1917-05-29

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT RESPECTING INSURANCE.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 54, to amend the Criminal Code respecting insurance. He said: This Bill is intended to complement the Bill introduced a few days ago by the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), the new Insurance Act. It was considered that the carrying on of business not in compliance with certain requirements of that proposed Act would involve so serious public wrong as to justify its being dealt with as a matter of criminal law. Further, it is considered desirable that it should be made quite evident that in dealing with the mattar Parliament was dealing with it as a matter of criminal law, and this because of certain views that were expressed in connection with the litigation arising out of the previous Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
PENNY [BANK ACT AMENDMENT.
Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance), moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 55, to amend the Penny Bank Act. He said:	The object of this Bill is to
authorize the boards of directors of penny banks to invest the funds of these banks in Dominion Government securities, subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance.
Mr. PUGSLEY:: They do not issue any paper money?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 50, to amend the Bank Act. He said: This Bill is to authorize banks to loan money to farmers on live stock, taking a simple form of security therefor, under section 88 of the Bank Act,
Mr. GRAHAM:: Does that lien rank ahead of an ordinary chattel mortgage?


William Thomas White: Legislation is to be introduced by which the law giving

authority to banks to make loans upon chattel mortgage upon live stock will be repealed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Sir THOMAS WHITE moved for leave tc introduce Bill No. 57 to amend the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916. He said: This Bill is founded on a resolution which has already been concurred in by the House.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 51. An 'Act for the relief of Ilelbert Ralph O'Neil.-Mr. Buchanan.
Bill No. 52. An Act for the relief of Edward Austin Barnwell.-Mr. Bennett (Calgary).

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: I desire to read a telegram which has relation to the taking up of the Grand Trunk track:
Pochahontas, Alberta, May 25, 1917. Hon. Frank Oliver,
Ottawa, Ont.
Section men have started uncoupling: track. Advise how we shall be taken care of.
Jasper Park Collieries.
I desire to advise the House that the Jasper Park collieries represent a capital investment of $600,000. Their April output was 7,700 tons. The collieries have a capacity of 12,000 tons a month, They have 116 men on the payroll, and their April payroll amounted to $11,846. During the past year the Grand Trunk bought from the Jasper Park ^collieries 82,450 tons of coal, and that road will need from these collieries 100,000 tons, this year. I desire to ask the Minister of Railways how it is proposed to handle the output of this mine when the railway track is torn up.


Mr. COCHRANE:: The collieries have
been informed that they will be looked after and that their business will not be interrupted.


Frank Oliver: I give notice that on a later occasion I will ask for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing this matter.



PURCHASE OF CHEESE BY BRITISH GOVERNMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHN ANGUS McMILLAN (Glengarry) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the
attention of the Government, particularly that of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell), to the question of the manufacture and sale of cheese. It appears that the Government appointed a commission a few weeks ago for what purpose I do not know, but although the commission has been appointed it is still, I 'believe, unorganized. We .have been manufacturing cheese for the past seven weeks, but up to the present time we are not able to dispose of our cheese. The thing has. become very serious. The factories have become so congested that they have no place to store their cheese and are not otherwise able to dispose of it, The Government, I understand, have undertaken through this commission, to have the British Board of Trade make an offer for the whole Canadian product, 'but up to the present time the Government has not succeeded in securing such an offer. New Zealand and Australia have already sold their cheese. The Americans are shipping out their cheese regularly from New York and several British ships [DOT]have already carried United States* cheese to British ports. Not a pound of cheese has left our ports up to the present time. Our farmers have become alarmed and it is a very serious matter for the business people throughout this part of Ontario.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is not in OTder to enter into a discussion. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question of the Government, there is no objection, in>
reason, to his laying the ground for that question, but he cannot discuss the subject.


John Angus McMillan: I will conclude -by asking the Government if it is their intention to- see to it that no further time shall be lost in having an offer made by the British Government for the cheese product of this country.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) will doubtless give a fuller answer, but I may say that I am aware that certain communications during the past week or ten days have passed between this Government and the British Government in Tegard to the matter which the hon. gentleman has brought to the attention of the House. I understand from these communications that cheese is not being shipped from the United

States as mentioned by my hon. friend. I am quite confident that that is the information we have received. However, I shall direct the attention of the- Minister of Agriculture to the matter and he will be able to give my hon. friend, I think, a fuller answer. I can assure him that we have not lost sight of the matter and that some urgent representations have been addressed on the subject.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: This morning I discussed this subject with the Minister of Agriculture, on account of representations made to me by some of my constituents. The minister gave me to understand that he was going to have an interview with a representative of the British Government this afternoon,' and that he would make some statement a little later on the subject.



EMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS ON CANADIANS OF MILITARY AGE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: It might not be necessary for those over forty-five years of age, but we do not all carry the family Bible with us to show the date of our birth.


Robert Laird Borden: It might be more convenient if we were all so provided on every occasion.


Mr. LALOR:: I have found that a member's railway pass is all that is necessary on the border.



CORRECTION OF NEWSPAPER ARTICLE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JAMES MORRIS (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to an article that appeared in Hansard on the 10th May. The hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Lanctot), in the course of a speech that he made on that date, quoted an article from a newspaper that is published, I believe, in Montreal, by one Tancrede Marsil wherein he states that previous to the election of 1911 I went down on my knees to some of his friends and begged them to allow me to take part in a meeting they were holding. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that that statement is absolutely without foundation.


An Hon. MEMBER:: Never on your knees?


James Morris: Never to a man of that stamp. I shall not attempt to read this article and I shall not comment upon it farther than to say that this gentleman devotes a good deal of time to heaping abuse on the head of your humble servant. I much prefer abuse from a man of that kind than his approbation. The hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville made other statements in reference to myself that I shall not allude to farther than to say that if he is proud of his alliance with Mr. Tancrede Marsil I doubt if any of his friends around him are.



CONSTRUCTION OF WOODEN SHIPS.

[Stage Direction]
On the.Orders of the Day:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would like to ask the hon. the Secretary of State (Mr. Patenaude) if he would favourably consider a proposition to issue to members of Parliament a passport or a permanent pass which would enable them to enter the United States without going to the trouble of appearing before a photographer.


Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior):: I may say to the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. K. Maclean) that there are application forms to be had from any of the postmasters and which have to be filled in. *The permits are issued by the Dominion immigration officers. These officers are located on the boundary line and they board the trains.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Cannot that be avoided by issuing special passports to members of Parliament?


William James Roche: Yes, they can be issued in the city from the office of the Superintendent of Immigration.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) suggests that in so far as members are concerned, some more direct, method might be devised so that they would not be put to delay or inconvenience. I will speak to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior about that and he will endeavour to arrange it.
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY: Is the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) yet in a position to make any announcement to the House in regard to the construction of wooden ships in Canada? In the absence of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen)-1 may say that he confirmed a statement which I made that the Imperial Munitions Board are limiting the size of these vessels to

2,500 tons. In consequence of quite large timber' being required, these vessels can only be built on the western coast but there is a very large number of shipyards in the Maritime Provinces where vessels of from 500 to 1,000 tons could be constructed. I have had quite a number of letters from people who say that there are shipyards available. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries stated that he has endeavoured to find out why the Munitions Board limited the size to not less than 2,500 tons but he has not been able to get any satisfactory reason. I may say to my hon. friend that there is-


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Be careful or
you will be making a speech.


William Pugsley: No, this is the reason for my question. There is a most urgent need of small vessels of from 500 to 1,000 tons in connection with the transportation business of Canada. In the city of St. John the question of anthracite coal has become most serious, the price is going up, the supply is getting very scarce and the dealers say that they do not know whether they will be aible to supply coal to the people of St. John during the coming winter. That is owing tc the scarcity of vessels. I do think that, while it is important to do what we can for the Allies in the way of transportation, it is important also to keep our own people from either -starving or freezing to death. I should like to know if the Government have any communication to make in respect to the building of smaller wooden vessels in the eastern provinces.


George Eulas Foster: I shall not imitate my hon. friend in making two or three speeches on different subjects, but shall confine myself to such answer as I can give, and make my answer as terse and brief as possible. The Imperial Munitions Board arq building such vessels as they are building on the order of the British Government, and they build to the specifications that the British Government requires. The Canadian Government is furnishing no shipyards, making no contracts, planning and building no vessels other than the 2,500 tons vessels that are being built by the Imperial Munitions Board. My hon. friend knew that before, and I am afraid I have not added much to the sum of hi-s knowledge.


William Pugsley: Of course I knew
that; but I want.to know if the Government is going to do anything.


George Eulas Foster: I may say that with a Government so active and of such ability as ours, if I undertook to tell my hon. friend all we were going to do, I should be making a speech instead of answering a question.


William Pugsley: I appreciate the sarcasm of the hon. minister.	v



SUPPLY.


[Stage Direction]
Tariff.
On the motion of Sir Thomas White that the House do go into Committee of Supply.
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton) moved in amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion he struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"In the opinion of this House it would be in the public interest if the Customs Tariff Act were so amended as to provide:
1.	That wheat, wheat flour, and all other products of wheat be placed uponi the free list.
2.	That farm implements and machinery, farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery, and repairs for same, rough and partly dressed lumber, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, cement and fertilizers be added to the free list.
3.	That staple foods and food products (other than wheat flour), domestic animals and foods therefor, be admitted into Canada free of duty when coming from and being the product of, any country admitting like Canadian articles into such country free of duty.
4.	That substantial reductions be made in the general tariff on all articles imported into Canada, excepting luxuries.
5.	That the British Preference be increased to fifty per cent of the general tariff."
Mr. J. P. MOLLOY (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my desire, nor is it my intention, to prolong this ddbate at any length, but as this is a matter affecting the tariff, which is of vital interest to everybody in Canada, and particularly to the people in the county from which I come, I desire to say a word. I am heartily in favour of the amendment of my hon. friend the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). His proposals are of vital importance to the people not only of western Canada, but of all Canada. In some sections of Canada, and In this House, the moment any one suggests any downward amendment to the tariff there aie those who think that it is desired to injure the industries of this country, that is to say, the manufacturing industries of this country. We do not intend, nor is it our desire, to injure any one; but in asking for certain amendments and for reductions from time to time we do ask that the manufacturers of the articles which we use, day

in and day out, should lower their prices, or, in other words, be a little more reasonable in their charges. The one thing that is asked for in Canada to-day is production and more production. Well, lower the tariff and cheapen production. If you raise the cost of production so that your people produce at a loss it will result in stagnation, the very thing which at present we must try to and will avoid.
One of the reforms asked for in this amendment, free wheat, has been granted, and we hope that wheat will remain on the free list permanently. Free wheat has come after a lot o.f education and after a long wait on the part of the people. However, the people of this country will appreciate it, and we all appreciate it, I am sure, in western Canada, because it will be of direct benefit to us. In the United States, the nearest market to the producer of grain in western Canada,they find it more profitable to raise cotton and corn than to raise wheat, and they desire our wheat also for the simple reason that it is the best wheat grown in the world, and by taking our wheat, as they will, and mixing it with their own, they will produce foodstuffs of better quality than they otherwise could.
Many of the other articles mentioned in this amendment are of great importance to the people of the West. For instance, cement, which has become almost prohibitive in price, is 'in veTy general use. In Canada to-day every one, particularly the farming population, are using cement, they find it more profitable in the long run to build with oeiment than to use any other form of foundation, and that foT many reasons. So it would be in the interest of the people generally to have the duty removed from cement.
Many other things which rn'ight have been added to the list are not included in this amendment. However, we should be very glad if we could receive what is now asked for.
In replying to the hon. member for Edmonton, the Minister of Finance made the statement that the farmers of Canada were never ;SO prosperous as at the present time. I hope that is true, although I cannot agree with the statement. Last year it dtid not apply to the farmers of Manitoba by any means. The wheat crop of that province was ruined by rust. Very few farmers raised grade number three; the greate1-part of the wheat raised in Manitoba last year was grades numbers four, five and six, and the price paid was not 53 a bushel as some people imagine, either this year or
at any other time. In the first place, the wheat was not there; the wheat was disposed of before this abnormal increase in price took place. The price which wheat has recently brought is, I say as a farmer, too high; it is too much for any bushel of wheat that has ever been raised. Wheat can be raised at a profit for a much lower selling price than 53. But the farmers of the country, with very few exceptions, did not receive any 53 for their wheat, although the people of eastern Canada are buying their flouT at a price based on a price of 53 per bushel for wheat. Speaking from my own experience and that of the majority of the people in the district in which I live, and I think also of the majority of the people in. the province of Manitoba, I can say thait the price which the farmers received for their wheat was 51-20, 51-40, 51.00 or 51-70, and not 53; and the millers w.ho are selling to the people of Canada flour at 515 a barrel, purchased tlhe wheat from which it is made at the prices I have mentioned.
None of this profit came to us. We in western Canada never objected to the prices that we got for our produce, but we have, and with good reason, objected to the prices that we have had to pay for the things that we have had to buy. This brings us back to the question of farm implements. In western Canada farming is carried on on a large scale, particularly when it is compared with farming in the East. Consequently, to obtain the necessary large machinery, such as four-horse binders, ploughs, harrows, and such articles, entails considerable expense. The average man who begins farming in the West starts as a poor man, and the expenditure of a large amount of money at the outset is necessary in order that he may be furnished with all the things that he requires, for farming. The price of farm machinery is going up day by day. If a few months ago you had asked any gentleman dealing in farm machinery in the West what was the price of a gang plough or binder, he would have said: it is so much now, but the price will be increased on the first day of May. I have no doubt that if you inquire to-day in the West as to the price of a binder, you will be told that the price is a certain amount, but that it will be increased after a certain date. The same applies to every article which the farmer in the West uses, and to none does it apply in a more marked manner than to tractors, tractor ploughs and engines. It is very necessary that the duties should be

In conclusion, I will say that all the people of western Canada desire might be summed up in the two words "fair play"; that they receive a proper and fair price for their grain; that they pay a fair and reasonable, transportation charge, and that the railways of this country in the years to come be compelled to haul for a reasonable charge the produce of the grain grower and of the stock grower of western Canada to the markets of eastern Canada, and in that way be a benefit, not only to the producer in the West, but to the consumer in the East.


Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: 
REVISED EDITI )N COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
action as they have taken in Great Britain, in the United States and in other countries, that is, by direct action on the part of the Government to' eliminate all that pertains to speculation in regard to food commodities.
I have no doubt that in Canada there is speculation of every kind in articles of food.
I believe that the Government should take the matter up, and I trust it will do so. I 'believe that power should be given to a commission, or to a single individual food dictator or whatever you choose to call him-as broad as has been given, or will shortly be given, to Mr. Hoover in the United States. Let the commissioner practically be himself the law in regard to food. Let him, if necessary, fix prices, conscript food, regulate everything in that regard. I do not say that he would have occasion to do all these things; but give him the power, and I have not a doubt that the prices of foodstuffs in this country will rapidly decline. I believe that the system of cold storage, as has been mentioned in the House, has a good deal to do with the high prices. People use the cold storage facilities in every country as well as in Canada for the purpose of taking advantage of market conditions, and a great deal of the speculation in food products results. Give your food dictator power in regard to cold storage, and I believe you will get more relief from such a course than by any present tariff proposals, good as these may be in the abstract.
Mr. BURNHAM:: Considering that the basis of the hon. gentleman's argument is cheapness of production, is he in favour of the unrestricted admission of cheap labour to Canada?


