1919-06-21

REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Progress reports of the Medical Services, Overseas Military Forces of Canada, from
[Mir. Oalder. ]
1st January, 1917, to 31st .March, 1919.- Major-General Mewburn.

Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: I desire to lay upon the table of the House copy of the Order in Council providing a credit for the Italian Government, as promised yesterday by the Minister of Finance.



PATENT, TRADE MARK AND DESIGN, COPYRIGHT AND TIMBER MARKING ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 150, respecting the Patent Act, the Trade Mark and Design Act, the Copyright Act and the Timber Marking Act.
Mr. BUREAU:: Explain, please.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Until a year ago the Patents Branch was administered under statute by the Minister of Agriculture, but' last year the Patents Branch was removed from the Department of Agriculture, as the then Minister of Agriculture desired that the deputy minister should be concerned with no public duties other than those relating to agriculture. The Patents Branch was then, by Order in Council passed under the War Measures Act, placed under the administration of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The purpose of this Bill is to give power to the Governor in Council to place that branch under any department of the Government or under any minister. The Bill also provides for the creation of the office of Commissioner of Patents, who will be the chief administrative officer of the branch. These are the only two amendments.


Jacques Bureau: Is there any change in
the mode of obtaining patents or trademarks?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There are no substantive changes in the Patent Act. I did think earlier in the session that it was desirable to make further substantial amendments to this Act, but, chiefly for the reason that very important changes are likely to he made in connection With patents by all countries after peace is signed, I thought it better to postpone any important amendments to the Act until next session.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 151, respecting certain appointments in the Post Office Department.
Jacques Bureau: Explain.


Mr. ROWELL:: This Bill is introduced at the request of the Postmaster General (Hon. P. E. Blond-in) to meet the situation created by the withdrawal of a number of postal employees in Winnipeg, Calgary, and Saskatoon from the service during the month of May. Members of the House will recall that it became necessary, in order to maintain the postal service, to take on a number ol men in these post offices, and a number ol men were taken on, mostly returned soldiers. It was not possible, if the public service was to be carried on, that these men should be required to take the ordinary examinations; there was not time for it. The object of this Bill is to authorize the Civil Service Cbmmission to appoint to the public service in the Post Office Department those who were taken on temporarily at that time, provided that they are recommended by the Deputy Postmaster General and that the postmasters in these different cities certify that they are efficient in the performance of their duties.


Jacques Bureau: Is there not in the
present Civil Service Act a provision that that may be done legally in case ot emergency?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, the Civil Service Act as it stands does not cover the present situation. This is to appoint them permanently; under the Act as it stands, they might be appointed only temporarily. In order to secure the necessary men for these positions the postmasters in these cities felt that is was necessary to assure the men that their positions would be permanent; that they would not be dismissed in a few weeks' time.


Mr. MORPHY:: Does the Bill provide for similar emergencies in the future, and it not, why not?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Bill does not contain any provision dealing with the future. I understand that the amendment to the Civil Service Act, which is now before the House in the form of a Bill introduced by the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. A. K. Maclean), contains provisions which cover cases of a similar character arising in the future.


Jacques Bureau: This is an exception to the Civil Service Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, to meet the exceptional conditions that developed in May last.


Mr. CAHILL:: Might I ask the minister if this is only to apply to men already appointed to the service? It is not intended for future appointments, is it, under similar circumstances?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It applies to any one
who may have been taken on to fill vacancies in the service in these three post offices in the month of May last.


Jacques Bureau: Confirmation of appointments, I understand.


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


Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. Speaker, the amendment made by the Senate to section 8 of the Bill to amend the Royal North West Mounted Police Act, appears to have been made to some extent under a misapprehension. The object of the Senate was to introduce into the Bill an amendment of the same character as they introduced into the Militia Pensions Bill. It was not necessary, because the Bill already contained a provision dealing with the matter. I should, however, point out to the House that the Senate amendment goes somewhat further than the provision of the Bill itself, and I shall point out wherein it does so. The Bill itself prevents the widow or dependents of any member of the Force receiving a pension under the Mounted Police Act and also under any Canadian Pension Act. The amendment extends that provision and would prevent them from accepting a pension from the Government of Great Britain or of any other portion of the Empire-and also a pension under this Act.
I have conferred with the Comptroller,, and from the standpoint of administering the Police Force and in the public interest, we think that the amendment is not desirable, for the reason that we frequently get into the Force men who have served overseas, residents of the British Isles, who may be pensioners to a limited amount for services rendered in the British army, and.

if this amendment prevailed, their widows and dependents would be compelled to elect between that pension and the pension they would receive under this Bill. So far as the Police Force is concerned, we do not feel that any pension or gratuity which any member or his widow or dependents might receive from the Government of Great Britain should necessarily be taken into' account in dealing with the situation here. Therefore, I would move:
That the House do not concur in the Senate amendment, the matter having been already provided for in the latter part of section 8 of the Bill.


Mr. SPEAKER:: There being some question as to the precise form which a motion of this character ought to take, I would suggest, if it be agreeable to the hon. minister, that the order stand for the time being while we make sure of our procedure.
Motion stands.



PURCHASING OF DEPARTMENTAL AND OTHER SUPPLIES.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell (President of the Council) the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide in the proposed Act respecting' the Purchasing of Departmental and other Supplies and Materials for His Majesty, (Bill 46), now before the House, that the Chairman of the Purchasing Commission for Canada shall be paid an annual salary of seven thousand dollars, and each of the other commissioners shall be paid an annual salary of six thousand dollars, and that such salaries may be paid monthly out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Newton Wesley Rowell: When the Bill was before the House, we discussed the matter at some length, and certain clauses stood over for further consideration, it also being understood that in committee the principle of the Bill might be discussed if any hon. member desired to do so. I think that was on the suggestion of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau). What I would suggest to the committee, if the committee would consent, is that this resolution go through in order that it may be referred to the committee for consideration with the Bill, and the whole matter may be discussed when the Bill comes back into committee. As a matter of form, it is necessary to get this resolution into committee so that it may be discussed with the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: I was unavoidably absent at the time, but after reading the debate, I remarked that the clause relating to the number of commissioners had been amended by substituting the words "not more than three'' for the word "three." By this resolution is it not intended that the number of commissioners to be decided by the clause in the Bill shall be entitled to the respective salaries mentioned in this resolution? My impression was that if we were asked to pass a resolution authorizing the expenditure of money, the amount had to be definite and the number of positions, for the emoluments of which the amounts were to be paid, had also under the rule to be definite. If We do not know how many commissioners are to be appointed, if that is left to the discretion of the Governor in Council, it is very hard to appropriate moneys for officials who might not be appointed at all.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see that this resolution does not deal with the appropriation. There will have to be a vote in the Supplementary Estimates for that, and the number of commissioners must be determined before the Government introduces in the Supplementary Estimates the necessary appropriation. The effect of this resolution will simply be to provide a salary of $7,000 for the chairman and salaries of $6,000 for any other commissioners who may be appointed. It is necessary, as a matter of form before we can consider that clause of the Bill, to have a resolution of this kind. The number of commissioners will be determined before we bring down a Supplementary Estimate dealing with the matter, which can be discussed further, if my hon. friend so desires, when the Bill is in committee.


Jacques Bureau: All right.


