers.



WAR TAX UPON INCOMES.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Resuming adjourned debate, on the proposed motion of Sir Thomas White for the concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 117, an Act to authorize the levying of a War Tax upon certain incomes, (resumed from Friday, September *)[DOT]
Mr. SPEAKER:: On a previous occasion
when this motion was under consideration, two points of order were taken by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, (1) that the Senate has no power to amend a money Bill, and, (2) if the Senate , makes such an amendment, in view of rule 78, the House is bound to insist on its privileges and reject the amendment.
As to the first point, it is beyond question that, in view of section 53 of the British North America Act, Bills appropriating any part of the public revenue or for imposing any tax or impost must originate in the House of Commons; and there is no doubt that the Senate has neither power to increase the tax or impost nor to change the incidence of the burden of any such tax or impost in any such Bill originating in this House; but the question whether the Senate can make such amendments as have been made in the Bill now under consideration is a point of constitutional law in respect to which it would I think he improper for me to undertake to give an official decision. Matters of such high constitutional import are for the House and not for your Speaker to determine.
With respect to the second point, viz., that Rule 78 prevents the House, from entertaining the present motion, while this rule is an affirmation of what this House considers its powers and prerogatives, there is nothing contained in it or any of our rules which prevents- this House from adopting as its own, amendments such as this now under consideration. In the year 1874, amendments of the Senate to a Bill originating in this House were concurred in with the reservation that such action was not to be construed as a waiver of its rules and privileges. While the action of this House in the year 1874 was with respect to a Bill dealing with Dominion Lands, and the present Bills deals with taxation, in my judgment the principle- involved as to the authority of this House to waive under stated conditions its rights and privileges is the same.
I need only say with respect to Rule 87 that it has no bearing upon or application to the present ease.
After -careful consideration, I am of the opinion that the motion of the Minister of Finance is in order, but should it be accepted by this House I shall give directions to the clerk to make a special entry in the Journals of the House to the effect that this House, while disapproying of any infraction of its privileges or rights by the other House, in this case waives its claims to insist upon such- rights and privileges, but that the waiver of the said rights and privileges in this case is not to be drawn int-o a precedent.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have nothing to say as to your ruling, Sir, but I would suggest that, instead of the caveat proceeding from the Chair, it should he part of the motion itself.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With respect to the point raised by the right hon. member, there is no objection, so far as I am concerned. I may say that I am guided in- taking the action I have taken by similar action on the part of the Speaker of the British House of Commons in respect to an analogous case some ten years ago.


Charles Murphy: Does the precedent to which Your Honour has just referred also extend to the entry which you purpose to have made in the Journals of the House, as emanating from the Speaker rather than from the House?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have used the exact language of the Speaker of the British Hou-so

of Commons, except that I have added a line taken from the entry made in the journals of this House in 1874.


Mr. MACDONALD:: I desire to call the attention of the House to what I think is an important change made by the Senate in this Bill, and which provides that a hearing by the board in regard to the question of the amount of tax to be assessed should be held in camera at the request of the taxpayer. The discussion upon the wisdom of accepting that amendment was cut off by the consideration of the point of order which the Speaker has just decided. It is true that there may be cases in which it would be desirable that that should be done, but I do not think it should be open to every person who may be subject to income tax to insist upon a hearing in camera. It is left to the taxpayer to insist upon a private hearing of the proceedings before the board or Exchequer Court. In the ordinary courts, in cases in which it is desirable that the proceedings should be held in private-and the law permits that in some criminal cases of very serious import

the matter is left in the discretion of the court. Here the person taxed has ' full discretion, no matter what the tribunal may think. It is questionable if it is not desirable to have these proceedings in public, so that the public, who are contributing to the taxes, may know what grounds are raised by parties as reasons for being exempted from this taxation. Very peculiar circumstances might arise under such a provision. No one will want to have his assessment considered in public if he can have a private hearing by simply asking for it. The result will be that all proceedings will be held in secrecy, and the country will not know, this House will not know, no one will be able to tell, except the gentlemen composing the tribunal and the parties to the case, on what principle the thing has been decided.
It does s-eem to me, therefore, that this is not a wise measure, and that some discretion should be left with the tribunal and the court to determine whether or not the rule as to the trying of the case in public should be departed from in this particular instance. We are practically legislating here that the proceedings before a tribunal, in order to ascertain what the assessment of any man should be under the income tax measure, shall be held in private. I do not think that is wise legislation, and I think the House ought to hesi-
[The Speaker.]
tate before declaring that all these proceedings shall be held in private.


Robert Laird Borden: I should have preferred that this amendment had not been made by the Senate. However, as far -as I can ascertain by inquiry, there is not much probability of their receding from it. There is some force in the observations which my hon. friend has put forward. On the other hand, it can hardly be supposed that a board of refeTees composed of responsible and reputable men would be likely to adopt one principle in one case and another principle in another case. Certainly that would not be urged for one moment with regard to the Exchequer Court of Canada. The House may therefore reasonably conclude that there will be an application of the same principle to all cases. The view of the Senate is doubtless based on the consideration that it might be very detrimental to the interest of the taxpayer, not in all cases but in certain cases, if publicity were given to his business affairs to the extent that would be necessary if the proceedings were held in public. It is not desirable that an inquisitorial proceeding of this kind should be conducted in such a way as to be attended with detriment to any man's business. The object of the Bill is to procure a fair assessment, and we have, as a guarantee that this will be done, an investigation by the Board of Referees in the first instance. Then the Crown has the opportunity of an appeal to the Exchequer Court of Canada if it should appear that the determination of the Board of Referees is not in the public interest.


Mr. NESBITT:: Is it only in case of
dispute, or in all cases, that the matter is referred to the Board of Referees?


Robert Laird Borden: The Board of Referees is appointed for the purpose of determining the assessment, and there is an appeal to the Exchequer Court.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton):: My view is very much the same as that of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), and perhaps I have other reasons, which I should like to give to the House. We all know that it is a matter of history that the rich man never pays his fair' share of taxation, as compared with the poor man; I do not care whether it is income taxation, or ordinary taxation by a municipality. The man who owns a small home or a little piece of property is obliged to pay taxes upon it. The assessor can see his property and it is assessed for at least as much as

