1918-04-16

THE LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House has added the name of Mr. John Harold (Brant) to the Joint Committee of both Houses on the Library of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. T. A. Crerar (Minister of Agriculture), the House went into committee on the following proposed resolution; Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Meat and Canned Hoods Act, chapter twenty-seven of the Statutes of 1907, and to provide that an establishment a® defined in the said Act shall include any abattoir, packing house or other premises in which any food or food product whiah may be named by the Governor in Council is prepared for food for export or is stored for export; and that all fish, fruit or vegetables, or products thereof, or any food or food products which may be named' by the Governor in Council, used' in any establishment where these articles are prepared for export, shall be sound, wholesome and fit for food; and any such articles or products found in the said establishment unsound or unwholesome shall be confiscated' and destroyed in such manner as may be provided by the regulations ; and also that no person shall offer or accept for export or import, or shall export or import any articles subject to inspection unless the requirements regarding inspection and marking have been complied with in
fSir George Foster.]
respect to such 'articles, and every person offering any carcass, or portion or product thereof, or fruit or vegetable, or products thereof, or food or food products named by the Governor in Council, for export or import, or exporting or importing such carcass, portion or product, or any fruit or vegetable, or products thereof, or food or food products named by the Governor in Council, shall furnish such proof as is required' by the regulations as to whether the articles so offered for export or import, or exported or imported, are subject to inspection or not; and, further, that no carcass or portion of product thereof intended for food shall be imported into Canada unless proof satisfactory to the Minister accompany it that the same has passed Government inspection in the country of origin, and any such carcass or portion or product thereof imported into Canada shall he subject to such further inspection, and shall confirm to such requirements as the-Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe; and that no fruit or vegetables or products thereof, or food or food-products which may be named by the Governor in Council, shall be Imported into Canada or exported from Canada, unless the same conform to such requirements as the Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe; and that any carcass or portion or product thereof, or fruit or vegetable or products thereof, or food or food product, that does not conform to the requirements of sucih regulations shall, upofi condemnation by any inspector, he forfeit to His Majesty, and may be disposed of as the Minister may direct; and, further, that no article subject to inspection shall be offered or sold for export or import, or exported or imported, under any name intended or calculated to deceive as to its true nature; and that no package containing any article subject to inspection shall be marked with any label, brand or mark which falsely represents the quantity or weight or contents of such package; and that n* package containing any article subject to inspection shall be marked with any label, brand or mark which falsely represents the date when the articles or goods contained ^therein were packed.
Hon.   A@: 
Mr. BUREAU:: I think this is the longest resolution I have ever read, and if the object the minister wishes to attain is simply what he says, he could have attained it by a much shorter resolution. I understand the Minister of Agriculture does not want slaughterhouses doing business in the United States to import into this country meat which is not subject to the same regulation as the meat which is slaughtered in Canada. Is that one of the objects of the resolution?


Mr. ORERAR:: Not quite. We want to
put ourselves in the position that we can refuse admission to Canada of products not properly certified to by the inspection system of the country in which they originate.


Jacques Bureau: From which they issue?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, where they are manufactured.


Jacques Bureau: I thought the object was to make all such importations into Canada, subject to the same inspection as that to which the product of the Canadian manufacturer is subject to, and I think such a resolution would Ibe more equitable. >If the meat is to conform to the degree of inspection which is required by the country from which it comes, how are we [DOT]going to control it? I understand the minister to say that if meat is imported from the United States, he desires the United States standard to be applied to the meat so imported.
Mr. ORERAR f Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Why so? Does the minister not think it would be fair to apply to any commodity imported into Canada the same standard as is applied to the Canadian producer? If you are going to have a system of inspection for Canadian produce, why not subject the importation of similar produce to the same standard?
If we are going to consume imported products in Canada let us have one standard that will protect the consumer, and let it be the Canadian standard, instead of the standard of the exporting country.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We can absolutely control our manufacture in Canada by our own system of inspection. We obviously cannot send our inspectors to the places where these goods are manufactured in the United States. We can examine their regulations as to the purity of the article manufactured in the United States, and if we are satisfied that those regulations sufficiently guard the purity of the goods, then we can admit the article under the certification that it is manufactured under such regulations.


Jacques Bureau: The resolution seems to go a little further than that. It says:
And also that no person shall offer or accept for export or import.
If a Canadian dealer is going to accept for import those goods coming from the United States, why not subject him to the same inspection as the man Who is producing in Canada? My hon. friend says we are going to examine their regulations, and if we find their regulations protect us sufficiently, why should we require an inspection on this side? My answer is that the regulations may be all right. You are making regulations in this country. Why do you appoint an inspector? Your regulations may be the best in the world, but what would those regulations be worth unless they were complied with? And how will you know they are complied with, unless you have your inspector who will inspect the produce and see that the produce which is offered on the market complies with the requirements enacted by my hon. friend's department for the protection of the consumer? That is what I think was intended by the resolution. Otherwise why should the words, " or offer for import " be necessary? It would only be necessary to say, " shall not be imported," if the theory of the hon. gentleman is to hold good. My objection is to the acceptance of any regulation made by the United States, and the fact that, if you find the regulations satisfactory you 'are going to conclude they have been complied with. It is not the regulation, so much as the compliance with it, that protects the consumer.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Perhaps I am not making myself perfectly clear. As I understand it, it will work out in this way: the inspectors in the United States factories would inspect and supervise the manufacture of these articles.


Jacques Bureau: American inspectors?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, they would attach the certificate of the American regulations to the manufactured article, and the article could be imported upon such certification. At the present time the American manufacturers can ship into Canada goods that have no certification or inspection whatever.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that perfectly.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does my hon. friend suggest we should send our inspector to the United States to supervise the manufacture of these goods there?


Jacques Bureau: No. I say that before such goods are placed on the market, they should be subject to inspection of the Canadian inspector. If I go to the United States and buy twelve cars of beef-


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Or oleomargarine.


Jacques Bureau: -or oleomargarine-why should I take the certificate of the American inspector? I presume it is all right, but my hon. friend has just stated they were shipping diseased cattle into British Columbia, and one of the reasons why this Act is proposed is to protect the Canadian consumer from the tuberculosis-affected cattle of the adjoining United States territory. If the ordinary Canadian trader thinks Canadians can be fed on tubercular cattle, there might be some United States inspector who would hold the same opinion. I think it would give more confidence if we had the same inspection, and standard and certificate for meat which is imported from the United States as we have for meat produced in Canada.


Hon. MARTIN BURRELL:: I might be permitted to say one word on this subject. I think I am within the mark in saying that the proposition of my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) would not be practicable, for the reason that there is an immense trade going on be'tween the United States and Canada, and between various packing establishments in both countries. They would be very seriously interfered with if there were a multiplication of inspection- duties, and for a great many years practically the same system has been adopted in the officially-inspected establishments in the United States and the officially-inspected establishments in Canada. Those regulations being framed according to the very 'best practice, so long as the article coming from the inspection establishments of either Canada or the 
United States bear the stamp of the inspector, showing that they have been inspected, there is free ingress and egress to and from both countries-. But what the Minister of Agriculture is aiming at is to control those imports from- the United States and- have them, subject to the same drastic regulations employed- -by their official inspection in their establishments, and such examples as he gave, for instance, as meat coming into British Columbia affected with tuberculosis, -is quite a vivid illustration that that particular class of product was not subject to the official inspection of the bureau of the United- States. We therefore should have some control of all those unregulated products and exports to our country. But I thinik it would :be a mistake to- demand such a sweeping measure as not to permit or recognize the official inspection of the United States, -because, ii you did that, they would immediately refuse to accept the official stamp of the inspectors of Canada, and you would find a very serious interference with the immense trade of the countries in these products.


Mr. ROBB:: In this matter, I support the views of the Minister of Agriculture and of the -Secretary of State. I infer from the statement of the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State that this will be a reciprocal arrangement with the United States and that they will accept Canadian inspection?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They do now.


James Alexander Robb: I understand that undeT the o-ld law we controlled domestic -and export trade, but not import trade. The only difference I can see now is that by this legislation we -are controlling the import trade.


Air. CURRIE:: Before this resolution
carries I think we ought to ask the Minister of Agriculture to let us know one or two things. As I understand the Inspection Act in Canada, the public is the goat. We have been- inspecting -all the stuff we send out of Canada, while a lot of stuff that is consumed in Canada is not inspected at all. For instance, the people of Canada can be -supplied with beef from animals suffering from lumpy jaw and all that sort of thing. Is there any .meat sold by retail in Canada that is subject to inspection?


Martin Burrell: For dnterprovincial trade.


John Allister Currie: If it is sold for interprovincial trade, it is inspected, but if if is sold locally, it is not inspected. The same applies to a great many other things

that the minister is now taking into consideration. The people of Canada have to take their chance as to the food which is supplied them, but if it goes out of the province, or to a foreign country, it is inspected, and protection is thus afforded to the people of another province or to the foreigner. I think the time has come when the people will demand that there shall be an inspection of all meat that is consumed in Canada, except in the case where a man kills an animal himself and sells the meat by retail. Even in that case some action should be taken. We do not go far enough. We protect the English and the American consumer by a rigid system of inspection, while we allow our own people to be fed with cancerous beef and mutton from abroad and from home.
In reference to t'he cold storage warehouses. Some years ago we had that matter under discussion, and it is a very warm topic at the present time among the people of this country. This idea of permitting cold storage warehouses to keep eggs and chickens and meat in cold storage for eight or ten years and then unload them on the public when the price is high, is something that should receive our immediate attention. The minister should take unto himself the power, as they have in Australia and other countries, to fix a date beyond which it shall not he permitted to keep meats in cold storage. If I get a deer in Muskoka and I put it in cold -storage, I have to take it out of cold storage at the first of the year or I am liable to a fine. Why shouldn't other meats be treated likewise? The way in which the public has been imposed upon by the cold storage warehouses is an outrage. I do not wish to mention any particular name, and it is unnecessary for me to do so in so far as this is concerned, but I do say that the time is ripe for the minister to take action so that regulations may be provided by this Government and this House, which is the moving spirit of the Government, providing that anybody who puts food into cold storage shall be required to take it out before it becomes embalmed.
There are other matters connected with this same problem which, had 1 known this subject was coming up this afternoon, I would have discussed. For instance, there is the resignation of Mr. O'Connor. Everybody in Canada knows that Mr. O'Connor was right on the job in reference to these cold storage warehouses that are referred to in this resolution. Mr. O'Connor tried to do his duty with the result that the public supported him in his administration of the law. He endeavoured to curb these cold storage warehouses, control the profiteers and compel the marketing of products held for storage in them. But, what do we find? We find that Mr. O'Connor, who has been giving such good public service, has been dismissed, or at least takes his own dismissal-JI do not know why or very much about the subject. The public have made up their mind that the interests that control these large warehouses have got this Government and this Parliament by the throat. I think it is time for the members of this House to speak out in no uncertain tone.


Mr. TOLMIE:: In regard to the import and export of meat, there has long been an understanding between the Bureau of Animal Industry of the United States and our Health of Animals Branch to exchange certificates. The only proper place to make an inspection of meat is on the killing floor, where the offal can be thoroughly inspected at the time the animal is-slaughtered. It would he quite impossible for a man to make a thorough inspection of a dressed carcass. I think it would be asking too much of a Canadian inspector to ask him to inspect the contents of an American sausage. Some of these articles are rather mysteriously made at times. In regard to the inspection of meat, all the meat intended for export or for interprovincial trade, is killed in slaughter houses under inspection,. a brand is placed on the meat passing inspection and you can always he assured of securing good meat if you get meat bearing the Government brand. All the other meat killed in local slaughter houses, if inspected at all, should be inspected by provincial governments or municipalities.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if this resolution covers a case which was presented to me the other night from Toronto. A gentleman there, a dealer who bought eggs largely and retailed them in the city, said that ho had reas'on to believe that eggs were imported from the United States into Canada subject to export. He understood that some privilege had been conceded by the Department of Agriculture permitting of the candling of these eggs in Canada. The result is that Yankee eggs are unloaded on the Canadian market and good Canadian eggs are exported. I w*ould like to know if the Canadian public are now getting candled Yankee eggs and if they are taking.

the place of good Canadian eggs which are sent out for export. Is that possible under the regulations?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think the legislation intended to be passed under this resolution covers the point that the hon. member (Sir Sam Hughes) brings up. It is intended to cover the inspection of meats and canned goods under the Meat, and Canned Foods Act.
Sir SAM. HUGHES: It says "foods."


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) who has had a great deal of experience in the administration of this Act, has very exactly, I think, stated the situation. It would be obviously impossible to send our inspectors over to ciosely examine all the material that entered into canned gOods manufactured in the United States. But we can, under the arrangement we have with their Bureau in the United States, admit these goods to Canada under their certificate and be, I think, assured that we are getting only wholesome and proper food. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the other suggestions that are brought up by some hon. members might be discussed in committee on the Bill.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: We are in committee now.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to make my point clear. The eggs that are imported from the United States are brought into our cold storage warehouses. A gentleman from Toronto told me the other night that the citizens of Canada were being fed on *eggs imported from the southern States subject, under the law, to export. They are brought in under some suspended clause of the Inspection Act permitting these eggs to be examined and candled and if any are found bad they can be replaced by Canadian eggs. .
He had reason to believe, he said, that these eggs were being unloaded on the Canadian market and the Canadian eggs sent on>
for export; in other words, giving the importer the opportunity of bringing in Yankee eggs and sending our Canadian eggs to take their place on the English market. I have heard that the same thing under similar rules has been done with oleomargarine: it has 'been brought in and mixed with the Canadian product and disposed of in this manner. I take this ap-portunity of bringing the facts to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. CAHILL:: Has the Minister of Agriculture under consideration the requiring

of Mr. O'Connor's services in regard to the condemnation of any food supplies in packing houses?


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I do not think that the hon. gentleman is quite in order in asking who will administer the Act.


Mr. THOMAS FOSTER:: This is a matter in regard to which I think the Minister of Agriculture should go a little further. He undertakes to protect the consumers of Canada in regard to goods that, are imported into this country. That is very well so far as it goes, but I think he should also protect Canadian consumers against the existing method of supplying food products to the people in the large cities of Canada. For example, we have some very large abattoirs in the city of Toronto, as well as branches of Chicago houses, and we have established there a municipal abattoir. Previous to its inception there were many small abattoirs scattered through the city causing a serious nuisance in the residential districts. However, by the establishment of a municipal abattoir, the killing of various kinds of live stock was centralized and made subject to inspection. That policy has helped a great deal, but it is only applicable to Toronto. You may go outside that city and in a good sized town find a small establishment carried on as an abattoir, but not subject to inspection. The same statement applies to the canning of goods. Let me give an illustration of what occurred a few years ago in Toronto, and I think is still occurring today in Chicago. You go to a merchant to purchase canned goods. You may be desirous of having for dinner canned chicken or possibly canned turkey, and you buy what purports to be chicken or turkey, and pay the price demanded for such articles. But what do you get? You get a substitute for turkey or chicken in the shape of immature veal, or calf perhaps only a couple of days old. This kind of canned goods is not subject to inspection, and yet I understand the object of the minister in bringing the present measure forward is to protect Canadian consumers against this shipment into Canada. Why should the Americans, who themselves inspect and reject and prohibit the consumption in that country of immature veal and inferior pork and ibeans be allowed' to send such goods into this country? Inferior canned veal and pork and beans, and goods of that nature will not p;iss inspection in the United States but they are held to be quite good enough for Canada.

The Government cannot be too severe in checking such methods of sending inferior goods into Canada.
At the same time our people should be protected against some of the methods adopted in this country. In my opinion the Minister of Agriculture should go a step further, and provide that- all meats consumed in Canada shall be subject to inspection. The appointment in each village or small community of an inspector may be objected to as expensive; but under a proper regulation that could be done and the expense would not be material.	It is
simple enough to provide that in a certain township the killing of hogs, sheep, cattle, calves, and other live-stock shall be subject to inspection. The people of the township, knowing that inspection was obligatory, some central point could be fixed where the killing might be done and one inspector could devote three days to inspection work in that township.	By a
proper apportionment of the time it would be possible for the same inspector to cover several townships, and in that way the expense would not be very great. By such a method you could prevent improper and unhealthy meat from reaching the consumer.
In the case of live stock coming to the Toronto stockyards, an unscrupulous drover who was aware of the strict inspection in force would realize at once that he could not market his animals on the stockyards, and therefore he would immediately ship them to some outside section, where they could be slaughtered and the flesh prepared and afterwards consigned to the Toronto market, and thus escape inspection. Again, in the case of the individual farmdr, 'he might kill seven or eight hogs, a couple of head of cattle, and half a dozen sheep and dispose of the meat on the Toronto market without undergoing inspection, a thing which could not be done in the case of animals slaughtered at the stockyards. The fact that there 'has Jbeen no inspection reduces the market value of the meat, but a speculator might obtain full value for goods that merited condemnation. Therefore, I say the Minister of Agriculture should go far enou'gh to protect the Toronto consumers that are consuming Canadian goods which have not passed inspection, and that can be done at very little expense.
So far as goods that are being imported into Canada are concerned, the minister cannot be too strict in enforcing inspection. If that were done the consuming public would be satisfied. Not only should there be such a system of inspection, but I think
that all canned goods-, whether meats, fruits, or products of other kinds, should have the date stamped upon the can. The longer such goods are kept the less value they possess, and the consumer purchasing canned goods bearing the stamp of the manufacturers would be able to see from the date whether the goods were one year old or entering upon the second year. Such goods depreciate every three or four months, until after a short time they become of no value, but if the date of manufacture is legibly placed on the can the consumer can see just what he is getting.
I repeat, that in my opinion the minister is going in the right direction, only he is not going quite far enough. When the Bill goes to committee I have no doubt we shall have some further suggestions from him, and, perhaps, amendments will be forthcoming which will meet the approval of the House and the community at large.