Mr. McKENZIE:: That safeguard which the President of the Council-mentions as regards the voting of the money does not seem to be necessary under this resolution, because it says:
And that such salaries may be paid monthly out of any unappropriated moneys: in the Consolidated1 Revenue Fund of Canada.
That would appear to me to give license for the payment of the salaries of these commissioners out of any money that is unappropriated. Therefore, if it is necessary that we should specifically know what amount of money is to be paid for this service, the amount ought to be named, because this resolution gives carte blanche to get it anywhere if it is available at all

and not earmarked for any other purpose. While I do not want to obstruct the work of the minister or the progress of the Bill on that ground, this is the first time in many years that a resolution for a money Bill was introduced at this stage. I have been . in this House for a long time now, and I never before saw a case where, if a resolution was at all regarded as necessary, such resolution was not introduced first and passed by Ithe House before the Bill was introduced. There may be some prq-vision for this, but there is nothing in the rules about it. Of course, there is what might be regarded a.s common law education in the books dealing with Parliamentary procedure, but the minister will find, if he consults those authorities, that he has not followed the practice. The clauses dealing with the money part should either be left blank altogether in the Bill or be printed in red ink so that that would be a blazing notice to everybody that this Bill was something apart from the ordinary procedure. Here we have a Bill printed in the ordinary way and the only blanks in it are blanks for the salaries. I understand they have had such cases in England, and the other procedure was followed, namely, the money provisions were left blank altogether or written in red ink to give notice to the House that there was something to follow. I cannot understand why the time-honoured practice was not followed in connection with this Bill just as in connection with any other Bill regarded as a money Bill which has been introduced into this House for many years past.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have repeatedly in this House referred to the ease with which high salaries in new appointments have passed through this House. It has come to be a hobby with me, and I have made many a fight for the man who is getting only $600 a year, with probably a wife and five or six children to support, and who finds it very difficult to get an increase. He is thrown over practically as a man undeserving of any consideration by the House, and he cannot fight his own way through the departs ments except on a set grading starting very low. I notice this resolution provides for an initial salary for the chairman of $7,000. Why should that not be $6,000? It shows $6,000 salary for each of the other commissioners. Why should that not be $5,000? We are burdened with debt in this country; the cost of living will probably soon come down, and yet we are establishing a principle of the highest grade of salaries after
the war is over as though the war were to continue for ever. I believe a man can be got as Chairman of this Commission for $6,000 as good as a man who is paid $7,000. Especially as we do not know who the man is, it is unwise to my mind to set a grade of salary which is going to be followed throughout the departments of this Federal Government.
It is an example that everybody else will be able to point to and say, " I want $7,000 for the .position I hold, because this commission has set a new standard." I think that is a pernicious example to set; it is not economical, and I think the House should be plainly told before this resolution passes who the man is that the Government propose to appoint, what experience he has had, and what is his general fitness fof this position. I am not making the argument that the salary is necessarily too high for' the position, but a general argument bearing upon the salary question. I can conceive that if this commission is to perform its functions to the best interests of the country, before we are through we may require a man who would not accept less than $25,000 a year; but that is not my point. My point is that we are appointing a man at $7,000 a year and we have absolutely no idea who he is. That is a radical advance to my mind, and will be an incentive to every other branch of the public service to reach the same starting point. I have said before in this House that the $600 man receives no consideration. When a Bill of this character was under consideration some time ago I made a direct apipeal to the President of the Privy Council, and he replied that the re-classification would take care of the $600 man. I have not had time to analyze the report, and I should like the minister to say before this resolution goes through whether the re-classification will better the salary of the $600 man.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Dealing first with the remarks of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, of course I cannot speak from experience in this House as to what the procedure has been in the past. I can only say with reference to the form of this procedure that it is the form advised by the Parliamentary Counsel as being the proper procedure in a case where the salaries had not been fixed when the Bill was introduced. The amount of the salaries was left blank in the Bill showing that they had not been fixed, and the resolution was introduced subsequent to the introduction of the Bill, but before the Bill had been consid-

ered in the House and as soon as the salaries had been fixed. I know that it was a very common practice in the Legislature of Ontario, of which I was a member for many years, to leave the money clauses of a Bill blank until the resolution was introduced. When the resolution had been passed it was referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration with the money clauses of the Bill.
Coming now ;to the question raised by my hon. friend from North Perth, I do not now recollect just what the provisions of the reclassification are, but I do know that the position of the men my hon. friend refers to is substantially improved under the reclassification. If my hon. friend will turn up the report which has been laid on the table of the House by the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce he will see what is there proposed, and what is there proposed is not all that the men drawing the lower salaries will secure. There will also be a war bonus, which must be added to the amounts mentioned in the schedules, until the cost of living more nearly corresponds with what it was before the war than it does to-day.
Coming now to the question of the salaries of the Purchasing Commission, my hon. friend says, and very properly, that if we are to secure a man possessing the ability and experience which we should hope to secure for the chairmanship of this commission, we might have to pay a very substantial sum to secure him. I quite agree; I do not believe we could get a man of the ability and experience required for $7,000, if $7,000 was the only consideration, and he was dependent on that amount for his support; but I think we can make an appeal to public spirited citizens of this country, to* some of our business men who have been willing to give war service in the past and who would be willing to serve their country at this time for a reasonable amount, having regard to the fact that they are rendering public service as well as receiving compensation.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Have the War Purchasing Commissioners received salaries in the past?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, they did not receive salaries, and I might say that none of the existing commission will serve in the future. One, unfortunately, has died, and the other two, for business reasons are unable to continue. My hon. friend asks why the salary of the Chairman has been fixed at $7,000. There is one reason; it may not be a very good one. Personally I thought

the amount should be higher, and I have no hesitation in saying so, tut $7,000 is the salary of a Cabinet Minister, and the view prevailed that we should not fix the salary of the Chairman of the Commission higher than that of a Cabinet Minister; so $7,000 was agreed upon.


Jacques Bureau: Cabinet Ministers' salaries are too low.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I agree that they are too low, but that is the situation.


Jacques Bureau: Raise them.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have frankly told my hon. friend how the $7,000 was arrived at. There is this further fact, that $7,000 is the salary of the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, and it was thought that these two commissions might be put on a parity. Any other commissioners appointed, whether it be one or two, would receive $1,000 less than the chairman, which is the salary the Civil Service Commissioners will receive,


Mr. BEST:: I understood that there is a purchasing committee in each department; are these committees to be done away with? What I' should also like to know from the minister is this: About a year ago some men were appointed to re-classify the Civil Service, and it was understood their report would be presented to Parliament by the 1st of April of this year.' In view of the fact that the Government knew that that report was being prepared, why is it that in the meantime some men have received increases ranging from $100 to $2,000? Why were their salaries increased before the report was brought down? My opinion is that this country is being run altogether too much by commissions. There is one other commission which I think the Government would appoint if we gave in to them, and that is a commission to tell us how to vote. I want the money of this country saved and conserved. Our public debt is large, and there are many men throughout this country to-day who are sacrificing because they know we owe so much. Why is it that cabinet ministers do these things that can only cause dissatisfaction in the Civil Service? Any one who has looked over the report must realize that nothing could' do more to create dissatisfaction among civil servants. Some men are granted salary increases ranging from $100 to $2,000. In one particular case, a civil servant who was receiving $1,000 less than another man appears in the	report as entitled to $300 or
$400 more than this other man. The

head of one department is getting $5,000; and the head of another department $4,000; and the report of the Classification Committee says that the man getting $4,000 should get $4,800, and the man who is receiving $5,000 should be given $4,500, or $300 less than the other. Will this Government allow this sort of thing ? If we want satisfaction among the people and among the civil servants, we must do something to stop that kind of thing. If we allow this condition to continue, considerable dissatisfaction will be caused. This is a very drastic step we are taking in the appointing of so many commissions. We do not know how many men are going to be appointed. We were told a year ago that there were to be three, and now there are two more, and as I am informed this addition is absolutely unnecessary and will result in nothing but a debating" society. But in addition to these new men, there will be stenographers and clerks, and altogether the people are being called upon to pay thousands of dollars for many things that are entirely unnecessary. I think it is all right that we should try to pay every civil servant what he ought to get. The hon. minister told us they would give this man only $7,000, because Cabinet ministers w/re getting only $7,000, but the classification says that the deputy minister can get as high as $8,000. Why did the hon. minister not raise the chairman another thousand to put him on a level with the deputy? That would be only fair. I hope we shall have fewer commissions and that the people's representatives in this House will have some say in what is going on, and not have Bills, as happened last year and this year, forced through the House in the dying hours of the session, when we expect Parliament to prorogue. We do not know what legislation is coming down, and it is only fair to the members of the House that we should be given some idea of what is to be done in the dying hours of the session.