Hugh Guthrie: I was not discussing the question of the labour market, but in answer to the hon. gentleman I say, certainly I am not in favour of the unrestricted admission into Canada of cheap labour.


John Hampden Burnham: Then, where is your free trade doctrine?


Hugh Guthrie: I was asked a question, and I have answered it. Now, to summarize what I intended to say:	We cannot
maintain this taxation on the ground that it is necessary for revenue purposes, for the revenues from it amount to nothing. It can only be maintained on the ground that it is necessary for the protection of the people in Canada who are engaged in the production of these various goods. We are told that the war tax of 7J per cent as

against foreign countries and 5 per cent as against Great Britain has been productive last year of an increase of $38,000,000 in our customs returns, and for the preceding year of $25,000,000, and that it was absolutely necessary to imposethat tax in order to raise the revenue to meet the requirements of the country during this period of stress due to the war. I agree that we must have the' money, and I voted for the increase, because I did not dissent from it-and neither did any one in this House dissent from it-and I am not dissenting from it now, unless some better way of raising the money can be found which the Government will adopt. When I was elected to this House seventeen years ago, I was elected on a tariff policy which I believed in then and believe in now-a tariff sufficient to produce a revenue necessary to carry on the affairs of this country economically. I believe that for many and many a year to come the greater portion of the revenues necessary for the country are going to be raised by a customs tariff. But there are other ways of raising revenue which I think the Government has, to some extent, slighted. I desire to point out to the Minister of Finance one or two things which, I think, he has rather overlooked in considering the raising of the money necessary for the carrying on of this war. I am prepared to vote for a higher tariff if more money will come from it, and if that money is indispensable. But we may make the tariff so high that we shall get no revenue. I should like to see other means fairly tried before wc have more increases in the tariff. I believe in the free list given in the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) for all the revenue we get from that free list can be supplied by other means of taxation if the Finance Minister and his Government will only look the facts in the face. The Finance Minister is a very able financier, one of the ablest, probably, we have ever had in the Dominion of Canada. But for some reason best known to himself he has not, I believe, squarely faced the question of direct taxation. I do not believe he has ever fairly and fully considered the question of the taxation of revenue from the invested wealth of Canada. I believe that invested wealth is something which one can legitimately tax; the rich man should be taxed; the invested wealth is employing practically no one and should be the first subject of taxation. I do not agree with the propositions the Minister of Finance has laid down in this House from time to time-or the

excuses he has made from time to time- for allowing the largest incomes in this country to go practically untaxed during almost three years of the present war. I tell him in all fairness and all candour that when he goes away from the city of Ottawa, when he goes out into the rural districts, and towns and villages of Ontario, he will meet the question that the rest of us are often called upon to answer.
I have been one of those who has sat in this House during the three years of the war, and I have seldom interfered with the proceedings. But I have been asked time and time again: Why do you not propose this, why do you not object to that? The question which most frequently arises is: Why do you not attempt to tax the wealthy? I have voted for the business tax, or at all events I did not dissent, and that means that I supported it. I do not believe it is a fair tax at all. I believe that the munitions tax is an eminently faij one, and that it might be well to increase it, but I do not think that the business tax is a fair tax, although I supported it in the past, and will support it again if it is necessary for the carrying on of this war. But, the Minister of Finance has skated around the question of an income tax year after year. He has gone over it, he has gone around it, he has postponed it and he is still considering it. During the first year he said he did not think that it would yield sufficient revenue to justify the cost of collection. He postponed it the second year, and I think he is inclined to postpone it this third year. But, he should tackle this question of an income tax. The other night in this House he gave as one reason for not adopting an income tax, the fact that he .had a telegram from the collector of taxes in Toronto saying the available wealth for taxation as income for Toronto was $19,500,000, on which the amount collected was $440,000. Consequently-, he said: In the second greatest city of Canada that is all you get, and I do not think it is worth while seriously considering it, although we may have to come to it in the future. But the Minister of Finance should come to it now. Any one who lives in the province of Ontario knows that the income tax is more of a farce than anything else. It is not enforced. I do not believe there is any proper machinery for the enforcement of it. The question of the collection of income tax is looked on as a joke. There is no municipality in Ontario that gets a fair return from the income tax, and many of them
have given up attempting to collect it at all. I have never heard of a prosecution in the case of a man who has given a wrong statement of his income. I have never heard that a penalty has been exacted from a man who did not pay what he should pay, the law is a dead letter and the tax is negligible in Ontario.
But, I can tell my hon. friend the Minister of Finance-and he knows it far better than I do-that there are millions and millions available in Toronto by way of income tax, and that if he applies the English rate to the big incomes he will get far more money in his treasury than he does out of the articles proposed to be added to the free list by my hon. friend from Edmonton. He could get far more money out of Toronto alone by an income tax than he would lose in revenue out of all the articles enumerated in this resolution. The rate in Toronto is only about 23 or 25 mills on the dollar. I do not propose anything like that. I think it is a joke. Why cannot we get down to something like the rates imposed in Great Britain and the United States? I am asking that seriously. Why do we not do it? Who is behind the curtain. Every one knows the high reputation of the hon. gentleman who is the Finance Minister of this country, and every one knows his great ability in matters of finance. Who is behind the curtain,? What is withholding his hand? Why cannot we adopt those rates that they have adopted in England? Is there any reason for it? The Minister of Finance has been, in England on one or two occasions since the war and he knows that the people there are actually feeling this war, that they are suffering from it. He knows that they are going down into their pockets to pay for it. He knows just as well as I do-every man in this House knows-it-is a shame to confess it, but I have to confess it-that the people of Canada have not felt the stress oif the war at all. We are more extravagant to-day than ever. We are spending more in this critical year of the war individually and by family than ever before. There is more extravagance and luxurious expenditure in this year than ever before. There are more automobiles being purchased and used for joy riding, more luxury, more fur sales, more jewellery sales. We have got into that sort of semi-mad condition, which appears in any country where money has been piling up abnormally for a few years, as it has in Canada. We are not in, as bad a condition in that respect as they are in


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: And after the war is won we can take up our old fights just as we did before. I must say that the Order Paper from day to day has on it matters which in my judgment should be wiped off. If we are going to pursue in this country a policy of winning the war let us stick to war measures and let questions, no matter how important they may he, in regard to the nationalization of railways or the building of national highways-let them be swept aside and let us keep to war measures.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: Then, when the war is over, we can discuss the other questions. If we can come together on the matter, so much the better, but let us clear the Order Paper of all the old academic discussions and questions that drive us apart rather than bring us together. For imy part, I feel and I believe that on this side of the House there is a feeling, a genuine honest feeling, that at the present time, of all times, our paramount duty is to discuss and enact measures that will insure victory for ourselves and the Allies, even if we have to allow other matters to stand until after the final victory is won. That is why I say to my hon. friend for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that I cannot vote for his present proposal to revise the tariff.
I do not approve of his present proposal to revise the British preference, much good
as that might do. We do not know what position we shall be in after the war. All our trade conditions may be changed. We may be making new arrangements of every kind with all people, and can we not wait a year or two, or even three years, before making such a revision? A tariff cannot be revised in three months, or six months. I believe that the revision of the tariff should be made as Mr. Fielding made it when he was Minister of Finance, that is, by direct consultation with all classes of the community, even if it require over a year to do it. That is the proper method of proceeding. If my hon. friend would eliminate from his resolution the last two clauses I should be happy to support it; otherwise, as I would have to take it all or nothing, I should have to reject it all.


Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw):: The discussion of this proposition offered to the House by the hon. member from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has fortunately proceeded largely on the merits of the case and without any bitter partisan spirit. I shall endeavour to discuss the matter in the sameway. I think it might be well to consider whether the proposition of the hon. member for Edmonton makes for the successful carrying on of this war or does not. If it could be shown to us that the proposition of the hon. member for Edmonton in any way retarded or handicapped us in our competency for carrying on this great war, the debate would be closed and the hon. member for Edmonton would be the very first to withdraw the resolution. But let us not think that, because from the lips of some people drop the words "I want to win the war," everything else they say is true. It is not difficult to say: I want to win the war. But it does not follow that that proves every conclusion to which the debater may come.
We find that our friends opposite, including the Minister of Finance, have paid scant courtesy to the merits of the debate. The minister, when he replied to the hon. member for Edmonton, did not enter into the argument. We find their main point is that now is an inopportune time to revise the tariff downward. I do not know what time to the minister is not an inopportune time to revise the tariff downward.. It reminds me of a man under sentence to be hanged on Friday who, hearing some one-say. that it was unlucky to be hanged on a Friday, said that there were only six other days in the week on which it was unlucky to be hanged. That is the view taken by.

the minister on the revision of the tariff. He takes the same position, that now and all other times are inopportune times for the revision of the tariff downward.
We come to the question, would a revision of the tariff downward, as we advocate, in any way hamper or impede us in our ability to prosecute the war? I think that is the question now before the House. I have not heard any argument showing that it would in any way handicap us or impede us; we have heard implications and suggestions, but to carry conviction, hon. gentlemen who are opposing this resolution ought to establish some sort of proof that the passing of this resolution and the putting of it into force would in some way handicap or impede us in the prosecution of the war. I submit respectfully that no one has as yet established that in the slightest degree. The Minister of Finance swept the whole resolution aside. He said that the city of Toronto was satisfied with his conduct of the finances of the country, and that he had many congratulations from Toronto. He said that in Toronto rents were high and houses well filled, and all went merry as a marriage bell since Toronto was in that very fortunate condition. But I do not think that is replying to the splendid address of the hon. member for Edmonton in the debate. I listened to the Minister of Finance carefully, but I did not hear him give any reason why we should not have free agricultural implements, I did not hear him give any reason why we should not have free cement; I did not hear him give any reason why we should not have free foodstuffs in exchange with those countries granting us free foodstuffs. He dealt not at all with any of these specific items; he swept them aside by saying that the time was not opportune. My opinion is, and I give it only for what it is worth, that the time is exceptionally opportune for revising the tariff downward. The time to revise the tariff downwards is when those who are the wards of the tariff, are in the best position to stand that revision. We do not want to ruin any industries. Hon. gentlemen may think we do. Well, it does not matter what they think. But, even taking their side of it, when are you likely to injure the industries the most? Ever since 1878 or thereabouts, when we had a national policy, there has not been a time when our manufacturing industries could stand a revision of the tariff downwards as well as they could stand it to-day. Prices are high; competition is

not keen-this is the greatest opportunity in Canadian history to see just how much the manufacturing industries would be injured by a downward revision of the tariff. From the viewpoint of the manufacturing industries, therefore-which none of us have a desire to injure, let people say what they like-this is an opportune time for tariff revision.
I wish to state another reason why this is an opportune time for tariff revision. Engaged as we are in this war, what we want more than millionaires' houses in Toronto, Montreal, London or Hamilton - more than money; more than anything else-is what the farmer will give us if farming is encouraged to develop and to expand. We want foodstuffs to win this war. The true war policy as laid down by Lloyd George is to produce to the utmost capacity and to conserve food supplies- which means what the farmer produces. The old academic argument of free trade versus protection has gone to the winds for the moment.


Michael Clark: No, no.


William Erskine Knowles: I think the hon. member for Red Deer will agree that in an academic sense the argument has gone to the winds so far as my present remarks are concerned, because we have proved it academically so often that I do not need to deal with it. As a real, practical war measure, the proposal of the hon. member for Edmonton leads directly to the goal which Lloyd George says must be attained in order that we may successfully carry on the operations of the war to victory.
Unfortunately, for many years-not only during the war, but long before the war- an abnormal state of affairs existed in Canada from time to time. The financial boom which had been caused, in a measure, by the immense railway construction which took place in Canada, fostered industries in an abnormal way. This artificial prosperity ceased, even prior to the war. To-day a similar artificial prosperity, created 'by the war, prevails; it, too, will pass away, at the conclusion of the war. We shall have to bear the burden of a debt of great magnitude. We must face the task bravely. We must look into the future and ask ourselves how we shall meet, after the present condition of artificial prosperity ceases, the financial burdens arising out of this war. The Minister of Finance has been very much complimented on his knowledge. I hope he does

not believe all the pleasant things that are said about him; if he would refer to the Grain Growers' Association they would tell him the other side of the story. On the one side, we have the artificial prosperity created by the war; on the other, the great debt that is being built up because of the war, the large amounts we have to pay out by way of pensions, and so on. Where is the minister to get the money for these things if he does not get it from the agricultural interests? If he does not lay down a policy that will make for large production of national wealth from the soil, where is he going to get the money? If he knows where he is going to get it I wish he would tell us. One of the reasons why we on this side say that the proposal of the hon. member for Edmonton should be accepted is that the carrying out of the principle which it asserts would result in men being attracted to the farms, and in large zones of land in the western prairies, now idle, being made productive. Thus we would have a maximum production of national wealth that would enable us to bear the great financial burdens which we shall be called upon to face after the war is over.


John Hampden Burnham: Does the hon. gentleman intend that the agricultural interests shall pay all these burdens?


William Erskine Knowles: I would use the word " afraid " rather than the word " intend."


John Hampden Burnham: But my hon. friend adduces an argument.


William Erskine Knowles: I fear that the 'burden will rest very largely on them.


John Hampden Burnham: The hon. gentleman says that we have to develop wealth from the soil in order to pay these debts. You cannot eat more than a certain amount; let us hear how the thing is demonstrated.


Michael Clark: You will get all the money we will make.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not understand my hon. friend's question.


John Hampden Burnham: Suppose the agricultural interests of Canada should raise fifty times as much as they do now?


Michael Clark: Ontario would take it all.


John Hampden Burnham: The people of Canada could not eat it, though they might, possibly, dispose of it abroad. Production is represented by the hon. gentleman as the source from which we are to derive the money to pay these burdens, because the
other industries in Canada cannot provide it. It appears to me, therefore, that the hon. gentleman intends the farmer to pay all these burdens.