Mr. MARSHALL:: The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Thomas Foster) is entirely wrong in hie statements with respect to the inspection of canned goods. I want to tell him that we have inspectors for canned vegetables, fruit, and also poultry, and have had them for yeafe. I am connected with a company that has been in business, more or less, for thirty years. We did not have our products inspected during the greater portion of that period, but for the last six or seven years there have been inspectors. These inspectors remain all the time in the factory until the Government stamp is put on the cans, and under this system the public is adequately protected.
The hon. gentleman has spoken of the necessity of stamping canned goods. I want to tell him that if canned- goods are properly packed and kept in -a proper place the quality will be as good years afterwards as it is at the time the goods -are put up. With respect to fruits and vegetables we do not want to put the dates on the cans, because any one going into a store, if they see goods two years old, would not want to buy them, even though they are just as good as the day they were packed. We have in our factories, for instance, corn which we have kept for twenty years on purpose to see how long it can be pre-. served. The only difference you can see in corn kept that long is in the colour. But, as I said, Mr. Chairman, if you want to destroy the canned goods business, simply put the dates on the labels, because the consumer in buying canned goods will naturally look for the goods packed that year. Canned goods are as good five or six years

after packing as the day they were packed. I know this, because I have been canning for a long time, and we have made the test for our own satisfaction. I would be very sorry to have the minister put the date on the labels of canned goods for the reasons I have mentioned.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see that the Minister of Agriculture is taking steps to have a more thorough inspection of meats, food and food products. An hon. gentleman stated a few moments ago that some of these goods were mysteriously prepared, and I sincerely believe that he is right. I shall endeavour, if I may be permitted, to give a brief explanation of this matter. But before doing so, I would like to ask the minister if it is the intention to have qualified veterinary surgeons act as inspectors of live stock, or if anyone else may be appointed to such positions? I may say that while I was in the legislature of the state of Montana, in 1901, I was the father of a similar Bill providing for the appointment of inspectors of meats and food, and the Bill provided that up to the time that the cattle went on the killing floor the inspection was to be made by a veterinary surgeon, and no one else. For the inspection of mbats in the refrigerators, or in the markets, it provided that a man well versed in meats was to be appointed, one knowing all the stages from the time the animal is killed until the meat is sold to the consumer.
Now, coming to the preparation of ham, one of the reasons why that should be well inspected is simply because the packers are taking advantage of all the opportunities which are given them, and even -if the opportunity is not. given to them they take it. Take, for instance, to begin with, the brine, which is composed, of course, of water, salt, brown sugar and preservaline; and we all know that preservaline contains acid. Preservaline is put in in order to preserve the meat a longer time. When it comes to the smoking process, instead of smoking it twenty, thirty or forty days, the length of time required to smoke a good ham, it is simply put in a receptacle of some kind with colorine in it. This colorine contains acid also. These things are not very good for the stomach, still the consumer has to take the product. Now, the reason why these things are done is because the ham requires but very little smoking if it is coloured, and it has a very transparent colour, a very nice colour indeed. If it was smoked thoroughly, the ham would drip, that is, the brine in it would drip off. and it would lose weight.

Hence the necessity for the packer not to smoke it in order to retain the weight. The same process is used in regard to breakfast bacon. I may say a word or two about sausages.


Mr. SIFTON:: Oh, don't.


François Jean Pelletier: That is the article which is the most mysteriously prepared, I believe.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


François Jean Pelletier: As a rule, to begin with, they take from fifteen to twenty per cent of pork fat, and then from twenty-five to thirty per cent of beef scraps, or bits of whatever they can find, trimmings as we probably term it; and then about twenty per cent of Victoria or potato flour; and the balance is water. You have about thirty per cent of water in your sausages, and twenty per cent of potato or Victoria flour. When a consumer gets sausage, he pays for the potato flour, the water, the scraps of beef, etc. But when he comes to put the sausage in the frying pan it almost walks out; it won't stay there until the water is all out of it. For these, reasons, and there are a great many others that have been given by other hon. gentlemen, I believe that we ought to have a very thorough inspection of meats at all times, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will do his best and finish the good work that he has started along this line.


Mr. McGOIG:: I do not see very much objection to the adoption of the resolution. I am heartily in accord with the minister in his endeavour to do everything possible to ensure that the people have better service from our cold storage systems and also from the abattoirs of the country. I merely wish to add that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pelletier), in naming over the different methods of curing bacon, hams and sausages, forgot to mention the one well known during the past election, as post-curing. That is one method which it might be well to have drawn to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, so that when this resolution is passed, and when legislation is introduced along this line, any person, whether in high standing in this country, or an officer of the Government, whether connected with abattoirs, cold storage, or other great institutions, will be prohibited from using a method of that kind. When legislation is passed providing for the appointment of inspectors, only men who are capable and fearless probably will be considered by the minister. He should not

overlook the fact that Mr. O'Connor who occupied the position of cost of living commissioner in this country has the respect of the people of Canada, and not only their respect, but their confidence. Mr. O'Connor fearlessly carried on the duties of his office. Yet we now find that he is allowed to he relieved of office, while the man who is chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board, and an officer of the Canadian Government, still holds office. I do not believe that there is a man on either side of this House, Independent, Liberal or Unionist, who could have stood upon the public platforms throughout Canada in the last election and said that he would support the dismissal of Mr. O'Connor.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I ruled a few moments ago that the dismissal of Mr. O'Connor should not be introduced into this debate. My hon. friend is going altogether too far.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I am quite willing to abide 'by your Tuling, Mr. Chairman, but I did not tion. The remarks of the member for North Simcoe was referring to the matter. If the officers selected under the Bill to be based upon this resolution properly carry out its provisions great benefit will result and the measure will operate more efficiently in the best interests of the country.'


Mr. MURPHY:: Lest the discussion should veer round to a discussion of hereditary titles, I had better intervene with a question. The remarks of the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) must have convinced the Minister of Agriculture that, so far as food is concerned, what is uppermost in the minds of the people is home protection against home production. For that reason *-and I have regard to the language of the beginning of the resolution-I desire to ask the minister whether it is intended by the Bill to be founded on this resolution to widen existing authority or to confer new authority to deal with such cases as the one which arose in Winnipeg-I need not discuss the details at the moment. I refer to the destruction of a large quantity of food in one of the packing houses there, which had become unfit for human consumption.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The resolution was not intended, I think, to cover such a case as the hon. gentleman refers to. I quite agree that it is an appropriate matter for discussion, but I think it is outside the scope and intention o'f this resolution. Any regulations to prevent such an occurrence would come under another authority rather than under the measure now proposed.


Mr. PORTER:: I have not sufficient information to enable me to discuss the practice or procedure in regard to meat and meat products, but I have information regarding the treatment of vegetables and fruits which, I think, may be of some advantage to the minister in dealing -With this question of provision for inspection. It had previously been the practice to inspect prepared vegetables, pre-4 p.m. pared soups, and the like, at the time of shipment at the seaboard-Halifax, Montreal, St. John, as the case might be. As a result, manufacturers incurred very 'heavy expense and were liable to loss, because if the product was condemned it bad to be shipped back and disposed of to the best advantage. That was brought to the attention of the minister, and I was responsible in some measure for . the change that was made. Afterwards the department appointed inspectors resident at the different manufacturing points, who were supposed to see that the products turned out by these manufactories were at least fit for human consumption. My attention has been particularly called to some cases tbait occurred since the war broke out. The Government entered into large contracts for the supplying of vegetables to the armies overseas-and I speak particularly of vegetable soups, which have been shipped overseas in veTy large quantities. Under the system of inspection that now prevails, these'produots are inspected at the factory and go to the front without any .further examination, and with no possible chance of loss to the producer. But I heard a returned soldier upon the public platform say quite recently, in the .presence of the manufacturer, that although the soldiers went oveT to Europe to kill the Huns, when they ate that soup they felt more like killing the -manufacturer than like killing the Hun-s. Evidence was forthcoming to show that -in the manufacture of these goods, which bad passed the inspection 0-f the officer appointed by the department, celery had been used which had been lying in the warehouse from the days of the South African war. It was ground and prepared, but not shipped, and it had become the habitation of rafts, mice, cobwebs, flies, and all sorts of other unnecessary ingredients. This was used in the manufacture of soup supplied to our .soldier boys at the front. Testimony to this effect was made by men who were actually employed by the manufacturer; yet the inspector appointed by the department had failed to discover that, or had overlooked it.


James Alexander Robb: What department of Government appointed this inspector?


Edward Guss Porter: The Department of Agriculture, I think. I am not quite certain about that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Were these Canadian products?


Edward Guss Porter: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Where were they manufactured?


Edward Guss Porter: In Belleville, Ontario, I
am sorry to say. If the inspectors appointed by the department permit such a condition as those described' to exist, it is high time that some steps were taken in the matter.


Samuel Hughes: Is my hon. friend
himself not somewhat responsible for that condition? Did he not recommend this gentleman's wares in the early part of the war

o'f course before he knew he was wrong?


Edward Guss Porter: Yes, before I found him out. I am complaining not of the man himself, 'but of- what he is doing or permitting to be done in the manufacture of food for the soldiers at tne 'front. I understand that the same inspector is not there now. No doubt this firm will be endeavouring to obtain contracts from the Government, or renewal of contracts, and the Government should take special pains to see that such an occurrence as this is not permitted again, and, if necessary, that the inspector *who lhas so far neglected his duty be removed from any further opportunity of permitting what I would describe as a fraud upon the public. Perhaps the minister had better amend this resolution so as to enable him to appoint an inspector of the inspector-because I think that he needs inspection as much as any one.


Jacques Bureau: The Minister of Agriculture did not answer the question that was put by my hon. friend from Matane (Mr. Pelletier) just now, as to the standing of the men appointed as inspectors. I also wish to put a question. This resolution is introduced because it involves the expenditure of public moneys. Now we have not heard a word as to the purpose for which this money is to be expended. Is it because a greater number of inspectors are to be appointed, or because the inspectors will be of a higher standard and will require bigger salaries?

'Mr. ORERAR: I do not think this legislation will involve any additional outlay of public money. I take it that the customs officials who pass these goods in the ordinary way will simply have the added responsibility of seeing that the goods are properly certified to in the country of origin. My attention is drawn to the fact that an additional inspection may be demanded, but it is not contemplated that such will be necessary. The United States to-day have precisely a similar law. They permit importations from Great Britain, for instance on the certification of the proper British authorities. We are simply endeavouring here to apply the same conditions to importations into Canada.


Mr. JOSEPH READ:: Is it intended to have the smaller factories inspected? I understand that a great number of th'e smaller factories putting up canned meats and that sort of thing have been put out of business because they were too smjill to get an inspection made. Several instances of this have occurred in my own constituency; perhaps the bigger concerns have something to do with it, but at all events these smaller factories have been put out of business.


John Allister Currie: Before the minister brings in his Bill I would suggest that he provide against meats being kept in cold storage warehouses beyond a certain period. I trust the minister will provide in the Bill for giving the people of this country control over these cold storage warehouses, which I understand are the main factor in the tremendous increase in food prices. If the cold storage warehouses were compelled to market the goods they have in storage at stated periods, after being put in, instead of being allowed to carry them for two or three years, the people would get food a great deal cheaper. It is an injustice "to the public to permit such a monopoly as this to spring up. If the minister would look at the Acts that have been pased in the province of Victoria, Australia, I think he would find something to help him in framing an Act that would be of some benefit to the public. Canned goods, if properly canned, will last for ten years, but if not properly canned, they will not last ten days; that is the whole sum and substance -of the trouble. But this is to be borne in mind. A great quantity of the canned goods coming into this country are imported from other countries than the United States. A vast quantity of beef, for instance, have been imported from the Argentine Republic, and no doubt it is

still finding its way into this country. Eggs from iChina are also co-ming in, some of them twenty years old, no doubt. The minister should take these things into consideration and should be empowered to provide regulations from time to time to cover cases as they arise, such as the bad chicken that had to be cremated in Winnipeg. The minister in Australia has power to frame regulations and stop these abuses.
I know the Minister of Agriculture is desirous of doing everything he can to protect the public and we must all give him credit for his sincerity in that regard. I am sure he will be fearless in doing his duty.
iMr. CLEMENTS:	Is it intended that
every manufacturer of canned goods shall have his monogram or the firm's name on every can of his product? I have heard a good deal said about cold storage warehouses this afternoon, and, am bound to say that if some of the gentlemen who have referred to cold-storage abuses had gone into the subject a little more fully, they would have realized the benefits of cold storage better than they do. The reason I ask the question is this-on the Pacific coast, and on the Atlantic coast too, there is a very great difference in the grades of fish caught at different places along the coast. A certain fish, whether it he a chum salmon, a dog salmon or a cohoe salmon, is of very much better quality in one section of the province of British Columbia than in another, and it would be very unfair for a manufacturer putting up chum or dog salmon along one section of the Pacific coast of British Columbia to have his pack compared with, say, a northern or a southern pack. I have always contended that the manufacturer should place his name or his firm's name on every can, whether it be in the province of British Columbia or in any other province, and I sincerely hope that the minister will see that every manufacturer of canned goods in Canada stands behind his own brand and has his name printed on every can in [DOT]his product.


Mr. EULER:: I should like to refer for a moment to the suggestion made by the horn, member for Toronto (Mr. Thomas Foster), that this Bill does not go far enough. As I understand it, this Bill deals only with the inspection of foods intended for import or export, and it has perhaps escaped the attention of the Government that a great proportion of the meats consumed by the people of this country are not imported. In not only the smaller cities but the larger
cities as well a good proportion of the meat is slaughtered by the farmers in the country and is brought into the city markets and there disposed of to the consumer
Of that food, I think, there is absolutely no inspection and no guarantee that it is fit for human consumption. I am quite ready to admit that in most cases there can be no fault found with the kind of beef and pork that is brought into the markets of the cities. In the city of Kitchener, from which I come, the suggestion has been made at times that all foods brought into the city for sale should have some kind of inspection. We considered that matter for years, and were not able to find a solution, largely because the matter of inspection led to too great an expense, and placed a heavy burden either upon the farmer who produced the food, or else upon the consumer, and under present conditions, where foods are very expensive, and especially meats, perr haps it is not the time to deal with the matter. I would like to make the suggestion that if the Government could direct its attention to that phase of the matter, so that all meat which ordinarily would require in-specion should be inspected with possibly the assistance of the Department of Agriculture, I think a great service would be rendered to the consumers of the cities and towns. Perhaps this is not the place to make that suggestion, but I do so because the hon. gentleman from Toronto (Mr. Thomas Foster) mentioned it, and because I believe it is very well worth considering.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I might say, with respect to the observation of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) and of some other hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the subject that the scope of the Meat and Canned Foods Act is to cover the inspection of articles for interprovincial trade or for export. No matter how desirable it may be to extend the scope and operation of the Act to cover all goods offered for sale, there are obvious difficulties in the way. For instance, a man manufactures sausage, bacon or ham, and brings it into his local market to sell. Very practical difficulties are presented in the creation of a Dominion system of inspection that will adequately inspect, and I believe such inspection for consumption within the province where '.t originates is under provincial regulation, and quite within provincial and municipal power, and the purpose has been to secure a safeguard in that respect through municipal and provincial regulation, leaving to the Dominion the

matter of controlling inspection where the article is'for provincial trade or for export.


Jacques Bureau: I should like to get an answer to the question asked by the hon. member for iMatane (Mr. Pelletier). I listened with astonishment to the statement made by the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter). Goods were manufactured in Canada for export and were shipped across the ocean, to be consumed by Canadian soldiers. It is very painful to have to hear such statements as that made by the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter). Can we not get from the Minister of Agriculture a statement of what he intends to put in his Bill? I think it would be proper he should define the qualifications of the inspectors, if he is going to have any. The Bill is generally prepared at the same time as the resolution. The discussion on this resolution is to enlighten the 'House, or to suggest to my hon. friend certain things which occur to the minds of hon. members of this House, according to the knowledge they are able to impart. Why not tell us what will be the qualifications or requirements necessary under this Act for the man to be appointed inspector in order that the people of Canada may expect good service, and have good men in this most important position? Because, after all, the health and welfare of the community depends a good deal upon these people, their honesty and technical knowledge. The hon. gentleman from Matane (Mr. Pelletier) asked, in the case of slaughter houses, if licensed veterinary surgeons would not be appointed. Why not put it in the Bill that, for certain classes of inspection, only men of certain qualifications shall be appointed? This would, at the same time relieve the minister from the burden of patronage. In spite of all the confidence I have in the Civil Service Act, which will he discussed in a few days, I am afraid there will be some loopholes yet, where some fellows will have enough brass, in spite of the law, to walk up to the Minister of Agriculture and say, " I want to be appointed inspector of this or that," and if the applicant does not come within the four corners of the statute, my hon friend will only say, " I cannot appoint you, there is the Law." It will help him, and will give a great deal of satisfaction to the consumers of this country.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The regulations at present in effect governing the control and inspection of Canadian products provide for the very point my hon. friend raises. Every 
abattoir or packing-house established in Canada is required to have qualified veterinarians to supervise the work. 'They are assisted by lay inspectors who need not be qualified veterinarians, but whose qualifications must be such as to satisfy the Dominion Director General of Veterinary Service that they are fit for the position. It is not expected or contemplated under this that additional inspectors will be Created. There will not be any need for it so far as I can see. The admission of products from other countries oan be supervised by the customs officers who will see that the proper certificates are attached to the article before it is admitted. I appreciate just as fully as my hon. friend the importance of having these goods thoroughly and properly inspected. I assure him that, as far as the possibility of patronage entering into the administration of this Act is concerned, I have no hesitation in making the declaration that it is absolutely not going to enter into it, as far as my administration is concerned. We .have suffered considerably in Canada from the injection of the patronage evil into Government service, and it is time in my judgment that it was eliminated from it.


James Alexander Robb: So far the Minister of Agriculture -and all t'he other members of the Cabinet have dodged the issue raised by the hon. member for West Hastings. I think the condition of things exposed to the Canadian people to-day deserves a statement from the Government. If such conditions of inspection exist in one factory, as stated by the hon. member for Hastings, I would be ready to believe the same condition existed in other factories throughout the country. Had the question been raised on this side of the House, t'he Government might have thought it was a political attack, but it has been raised on the other side of the House, and I think we are entitled to a statement on this question.
Mr. 'CRERAR: I would say, in reply to the hon. member for Hastings, that, of course,
I have no knowledge of the case cited by him. I have no hesitation Whatever in saying that such condition of affairs should not be permitted to exist. I take it that this happened some time ago, and I shall certainly take the opportunity to investigate the matter and obtain all the information I can upon it.