The CHAIRMAN:: Before this discussion goes further, I must remind hon. members that this is certainly not the proper time to discuss the classification of the Civil Service. It has very little to do with the resolution before the House, to which I would ask that remarks be confined.


John Best: Mr. Chairman, I was just answering the minister. He took the matter up and I think I had a right to reply.


Georges Henri Boivin: I did not call the hon. member to order. I merely asked that other hon. members should not discuss the Civil Service Report.


Mr. ARTHURS:: The hon. member has raised an important point.


Georges Henri Boivin: The point is not
raised at the proper time.


James Arthurs: There is another point
that I would raise:	What will be done
with the present purchasing agents of the various departments when this new commission takes charge? Are these men to continue to draw large salaries as in the past, or will their services be dispensed with? We have purchasing agents in every department, some of them very efficient men who are conversant with conditions and prices of goods which they have been purchasing for years, and I would like some information as to what the intention is in this regard.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not think my hon. friend was in the House on the second reading of this Bill, but if he would turn up the debate that took place on that occasion he would see that the matter was fully discussed. If my hon. friend does that and is not satisfied with the explanations and the statements then made, the whole matter can be reviewed when we get into Committee on the Bill.


Mr. MICHAUD:: How many purchasing
agents are there already appointed for the several departments [DOT] of the Government, and will they still act as separate agents if this commission is appointed?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That matter is all explained in the debate we had. There was a lengthy discussion of some hours and all these matters were dealt with. The total number of employees at present in {ill the departments of the Government dealing with the matter of purchasing is in the neighbourhood of 300. I am not sure of the exact number, they deal with purchasing, receiving, inspecting and passing upon supplies.


Jacques Bureau: The resolution provides that the Chairman shall receive $7,000 and the members of the commission $6,000. The number of commissioners is not determined, but there is a maximum number who may be appointed. This is an absolutely new expenditure over and above the present expenditure. These three men are being given powers already exercised by the ministers in the various departments, who are being paid salaries, small if you like.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is new and additional, but we are convinced, as the old commission which recommended this is convinced, that the net result will be a substantial saving in the actual cost

of administration, by a combination of all these branches into one. But the greatest saving will be in the actual purchasing of all supplies for the Government where they can be purchased in larger quantities at the same time for all departments requiring the same classes of supplies.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that, as I
read the discussion that took place on the previous occasion. But I contend that we are paying $19,000 for administration over and above the expenditure under the old system. Whether or not the Commission will be a matter of economy can be discussed in the Bill, although I see that opinions differed very much on the question. It has been claimed that there have been extravagance and mismanagement, but that can also be discussed in the Bill. I am merely pointing out that this is an additional burden of $19,000.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is an additional expenditure which the Government believes will enable them to reduce the existing expenditure.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is a proposition that ought to be opposed at every stage. I opposed the Bill as strenuously as I could when it was before the House and I intend to oppose it again, and I oppose the resolution. The minister will find that instead of reducing expenses of the various departments this will send them sky high above what they are to-day. I would imagine that deputy ministers and ministers, who are ordinary individuals; should' have pride in seeing their departments economically and properly managed in the matter of purchases. If the heads of departments have no responsibilities at all ' except to pass orders over to an outside commission who will buy goods and pay the prices, there will be a keen rivalry between the departments to obtain things of the greatest excellence which they would do without ii they had to shoulder direct responsibility themselves for the purchase of them. We are creating an institution to buy for all departments, and it is absolutely impossible for the Commission to know the requirements of the departments, or whether an order sent to them is reasonable or not. I cannot conceive of any difficulty in a deputy minister sitting for ten minutes in consultation with a man who is selling goods. He knows what he wants and the man is willing to sell to him, and he surely can get goods as cheaply as they are going into the market anywhere else. I am clearly of [Mr. R.owell.J
the opinion that this is absolutely a mistake. I am sick and tired of hearing of people serving their country for nothing. We have heads of big concerns serving the country gratis so far as salary goes, but they are drawing grist to their mills in other ways ten thousand times greater than their salaries.
I hope we have heard the last of this extraordinary patriotism that is abroad in this country. When this thing is inquired into we find that the man who has served without compensation has simply served as advance agent of a circus, or something else, to find out the best way to put up his posters. In like manner, these high patriots find their way into the departments and government positions and simply utilize those positions for the advancement of their own business, or to put money in the way of their friends. Whether they are getting a rake-off from it afterwards I am not going to say, but that is what is going on. It is better for this Government and this country to hire a man who has no such high ideas of patriotism, pay him and let the business of the country be done in a business way. We had never heard any complaint about the departments not doing their business properly until this War Purchasing Commission arose and found that they were in a position to do big things and to do them in a different way from what they had been done before. I look for no good from it at all. I would say, as has been said already by hon. gentlemen supporting the Government, that this is no time for extravagance or plunging into new experiments involving hundreds of thousands of dollars. The minister has been honest enough to tell us that he must increase the staff of this new department- and that he must start with something like 300 or 400 men and women. He proposes to take whatever number of men are engaged in that commission now and pitchfork them into this new service over the heads of the Civil Service Commission, and, in that way, violate the law. Although there is no doubt that this resolution will pass, my good friend from Durham -I think it is-says that the next thing will be the appointment of a commission to tell us how to vote. I think there are sufficient commissions abroad now to tell hon. gentlemen supporting the Government how to vote on this resolution. All we can do from this side of the House is to protest against it. It involves extravagance and the unnecessary expenditure of money at a time when every dollar should count in the judgment of the Government, and particularly

*when we are in the financial position that we are in to-day.
I submit to the Government that if any private concern were in the financial condition that the Government is in, it would be regarded as hopelessly insolvent. I say that seriously. What would we think of a merchant, a manufacturer, or a man at the head of any industrial concern in this country, whose finances were in the condition of the finances of the Government, plunging into unnecessary extravagance of this Kind? 1 submit that there is not one financial law to be applied to the Government and another financial law to be applied to every going concern in this country. The Government should cut their coat according to their cloth and when money is low and hard'to get, and the cost of living high, it should get along with the least possible expense. For this, and many other reasons, which have not yet developed, but which will develop under this Bill, I submit that it should not be passed at all. As for myself, I am determined to do everything I can against the piling up of any expenditure for this year, or possibly next year, that we can get along without.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: Mr. Chairman-


Newton Wesley Rowell: Would the hon. gentleman allow me just one word? If the members wish to further discuss this matter I have no objection to moving that the committee rise so that it may be brought up again. I would do so for the reason that we have two or three matters of important Government business that it is desired to proceed with to-day. I had assumed that the committee would possibly accept the suggestion that I made, allow the resolution to pass and then the matter could be dealt with on the Bill in committee. But if it is the desire of hon. members to discuss the question further, I will move that the committee rise and report progress.