William Erskine Knowles: To the extent that we develop the farming industry we provide a source of national wealth, and only national wealth can pay off a national debt. If there is any other way of doing it, I should like to hear it.
I wish to refer to what I said and to some figures which I gave in my remarks last session on this subject, as they appear on page 3934 of Hansard. I said:
Last year we had in the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and I speak of those two provinces alone, nearly 15,000,000 of acres of land under cultivation. I take the figures from the statistical departments of this Government. The total amount of arable land which is at our disposal in those two western provinces is 190,000,000. We had 15,000,000 acres, approximately, under cultivation, producing wealth for this nation, and 175,000,000 acres lying idle. There must be some reason for this.
I quote from the same page, a little further on:
We are not developing in the direction of even gradually exploiting that great national asset which lies before us. Last year according to the statistics of the Government, and I have no reason to doubt their accuracy, the value of the crops produced on those 15,000,000 acres in those two western prairie provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, was over three hundred million dollars. If we could apply the same proportion to these unused arable lands, we would have, not three hundred million dollars, but three billion, nine hundred million dollars. When we are through with this war we are going to have an enormous debt; it may be one billion dollars; it may be two billion dollars. The interest on it will be probably fifty million dollars per annum at the least. Here there lies in our hands and in our possession 175,000,000 acres of land which, if they were to produce at the rate the acres in use last year yielded, would produce in one year three billion, nine hundred million dollars worth of produce, a value four times as great as this terrible war debt that is staring us in the face.
Later, speaking about the condition of affairs when war broke out-how the men had ceased to go on the land, after the Government had been in power for three years-I said, page 3936:
Then we saw that there was no encouragement for those two to be brought together.
I meant idle men and idle lands.
The raw material was there, and the men were there ready to exercise their muscle on the raw material, but the conditions were not sufficiently encouraging to bring the two together. Surely we could make these conditions encouraging enough to bring these two ele-

ments together. You are bonusing every kind of industry. By protection you are bonusing them all. It may be hard to work out, but surely we can work out some system by which men will go on the land and use it for the purpose for which it was meant to be used.
I read these words in order to emphasize my conviction that it is the duty of this Government, quite apart from any academic convictions or prejudices with regard to free trade and protection, to devise a scheme by which the great unused resources of Canada shall be used. That is the way you will make Canada prosperous.
'Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power in 1896 when there was only a little handful of land in use in the West. People were not attracted to settle on the land as conditions were not inviting, and so3hey stayed away from the western provinces. Tlhe Government of Sir W'illfrdd Laurier, however, by its immigration policy, its railroad policy and its grain commission policy, made conditions so attractive that men rushed out to the West and, where there had formerly been one acre under cultivation, there became ten, twenty acres under cultivation, and the whole of Canada responded to that great expansion and development in western Canada. The policy of reciprocity may be dead 'and gone now, but thlat policy of the leader' of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, was simply this, that the day had come when it was necessary further to improve the conditions of the western farmer so that men would continue to go into the remoter districts and open up and develop further landis and in that way produce national wealth. The reciprocity issue was defeated, as every one knows, and the result has been that in the three years prior to the outbreak of war and since the defeat
reciprocity, the greatest .stagnation h>
occurred since the early nineties. The Government now has this proposition staring it in the face, that the Dominion of Canada has all that land 'as a great national asset -'and it is a tragedy that that land should he lying idle-and skill the Government are doing nothing whatever to bring it under cultivation as the Creator intended it should be cultivated and should produce national wealth. In the boom days many people in the city of Moosej'aw were very rich

we were all rich then-and then the .bubble burst. It happened that many people had half sections somewhere ox other in the West and they looked on them as very minor matters, as they probably had something like $100,000 or $200,000 worth of vacant lots; hut when the bubble burst and

those men had to turn their hands to making a living, they .said1: Well, we must go and use tho.se farms that are lying idle, that we never thought of, and produce our living and our wealth out of them. In the Dominion of Canada at the close of the war we are going to be like men when, the bubble has burst; we are going to face a desperate condition, with all our unemployed, with all this 'artificial prosperity gone, with all our soldiers coming back and with all the pensions to be paid. We shall be in the position of a man with an immense farm of 100,000,000 acres that to-day should have the- plough turning them over, but that are not used at all, and this afternoon y/e advocate this policy; we say to the Government: You would encourage men to go on that land and produce wealth, produce $20 an acre, which amounts to an enormous sum when you multiply it by the millions of acres that are lying idle in the West, if you would make the conditions favourable so that our agricultural population would not hang around the towns and cities, but would go into the rural districts and be encouraged to cultivate this great heritage and produce national wealth. And if you produce national wealth, I repeat, you can pay national debt.
The tariff question is going to be a live issue in Canada, if not during the war, then not very long after the close of the war. We shall have to look very keenly into the financial condition of Canada, and after the war the question is going to be above all the question of finance which is altogether linked with the question of tariff. It is unfortunate that while the war is on we do not like, and it is not wise, to press too much the tariff question, and we do not receive an attentive ear if we do bring up that question; but I submit that the day is coming-and I think it will come very soon after the close of the war-when the outstanding issue in the Dominion of Canada will be whether the people want a lower tariff system in Canada so as to encourage agriculture. T.he .Minister of Finance says that you must not unsettle things by lowering the tariff when the war is on, but that if you tack an increase of 7J per cent on the tariff on to the farmer and the consumer they will work harder. That, according to the Minister of Finance, is the easiest thing in the world to do, war or no war; but if we presume to ask that the tariff be lowered, we are met with the cry: We want to win the war, and therefore, ergo, there must be no reduction in taxes. The

war was on in Great Britain and the authorities there were in a pretty desperate state financially, but they wanted to encourage agriculture and they said quite frankly: We will pay the farmer to produce and we will guarantee him so many shillings per stone for his wheat for the next three years. They did not penalize the farmers, but they said: We want foodstuffs and we will encourage farming and we will give a guaranteed price for wheat for the next three years. The Minister of Finance knows about what happened in Great Britain, and yet he meets us with the cry: We want to win the war. I presume the British people want to win the war also, but they go about it in a different manner from that of my hon. friend. This is an opportune time for a revision of the tariff; the need of foodstuffs and the high prices make it an opportune time, and the future of the country, in connection with the great national burdens that we shall have to bear, makes it necessary that we should develop the agricultural industry of Canada.	,


Mr. A. VERVILLE (Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the amendment now before the House. I am strongly in favour of that amendment and I desire to support it for many reasons, a number of which have already been disclosed to the House. It is wonderful how, that every time we bring up a matter of this kind, we are met with the cry:	We want
to win the w.ar. I should like to know if the fact that I could ibuy my shoes and clothes cheaper would prevent the winning of the war. I would like to know if the fact that the labour classes of the country could feed and clothe themselves more cheaply would prevent the winning of the war. Such language is ridiculous in this House, and the matter is too serious for sucth language to foe used as has been used on far too. many occasions.
Every one knows that in collecting taxation by a tariff the Government secures only about twenty per cent of that taxation and the other eighty per cent is paid by the people to the manufacturers, while by direct taxation the Government would get the eighty per cent. There is a vast difference, therefore, between the results, that would foe' secured from those two methods of taxation. As I have stated 'before, every time the Government requires $20, I have to be taxed $100, whereas, if a tax were imposed on revenue, every time the Government would require $100, I would be taxed $20. The
average earning power of the working man in this country to-day is about $800, and as the tariff averages at the very least about 30 per cent, that means that the working man has to pay $240 of indirect taxation before he can eat anything. If, however, taxation of revenue were imposed, there would be a very great difference, and one would not have to go to school very long to be able with a lead pencil and piece of paper to calculate the amount. The Minister of Finance has more than once said in this House that it would be a rather difficult proposition for him to establish a system of taxation of income. My hon. friend, however, has devised other methods of direct taxation, and I am sure he can establish such a system if he so desires.
As for the taxation of profits made in the making of munitions, I would not be content with 25, or 50, or 75 per cent, as my hon. friend suggests, but I would take the whole of it. I would not allow anyone in this country an income of more than $5,000 a year. Everything above that I would take, and I should consider that pretty generous treatment. This might be considered a radical proposal, but we shall come to it some day, because the' people are not going to stand for the present system of taxation for all time to come. It has often been said in the House that working men who are engaged in the 5 p.m. munitions business are making from $10 to $12 a day, but as a matter of fact, in a factory of 5,000 employees, you would not find more than 10, and perhaps not that many, making $10 or $12 a day. Go into the homes of these munitions workers, and see the prices they have to pay for their foodstuffs. Potatoes are becoming so expensive that we shall soon see the ladies wearing them in their hats as ornaments; they are becoming an absolute luxury. I maintain that foodstuffs should come in free, and if my hon. friend objects that he would lose a certain amount of revenue let him put on direct taxation, and that would bring in not merely the amount he would lose by wiping out these duties, but from 50 to 60 per cent more. I believe that foodstuffs should all be admitted duty free, and that is why I am supporting this resolution. ' I want it to be well understood that lowering the cost of living, giving the people cheaper food and clothing, will not prevent us from winning the war.


William Pugsley: I was paired with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BURRELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Douglas). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. CARVELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for York, N.B. (Mr. McLeod). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
MESSIEURS: Nays.
Ames (Sir Herbert), Marshall, Armstrong, (Lambton), Meighen,
Armstrong (York, O.), Arthurs,
Ball,
Barnard,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Best,
Blain,
Borden (Sir Robert), Bowman,
Boyce,
Brabazon,
Burnham,
Clark (Bruce),
Clarke (Wellington), Clements,
Cochrane,
Crothers,
Doherty,
Donaldson,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Fisher,
Foster (Sir George), Fripp,
Girard,
Green,
Henderson,
Lalor,
Macdonnell,
Maclean (York, O.),
Merner,
Morphy,
Morris,
Morrison,
Nickle,
Northrup,
Paquet,
Patenaude,
Paul,
Rainville,
Reid,
Robidoux,
Roche,
Rogers,
Schaffner,
Scott,
Sevigny,
Shepherd,
Smith,
 Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Thornton,
Webster,
Weichel,
White (Sir Thomas), Wilson (Wentworth), Wright.-65.
PAIRS :
Achim,
Barrette,
Burrell,
Bradbury,
Blondin, *
Chabot,
Davidson,
Descarries,
Forget (Sir Rododphe) Glass,
Hartt,
Hepburn,
Kemp,
Lewis,
Middlebro,
Munson,
Brouillard,
Seguin,
Douglas, **
Cruis'e, -*
Bickerdike,
Beland,
Carroll,
Lanctot,
Martin (Montreal), Nesbitt, -[DOT]
Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Guthrie,
Robb,
Clarke (Essex),
Kyte,
Boyer,


Mr. SEGUIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MUNSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Boyer). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


John Angus McMillan: I was paired with the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Alguire). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GLASS:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: I was paired with the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion agreed to and House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.



IN COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Department of Finance-Charges of management, $535,450.
['The minister will see what a bad precedent it is, late at night, to get into an item in order to enable him to take it up on Friday, when there could be no discussion on going into Supply. It is rather better to adhere to the rule.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Hon. Mr. Reid the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.', 'Wednesday, May 30, 1917.']
Charles Murphy: Is this item the same as that of last year?


William Thomas White: Yes, it is a
routine item.


Mr. TURRIFF:: Does not the minister
think that in view of the suggestions he has been giving us in favour of economy that

he should be able to cut this down a little as compared with last year? I notice that the different items are exactly the same as last year. I think the minister w.ould be able to speak with some force to the rest of us on the subject of economy if he would show a good example.


George Perry Graham: Who has the contract for the printing of Dominion notes?


William Thomas White: The American
Bank Note Company.
Mr. MARCH,: In view of the approaching fiftieth anniversary of Confederation, is it in contemplation to issue a special commemorative bank note?


William Thomas White: I had not that in mind, but I think it is a matter that might be considered. *


Charles Murphy: Has it not been considered by a special committee?


George Perry Graham: I was a member of the committee whose Teport was presented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). I was not present when that report was made, but I understand that its proposal was to issue a postcard or postage stamp commemorative of the fiftieth anniversary of Confederation. It was thought that it would be possible to issue a postcard with portraits of the Fathers of Confederation, and also a postage stamp with some other suitable commemorative design. I presume that that suggestion may be adopted, though the time is short. The report of the committee did not refer to a commemorative bank note.


William Thomas White: Speaking offhand, the suggestion seems worthy of consideration. The matter of the postcard was brought to my attention, but, so far as I know, it was not proposed by the committee that a special bank note should be issued. Bank notes might lend themselves very well to representations of the kind suggested.


George Perry Graham: The intention embodied in the suggestion of the committee was to avoid expenses as far as possible. The issues proposed, it was thought, would be of a kind that would sell in sufficient quantities to recoup the treasury for any expense involved.


William Thomas White: I think the suggestion of my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Mareil) is well worthy of consideration, and I will give some thought to it.
Civil Government-Office of the Auditor General, $143,850.


George Perry Graham: The Auditor General
visited Great Britain to investigate certain charges in reference to the management of the Militia Department. Were his expenses paid out of this vote, or were they paid out pf the war vote?


William Thomas White: I am unable to
answer offhand, but I believe they were paid out of the appropriation for miscellaneous expenses in connection with the department. The expenses were not large.


Charles Murphy: One of the salaries covered by this vote is for an Assistant Auditor General. Does that mean the creation of a new office?


William Thomas White: This is a new
office, which is created by this vote. Mr. Sutherland was sent to represent the Auditor General in England, and it was recommended by the Auditor General and was deemed well that, in order that Mr. Sutherland might have the necessary authority to represent the Auditor General, he should be named Assistant Auditor General.


Charles Murphy: This vote creates the
office and provides the salary?


William Thomas White: Yes.


Mr. MAROIL:: Is all the expenditure in Europe under the control of the Auditor General or is there a special audit office ever there?


William Thomas White: The Auditor General has the right to investigate all accounts here, in England, or elsewhere. There is an obvious difficulty in the way of correctly auditing all the accounts in England. The Auditor General went over last Fall for the purpose of considering the system there and, among other things, the system of paying through the Pay Office. That is a very large establishment conducting very responsible business involving hundreds of thousands of accounts. He looked * over the whole matter very carefully and when he came back he was of the opinion that if he sent over an officer from the department to represent him in England he would be satisfied with the situation. His recommendation in that respect was concurred in and Mr. Sutherland was sent over.


William Pugsley: I suppose the reason
for putting in this amount of $4,500 is to get over the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


William Thomas White: 
William Pugsley: 
William Thomas White: The Civil Service Act, which my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) expresses so much' admiration for, is no doubt a very ideal and perfect instrument, but there is nothing in this world that is quite perfect, and it does not always meet situations as they arise. There are many 
cases in which it is necessary to make appointments to meet conditions of administration. I think this is one. We have under consideration now the Estimates of the Auditor General. The Auditor General is not responsible to the Government, so much as he is responsible to Parliament, and, personally, when the Auditor General makes a recommendation and impresses me with the view that it is in the interests of the administration of his department such a change should be made, I feel I ought to recommend it to the Government. This recommendation in regard to the Assistant Auditor General is made by the Auditor General, having regard to the fact that this official was to go to England and live under new conditions, and he was of the opinion that the salary to be paid of $4,500 was proper under the circumstances. I agree in his view. We do not depart from the provisions of the Civil Service Act more than is necessary, having in view the business administration of the service, and I do not think many members of the service will object to this exception having been made or to those to which my hon. friend has drawn attention under the next heading, and which I shall explain when we reach the item.