Wilfrid Laurier: This subject is undoubtedly a very technical one, and I believe, after a discussion of an hour and a half, we do not yet understand fully the

extent or purport of the resolution. The hon. gentleman from West Hastings has brought before the House a case in which the law was violated. Of course, it may have been the result of an accident, but as to what the facts are we are not very clear. But the fact to which I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture is that this cannot have the effect of improving the law as it is now but rather of emasculating it. If I understand this resolution aright, it will not make the law more rigid but it will reduce the rigidity of the law and make possible its evasion. The law we have to-day, the Act passed in 1907 provides that all food, whether animal or vegetable, shall pass inspection. There is no exception to it. Here is the letter of the law, section 3:
All animals intended for slaughter in any establishment shall be inspected as provided by the regulations.
No animal shall be allowed to enter the parts of an establishment where slaughtering is carried on, unless it has undergone such inspection and been found to be healthy and fit for food.	'
Section 13 of the Act reads:
AH fish, fruit or vegetables used in any establishment where these articles are prepared for export, shall be sound, wholesome, and fit for food ; and any such articles or products thereof found in the said establishment unsound or unwholesome shall be confiscated and destroyed as provided by the regulations.
Under these two sections all animals, fish, fruit and vegetable foods must go into an establishment. By the Act the word "establishment" is defined and what is the definition?
"Establishment" means any abattoir, packing house, or other premises in which such animals are slaughtered, or in which any parts thereof or products thereof, or fish, or fruit, or vegetables. are prepared for food or export or are stored for export.
Again we find the definition of the word "food":
"Food" includes every article used for food or drink by man, and every ingredient intended for mixing with the food or drink of man for any purpose.
This means that all kinds of food, without any exception, which are to be exported, shall have to pass through this examination. No exception is made. What, however, is the principle of my resolution of my hon. friend? Instead of having this rigid provision that all food must be inspected, that there may be no exception, the law is to be emasculated by substituting the will of the Governor in Council for the rigidity of the law and the will of Parliament. Here is the resolution and I call the attention of my hon. friend to it.
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Meat and Canned Foods Act, chapter twenty-seven of the statutes of 1907, and to provide that an establishment as defined in the said Actwhich I have just read-
-shall include any abattoir, packing house or other premises in which any food or food product which may be named by the Governor in Council is prepared for food for export or is stored for export.
This means that instead of, as we have to-day, the rigid letter of the law that all food for man must be inspected and must pass through this establishment, the Governor in Council has it in his power to say, in his wisdom, that any kind of food shall, or shall not, be inspected. It may be poultry. it may he bacon, it may be .anything else; the Governor in Council has the power to except from the provisions of the law any food that he thinks it proper to except. That is not making the law more rigid than it was before. It is giving to the Government a dangerous power because it seems to me that there should be no exception at all and that all food should be inspected. The Governor in Council should not have the power to except any food from that inspection. In that respect the resolution is certainly emasculating the Act as it is at present and I call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to it. For my part, I have no doubt of his good intentions; I give him every credit for them, I do not think he has been the draughtsman of this resolution, I think he should take into his very serious consideration the question as to whether he should ask Parliament to adopt such a provision as that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I can assure the committee that it was not the intention to have the construction put upon this resolution which the right hon. the leader of the Opposition attaches to it. It is possible that the resolution may be faultily draughted, but I shall read the amendment which it is proposed to make to'Section B of the Act, defining the meaning of "establishment. ' Paragraph B, as it stands at present: is:
(B) "establishment" means any abattoir, packing house, or other premises in which such animals are slaughtered, or in which any parts thereof or products thereof, or fish, or fruit, or vegetables, are prepared for food for export or are stored for export.
With the addition that ic proposed to 'be made, it will read as follows:
(B) "establishment" means any abattoir, packing house, or other premises in which such animals are slaughtered, or in which any pants thereof or products thereof, or fish, or fruit or vegetables or any food or food products

which may be named by the Governor in Council, are prepared for food for export or are stored for export.
If I understand the argument of my right hon. 'friend, it is that the addition of the words "or any food or food products which maybe named by the Governor in Council" limits the preceding words?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is not the intention. The idea we had in mind was to cover all additions to these present categories of food; that is to say, some food that might be manufactured or invented and which would not be covered by the preceding words. Take, for instance, condensed milk. Condensed milk would not be included unuer the definition as it previously stood. At any rate, that was the purpose of the addition to the definition of the term "establishment." I shall be very glad to take the suggestion of my right hon. friend, which, I admit, is a very important one, into consideration and discuss it with the officials of the department.
Sir WILFRID LAU'RIER:	I would be
very glad if my hon. friend would do that. But, let me call his attention to the fact that condensed milk is an article of food. Let me again refer my hon. friend to the definition of " food":
"Pood" includes every article used for food or drink by man, and every ingredient intended for mixing with the food or drink of man for any purpose.
_ This includes condensed milk. The objection I have to this provision is that the Governor in Council takes it into his power to remove from the disposition of this Act any kind of food whatever. The law should be left as it is that all food should be subject to inspection.


Mr. MORPHY:: What is the necessity
for changing the law as it stands?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I take it that the hon.
gentleman was not in when I gave my explanation at the commencement of the discussion this afternoon?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is necessary to widen the scope of the Act so that the 'regulations may apply to food imported into Canada as well as food manufactured in Canada. That is the object, broadly speaking. In reference to the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition, I take it that it would be met if the words " which may be named by the Governor in Council" were eliminated?
TMr. Crerar. 3


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall take it into consideration.
Resolution reported, read a first and second time and agreed to.
Mr. Crerar thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 55, to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act, chapter 27 of the statutes of 1907.


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


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour):: With the consent of the House I desire to place upon the Table a return to an Order of the House re the O'Connor correspondence.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If there be unanimous consent by the House there is no objection.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does the return comprise the whole of the correspondence, including the reply of Mr. O'Connor?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The correspondence is up to date.


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot ask more than correspondence that is up to date.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not know whether my right hon. friend has any information in advance of what I have, but the correspondence is all there up to date so far as I know.


Wilfrid Laurier: As to that I am in the hands of the minister.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Crerar (Minister of Agriculture) the House went into committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, chapter seventy-five of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, as amended by chapter six of the statutes of 1913, and to provide that the Governor in Council may order a compensation to be paid .to the owners of animals slaughtered under the provisions of the Act, the value of the animal to be determined by the Minister or by some person appointed by Mm, but the value, except as otherwise provided by the Aot, not

to exceed In the case of grade animals two hundred dollars for each horse, eighty dollars for each head of cattle and twenty dollars for each pig or sheep, and in the case of pure bred animals five hundred dollars for each horse, two hundred and fifty dollars for each head of cattle and seventy-five dollars for each pig or sheep. These amendments to remain in operation for three years.
Mr. 'CRERAR: I think a word of explanation will suffice 'for this resolution. At the time this Act was originally passed the values upon which compensation was based for the slaughter of condemned animals were fixed by statute, in the case of cattle $60 per head and for pigs and sheep $15 per head, and the compensation allowed when animals were condemned and slaughtered was two-thirds of the value set by statute. Owing to the increased value of these animals at the present time, the compensation allowed when they are ordered to be destroyed does not adequately compensate their owners. The intention of the Act when originally drafted, as I understand it, was to encourage the reporting to the proper authorities of animals which might be affected by some contagious disease, so that they could be properly examined, and, if found a menace, destroyed. I think it is only proper that now, when the value of these animals has increased, and in some cases doubled, beyond what it was at the time the Act was originally passed, that the limit upon which compensation can toe fixed should be raised, and that is the purpose of the resolution.
Charles Murphy: Under the old Act, was there any distinction made between grade and pure bred cattle?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There was.


Charles Murphy: But not as great a distinction as exists here?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The value of the animal was based upon the market values prevailing at the time the Act was passed. I am not at the moment able to say whether that applies to pure bred cattle or not. I am of opinion that it does not, but that is a point that can be taken up by the committee.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Can the minister state the amount of money that has been paid, say, for the last fiscal year, for purposes of this kind?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am sorry that I cannot give that information at the moment, but the officials of the department estimate that the change in the regulations suggested here will probably involve an additional outlay of $10,000 a year.
51	*


Mr. MOLLOY:: Will the valuation under the proposed legislation be $200 and the compensation two-thirds of that amount, as against the valuation $150 and a compensation of two-thirds under the old Act?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That applies to horses.


John Patrick Molloy: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The proposed change does not affect horses; it only applies to cattle, swine and sheep. I omitted to point out a moment ago that the value upon which compensation would be based in the case of horses was changed a year or two ago; I am not certain of the date.
Mr. WM. SMITH: I would like to congratulate the minister upon having taken a step in the right direction. The owner of live animals found to be suffering from contagious disease may not be at fault and therefore he should be recouped in some way or other. I do not find fault with the minister's figures so far as thoroughbred animals .are concerned, but I do not think he has gone far enough in connection with the grades. The compensation fixed for grade horses is all right. But it does not take much of an animal, in the case of cattle, to be worth $80. The minister should have gone at least $120. In the case of swine, we all know that, at 20 cents a pound it does not take much of a hog to represent $20. I would suggest that that amount be raised to $30, leaving the compensation, for sheep as it is. I would suggest to the minister that, when he introduces his Bill, it should .be on the lines indicated here today.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I .agree with the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith) that there might be a slight advance made in regard to grade cattle. I feel satisfied that the minister is taking a step in the right direction, but I question if he is going quite far enough. The great difficulty we have had .in Ontario in regard to swine and cattle which is condemned a.t different abattoirs, is that a percentage is deducted from the buyers, and the buyers deduct it from the producers. That has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction. The Government have inspectors in the abattoirs where the stock is slaughtered, and when a diseased animal is condemned, the cost comes back either on tihe buyer or on the seller to the extent of one-half of one per cent, which is deducted by the buyer from all the purchases that he makes throughout the country. Some buyers deduct from the seller; some stand the loss themselves. But the



abattoirs exact that percentage from all the buyers irrespective of whether it comes out of the farmer or not. I believe the time is opportune for the minister to extend his legislation a little farther, and since the condemning is done by his own officers, instead of a deduction being made from an innocent party it would be well if the< Government were to make an allowance to overcome that, and so do away with the inconvenience, annoyance and dissatisfaction which occurs from time to time. I believe that last year, or the year before last, the packing houses, when extracting one-half ,of one per cent for this purpose alone, made a net profit of $165,000 above the value of what was really condemned, judging from figures which I have secured from the Department of Agriculture. This is a matter which I would be very glad to have the minister give his serious thought and attention to, and if he can effect a reform, it would be heartily appreciated and accepted with good-will by all the producers throughout Canada.


James Alexander Robb: In introducing this resolution, the minister stated that he did so on account of the increase in value of animals in recent years. That statement is right enough, but it seems to me that the result of his arithmetic has been defective, because, as stated by the hon. member for South Ontario, the compensation allowed for a horse is altogether out of proportion to that given for a good dairy animal, that is, in proportion to their earning value today. The value of a horse has not increased since the previous regulations were put in force; it has rather decreased. But the value of dairy cattle has increased enormously, and it seems to me that the minister might readjust that and give a fair compensation for dairy animals.
There is another feature of this matter which is deserving of consideration by the minister while he is dealing with this subject, and that is the prevention of tuberculosis. I am told by stockmen that there are many ways in which tuberculosis is spread throughout this country. One way in particular, which is a grievance of the stockmen, is in the importation of cattle from the Old Country. Take, for instance, cattle shipped from the Old Country to the United States via Canada. These cattle arrive at the quarantine station at Levis, and they are there tested, and if there are reactors in a herd they are not allowed to enter the United States, and they are not shipped back to the Old Country, but they are earmarked and allowed to go about 
through the herds in Canada spreading disease among Canadian animals. I think the minister should give that matter his serious consideration, and stop that practice.
There is another matter which has been pointed out by stock men which might prevent somewhat the spread of tuberculosis in dairy animals, and that is that any man calling an auction sale-when a man buys at a private sale he is running certain chances, but that is his own business- should he compelled to give a certificate that the herd is free of disease. I submit these suggestions for the consideration of the minister.


Mr. BOYCE:: Mr. Chairman, being fairly well versed in the value of dairy cattle, I am of opinion that the compensation of $80 placed on these animals is altogether too little. It is a well known fact that the price of dairy cattle this last year has risen from twenty-five to forty per cent. We cannot get any kind of dairy cattle at the present time for less than $140 or $150, and even up to $180. I think that the man who has the misfortune to have dise.ase enter his herd should not be paid off with $80, when lit has cost him double or treble that amount for his animal. I think the minister might go a little further, and put the amount at $100 or $120; which would, to a certain extent, meet the lass sustained. So far as the compensation for horses is concerned, I have no fault to find with that, but in the case of other animals, especially swine, the compensation is hardly enough. The compensation to be paid for dairy cattle is a very important consideration, especially in eastern Ontario, alt the present time. I have no doubt but that., when the minister thinks the matter over, and takes into consideration the prices we have to pay, he will naaise the amount of compensation for dairy cattle.


Mr. J. R. WILSON:: I would like to bring a matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, when drafting the Bill which is to be presented to the House, in order to obviate an 'injustice which I think was done to a resident in my constituency. I was not a member of this House when this was brought to my notice, and I have not all the details in my memory now, hut I remember that this farmer told me the circumstances, which entailed a heavy loss, in the neighbourhood of $2,000, compensation for which was refused by the Department of Agriculture. This man had a large herd of hogs, and a representative of the Government claimed that his hogs weTe

infected wiith cholera. Against the protestations of the owner, the hogs were slaughtered. The inspector first slaughtered a couple, but did not find any indications of cholera, as the farmer informed me. I understand that when a hog has cholera the disease is shown in the lung. Although he did not find any traces of cholera, he insisted on slaughtering the entire hundred hogs. Afterwards, he stated that he would make a report to the Government, and that the man would he paid for his hogs. At the time this man was speaking to me, he had not heard what had become of that inspector, nor had he been paid for his hogs-and this was eight months ago. Apparently the inspector, seeing he had made a mistake, made himself scarce, and I do not know whether even the department knows where the man is. Would it not be well, in drafting this legislation, to provide that when a veterinary or inspector condemns a man's stock he should, before destroying it, give the owner a certificate so that the owner will have something to show that his stock has been condemned and slaughtered? There should be some way of providing against such an injustice as that to which I have referred.


Mr. BOYER (Vaudreuil) (translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to state that I approve entirely the principle of this resolution, but that I cannot accept the opinion of the hon. Minister of Agriculture as regards one of its provisions. I find that the fee, under the terms of that legislation, in the case of dairy cattle slaughtered, is not sufficient, the resolution provides that in the case of grade animals, two hundred dollars will be allowed for every horse and eighty dollars for every head of cattle. I am satisfied that this amount is inadequate especially at the present time. The price for dairy cattle has considerably increased of recent date and such increase will be more in evidence in the near future; the reason is that the supply is much more restricted for that kind of stock than it is for horses, for instance. As a matter of fact, it is much more difficult to get good dairy cattle than any other kind of farm animals. .Considering the enhanced prices for dairy, I am of opinion that a higher rate of compensation for dairy cattle should be fixed and I trust the Minister of Agriculture will duly consider this suggestion.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and concurred in.
Hon. T. A. ORERAR thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 56, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved second reading bf Bill .No. 32, respecting the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
He said: At the time of the adoption of the resolution upon which this Bill is founded, I said I would make some explanation of the Bill on its second reading.
I shall do so as briefly as I possibly can. The Bill does not institute a new department; the amendments are designed to improve and broaden the Act and ensure its better working. Perhaps I might outline briefly the development of 5 p.m. our statistical work in Canada from the time of Confederation -without, of course, going into history. Our statistics fat first centred upon the taking of the decennial census. The first census was taken in 1870. Legislation was ' enacted for the taking Of that census, but no permanent census or statistics office was established. Again in 1879 there was legislation for the taking of the decennial census, and three censuses were taken on that legislation. In 1905 there was a complete revision of the Census and Statistics Act. The office was made permanent; the staff was made permanent and the scope was broadened so as to include general statistics. The work went on with a gradual accretion and extension in the different departments, and in 1912 the branch was transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce. No uniform and co-ordinated system of statistics had been established, and the method was not at all in keeping with the necessities of the case.
A departmental commission was appointed in 1912, composed of Richard Grigg, Commissioner of Commerce at that time, Chairman; Professor Adam Shortt, Civil Service Commissioner; Ernest Henry Godfrey, Census and Statistics Branch ; W. A. Warne, Statistical Branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce; Robert Hamilton Coats, Department of Labour, and John R. K. Bristol, Department of Customs. This commission instituted a thorough examination of the system, as it affected both Dominion and provincial work and summarized their conclusions. I do not think I could do better than read an extract from the report of that commis-
[Stage Direction]
sion, which briefly states the general situation.
Though many of the statistical reports issued by various departments are of undoubted excellence, there is apparent in the body of Canadian statistics, considered' as a whole, a lack of coherence and common purpose. This is traceable to imperfect appreciation in the past of the fact that the statistics of the country should constitute a single harmonious system, with all divisions in due oo-relation. Under the British North America Act, 1867, the Dominion is given specific authority to deal with "statistics," and while this must not be regarded as precluding statistical activity on the part of local governments, it does apparently imply that statistics are a matter of national concern and may therefore properly come under the general coordinating authority of the Federal Government. No such viewpoint or function, however, has in the past been assumed. The effect statistically has been to inculcate routine and the neglect of opportunities for furnishing wider information and service. "While this detachment has characterized the departments of the Dominion Government, still more has it been evident as between the several provinces and the Dominion, and between province and province, notwithstanding that the national importance of many of the functions of the provincial governments under confederation calls urgently for statistical uniformity and homogeneity. This general condition we would consider to be the fundamental defect which must be met and overcome in the existing situation. Some of the unfortunate results which have followed may be briefly Indicated:	'
1.	The scope of Canadian statistics has been restricted. On not a few points of vital interest to the country little or no statistical information exists. There has been no general answer to the question, what statistics should a country such as Canada possess? What are the phenomena requiring the scientific measurements supplied by statistics if Canadian national development is to proceed to the best advantage?
2.	Where the statistical activities of several bodies working along similar lines are virtually independent, duplication is inevitable.
3.	The statistics are unequal in quality and value. The absence of leadership is nowhere more apparent than in the varying extent to which statistical methods have been developed in the different branches.
4.	The restriction of outlook has impaired promptitude in the issue of reports.
6. Lack of unity and co-ordination prevents true comparisons between Canada and other countries. The recent growth of international intercourse has rendered such comparisons more than ever necessary, and they have become indispensable to the national progress of Canada.
That, in short, is a eharaoteiization of the impression which was left on the commission after its examination was completed. A remedy was suggested by the commission, and I will take the liberty of reading a short extract to give the essentials of their recommendation. They suggested:
1. That there be created a Central Statistical Office to organize in co-operation with the