Herbert Brown Ames: Mr. Chairman, 1 cannot sit quietly in my seat and allow such aspersions as we have listened to, to be cast by the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) upon the men who have given their services free of charge for the last five years. I know man after man who has left his business, who has been under great financial loss, who has come here to Ottawa, and slaved as he never worked for himself, while our boys were at the front, actuated only by patriotic motives. When the leader of the Opposition arises here and imputes to every one of these gentlemen sordid motives and alleges
that they were endeavouring to bring grist to their own mill he does something that he ought to be ashamed of. If there is anything that we shall look back to when this war is over with credit to ourselves it will be the fact that we had men in Canada, not five, or ten, or twenty, but scores who were willing to sacrifice their own private interests in the public cause while this war was on. I can point, as every one knows, to man after man who, when he goes back from Ottawa, having served at his own expense for the term of years that he has given to this service, will go back and live a quiet life, for the rest of his days, simply because there is nothing left in him. Let me just say one word in respect to the chairman of this War Purchasing Commission, a man from my own province whom I have known all my life as a man of the highest integrity and patriotism; he left a big business, left his family, came here and worked twelve months in the year for five years in order to save this country thousands of dollars as the head of the War Purchasing Commission. For any one ito tell this House or this country that that man had some sordid motive other than 'the desire to render patriotic service is to make a statement that is umvorthy of the House and unworthy the leader of a party.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps Colonel Allison is one of those. He is one of that class and if my hon. friend wants to get into Colonel Allison's class-


Herbert Brown Ames: No, I do not,
Mr. McKENZIE-let him get into it and drop his knighthood.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the resolution
carry?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No; I am not going to-take any aspersions from the hon. member. If honesty in public life is required, let the hon. member go into the office of Mr.. Bourassa and ask him what he found about the hon. gentleman's honesty in handling public moneys and moneys wrung from the-people of Canada.


Herbert Brown Ames: I do not know to what you refer.


Mr. M. CLARK:: I think I shall probably pour some oil on these troubled waters. I would like the committee, unless the leader of the Opposition says there is an insuperable objection, with a view to getting the business of the House forward in a reasonable manner, to take seriously the request of the minister that we should pass the resolution and take up the principle

of the Bill. I may say to the leader of the Opposition that I had intended to express the hope, which I do not see any need now to express, that he would not, like myself, be prevented from performing his constitutional duties as watchdog over public expenditures by any such vehe-
12 noon, ment onslaught as was made upon him by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames). The committee will agree that the leader of the Opposition does not need any such advice as I was about to give him because he has given evidence that he can meet vehemence with vehemence in any line of debate in this House. I do think that it would be a reasonable thing to accede to the request of the minister. I make the appeal all the more readily because I am entirely in accord, as the leader of the Opposition knows from a previous debate in this House, with his views on the question and will be prepared to speak in that sense when we debate the principle of the Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The motion made by the minister is that the Committee rise and report progress; and that motion is not debatable.


Georges Henri Boivin: The motion- that the Committee rise was certainly not made by the President of the Council.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: The minister said that if members desired to debate the matter further, he would make that motion. If the Chair had not understood that the President of the Council had put in the proviso which I have mentioned, of course the Chair would not have allowed any debate upon the motion, because the leader of the Opposition is right in saying that the motion is not debatable. But I understood that the President of the Council said: "If hon. members wish to continue the debate, I will move that the Committee rise ".


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister made the motion twice. He may have qualified it in that way the first time, but he certainly made the motion without qualification the second time.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Is it the desire of hon. members further to debate the resolution, or will they accede to the suggestion that the resolution be adopted and that the whole matter be discussed when we are in Committee on the Bill?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If we pass this resolution we commit ourselves to the principle

of this Bill and of the whole business, and I do not agree to that.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have already committed ourselves to the principle. The House voted upon the principle on the second reading of the Bill. I move that - the Committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



BRITISH NATIONALITY, NATURALIZATION AND ALIENS CONSOLIDATION AC'T.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Solicitor General) moved the second reading of Bill No. 138, to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to British Nationality, Naturalization and Aliens.
Mr. E. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: At the risk, Mr. Speaker, of making an unpopular suggestion, I submit that we should not be compelled to discuss this Bill ait the present time. The Bill, which is a very important one, was introduced on Wesdnesday of this week, only three days ago. Its most important sections are based on the Imperial Act of 1918, and 1 went to the library and tried to get that Act in order that I might study the Bill and give it proper consideration. I was told, however, that there was only one copy of the Imperial Act of 1918, and that it was in the possession of the Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Guthrie). Of course, being a plain private member, I could not compete with my hon. friend in the securing of that book, and I do not think it is fair to the House or to the country that this Bill should be forced through three days after its introduction and before we have had time or opportunity of studying it and considering its various provisions.
iMr. GUTHRIE: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Technically, under the
rules, the Solicitor General exhausted his right to speak when he submitted the motion. I take it, however, that the House will concur in permitting him to make his explanation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: 'Certainly.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I recognize that upon
a casual reading of the Bill, it would appear to be somewhat involved and to require a good deal of consideration. However, I may explain that the Bill is merely a consolidation of the two Acts now in force in Canada in respect to naturalization, to which has been applied the Imperial Act of 1918, the precise language of the various sections of the Imperial Act being employed as far as possible. I have prepared a copy

of the Bill showing precisely, by indicating them in red ink, what are the clauses of the Imperial Act, and showing by marginal notes the verbal changes in each section. It will be remembered that a few days after the outbreak of the war-I think on the 7th of August, 1914-the Imperial Government passed an important Naturalization Act. This Parliament had passed an Act on the 24th of June, 1914, without knowledge that the Imperial Parliament contemplated any action in the matter. After the Imperial Act had been passed, this Parliament passed a further Act, on the 22nd of August, 1914, at the short summer session, to bring into force in Canada certain sections which had been adopted by the Imperial Parliament on the 7th of August preceding. On the 8th of August, 1918, the Imperial Parliament passed a further Act by way of amendment of the Imperial Act of 1914, and the two Acts now in force in Great Britain are cited as the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Acts, 1914 and 1918. It is provided in the Imperial legislation that any self-governing Dominion of the British Errfpire may adopt Part 2 of the Imperial Act, and that if it does so, a naturalization certificate thereafter granted in that dominion shall have force and effect throughout the whole of the British Empire; but until the Parliaments of the various self-governing dominions expressly adopt the provisions of part 2 oi the Imperial Act, certificates of naturalization granted in the self-governing dominions shall have force and effect only in the British dominions in which they were granted. The matter was discussed at the last Imperial Conference, and it was generally agreed that a uniform naturalization law would be in the interests of every part of the Empire; but it was recognized that each dominion had a perfect right to regulate the matter for itself, so far as its own jurisdiction went. However, from a discussion which took place in the British House of Commons, I learned that practically all the self-governing dominions had expressed their intention to adopt part 2 of the Imperial Act. I do hot really know how many have actually done so, but I think all save Canada and Australia. However, I am not certain in that respect. The main change effected in the Imperial law was in regard to the revocation of certificates heretofore granted, and in regard to the status of married women. We know that in Canada, prior to 1914, under the provisions of our law certificates of naturalization were 242
granted after residence of three years. In 1914 we changed that law and made the period of residence five years; that is, in conformity with the requirement of the Imperial Act. But the Bill which is now before the House has included in it only the provisions of our own law passed in June, 1914, and in the following month of August, and in addition thereto the provisions of Part 2 of the Imperial Act, without any change whatever in .the language except so far as is absolutely necessary to make it applicable to Canada. For instance, the tribunal in England which deals with the question of revocation of certificates, is not identical with the tribunal which will deal with those certificates here. Mere matters of form of that kind have had to be changed, but in other respects the language of the sections included in the present Bill is identical with the language in the British Bill.


Jacques Bureau: What tribunal deals with the revocation of certificates in England? We have not had a chance to see the Imperial Act.


Hugh Guthrie: In Great Britain under the Act of 1918 the inquiry in regard to applications for the revocation of certificates is held by a committee constituted for the purpose by the Secretary of State. This is the language of the section:
An inquiry under this section shall be held by a committee constituted for the purpose by the Secretary of State, presided over by a person (appointed by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Lord Chancellor) who holds or has held high judicial office, and shall be conducted in such manner as the Secretary of State may direct:
The language of that section would of necessity have to be changed in a Canadian statute.
My suggestion would be, if the Bill is given its second reading, that discussion in Committee go forward and that any reasonable time should be allowed members to make comparisons and further investigate the Bill, But until we can discuss it clause by clause, I do not think more can be gained by amplifying the general explanation which I have sought to give the committee. I know it would help very much in considering the Bill if this copy were used*, and I would like to hand it to my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition so that he can see the manner in which the Bill has been consolidated.