William Pugsley: Members of the Civil Service, to a certain extent, are in the position of men at the front; they cannot complain. It is not considered the right thing to complain. Some members of the Civil Service, while they see these cases of injustice and discrimination, will not complain, because they are rather glad to see some fellow-employee treated generously. But, there is injustice and dissatisfaction all the same. I happen to know, because I was once in charge of a very important department. In that department there are expert engineers of long experience and service. Some of them have given the best years of their lives to the public service, and their salaries have not been increased beyond $4,000. Yet, here by this vote, a man may be brought in simply because he is an accountant, but whose ability and necessity to the public service are not greater than that of an expert engineer or architect, and he gets at once $500 beyond the salary which' these expert officers get in these other departments. I venture to say that in the Department of Public Works and the Department of Railways there are men who are just as well entitled to get $4,500 by reason of their ability, their length of service and their value to the public, and who are not receiving more than $3,500 or $4,000.

While that is the ease, this man is brought in without having any experience in the department-


William Thomas White: He is not brought in.


William Pugsley: At all events he is boosted to $4,500 a year, $500 or $1,000 beyond what is allowed to expert engineers in other departments. It is idle for the minister to try to excuse it by saying that there is no complaint on the part of other officials in the various departments. The point is that there is an injustice and, if you introduce injustice as between officials of different departments, you necessarily create dissatisfaction in the Service, and we have no right to do that injustice. I would ask the minister if this matter has been brought to the attention of the members of the Civil Service Commission.


William Thomas White: No.


William Pugsley: Why not?	[DOT]
S;r THOMAS WHITE: Because it d d not seem to be expedient or necessary to do so. The recommendation of the Auditor General and the arguments advanced by him in his consultation with me convinced me that it was the proper course to take.


William Pugsley: It is all very well for my hon. friend, in that bossy way which he sometimes assumes, to brush this matter aside; but I may say that I was minister for a number or years and that I never felt that I ought or that I could do such a thing as that. What is the use of having a Civil Service Commission for which this country pays out a large amount of money, a great many thousands of dollars, because it is supposed to be doing very effective woik-


William Thomas White: What for? For examination?


William Pugsley: 
William Thomas White: What would be the function of the Civil Service Commission under the Act with regard to such a case as this? What have they to do with questions of salary?


William Pugsley: They would, in the first place, consider the question of the length of service: They would consider which class he should be put into, and if he were put into the first class, having had a certain length
of service, his salary would then, of course, be determined by the statute which provides for salaries to the members of the Service in different classes. Here the minister proposes, without having this gentleman examined at all as to his fitness, without any consideration as to the length of service, to ride rough shod right over the members of the Civil Service Commission and ask Parliament to fix this salary. He does not think it is necessary to give Parliament the slightest information as to why the salary should be fixed at this amount. I would ask, and I think I have the right to ask, the minister why an Assistant Auditor General wiho at- most is performing the services of an accountant, should be receiving some $500 to $1,000 more than the officials of viery high standing in the other departments, the Marine and Fisheries Department, the Department of Railways and Canals, the Public Works Department, where, as I have said, these expert engineers de not receive anything like the salary that is proposed to be given to this gentleman? It was in order to prevent injustice of that kind, to promote efficiency in the Service, that, under the Civil Service Act, a Civil Service Commission was appointed. It was to prevent favouritism; it was to prevent ministers picking out their friends and boosting them into these soft jobs. I do not care now whether this is suggested by the Auditor General or the Minister of Finance. I have a very high regard for both of these gentlemen, but if I had any voice in the matter I would not permit it in the ease of the Auditor General any more than in the case of the Minister of Finance. I protest as much against it in the case of the Auditor General as if it were a direct act of the Government done without the request of that official.


John Hampden Burnham: Do I understand the
hon. gentleman to say that it is assumed that the ministers of the Crown or the members of this House are crooked and would boost their friends unduly? Is that the assumption?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman asks a question which I should be very glad to answer if it (were essential to the question under-consideration. I do not wish to unduly press the point, but this gives to the ministers an opportunity to boost their friends-I Tepeat the words-and that is the opportunity which Parliament, by the Civil Service Act, intended to take away. I would move that the words "including

Assistant Auditor General at $4,500" in item number 11 be struck out.


Charles Murphy: The minister asked the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) what the Civil Service Commission would have to do with the question of salary. Under the Civil Service Act they would have nothing to do, because this amount is in excess of the highest amount provided under the Civil Service Act, and that is why the special item is put in.


William Thomas White: That is a reason for bringing the matter to Parliament, but not a reason for consulting the Civil Service Commission, whose functions are to pronounce upon the qualification of an official and no more. The amount to be paid to the official is a question for Parliament. Therefore, .the argument of my hon. friend that we did not consult with the Civil Service Commission falls to the ground because no question arises as to the qualification of Mr. Sutherland. He was an official of the Auditor General's Department, qualified for this duty, and enjoying a salary of $3,750 per year. As I pointed out .to the House, the Auditor General, who had gone to England, came back after having looked carefully into the situation there and having become convinced that it was desirable that the office of the Auditor General should be represented in London. In lsoking over his staff for a qualified man, he determined that Mr. Sutherland should be sent to England to represent him. He thought, also, that Mr. 'Sutherland was deserving of the title of Assistant Auditor General, and that the salary should be $4,500 per year. My hon. friend has mentioned the case of engineers. There may be some engineers in the Civil Service who are entitled to $4,000 a year or more, but it is to be pointed out in . that connection that, so far as public works are concerned, instead of increasing the public works, we have been diminishing them; therefore the argument of my hon. friend that the engineer should be especially considered falls to the ground.


William Pugsley: The minister has not at all answered the criticism which has been made. Either it is desirable to have these salaries fixed by the Civil Service Act or it is not, and the minister ought not to pass over the Civil Service Commission and give exceptional increases. I will press my motion, because, even if we do not succeed in impressing our views on the House, it is desirable to put ourselves on record on these matters of reform and economy. I would move that the words " including As-

sistant Auditor General at $4,500 " be struck out of item 11.
Amendment negatived on division.
Department of Finance and Treasury Board -Salaries, including Assistant Deputy Minister at $4,500; Comptroller of Dominion Currency at $4,500; Accountant of Contingencies at $3,000 ; Commissioner of Taxation at $5,000 ; Assistant Commissioner of Taxation at $3,500.


William Pugsley: I really think that these items ought to be struck out. I venture to stay that the sialary of $4,500 which my hon. friend asks for the Assistant Deputy Minister is higher than that paid to any man of similar qualifications 'in the 'service. S'imply because officials of his department want an increase, my hon. friend proceeds to tact in. violation' of the 'Civil Service Act. We should either stand by the Act or repeal it. If the Government are determined' persistently to violate the Act, let them repeal it, and then run riot in the salaries wh'ich they pay to their officials. In eveTy one of * the oases mentioned in this item there is a violation of the provisions of the Civil Service Act. How much does the Chief Engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals receive?


William Thomas White: 


William Pugsley: The gentleman responsible for all the engineering work on Government railways-a gentleman who has been in the service of the department for years, and who is practically next to the minister-gets only $5,000; yet it is proposed to give the assistant Deputy Minister of the Finance Department, in violation of the terms of t'he Civil Service Act, an amount within $500 of the maximum salary 'allowed to the Chief Engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals. What does the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department get? The salary used to- be only $4,000.


William Thomas White: Chief Architect, $7,000.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend knows the special circumstances under which this princely salary was given to the chief architect. Mr. Ewart, who had been there forty years, never received over $4,000.


John Gillanders Turriff: That was a Manitoba touch.


William Pugsley: In the first division, Department of Public Works, there are five men receiving salaries of $4,000. That amount must be the salary of the chief engineer of the Department of Public Works, a gentleman whose knowledge,

judgment, experience and integrity are brought to bear upon the expenditure of millions of- dollars of public money. It is of great importance that a first-class man be in charge of that branch of the department. I am not speaking for the present chief engineer. I know that he would not make any complaint with regard to the injustice that is done by this discrimination. Having been for years in the public service, under the Civil Service Act he cannot receive a higher salary than $4,000 a year. Possibly he has no friend to ask that he should get a large increase; presumably he is content to continue under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. But the Minister of Finance is asking Parliament to grant the large sums of money for the salaries to which I have referred. The Commissioner of Taxation, for instance, is to get $5,000, which is $1,000 more than the chief engineer of the Department of Public Works is allowed to receive under the Civil Service Act, This is the more inexcusable in that it is becoming the habit of the Government to ask Parliament to violate the provisions of the Civil Service Act. They are doing it every year, but this is the most glaring case of all. I certainly protest against it; I do think that the item should be struck out.


William Thomas White: There is no violation of the Civil Service Act. The Government thinks that these men are deserving of the respective positions and the salaries attached to them, and they are asking Parliament to vote the money. If the men mentioned in this item were paid 50 per cent more than the amounts stated, they would, in my judgment, be inadequately paid. At eight o'clock I purpose telling the committee what the Finance Department has been doing since war broke out. I must do it in justice to the men who have given of their time unreservedly, day and night, Saturday an<J sometimes Sunday, to the work of my department. No financial institution in Canada-I know them all fairly well-could have discharged the duties which have been discharged by the men of my department, faithfully working as' they have, without regard to official hours, whether called upon night or day. Those men have done work that will redound to the credit of the Finance Department and of the Civil Service for all time to come.
I will take the opportunity, after eight o'clock, to make a statement to this House, not because I thmk it is necessary by reason of anything my hon. friend has said, but because I think it is onlv fair to the officials of my department t! at this House should know the duties they have been called upon to perform in connection with the loans and in connection with the financing in this country of the Imperial Government. If there is anything that has impressed me since I have been connected with the Finance Department, it is this

the absolute injustice done to men of conspicuous ability, men who in civil life would receive fifty if not a hundred per cent more money for similar work to the work they are doing for this Government. We lost one of the best men in the Civil Service, Mr. H. T. Ross, because under the Civil Service Act we were not able to pay him what he should have been paid long before, and at the present time we are unable to retain civil servants or to maintain the standard of the Civil Service in this country because of the kind of criticism we have been receiving this afternoon. I speak with some feeling in this matter, because I know personally that the efficiency of administration in this country depends upon the Civil Service. I say that men of the greatest ability in the Civil Service, some of whom have come under my attention in my own department, have, on account of the criticism which is offered from time to time with regard to salaries which outside would be considered entirely inadequate for the duties they perform, been prevented from being dealt with justly by Governments and by Parliament. I say that, and as far as the Finance Department is concerned, why should men who have carried on the duties they have performed since this war has broken out be paid half the amount or less than they would receive if they were working with financial institutions doing the same kind of work? There is a comradeship between myself and the officials of my department, and I have the highest possible respect for them as they have for me. So far from being over-paid, those occupying the most important positions are substantially underpaid, and it is a marvel to me that men such as those that I have in mind are content to remain in the service and to discharge so faithfully as they do the duties imposed upon them, having regard to the salaries they are paid. So far as I am concerned, I say that those salaries instead of being too high, are decidedly too low, and at eight o'clock, I will
1796 '

give the House a statement as to the work performed by the officials of my department who, the hon. member says, are not worthy of the salaries opposite their names in this estimate.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
After Kecess.
The C.ommittee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Eainville in the Chair.


William Thomas White: 
William Pugsley: Is that mostly in bars?


William Thomas White: It would, I think, be mostly in bars, because under modern conditions gold is handled more in bars than in coin, but the point I desire to make is that over this period of three years the officials of the Finance Department have handled- that enormous amount of gold involving all that detailed work with no expense whatever to the Bank of England or the Imperial Government, with the exception of a few hundred dollars for cartage. I am not making this statement in order that any credit may devolve upon myself or the Government, but I do feel that I should make the statement in simple justice to the men of that department who have devoted themselves unsparingly day and night to the duties of their office.
In addition to handling that gold for account of the Bank of England the department has been indirectly concerned-and here I desire to pay a tribute to the officials of the mint rather than to those of my department-with the operations carried on by the mint at Ottawa. It will surprise the House, I have no doubt, to learn that we have in Ottawa Mint a refinery for the refining of raw gold which has the largest capacity of any refinery in the world. That is due to the fact that about a year and a half ago the mint was enlarged in order that we might treat gold from South Africa
and Russia which had not been refined to a sufficient degree of fineness when it reached this country. Late in May, 1916, plans and preparations were made for an extension of the refinery, and in seven weeks the extension was completed and in operation. The present capacity is 250,000 ounces or $5,000,000 per week, and the method employed is what is known as the chlorine process. Since September, 1915, there has been received at the, mint- $225,000,000 in raw gold, practically all of which has been refined and delivered, which work has been done in addition to the regular work required at the mint.
The work of the officials of my department who have been immediately concerned has not ended there w'ith receiving this gold. Under instructions from the Imperial Government, that gold has been moved, to the amoupt of hundreds otf millions, to New YotIj. Great care was required in weighing oiut, >in shipment, and in the attention necessary in connection with the sending of this gold forward by express. As I have stated, over $1,000,000,000 of treasure has been handled and distributed, a staggering sum,, I suppose probably twice the amount of gold in the United Kingdom at the outbreak of the war.
In addition to the service in connection with these transactions, an immense volume of detailed work and responsibility has devolved upon the officials of my department in connection with the domestic loans. Before the war broke out all our financing was done in Londlon. The loans were arranged by our financial agents there, the Banlk of Montreal, after cable communication with the minister or deputy minister. The detailed work connected with these loans was carried out, of course, by the staff of the Bank of Montreal in London. The House is aware that since the outbreak of the war we have placed three domestic kwanfe in Canada. The first loan was for $50,000,000 increased to $100,000,000. The securities issued were in denominations of $100, $500, and $1,000. The next loan w>as for $100,000,000, and in connection with that loan applications to the >amount of over $200,000,000 were received, with deposit payments in connection therewith., of course. In M'airoh of this year we issued another loan of $150,000,000 and in connection with that offer applications to the amount of $250,000,000 were received. Besides the deposit payments, of course, these several loans were subsequently all paid up. All this Is well known to the House,