several departments concerned, the strictly statistical work undertaken by the Dominion Government. The Object of this organization should toe to co-ordinate the statistics of Canada under a single comprehensive scheme and so to extend them that they may meet the present needs of the country and follow the probable course of its development. To borrow a phrase employed in a similar connection by an eminent statistician, the object of such a reorganization should be primarily to constitute a "central thinking office" on the subject of the statistics of Canada. Describing the possible functions of such an office Mr. Bowley wrote:	"Such
an office must have cognizance of all the statistics of more than departmental Importance which are published officially. Misleading statistics must he suppressed, overlapping must be stopped, Careful plans must he devised1 for filling in the gaps at present left, and preparations made for investigation of matters likely to become of public importance. All hills involving or affecting the collection of statistics should be considered by it. Publications for the use of the public should in some cases he edited by it, with careful definitions and with short analyses and criticisms, stating accurately and intelligently the purport and meaning of their contents. In other cases, where a department already exists for such publications, there should be coordination with a view to carrying out the purposes already indicated."
This so well expresses our own views as to the scope and functions which the proposed Canadian office should assume that we cannot do better than allow it to stand as a part of our report, adding that the examples of Germany and Austria show that the idea is (both practicable and valuable.
2. In order to give effect to this recommendation it may be necessary to enact further legislation or to amend the present Census and Statistics Act.
The House has now before it the condition of things as it appeared to the commission, and their recommendations as to what should be done to remedy that condition. Since that time different steps have been taken in respect of modelling and preparation for broader work, and1 for more coordination between the branches gathering statistics. What was found and hinted at by the commission was this:	A system of
gathering general statistics over and above the departmental or adininistrative statistics had gradually grown up in some departments, and in consequence there was overlapping and lack of uniformity in method, and that took away from the authority of the general conclusions arrived at. What was also taking place was that outside of Dominion statistics the different provinces were gradually branching out into statistical work necessitated, in the first place, by their administrative wants. Different branches under provincial administration, say Mines or Fisheries, were gathering and distributing statistical information in order to meet their departmental or administrative necessities, so that at the

time this report was made nearly all of the provinces had more or less extended statistical branches at work upon, different lines of examination,, gathering and selecting and distributing information. There "were three or four different bodies gathering statistics on crop reports, for instance, and agricultural production, doing the work separately, province iby province, and not having the same basis for their questionings, different results were obtained, and it became very difficult indeed to place authoritative reliance upon the statistics as they were gathered, in so far as they affected the Dominion as a whole. The Dominion was also preparing crop reports and making returns of agricultural production, and there was a difference in method between the Dominion Government and the provincial governments. In consequence, not only was there overlapping, but a condition of things came about in which the outside world, and in fact the people of Canada, did not know on which set of statistics to rely.
The outside world was in doubt as to what was authoritative, and it also had its contradictions within the Dominion itself. As soon as the commission's report was made, steps were taken in Canada to work it out along the lines of the principles laid down for organization by the commission. In the first place, conferences were held between the Dominion Statistical Branch, and the statistical branches of the various provinces; Mr. Grigg, in his time, travelled from one end of the country to the other, and had conferences with the different statistical branches of the provinces, and they canvassed the whole question, and came to certain conclusions as to agreement and co-operation. That resulted in calling a Dominion conference of the statistical heads representing the provincal and Dominion authorities. At that conference, statistical methods, in so far as they affect the pi-ovinces and the Dominion, were canvassed, and certain agreements were come to. These were to be worked out by the central statistics, office here, and afterwards to -be submitted to the provincial authorities, which has been done. Again, in 1915, on the demise of Mr. Blue, Mr. Coats, from the Department of Labour, was appointed Dominion statistician and he took up the work as he found it at that time, and proceeded with it upon the same lines. Since then the endeavour lias been to co-ordinate the work in the departments at Ottawa that were gathering statistics, to prevent overlapping, to get uniformity,
to secure the best method, and to ensure as great economy of working as possible. On the other hand, the same system of conference and co-operation- was carried out, with reference to the provincial authorities, and at the present time I may say, with reference to all the branches of statistical information, selection and distribution, that there is complete accord and harmony between the Dominion statistical office and the statistical offices of the different provinces. Where the provincial organization is ap-paiently the most reliable for gaining the information, it is availed of. Where the Dominion plan or organization appears more reliable, that plan is adopted. There is agreement on both these points a-s to the selection and tabulation of the information. In nearly all cases the tabulation is done in the Dominion statistical office, where we have the greatest facilities for doing it, and the information, when tabulated, is returned again for the use of the agricultural and other statistical departments of the provincial governments, whilst of course the same information remains with the statistical office here in Ottawa. These have been the lines along which the Dominion statistician -has been working, with the results I have jus-t mentioned. It is proposed to call this a bureau rather than a statistical office, because the word bureau widens the meaning somewhat, and is more in accord with similar institutions in other countries. The main idea is that, so far as the gathering of general or economic statistics is concerned, it shall be the work of the bureau itself, but departmental statistics for administrative purposes remain with the departments. In so far as, by co-operation, mutual advice and direction, the -gathering of the -statistics in the administrative departments can he mffde -to fi-t in with the general plan, and can conduce to economy and accuracy of selection, that co-operation and co-ordination takes place' between the central office and the statistical branches of the different departments working along their lines of administrative records- and statistics.
With regard to what has been accomplished, the Dominion statistician and his higher staff in that office have been making a series of very thorough investigations and examinations and have been laying out the field for a general statistical operation. It might be interesting to the House, if I were to briefly mention the different fields or divisions of work that are now being prepared for, and which have been or will be put into operation.
[Stage Direction]
In the first place, we keep our old decennial census. We have each ten years been taking the census of the Dominion, with the collateral information, outside of statistics of population, which has been gathered hitherto and which may be easily gathered in a census of population. Agriculture and population go together in the schedules which result in the information gathered in the decennial census.
Mr. DEVLIN:: Will those last figures be quoted in the agricultural reports, or will they appear in the Year Book?


Thomas Foster: I have spoken of the decennial census of population and agriculture, but it has long been felt in this country, and in this House, that a ten-year census of the condition, or the situation as regards agriculture is not quite sufficient for these times through which we are passing. Therefore, in addition to the decennial census of population and agriculture, it is proposed to add an annual census of livestock and crops, the record of marketing, and the statistics of butter and cheese production, so that each year we shall have an up-to-date statement as regards the condition of agricultural work, so far as that can be interpreted by statistics, which will supplement the information which is got in the decennial census with regard to agriculture itself. We have been having a kind of crop report, but it was not very widely based, and consequently has not included sufficient information to enable reliable estimates to be made. The idea underlying this yearly census is to develop the sources of information, t-o distribute more widely the area of information upon which we draw, and to make the estimates approximate, as nearly as possible, to the actualities of the case. In June, our crop reporters, who were selected and distributed throughout the country, gave us a statement as to the areas under cultivation, the crops sown and the number of live stock. These were followed up in the succeeding months by reports upon the condition of the crops, the live stock, and the like of that. The wider you can get the basis of the information upon which you can apply your final estimate, the more reliable the result will be. That is where co-operation is taking place between the Dominion and the provinces. I do not know that I can do better than just read an extract from the plan to show the improvement that has been made and the benefit that will arise therefrom:
As to the crops and livestock the statistics are issued monthly, the basic data relating to crops and numbers of live stock are obtained in

June on a card designed to reach every farmer in Canada.
A specimen card is appended here and can be seen by any hon. member who desires.
The specimen card is issued in co-operation with the provincial departments of agriculture. The arrangements for co-operation differs slightly in the oase of each province. For example, In the case of the provinces of Quebec, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the cards are distributed and collected by .the provincial authorities through the rural school teachers and then returned to this office for compilation.
By the co-operation of the educational authorities in these provinces, the teachers, in the first place, are prepared by an instructional circular which is issued to them for the kind of work which they are expected to facilitate. Then this card, prepared by the central office here, is sent out and approved of. The card is made out after consultation between the provincial authorities and our statistical office. These cards are then sent out to the departments in the three provinces. These departments, through the educational branches of the governments, forward these cards to the school teachers in every district. The cards are then distributed by the scholars and brought back to the teacher, a lesson having been given to the scholars in the meantime as to the significance of this operation and as to the public service involved, and as a result they are interested in it. These cards are then brought back by the children, are sent in to the provincial authorities, and by these are forwarded for compilation purposes to the central office.
In British Columbia' the cards are mailed by this office to individual farmers and returned to the provincial department for compilation. British Columbia has had a system of sending direct to farmers a form that is the basis of estimates as to' crops. They consider that the best way of doing it and they are doing it in that way rather than through the teachers. Ontario and Manitoba this year are coming in practically on the same basis as British Columbia. The details are already settled. The Maritime Provinces have agreed to the principle of co-operation ,and the details are to be arranged during the present month. It is interesting to note the results for 1917 in the case of Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. In Quebec returns have been received from 29,000 farmers; in Saskatchewan from 35,000; in Alberta from 14,500, and in British Columbia from 6,900.

Under the old system of crop reporters we had only an infinitesimal fraction of that number; consequently, our basis was that much curtailed. Here the basis upon which the estimates are to be formed from the whole country is widened very largely.
Passing from the census Oif population and of agricultural production, with the addition of the annual statistics gathered, to keep up to date between the decennial periods, we take up the next division; that is, the census of production. We propose to do for industrial production, taken in its widest sense, what has hitherto been done with regard to agricultural production and population. Hitherto all we have got in respect to industrial production has been what we have been able to gather at the decennial census. In addition to the difficulty of getting an adequate industrial census by means of the schedules which are distributed for the decennial census, and which must include so much other matter, we had no further information for each of the nine years intervening (between decennial periods. That is not what is necessary in these days and particularly in the face of Canada's largely increased and increasing industrial activity. What it is proposed to do is to take in each ten years a general census of industrial production, taking it in a different period from that at which the decennial census of agriculture and population is taken and then basing upon that, just the same as is done in the case of the agricultural census, a postal census of the industrial production each year, to keep up to date, in so far as it can be done, with the progress that is being made in our industrial activities. We shall be doing for .industrial production in this respect what is done for agriculture an the other division.
In that there will be combined fishing, mining, lumbering, forestry, manufacturing-all the great basic indhstries of Canada. One will see how necessary that is when it is stated that some twenty-nine departments, under Dominion work and under provincial work, have been publishing statistics of production during the last number of years with all their different methods, in a fragmentary manner more or less, and without uniformity or co-ordination. Between all these departments and the central statistical office there is now a plan of co-operation; each taking its own part in a co-ordinated plan, and all working together for the general result, which I anticipate will be excellent.
The third division takes in statistics of trade and of commerce. At present these statistics are under the management of the Customs Department, the Trade and Commerce Department, and the Statistical Department-three departments. What is proposed in respect of these is, by co-operation and co-ordination to prevent overlapping between these three departments; to hit upon and carry out a system which shall be carried on with the greatest economy and with the greatest efficiency, and without one department overlapping in any respect the work which is being done by the other.
Then there is the division of transportation, which, of course, is intimately connected with production-with natural production and industrial production-and the statistics with reference to which are absolutely necessary if we shall come to any correct interpretation of the forces at work in Canada contributing to the business and trade and national prosperity of the country.
Vital statistics are also to be taken up in a new and adequate way. Up to the present time vital statistics have been chiefly gathered by the provinces. Some provinces have none; some provinces have more or less well developed plans. Complete accord has been reached between the statistical office here and the vital statistics branches of the different province^, and a plan of gathering and distributing these vital statistics has been arranged for and will now be carried out. Members will see how vital this is to our country, as it is considered vital to all progressive countries. There has been a great lack of complete vital statistics in this country up to the present time, and we now propose to have that lack remedied.
Criminal statistics are being gathered in a way, and have been for a number of years, but I do mioit think any one will contend that they have been satisfactory; they have not been broad or thorough enough. The gathering of criminal statistics will be enlarged .and carried out, I hope, with greater advantage to the country at large.'


Wilfrid Laurier: Enlarged in what way?


Thomas Foster: Well, for instance, that there will be a wider range .selected. Criminal statistics are published in part; we have a publication of our own on criminal statistics. Several oif the provincial governments have also statistics, more or less, that they are gathering. These will

be enlarged to take in all that is necessary for a well founded system of criminal statistics, and then all will be brought together and published, or distributed, in a form in which you will get everything that i.s vital to the understanding of the subject, instead of having to rummage round through the different provinces, .and here in the Dominion, to gather the information and pick it out from these different sources.
Then there is the division of wealth, and debt, and taxation, which will take in governmental, municipal, corporation, and private finance. Not very much attention has been given to the collation and coordination of such material as already exists, 'but which exists without being put [DOT]in a form where it can toe readily of use. The Union of Municipalities has been very insistent upon the improvement, or the creation, of a system of statistics for the Dominion which shall aid them in their municipal work; and with the co-ordination of the municipal authorities, the provincial authorities and ourselves, it is proposed to enlarge that system of gathering statistics, and to collate it in a form where it can be easily got at and be readily usable.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Would the minister give an example as to what he intends doing, for instance, toy the collation of municipal statistics?


Thomas Foster: I think my hon. friend knows that pretty nearly as well as I do myself. All our municipalities govern themselves-. They have their system of expenditures and of revenues; they have their debts and their tax systems, everything of that kind, and each municipality knows what it itself is doing, and it knows to a certain extent the plans along which it is working, but there is no collation of this for the municipalities as a whole, and tUffere-fore for the Dominion as a whole.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I understand. It will
simply be the embodying of the yearly financial statements of the municipalities.


Thomas Foster: It will be that, but it will also be something more, because the moment you begin to do that and to show the different systems which are at work in one municipality and another, it gives a chance for a comparison which is not feasible when the operations of each municipality in its own department appears alone.
All I have to state in addition to what I have already said deals with the editorial and publishing phases of these general statistics. We have, as hon. gentlemen

know, a Year Book, which was instituted in 1886, and which has been improved from-year to year, until to-day I think I can say that Canada has a Year Book which it is not ashamed to let go out into any country in the world. We have had from other countries, I may say, very strong commendations, and expressions of approval as>
to the Year Book as it is now published. The publications, of course, will take in matter which is gathered in any of these different divisions with such annotations and analyses of them as it is really the highest work of the statistical office to accord in connection with facts once they are gathered.
I have troubled the House a little longer than I had anticipated, but I have been under the impression that probably not enough attention was given to the importance of statistical work in our country, and that not as much attention has been given to it as ought to be given to it in this House. Everybody will admit that a system of broad, well-based, accurate information running out into all the possible sources of activity of our country is not only a good, but an absolutely necessary thing to have in these days. Everything we do-I mean morally, spiritually to a certain extent, and to an absolute extent in the way of business, trade and finance is based upon facts. Facts constitute the foundation upon which they are to be based if results are to be satisfactory.
All our activities more or less demand a foundation of accurate and particular information. Not only do we need that for our country and1 its own business, but we are side toy side with the progressive countries of the world, whose statistical systems during the last ten or fifteen years have been wonderfully improved, and if Canada is to do her work and perform her part in the world of nations, she must have a statistical system, which, soi far as possible, will not only be adequate to her needs, but which will bear comparison with that of other nations and be for the benefit of the country in its relations with other countries. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more as an introduction to the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivini in the Chair.
On section 3-Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Mr. CRONYN :: Might I ask the minister if, in the use of the word "economic' in

this section, it is the intention to cover the case of financial companies?


Thomas Foster: The division
which takes in "wealth, debt," etc., and municipal statistics, covers that.


Hume Cronyn: I notice that in section
34 there is a subclass of statistics called "Public and Private Finance." There seems to be no special provision covering financial concerns in the BiU.


Thomas Foster: I think when we come to that section the explanation will satisfy my hon. friend that that is what is to be taken in.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 4-Dominion statistician appointment and duties-Officials,
Wilfrid Laurier: I would like
to ask ,my hon. friend if it is the intention to increase the personnel of the Bureau? I suppose he has a plan prepared for that.


Thomas Foster: This is a reproduction of the clauses of the old Act in the main. It provides for the appointment of an officer to be called the Dominion Statistician. The Dominion Statistician has already been appointed, and is in office. So with reference to all the officers who are at present employed. As the work enlarges it may be possible, oif course, that more help will be needed, but nothing is contemplated at the present time in this Act other than the staff that we at present have.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Commissioners, enumerators and agents.
Georges Henri Boivin: I might point out
to the committee that the rule is that the clause is called and the marginal heading read. If the committee desires that the whole clause be read, the Chairman, of course, is willing to do so.


Thomas Foster: I might make
a brief explanation when the clause is called, and then perhaps it will not be necessary to read it in all cases. With reference to this clause, it is an exact reproduction of the old Act, except that it provides for all appointments to be made by the Civil Service CommissionL And my right hon. friend will recollect that the previous practice has been that the major part of the help employed in the Census and Statistics Department was by appointment toy the census officer himself and was not under the Civil Service Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: If this clause is drafted with the good intention of dispensing with patronage, it will be all right.


Thomas Foster: It is absolutely all right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Oath of office.
Wilfrid Laurier: You had better read, this section, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Foster: This section
provides-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order, there is a request that I read this section.


Thomas Foster: I did not hear the request.


Wilfrid Laurier: The explanation may suffice without the reading of the clause. My hon. friend might go on.


Thomas Foster: I shall proceed with the explanation, and then if my right hon. friend wishes the section read it can be read. This is the oath which was formerly not included in the Act, but was provided by Order in Council; and it is placed here as a section in the Act because then it becomes enacted, and it is seen when the Act i3 read. I think it is much better there than in an Order in Council.	/


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a wise improvement.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Rules, regulations and forms.
Sir GEORGE. FOSTER: Section 7 reproduces Section 9 of the old Act, except that the old Act requires the assent of the Governor in Council to the schedules and their publication in the Canada Gazette. This has proved wasteful of time, and the assent of the Governor in Council was very often perfunctory. The preparation of these schedules is a technical thing, and the officers of the Census really are the persons who know, and they, with the minister, prepare these schedules. It was thought unnecessary to have them go before the Governor in Council.
Section agreed to.
On Section 8-No discrimination.
Thomas Foster: This is the same as subsection 3, Section 19, of the old Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is to be no discrimination by the minister or by the Government?
Sir GEORGE . FOSTER:	The section
reads:
8. The Governor in Council shall not, nor shall the Minister, in the execution of the powers conferred1 by this Act, discriminate between individuals or companies to the prejudice of any such individual or company.


Wilfrid Laurier: Has this been submitted to Mr. Fripp?