Jacques Bureau: Are there many copies ol the Bill that my hon. friend is proposing to turn over to the leader of the Opposition? I see it is a printed document.


Hugh Guthrie: I made this single copy myself. Any one can do the same who will take the time. It is only to indicate the clauses in the Imperial Act that are not law in this country now, but which will become law if this Bill passes. This also indicates the necessary change. The other sections are all sections passed by this Parliament in 1914 and prior years.


Jacques Bureau: I understand from my hon. friend that this is a consolidation of the Canadian Acts, with the addition thereto of part of the Imperial Act to make a Canadian a British subject in any part of the Empire. The Act of 1914 was passed under war conditions, and we then departed from the very basis of the other Acts. Heretofore our tribunals have been granting citizenship; if a man wanted to be naturalized he had to go before the courts. To-day we have taken away that jurisdiction from the judiciary and placed it in the hands of a political body-the Government or the Secretary of State.


Hugh Guthrie: I think if my hon. friend will read the section he will find he is mistaken. A man desiring to become naturalized still has to make application to. the courts. The old Act was passed before the war, on the 34th of June, 1914. We have left the war-,time procedure behind us.


Jacques Bureau: I did not notice the change, I think applications for naturalization should not be left to the decision of any political body, neither should .the revocation of certificates of citizenship. Under the Imperial Act which my hon. friend has just read the Secretary of State may appoint a committee under the Lord Chancellor or some man with judicial experience-some one who would be above any political feeling.


Hugh Guthrie: Our Bill provides for investigation by the judges of the superior courts in the various provinces.


Ernest Lapointe: Only if the Secretary of State thinks fit.


Hugh Guthrie: No. There are four distinct cases; in three of them the Secretary of State is bound to cause an inquiry to be made; in the other case-and it is the case only of a man who has been out of the British Dominions for seven years and has not kept up any connection therewith-the Secretary of State may cancel the naturalization papers. But these are matters that can be discussed in committee, and I do not think we can very intelligently deal with them on the second reading.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was about to call the attention of the House to the rule that on the second reading only the principle of the measure can be discussed. We are departing from that rule in this case and are discussing the effect of certain clauses.


Jacques Bureau: I want to say on the second reading that I am against the principle of this Bill as indicated here. I am of opinion that these powers should not be left in the hands of the Government or of any politically organized body; the judiciary is the best tribunal to decide whether certificate of citizenship should be granted or refused. I also wish to register my most emphatic protest against the provisions in regard to revocation. If a man becomes a citizen of a country he is supposed to abide by the laws of that country, and if he commits such offences that revocation of his papers should be necessary, I think we ought to be able to make laws to remove such a man from society, instead of throwing him out of the country without any citizenship at all. We ought to think twice before taking such drastic steps and telling a man: " You foreswore allegiance to your native country; you have failed to observe the laws of this country to which you swore allegiance; therefore you are an outlaw." It is far better, if that man is so dangerous that he ought not to live in Canada or any other part of the British Empire, that you should jail him. Let us make laws to punish a man according to the offence he commits. We have power to do it, and we ought to exercise that power. To revoke a man's citizenship and place him in the position that he has no citizenship, that he is, in fact, an outcast, nationally speaking, is so drastic that in my opinion he would be better off in jail or dead. Any offence which merited revocation of citizenship might merit life imprisonment or the gallows.
He is better dead, and if any offence is such as to merit the revocation of a man's certificate of citizenship, it might merit a jail sentence for life, or even the gallows. We can pass laws here which will cover every such case. I wish to register my protest as regards the principle of this Bill on this ground, and possibly on other grounds, because I have not yet had time to study the Bill which I regard as a most important one. This Bill, which is going to determine the citizenship of a man, was brought up on the 18th of June, and we are called upon to-day to pass upon it and discuss the various conditions. We have not had any opportunity to look into the Imperial Act or to see the conditions upon

which that Act was framed and what the conditions are in this Bill. I do not know the opinions of the other members, and I am not going to call for a division, but I desire to object to the principle of the Bill as brought before the House.


Hon. Mr. BURRELL (Secretary of State) :: Mr. Speaker, I could not quite follow my hon. friend's argument in his earlier remarks, but I understood him to make a protest against the Act as it seemed to depart from the old practice by placing the naturalization of persons into the hands of political parties.


Jacques Bureau: I said a political body, not party.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend surely cannot mean that, because the fact is at the present day the Act under which we have been granting hundreds and hundreds of certificates-I am signing about 1,200 a month-is the new Act of 1914.


Jacques Bureau: That does not change my views.


Martin Burrell: That is an Act which this House passed. In the previous Act what happened was this: Commissioners on naturalization were appointed, and they could simply take a man's affidavit that he had lived in the country for three years, he having been in that district for such and such a time. He took the oath of allegiance; this was handed into the court; a list was prepared; at the end of the court the list, comprising perhaps 100 or 200 names, was read out by the clerk without any examination of the applicants being had; the matter went through almost pro forma, and, in fact, numbers of naturalization certificates of this kind were known to be handed out in blank, no care being exercised. In 1914, that Act was changed by this Parliament, and, as a matter of fact, it has been in operation under much more satisfactory conditions since, because the old Act and the new Act were allowed to run concurrently for three years, from 1914 to the end of 1917, as it was thought that those men who were naturalized for Canadian citizenship for three years should be given an opportunity of taking up their homesteads under the old Act. But the new Act, under which we have been acting since 1914, and which was the only Act since January 1, 1918, instead of providing the old method, has provided a method under which naturalization is infinitely better safeguarded in the interest of this country than it ever was before, because the Act says this: A man shall pass in his application
242i
for citizenship, for naturalization, to the court; a three months' notice shall be given; that notice is sent to the Secretary of State, and the judge has then to hear the case for naturalization. The man has to have been residing for five years in Canada; he has to have an adequate knowledge of either French or English and to be a person oi good character, and the judge has to satisfy himself on all those points. It is, I think, obvious to every hon. member that it is a most important matter, especially in view of what has taken place in this world during the war, that the naturalization and citizenship of every person should be of an absolutely irreproachable character. It is a thing we have to safeguard. No political party has had an opportunity of advancing its own interest under the Naturalization Act which has been in force for the last few years. The judge has to decide according to the provisions laid down in the Act. That is, therefore, not a new feature; it is simply embodied in this Bill which, as the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) said, is simply to consolidate the Acts and also to embody the provisions which he has mentioned regarding revocation. No hon. member would argue that there should not be any power vested in the Government of a country to revoke naturalization where naturalization has certainly been improperly bestowed. That is a principle we could not accept; the details of that will be taken up in the clauses of the Bill.
Brigadier-General GRIESBACH (Edmonton West): Mr. Speaker, there is an aspect of naturalization to which I should like to direct the attention of the House, although I am not sure whether it might come up properly at this time or later. I refer to the question of the status of aliens who apply for naturalization, who come from a country in which there is legislation that prevents the alien from becoming a British subject even if he is naturalized here. I refer particularly at the moment to my understanding of the Delbriiek law which obtains in Germany. By the provisions of that law, as I understand it, a man may be naturalized in Canada or elsewhere, but he still remains a citizen or subject of Germany with all his rights in Germany and with his responsibilities in Germany, and particularly the responsibility for military service. The situation was that, when the war broke out, citizens of Germany, impelled either by motives of patriotism which are to be commended, or because of the operation of this law, sought to Teturn to Germany to bear arms and,

in many oases, succeeded in getting back to Germany and bore arms, a matter as to which some of us here can testify. I remember, in 1915, in trenches opposite a position which I held, Germans from the trenches shouted out inquiries as to conditions and persons in Edmonton, and we had reason to believe they were men from that city. Pressure is exercised under those laws in those foreign countries in this manner. A man is liable for military service notwithstanding the fact that he is naturalized in Canada, and if he does not return when his call is made, they confiscate all his property; they imprison him should he ever return to his own country again; they provide that he shall never be able to inherit any property in his own country; they deal even with his relatives and friends, and they bring pressure to bear upon him in every conceivable way. Indeed, it has, as a matter of fact, been found that the law is very effective. I am strongly of opinion that this country cannot afford and ought not under any circumstances to give naturalization to any man who comes from a country where a law exists that makes it impossible for him to become a citizen of this country,'and this Bill should especially provide that no certificate shall be issued to any person who comes from any such country, the law of which makes it impossible for him to become a citizen in fact, in law and in every other respect.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Guthrie (Solicitor General) that the House go into Committee on the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: I understood from the Solicitor General that some time is to be granted for members to look into this Bill, and that it will not be discussed now in Committee of the Whole House. Is that right, or are we to be forced to go on now?