bu't that wlhioh is not known, and could not be known except through a statement made by	the	minister ot
some one else on behalf of the department, is the enormous amount of work devolving upon the officials of the department in connection with these loans. Subscriptions might be sent in through any branch of any of the chartered banks of Canada, aui there are about 3,500 of these branches. Not only did the department keep account with practically all of these branch banks, because subscriptions were received through nearly all, but it was actually necessary to keep an account, so to say, with each bond itself, in order that the transaction might be correctly handled. The banks, as agents of the Finance Department, issued provisional receipts. These receipts had to be prepared and sent to the banks by the department. Then scrip had to be issued as a provisional security. This was prepared in the department and forwarded to the banks ready for those who had subscribed to the loan. Then, as the instalments on the payments were made, the department was notified, and, of course, the necessary accounts had to be kept in the department. Ultimately, the bonds had to be engraved and forwarded to the several banks in exchange for the outstanding certificates. Take for example, the last loan. There were forty thousand subscribers, and over two hundred thousand separate pieces of scrip were delivered in connection with that transaction. Of course, a great deal of the routine work is done by temporary help; we have had to greatly increase our staff to meet the situation. >But the heavy and responsible work in connection with these loans has been done by a handful of men in the department; the deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister, the comptroller of the currency, and the chief officials in the office. These men have given themselves to the duties of their position in a manner that has commanded my admiration, and I feel that I should be lacking in simple justice to the staff and to the Civil Service if I did not bear this testimony and have it placed upon record. To my knowledge some of these men have permanently injured their health,-I am not in tire least exaggerating the situation. The public do not know and cannot know the strain imposed upon certain departments of the Government in time of war. I should like it to be known when this war is over that the officials of the Department of Fi-

nance have acquitted themselves in 'the manner I have indicated.
Let me say something of the staff itself. All this work has been accomplished with comparatively little increase in the number of the staff of the department; so far as the leading officials are concerned, there are actually fewer than there were at the outbreak of the war. The organization of the Finance Department when the war began included the deputy minister, the assistant deputy, o( whom I sbaM say a few words in a moment, tfhe accountant, Mr. Sauniders, and the comptroller of dominion currency, Mr. Rourke. Of these principal officials all are there to-day with the exception of Mr. Ross, who has been lost to the department. He was a great official, 'being a man of high character and fine ability. When I was in England in November last I received a cable from Mr. Ross stating that he had received a very attractive offer. He was not willing to leave the service, but I think that he felt that in justice to his family he should submit the situation to me. Though I knew I should miss him very greatly, and though I knew that the loss to the service would be great, I felt that I should not stand in his way, and I so cabled him. The result is that Mr. Ross is now the secretary of the Canadian Bankers' Association, enjoying a much larger salary than he would have obtained in the service of the Dominion. The executive work of the Finance Department is oauried on by the deputy minister, the assistant deputy, Mr. Saunders, and the comptroller of the currency, Mr. Rourke, and certain other leading officials to whom I haVe referred.
As to the particular item under discussion, I may ,say that Mr. Ross received as assistant deputy minister a salary of $4,500 a year. I filled the position by promotion. I did not go outside of the department. If I had gone outside of the department into the financial world to fill the position occupied by Mr. Ross, I have no hesitation in saying that I should have been obliged to pay $7,000 or $8,000 in order to obtain a man who could fill that position. I know something of the salaries obtained in the financial World and obtained for financial skill. I would have been obliged to pay much more than $4,500 in order to get a man to fill that position, and I am not sure that I could have got a man to properly fill that position, because the knowledge of financial administration in connection with the Government is not found except at Ottawa. So that Mr. Ross's position was filled by the promotion

of Mr. Saunders, who had been for many years Dominion accountant, and who was thoroughly versed in the financial affairs of the Dominion. I submit that was an eminently proper course for me to pursue. A very deserving man was appointed to the position, and I gave him the same salary that Mr. Ross obtained, because there is one less official in the Department of Finance. Then, Mr. Rourke, who has had most to do with the movement of gold and who is an excellent official, assiduous in his devotion to his duties and highly skilled, was advanced also to the same salary of $4,500. In the re-arrangement of the staff I doubt if there is any increase in the total of the salaries of the executive officers as a whole.
If I have any fault to find with the Finance Department, it is that there are not enough principal officers. When I was in charge of a business I always used to insist upon an understudy for every important position, and I believe in plenty of help and well paid help. You will never have a highly efficient Finance Department, or any other highly efficient department of the Government, until you are willing to pay men reasonable salaries for skilled service. As far as this particular item relating to the salary of the assistant deputy minister is concerned, it is precisely the same as it was before. The controller of the Dominion currency has been advanced to $4,500, and my opinion is that he is underpaid to-day -substantially underpaid-for the service which he renders. Then we have another item, that of "Accountant Contingencies," at $3,000. The accountant of contingencies is Mr. Brittain. Mr. Brittain until last year was in the second division grade "A", and had gone up to the maximum of the division, namely, $2,800. The House may know that among the other duties which have developed upon me since the outbreak of the war are those connected with the position of honorary treasurer of the Patriotic Fund. Some $23,000,000 or $24,000,000 have been subscribed to the fund by the patriotic people of Canada, and there is a very great deal of work connected with the administration of the fund in my office. All the moneys are paid into the honorary treasurer and they are checked out by the Finance Department to the several organizations throughout the country for the purposes of the fund. The .official who has had to do with that work is Mr. Brittain and Mr. Brittain has literally laboured day and night, in season and out, in connection with that work. The Cana-
114 J
dian Patriotic Fund, about a year and a half agp, offered to give Mr. Brittain a gratuity of $1,000 in recognition of his patriotic service in connection with the fund. Mr. Brittain declined to accept that gratuity. He said that he preferred that his work should go to the fund, that that was his contribution. When I had under consideration the question of salaries this year, I thought it only fair to Mr. Brittain, who is an excellent official and quite entitled upon his merits as an officer apart from the duties devolving upon him in connection with the Patriotic Fund, that he should go into the first division of class " A " and should receive a salary of $3,000. I doubt if any hon. member of this House will raise any objection to Mr. Brittain being recognized by advancement to a position having a salary of $3,000. In addition, we have the commissioner of taxation at $5,000 and the assistant commissioner of taxation at $3,500. In connection with my department in ordinary times there is what is known as the Tariff Branch. It requires experienced and skilled men to be competent tariff officers and I believe I am fortunate in having two of the ablest tariff men in this country in my department. Both men had long experience in connection with the Customs before entering the Department of Finance. One is Mr. Russell and the other is Mr. Breadner. With Mr. Breadner, with Mr. Russell and with John McDougald, who is a great official, one of the greatest officials this country has ever produced, and who holds the office of Commissioner of Customs, this country is exceptionally well equipped in tariff officers. I doubt if *any country is better equipped or served by tariff experts than Canada is by the Commissioner of Customs and the two gentlemen I have named. It is the duty of these men in the Tariff Branch to keep in touch with tariff matters, with general business and industry, with prices and with the tariffs of otheT countries so that we have at all times information in respect to matters that may be .of importaance in connection with the tariff. Last year I introduced the Business Pirofits War Tax Act and its administration has devolved very responsible duties upon my department. In the organization which was created to carry out the legislation we appointed Mr. Breadner as commissioner of taxation and Mr. Russell as assistant commissioner of taxation. These men have had in addition to their ordinary duties the responsibility of administering the Business Profits

War Tax Act, a very responsible duty indeed. They have had to organize, practically over the entire, c.ountry, a staff for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and of levying and collecting the tax. I bear tribute to the faithfulness and ability with which they have carried out their duties. But the point I desire to make now is that there has been added to them since last year the administration of this Act. In recognition of that fact, and of the additional duties and responsibilities devolving upon them, their salaries have been increased by $500 in both cases, Mr. Breadner from $4,500 to $5,000 and Mr. Bussell from $3,000 to $3,500. These are the [DOT]circumstances with the increases which are indicated in this item in the Estimates now before the committee. I submit that the work of the department has greatly increased, that the staff have fully risen to the occasion, and that all the members of the staff whose names are mentioned here and with whose cases I have dealt in this brief statement before the committee are deserving of the appointments which they have received and of the salaries attached to the positions.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Without in any way
diverging from the question, may I ask at this point if in the collection of the war tax there are many cases pending where people have refused to pay and action has been taken by the department, or if the administration has been smooth, and every one has paid?


William Thomas White: The administration of the Business Profits War Tax has been most satisfactory. The public who have been subjected to the taxation have been more than, willing to pay their contributions-they have been anxious to pay. There have been practically no cases of dispute between the department and those assessed. That arises from the fact that in most cases the capital is comparatively easily established; the profits are made known from the accounting statement, and the rest is a 'matter of mathematical calculation. But there are, of course, many cases in which a difference of opinion would arise and in which difference of opinion has arisen with regard to capitalization; and there have been some cases of dispute as to the amount which might reasonably be allowed for depreciation under the Act. A number of cases of that kind are always pending. But when the matter has been .brought to my attention and we have gone into the facts fully and have had the parties to

Ottawa and fully considered the situation, there have been almost no cases in which we did not reach a conclusion that was satisfactory to the department. There has been no disposition on the part of the public to resist the taxation'in any way; in fact, the contrary has been the case; they have been anxious and desirous to pay, and I hope that it will not be necessary to litigate any cases in connection with that taxation. On the whole, I think the impression has been that the department has administered the tax very fairly and reasonably, always with a due regard to the provisions of the Act, which, of course, it is our duty to enforce strictly.
I do not know that it is 'necessary for me to say anything further. I am glad in a way that my hon. friend raised the question of the salaries, because it has given me an opportunity of making a statement which I feel that I should make in reference to the staff. I do not believe that any of these salaries are high, having regard to the skill required, the responsible nature of the duties devolving upon the officials. On the contrary, I believe they are considerably below the salares paid in financial institutions outside. I am positive as to that, and I make the statement again which I made this afternoon, that I do not believe there is any financial institution in this country which could have handled the gold shipments, of which I have made special mention, and the domestic loans, aggregating $350,000,000, as efficiently as the officials of the Finance Department have handled that business. Just in connection with the loans, let me point out that there were not only the $350,000,000 of war loan issues, but in addition to that, over 100,000 of the small war saving certificates have been issued. I am sure the House will be pleased to learn that within the last three months the public of this country have subscribed for over 100,000 of these $25, $50, and $100 war savings certificates, aggregating over $7,000,000 in gross amount. Those represent for the most part subscriptions by those of comparatively slender means. They were anxious to contribute of their resources to the Government in order to aid in the prosecution of the war. In addition to that, they will have their savings in that form of investment, and that may be a matter of considerable importance to the country, especially having regard to the conditions that may prevail after the war is over.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Finance entirely misconceived the criticism which I

made against his action in over-riding, as I said, the provisions of the Civil Service Act, and including these amounts in the estimates in the way he has done. The only answer he has made is that the department has had a great deal of important work to attend to. I do not dispute that. But other departments have also had very important work to do. Take the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I understand that its work has been very great, and necessarily it would be greatly increased by reason of the war. But I do not understand that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is recommending that in the case of his officials the Civil Service Act should be disregarded.
I do not understand that his officials are asking for that. I understand that they, having taken their offices under the Civil Service Act, have been quite content to perform their duties and to take the increases which the Act proviides. So I thought that the Department of Militia had been very greatly worked and overworked during the war. I do not imagine that there is any official of the Government who has had a greater strain put upon him by the war than General Fiset, the Deputy Minister of Militia. But his minister is not recommending that the Civil Service Act should be overridden in his case. He is not asking for special consideration, or a special vote of Parliament. Apparently the Minister of Militia recognizes that in these times of stress, when everybody has to suffer, when many people have to do a great deal of work for very little'pay, and everybody has to live on very much less than he required before the war, the officials of that department are willing to perform their duties without asking that the law should be violated. When the Minister of Finance, with his broad and generous views upon financial questions, accustomed to big salaries, many times be-yound what this Government has been paying to its officials, comes in and asks that, with respect to his department, an exception shall be made, that the law shall be overridden, the reasons for the establishment of thb Civil Service Act by Parliament shall be ignored, and that these gentlemen who have been in the service a very short time shall receive for limited service the same salaries as other officials who have been giving splendid work to the country for a great many years. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance speaks of the work that has been done; and I am willing to recognize the importance of it, and the splendid way in which it has been done; I am willing to join in testimony to
the officials of the Finance Department for their energy, capability, and devotion to duty. But I desire, also, to say to the Dominion Government and the people of Canada that they ought to be proud of the Civil Service at Ottawa in all departments, and I have had occasion to know the way in which they perform their duties. I say that in all the departments the Government and people of this country are getting splendid service at, in most instances, a very low remuneration for the duties which are performed by the Civil Service.
But the Minister of Finance has forgotten to tell the committee that he has in his department now .117 employees, as against 104 last year.
While there is much responsibility in the 1 andling of gold bars, i take it that the assistant deputy minister, the comptroller of dominion currency and the accountant of contingencies are not very much occupied in handling them. Very large responsibility rests upon the efficient Deputy Minister of Finance in connection with these matters, but he is getting no increase. Is there any official in the department, who has the same degree of responsibility as the deputy minister? Under the Civil Service Act he is entitled to $5,000 a year; apparently he is contented with that. New men are brought into the department and given substantially the same-in one instance exactly the same-as the deputy minister receives, who has been in the department for a great many years. The deputy minister has grown old in the service; to my knowledge he has done splendid work. My hon. friend referred to the great work of the mint. His department has nothing to do with the mint, which is a department of the Imperial Government.


William Thomas White: I paid a tribute to the work of the mint.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend did so with the view of throwing a halo round himself and his department. The mint was established by the late Government, in the face of a great deal of criticism on the part of hon. gentlemen then of the Opposition. The mint is doing splendid work, hut it is a department of the Imperial Government; therefore its work does not in any way add to the work which the officials of the Finance Department are performing. My criticism is that equally good and equally important work is being done in other departments; that it is contrary to the principles upon which the Civil Service Act

was based and contrary to the spirit which ought to animate the Government in the administration of that Act that certain officials should receive exceptional treatment as against other equally hard-worked officials. The salaries proposed to be given to the assistant deputy minister and the comptroller of dominion currency, $4,500, and the commissioner of taxation, $5,000, are not warranted by the Civil Service Act. My hon.. friend knows that he is acting contrary to the provisions of the Civil Service Act when he comes to Parliament and asks for this vote. He has referred to Mr. John McDougald, Commissioner of Customs, as a splendid official. So he is, but he has given his whole life to the service of the country, and, splendid official as he is, the Minister of Finance has not asked for an increase for him. Not one dollar is to be added to his salary, notwithstanding the length of his service and the great work that he has done. Yet this young man who was appointed commissioner of taxation, coming into the department only in recent years, receives the same salary as Mr. McDougald, whom my hon. friend has eulogized.


William Thomas White: Does my hon.
friend not know that 'Mr. Breadner has been thirty years in the Dominion service?


William Pugsley: Well, I suppose Mr. McDougald has been fifty years in the service.


Mr. HAZEN:: Oh, no, he was in this
House not so very many years ago.


William Pugsley: Pretty nearly fifty years, then.


Mr. REID:: Twenty years.


William Pugsley: Mr. Breadner was in a subordinate position in the Customs Department, while Mr. McDougald occupies a position next to the minister. Besides, Mr. Breadner was out of the service for a while, being employed by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.


John Dowsley Reid: He was twenty-six years in the service before he went with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. He has been back about four years.


William Pugsley: How many years was he out of the service?