Thomas Foster: Well, now, Mr. Fripp is not in the Dominion Statistician's office.
Section agreed tc.
On section 9-arrangements with provincial governments:


Thomas Foster: This is a Tie-arrangement and1 enlargement of section 20 of the old Act, providing for a scheme of cooperative Dominion and provincial statistics. It is largely copied from the Australian Act, in which it is provided that a Central Statistical Bureau work to a considerable extent through the provincial departments.


Hume Cronyn: Is the power in this or any other section of the Bill to compel provincially incorporated companies to make returns of statistics that may be desired? Some years ago we endeavoured to secure Donjinion-wide statistics relating to trust and mortgage companies, but we found, if my recollection serves me aright, that some of the provincial governments had no machinery for the collection of these statistics and it was impossible to get anything like a satisfactory census, as one might call it, of the activities, investments, etc., of these companies.


Thomas Foster: Who was the collecting authority in that case?


Hume Cronyn: A private authority.


Thomas Foster: Of course, they could refuse a private inquisition, hut the statistical office has. inquisitorial powers, and it can get information from any company or concern.


Hume Cronyn: Even provincially incorporated companies?


Thomas Foster: Yes. But if information is secret, it is used in the mass, not individually.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Sir George Foster.l
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 22-statistics of Commerce and Navigation:
Thomas Foster: These provisions are adaptations from clauses in the legislation of Great Britain, Australia and the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 25-domestic trade: -
Charles Murphy: Is it the intention to circulate these monthly reports as previously?


Thomas Foster: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 34-general statistics:
Charles Murphy: In the phrase " Public and Private Finance," to what does " private " finance extend?


Thomas Foster: Private banks, for instance.


Charles Murphy: But not to individuals?


Thomas Foster: I do not think so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals) Bill 51, to provide compensation where employees of His Majesty are killed or suffer injuries while performing their duties was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1, subsection 1-compensation to be same as under law of province where accident occurs.
Mr. iCURRJE: In Ontario there may be [DOT]i liability on the part of some of the railways coming under the operation of the Government, and a boiard has been created which takes the place of workmen's compensation legislation in that province. Is, it the intention of the Government to contribute to the funds of that board? The Ontario Government have done away with the old Employers' Liability Act, and a department of the government deals with this question. Every employer pays so much money into this fund annually. No doubt the railways will be taken over shortly, and there is a large mileage of railway in Ontario. Has the minister considered the operation of the compensation

8 lil
board in Ontario, or will this clause cover the whole thing?
iMr. J. D. RElIiD: The intention of this Bill is to bring not only the railways but all Government employees on public works under a compensation Act. I may say, the railway employees prefer the Dominion Act, but it takes some time to work it out, and therefore I am introducing this Bill and placing all the employees in exactly the same position as the employees ot a private railway. The Bill has been framed on that basis. The hon. gentleman asks whether it is the intention of the Government to deposit an amount with the Ontario Government, under the laws of that province. I may say it is not necessary for the Government of Canada to deposit any amount to ensure that any judgment under that Compensation Act will be paid. I do not know whether the law compels the Canadian Pacific or Canadian Northern to deposit any money, but it is not the intention of the Government to do so. In case of accident, injury or death, any liabilities will be paid in accordance with the amount the employees would bo entitled to in any province.
Mr. CURRIE;,. The Ontario Government's officers will assess the damages to the person injured, and this Government'will pay it?	*
Mr. J. D. REID:: The court, or whatever the tribunal is.


John Allister Currie: There is a board?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The Dominion Government Railways will go through the same procedure as the Canadian Pacific, in case one of their employees is injured.
Mr. 'COPP: Has the substance of this Bill been submitted t-o representatives of the labour organizations on the Canadian Government railways for their approval?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, we have discussed it with some gentlemen representing some of the organizations. There is a clause referring to the provident fund, and it was with some of those connected with that fund we discussed it. The employees on the Intercolonial railway are satisfied, because they have this additional security.


Mr. COPP:: The last line or two of this subsection says:
-shall be determined in the same manner and by the same 'board, officers or authority or by suelh other board, officers or authority, or by such court as the Governor in Council shall from time to time direct.
Why is it necessary to establish another court? Why take it out of the hands of the regular courts?


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand the provision of the clause, its purpose is to enable us to follow the law that exists in each province. I suppose the hon. gentleman wishes to know why it is necessary to appoint any board by Order in Council?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that in Prince Edward Island, for instance, they have no board of arbitration, and no law such as we have in Ontario, and it might be necessary to appoint some board in that province similar to the boards in other provinces. That is the reason that clause was inserted.


John Allister Currie: The province of Ontario has a compensation board, with a staff of officials; and manufacturers, or others employing over a certain number of persons come under the regulations of that board. There is a certain expense every year which those who come under that board have to pay into the treasury for the maintenance of that board and to pay its inspectors and officers. I should think it would be advisable, if the Government railways come under the operation of that board, that they should pay a certain amount into that fund annually, the same as any one else. It would not be fair to have an irganizu-tion work for the Dominion Government for nothing, because this service examines into these cases, and sends its inspectors to various points. When the award is made the Government will pay the award but it will not pay any of the expenses of the men who have gone out to investigate. I do not know whether the Bill makes any provision that out of the consolidated revenue fund there should be any payment besides the award that is paid to the person injured.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Is this Bill to be made retroactive?


John Dowsley Reid: It is not retroactive.


Pius Michaud: Take the case of employees on a gravel train, or in a sand pit, and working for His Majesty the King, who are insured against accident for an amount of $250. If some of them sustain injuries are they entitled to compensation under this Act? It seems that parties who are injured cannot put in any claim for damages beyond the amount for which they are insured. I remember a case in my own

constituency where a man had his two legs broken. I made an appeal to the solicitor of the Intercolonial railway at Moncton and he told me that the Government was not responsible beyond the amount of $250. I ask the minister whether or not this man by signing an agreement can prefer any other claim beyond $25?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Perhaps I might venture to answer the - question of the hon. member (Mr. Michaud). If the party injured is an employee of the Government railway, he is entitled to just the same remedy, and subject to just the same restrictions, should this Act pass as if he was employed on an ordinary railway. The law of the province applies in just the same way as it would if he were employed on another railway. In the other case the hon. gentleman brings forward, if under the law of the province in which the man resides, an insurance fund would be deducted from any amount he might otherwise receive, or would not be deducted, it would be deducted or not deducted according 'to his agreement. That would be the result in an action where the party was employed in the Government railway. I think that is clear.


Pius Michaud: Under the present law, is that young man entitled to any compensation from the Government outside of his $250 insurance?


Arthur Meighen: What does the hon. gentleman mean by " present law ''-Dominion law or provincial law?


Pius Michaud: The present Dominion law. He cannot come under the provincial law if he is working for a Government railway.


Arthur Meighen: Under the present law, if I understand it-I may he wrong-compensation is paid by the Crown as an act of grace. There is no law governing the exact amount that shall be paid. This Bill establishes the principle of liability under the provincial law of the province where the man resides.


Pius Michaud: I understood from the solicitor of the Intercolonial railway at Moncton that His Majesty is not responsible for any accident to any of his employees. Is that right?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Pius Michaud: Therefore, a widow and children cannot bring action against the Government for the death of the husband and father?


John Dowsley Reid: No. This Bill, however, makes it possible for them to get compensation. In the hon. gentleman's province, in case of an accident on the -Canadian Pacific railway, they can bring action against the company under the Compensation Act and get damages. But they could not do that if the accident happened on the Government railway. This now puts the Government railway in the same position in that province as the Canadian Pacific would be. In case of injury, an employee of the Government railway will be in exactly the same position in regard to compensation as would the employee of a railway company.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: I am afraid that this Bill constitutes an encroachment on provincial rights. I see the minister smiling, but that is the construction I put on section 1. It says that the amount of compensation shall be determined by-
-the same Board1, officers or authority, or by such other board, officers or authority or by such court as the Governor In Council shall from time to time direct.
I understand that if there is no board, officers or authority, or any court, the Governor in Council may appoint a board, officers, or authority to deal with these cases. Why not make this clause clear, so that there will be no misunderstanding? Make . it read:
Such compensation shall be determined in the same manner and by the same board, officers or authority, if any, or, if none, by such other hoard, officers or authority as the Governor in Council Shall appoint.
My opinion is that in a province where there is already authority constituted the Governor in Council, under this clause, can appoint another authority.


Arthur Meighen: 
Arthur Meighen: It is very clear now.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: I beg the hon. minister to listen. To make my point very clear:
I am always afraid of the explanations given by the hon. minister. When we were discussing the Military Service Bill he told the House that the province of Quebec should not be agitated by it because it would be the least affected; now the province of Quebec ie supposed to be the most affected.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid my words
in that regard were only too true, but at present we are not discussing the Military Service Bill. I hope I may be as well within the mark now as I was on the occasion to which the hon. gentleman has referred What the hon. gentleman argues for is this: That the Governor in- Council should not take the power to establish a board which would have the determination of, and the application of, a provincial law in fixing this amount. But even though we do take this power, I was pointing out we, do not encroach upon any provincial right, because there is no- provincial right to encroach u-pon. I submit that we ought to take the power for the following reasons: The principle objection that could be raised against the Dominion putting itself in this position is that it places itself within the power of a province to establish a board over which the Dominion -has no control whatsoever, and no right to interfere with it in any way whatever, and enables that board to assess against the Crown in the right of the Dominion -such compensation as may seem fit. Now it was thought right that the Government place itself under the same principles as apply to the province, that we should- have the power to determine the nature of the tribunal which would apply those principles and assess the damages against the Crown. As the Minister of Railways has pointed out, there seems to be a special need of the exercise of that power now in Ithe province of Prince Edward Island, and there may be need of it elsewhere. It may be thought fit to order that in all cases of -claims against
the Crown in the right of the Dominion a superior court should exercise jurisdiction, or it m-ay be thought -fit to establish in each province a board which, applying the law of the province, would determine what the amount should be. It -seems to me only just that that right should be reserved inasmuch as we go to the extent of putting it within the power of a province to fix the principles and the law upon which we must pay damages.


Mr. KEEFER:: Might I ask the Minister of the Interior (iMr. Meighen) for -a little more light on this subject? My reason for doing so is that I pledged myself to the railway men of my riding that I would see to it, as far as I -could, that such legislation as was in thei-r interest should be passed. In the constituency of Port Arthur we have the three transcontinental railways and nine divisional points where the engines and the crews are changed. Those railway men are the civil soldiers of the country, and they should receive, not any greater consideration, but as great consideration -as any other class in the community now receives. 'To-day they are labouring under two or three disabilities, and I have promised to use my influence to remove those disabilities. This is one of them; the employees on -Government railways are asking to receive the same rights and the same amount of compensation for injury given to the employees of -any other railway. If we do not establish that principle the result is going to be that we shall lose the good men in the railway service to the other railway systems that are not owned and operated by the Government. I have heard them -say that if they cannot get the same rights and protection as other railway em-ployees they would- go to work, for the Canadian Pacific railway, for instance, where they would -enjoy those rights, They want the Government railways not operated politically but operated by a commission absolutely divorced from politics, so that a man may rise by merit and merit only. II have pledged myself to do what I can to bring about that result.
A third matter I wish to bring up is that the railway men want the right to vote on election day so that if they are going out on duty they can come in and vote just as -soldiers were able to vote at the	last election.
These men have to get up at four or five o'clock -in -the morning, or earlier, to -attend to their duties, and cannot record their votes because they are off guarding His Majesty's mail, or carrying food and war supplies, -and so forth, in doing which

they are discharging their duty to the country. These three grievances the railway men want remedied, and I iseek to enlist the sympathy and support of this House on their behalf for that .purpose.
Now, as regards this section, the Minister of the Interior has explained, if I understand it aright, that it is desired in- some way to keep control over the provincial legislature in the way of how ,it may legislate. If I understand the position correctly it is this: First of all there is the principle of law that the Crown is not liable in any action by any suppliant without its permission, which is the well-known and right principle. Now we are making an inroad into that principle by this legislation, and nightly making it. Then the principle as to liability, as I understand it, is, that if the province has not Workmen's Compensation Boards, and so forth, there is a common law liability, under a well known and celebrated case that every lawyer knows, by which if a man is engaged in a hazardous undertaking he is entitled to recover damages, which damages must be reasonable in amount. Under the provincial law, as I take it-the Minister of the Interior will correct me if I am wrong,

any court in a province where they have not these workmen's compensation- boards, would decide the -matter upon the -principle of common law. Now, is the railway man in any way to fee deprived first of all of his right undeT the common law where there is no- board or tribunal, or otherwise? Or iis he entitled to go- to the tribunals of the land-or in case of his demise, have his widow and children -that right-and sue for damages, thus being put in the same position as any other railway employee? That is the point I want to make cle-ar beyond possibility of doubt. If that were not iso, and there was not the common law liability, then the Grown might want to -step in and create -some tribunal, but it would be only in case, I should think, where the common law liability is not retained; otherwise I should think it would be -a dangerous proceeding to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Cro-wn to step in and constitute a special tribunal. I would like that point m-ade clear.


Arthur Meighen: I understand the hon. gentleman to ask whether or not the former common law liability will be retained.


Francis Henry Keefer: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: There was no former common law liability as against the Crown.


Francis Henry Keefer: I mean the same common law that applies to other subjects,


Arthur Meighen: There is no common law liability now against the Crown. But I would say that the common law liability as it exists in any province as applied to a railway corporation may now, if this Bill passes, be utilized against the Crown, and will be in effect unless it has been displaced by provincial legislation.


Francis Henry Keefer: That is perfectly clear.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: I endorse what has just been said by the hon. member from Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) as to the importance of and necessity for this legislation.
There is certainly no reason why the State should not be treated or considered as an ordinary employer of labour. I know of many injustices which have been done to workmen on the Intercolonial railway because of the lack of such legislation. The other day, when the resolution which preceded this Bill was discussed in committee, I enquired whether there were Workmen's Compensation Acts in all the provinces, and I was told -that there was such legislation in all the provinces. A gentleman well posted on labour questions has told me that there are several provinces where no such legislation exists. If the hon. minister has the information as to that he should supply it to his colleague, the Minister of Labour, because I hold in my hand -a pamphlet issued by the Labour Department last year entitled *' Labour Legislation in -Canada," and I read this:
In 1916 laws in the field of labour legist lation were passed by the Federal Government and by the legislatures of all the provinces except Prince Edward Island. The outstanding feature was tihe enactment of workmen's compensation laws in the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia, following the passage of compensation statutes in Ontario in 1914 and in Nova Scotia in 1915. In the autumn of 1915 the British Columbia Government appointed a commission to investigate the subject of workmen's compensation, which reported favourably in time for tihe passage of th-e Act at the next session of the legislature. The enactment of modern compensation laws by four provinces brings Canada fairly well in line with the rapid development of legislation of this kind throughout the world.
This would indicate that as far as th-e Labour Department is concerned they are not informed as to whether such legislation exists in all the provinces of the Dominion. On the other hand, the information given there is certainly incomplete, because I know, as a matter of fact, that in the prov-

ince of Quebec a compensation law was enacted in 1909, the first labour compensation legislation in the Dominion of Canada. ,If the province of Quebec comes last on woman's suffrage, it was the pioneer as far as labour legislation is concerned. So, if the information .of the Department of Labour was wrong as to Quebec, it may have been wrong for the other provinces as well. I would like to know, and the Committee is entitled to the information, whether such legislation exists in all the provinces?


John Allister Currie: I do not think the hon. gentleman realizes what the compensation laws of these provinces mean. In the provinces generally, under the common law, I think a man could bind 'himise'lf outside of compensation. That is, I could hire a man and make an agreement with him under the common law that if he sustained any injury he or his iheins could not ask for any compensation.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: That is not good law.


John Allister Currie: Then there was another law passed in England-I think it was called Lord Campbell's Act

the lawyers in the House will correct me if I am in error, because I do not speak as a lawyer but as am employer of labour


An hon. MEMBER:: You are not talking good law.


John Allister Currie: However, there was a law passed there which made it so that .a man could not contract outside of the operation of securing compensation. Supposing a man was killed, his family could sue regardless of any agreement made with the employer. That is the British law. Now, all the provinces passed statute laws of that character, and the law the hon. gentleman refers to in Quebec is along that line. In the province of Ontario the insuring of the employee is taken entirely out of the bands of the employers, and a board is set up which insures every workman who seeks employment with a corporation or individual, and if he is killed or injured, the Government has a number of inspectors who visit the man or the place bf hiis employment and take all the evidence in the case, and the workmen's compensation board at Toronto fixes the degree of liability -and the compensation, whether it is to 'be an annual payment extending over the lifetime of the widow, and sio on. They fix it, and the Government pays it, and they charge that up generally to every business or employment in the category. All kinds of businesses
are categorized. For instance, munitions is in category C; farming will be category A, -and so on, -all the way down the line, and the compensation is in accordance with the category; but practically' the amount paid into this fund annually is in accordance with the risk. I might say in that connection that in the province of Ontario in the year 1916 in a munitions plant that I know of the premium was something like $350. Previous to that the amount paid to the insurance companies would run about six or seven hundred dollars. So we find the Compensation Act works a great reduction in the cost of carrying the risk of the workmen. Previously, the workmen could get practically nothing at all. The employer paid into a liability company, which employed every lawyer it could get to keep the workman from securing damages, and their whole business was to prevent him from obtaining damages. They stood behind the manufacturer and said: If you incur any damages, we will pay them, but we will put the workman and his wife and children through all the courts in the land before they will he able to collect anything from you. That was a vicious principle in itself. Now, these hoards fix the compensation. But. like the high cost of living and everything else, the amount paid into the province of Ontario last year as premiums increased three hundred per cent over the previous year, and there is a great deal of grumbling about that. It .is claimed that the board has assessed the figure for the year far too high in order to accumulate a large fund for itself. In the province of Quebec, I think there is not a board of that description; I understand there is not. But the province of British Columbia has adopted the principle, having largely copied from the law of the State of Washington. The other provinces down by the sea have also adopted a similar .-system; it is a splendid system for both employer and workman. But unless boards are established, I think the law will -stand1, not the old common law, but the general law of all the provinces, that a man cannot contract himself out of his right of claim upon his employer in case he is injured. Under the old common law he could not do that, it being held that he was a free agent.