it is worth, compared with the assessment of other property. But the difficulty about the rich man is that his property is not visible, the assessor cannot see it, and is compelled to take the man's word as to what his income is. I think cases of this kinji which occur in connection with municipal taxation illustrate what is likely to take place in connection with the income tax. We know that there are many people in every municipality in Canada who deliberately and persistently keep their taxation away below what it ought to be by not furnishing proper returns to the assessor. I am not casting aspersions on anybody, but am speaking generally. There is no doubt that the rich man will be just as anxious to pay as little taxation under this measure as under any scheme of municipal taxation, and if you allow these investigations to- be held in camera the public will never know what is taking place. I realize there may be cases where people might pry into the private affairs of some individual, but that is one of the misfortunes incident to the case. A man with an income of $25,000 or $50,000 a year may declare in his statement that his income is $10,000, and his statement goes, because no publicity is given to it, and the average man who would be interested in seeing that this man paid his fair share of taxation is not given an opportunity of being present to find out just what he is paying. Later on, you may possibly get a return from Parliament showing what the taxation was, but if the same policy is adopted by the Government in regard to the income tax as was adopted with regard to the Business Profits War Tax, not only will the public have ho opportunity of knowing what is	taking place when the taxation
is imposed, but they will not know later on what taxation any particular man pays. I have persistently tried this session to find out what taxes have been paid under the Business Profits Tax, and how certain firms and corporations had made their profits, but the Finance Minister has deliberately refused to bring down this information except upon an order of the House. If I want to get this information I can go to his office, he says, and they will give it to me as a member of Parliament. When I asked him if that meant that I could give the information to my constituents I got a very curt answer, implying that if I did that I should be violating his confidence. I could not accept information of that character, so I gave him a list of
four or five firms, all of whom have been doing business in my province, but none of which has paid the Business Profits War Tax. Iif I went to the minister's office I presume I could get the information I desire, but in such a way that he would consider I had violated his confidence if I made the information public. Therefore I did not act on his suggestion, and I and my constituents do not know to-day whether these people have paid anything or not.
If a similar policy were adopted by the Government in respect of the income tax, neither the people of the community nor the representative of those people in Parliament would be able to find out what is going on. I feel very strongly on this question of income tax; it is one of the few policies of the Government with which I am heartily in accord. I have been preaching income tax since August, 1914; at every session of Parliament I have advocated it, and I am glad! indeed that the Government have acceded to the popular demand by introducing this Bill-though it is not anything like as comprehensive as I would like to see it. I am so glad, however, to see the principle established that I am willing to accept whatever hon. gentlemen have brought down, in the hope that later on a large proportion of our revenue will [DOT] he raised by this direct method1 of taxation. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the financial condition of Canada has so changed during the last three years as to revolutionize our whole method of taxation. The time has gone by when we can continue to raise money by means of customs and excise or other indirect methods of taxation. We have to get down to direct taxation, and! to adopt a system so efficient, straight and above hoard that every man will know whether or not his neighbour is paying his fair share of taxation. The moment you allow these assessments or appeals to take place in camera, you take away from the people the right of compelling the rich man to contribute his fair *share of taxation. This is one of the most important questions that has come before Parliament this session. I think that the House should disagree with the proposed amendment, even to the extent of demanding a conference with the Senate. I am sure that if the matter were put before them; if they were shown the tremendous importance of this matter to the people, they would be willing to give it reasonable consideration. If this amendment is adopted, many people will not pay their fair share and many will pay nothing at all.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They have to go before the tribunals. Will the tribunals pass them ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The tribunals will not
know who they are; the tribunals have no discretion in the matter. Take my own case. I believe that under the Act I should be called upon to submit to some sort of statement to the board of tribunals. None of my neighbours know what statement I have submitted; that is all kept quiet. The tribunal will not bother itself very much about it unless some one takes an interest in the matter, and nobody can take an interest in it, because nobody can be present at the hearing. The result is that I get through with the statement that I submitted to the tribunal. If the statement is an honest one, well and good; if it is a dishonest one, there is no check upon) me. And suppose I submitted no statement at all? For the reasons that I have given, I strongly object to the amendment proposed by the Senate.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax):: If it was in the mind of the Senate to prevent the disclosure of private affairs, I do not think that their amendment accomplishes that object. There could hardly be any disclosure of private or personal affairs at the hearing of an appeal by the Exchequer Court; the -appeal would, of necessity, be on a question of principle. I cannot conceive of an appeal to the Exchequer Court having reference to anything else than, the question whether the taxpayer was liable under a certain section of the Act or upon a certain portion of his income. The taxpayer must, in the first instance, fill out the necessary form. If the board are of opinion that additional information is desirable, they can compel him to furnish that additional information or to make a further return; and the board may require the production upon oath by the taxpayer of any information in reference- to his income. In that case there might bo a disclosure of private affaire, but that would very seldom happen. In view of the fact that persons would seldom be required to make a disclosure of personal affairs which would be undesirable or objectionable, it is a pity to establish -any in camera proceedings in connection with the administration of this Act. It sounds peculiar to say that there should be an appeal to the Exchequer Court in camera. I do not think that we should permit the adoption of the principle; I do not think that any taxpayer would -ask for it. Any matters coming before the board either

as a review board or as an assessment board, or before the Exchequer Court, would in very few cases require objectionable disclosures of private affairs. A dispute might arise as to the interpretation of a section or clause of the Act, or whether the income from some foreign investment was liable to taxation. The appeals and reviews will largely relate to matters of principle, not to matters of detail; no taxpayer will object to that. I agree with the member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) that we should insist upon adherence to the Act as it left this House, and that we ask for -a conference with the Senate on the question.


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Speaker, I do not see that the argument that private business of any kind would be disclosed is very strong in this case. If a man were compelled to disclose some process or secret in connection with the production or preparation of a certain commodity, that would be objectionable. But in this case a man goes before the court; he says he has an income of $10,000. If he is carrying on an honest business, I do not think that he should be ashamed to disclose how he is getting his money. On- the other hand, people who get incomes which are not exactly legitimate might be induced to stop carrying on business the nature of which they are afraid to disclose to the public. The principle of having these things carried on behind closed doors is wrong. I simply desire to put myself on record as being absolutely opposed to having these appeals or investigations as to income held behind closed doors.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion be adopted?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lost.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If there is no agreement, I want a vote taken.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is ho agreement.
The motion of Sir Thomas White for concurrence by the House in the amendments made by the Senate was agreed to on the following division:

Messieurs:
Armstrong (Lambton),	Merner,
Bennett (Simcoe),	Morphy,
Borden (Sir Robert),	Morris,
Boys,	Rainville,
Bristol,	Roche,

Clark (Bruce), Clarke (Wellington), Cochrane,
Elliot,
Foster (Sir George), Fripp,
Glass,
Henderson,
Hughes (Sir Sam), Jameson,
Lewis,
Marshall,
Rogers, v Schaffner,
Sexsmith,
Shepherd,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Wallace,
Weichel,
Wright.-34.
Messieurs:
Boivin,
Bureau,
Kyte,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Macdonald,
McKenzie,
Marcile (Bagot), Michaud,
Murphy,
Oliver.-11.

(List of Pairs supplied by Chief Whips.) Messieurs:
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Alguire,
Ames, Sir Herbert, Ball,
Barnard,
Bowman,
Best,
Bennett, R. B., Boyce,
Bradbury,
Burrell,
Carrick,
Chabot,
Clements,
Cockshutt,
Cromwell,
Crothers,
Donaldson,
Davidson,
Doherty,
Green,
Hazen,
Kemp, Sir Edward, McLeod,
McLean, W. F., Middlebro,
Marshall,
Morrison,
Nickle,
Northrup,
Robidoux,
Rainville,
Sevigny,
Stanfield,
Scott,
Stewart, T. J., Thompson (Yukon), Thoburn,
Tremain,	,
Walker,
White, Sir Thomas, Webster,
Wilson.
McMillan,
Nesbitt,
Turgeon,
Achim,
Proulx,
Ross,
Hughes, J.J.,
Martin,
Cruise,
Douglas,
Power,
Beland,
Knowles,
Charlton,
Tobin,
McCoig,
Devlin, .
Carroll,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Buchanan,
Pugsley,
Robb,
Carve 11,
Cardin,
Pardee,
Neely,
Molloy,
Kay,
German,	.
Copp,
Seguin,
Lemieux,
Macdonald,
Ethier,
Loggie,
Sinclair,
McCrea,
Chisholm,
Bickerdike,
Graham,
Gauvreau,
Wilson.