John Dowsley Reid: About four years, but he has been in the service about thirty years altogether.


William Pugsley: I should not like to say anything that would even appear to be a [Mr. Pugsley. I
criticism of Mr. Breadner, for I recognize that he is an excellent official. But the Minister of Finance is taking Mr. Breadner outside of the Civil Service Act, and he is leaving Mr. McDougald under its provisions.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps the hon. gentleman does not know that Mr. Breadner was getting a salary of $4,500 a year from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association at the time he returned to the service.


William Pugsley: I suppose he was, but he chose to come back to the service of the Government. There must be attractions in the Government service. Mr. Butler, who was Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals for quite a long time, could have obtained outside the Government service at any time twice the salary that he was receiving in the department. In the Department of Public Works, for instance, the chief engineer, the assistant to the chief engineer, or the superintendent of dredging would, I am told, receive from private companies or firms very much larger salaries than they receive in the service of the Government. But they are not treated with any special favour; they are compelled to accept the increases which the Civil Service Act provides. The comptroller of currency, to whom the minister referred, has not been a long time in the service.


William Thomas White: Twenty-two years.


William Pugsley: The Chief Accountant in the Department of Public Works, who handles millions of dollars every year, and whose duties are very heavy indeed, receives only $3,625. Since the Civil Service Act came into force he has been obliged to accept the increases provided by that Act. I mention him because I happen to know the very important duties which he has performed. He is not complaining-I am not speaking at his instance, for I have not been communicated with by anybody-but I am endeavouring to point out to the minister that great dissatisfaction is liable to be caused in the Civil Service by this discrimination-by applying the Civil Service Act to some officials and not to others. Hundreds of employees in the Civil Service, who are working at from $900 to $1,200 per year, are deserving of increases. They are hardly able to keep soul and body together in these days of the high cost of living, yet they cannot get any increase; they must remain under the terms of the Civil Service Act, getting increases through length of ser-

vice only as the Act provides. I do not complain that the gentlemen to whom I have referred are getting more than they are entitled to or more than they would get if engaged with firms or companies carrying on business. What I object to is the discrimination which the minister is exercising towards these gentlemen as against others in the service who are equally deserving and who discharge equally as important duties. The minister sought to show that the issuing of scrip takes up an enormous amount of time. One would almost think that these gentlemen had to write the scrip in their own handwriting or on a typewriter. My hon. friend knows that this scrip is all printed.


William Thomas White: I do not know anything of the kind.


William Pugsley: Or lithographed.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend does not know what he is talking about when he says that.


William Pugsley: How is it done?


William Thomas White: Scrip is partly printed, but the names, payments, etc., have to he filled in, and this involves an immense amount of work.


William Pugsley: Is that all?


William Thomas White: Yes. That is enough, too.


William Pugsley: Then it is all printed or lithographed, with the exception of certain blanks, which have to be filled in. This work could be done by any clerk receiving a salary of $500 a year. It is not work that requires any broad intellect.
I venture to say that my friend the deputy minister or those gentlemen who are receiving increases in salary would devote very little attention to that work, and that it would be done by some one of those hundred odd employees who are in the service of the department and who are receiving the smaller salaries. Let us take the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and let us take Mr. Anderson, the chief engineer as an instance. Mr. Anderson has been in the service for a great many years; he is discharging duties of a very important character: he is supervising the expenditure of millions of dollars of the people's money; he occupies a position where keen judgment, strict integrity and great devotion are required; yet all he receives under the Civil Service Act is $4,000 a year, and he cannot
get one dollar beyond that amount because that is the highest salary attaching to the head of a department next to the deputy minister. Yet, notwithstanding the fact that my hon. friend has a full knowledge of the long service that Mr. Anderson and men like him have given to the country, my hon. friend here gives to this comparatively young man a boost of $1,000 over and above what he receives under the Civil Service Act. In the Department of Public Works, Mr. Ewart, the chief architect, who has been for forty years, perhaps longer, in the department and who is a most faithful oflicial, cannot receive more than $4,000 a year. In the Department of Kailways, the chief engineer, I think, although I am not quite sure, receives only $4,000 a year. Mr. Dufresne, who was brought to the Department of Public Works from Winnipeg receives only $4,000 a year, although he is doing work of a very important character, and the supervising engineer, Mr. Valiquet, receives only $3,600 a year. All these gentlemen are doing very important work, and work which I think might be just as well recognized as the work which is being performed by those gentlemen in the Department of Finance; but the Minister of Finance is generous; he is apparently looking after his employees all the time; he does-not care what the Civil Service Act provides for; he apparently does not care how the employees of the other departments of Government are treated; he has broad and generous views in regard to his own department, and he asks this committee to favour certain officials in his department, and to leave the others to plod along as best they can, bound by the Civil Service Act. It is for that reason, I find fault with the (minister and not because for the work those gentlemen are performing they are highly paid; it is because I think there ought to be certain general rules which should apply to all the departments, and the Civil Service Act having been brought into operation to prevent discrim-9 p.m. ination taking place, to prevent favouritism, and to have one rule which should govern promotions and increases in salaries in all departments, it is because of all these things that I have said that the minister is violating the spirit of the Act, and that I have been endeavouring to criticise him in what I trust has not been in an offensive manner, but simply a manner that might be calculated to draw his attention to the undesirability of discriminating in this way and to stop such a course being followed in the future.


William Thomas White: As I have made an engagement to meet some of the members of the British Commission between nine and ten o'clock, I would be glad if the committee would oblige me by going on with some other item.


William Pugsley: Certainly.


William Thomas White: There is no reason why the discussion should not proceed while I am absent from the chamber.
Mr. LEMIEUXi: I wish to add a few words to what has already been said by my friend (Mr. Pugsley). I need not say that I am a friend of the civil servants. I have always shown my sympathy with the * Civil Service in a practical way, because I know many of the civil servants; and while I do not begrudge the increases which have been given in the cases mentioned by the Minister of Finance, and whilst I also bear tribute to the officials whose salaries have been increased, I can not, however, help thinking that something should be done for another class of civil servants. On different occasions, since the beginning of this Parliament in 1911, the question of increasing the salaries of the lower officials has been mooted in this House. The House will remember that in 1913 the question came up before us and that a Bill was to be introduced by which the messengers, letter carriers and third class officials of the Civil Service were to have their salaries increased. I understand that with the war breaking out and with the heavy expenditure entailed thereby, the Government hiave found it difficult, if not impossible, to implement the promise that was made then; but with the buoyant Tevenue and with the liberalities, the largesses, that have been made in favour of some, indeed of many of the higher officials, it seems to one that the Government should, not later than this session, increase the pittance which the messengers, charwomen, letter carriers and generally speaking, the third class officials in the various departments- of the Government receive. I need not say that in the present high cost of living, it is simply impossible for the messengers, letter carriers and others to live. Not a day elapses that I do not receive letters and petitions disclosing a state of things which should not be continued if the Government can prevent it. With the present price of the necessities of life, the price of food, the price of eMhdmg, it seems to me that the 
Government should not -hesitate, and that at this session a Bill should be introduced to give to those poor Civil Servants the increases to which they are entitled. I hope that before the committee adjourns we sh-ail have a declaration on the part of the Government of their policy on this subject.
I quite agree with my -horn. friend the Minister of Finance thlat Mr. Brittain is doing excellent work in connection with the Patriotic Fund. I happen to be a member of the Pa-trdotio Fund Committee, and I can assure this committee that no man has given more unreservedly and more liberally o-f his time than has Mr. Brittain. While speaking of the Patriotic Fund-and I am here expressing only my own opinion, and I commit no one to that opinion although I have heard it expressed by many outside of this House-as this war may last for many months mpre, although we all hope it will not last so long, and as the demand upon the public will 'become more and more pressing, I think that instead of leaving the Patriotic Fund to the generosity of the public at large, the Government should impose a small tax on every Canadian in order to assist the families of our soldiers who are serving overseas. That opinion has already been expressed in the press, and even by some of the most influential members of the Patriotic Fund committee. At present some people are called on over and over again to give subscriptions to the Patriotic Fund, while hundreds of thousands who are well able to subscribe contribute nothing. The special tax need not he very heavy. A mill on the dollar might bring magnificent results. I know that some villages and towns and cities and counties have contributed very generously. I remember last winter I was asked to inaugur-afe a campaign for the Patriotic Fund in the county of Renfrew, represented by my hon. friend to my right (Mr. Graham), and I am proud to say that the town of Renfrew alone contributed $50,000 inside of a week, although on two previous occasions it had given a like amount. The county of Renfrew also subscribed $100,000, outside altogether of the town's contribution. That was a splendid example for the other counties, but I still hold the view that though there is in some cities and towns and villages and communities that broad patriotism which impels the people to do their duty towards the Patriotic Fund, the Government should make a point of seeing that the thousands and thousands who now

escape are called upon to contribute, byimposing a small tax on every Canadian from one end of the Dominion to the other. Perhaps some members of the committee share my views on this question, and will speak this evening.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the previous speaker has said about increasing the pay of the lower grades of the Civil Service, especially as regards making it operative in the case o' the outside service as well as the inside service. I believe that none are more worthy of recognition than the letter carriers and the carriers on the rural mail routes throughout the country, and now that the Minister of Finance has somewhat loosened the bag in connection with his own department I hope that his generosity will extend to the other departments, with a view particularly to increasing the salaries of the lower grade officials.
One thing that interested me most of all in the remarks of the Minister of Finance was his statement with regard to the handling of the gold reserves of this country by the national treasury. The work has been done so well that I think the taking care of the gold reserves of this country should be left to the national treasury and its branches, and that hereafter the whole gold reserve of this country in connection with the operations of the Government and of our banks should be held in the national treasury at Ottawa. It is the beginning of a newer and a higher system of banking. It has already been adopted in the United States, where the banks now see the benefits of the gold reserves being in the custody of the Government. I think these gold reserves can be handled better and more cheaply in the national treasury than anywhere else. I think the gold reserves of this country, whether of our financial institutions or of the banks-there is a gold reserve in connection with the banks, though I cannot quite say where that gold reserve is-should be held in the national treasury and handled by the Finance Department. In speaking on this question before in the House, I have taken the ground that the nation should be at the head of the currency and banking institutions of our country, and I think the Finance Minister has given us a splendid illustration to-night of how well the nation can take hold and handle that part of our administration. When the minister comes to a revision of the banking and currency laws of this country I hope he will see his way to follow more closely the excellent
example of the United States of making the national treasury the repository of all the gold in the country.
Administration of Justice-Salaries, including J. P. Bill, at $4,000, and Miss G. Avery, promoted to Second Division, Subdivision B, at $1,200.


William Pugsley: Why is it necessary to
name these officers?


Mr. DOHERTY:: When Mr. Bill came
into the department he had been in a good law practice which he had to give up. At the time he ..entered the service it was understood that should his services prove satisfactory he would be given $4,000 which is the limit of his class. He has been in the department for three years, beginning at $3,300, and now is receiving $3,600.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What are his duties?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He is a law officer to
the department. On a number of occasions Ins work has come under my personal Observation and I have found it very satisfactory. If he conducted his legal practice with the same ability he has shown in the department he would certainly earn at least a sum equal to this. Miss AveTy is doing secretarial work for the Solicitor General. She is very attentive and frequently has to work beyond the regular hours. I feel that she earns even a larger salary than this.


William Pugsley: I do not wish to 'be unduly critical, but the very reason why these names have been given in the Estimates is that the Civil Service Act is not being complied with. I have made my remarks in that connection in discussing the Department of Finance.
Administration of Justice-Living allowance for Judge of Atlin District, B.C., $1,200.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who is the judge there?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Judge Y.oung.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What salary is he receiving?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The salary is $3,000, the same as was formerly given. The living allowance has been in force for many years.


William Pugsley: Where does the judge
reside?	*


Charles Joseph Doherty: At Prince Rupert.


William Pugsley: Why is it necessary to provide a living allowance for a judge residing at Prince Rupert?


Mr. NESBITT:: It must be pretty expensive there.

Mr. PUG8LEY: It is on a line of railway and I do not see why living there should be more expensive than in Vancouver or Victoria.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This living allowance
is an inheritance from the previous Government, a Government which, .according to hon. gentlemen opposite, did all things wisely and well. I have no information that the cost of living at Prince Rupert has decreased-since this allowance was made.


William Pugsley: I was told to-day of a
living allowance that was made in the case of an official in Dawson City. But suppose a railway were constructed to Dawson City, the effect would at once be to reduce the cost of living probably to one-quarter of what it is to-day. Before the railway was built at Prince Rupert, it was necessary to take supplies overland at very large expense, but I suppose that to-day these supplies are delivered at one-tenth of what it formerly cost. The minister is hardly safe in taking as a precedent what was done long before the railway was built. The case reminds me of one that was discovered in the Palais de Justice in Paris. A man stood, in the hall every day, and it was known that he was paid, but no one knew why. On inquiry, it was found that twenty-five years before they had painted the hall, and the man was put on to guard the fresh paint, and they had gone on paying him for twenty-five years.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall make inquiry
as to what the painting operations were in this case.


George Perry Graham: It has nothing to do with this item, probably, but there is a matter respecting the administration of justice in Ontario on which, I think, the Dominion and Provincial Governments should get together.
The number of cases to be tried, as well as the voters' lists to be looked after in many of the counties of Ontario, does not give sufficient work for one judge. Still we find that when a vacancy occurs a second judge is appointed. In a time like this, particularly when we are trying to save every dollar that we can, when the Finance Minister is warning us to eat less, to have our clothes pressed more frequently and to buy as few new ones as we can, and all that kind of thing, the public in these counties think it is a somewhat peculiar attitude for governments to take in appointing a second judge when there is not enough work to

keep one judge warm. Take the county of Renfrew, for instance; a vacancy occurred there, and that vacancy remained for many months-I imagine it ran into years- unfilled. The one judge was not overworked; he was not kept busy; he could have doubled his work and then not have broken any union labour rules. But we found the other day a second judge appointed. The difficulty these two men now have is to divide the work which was insufficient for one man into two parts nearly equal so that each of them can have something to do. Now, what the Minister of Justice will say in regard to that I think 1 know; he will say that the Provincial Government creates the office and we fill it. The Provincial Government has the power to say whether there shall be one judge or two judges in a district or county. For a good many years there have been two judges in Renfrew, and so long as the judges were there, of course, no person would suggest that either of them should be removed. The senior judge proved to be qhite elderly, and in order to have the work performed it was necessary to appoint a junior judge to really do the work. But the senior judge having passed away, the work was continued as before by the junior judge until recently, when a senior judge was appointed. I know the Minister of Justice could decline to appoint a judge even although there was a vacancy, but I can quite see difficulties in the way of his taking that attitude when the jurisdiction of the province calls for another judge. Is there not some way by which the Minister of Justice can call the attention of the attorneys general of the various provinces to the fact that in many of the counties there is not sufficient work for one judge, and that matters might remain in statu quo where two judges are acting, but that when a vacancy occurs they ought to take into consideration the duties to be performed and ascertain if it would not be possible to have a judgeship left vacant or abolished altogether. In ordinary times it is of sufficient importance to call attention to it, but in a time like this, when every man, woman and child is expected to do his or her duty and to aid financially and in every other way in the carrying on of the war, I think the governments ought to consult together, and that where it is possible to convince the province that a judgeship need not be filled, that judgeship may at least be left vacant if not abolished altogether.