Mr. MIIDDLEBRO:: .If it is intended that the law of the province with respect to the amount of compensation and the manner of obtaining it is to govern, the section as it now stands is a little obscure. The wording of the clause is as follows:

-and the liability for and the amount of such compensation ghall he determined in the same manner and by the same Board, officers or authority, or by such other Board, officers or authority or by such court as the Governor in Council shall from time to time direct.
If we out out the alternative clause, it will read as follows:

and the liability for and the amount of such compensation shall be determined in the same manner and by the same Board, officers or authority, as the Governor in Council shall from time to time direct.
There are no similar actions at all, because it is within the authority of the Governor in Council absolutely to determine the (board. I would suggest that the clause he amended in this manner:
-and the liability for and -the amount of such compensation shall be determined in the same manner and by the same Board, officers or authority, as similar actions for compensation are determined under the laws of such province, or by such other Board, officers of authority or by such oourt as the Governor in Council shall from time to ' time direct.


Jacques Bureau: Striking the alternative out?


William Sora Middlebro: No, there is no alternative. As it reads now, the section says: " shall be determined by the same board as the Governor in Council shall direct." I suggest that after the word " authority," in the third line from the last, there be added the words-: " as similar claims for compensation are determined under the laws of such province." Then, if in any particular province there is no board for the purpose of determining compensation the alternative clause will apply and the Governor in Council may appoint such authority as is deemed expedient.


John Dowsley Reid: The parliamentary counsel, our railway solicitor, and, I think, the Chairman of the Railway Commission, all assisted in drafting this clause with a view to having it right.


Mr. JACOBS:: In the multitude of counsel there is wisdom.


John Dowsley Reid: My whole object is to get this Bill in such shape that in cases of accident employees on Government railways shall have the same rights as employees of other railways. Under the present law, if a man is injured or killed, I have no way of providing compensation for his family. Cases have been dealt with in the estimates, but it is not fair to me or to the family that I should have to decide the matter in that way.


Mr. FIELDING:: Does this not mean that the minister, the Government, or the de-
[Mr. Middlebro.J
partment desires to put itself, in every province, in the position of a private corporation, and then to come under the operations of the compensation law of that province?


John Dowsley Reid: That is what I have in view.


William Stevens Fielding: That is an object with which we can all sympathize. My hon. friend has had half a dozen lawyers preparing this clause, and it must be right, I suppose. The object is certainly a worthy one, but I should not gather it from the reading of the clause as it stands.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: Suppose that during the course of his employment a 9 p.m. man receives an injury which does not come within the terms of the Compensation Ac,t, and the compensation board in the particular province refuses to take jurisdiction over him, what remedy i-s open to the dependents of that man-? If a man is killed, perhaps through the gross negligence of the railway itself, does this Act purport to give a fiat for tue bringing of action against the Crown for damages?


Arthur Meighen: I take it that my hon. friend means a ca-se in which action would lie against a private company in the ordinary courts of the land, hut which would not come within the special compensation law of the province. The effect of this legislation would he to give the family of -such a man action against the Crown in the ordinary courts of the land.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: According to that, then,, the Act does not limit the right to recovery under the Compensation Act of the provinces. A private individual would have a perfect right to bring an action against the Crown, just the same as against a private company.
'Mr. MEIGHEN: That is -my understanding.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: If that is a correct interpretation of the Act, the provision is an excellent one.


John Allister Currie: In view of the suggestions which have been made, the law clerk should he asked to go over this -section very carefully. While the marginal notation may read all right, I confess that a few more words seem to ibe necessary in order to make the clause absolutely clear.


Arthur Meighen: 
Jacques Bureau: If a man is injured in
Ottawa, does that imply that he may go before the Exchequer Court instead of before the ordinary Superior Court, or whatever you call it?
-Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:	He could not go
before the Exchequer Court.
iMr. BUREAU:	What is the meaning of
these words?-
-or by suoh other Board, officers or authority or by such court as the Governor in Council shall from time to time direct.


John Dowsley Reid: That is only for the
purpose of providing for the appointment of a -board in any province where no Compensation Act has been adopted. I believe that would -apply to only one province-Prince Edward Island. If a man were injured while employed on a Government railway in Ontario, the Ontario board under the Compensation Act would determine the compensation to be paid.


Jacques Bureau: In that case, what harm would there be in adding after the amendment just moved by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), that in case no such board of officers exists in the province, or in the absence of any compensation law in force in the province, the Governor in Council may determine before what board or court the injured person may come?


Arthur Meighen: I endeavoured to state the point of view of the Government before. We do not wish to take the authority and apply it only in cases where there is no provincial law so as to fix Dominion lia-right to establish a tribunal in any case that we see fit, or in all cases that we see fit. The distance Parliament is going to in placing it within the power of the province to establish the laws and the principles upon which we shall pay damages seems to me to be a long way indeed, without asking us to go the further length of placing ourselves wholly within the jurisdiction of such tribunal, of whatever character, as the province may establish for applying that law and determining the amount of compensation. It may be that in no case except
fi2
where there is no tribunal, shall we exercise that right, but we wish to reserve it, and it might be that the Governor in Council might see fit to enact that only a Superior Court in any province should apply the provincial law so as to fix Dominion liability.


Jacques Bureau: I entirely agree with what was said a few moments ago by my hon. friend from Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer). He asked the Government to put the railway man working for the Government in exactly the same position as the ordinary man.


Arthur Meighen: As to law.


Jacques Bureau: That was his idea, if I understood -him correctly. But this goes further. Supposing a man gets injured while working on a Government steamer or on a public work; under this Act he would be entitled- to compensation, whether he was working for the Minister of Customs, the Minister of Railways, or the Minister of Public Works. My hon. friend said he was afraid it might not be the judge of a Superior Court who would take cognizance of the case. I suppose it is the same in other provinces as in Quebec, where the jurisdiction of the judge is limited by the amount involved. In our province it is -specifically provided that it is the judge of the Superior Court who shall take original cognizance of the case. Before an injured man can sue, he has to present a petition, and when that petition is presented, if employer and employee agree the judge renders judgment which has the same effect as if the action had been tried by the court in the regular way. I am not speaking on behalf of my district particularly, because we have no Government railways. I had forgotten; we have the Canadian Northern paid for by the Government, but not yet owned or operated *by the Government. Under this legislation, -thle railwayman working for the Government would not feel they were on the same footing as the men'working for the -Canadian Pacific or the Grand Trunk, -because there wo-uld always be an uncertainty as to the Government creating a board to decide these compensation " cases. -But knowing the sympathy of the Minister of Railways for the working man,
I do not think he would make any change which would be to their disadvantage; but we know he does change his mind- sometimes, and we have precedents enough for that if we look backward.



There is -another point. Would it not be well to mention in the Bill that the action may 'be brought against the department in which the injured man was employed? Because if the action is simply brought against His Majesty the King, we' should see His Majesty King George the Fifth summoning His Majesty King George the Fifth to appear before the Superior Court of Three Rivers or elsewhere to answer to John Doe, who has broken his leg" while in the employ of His Majesty. We might provide that when a man brings an action for personal injury, the fact of designating the department for which he was working will be sufficient to bring the Crown before the -court. T remember that when we amended the Railway Act to allow people to- bring claims up to $500 for cattle killed [DOT]by the railway, a special board was appointed and the action was brought against this board and that was sufficient to make the Crown -appear. The Crown has gone extensively into the railway business, and Government railways cover the whole country. Heretofore, Moncton has been the seat of railway operations by the Crown. In an action for damages, would the injured man have to serve notice on the minister or the deputy minister at Ottawa, or in the head office of the railway company, or in the resident engineer's office for the Department of Railways, or on the customs officer of the district if the accident happened to a man in the customs service? I think we should set out in the Bill who shall be sued when a man wants to sue the Crown for personal injury, and where the Crown may be served. Otherwise, if the labourer has to eerve the documents in Ottawa or at some divisional point he might be put to considerable expense. On the Canadian Pacific, if an accident occurs, the injured man may serve the head office in Montreal or the agent at the place where the accident happened. Perhaps the minister would draft a paragraph errftiodying my suggestions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think the principle
of this Bill is an excellent one, and I am certainly in favour of the Crown granting compensation -to employees suffering in* juries through the operation of the railways. I think this is the natural corollary of the legislation passed some years ago by which those who suffered from fires caused by sparks from -an engine on the Intercolonial could sue to the amount of $200 before the courts of the province through which the train passed. I do not think the paragraph before us is quite clear. The Government

first of all admits the jurisdiction of the courts of the provinces to adjudicate these cases, and accepts the various compensation Acts passed by the different provinces. The courts of the provinces, although created by the provinces themselves, are paid out of the federal exchequer. As the Government by this legislation accepts the compensation Acts of the provinces why not trust the administration of this Act to the Superior Court judges of the provinces? Why does the Government take power to create special boards in the various provinces? The Government will accept the compensation Acts which are provided for by the different provinces; it seems invidious that it will not accept the jurisdiction of the courts in the provinces and pass the administration of that Act to those special boards. You are creating an invidious distinction as between our judges in the various provinces, who are paid by the federal exchequer although created by local legislatures, whilst you admit the validity and the scope of our Compensation Act. If the Government were providing for special boards which would administer compensation Acts differently from the provincial Acts, I could understand this legislation. I say to the Government; The legislation is excellent; the principle is most excellent, but I do not understand why you do not trust the provincial courts in the administration of the Act.


Arthur Meighen: In the Constitution of this country the greatest care was observed in providing for the establishment and the manning of our courts. The balance was well preserved between Dominion and provincial responsibility, and if all the provinces had referred the administration of their compensation law to the courts, then I do not apprehend that this alternative would have been inserted in the Bill. But a board established purely under provincial law, and manned only by provincial authority, is not naturally a board in which the Dominion would be likely to place irrevocably its destiny in these matters; at all events in the isame way as we might be quite prepared to place it if the provincial law prescribed the court to adjudicate, instead of a board.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why do you not limit it to provinces where they have no board?


Arthur Meighen: For the reason that the province itself has not limited it. The province comes along, displaces the jurisdiction of the court, and establishes a board, and we would have, by Order in

Council to re-establish the jurisdiction of the court and place our cases under their jurisdiction. Consequently we -musit take this alternative. Otherwise we are wholly within the power of a board constituted by provincial authority, manned by provincial authority, in respect of which this Dominion has no say whatever. My hon. friend asks: Why not at once remove the jurisdiction of boards, and place this wholly within the power of the Superior Court of each province? That might be done, but it was thought better to try it with the boards that now exist, and see how it operated, and what effect it would have. It is true they are in no way answerable to us, they are appointed by provincial authority, paid by provincial funds, and in no way in the nature of courts established under the provisions of the British North America Act. It might be well to try the operation of this law as administered by the 'board, but we retain power, not only to establish a .board, or a court where there is none now, but to displace the board now established, if we see fit, by a court or a board which may sit through all the provinces, as the Governor in Council may see fit.


Francis Henry Keefer: If I understand the position, we have now come down practically to what you might call a constitutional question, whether the Dominion of Canada shall or shall not be willing to submit itself, as far as this principle of liability is concerned, to the provincial courts. The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) says: Yes, I want to see all the men employed in the Government railways receive the same treatment as men employed in any other railway. The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), being a very able lawyer, and realizing much more fully the meaning of these words, practically says: No, I will only agree to the provincial authority, provided we are satisfied with it. Let us use blunt language in this matter; let us place the cards on the table. I think it would be a horrible mistake, when dealing with railway employees, to leave the matter in such a position that it could be argued in two or three ways. These men do not like to be deceived. I am a new member of the House, and do not know which is the proper course to adopt. They are both very far-reaching. It is a dangerous thing for the Federal Government to submit itself without reservation- to the provinces-. Canada stands to-day in a peculiar position in regard to railways. I hardly think any of us realize it. We are to-day the owners of -about 15,000 miles of
railway-the largest railway owner in Canada. We have seen fit, and rightly' s'o, to take over these railways. Having done so, and having come into competition with other existing railways, it seems to me that we ought to take the liabilities incident to taking over the railways. "Remember, these liabilities will be very far-reaching. We cannot stop at this matter. You have to take up the principle of municipal assessment later on, the principle of municipal liability for taxes, and so on, just as the railways have done. Heretofore the Government never allowed itself to be taxed, and rightly so. So that the matter cannot be disposed of very triflingly. It seems to me very unwise not to be able to say to the men: You are working on this railway for us; you are going to have exactly the same treatment as you would have working for any other railway. For that reason, I would like to see the Government s'o amend this clause that the principle would be clearly and well defined. It cuts into the principle that my hon. friend the hon. Minister of the Interior just enunciated. I should like to move an amendment-


Georges Henri Boivin: There is already an amendment before the Committee.


Francis Henry Keefer: In order that the Committee may be considering it, I may say that the substance 'of my proposed amendment will be to insert after the word " or " in the 13th line the following:
[DOT]-if such board, officers or authority be not then existing.
That squarely defines the position, that if there is not an existing board, we will appoint one.
The -CHAIRMAN: The amendment now before the Committee is that proposed by the hon. Minister of the Interior.
Amendment agreed to on division.
Mr. KEEFER .moved to add after the word "or," where it appears for the second time in line 13 of subclause (1), the following words "if no such board, officers or authority be then existing."


William Sora Middlebro: When I moved my
amendment I had no thought of taking away the alternative from the Government. I do not think we are justified in placing absolutely and entirely in the hands of such & local board as a provincial government m-ay determine, w-hat compensation we should pay for any injury which may be sustained 'by any person within the limits of that province. What the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) says is

quite sound, that we should give this Act a trial. It may he that when these provincial hoards get to know that whatever compensation they allow in such a case is going to he paid hy the Dominion Government, the amount of the compensation may very materially swell. I think it is well to have the reservation if for no other reason than that these hoards will know that if they do not give reasonable compensation for losses, or the compensation that is allowed in similar oases in various provinces, if they do not do what is fair and square as between the claimant and the Government, it is within our power to withdraw the matter from their jurisdiction and place it in the hands of such other boards or tribunals as we shall appoint for that purpose.


Francis Henry Keefer: We can always pass a new Act.


William Sora Middlebro: For that reason, I
say, give the present Act a trial and if it is satisfactory we do not need to change it. If it is not satisfactory, we can pass a new Act, as my hon. friend says.
(Mr. J. D. REID: When I spoke a few moments ago I assured the committe that my object was to give the railway employees all the benefits which they would receive in any province in so far as compensation is concerned. This Bill allows the Government to do that. I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Middlebro) who has just spoken. If some province should appoint a board, or adopt a law, by which the railway employees would not probably get as much as we believe they would be entitled to, we would be in a position to appoint a board that would see that they received their just dues.


Jacques Bureau: In that case we had better put it in the Bill.


John Dowsley Reid: This Bill has been
passed upon by the railway employees'. I would like to give it a trial, and if, by the *time another session, of Parliament is held, it does not work out as we expect, we can amend it. I think that to give away our powers in so far .as doing what is just and fair by the men is concerned would be to take a step that would hardly be justified.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister started out with the very good intention of putting Government railway employees 'in the same position as the employees of any other railway. But, apparently the multitude of his legal advisors have got him into a bad plight

because he has-, by the first part of this section, given the employees of the Government railways what they are entitled to, but every man in this Parliament must realize that he leaves the hack door open, im the provision contained in the last line of the section, so that in case the award does not suit him he can withdraw the case from the board.


John Dowsley Reid: That is not so.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That i'S as I understand it. I do not say that the minister intends to do that, hut that is 'actually how it works out. The provinces, apparently with one exception, have compensation Acts each 'administered by what are known as arbitration boards, as explained by the hon. member for North Si'mcoe (Mr. Currie) a few moments .ago-. A board as appointed by the provincial government to hear these cases, deliberate upon them and give their judgment the satisfaction of which becomes a charge upon the fund that has been raised by an 'assessment'upon these large corporations. The amendment moved fay the hon. *member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) is all right 'as far as it goes, 'but the Canadian Government railway employees will not be satisfied with a clause which says that the Government, if not satisfied with the way in which the case has been tried before the arbitration board in the province in which the claimant resides, can fake it out of their -hands and appoint a board of their own. They may get just as good and just a reasonable a board, and a board that would give a fair judgment, but nevertheless the employees of the, Government railway will look upon it with a good deal of suspicion. 1 am absolutely an favour of the principle of this Bill, and I would like to see it adopted in such a shape that the Government would be protected as well as the employees of the road. But, this is how it will work out: Somebody is injured or killed on the Intercolonial railway and his dependents come Ihefore a hoard appointed by the legislature or government of the province of New Brunswick. The case proceeds, and the hO'ard, in the opinion of the minister, makes too large an allowance to the dependents.


John Dowsley Reid: I never made any such statement, and the hon. gentleman knows that I did not.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I did not say the hon. gentleman did, but I was suggesting that that is how it will work out.	.


John Dowsley Reid: The ihon. gentleman is making 'out a case on supposition.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If a judgment has 'been given by the arbitration boards that is too large in the opinion of the minister, he takes the right, under that section, to withdraw the case from that board and to appoint a board of his own.


John Dowsley Reid: No. Nothing of the kind.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Well, now, let us see.


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, no.


Jacques Bureau: For future cases.


Arthur Bliss Copp: For future cases, exactly. Now then, what would happen?


Arthur Meighen: You cann'ot do that with respect to future cases.


Jacques Bureau: You are changing your policy in that regard?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I think the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) understands the position. What would happen would he this: You must have a solicitor to look after the legal interests of the Department of _Railways and Canals, and the solicitor of the railway, who would be against the employee, would practically appoint the board that would sit upon the case and that would bring in its decision. I say that is absolutely contrary to the object of the Bill as explained by the Minister of Railways, when he told us that it was intended to put the employees of the Government railways on a fair and reasonable footing with the employees of all other railways and corporations. I agree with him that is the proper thing to do; but I protest in the strongest manner possible on behalf of the employees of the Intercolonial railway particularly, who are very numerous in the constituency which I represent, against taking power away from the hoards of the province of New Brunswick and placing it, in the hands of a board appointed by the Governor in Council, for that will raise suspicion in the minds of the railway employees which will be beneficial neither to the Government nor to the railway. If there is no compensation board in any province and you appoint a court to deal with the matter, well and good, but to give this power to a board to be appointed by the Governor in Council does not seem to be in the interests of the railway employees themselves or in the interests of the country.
Mr. 3. D. REID: The hon. member (Mr. Copp) is afraid that the railway employees
will not receive fair treatment if their case is tried by some tribunal appointed by the Dominion Government. Let me say to the hon. gentleman that a very large delegation of railway employees from all the different railway organizations came to Ottawa and urged me to bring in a Dominion Compensation Bill, and why? Because they claimed they were not getting fair treatment from some of the provincial boards.