INSPECTION AND SALE ACT.


[Stage Direction]
Sir GEORGE POSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading
of Bill No. 120, to amend the Inspection and Sale Act. He said:	.
I called this order for the purpose of having it discharged from the Order Paper. I wish to make a statement as to' why that is done.
I had not any very strong idea that the measure could be perfected and placed on the statute hooks at this session. My primary idea was to introduce it, have a discussion upon it, and then distribute it widely. That idea will be carried out. As Iron, gentlemen will remember, it deals with marking the contents of packages and containers. While there is a very general, and in fact I might say almost complete, adhesion to the principle, it works out in different ways in different industries, and different wholesale and retail operations, so that it requires a good deal 4 p.m. of investigation and technical information-using " technical " in the sense of the information which is in possession of those who are actually carrying on the operations. The Bill is being widely distributed, and the different interests are asked to send in their recommendations and comments with reference to it. After the election is over and we are back again in this House I hope to intro-' cluce a very perfect Bill. I move, therefore, tnat the order be discharged.
George Perry Graham: Can a private member introduce a Bill of this kind?


George Green Foster: He might intro-nuce it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and order discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 134, An Act to Amend the Dry Dock Subsidies Act, 1910.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the hon. minister please explain?


John Douglas Hazen: The Bill was explained to the House by the Acting Minister of Pub'ic Works when it was introduced and received its first reading, a few days ago. I am sorry my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) is not in his place, as I believe he has made a special study of the measure. He stated on that occasion that he thought it was a measure which was entirely in the public interest. The changes contemplated by this Bill are not very numerous. The principal changes are made for the purpose of making financing

easier for those gentlemen who are willing to engage in the construction of dry docks. It is claimed toy many who have looked into the matter and who are willing to erect dly docks in different parts of the country where they are needed, that under existing circumstances it is impossible for them to make the necessary financial arrangements to carry out the work. The interest allowed at the present time by way of subsidy upon the money which is put into those dry docks is four per cent ' per year for -a period of thirty-five years. It is proposed to make the interest four and one-half per cent a year for the same period, and further, that that interest may be paid half-yearly instead of yearly, as is now the case. The section would read:
(a) if of the first class, a sum not exceeding four and one-half per cent of the cost of the work as fixed and determined under subsection two of this section, half yearly during a period not exceeding thirty-five years from the time the Governor in Council has determined under this Act that the work has been completed.
Then there is a new paragraph added, which provides that no securities can be issued against title subsidy until it has been established to the satisfaction of the minister that not less than $1,000,000 has been spent on the work, and the material upon or for such dock. Under the original statute,! when $1,000,000 worth of work and material had been provided, the minister might allow the issue of securities up to seventy-five per cent of the work actually done and material delivered on the site shown to he free from actual incumbrance. It also provides that the payment of the subsidy may begin when the work done and the materials provided , arpount to $1,000,000. At present the payment of the subsidy cannot be made until the dock is actually completed. In other words, they do not commence to get any aid under the present Subsidy Act until the dock is actually completed and ready for operation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Assuming that the $1,000,000 has been expended and authority has been granted for the paying of the interest on a certain specified amount-


John Douglas Hazen: That is the subsidy.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: -then, supposing the work was not proceeded with-would the department still continue to pay that subsidy, or would the whole thing lapse until the dock was finished?


John Douglas Hazen: The Government would
have to take its chance, of course, with 
regard to that. If the work ceases, the Government would not have to pay the subsidy, but it would have already made certain payments. If people were constructing a dry dock and had spent 31,000,000 in work and materials, the payments of the subsidy would begin when that $1,000,000 had been spent.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And would continue even if the work ceased?


John Douglas Hazen: If they had put $1,000,000 into the work, it is a pretty fair indication that it would be proceeded with and finished.


William Pugsley: And the subsidy would be allowed if the minister was satisfied * that all claims were to be paid?


John Douglas Hazen: Of course the minister
would have to be satisfied that all claims were paid before any bonds were issued. This clause makes the payment of a partial subsidy absolute, whether the dock is completed or not. There are two other changes of a minor nature in the first part of the Act. One provides that the width of the docks shall be increased from 110 feet to 125 feet, and the other provides that the depth of the docks shall be increased, so that the water over the sill shall be 38 feet, not 37 feet as under the present Act. These changes are made in accordance with the representations of the Admiralty, and are rendered necessary because of the larger *size of the vessels which are being built to-day.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Rainville):: I might call attention to the fact that this is the second reading of the Bill. Perhaps those questions would come up more properly when the Bill is in committee.


William Pugsley: I think the Government is acting wisely in, increasing the rate of interest to four and one-half per cent. Investment in dry docks has not proven very attractive to capitalists.
A Dry-dock Act has been on the statute-book since 1882. Various attempts have been made to construct dry-docks under its provisions but no dock of the first class has been built. Under the Act as first passed the subsidy was at the rate of three per cent of the cost. It w,as afterwards increased to three and a half per cent, and then to four per cent. Even with the increases from time to time, there has been very little done in the way of taking advantage of the offer. Some docks of the second class have been constructed; for instance one at Collingwood. I think that

was followed by a second one of the second class. There is also a dock at Port Arthur. Then there is a floating dock at Montreal, and one at Prince Rupert. A graving dock of the first class is pretty expensive. The cost would run up to $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 and the capitalists have not found the proposition sufficiently attractive to take hold of it. In view of the high rate of interest to-day,. I should think that four .and a half per cent would be a reasonable rate of interest to prescribe. With regard to the other . change, that bonds may be issued when $1,000,000 has been expended, I observe by the Bill that the proportion is only 75 per cent. My experience was, when I was a minister that one of the serious drawbacks against capitalists taking hold of the proposition was that the investor felt that his security ought not to be dependent in any way on the ability o.f the company to operate the dock. Under the original statute it was provided that, if at any time the company should cease to operate the dock, the interest on the subsidy should cease. The matter was brought to the attention of the late Government when I was Minister of Public Works and Mr. Fielding was Minister of Finance. The Government recognized that objectionable feature of the statute and a change was made by which it was provided' that when the Government accepted the work and engaged to pay the interest that should be irrevocable and should continue for the period specified , whether the dry-dock was operated or not. Provision was made that the Government should take charge of the dry-dock and operate it, charging up any expenses of operation to the company, but notwithstanding, the paymeent of the subsidy should continue for the specified period. As I understand, the only change that is now made is that an agreement is made by you to pay the subsidy on what you might call progress estimates, no payment to be made until the expenditure has reached the sum of $1,090,000. I should suppose that the margin of 25 per cent ought to be reasonably .sufficient to ensure the full completion of the dry-dock, 'and also that it would be a desirable change make because you can understand how difficult it would .be for any company to finance the whole $5,000,000. It makes it an easier proposition if bonds on progress estimates can be financed during construction. On the whole I would think that the change is a reasonable one. The subsidy is limited to cases where, in the opinion of the Government, a dock of the first class is
necessary in the public interest. I very heartily approve of the Bill. I think there is one slight change that ought to be made.


John Douglas Hazen: You want to put in the
words "per annum?"
Mr. PU'GSLEY: Yes.