Hugh Guthrie: We could go on now with the old clauses that have been in force for the last few years and before the war, and any clause that my hon. friend wants to stand over, can stand over for a reasonable time, but many of these clauses will not require much discussion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion is not debatable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
{Brigadier-General Grieebach.l
On section 1-definition of natural-bom British subject:
Jacques Bureau: I see this is taken from the Imperial Act of 1918. What changes does it make in the existing Act?


Hugh Guthrie: The section is precisely as it was in our law of 1914, with the exception of the words in paragraph (b) " or had become a British subject by reason of any annexation of territory, or was at the time of that person's birth in the service of the Crown; and " those words are taken from the 1918 amendment to the Imperial Act. Their - object, of course, is obvious.


Ernest Lapointe: What is the exact date of the Imperial Act?


Hugh Guthrie: August 8, 1918.


Ernest Lapointe: Was that after or before the Imperial Conference?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Act was passed after the Imperial Conference.


Ernest Lapointe: The reason I ask is because the Imperial Conference passed a resolution that another conference composed of the representatives of the United Kingdom and the Dominions should be called in order to agree upon a uniform law of naturalization. Is this Bill the result of such a conference?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. The Bill was passed by the Imperial Parliament after it had been approved by the representatives of the Dominions, but there were two or three points that were considered of importance which w'ere not covered by the Imperial Act, and the conference to which my hon. friend has referred was called for the purpose of considering those particular points. I do not just recall them at the moment, but I think I indicated them when we were discussing the report of the Imperial Conference.


Ernest Lapointe: Did the representatives of the Dominions agree on these outstanding points?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No conclusions have yet been reached on those points, and they are not embodied either in this Bill or in the Imperial Act. They will be covered by subsequent legislation.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Take the case of an alien residing in territory annexed by the British Government. It is altogether likely thait the British Government will annex or control for some time East Africa, for instance.

What would be the status of a German resident in that territory?
iMr. GUTHRIE: This Bill would not affect him one way or the other. This Bill only deals with those who have become British subjects by reason of annexation. There might be reasons why the people of that territory would not become British subjects, but any one who had become a British subject would have the privilege of continuing one under this Act. When the Imperial Act was introduced by the Secretary for the Home Department on the 12th of July last, Sir George Gave said:
This Bill was approved in principle at the Imperial Conference in the spring of 1917. Since that time a draft Bill has been circulated throughout the Empire and the draft has been approved by all the self-governing Dominions and India, with the exception of Australia, which has not yet approved the draft, but has indicated no dissent to it. The main purpose of the Bill is to introduce wider powers of revoking certificates of naturalization.


Mr. PARENT:: Paragraph (c) says:
Any person born on a British ship whether in foreign territorial waters or not.
Now if the policy of the Government is to establish a Canadian merchant marine, would it not be well to insert the words " or Canadian " after the word " British " unless "ia British ship " includes the ships of all the Dominions?


Hugh Guthrie: I think the clause as
drafted would cover every ship sailing under the British flag. The restriction here is in the case of a birth occurring on a British ship in <a South American port, for instance. The object of this restriction is that a person born on board a foreign ship shall not be deemed to be a British subject simply by reason of the fact that the shifp was in British territorial waters at the time of his birth.
iMr. BUREAU:	Suppose a British subject is naturalized in the United States, and a child is born to him while there. The next day he moves to Canada and becomes a British subject here by naturalization. Would the child take the. citizenship of his father when he reached a certain age?


Hugh Guthrie: The status of children and married women is dealt with in subsequent sections of the Bill, beginning at section 11.


Jacques Bureau: But the provisions have to be read as a whole, and that shows the necessity of going through the Bill very carefully. I understood from the President of the Privy Council that further legislation
is to be brought down next year covering certain points that were to be dealt with at an Imperial Conference,


Newton Wesley Rowell: What I said in answer-to my hon. friend from Kamouraska was-that a committee had been appointed representing all portions of the Empire to' consider certain questions which were not covered by the existing legislation, and that no final conclusions had yet been reached by that committee. When final conclusions are reached by that committee, they will have to be embodied in new legislation.
(Section agreed to.
On section 2-Certificate of naturalization.


Hugh Guthrie: Subsections 5 and 6 are entirely new and are taken verbatim from the Imperial Act of 1918. Subsection 5 is taken from 5 George V, and subsection 6 from the Imperial Act of August, 1918.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: I move:
That Section 2< subsection 1 be amended by inserting the following proviso after subclause C:
Provided that under no circumstances whatever shall a certificate of naturalization be granted to any person, a citizen or subject of a foreign state in which there exists a law, rule or regulation which qualifies limits or restricts the citizenship by this Act conferred or in any way exacts or requires from such foreign applicant military allegiance or service to such state on the event of threatened or actual war.


Hugh Guthrie: That would hardly be appropriate in the present section. If my hon. friend will give me the proposed amendment I will consider it. It would be more properly inserted about the end Of ' part 1. I move that consideration of it be allowed to stand in the meantime. I will see that it is submitted at the proper time.
Motion stands.


Mr. BUTTS:: Subsection (b) provides that any one- who is of good character may be granted a certificate of naturalization if he has an adequate knowledge of either the English or French languages. It does not say anything about other languages, and in the great war we had other Allies than the French. For instance the Italians were our allies. Are they to be excluded?


Hugh Guthrie: This is only a matter of making persons British citizens. Before the war the opinion of this Parliament was that they should be familiar with the English or the French language, and in Great Britain, they have confined it to familiarity with the English language. I think that there should be some familiarity with either

'the English or the French language provided for.


Jacques Bureau: The languages of the
country.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.
On section 3-Effect of certificate of naturalization :


Mr. COOPER:: How does this affect the Oriental?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not aware of any law that provides for the naturalization of .Orientals in this country.


Richard Clive Cooper: The Oriental at the present time has no vote. Under this section he would be allowed to vote.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not prepared at
the moment to answer that question. I shall have to inquire into it and answer it at a later stage. I was under the impression that they had no right to be naturalized or to become British subjects.


Mr. CROWE:: There are two or three
thousand Japanese in British Columbia who have taken out naturalization papers but they have no vote.


Hugh Guthrie: I think I can answer the question now. I understand Orientals have a right to be naturalized in Canada, but under certain local laws of the province they are not enfranchised, notwithstanding their right to be naturalized if they comply with all the requirements.


Sanford Johnston Crowe: The naturalization does
not give them the right to vote.


Hugh Guthrie: No. It does not change the laws in force for the last thirty years.


Ernest Lapointe: Give them the provincial franchise and it would be all right.


Jacques Bureau: Take the case of women- an Indian woman is a British subject. What would be her status? Would she be deprived of the right to vote by special legislation in this Bill? If she can exercise all the rights of a British subject she should have the right to vote, because under federal enactment all women who are British subjects and who have reached the age of twenty-one have the right to vote.