Arthur Bliss Copp: A permanent board?


John Dowsley Reid: The enactment of a Dominion Compensation Bill was what they wanted.	'	.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Exactly, providing for a permanent board.


John Dowsley Reid: And my answer to the delegation was that we had not time during the present session to enact the legislation which they wanted, but that I would bring in a Compensation Bill that would fit in with the provincial laws for all the Dominion; and give it a trial, and at another session, if they so desired, I would be glad to introduce a Dominion Bill. Therefore, the railway employees were not only willing, but anxious, to trust their case in the hands of the Dominion Government. That is the stand they took within the last two weeks.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Then their faith is badly placed.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not agree with the hon. member. Now, as those men pleaded with me to bring in a Dominion Bill, I would not be justified in abandoning this legislation now, and, therefore, I ask hon. gentlemen to support the Bill before the House. I am giving them my word that this Bill is intended to dovetail in with the provincial laws throughout the Dominion, and I ask hon. gentlemen to support the Bill as it is. Let us pass the Bill and give it a few months,' trial. Let it be tried until the next session of Parliament, and then if the railway employees say that the law is working out unsatisfactorily, let us do our best to perfect it. So far as I am concerned, my whole object is to try and secure the passage of a law that will be satisfactory to railway employees throughout the Dominion.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I can assure the minister
that the provision embodied in this section will not be satisfactory, but will be absolutely unsatisfactory to the railway men. It is unreasonable for one of the litigants interested in the case coming up for adjudication to have the right to appoint [DOT] the board. It would be just as reasonable,

I submit, to introduce an amendment providing that if the employees of the Government railway were not satisfied with the board appointed by the provincial government, or by my hon. friend opposite, they could apply for the appointment of an arbitration board of their own choosing. What ,ie fair for one ought to 'be fair for the other. The Minister of Railways may pass the Bill, but I tell him that within twenty-four hours after it is enacted and it goes down to employees of the (Intercolonial railway, and they realize what has been done, he will be flooded with protests against putting any such amendment on the statute-book. It is absolutely unjust towards the railway employees.


Francis Henry Keefer: I think probably the
wisest thing to do in the interest of the railway men is to carry out the suggestion of the Minister of Railways. He has come down to the House in perfect good faith with legislation to better the railway men's condition. I welcome this Bill as an improvement on the existing law. It may not go quite as far as we would like it to go, indeed it is a sort of experiment, and I agree with the hon. member from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) that it would perhaps be better to compromise and accept the Bill just as it is with these amendments. Then if it does not work satisfactorily, and the House is so disposed, the law can be still further improved next session.


Georges Henri Boivin: Do I understand
that the hon. gentleman desires to withdraw his amendment?


Francis Henry Keefer: Yes.
Amendment withdrawn.


Jacques Bureau: The Minister of Railways made the statement that he had received a delegation representing not only the employees of the Government railways, but the employees of all the other railway systems.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. As far as I can remember they represented all the different organizations of railway employees.


Jacques Bureau: Did I understand the
minister to state that the delegation objected to the provincial boards and wanted a Dominion board appointed?


John Dowsley Reid: No. What I stated was that a delegation of railway employees called on me and asked that a Dominion Compensation Bill be enacted, in other words, that the Compensation Act should apply to the same extent in one part of the Dominion as in another.


Jacques Bureau: I am not asking questions from captious motives, I simply want information.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, I recognize that. To put it in another way. What the railway employees submitted was something like this. An employee in the province of Ontario is injured and damages to a certain amount are awarded under the Ontario Compensation Act, whereas some of the other provinces have a law under which there is not the same amount of compensation. The delegation stated that the law should be similar in character in every part of the Dominion. I informed them that as the session was likely to be short I could* not put such <a Bill through, but that I would introduce a Bill under which the employees of the Government railways would have identically the same rights as the employees of other railways enjoyed. Now, so far as I am concerned, if any employee of the Government railways, between now and the next session of Parliament, should be injured or killed, the claim for compensation would be treated in exactly the same manner as it would be if the employee belonged to the Canadian Pacific railway. Let us see how this Bill works out' in operation, and next session if amendments are needed we will be very glad to put them into effect.


Jacques Bureau: J wish to say-


Georges Henri Boivin: I am very sorry, but I promised the hon. member for South Renfrew that I would see him next.


Mr. PBDLOW:: I will not take up the time of the committee to any great extent. I merely rise to offer a suggestion that I think would simplify the matter very materially. I cannot see any reason why matters of this kind should not be dealt with through the civil courts. I understand that such matters are dealt with through the civil courts in the province of Queibec. I am not a lawyer-and I may say in passing that I am glad of that seeing that lawyers are getting things mixed up so much. I am sorry for the Minister of Railways in that respect; I think he would have been well advised to have kept out of that. I am an ordinary business man, and my suggestion is that it would simplify matters if cases of this kind could be dealt with by the civil courts in all the provinces alike.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Chairman, the discussion on this Bill has proceeded largely on the assumption that it is confined largely

to railway employees. It covers every man in the service of the Dominion Government, whether he is working on a railway, or a public building, or a dredge, or in any other capacity.


John Dowsley Reid: It covers women too.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, women as well.
Now, a suggestion has (been made that it would foe right and proper to leave this matter to the constituted courts in the various provinces. The legislature of Ontario, for instance, in their wisdom, have said that these are not matters that ought to be disposed of by courts. They have said; that any claim arising in that province ought to be determined by a board specially constituted for that purpose, and not by a court. Now, one reason for that was this:	we found in that province for
many years that men having claims and finally succeeding against their employer would discover that the lawyer cabbaged all the damages and these poor fellows got nothing. One object in introducing the Compensation Act in Ontario was that the man or his widow, or his fatherless children, would get whatever they were entitled to without any cost. I am not familiar with the Compensation Act of the province of New Brunswick, but I fancy that it is in some respects at least like the one that exists in Ontario. There is not much left to a board-
'Mr. COFP: It is left to the judge of the court there.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It is determined by the statute that a man shall be entitled to a certain percentage of the wages that he earned for the twelve months previous to his injury or death.


Jacques Bureau: That depends on the degree of the injury.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: -and is fixed by the statute. So that, if the law in New Brunswick or in any other province is like the law in Ontario, there is very little left to the board, and it is not worth while arguing that one board would award larger sums for damages than another. They are restricted by the terms of the statute to pay a certain percentage of the wages earned during the preceding year. That, however, is the case in Ontario. I rose, Mr. Chairman, to set my hon. friend from Kamour-aska (Mr. E. Lapointe) right. If I understood him correctly, he was attacking one of the reports of my department. I think he misread the clause altogether. He read the following:
In 1916 laws in the field of labour legislation wore passed by the Federal Government and by the legislatures of all the provinces except Prince Edward Island.
I gathered from what he said that he understood that laws affecting wages or compensation were passed. Well, he says he did not mean that, so there is no discrepancy. There were laws passed in 1916 affecting labour, but he spoke about the modern legislation. The article contained these words:
The enactment of modern compensation laws *by four provinces brings Canada fairly well in line with the rapid development of legi*tion of this kind throughout the world.
His statement was that we had said that there were compensation Acts passed in four of the provinces, and that some one else had said that such laws were in effect in either seven or nine provinces. What we refer to here is modern compensation laws. There never was a time, I think, in any part of the British Empire, when a servant had not the right to bring an action against his employer for damages resulting from the negligence of his employer. But several abuses grew up in England, as well as in some parts of Canada, where what is known as contributory negligence was brought in, where fellow-servants were brought in, where it was held that if a man were injured while in the employ of another man through the negligence of a fellow-servant he could not recover anything from his employer, because when he hired to his employer he took his chances of any negligence that a fellow-servant might be guilty of. I do not think that principle was ever adopted in the province of Quebec.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It was a very erroneous principle, but it grew up in Ontario to such an extent that they have held there that a sectionman working on a railroad was a fellow-employee with the superintendent of the road living in Chicago, and if he were injured by reason of the negligence of the superintendent in Chicago he could not recover anything because of that fellow-servant principle. This Compensation Act has done away with contributory negligence altogether, and with that principle or doctrine of co-service, a fellow-service, fellow-workmen or fellow-servant. But. as I said a moment ago, there never was a time when under the common law of England a servant could not recover from his employer for negligence by the employer himself. Well, it was thought a hardship that he could not recover where the negli-

gence was on the part of his superior officer, or the manager, or the superintendent of the road, and a Compensation Act was passed many years ago in Ontario-not what is referred to in the article quoted from as a modern Compensation Act, but one passed more than twenty years ago making an employer liable in certain cases to his servant for the negligence of a superior officer. But the modern Act, passed in 1914, does away entirely with the question of contributory negligence and the doctrine of co-service or fellow-service, allowing a man a certain percentage of the wages that he earned during the twelve months next preceding the time when he was injured. If he is killed his widow gets a certain amount of money per month while she remains a widow, and each child receives a certain amount per month until it reaches a certain age. So that these boards in Ontario have very little latitude after all.


Jacques Bureau: Might I ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) to determine in the Bill what procedure will be followed in an action against the Crown? Will it be the provincial procedure, ot the procedure followed in the Exchequer Court?


Arthur Meighen: It would not be the same as in the Exchequer Court, because he would not be suing in the Exchequer Court. He would be suing in the court that had jurisdiction in the province. The only question that comes up then is the question of service, and the ordinary law would apply as to what would be service for the Crown. In actions against the Crown with respect to railway claims under $500, special provision is made for service on railway agents on the line. This procedure would not apply in this case. I have not looked into the point to see just what would he service on the Crown, but that would be for the judge in the case to determine. I do not think it is necessary here to go to the extent of fixing what is service on the Crown, nor do I think it would be wise to legislate that service on officers of the Crown situated in far-off provinces, would be service, for the reason that this Act is so very wide, enabling suits to be lodged against the Crown by employees of any department whatever. I do not think it would be wise to facilitate service in' such a way as to enable a man to serve some one at a great distance- perhaps a comparatively minor employee- and obtain judgment before there could be even notice upon those who were responsible to refute or dispute the claim. I think we had better leave it to the application of the ordinary law for the time

being, and not provide means for facilitat- " ing service.


Jacques Bureau: Will service be on the Attorney General?


Arthur Meighen: Leave it to the application of the law. I would not undertake to advise what the law would be.


Samuel William Jacobs: The matter of service is
a very important one. In this case the proceedings would be against the Minister of Railways-


John Dowsley Reid: It might be against
any department.


Samuel William Jacobs: 
Samuel Hughes: Why not appoint a committee of business men-not lawyers-*' to fix it up?


Samuel William Jacobs: Suppose we appoint ex-
Ministers of Militia and Defence.


Mr. MOWAT:: No more dangerous suggestion could be adopted than that of my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs). Nothing is more dangerous than for one legislative body to interfere with the machinery of another.
If there is any trouble in the province of Quebec, let the persons interested go to the Quebec legislature and get it remedied.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I ask-


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind the hon. member that the rale which says that the rules of the House must be observed in committee with the exception that a member may speak more than once should not be interpreted to mean that more than one member may speak at the same time.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend simply wanted to speak more thani once.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: The Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) is quite correct in asking that

this clause be put through as it was drawn. He says that the parliamentary counsel, the solicitor of his department, and the Chairman of the Board of Rail-10 p.m. way Commissioners assisted in drafting the clause, and it is not likely that by getting up one after the other in a haphazard way we can reasonably declare the law better than that tribunal of three. I think that some members who have spoken have not realized the difference between a court and a board.
A court determines whether there is liability on the part of the employer; a board assumes that there is liability. In Ontario there is no question of whether there is liability or not; every employee has a remedy.


Samuel William Jacobs: Certainly, it is the same all over.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: The whole point is as to the amount of the compensation. The Government think that they should have a right to determine the compensation from time to time, and if in their opinion the boards are not proceeding on a proper basis, the Dominion, as the-superior legislative body, should have the right to take action in the matter. That would not affect any railway employee, as some hon. gentlemen have contended, because his claim would be decided before any change was made.


Jacques Bureau: In our province the
court decides not that there is liability, but the amount of the damages. Liability is created by law, and the amount of compensation is limited. But what we want to know is how we are going to serve, and where. If I sue the Minister of Public Works, where am I to serve him? If I sue the Department of Customs, where am I to serve the Department of Customs? In such cases II am suing His Majesty the King; where am I to notify him that he is to appear? If we are to have an Act to help employees of the Government, let us give them the means of bringing the King before the proper tribunal in order that he may answer the demands made upon him for compensation.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I am surprised to hear
the member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat), who represents such a large railway constituency, say that he is satisfied with the general provisions of this Act so far as compensation is concerned. The particulars of the Bill are practically the same as the terms of the resolution. I am not satisfied with the provisions of the Bill respecting compensation. 1 was glad to
hear the Minister of Railways say that this is a measure of temporary relief, and that the Government propose to bring in a measure of compensation which will apply to the whole of Canada. The first objection I have to the general principle of this Bill is that the compensation which will be awarded to the same class of employees throughout the Dominion is not uniform. A man may be injured on a railway in Ontario and when he seeks compensation he is brought under the terms of the Compensation Act in force in that province. He then appears before a board, and that board determine whether or not they have jurisdiction over the action which has brought aJbout the injury. Their decision is final and no further compensation or damage can be recovered against the employer, or, consequently, against the Dominion Government. In Saskatchewan they have not a modern Compejneation Act, but an Act which places the administration of such cases in the hands of the district court. The man who receives an injury, even if he was slightly negligent, would be entitled to recover damages. The measure of the damage for accident to which he would Ibe entitled is determined by the various clauses of the statute, and, in the case of death, the amount which his dependents could recover is limited, I think, to $1,800. In Ontario the limit is $2,500. We must note this distinction: Under the Compensation Act of Ontario, once the board assumes jurisdiction to determine . the amount of damage, the amount which they assess is limited to $2,500 and there is no possible recovery beyond that. Under the Saskatchewan Act-the same Act is in force in Alberta-where a man is injured or where a man has been killed and leaves dependents the injured man or the dependents have the right to elect whether they shall proceed for the recovery of damages under the Chmpensation .Act or in an action at common law.
That is a matter of great importance to the dependent family. A man may be killed by the negligence of a railway corporation, and an action may be brought under the Compensation Act. In Ontario, $2,500 is the limit that can be awarded under the Compensation Act, but if an action were brought at common law in Saskatchewan or in the other provinces which have similar Acts, for that act of negligence, the railway corporation or the employer, whoever he or it might be, would be assessed in damages which would be adequate compensation; it might be $5,000, $8,000, $10,000 or $15,000 the dependents would receive. I believe

that when we adopt the compensation Acts of the provinces we are taking away from the employees the right which they may have at common law, that is, assuming that this Government intends to give to employees the right to bring an action against the Crown. I think that whatever scheme of compensation is adopted by this Parliament for the benefit of Government employees in this country should establish, first, that they may have tiheir remedy under the Compensation Act, if they so desire and wish to recover damages for something in the nature of an accident, or secondly, that they may bring an action at common law. I think the Minister of Railways, when he discusses this matter fully with the representative of the railway organizations, will find that that is the principle which they have in mind, because I have discussed this matter with a great many railway men in the West and know their viewpoint. While they appreciate, no doubt, what the Government is doing for them, I trust that when the minister has had an opportunity of looking into this he will introduce a compensation Act into this Parliament which shall apply to all employees of this Government throughout the whole Dominion.


Frank S. Cahill: Will this Act apply to employees of the Canadian Northern railway?


John Dowsley Reid: The Canadian Northern railway comes under the provincial Acts, just the same as the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 1, subsection 4-employees on Government railways must elect between Railway Provident Societies benefits and this Act:
Mr. W1GMORE: Does this mean that members of the Provident Fund will not share in this compensation?
John Dowsley Reid: When this Bill was being drafted, I -sent for representatives of the Provident Fund and discussed the matter with them; and we have had the Bill drafted so as not to interfere with their rights in lany way. The Provident Fund Act was passed in 1907, and to that fund the Dominion Government subscribes $100,000 per annum. Members of tbe fund have a great many different rights; they are pensioned for life, for instance, and receive so many weeks' pay in case of injury, and so on. The Object of this clause is not to take away any rights a member of the Provident Fund would have under the

fund in the case of injuries or death by aocident. There is a beard of . managers of the Provident Fund, and they have regulations governing the amount that shall be paid (for different injuries, and I think there is also- an amount payable in case of death. The Compensation Acts of the different provinces provide compensation only for injuries or death, whereas the Provident Fund has a long list of benefits. One of the representatives of the Intercolonial railway was here with the 'solicitor of the Railway Department for two or three days, and it was agreed to put this clause in and see how it would work out between now and next session. If it does not work out as we expect, then we can provide any remedy that is thought desirable next session. I do not wish to interfere with the members of the Provident Fund in iamy way. I want the railway employees to have all the benefits that are coming to them under the Provident Fund, but in case of death their dependents can go under the Provident Fund ot under this Act, whichever they desire, but not both; that is the only object of this clause.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am surprised at the Minister of Railways. He was posing a moment ago' las >a philanthropist who wanted to see the railway employees get as much as they could. Now we see him in a different light entirely. The Minister of Railways ought to know, or the law officers of the Crown ought to know, that a member of the Provident Fund pays into the fund a certain sum of money as insurance, and when this insurance becomes a claim, he is entitled to a certain sum of money, irrespective of any other sums he may receive from the Government. He pays for this insurance, and the Government has no Tight to ask him to elect whether he will accept one or the other. The Provident Funds of Railway Company employees and their rights thereunder have received judicial interpretation by the Privy Council in the case of Miller versus the Grand Trunk railway, and I am sure that if the law officers of the Crown had studied that case they would not have advised the Minister of Railways to bring before Parliament a clause of this kind, which is subversive of all the rules of law laid down [DOT]by the highest court in the realm.


Mr. WIGMORE:: The reason I asked my question was because I had the same point in my mind as my hon. friend. I do not think it is fair or just to discriminate against a member of the Provident Fund. While the Government are paying $100,000

into this fund, the members of the fund are also paying in a -certain sum every month, or every year, and I do not think they should be discriminated against. They pay this amount every month just as a man may pay the premium on his insurance policy.
I understand-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-that the majority of the employees of the Intercolonial railway are members of the Provident Fund, and some of them have been paying into it for years.
I think this is a clear case of discrimination.
I think -they should be allowed to draw whatever benefit they have a right to derive from the provident fund, and should share -also in any benefit they are entitled to share in under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I think it is clearly a case of discrimination against 'the men in the provident fund. The hon. minister says he has considered this very carefully with the employees of the Intercolonial and that they are satisfied with this. I am very much surprised to hear that they were satisfied.