John Douglas Hazen: I have that noted.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What ie the policy of the Government with respect to the construction of a dry dock at Halifax? There has been, in the annual estimates, for some years, a sum. for the construction of a dock there, and I have always understood that it was provided for the reason that it would be required partially for naval services. I also understand that on .many occasions the British Admiralty have urged the construction of a dock of the first class at that port. When this resolution was introduced,
I said that the policy of paying a certain rate of interest for a period of years on an issue of bonds was calculated to encourage purely promotion schemes, which was undesirable. The chances of an expensive dry dock being a very profitable project in Canada are very slight indeed either on the Pacific or Atlantic coast. I did urge on that occasion that great care should be taken by the Government in entering into contracts for the construction of dry docks. A dock, for instance, should not be constructed at Yarmouth, N.S., or somewhere on the. St. Lawrence under the Act, simply because some promoter represents to the Government that l^e desires and is in a position to construct such work. That would be bad policy. The point I wished to. make, however, was that if it is the policy of the Government, or the desire of the British Admiralty to have a dock of the first class at the port of Halifax, primarily or partially for na'val purposes, the question then arises whether or not the Government should build the dock of Canada in conjunction with the British Admiralty. I have an idea that if the Government secured the services of a reputable contractor to build the. dry dock upon the basis of bost, plus a small percentage, of profit, in the end a very substantial amount would be saved in the construction. I would not be surprised but that a competent contractor, building on a force contract basis, could build a $5,000,000 dry dock for at least $1,000,000 less than would be required by a company. I fear it is the practice of private companies, when constructing dry docks to increase improperly

the cost of construction. I would like to present that view to the minister, and I would like to know if the construction of a dry-dock at Halifax for naval and commercial purposes has been considered as a matter of policy by the Government.


John Douglas Hazen: There is now a subsidized dry dock at Halifax which, of course, is the naval station on the Atlantic coast, and a very important point. That dock was built with aid from the Government of Canada, the British Government, the Government of Nova Scotia, and the city of Halifax. It has served a very useful purpose, and during the war has been extremely busy all the time. It is not, however, a dock of the first class. The first-class dock of to-day is 1,150 feet in length, and the standard fixed under this Bill is 125 feet width at'the base. The Halifax dock is about 600 feet long. It is most desirable, in the interests of Canada and of the Empire, that there should be a large dry dock at an important naval station such as Halifax. That matter has been considered by the Government. I understand that my hon. friend suggests that the tendency of an Act such as this will be to induce promoters and speculators to embark upon enterprises of this sort. I do not think there is much danger of that occurring, judging from what has taken place in the past, because, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley), no dry dock of the first class has been built under the provisions of the Dry Dock Act up to the present time, and I doubt whether, even with the changes being effected now, promoters, people not bona fide interested in the development of shipping, will be induced to go into enterprises of this sort, because the maintenance of a dock after construction involves large expenditures, and unless those who build such docks can see a fair prospect, after completing the dock and supplying the plant, of doing a considerable volume of business at a fair profit, it is most unlikely that they will put their money into such an enterprise.


William Pugsley: There is no guarantee of principal.


John Douglas Hazen: No. All they get is this amount for a period of thirty-five years, and the amount is barely sufficient, if it is sufficient, to pay the interest on the full amount. Thus they must desire a considerable revenue from the operations of the dock. It is very desirable that, at Halifax on the east coast, and at some point on the

west coast, Esquimalt or Vancouver, there should be first-class docks, in the interest of	the defence	and of the
trade of	Canada, and also ' of the
larger interests of the Empire. The matter has been considered by the Government, and no doubt by previous governments, and when the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) then Minister of Public Works was in England in March and April last, the matter was taken up with the Imperial authorities. He had many interviews with officials of the Admiralty, the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office, and urged the necessity, from the standpoint of the Empire itself, of constructing docks on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, of a size that fwould make them available for the accommodation of the largest war vessels and commercial vessels now afloat. The hon. member for Winnipeg has just informed me that he has some interesting correspondence on that subject which he had with members of the British Government, but that it is impossible for him to lay his hand on it this afternoon; and he has suggested that the matter be allowed to stand until the next sitting so that he may have an opportunity of giving that information to the House in more detail than he can do to-day. Under those circumstances, I suggest that we pass the second reading, with the understanding that we go into committee on the Bill at the next sitting.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Public works chargeable to income-St. John harbour, extension of and repairs to Negro Point breakwater, $250,000.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: How much is there in the main estimates for this?


John Douglas Hazen: Nothing.


Charles Murphy: Is this a new work?


John Douglas Hazen: It is an extension of an old work.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Will the minister explain it?


John Douglas Hazen: The acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Reid) is away to-day, and has asked me to bring the matter before the committee. It was before the committee on a previous occasion and there was some criticism of it. A good many years ago, during the time that the constituency

of St. John was represented by the late Hon. Isaac Burpee, it was decided to extend this breakwater running from the western shore of St. John harbour to Partridge island.


William Pugsley: Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring before you the question of the irregularity of the present proceedings. I do not think the committee is properly constituted. There was no motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair. On every day except Thursday and Friday, the Speaker can only leave the Chair on motion put. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) rose to his feet and was desirous of making some remarks. Under the rule, the Speaker leaves the Chair without motion put on Thursdays and Fridays.


John Douglas Hazen: My understanding was that on Saturdays the same rule prevailed as on Fridays, and I think that will be found in the motion to take Saturdays.


William Pugsley: The motion, which I have before one, reads that the order of precedence on Saturday shall be the same as on Fridays. That does not change the rule that on all days except Thursday and Friday the Speaker can only leave the Chair on motion put.


John Douglas Hazen: I have been proceeding on the idea that on Saturdays exactly the same procedure shall be followed as on Fridays.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will see how important it is.


John Douglas Hazen: Perhaps it would be well to get the Speaker's ruling.


William Pugsley: That might be done.


John Douglas Hazen: We might pass the item and then report progress and obtain a ruling, without prejudice.


Wilfrid Laurier: But if the committee is not properly constituted, what would be gained by passing the item?


John Douglas Hazen: I move that the committee rise, report progress,, and ask leave to sit again this day.	.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.
And the House having resumed.
William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, the occasion for the committee rising was that it might be clearly understood what is the proper course to be pursued on days other than Thursday or Friday. I raised the point that we could not go into Committee of Supply on Saturday without a motion put that you leave the chair. My
hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) said that he was under the impression that it was quite proper for us to go into Supply to-day without question iput, and I think he was sustained in that view by the clerk assistant. The motion passed on the 22nd of June was as follows:
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, it was resolved, that on and after Saturday, the seventh of July, proximo, and on Saturdays* until the end of the ipresent session, the House shall meet at three o'clock in the afternoon; and the order of precedence on Saturdays shall be the same as on Fridays.
I maintain that that does not in any way affect the rule of the House that on Thursdays and Fridays you leave tihe chair without motion put, but on other days the motion must be put.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not in a position to give a reasoned opinion at the moment on the point of order Tafsed by the hon. member for St. John. I left the chair, taking it for granted that the procedure on Saturdays would be precisely the same as upon Fridays, and under Rule 17C I left the chair without putting any question.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the motion of the Prime Minister had been that the procedure on Saturdays shall be the same as on Fridays there would he no difficulty, because the procedure on Fridays is that you leave the chair, Sir, without any question being put. But his motion was not as to the procedure, but as to the order of precedence. The motion simply provided that on Saturdays the same order of business should prevail as on Fridays. As a rule, the Government, at the beginning of a session, takes Tuesdays and Fridays, but on all other days the business of private members has precedence.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As the point raised is
one of considerable importance and requires careful consideration, I would prefer to take the matter under advisement and have time to give a reasoned opinion. At the moment, if pressed for a ruling, I would rule that I can leave the Chair on Saturdays without question put.
, Mr. HAZEN: There is no disposition to press your Honour for a ruling at the moment. I think, without prejudice, we might by unanimous consent of the House go into Committee of Supply, and His Honour might be able to give his ruling on the point of order raised next Monday.