Hugh Guthrie: When we come to the Franchise Act that will be a fair matter to deal with, but not under .this Bill.


Mr. MOWAT:: If it is thought wise in the provinces to limit the franchise to certain nationalities there might be a contest with

the provinces. If a certain class of Orientals are given all the rights, powers and privileges of British citizenship, we would be passing a law that would perhaps be inconsistent with provincial franchise laws.


Hugh Guthrie: The Franchise Act of a province can apply only to its own provincial franchise, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Parliament.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I want to avoid the possibility of the Dominion franchise being different from the provincial franchise, and there might be a contest. By passing this law what will be the situation in regard to Orientals?


Georges Henri Boivin: All these questions relating to franchise can much better be discussed on the Franchise Bill. They are not relevant under this section.


Mr. FIELDING:: Suppose there is no
Franchise Bill?


Georges Henri Boivin: When it comes.


Ernest Lapointe: Political rights are mentioned in this section and the franchise is therefore relevant.


Hugh Guthrie: We confer all political
rights on a person on naturalization. If any province, having jurisdiction, desires to limit the franchise in regard to persons who are not naturalized, it has the full right to do so under our constitution.
If in the province of Ontario they passed a law to exclude an Oriental from voting, or from exercising the provincial franchise, they would have a perfect right to do so. But they have no right to pass any enactment that limits or alters the Dominion franchise. We grant a certificate of naturalization to an alien and if a, province did not want that alien to vote it would say so, but in so far as this Dominion is concerned, as soon as we grant the certificate we clothe the person to whom the certificate is granted with all the rights of a British subject.


Richard Clive Cooper: If an Oriental in the past has had a right to vote in federal elections that right has never been exercised and British Columbia would not desire that it should be exercised.


Ernest Lapointe: The provincial lists were used in the federal election according to the old Election Act. That is why Orientals do not vote in federal elections.


Richard Clive Cooper: That is the reason.


Ernest Lapointe: If we use the provincial lists for federal elections they have the

right to vote unless you deprive them of that right.


Jacques Bureau: The right to say who
should exercise the franchise in federal elections was delegated by the Federal Parliament to the province and that right will still be exercised by the province unless the delegation is cancelled and the Federal Parliament takes into its own hands the duty of legislating for that purpose. But, when a certificate of naturalization is given to a Chinaman, Japanese, or Hindu, that man gets the full rights of citizenship the same as any other man.


Hugh Guthrie: There has always been a provision in the law about conditional naturalization. I am speaking of the case of a man who receives full naturalization.


Mr. PETER McGEBBON:: I think the limit of five years should be raised because I do not believe you can take a Chinaman or a Jap and make a good citizen out of him in five years.


Hugh Guthrie: You must adopt that period of time if you are going to make the provisions uniform throughout the Empire. Great Britain will not recognize our right unless we conform to their general scheme. Otherwise, our naturalization will be purely for Canada.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON:: Why not get them to raise their limit?


Hugh Guthrie: They were requested to but they have definitely made the term five years and it will have to be adhered to.


Peter McGibbon: I think that is a dangerous standard to set up.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Five years is two years
longer than it used to be; it is raised from three years to five.


Peter McGibbon: The time is
altogether too short.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there not some safeguard in the discretion of the court? Even if a man had been here for five years, if the Secretary of State, or the court, think he is noit a desirable party to receive a certificate, I think they can refuse it.
M. FIELDING:	There has been a distinction between the status of a British subject in Canada and a British subject in England. Is not the object of this to put them both upon a common plane?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: There will be no such distinction in the future?


Hugh Guthrie: No, it "will be the same throughout the Empire. I move that the Committee rise and report progress. In the interval perhaps we will have an opportunity of studying the matter more carefully.


Jacques Bureau: Will that be before Tuesday?	.


Hugh Guthrie: No, not till after Tuesday?
Progress reported.



ROYAL NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE ACT AMENDMENT.

Newton Wesley Rowell: Referring to the Mounted Police Bill which was up this morning- I beg to move:
That this House doth disagree with the Senate amendment for the following reasons:
The amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of the proviso to clause 8 of the Bill and unduly extends the restriction contained in the said proviso.
And that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean, the House went into Committee on Bill No. 53 (from the Senate) to amend the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act, as amended by Special Committee, Mr. Stevens in the Chair.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What was the result of the sending of this Bill to the Special Committee?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The report of the Special Committee, with suggested amendments, was submitted to the House some time ago, and the amendments have been printed and circulated among members of the House. The amendments recommended by the committee are substantially in line with th; views expressed by a majority of the House when it was up for second reading. The committee have recommended that the sale of opiates containing opium or derivatives of opium be absolutely prohibited.


Jacques Bureau: Before he went away the member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) made reference to the fact that certain hon. gentlemen, including, I think, the member for Muskoka (Mr. P. McGibbon), had taken a

particular interest in this Bill. I understand that the subject matter which the hon. gentleman had in mind was with reference to drugs containing opium or other narcotics. Are the proposed amendments incorporated in the Bill?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We propose to incorporate the amendments in the Bill. I am accepting absolutely the recommendations contained in the report of the Special Committee, which, I understand, was unanimous.	'
On Section 7-Prohibited medicines.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I do not understand exactly how we are proceeding. Are you reading all the amendments?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stevens):: I might explain that practically the whole Bill is one section amending various sections of the Act.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think section 7 is subject to some discussion.


Mr. FOURNIER:: In subsection (g) "It
the article to be represented as a cure for any specific disease," we are going further than the law of any other country. The United States regulation on this subject is usually considered the most stringent, and it provides that the preparation may not be designated as a cure unless, as a matter of fact, it can be depended upon to produce the results claimed for it. I venture to say if you pass this clause you will have a whole lot of trouble. If you want to wipe out patent medicines that are no good, I might suggest to my hon. friend (the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce) to not go any further than the United States and the British law.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The section, as
amended, will prevent the advertising of any drug as a cure. We are going just as far as the United States, but I think we are putting ourselves in a better position, although the legislation is practically the same.
The United States legislation is to the effect that patent medicines must not contain any false, misleading or exaggerated claims on the wrapper or label. It is very difficult to prove that. It is doubtful if any medicine is a cure for anything. Medical men who are members of the committee assured the committee' that there was practically no such thing as a medicinal cure for any specific disease, except, perhaps, three or four. The effect of the United States legislation is to prohibit any

advertisements of a patent medicine as a cure, and it is quite proper that we prohibit the advertisement of any medicine as a cure. This does not prevent manufacturers from selling their product.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: I think this would prevent a manufacturer of anything like antitoxin from selling his product.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Antitoxin is not a patent medicine it is one of the things that might be denominated as a specific cure. A patent medicine is a medicinal preparation which is patented, and the formula is not disclosed to the public. If the formula is disclosed to the public, the preparation is not a patent medicine.