Charles Joseph Doherty: No doubt there is a great deal in what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Graham says. The position is that we are face to face with a law enacted by the proper authorities determining the number of judges and it is a little difficult for us to step in and override the determination of the Legislature which is charged with that duty. In regard to the suggestion that is made, I may say that something over two years ago I did take up this matter more particularly in regard to the province of Ontario. I think it is more largely in Ontario than in the other provinces that there might be room for the suggestion that there are too many county court judges and that possibly in certain counties one judge might do the work. I took the matter up a couple of years ago with the then Attorney General of Ontario looking not to a system under which the position should remain in existence and not be filled by the Government but looking to a system whereby there might be a great reduction in the number of judges and, of course, making a reduction in such places as the hon. member referred to where possibly there would not be enough work for the number of judges provided for. At the time I made some suggestions of this kind upon the subject it appeared that they were looked upon favourably but they were never followed by action and I find. myself face to face with the same situation. I certainly would be glad if the different provincial authorities would look into the matter and, where circumstances justified it, I would be very pleased if they would take such steps as might reduce the number. In the meantime it is not very easy for me to undertake to discriminate and determine whether the number of judges provided for would be justified and proceed to do the things which under the law they ought to do. I might be mistaken- about it and if I were I would be in -the unfortunate position of overriding the opinion of those who by law aTe charged with the determination of the question. But I will be very glad to act upon the suggestion again and request the provincial authorities to look into the question of the number of judges and the amount of work they are called upon to do.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to endorse what my hon. friend from Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has said and I would urge upon the minister to take the matter up as he has suggested. What'the hon. member for Renfrew said is true that in some of the counties where they have two judges they
have no more work than one judge can properly do and not be hurried at that. Litigation of this kind has fallen off very materially recently in Ontario and there is no necessity for having so many of these judges.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is any of this $10,000 for miscellaneous expenditure applied towards the making of the voters' lists in unorganized territories? The judges in the unorganized territories are supposed to prepare the voters' lists. There is a special provision in the electoral law to that effect. Is any of the amount spent for the revision of the lists?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I believe not.
Supreme Court of Canada-Contingencies and disbursements, $15,500.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where are those contingencies?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They are indicated in the gfeneral. terms of the item. I have not any details of the item but the hon. member will note that this is the same amount as was provided for last year. It includes books, stationery and p'rinting, temporary employees engaged from time to time, telephones, telegrams, and many things of that kind.	.


George Perry Graham: How much of this item
was spent last year? The appropriation seems to be about the same from year to year, -and if any of it is unnecessary it would be a good time to cut down the estimate.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not the details, but the officer informs me that the amount is just about spent in each year.


George Perry Graham: I see an item for sheriffs. With us in Ontario the sheriffs are provincial officers. How do we come to be paying them?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that while the sheriff is a provincial officer his services are required for our Federal Court, and the sheriff of the county of Carleton is paid, I think, $5 a day, for the days on which his services are required by us.


Mr. MACDONALD:: I observed a newspaper report the . other day that the Dominion Government had advised the Imperial Government that it would be unwise for them to pass an Act concerning certain legislation passed by the Legislature of British -Columbia. My recollection of the circumstances is that the province

passed legislation and the point was raised that, owing to the expiration of the term of the legislature, for some reason, the legislation was beyond the power of -the province. An application was made to the Imperial authorities for confirmatory or declaratory legislation. The suggestion was made that the Imperial Government asked the Dominion Government for advice, and that the advice was given that it would be unwise to confirm the legislation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What happened was
this:	Certain legislation was enacted by
the legislature of the province of British Columbia and it was sanctioned, I think, on the 15th of March. The question that arose was whether the term of the legislature expired on the 14th of March or the 15th of March. What happened was that the legislation went through the Chamber on March 14 and was sanctioned by the Lieutenant Governor of the province only upon March 15, and there was some question in the mind of the legislators as to the validity of that legislation. The province of British Columbia considered that the proper way to remedy it was to get the Parliament of the United Kingdom to ratify that legislation. They sent forward their petition for this legislation through the Secretary of State, who forwarded it to the Imperial authorities. The latter, whether in their own mind there arose any question on the subject or not, for some reason asked this Government its opinion as to the necessity for or desirability of this legislation, and this request, by some accident, did not reach the department as promptly as it might. Tlie Imperial authorities repeated their inquiry and expressed great anxiety for an opinion. In compliance with their request, we did express an opinion on the matter on which we were asked to express an opinion, and substantially the opinion was that, whatever might have been the situation with regard to the existence of the legislature at the time of the sanctioning of this legislation, there was subsequently elected a legislature about whose power there arose no question whatsoever. This legislation, which had been enacted in that way, and which it was suggested had been sanctioned after the legislature had expired, was on a subject matter within the legislative competency of the Legislature of British Columbia, and assuming that the first legislature had expired and therefore those laws were not valid, the matter being one susceptible of being dealt with by the legisfMr. Macdonald.]
lature of the province of British Columbia, it seemed to us perfectly clear that that new Legislature of British Columbia was perfectly competent itself to ratify and validate the legislation of the previous legislature. I am just giving a statement of the substantial question. More than one piece of legislation was affected by this doubt, because, if my memory serves me, the legislation concerning which the question arose was legislation extending the term of the legislature, and, of course, if that legislation extending the term of the legislature was not valid it would affect the validity of such legislation as was enacted during tne extended term, and they desired to have all of that legislation ratified. But it seemed to us, with all respect to the advisers of the Legislature of British Columbia, to be quite clear that it was quite within the power of the new Legislature of British Columbia, concerning whose legal existence and competency there was no question, to validate that legislation and to give it retroactive effect. I do not know what action was taken by the authorities on the other side; I am inclined to believe that the Imperial authorities concurred in the advice offered to them. Upon that I do not speak positively.


William Pugsley: I should think that all that this Government would have done would have been simply to transmit the request of the British Columbia Government to the Imperial authorities.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is all we did.


William Pugsley: I understand that this Government did not suggest, in the first instance, anything to the Imperial Government, but that the Imperial Government asked for advice. In that I would be inclined to think the British Government erred. I should think that if they were -going to deal with the subject at all they ought not to have asked foT advice from the Dominion Government-, because the Lieutenant Governor of a province represents the Crown.
That has been held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and I would think that the British Columbia Government would be entitled to have the Imperial Government take such action as might be deemed proper, independently of the Dominion Government. Perhaps it would have been better if this Government had simply transmitted the request to . the Imperial Government, to be dealt with entirely by them. However, I may be wrong in that. Perhaps this Government was right in giving advice, but I would have thought

differently, having regard to the fact that the legislature of each province occupies a sovereign position as to all matters within its jurisdiction, the Lieutenant Governor representing the Sovereign in provincial matters just as the Governor General of Canada represents the Sovereign in respect of matters pertaining to the whole dominion. As this matter, therefore, was entirely out of the jurisdiction of this Government, oeing a question as between the Imperial authorities and the Government of British Columbia, I would have supposed that this Government would have simply transmitted the request to the Imperial authorities.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When we transmitted the request and it went forward, they rather assumed on the other side that we were asking that the request be granted, though the intention certainly was only to transmit the request. The question addressed to us by the Imperial authorities was why this Government thought that that legislation ought to be enacted. I shall not discuss the propriety of the action of the Imperial authorities in asking us that, or the question whether they should more properly have directed such an inquiry to the Provincial Legislature. They did ask us, and it seemed to us that it was only courteous that we should answer the question. But I am not quite prepared to accept the view of the hon. gentleman that the matter was no concern of the Dominion of Canada. The British North America Act concerns the Dominion of Canada very closely, and it is not desirable that the British North America Act, at the request of a province or anybody else, should be amended, or, if I may use the expression, tinkered with, unless absolutely necessary. The British North America Act is, in a sense, our common charter; it is the charter of the dominion and of all the provinces, and I think that it is not an improper view that the Government of the Dominion is interested in any amendment of the British North America Act. It wpuld be unwise to create precedents for intervention by the home Parliament in the legislative action of provinces of this Dominion unless the circumstances rendered it absolutely necessary. One very important trust that the Dominion Government is entrusted with is the constitution of the country and, more particularly, the right to internal self-government within the Dominion, whether by provincial legislature or by the Parliament of Canada, under the British
North America Act. It behooves the Dominion Government to see that precedents for interference by the home Parliament with matters within the Dominion of Canada that fall clearly within the scope of legislative power, either of this Parliament or of the legislatures, should not be encouraged. Of course, noibody disputes the legal power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate upon any matter of this kind, even though the power has been given to Canada or to the provinces. I refer to the legal power; but the constitutional right to do it is quite another thing. It is wise to have a careful eye that you do not allow precedents for such intervention to be created, and it did seem to us in this particular matter that it would be an unfortunate precedent to establish. The request by the legislature of British Columbia implied that that legislature had not the power which it seemed to us it clearly had. Acquiescence in the request by this Government through its law officers' approval of it and approval of it hy the law officers of the home Government and by the Imperial Parliament would stand as creating a strpng presumption that the legislature of British Columbia had not the power which we believed it had 'to deal with the matter. This precedent might be invoked against any other legislature within the Dominion as constituting authoritative recognition of the proposition that the different 'legislatures had not this power. It is a duty incumbent upon those who are responsible for the control of the affairs of this Dominion to protect the right to deal within Canada with the whole field of legislation so far as regards our internal affairs. I cannot quite agree, therefore, with the suggestion that it is 'a matter of indifference to us whether the provinces acquire the habit of going straight to the Imperial Parliament and asking them to legislate for the provinces in matters clearly belonging to the legislatures themselves. I do not know that any law imposes that duty upon us, but I do not think that it is a matter of reproach to us that we should feel, as I think all Governments have felt, that it is the duty of the Canadian Government to act as a jealous custodian of the right of self-government within the limits oi this Dominion to the extent that that right is conferred upon us by the British North America Act.


William Pugsley: I did not intend to reproach the Government at all; I simply

suggested that- the particular question which came up in this case concerned only the legislature and people of British Columbia. I did not assume for a moment that the Imperial Parliament had been asked to validate any assumed legislation except in so far as the legislature had the power to legislate, provided it was an existing body. I was taking it for granted that the legislature of British Columbia did not ask anything more than that, so that the question of legislation being ultra vires, or anything of that kind, would not be raised. I understand that the province of British Columbia thought that as the term of the legislature had expired, there was really no legislation at all, or that the whole matter was assumption. I quite agree with the Minister of Justice that the utmost care should be exercised to prevent any alteration in the British North America Act. As the British North America Act is the constitution under which the different provinces have come together, it should be jealously guarded, both by this Parliament and by the legislatures of the different provinces. I wish to explain to the minister that that was all I meant, not that the Imperial Parliament should confirm any legislation that might otherwise be ultra vires, but simply that it should confirm what the legislature professed to do and could have done if it had been a properly constituted legislature when it enacted the legislation.	.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The point was that we considered that that very confirmatory legislation was legislation within the power of the legislature itself.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is this further point to be considered with regard to the matter. I quite agree with the minister that if the proposition was to amend the British North America Act with regard to any question that might trench upon the problem of jurisdiction of either the federal parliament or any of the provincial legislatures, the matter should be called to the attention of the Federal Government, but in this particular case it must be remembered that my hon. friend has, to a very great degree, created a precedent in regard to the matter. The proposition that was submitted to him was an amendment to the British North America Act, it is true, hut it was not an amendment in regard to any matter which would conflict with the jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament, and I submit with all deference, that it would have been better, and would have probably avoided a question which might arise in
[Mr. Pugsley.J
the future and from which rights could be inferred and claims could be asserted as to the Federal Parliament expressing opinions with reference to provincial legislation, if the minister had refrained from expressing an opinion upon a question which in no manner whatever interfered with or had to do with the jurisdiction of this Federal Parliament. If the question to be dealt with was one where you had legislation trenching upon federal jurisdiction, the minister would be quite within his power to state the views of his Government, but in this purely internal matter, I question whether the minister has not made a precedent which will be invoked at some future time and which will probably result in a very complicated situation. I think the minister will agree with me in that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I must say that I am glad I made the precedent, and the more the hon. member will show me that that precedent is likely to be followed, the more glad I shall be that I made it. I cannot agree with the view that it is a matter of indifference to Canada whether or not we allow a practice to grow up of abdication by the legislatures of the powers conferred upon them by the British North America Act. I thinik that if the legis-
10 p.m. lation had been passed by the Imperial Parliament, there you would have created a very unfortunate precedent, and when some other legislature, in the exercise of a power which the law advisers of this Government, would be perfectly clear belonged to it, would seek to ratify some previous legislation of its own, it would be exposed to the suggestion: But you have not such powers; and not only the legislature of British Columbia did not think it had power, since it asked for ratification at the hands of the British Parliament, but the law officers of the Dominion evidently did not think it had, because they passed that request on without observation, and when asked for an opinion, they declined to give any, but more than that, the United Kingdom Parliament considered that the legislature had not power to legislate on such a matter, since it legislated upon it itself, apparently considering such action necessary. All of the provinces are interested, and all of the provinces being interested, I think it is a matter of general interest to Canada in there not being created precedents that are of a nature to throw serious and grave doubt upon powers which they are entitled, as we believe they