William Pugsley: Perhaps that would be better.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed in. Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainviille in the Chair.
["That is .to carry out the legislation which was passed this year, which, hon. members will remember, gave the $100 increase instead of 'the $50 increase. The original estimates were based on the statutory increase of $50. This is to make up the difference.\nProgress reported."]
John Douglas Hazen: I had started to say that a number of years ago, when the Government of Mr. McKenzie was in power, steps were taken to protect the harbour of St. John from storms by the construction of a breakwater extending from Negro Town point on the western side of the harbour across to Partridge island at the entrance of the harbour. That breakwater has been constructed for a certain distance, but there is a gap remaining between the end1 of the breakwater and Partridge island. The intention always was that that gap should be filled, as will be seen by any hon. gen-telman who has curiosity enough to go to the Public Works Department and look at the plans that have been on file there for many years past. An agitation, however, arose on the part of the schooner owners and others, who complained that if the gap was closed thev would have to take a longer route around Partridge island in order' to enter the harbour, and as a result the work was delayed for many years. The agitation has now entirely ceased, and to-day there is no opposition by any interest in the community, to the construction of this work.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do they know about it?


John Douglas Hazen: It has been talked about for twenty years. There is a universal feeling that the closing up of this gap is essential to the safety of the port and for the protection both of the private wharves and those wharves that have been constructed of late years at considerable expense by this Parliament.


John Howard Sinclair: What has caused this change of view?


John Douglas Hazen: At the present time practically all the vessels coming into the*harbour are propelled by steam or gasolene. There is not a fishing boat that comes up from the island or along the shore that has not a gasolene engine in it, and there is consequently little trouble in running the mile or two extra to get around the island. In addition to that, the schooner trade is not as important as it was in .years gone by. The necessity for this work had been recognized, I think, for very many years past. It has been recognized by those interested in the business of the port, and the construction of the work has been urged from time to time by the Board of

Trade and other public bodies. In 1914, some time before the outbreak of the war, tenders were invited for the construction of the extension to this breakwater. The tenders were received soon after the outbreak of the war. It was stated in the House the other day that the work was not proceeded with because the Government thought the tenders too high, but that was not the case. It was not because of the price at all, if I recollect the circumstances, for the officers of the department considered the price fair and reasonable; but the work whs not gone on with, because the war having broken, out, it was thought desirable to retard construction of all public works as much as possible. Conditions to-day, however, are such that I think it is imperatively necessary that the work should be proceeded with.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Has the war stopped?


John Douglas Hazen: Not at all. I am talking about other conditions, 'as the hon. gentleman would have heard if he had been patient for a moment. A great deal of dredging has been done in the harbour of St. John. Lying across the harbour and forming a natural breakwater, to a certain extent, was what was always spoken of as the Beacon Bar. This formed a natural obstruction to the wave's as they rolled through the gap. This bar has practically been all dredged away during the past five or six years for the purpose of giving a better entrance to the harbour and better facilities for shipping generally.
That obstruction having been removed, the waves caused by westerly gales now come with great force through that gap in the breakwater. On several occasions they have come across the harbour and caused damage to private wharves on the east side. In addition to that, striking against another obstacle, they are deflected back into the berths which have been in the course of construction at West St. John for some years, causing injury to the docks, and, on one or two occasions, rendering them unsafe for shipping. Sometimes the ships have had to be moved out of the docks and taken into the stream. The expenditure made by the Dominion Government at St. John during a number of years past, while running into large sums, has been bringing in considerable revenue. As a result of the construction of these wharves it was possible to send through the port of St. John last year exports to the value of over $200,000,000, an amount which exceeds the value of the goods exported from the port of Boston during the same period. Further than

that, last year the wharfage dues at St. John amounted to over $100,000, or four per cent on an expenditure of $2,500,000. This would largely cover the interest on the expenditures made there up to the present time. It is anticipated that during next winter the receipts will be much larger because shipping will be more extensive. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company has spent a considerable sum in improving yard room and extending sidings along its line between Montreal and St. John. [ am informed that the company will be in a position next winter to handle about 15 or 20 per cent more trade than dt was able to handle last season. If this work is not carried on, there will be great danger in two respects. The privately owned wharves on the east side of the harbour may be seriously damaged-some were damaged last winter and the winter before. Then there is the danger of damage to the wharves that the Government has constructed at very considerable expense, and of injury to ships lying in the docks during storms which in some winters are of a serious:	character. For
these reasons it was thought advisable to put this .item in the estimates this year and to call for tenders for the work. For my part, I wish that the work could have been delayed; I am sorry that it is necessary to ask the country to make the expenditure at this time. But having regard to the importance of the shipping interests at the port of St. John, to the importance to the whole country of having the wharves maintained in safe condition and of giving the necessary protection to the harbour generally, it is only right and proper that this work should be proceeded with if it can be proceeded with at a reasonable figure. Tenders were asked for the work again this year. In 1914 the lowest tender-I speak rn round figures-was something over $800,000. This year the lowest tender was about $738,000. There is another tender $50,000 higher, and there are six or seven, all of which are considerable higher than the two to which I have referred. I understand from the Public Works Department that the tenderers are people of reputation and financial ability. The lowest tender is even lower than the lowest of 1914. The work would have been proceeded with had it not been for the conditions caused by the war, which has lasted much longer than we anticipated at that time.	'	.


Charles Murphy: Has the contract been
awarded?


John Douglas Hazen: No, it cannot be awarded until the item is adopted by the House.


Charles Murphy: What is the departmental estimate of the cost of the work?


John Douglas Hazen: About $200,000 higher than the two lowest tenders.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has said that some dredging was done, a bar was removed and this work made necessary. Was the dredging done at the place that we are now proposing to fill up?


John Douglas Hazen: Oh, no, it is inside of the breakwater. The engineers insist upon the necessity of this work. They say that in the future, in order to secure the needed protection of the harbour, a breakwater should be built from the eastern side of Partridge island running towards the eastern shore in the direction of Red head. However, for the present the work proposed will be very useful. It will {protect wharves of very great value on the east side of the harbour; it will protect the Government docks on the west side 'and the shipping that comes to that port- It would be serious indeed if disaster should occur to any of the ships loading valuable cargoes to be carried overseas. The enormous development of the port of St. John in the last few years, and tli# revenue which is being collected through the Department of Marine and Fisheries in the way of wharfage dues, constitute in themselves a justification for proceeding with this work. In normal times 1 am satisfied that there would not be the slightest objection to its being proceeded with.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: This is a .partial vote; the total expenditure the minister estimates to be $738,000?