John Dowsley Reid: Before preparing this Bill, or deciding on it, I had the solicitor send for a representative of the Provident Fund of the Intercolonial railway.
Mr. E. fLAPOINTE:	Not of the employees?


John Dowsley Reid: Of course it was an
employee of the Intercolonial who was a member of the Provident Fund Board. We discussed it at times during two or three days, and I understand they agreed to this clause, and were satisfied with it. The way we discussed it was thie: we are paying $100,000 into this fund


Arthur Bliss Copp: You pay that much each
year?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes-and the idea was that if an employee were injured and received, -as compensation for the injury, a certain amount from the Provident Fund, to which fund we were paying $100,000 per annum, and also received money under the Compensation Act, he would be twice paid for his injury. There was no intention

and I have no desire-to discriminate* against the employees in the Provident Fund. We talked this over, -and thought this clause was fair. This Bill may have been prepared hurriedly. I will have to take this Bill up. again, probably in the recess, and see how it works, and if there is any discrimination or anything unfair in any way, shape or form, so far as the employees are concerned, I will remedy it at the next session of Parliament.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Some years ago, I think in 1906 or 1907, a tentative Bill was presented in this Parliament by the railway companies. They wanted to avoid their liability when one of their employees had been killed or injured, if the family was receiving money from the insurance fund which was provided by the company. At the request of Parliament, the question *was submitted to the Supreme Court, with an appeal to the Privy Council. I remember Mr. Justice Lennox, then member of the House, represented the railway employees. The matter came up before the Privy Council, and they decided to the best of my recollection, that the railway company-I think it was Miller vs. Grand Trunk-were liable, even where the family of an employee had received money from the insurance fund. It seems to me this case is absolutely similar.


John Dowsley Reid: I have no other object in view than the one I stated. I have been trying to make the Bill fit in with the law of the provinces in regard to other railways. If there is nothing in the way, other than the difficulty which has been suggested, I would remedy that at the very first opportunity, at the next session, and, therefore, having gone into the matter with the little time I had at my disposal with the official of the railways-


Rodolphe Lemieux: And the employees?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes; I cannot remember the names of the employees representing the Provident Fund, but it was a railway employee-I am not going to take any advantage in any way, but would like to have the Bill passed in its present shape, and see how it works from now until next session.
Mr. WIGMiORE: The Canadian Pacific railway have an organization the same as the Intercolonial, a provident fund you might call it, and yet, when it comes to a question of their rights under the Compensation Act of the different provinces, they receive the benefit under those Acts, just the same as if they were not receiving a benefit from the Provident Fund. It ie exactly the same as the Provident Fund of the Intercolonial. Therefore, I claim this is a pure discrimination against the men in the Provident Fund.


Ernest Lapointe: If the hon. minister wants to put the Government employees in ^ the same position as other employees, why this clause? My hon. friend spoke of the case of Miller versus Grand Trunk railway. The same principle has been affirmed

several times in cases against the Intercolonial railway or the King. In my own practice I have had a few cases of this kind, and the Intercolonial railway has always tried to plead this clause in the Provident Fund to get rid of the liability, but the Exchequer Court has always decided that the employee was entitled to the damages, as well as to the amount due from the Provident Fund. This Provident Fund is a sort of natural insurance. The employee is paying for that, and it is not optional either. The very day a man enters the service of the Intercolonial Tailway he becomes a member of that insurance fund. He must be a member'of the insurance fund, and every month a certain amount is kept out of his salary by the treasurer of the railway. Why should there be a discrimination of this kind against the employees of the Intercolonial railway, when the employees of other railways are entitled to both the compensation and insurance, which they must receive when their death is caused by an accident? The hon. minister is not improving the position of the employee by this clause. He is taking away something to which they were entitled before this legislation.


Mr. McMASTER:: In comparison^ with the $100,000 paid by the Government into this fund, what do the men's contributions amount to?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not tell you this evening.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The hon. minister has stated to the House that the employees or their representative had been conferred with, and had agreed to this section. If that is so, I will not have very much more to say in regard to it, but I Teally think that they must have misunderstood the situation or they would not have agreed to such an unreasonable proposition being placed upon the statute book, which would take away from them the very equitable right that they should have in a case of this kind. I am glad to hear the hon. minister say that he will remedy the matter, if any difficulty occurs. I have not had any communication from the railway men whatever, and if I were Minister of Railways T would be very sorry to take the responsibility of taking away from the railway employees the rights they have had for so many years under this Act.


John Dowsley Reid: Instead of taking away any rights, I believe it gives them more rights than they had before. Some gentleman, a stranger, was introduced to me, and 
said he was a representative of the Rai'way Provident Fund. We discussed the matter two or three times. He was an employee of the Intercolonial railway, as I understood. I am only stating the matter as I gathered it from this gentleman. We agreed on this proposition in the meantime. We agreed on this in the meantime and if it is not fair or right we can remedy it next session.


Samuel William Jacobs: In the face of the decision of the Privy Council, does the hon. gentleman persist in forcing this Bill through the House?


John Dowsley Reid: I persist in doing what I believe is fair and right .and what has been agreed upon by the employees of the railway.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does the hon. gentleman think that the Privy Council is doing what is fa/ir and right? .


John Dowsley Reid: I am not doing any thinking now in regard to that; I am only thinking of what is fair and right to these employees.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think there should be some saving clause in this Bill to protect rights acquired prior to its sanctioning. As I apprehend the meaning of subsection 1 of .section 1 of this Bill, a man's rights will he limited to the recovery of what he could recover under the Compensation Act of the province in which he resides. Thus, in the province of Quebec he could receive $2,025. I am aware of one claim in that province where the litigants believe they have a right under the laws that now exist to a substantially higher amount, and I would suggest to the minister that rights which have been 'acquired prior to the sanctioning of this Bill be protected.


John Dowsley Reid: They have not any rights prior to this Act at all.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The case to which I refer is one in our'.own office. We believe we have. The judge may find that we are wrong. This i.s not dealing with the railway, but with .another department of the ^Government. A man was killed, and his widow and numerous family believe that they have a right to a substantial indemnity or damages. We purpose to try the matter out. If this Bill should pass it might possibly affect the'rights of the parties in this case, and as there is thus case that I know of, so 'there may be others. I would suggest that the following be added as clause 2:
The present Act shall not prejuidically affect or limit any cause of action existing prior to the coming into force of the ipresent Act.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see any need of ' this amendment. In the first place, it is not the judgment of the Government, at all events, that there has been a right of action against the Crown at all heretofore existing for injuries such as are covered by this Bill. In the next place, even if there had been, this Bill does not take away any right without substituting another and a fair right. I do not think my hon. friend, as a lawyer acting for his client, would have any great cause for complaint if we took away the very shadowy, nebulous right which his office thinks it has in this case and provided him with the substantial and very certain right which he would have here.
Mr. iMdMASTER: The nebulous right is a right in satisfaction of which one department has offered $2,000, but we consider it is sufficiently devoid of nebulousness to warrant us in pressing for $5,000.


Arthur Meighen: Many a thousand dollars has been paid by the departments in respect to losses as an act of grace on the part of the Crown and not as a matter of right. It is the same in this case. If there is a right taken away it is of a character that has not yet been established and there is substituted for it a fixed and definite right.


Ernest Lapointe: I believe that this legislation is good, but I would not like the minister to imagine that previous to the adoption of this measure a workman on the Intercolonial had no recourse against the Crown. We have been suing the Crown time and again as a result of accidents. Recourse was more difficult than it will be now. We had to prove statutory negligence. When there was no statutory negligence proved the action was dismissed. We have obtained compensation for employees of the railway in many instances and it was not all a matter of grace on the part of the Crown, as the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) suggested. These cases have been carried to the Supreme Court and the Privy Council. Section 20 of the Exchequer Court Act states:
The Exchequer Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims against the Crown arising out of any death or injury to the person or property and every claim against the Crown arising under any law of Canada.
I think it would be well to insert in subsection (1) of this Bill the words " notwithstanding anything in the Exchequer Cburt Act."
Amendment (Mr. McMaster) negatived.
Mr. Meighen moved:
That there be added to the said Act, as clause 2 thereof, the following words: "The Governor in Council may make regulations as to the title of the defendant and the effecting of service of process in proceedings under this Act."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways and Canals), Bill No. 52, to amend the Department of Railways and Canals Act, was read the second time and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On Section 20-Stores Accounts, Limitation®.
Mr.. J. D. REID: The object of the Bill is simply to increase the amount of stores which the Canadian Government railways may keep on hand at one time from $1,500,000 to $6,000,000. The reason for the change is this:	When the Railways and Canals
Act was passed a number of years ago, the Government only owned the Intercolonial railway. Since then the Transcontinental, the Intercolonial and other railways have been .added to the Government system. Requirement® have increased to such an extent that we could not possibly operate these railways, without increasing the amount of .stores that we may have on hand. For some time we really have been operating almost in violation of the law in the extent of the stores that we have been carrying, and the Auditor General insisted that we should have a vote sufficient to cover all requirements. On the eastern lines at the present time Stores Account is as. follows:	Fuel, $1,110,000; ties, $200,-
000; General, $1,706,400; making a total of $3,016,400. In the case of the western lines the Stores Account stands as follows: Fuel, $1,176,000; ties, $10,700; General, $1,026,000, a total of $2,212,700 and a grand total of $5,229,100. We are getting in large stores of coal for the coming yeaT, and for that reason we are asking Parliament to increase the amount to be voted for that purpose.
Section agreed to, Bill reported and read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Conciliation and Dabour Act, including publication, printing, binding, and distribution of
[Stage Direction]
the Labour Gazette, and allowance to correspondents and for clerical assistance in preparing tables of statistics $35,000.
Mr.   D@: 
Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, it is sent free
to the secretary of every labour organization in Canada.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Was the number of
strikes settled] last year in excess of the number for the year before?


Georges Henri Boivin: I think my hon.
friend's question would be more in order under the next item dealing with the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The item before the committe is very broad in its terms and it is very hard to know just what is covered by it. How many boards of conciliation were appointed last year?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: As the Chairman has just suggested, these boards are all appointed under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and perhaps it would be better to give the information asked for when we reach that item.
Mr. LEMIE.UX: I understood that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act applied only to public utilities.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Two years ago, by Order in Council, we extended the scope of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act so*as to cover all enterprises manufacturing goods for our own forces, the British forces, or the forces of the Allies, including ships, munitions, and anything of that kind.


Jacques Bureau: I see that the item has reference to preparing tables of statistics. Now, this afternoon a Bill passed the House creating a Bureau of Statistics, and according to my understanding the Minister of Trade and Cdmmeree explained that all statistics henceforward would be compiled by that department. Will the minister explain what particular statistics are here supposed to be gathered, and whether they are to be handed over to the Department of Trade and Commerce, or will the publication still be continued of statistics compiled by the Labour Department?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The Bill introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) this afternoon was not intended, as I understand it, to interfere with the statistics that were being gathered in the several departments. Our statistics are

confined largely to wages and the prices of commodities, and matters connected with labour organizations. It is not intended by the Act that was passed this afternoon to take any of that sort of work out of our department.


Jacques Bureau: If I understand the matter aright, all statistics pertaining to labour will be collected in the Labour Department; those pertaining to agriculture will be gathered by the Department of Agriculture. The statistics pertaining to the Department of Trade and Commerce are now prepared in that department, and we get them monthly or bi-monthly, I cannot say which, in special issues. My idea is that all statistics having reference to the Dominion should be within the jurisdiction of the Statistical Bureau Which is being organized by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If we are going to be compelled to go to the various departments to get statistics as heretofore, I fail to see the necessity of the bureau which is being established. If that bureau is to obtain the statistics of this country, I do not see the use of statistical branches in the other departments.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon explained the object of his Bill. The hon. member knows that the Customs Department, for instance, issue a blue-book every year of customs statistics, and the Trade and Commerce Department issue another, and other departments issue their own statistics. The object of the bureau is to compile them altogether. Each department, of course, must gather its own statistics and hand them over to the Trade andi Commerce Department, and there they will all be compiled in one volume. In that way, you have them all together under one department to be put before the public in book form. That was the object of the Bill. The hon. member will quite understand that, in each of the departments where it is necessary to compile statistics, you must have employees to gather these statistics.


Jacques Bureau: Then it would come to
this, that the Department of Trade and Commerce is establishing a bureau which will publish a resume of the statistics of all the other departments. Why not leave it as it is now if you are not going to get any more information?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not see how that can be discussed now. The Bill was reported to-day, and will come up for third reading to-morrow. Then will be the time

to renew the discussion and get any further information. But the hon. member, I think, will understand that the -object of that Bill is as I have stated, instead of having every department publishing blue books, with * statistics, 'some probably not agreeing with those issued by another department, and thus misleading the public, to have the bureau co-ordinate them all. Some men have said to me, comparing the statistics of trade issued by the Customs Department with those issued by the Trade and Commerce Department: They are not the same; you should get the different departments together, see that they are right, and then publish statistics that are accurate. That is the reason why the bureau will' have supervision of all statistics.


Jacques Bureau: I am not discussing the advisability of the Bureau of Statistics. As the Minister of Railways says, the Bill has been reported. But now comes a discussion as to whether these appropriations for departmental statistics are advisable or not. If we are to have a bureau of statistics-and I think we should have all the information we can get-why should we duplicate its work in the Department of Labour or in the Department of Agriculture? Now is the proper time to discuss the necessity for this particular item, and I do not see that it is necessary. I admit that this bureau is one where you will have all the information you require from all the departments of the Government. If that is so, and I think it is properly so, why should we have a repetition of the same thing in each department? That is the reason I want information. If it is not necessary, I do not desire to see an item for statistics go through for the Department of Labour. If the minister can show the necessity for this work to be done in his department, in addition to the work of the bureau which seems to he an improvement on the present system, we will have to let the item through. Otherwise, I do not see the necessity for it.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the item carry?


Jacques Bureau: We would like to have some information on the matter.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the item carry?


Jacques Bureau: Will the minister not answer and show us the necessity for this vote?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think I have already said enough to show the necessity for gathering statistics in the Labour and other
departments. The bureau provided for in the Bill introduced' by the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon did not pretend, for instance, to gather the statistics that are known and gathered in. the Department of Agriculture, or in the Customs, or the Post Office, 'or the Labour Departments. We keep track, for instance, of the strikes that occur, and it is not intended at all that the bureau should undertake to report on all the strikes in Canada, or the hoards of conciliation, or the wages, or the food and other prices, or the exports and imports of this country. I do not remember whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce mentioned it this afternoon, but I know it is not his intention to undertake the work now done in the several departments.
Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, $25,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that the
hoo. minister is bringing in some amendments to the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and when his Bill comes up for second reading, and is in the committee stage, we will talk about the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
Mr. MaMASTER: I would like to repeat the question I asked in regard to the previous item. What number of disputes were investigated and adjusted by the department during the last year?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There were about thirty boards of conciliation appointed under this Act.


Andrew Ross McMaster: How does that compare with the year before?
Mr. 'CROTHERS:	There were not quite
so many last year as the year before.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would there not be
room then for a decrease in the amount of the estimate, economy being the watchword we all have before us?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The probabilities are
that the expenditure under this item will foe larger than it has been owing to the fact that, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, the scope of the Act has been very materially broadened so as to take in the enterprises I referred to.
Fair Wages and Inspection Officers, $15,000.


Jacques Bureau: What is the special purpose of this appropriation?
Mr. iCROTHERS: We have, I think, five fair wage officers. They are called fair wage officers, because when they were originally appointed their work was largely

confined to fixing schedules of wages on public works. We are not doing very much by way of public works now and have not been for some years, neither has their work been confined to that sort of thing. They are largely employed in settling disputes and differences between employers and employees before these reach the stage where a board of conciliation is applied for. For instance, we have >a man located at Vancouver. Some six years ago we had only two of these men, both located at Ottawa. These differences between employers and employees often arise in a few hours, and previously, if they occurred at Vancouver or Sydney, a big strike might be on before our men could get to these distant places. One of the first things I did was to send to Vancouver one of the best men we had, so that he would be right on the ground to hear the rumblings of labour disturbances and to check them before they became serious. This man has saved the Government many thousands of dollars; he has kept men at work who would otherwise have been on strike and, on the whole, has rendered very valuable service by being on the ground. We appointed other men at Calgary, Winnipeg and Saskatoon, and they did valuable work in assisting in the maintenance of industrial peace. We have been especially fortunate in keeping our working people at work; no serious disturbances have occurred in Canada since the outbreak of war. That speaks well for the employers and employees, as well as for those officers who have devoted their best efforts to keeping things running smoothly. These are the men mentioned here as fair wage officers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The fair wage clause has certainly been a boon to labour. The unfortunate thing is that it applies only to public works, not to private industry.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Except by consent of the parties


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. Was not an arrangement made between the Government and the munition factories for the application of the fair wage clause in munition works?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There is an understanding between the Imperial Munitions Board and the Department of Labour that we shall co-operate for the maintenance of industrial peace. We inquire into any complaints made by workers in munition factories, and the Imperial Munitions Board assist in settlements. The Imperial Munitions Board have gone so far as to cancel contracts in cases where we advised that em-
[Mr. Crothers.l
ployers were not paying fair wage or treating employees fairly. Contractors have come to understand that the Imperial Munitions Board will go that far if necessary; consequently no very serious disputes have arisen in munition factories since they began operation in Canada.


Jacques Bureau: Is it only when complaints are made by workers that the inspectors make inquiry and report to the minister, or do they keep in touch with the various industries, ascertain the labour conditions and whether the men have any complaints to make, and so on?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The fair wage officers do not wait until complaints are made- that is, i'f .they are not busy at something else. We endeavour to keep them going. For instance, our fair wage officer in Montreal is instructed to visit the various industries in that city from time to time, even if he is not called upon to do so by complaints. We are doing that in the city of Ottawa. If we hear that there is likely to be trouble in Toronto, for instance, we send one of these men there.


Charles Murphy: Did I understand the minister to say that he is doing that in Ottawa now?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not say that it is being done to-day, but we ask the inspector to go out occasionally and find out how things are.	[DOT]


Charles Murphy: I thought my hon. friend referred to some special case.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Oh, no.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid, the House adjourned at 11.02 p.m.
Wednesday, April 17, 1918.