are, to exercise, and I think it is very much safer to leave to the courts the determination of whether a legislature has exceeded its powers than for that legislature to be in a hurry to admit that it has, and to run to the Imperial Parliament to ask for intervention. If we were mistaken in our view, of course that would be unfortunate, just as it is unfortunate when any legal adviser gives mistaken advice; but in this particular matter, I have no reason to doubt that the view expressed was correct, and that view being correct-and I thoroughly believe it to be correct-I think there was great public interest in Canada to prevent the making of the precedent that would have been made had the legislation been enacted by the Imperial Parliament.
Exchequer Court of Canada-Contingencies, etc., $6,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I wish to ask the
minister a question in regard to a matter relating to the province of Manitoba, the correspondence in connection with which has been asked for, but has not yet been brought down. I refer to the Jury Act, which was passed by the province of Manitoba, and in regard to which my hon. friend raised some exception to the right of the province to pass such legislation. I had an opportunity of looking into the matter in some slight degree, and I was somewhat surprised to find that the ground was taken by my hon. friend that legislation on the statute books of the older provinces of Canada governed' trials by juries which should be drawn and empanelled in those provinces by virtue of provincial statutes in terms practically the same a6 that to which my hon. friend took exception. I would like to know from him as to whether that statute was disallowed or what is the position of the matter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The correspondence was brought down and laid upon the Table of the House some time ago. The Act was not disallowed. I might further say that it is my intention, as will appear in the correspondence, to propose an amendment to the Criminal Code that will meet the difficulty, and what seems to me still to be the possible abuse that might arise by the combination of the provision of that statute of Manitoba with a provision existing in the Criminal Code. Without the correspondence before me, of course, I do not pretend to speak with absolute exactitude; but the suggestion that was made to the Manitoba Government did not proceed at all upon the ground that there was not legislative power
to enact this statute. What was pointed out was that, in view of a provision standing in the Criminal Code enabling the Crown to exercise indefinitely, to the extent of the entire panel, the right simply to "stand aside" the jurors as they were called, the legislation that made it possible to summon a very large number of jurors operative in combination with the provisions of the Criminal Code, placed the Crown in a position where it might exercise this right of "stand aside" to the extent of a very large number indeed. That seemed to us an undesirable condition to be in. I do not dispute at all that there has been legislation by other provinces which has created a similar situation, but I am quite free to admit that it had never been called to my attention. It was not legislation enacted since I have held the position which I now occupy, and I may say that I have spent my life in a province where there always was and still is a limitation upon the number of the panel to be summoned. I am perfectly free to admit that this indefinite number was quite new to me. The suggestion that was made to the Manitoba Government was merely that they should not exercise this new power until, this Parliament having met, there should be an opportunity to consider the situation created by the -removal of the limitation on the number-a situation which had existed' for some time with regard to the other provinces, but to which our attention had not been called. Perhaps there will be a better opportunity for discussion of this question when we come to discuss the Bill which is now on the Order Paper for amending the provisions of the Criminal Code, so as to put under the supervision of the judge the extent to which the absolute right to stand aside shall be exercised by the Crown. When that legislation comes down I shall have all the papers with me, and there will be every opportunity to discuss the matter, which certainly presents an interesting question with regard to criminal procedure, and as to what is understood by the constitution of the courts in the British North America Act.
Miscellaneous expenses, Exchequer Court In Admiralty, $500.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not want to go into the matter to-night, because I have not the papers before me, but I should like the minister to give me an opportunity when his estimates come up again to discuss the question of the cancellation of the warrant appointing Mr. Justice Martin, of British

Columbia, to be a judge iu the Prize Court of that province.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not quite clear
how we can very well discuss that matter in this House. It is not a question of an Admiralty judge, though this same gentleman did hold the position of an Admiralty judge, hut a question regarding the judge of a Prize Court, and a Prize Court is an Imperial Court. The judge was appointed by Imperial authority, and the action that was taken was by the Imperial authorities. No action in connection with this matter was taken by his Government, nor was there any action that this Government (oould take. The commission of alll ffhe Prize Court judges emanate from Imperial authority.


Charles Murphy: Did not the Deputy
Minister of Justice appear in the case at soime stage of the proceedings?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It would be more correct to say that Mr. Newcombe appeared at one -stage of the proceedings, under appointment of the Imperial Government. I cannot quite recollect the correct title of his position, but he appeared as the advocate of the Admiralty, and not as Deputy Minister of Justice at all. Frankly, I cannot see wh-at we are going to discuss. There is -a motion on the Order Paper, for instance, asking for papers -and correspondence in connection with the matter. Now this department has not got the papers and correspondence. I d-o not mean to say that the legal -advisor of the Admiralty has not the papers, but I do not think I am entitled to exercise any control over him in this matter, as he acts under the instructions of th-e Imperial (Government, whidh also appointed Mr. Justice Martin to be a judge of the Prize Court, he being then local judge in Admiralty, and these commissions from th-e British Government for judges of the prize courts running to the local judges in Admiralty. For Teason-s sufficient to them, they revoked the commission they had granted. It was not a matter that we were concerned in at all, -nor had any part in. When war broke out and it became evident there would be prize court proceedings in this country, the Imperial authorities a-sked us to suggest the name of somebody who might act in the capacity of legal adviser of the Admiralty, and we suggested the name
Mr. Newcombe, who is the Deputy Minister of Justice.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: On the eve of war
there was considerable correspondence between the Imperial and Federal Governments with regard to the constitution of prize courts in Canada. That correspondence is of course a -matter of record, and indicates the action of the Dominion Government; I have copies of it. I quite apprehend the point of the Minister of Justice, that this is a matter of Imperial rather than Federal concern. Without my data before me I would not pretend to go into that question to-night. But if the minister would do me the courtesy of enabling me to bring this matter up at a subsequent date I think I might he able to show grounds why this Parliament has the right to know whether this judge signed in accordance with the previous arrangement made in reference to the constitution of the court, and that this is a matter of concern to the people of Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not want to make an absolute declaration that there is absolutely nothing in connection with these prize courts that might not be a proper matter for discussion in this House. I shall be glad if some proper opportunity occurs to discuss this matteT, but I do not quite foresee to what item of the Estimates the matter would be pertinent.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Perhaps on some Exchequer Court item, and I mention that because Judge alleges that Mr. Justice Gassets of the Exchequer Court, who i-s also a judge of the prize court, made an order which he had no right to make, and which interfered with a case before him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no doubt, there was a marked difference of opinion between the local judge of the prize court and the judge of the prize court, that is, Judge Cassels, who is also the judge of the Exchequer Court. Judge Martin is the local judge in Admiralty and a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. If the matter can be shown to be one with which we in this Parliament are concerned, I will not stand on any technicality as to the item on which it is to be discussed. -
Expenses of litigated matters conducted within the Department of Justice, $13,000.,


Charles Murphy: What class of cases does this cover?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It covers the expenses of conducting litigation by the department which is not provided for elsewhere. The

amount spent in 1914-15 was $5,937.60, and in 1915-16, it was $11,778.70. The hon. member is probably aware that while quite a large portion of the litigation is carried on through agents appointed outside, a very considerable portion is carried on in the Department of Justice itself. This item is for expenditure in connection with the latter class of cases.
Expenses under the Pecuniary Claims Convention with the United States, $5,000.


Charles Murphy: What stage has that reached?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot give the exact number of matters in dispute heard by the commission, but there have been a number, and some of them disposed of. The operations of the Pecuniary Claims Commission have been suspended since the outbreak of the war. We are asking for this vote in ease the war closes and the work can be resumed.
Peni ten tiaries-Dorchester, $108,800.


Mr. COPP:: Has the minister received petitions or letters from the guards and other officials with regard to an increase of salaries? And, if so, what is he doing about it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have had petitions for some allowance in view of what is represented to be the exceptionally high cost of living. So far as the guards and lower salaried officers are concerned, I expect to deal with that matter in the Supplementary Estimates.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am very glad that the minister has taken the matter up, because I have personal information that the salaries paid there make it almost impossible for the men to keep their families in respectability.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was not in when the item with regard to tl?e Yukon was discussed. With permission, I would like to get some information on the subject. I understand there is one judge only in the Yukon?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Only one High Court judge. There is a stipendiary magistrate at White Horse. The High Court judge is at Dawson. There is only one judge. He also does the work that might perhaps belong 'to a magistrate if we had a magistrate there.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There are not as
many people as there are in a good sized town in the east.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, but we cannot leave them absolutely without any provision. It is only a few years since there were three judges. We arranged for the retirement of two of them when we found the situation . to be as it is.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There was an item
for the Manitoba penitentiary. What is the position in regard to the Kelly case?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Kelly is in the penitentiary in Manitoba undergoing sentence.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the answer the minister gave to the clergyman who passed a resolution in regard to his special treatment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We explained to the
clergy that Mr. Kelly is being treated under the advice of the surgeon of the penitentiary *corroborated by the advice of an outside physician who has been summoned and that we have acted in accordance with what both medical men have recommended. The papers were brought down and I think the certificates of these medical men were included amongst them, but if not I shall be very glad to bring down the certificates as to Kelly's physical condition and the necessity of dealing with him as we have dealt [DOT]with him by reason of that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Some of the papers in Manitoba contained statements to the effect that he does not wear the prison uniform and does not conform to the rules, but these facts do not seem to have any relation to his being in the hospital ward of the penitentiary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is quite true that he does not wear the prison garb. The connection between that and his physical condition is this:	The certificates of the
doctors show that Mr. Kelly is suffering from nervous prostration, so much so that *one of them went so far as to say that Kelly ought to have been discharged. But,
1	felt that that was a serious matter. At the , same time I did not feel, in view of the professional opinions of these gentlemen who are both reputable and competent physicians, that I could entirely override their advice and precipitate possibly a condition in which this man might become insane if his nervous condition should become any further exaggerated which, in their opinion, might be brought about by his being put into the garb and put through the operation of clipping his hair and the rest of it. We have acted in regard to the matter on the advice of these medical gentlemen absolutely as we would act upon the same ad-



vice with any convict whomsoever who might be detained in the penitentiary.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the minister
bring 'down the certificates to which he refers?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, if they have not already been brought down. I brought down the papers in regard to the treatment of Kelly and my belief is that the certificates formed part of the file. If they did not I will be very happy to bring them down.	.	.


Charles Murphy: Will the minister also
bring down the papers in connection with the case that I asked about some days ago; that is the release of Edward Levi Baugh which has attracted some attention in Toronto? I :am somewhat interested in that ease, and I would be glad if the minister would be good enough to bring down the papers similar to those in the Kelly case, the doctors' certificates and the trial judge's report.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to the trial judge's report, the established practice has been that the reports of judges in reference to clemency cases, other than capital oases, where the judges report in the performance of a statutory duty, have been treated as confidential. The judge is not bound by law to give us reports upon proceedings in eases of clemency under the Ticket-of-Leave Act and it has been a well established practice to treat these reports as confidential. We have had the matter up since I have held my present position and it came up under preceding Ministers of Justice. It has been the universal practice not to bring down papers in connection with applications for clemency and more particularly the judge's report, the view being entertained that we can expect more outspoken advice, that advice having nothing to do with the legal side of the matter, if the judge feels that Ms communications to us will be treated as being confidential. This House has sanctioned the proposition that papers of that kind should not be brought down. With regard to the medical certificate I will be very glad to tMnk that over and bring it down. I brought down the papers in this case because they were asked for not from the point of view of any application for clemency but in connection with the question as to the manner in which this man was being treated in the penitentiary. However, I may say that I do not see any objection to producing the medical certirMr. Doherty.]
ficaites if there were any. I will look into it and let my hoe. friend know.


Charles Murphy: Could my hon. friend
state, if he is unable to bring down a copy of the judge's report, whether the judge favoured the application for release or not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in a position to state that. The case was dealt with in my absence and I have not had occasion to look it up since. I am not familiar with it.


Charles Murphy: When my hon. friend does look it up, will he be able to give me the information about that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Whether the judge was favourable or was not favourable?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have proceeded on the principle that we should not communicate what the judge's view was. Perhaps my hon. friend will recollect that we had a motion a couple of years ago for the production of papers and I then went as far back as I could go and found that there had been a perfectly consistent practice on the part of different ministers of justice not to bring down these papers with the exceptions which I gave at that time and I understood the House quite to concur in the proposition that it was not desirable that they should be brought down. However, I will consider the question whether there should be any objection to saying whether the judge was favourable or unfavourable.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the attitude of the Government in regard to the discharge from the penitentiaries of prisoners who desire to enlist? I understood the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) went west for the purpose of making some inquiry in reference to that. Has there been any policy adopted?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Solicitor General, when he went on his tour of the west did, I think, look into the question of what men there were available for military service. At different times there have been suggestions, although they have never materialized, that it might be desirable to organize a regiment or battalion from among the inmates of the penitentiaries. We have not adopted a general system of granting people tickets of leave conditional upon their enlisting nor have we said we never would do it but our experience has led us to be very sparing in the issue of tickets

of leave of that kind. Proceeding with the voluntary system we found that a very strenuous objection came from the parents and' relatives of boys going into regiments against the idea of their being put in as associates of men liberated from the penitentiaries and prisons.
One can readily understand an objection on the part of parents where it is forced on their notice that their boys are to be asked to associate with criminals. But more than that, and perhaps this is a more serious objection, there is a large number of these criminals whom no one would think it desirable to put into, the ranks. There are certain classes of crimes of such a nature that it is quite undesirable to think of putting the men guilty of them into a regiment where they might corrupt their fellows. Then we have had some experience of releasing men on condition of enlistment, and in these few cases we have found quite a number of desertions. So that we have been very very sparing in the issuing of releases for enlistment. I may say that, where there existed other grounds making for the exercise of clemency, we have treated as one factor in determining a case a man's willingness to go into the service, not imposing any obligation on him. Where we thought the circumstances, taken altogether, justified release and where men have been released on ticket of leave pure and simple and have subsequently joined the forces, we have had very good reports on them, reports which have justified us in making their releases absolutely unconditional.
Repairs to Maritime Road, ? 1,0 00.	,


John Douglas Hazen: I should like to take up one item in the Marine and Fisheries Department in order to have my estimates before the House so that I could go on on Friday if necessary. I have suggested this small item. '


William Pugsley: I should like to say that it is rather doubtful policy to take an item as a matter of form, because it takes away . from members of the House the opportunity to discuss on the motion to go into Supply questions which they might want to bring up. Perhaps the minister would waive that in case any member who is not present to-night should wish to bring up some matter for discussion on Friday.


John Douglas Hazen: Certainly, I should be most happy. This is really being done for the purpose of convenience.
115}


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the Maritime Road?


John Douglas Hazen: It runs along the Gaspe coast towards Gaspe. By an arrangement that was made very many years ago, the sum of $1,000 has always been spent on that road. The justification for the grant was that a great stretch of the raad runs through an unsettled country. Lighthouses were established along the coast, and in order to get to them with supplies it was necessary to have this road, and while a part of the expense of maintaining it was borne by the municipalities and the local authorities of Quebec, it has been customary for over forty years to give, this sum of $1,000 a year.


William Pugsley: Why is one part of the Maritime Road under the Public Works Department and another under the Marine and Fisheries Department?


John Douglas Hazen: I did not know it was the same road.


William Pugsley: One is the continuation of the other.


John Douglas Hazen: I should like, also, to take one item in the Naval Department. All of the items seem to be large, but we might fake item No. 67. We might have the item called and then have an understanding that it shall stand.


William Pugsley: I think, on the whole, the minister had better trust us, rather than ask us to trust him. We may have an understanding with the minister that on Friday, if there is no objection and nobody seriously wants to discuss any matter, we will allow him to take up the item, even although the estimates of the Naval Department have not been under consideration on a previous day.


John Douglas Hazen: That will answer my purpose. The hon. gentleman understands my object.


William Pugsley: The minister will see what a bad precedent it is, late at night, to get into an item in order to enable him to take it up on Friday, when there could be no discussion on going into Supply. It is rather better to adhere to the rule.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Reid the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

Wednesday, May 30, 1917.