John Douglas Hazen: This is a partial vote. A vote has been kept in the estimates practically every year since 1914, because it was felt that some time the work would have to be proceeded with.


William Pugsley: Some years ago when I was Minister of Public Works my attention was called to the importance of this work. We were then deterred from going ahead with it only because of the large expenditure that would be involved. Of course, as the minister states, the business of the port has increased enormously since that time, and any expenditure that is reasonably necessary to protect the wharves and the shipping is thoroughly justified. I think

the minister omitted to mention one reason why this work should be proceeded with. The dredging which has been done in the harbour on the west side has been at Beacon bar, to which my hon. friend referred. A further harbour improvement has been the deepening of the channel leading out from the harbour to the sea. The depth of the channel has been increased to about 28 feet, so that larger steamers may enter and depart without waiting for the rising of the tide. But the channel runs past this open space between the end of the present Breakwater and Partridge island.
The depth of the channel, of course, is very much greater than the depth of the space between the end of the breakwater and the island. The result is that, when storms come from the southwest, a great deal of silt is carried in and deposited in this deep channel, which is being dredged. That must necessarily injure the channel and will add very greatly to the cost of construction of the breakwater in again deepening the channel. There will, therefore, be a very great saving in connection with the keeping of the channel at the proper depth by the construction of this breakwater. That is quite an; important point which ishould also be considered. I am sure the minister will agree with me as to that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I very greatly regret that I am compelled to disagree with the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), and also with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. They make out a good case for certain improvements in the port of St. John, but the same kind of a case could he made out for an improvement in almost any other part in eastern Canada. I should consider myself derelict in my duty if, at this period of the session, in view of the tremendous financial obligations of (this country, I .should silently assent to the proposition that money which has been obtained from the people of this country through taxation for war purposes of that kind. Already during this session, on the estimates that have been brought down, we have voted appropriations for different purposes with absolutely no regard for the terrible financial position in which this country is placed. We hear .much talk .about "winning the war" and about this, that and the other thing being done for the purpose of winning the war. We have taxation to win the war. We .have a Franchise Act to win the war. Any man of intelligence, of course, knows that all that is mere talk.
[Mr. PuESleyl
Before the war the total interest obligations 'o.f this country did not amount to more than $15,000,000. To-day the financial obligations of this country involve an annual expenditure of from $110,000,000 to $120,000,000 in interest upon mortgages which have been placed upon this country. In addition to that, we have .an annual charge of $30,000,000 for pensions to our soldiers. That means that the preliminary obligations of this country, before we can spend a dollar for anything else, will amount hereafter to from $140,000,000 to $150,000,000.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: Surely my hon.
friend is in. error in stating that the total annual interest charge is $110,000,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That amount is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the interest at 5 per cent on over $2,000,000,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The debt of this
country has not yet reached $1,000,000,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am sorry for my
hon. friend. He has not been following the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend
will take the Canada Gazette, which eon-tains the statement of the debt of this country at the end of July, he will find that the amount of the debt at that time was $1,542,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I refer to interestbearing debt.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Thht is interest-bearing debt.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is the gross debt.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is the interestbearing debt. My hon. friend will find on the other side certain assets. The debt of this country, which is concentrated in bonds and debentures, is interest-bear-5 p.m. ing, and that is the statement.
My hon. friend will also remember that we added $650,000,000 of debt to the obligations of this country in assuming the obligation to pay the interest upon that amount of money, including the bonded indebtedness and the existing interest-bearing indebtedness of the Canadian Northern. I put the figures on Hansard about two weeks ago in the presence of the Minister of Finance, and he did not question them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend
knows very well that all that this country is liable for is the difference between the net earnings of that system and what may be necessary to pay the interest on its funded debt, which difference has never yet exceeded $15,000,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend, in
the first place, forgets that, in regard to that obligation, we have to pay the interest upon the bonded indebtedness. Then there is bank indebtedness which is in the vicinity of $100,000,000. Then there are the equipment bonds and there is other current indebtedness, all of which I put in detail upon Hansard some two weeks ago. In addition to that, if my hon. friend will take the capital expenditure which has been voted this year, he will find that to-day the bonded indebtedness and the current indebtedness of this country, upon which indebtedness we have to pay interest, is in the vicinity of $2,250,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will ask my hon. friend to read my statement. I will later on give him the page of Hansard on which I made the computation. I say that is so. If we have to raise $140,000,000 or $150,000,000 in this country every year before we can spend a dollar for carrying on the ordinary affairs of the country, while I know this is a splendid public work and while I have nothing to say as to the arguments put forward by the representatives from St. John on its behalf, the time has come in this country when we must cease expending on building breakwaters or other public works of that description, money which is obtained from the people under the guise .of war expenditure. Any one who looks these things squ rely in the face knows that next year the Minister of Finance of the day will have to bring down an Income Tax Bill so as to include incomes of $500, and every one knows we shall have to resort to i. land tax in order to raise, sufficient money to meet all our needs. If that be so, why should we listen to the eloquent member for St. John who telle a beautiful story about the conditions at that port? Other hon. gentlemen representing other constituencies could, although perhaps not as eloquently as my hon. friend from St. John, tell a story that would appeal very strongly to the sympathies of us all. But at the same time, if it be the case that you have tu keep on taxing the people almost beyond bearing in order to get this money, it is 373
time we stopped building breakwaters and such things. If what I have stated is the exact financial condition of the country- and it is so-then we have no business to vote money for such purposes as this.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I understand from the
minister that he has in the main estimates an appropriation of $100,000 for this work.


William Pugsley: Not this year.


John Douglas Hazen: Not this year.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I understood the minister to say so.	,


John Douglas Hazen: I said we had kept that amount in the estimates foi*some years. It is not in this year's main estimates.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was going to suggest that, on account of the lateness of the season, $100,000 would perhaps be more than could legitimately be expended on the work this year. Even, although that amount is not in the main estimate, I still think what my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has said, is correct, namely, that we keep on voting every few days some large amounts of this kind towards the construction of public works that could possibly be done without during the war. These items are like drops of water-each one unimportant, but all combined making a great total. We have already this year reached a very large figure as the total expenditure for public works, some of which could very well have been done without.
It is not necessary that the items should be mentioned again, because we spoke of some of them at the time they went through. I agree with my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that this is a public work in favour of which, perhaps, much could be said. The minister told us that agitation had been carried on against it for about twenty years, but that the agitation had been given up. I imagine it was given up because people had become tired. If you constantly propose doing a thing for a certain number of years, everybody gets tired of objecting. However, that may be, when you consider that work had been contemplated for twenty years and it was not found necessary to undertake it, I think it could go for a while longer. The probabilities are that the storms mentioned by the minister will not occur again. In any event very little of this money can, be utilized this year. It is getting late in the season now, and the nights are becoming cold. I think the minister might very well drop this item until another year.


John Howard Sinclair: I was a little puzzled over the minister's statement in regard to this expenditure. He said the bar was dug *in the other channel. I cannot understand how the digging of a ibar in the other channel would bring more water into this channel which we are going to fill. Of course, I do not understand the geography of the district, and consequently I would not venture to make any criticism on that point. The minister led us to believe that a bar had been dredged from some channel in the harbour, and the water came in and destroyed the wharves. Now he proposes to fill a place where no bar was ever dug.


John Douglas Hazen: *No, my hon. friend is mistaken.


John Howard Sinclair: Altogether apart from that, this is a new work. The minister will remember there was a very distinct understanding that no new works would be undertaken at the present time. Many new works throughout Canada have been discontinued on account of the war. It was understood that the works which were cut out of the estimates should have first place after the Government resumed the construction of new works. This improvement means an expenditure of about three-quarters of a million dollars, and I think we should not embark on it at the present time. There is a great deal in what my hon. friend from Pictou has said to the effect that we require all the sinews of war we can get for the purpose of carrying on our part in this great conflict, and that we should not ask people to contribute money to a work of thiis kind which has been advocated for, I think the minister said the other night, forty years. If the people have been able to do without it that long, I do not see any reason why it should be gone on with now. We are asking the people to buy post office bonds amounting to $25 notices are published throughout the country asking the women and children to save their money and invest it in those war bonds, and women in isolated places are saving all the money they get for their eggs and chickens until they can accumulate $25 which they will invest in a war bond. We are now proposing to spend 10,000 of these war bonds in order to give the minister sufficient money to build a breakwater in St. John harbour. He is asking a quarter of a million dollars now', but he will want three-quarters of a million before he gets through with the work. I wish to enter my protest against this item.
Administration of Justice-Yukon Territory -Allowance to John Black for performing: 
duties of judge of the Territorial Court for 16J months, $687.50.


Mr. OLIVER:: Perhaps the minister would give a short statement as to the origin of this somewhat peculiar item.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Black is clerk of the Yukon Territorial Court, and legal adviser to the commission. For two periods during which Mr. Justice Macaulay, who is the only judge in the district, was absent on leave, Mr. Black was appointed acting judge and performed the duties of the judge. These two different periods together covered sixteen and a half months. It is proposed to allow him the difference of $41.66 per month, between his actual salary in the office which he permanently holds, and the judge's salary. It was thought fair and equitable to allow him this for taking on these additional and heavier duties during the absence of the judge.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will the minister tel) usihow much Mr. Black has drawing from his own position at the same time.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The judge's salary is
$5,000 a year. The monthly difference between that and the clerk's salary is $41.66, so that it would be just a matter of calculation to determine his salary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is not Mr. Black Commissioner to the Yukon?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, he is the Clerk of the Yukon Territorial Court and legal adviser to the commission.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There are less than 9,000 people in the Yukon and it costs us about $1,000,000 to look after them. With all due deference to the gentleman who may be holding the office of judge, I cannot accept the proposition that we should spend any more money there under present conditions.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in a position to say just what the administration of the Yukon costs as a whole. At the same time we are only dealing with this item of $687.50, which I consider a reasonable allowance to this gentleman for taking on those additional duties during the absence of Mr. Justice Macaulay. I think we could hardly be taxed with extravagance for recognizing this absolutely reasonable claim under the [DOT] circumstances.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will the minister tell us what Mr. Justice Macaulay was doing during those' sixteen months? Was he on a holiday?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He had leave of absence I think. With regard to one of the occasions I quite recall the facts. Mr. Justice Macaulay was given leave on account of the condition of his health and that leave wa6 prolonged by the fact that on his way home he met with an accident on the train which caused quite a long sojourn in the hospital.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We are paying a colossal sum of money for the maintenance of less than 9,000 people in the Yukon. It will be a matter of computation as to how much a head that would be. That is net merely the population of Dawson, but of the whole Yukon Territory. The judge there does what an ordinary police magistrate does in any eastern town for $800 or $900 a year, and glad to get it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The division court clerk could run it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It would hardly be suggested that it would be desirable that we should have no Superior Court judge in the district. The judge has been called upon to deal with capital cases and some cases of very great magnitude on the civil side. When this Administration came into power there were three judges in he Yukon.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But there were very many more people.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the dimunition had practically taken place at the time, because shortly after we came in we felt justified in doing away with two of these judges. We have but one judge, and, at Dawson, he performs the duties of a Higli Court judge, and also performs the duties of a magistrate sitting at the trial of criminal cases. There was some criticism of the fact that he should occupy the two positions, but still, from reasons of economy, we have thought it well to maintain that condition of affairs. The length of the absence of the judge in one case was certainly due to unavoidable causes. I think the circumstances justify the allowance. I have simply the direction of judicial matter? the total expenditure in connection with the administration of the Yukon Territory is not within my control.


Frank Oliver: I do not see any objection to passing this vote. It seems very reasonable that this man, who is performing important duties over and above those that he is ordinarily paid for, should receive some consideration for it. But it is quite obvious, if the Yukon Territory can get along for sixteen and a half months with-
373|
out tne presence of a Superior Court judge, the presence of a Superior Court judge during all the time is not necessary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That absence was in two different periods.


Frank Oliver: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that is quite true, but the opportunity for making that change will only arise to practical advantage when there is a vacancy in the position of judge. The judge is permanently 'appointed, and if we should make the change now I do not think we would be entitled to refuse to pay him his salary.


Frank Oliver: When a vacancy occurs at <some other place on the bench it might be useful to remove the present incumbent in the Yukon. It is not necessary that the change should occur immediately in the Yukon.
Penitentiaries-To provide for a bonus of $100 to each penitentiary officer who was in receipt of a salary of $1,000 or less on April 1, 1917, $26,500.
British Columbia-To pay a compassionate allowance to Mrs. Mary Jane Mackenzie, widow of the late George Mackenzie, industrial guard, $1,200.-$27,700.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the explanation of this bonus?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In view of t-he high cost of living, it has been decided to grant to those employees of penitentiaries who draw salaries of $1,000 and under a.bonus to tide them over this year. It is not an increase in salary, but a temporary payment for this year. It is in line with what has been done in several other departments and what was. done by the amendment to the Civil Service Act in the case of eome of the inside civil servants.


Frank Oliver: On what basis is the compassionate allowance to this widow fixed?
.Mr. DOHERTY: This is not under any fixed arrangement; otherwise we would not need to ask the vote. The circumstances make this case very exceptional. Under the penitentiary law, a man who is retired for illness is entitled to a gratuity which represents a proportion of his salary for the number of years he has served. That proportion is arrived at by taking the salary of the last three years. The husband of this widow served for over thirty-two years in the British Columbia penitentiary. He died from a sudden attack of heart disease, leaving his widow, with a large family of little children, in abject property. Had he been retired through illness, he would have been entitled to a gratuity of, I think, $1,700 or $1,800; but as he died suddenly his case does not come under the Act. On inquiry I find that it is most unlikely that other cases of a similar kind will occur, so that this will not be establishing a precedent. It is a compassionate allowance pure and simple.


Frank Oliver: I hope I shall not be accused of suggesting extravagant expenditures to the Government when I say that, while I feel we should be careful as to the amount of money we expend, I also feel that in the cases of many classes of officials of the Government- we should have some system

by which consideration will be given to them if they retire because of physical unfitness, or to their dependent families in case of death. Many of the great institutions of the country have adopted that principle. In the case of penitentiary officials and others where special trustworthiness is required and where the remuneration is by no means large, I believe the public interest would be served by carrying out the principle now invoked in the case of men retiring owing to physical unfitness. Where a faithful man. has left a dependent fami'y it would not be going too far to. .give to that dependent family the full amount of the so-called gratuity to which, under the .system adopted in the penitentiaries, the man himself would have been entitled had he been retired because of physical unfitness.
Post Office Department-civil government- To provide for an increase in salary of the superintendent of Mail Contracts Branch to $4,500, $750.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is a matter,
not relating to this item, which I should like to bring to the minister's attention. The town of New Glasgow is desirous of having a letter carrier system adopted in the town. I do not know whether it comes within the limits of population and revenue prescribed iby the department but the town has increased in population and importance very considerably of late years, and I think it should be granted a letter carrier service. Has the minister received any reports from his officials on the subject?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We require a population of 12,000 and a revenue of $20,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Perhaps the minister would inquire whether he has received any application from the town itself, and let me know on Monday.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be glad to make inquiry.


John Howard Sinclair: I cordially support this increase in salary. I have known this officer for many years, and have always found him painstaking and most obliging and satisfactory in every way. I do not think this is at all too much for a man of his ability. 1 should like to say a word on a matter which I brought up in the House last year when the Post Office estimates were up. I do not know whether any attention has been paid to the matter by the department or not, but I think that some consideration should be given to those places that are distant foT a considerable number of miles from railway stations, by

getting automobiles to carry the mail in place of the old-fashioned system of couriers. In Nova Scotia the railway runs through the centre of the province, and there are practically no branch lines, and many villages have grown up at a distance from the railway stations. Rural delivery is not satisfactory on a route of forty miles or more, with people settled all along the route, because by the time the mail arrives at the end of the road it is very late. One thing these people want is a sufficient number of post offices along the route, and also a quick delivery by motor car. There is no doubt that it would be a great convenience. It has been taken up already in some places by private enterprises, but
I should	like	[DOT]to	see	the department	ask	for	two	classes of ten-	ders;	one	for	a	service	carried by
a motor car, in the summer especially, and the other, for a service carried tn the old-fashioned way. If this was done the minister would be able to see the difference in cost. Personally, I do not think it would cost a great deal more to have the mail delivered by automobile. The livery stable people very often have charge of these long routes, and in the summer season they could use their horses for other purposes.
I can assure the minister that it would be a great accommodation to these people to have the mail delivered by motor car especially in the summer season. In places where the automobile has been adopted by private enterprise people are now getting their mail at four o'clock in the afternoon, whereas they did not get it until nine o'clock at night under the old system. The minister will see that the automobile delivery would be a great advantage, and if it can be done at not too great a cost, I think it should be done.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This work is done under contract, of course. We do not furnish horses and wagons or .motor cars for the carriage of the mail, and therefore it would be a matter of ascertaining whether we could find people who would contract to deliver the mail by automobile, and who would not charge an unduly greater price than is charged by the men who now have the contract. I shall be very glad to look into the matter of comparative cost, and if the difference in cost is not too great I would be disposed to agree with my hon. friend as to the advantage of adopting the other method.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think there should be very much difficulty about it. The deputy minister knows that the department specifies the class of vehicle that is to carry the mail-a one-horse or two-horse rig and so on. It would be an easy matter for the department to stipulate that during certain months of the year the mail shall be carried by automobile.
Post Office Department-To provide tor an increase in salary of the superintendent of Mail Contracts Branch to $4,450, $750; to provide for an increase in salary of the accountant to $4,000, $500; to provide for the salaries of two clerks in First Division, subdivision B: one at $2,700, one at $2,300, $5,000 ; to hereby promote G. A. D. Mailleue, F. M. S. Jenkins and T. M. Oliver from Third Division, subdivision A, to Second Division, subdivision B, at $1,250 each, and Joseph Marier at $1,200, $4,950 ; to provide for the promotion of thirty-two clerks from Third Division, subdivision A, to Second Division, subdivision B, $1,600-$12,800.


Frank Oliver: I notice that it costs $4,950 to promote four men, and only $1,600 to promote thirty-two men. How is it that one party comes so much more expensive than the other?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that in the case of the four men their salaries are $1,200 each. Their promotion to a higher class involves an increase of $50, and their promotion leaves vacancies in the division they have just left. I; the vacancies in the lower class aTe not filled, of course the money will lie there. But putting these clerks into this class necessitates providing salaries for clerks in the class from which they are promoted Thirty-two clerks in the Third Division, subdivision A, are, under the Civil Service Act recently passed, entitled to promotion to Second Division, subdivision B, and to provide for that $50 each is 'required for thirty-two men.
Pensions - European war-further amount required, $2,000,000.


Frank Oliver: What amount has already been voted for pensions?


John Douglas Hazen: I have a statement from the Board of Pension Commissioners showing the amount that will be required for the year. The total amount required is $8,000,000, made us as follows:
1.	Pensions already granted-
Amount paid for pensions in Canada and England for months of
April, May and June, 1917	 $1,253,470
Estimate of pensions to be paid from July 1, 1917, to March 31, jgig	,		 3,021,637

2.	New Pensions-
New pensions estimated at $1,800 per month from July 1, 1917, to March 31, 1918, at average of $400 per pension per month	$2,700,000

The average of $400 per pension per month Is based on past business;	1,000 pensions for
April, 1917, working out at $450 per annum, and at the same number for May, 1917, working out at $380 (per annum.
3.	Gratuities (for disability-Class 6)- Gratuities paid April, May
and June, 1917	$ 29,400
Estimates from July 1,
1917, to March 31, 1918, average $300 per month for 9 months, at $50 per
gratuity	 135,000

$	164,400

4.	Estimated expenses of administering pensions-
Salaries, rentals, etc	$	470,000
The total has been put, in round figures, at $8,000,000. The amount of $2,000,000 is further required, in addition to the amount provided in the main estimates, in order to meet expenses up to March 31 next.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the maximum amount allowed to a totally disabled soldier?


John Douglas Hazen: According to the report made to the House last year, and made effective by Order in Council under the War Measures Act, in the event of total disability a private gets $480.'


John Howard Sinclair: There is no change?


John Douglas Hazen: There has been no change up to the present, but the Prime Minister has stated to the House that he intends under the War Measures Act to increase that amount, having regard to the advance m the cost of living and to other, considerations.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the minister say how much the increase will be?


John Douglas Hazen: No, it has not been fixed. In fact, it has not yet been definitely considered.


Frank Oliver: My information is that there is grave reason for complaint in respect oif the action of the pension commissioners in dealing with claims involving less than total disability. Perhaps it would be 'better, under all the circumstances, if we did not pass the item now, because it is a matter of very great importance and might very well be the subject of some slight discussion in the House.


John Douglas Hazen: If the hon. gentleman wants the item to stand over until next day that will be all right.
Civil Government-departments various____To
pay to each of the officers, clerks and employees in the Second Division, who obtained the ordinary annual increase during the present IMr. Hazen.}
year on or subsequent to the first day of April, 1917, and previous to the coming into force of the Civil Service Amendment Act of 1917 an additional amount of $50, $29,825 ; to .provide for any increase of salary under the Civil Service Amendment Act of 1917, not otherwise provided for therein, $32,500-$63,325.


John Douglas Hazen: That is .to carry out the legislation which was passed this year, which, hon. members will remember, gave the $100 increase instead of 'the $50 increase. The original estimates were based on the statutory increase of $50. This is to make up the difference.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
Regulations re pay and allowances to officers and men .after discharge from the Canadian Naval Service.-Hon. Mr. Hazen.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Hazen the House adjourned .at 6 p.m.
Monday, September 17, 1917.