Mr. MANION:: The reason that the medical men object to the word " cure " is practically what the minister states except that he goes further. Most of them state- and I think correctly-that there are only a few medicines in the world, such as antitoxin, which cure disease, and they are not patent medicines, they are medicines which are usually used. In the past manufacturers have quite often put up patent medicines representing them as cures. For instance, a manufacturer may put up a patent medicine representing it as a cure for consumption when, as a matter of fact, there is no such thing as a cure for consumption, and inestimable damage has been done to the people of this country by advertising such patent medicines as cures for consumption. The elimination of the word " cure 1 will do no harm to the patent medicine manufacturer, and it will give protection to the public whom we are only safeguarding in taking this stand.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I do not think you can enforce this to the limit, because journals and periodicals printed outside of this country contain advertisements of medicines, the announcements claiming that the medicines are cures. How are you going to regulate in a case of that kind? If you discriminate against advertisements appearing in Canadian journals guaranteeing these medicines as cures1, the owners of these proprietary medicines will have to go outside for their' advertising mediums, and they can have their announcements published in English journals and those of other countries.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This Bill will
prevent the importation of any .medicine which is represented as a specific cure for any particular .ailment. It cannot prohibit the advertisement in foreign journals of any

medicine which is asserted to he a cure for anything. Clause 7 begins by stating:
No proprietary or patent medicine shall he manufactured, imported, exposed or offered for sale or sold in Canada if-
As in this particular instance,
-it is represented as a cure.
So the public are protected in that way.. They can have the pleasure of reading in foreign journals advertisements about these medicines promising a cure, but that is all.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Will that prevent an individual from sending outside for them?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.
Mr. PETER MicGIBBON (Muskoka): 1 think I said the last time this Bill was up that the only object of a Bill of this kind is to protect the public, and I submit with all due respect to the minister that this clause does not give them any protection at all. It is rather around this clause that all the curse of patent medicines hinges. It is quite true that formerly we had a number of medicines advertised as cures for certain diseases, but that time has long since passed away, and now a manufacturer simply sets down' symptoms which are peculiar to a certain disease and advertises his medicine as a cure for those symptoms, and that is far more effective than advertising it as a cure for any particular disease. This clause opens the door to all kinds of fraud, and innocent people will be imposed upon by the hundreds and thousands, and this clause ought to be eliminated.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If we eliminate this clause, there is no protection whatever for the public. As the subsection- stood in the original Bill, it read:
If the article Ibe represented as a cure for any specific disease.
The word " specific " is stricken out in the amendments recommended by the Committee, so that the result of the amendment is that no patent medicine can be manufactured, imported, exposed or offered for sale in Canada if it contains the representation that it is a cure for anything, so that this is a positive enactment against representing anything as a cure for any ailment. If we strike this clause out altogether, then there is no protection for the public, and manufacturers can import and expose for sale any medicine represented as a cure. I thought my hon. friend did not quite understand the situation.


Peter McGibbon: I
quite understand the situation, but probably I did not make my point clear. This allows manufacturers to get around the purport of the Bill by simply changing the wording of their advertisements. The objections taken a few' minutes ago are quite in order, namely that we ought to follow the lines laid dowui in Great Britain and the United States, or else we should put in a clause specifically prohibiting manufacturers from advertising a medicine, not as a cure, but as a relief for any specific set of symptoms, because that is the line all these advertisements are taking now. A manufacturer does not advertise his medicine as a cure for consumption, but the advertisement w'ill describe the symptoms of tuberculosis and then describe the medicine as a cure for them. There is no protection for the public at all.


Robert James Manion: The intention of the committee was to eliminate the word " cure " altogether. It is possible, as the hon. member says, the word might be used as a cure for symptoms. You cannot eliminate advertisements of medicines claiming that they will give some relief, because they may give some relief to certain symptoms of certain diseases.


Peter McGibbon: If you follow the law as it is in the United States and. in England, you would have more effect.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We have also this clause containing a prohibition against any representations of a false, misleading or exaggerated character being used on the label or wrapper. That is really the American provision. The Americans do not make an enactment against the use of the word " cure They state simply that no false, misleading or exaggerated claim shall be printed on the wrapper or label, and under that clause, they presume to prohibit the use of the word " cure ". We have specifically enacted against the use of the word, so that we are in a much clearer and stronger position than the United States, and besides that, we have their clause for what it is worth. If you attempt to prosecute a vendor of patent medicines on the ground that the wrapper or label contains misleading or exaggerated claims, it is, in my judgment, a very difficult thing to prove. I think iwe have in this Bill everything of importance in the American Act. We are also specifically providing against the use of the word "cure." Unless I had an opportunity of giving further consideration to the suggestion of my hon. friend, I would hardly care to accept it. We are en-
382a

acting pretty sweeping legislation, and I thing it will meet the case.


Peter McGibbon: I submit again that I am not interested in the manufacturers of patent medicines, but in protecting the public from deception. If I were a patent medicine manufacturer I would not want a different law from this.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am unable to agree with my hon. friend. We are specifically providing against the use of the word "cure" for any disease, and I think under that provision we could prosecute a man who advertised a cure for the symptom of any disease.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: I know something about the drug business, but I am thankful to say I have absolutely no connection with it ' now. I certainly think the minister will have a lot of trouble if he leaves the Bill as it is now, and I would suggest that he add after the word " disease," in paragraph (g), the words " unless it can be depended upon to produce the results claimed for it."


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I fail to see how a direct enactment against the use of the word "cure" is not better than an enactment against the use of that word with the qualification that my hon. friend has suggested. If we adopted his suggestion, it would be very difficult to secure a conviction. I am assuming that my hon. friend wishes to prevent the sale of patent medicines representing to cure certain diseases.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: Take the case of jaundice, for instance; that is not a disease but a symptom.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am told there is no cure for jaundice.


Robert James Manion: I do not like discussing medical questions on the floor of the House, as it smacks of talking shop, but as my hon. friend has mentioned jaundice, I agree that it is not a disease but a symptom. There is no distinct cure for jaundice, because it arises from many different causes, and anybody who advertised that a medicine would cure jaundice would come under the clause against exaggerated advertising, because there is no one thing that will cure all types of jaundice.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: I trust that the minister will accept my suggestion to add the words I have pro,posed to paragraph (g). That will be as far as the British and the United States law goes, and the Swedish law, too, I believe. It is the only way you can deal with patent medicines.


Mr. STEELE:: I would direct the attention of the committee to subsection 2 of section 7. One of the matters that was urged in connection with this Bill was the necessity for curtailing the use of medicines containing opium for children. Subsection 2 says:
No proprietary or patent medicine intended for administration to infants under one year old shall contain any opium or any derivative of opium, or any derivative of coal-tar.
I think the weakness of that subsection lies in the wmrd " intended." Intended by whom? A manufacturer may put up a soothing syrup exactly along the line of the old-time soothing syrup and disclaim any intention of its being administered to a child under one year of age. The mother, knowing that it is really the same soothing syrup, or that it will have the effect of quietening her child, which she desires, buys it, and administers it to her child just the same as she did formerly. She is not responsible' in any way under the law. It seems to me this subsection is absolutely useless for the purpose for which it was intended, and I w'ould suggest that it be amended in order to meet the views of many people, and especially of the social workers of the province of Quebec.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Section 6 says:
All proprietary or patent medicines containing opium, or any derivative of coal-tar, and intended for administration to children over one year of age shall he labelled with the words " Dangerous for infants under one year old."


Michael Steele: Possibly that covers the situation.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is any penalty provided for an infraction of the provisions of this Bill?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is a general penalty clause in the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-new section 7A.
Charles Alphonse Fournier: It is provided that five members shall be appointed on the Advisory Board, and I think that pharmaceutists actively engaged in the drug business should be represented.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is a fair suggestion.
Mr. FOURiNIER: It should be made plain.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think it is good legislation to specify any classes of persons who shall constitute the membership of a board to be appointed under the law. The department must be trusted to

select the proper 'personnel. I quite agree *with the suggestion that the class mentioned by the hon. member should he represented.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: The druggists, who number about 5,000 or 6,000 in this country, are respectable citizens and are entitled to consideration. It is no more trouble to include druggists actively engaged in pharmacy than it is to insert the Dominion Analyst.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The statute does not designate any particular class for the board. We simply state that the chairman of the board shall be the Dominion Analyst, and he is the official of the department administering this and similar Acts. When the department constitute the board they will have in mind, of course the particular interests of the pharmaceutical profession in Canada. Personally, if I were asked to give an opinion, I would say that they are entitled to representation on a board of five, but if you say that one particular class shall be represented, you must stipulate in the Bill what other four classes shall have representation. The statute framed in that way would be unsound and too restrictive.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: I think that men
actively engaged in the drug business should be represented. After all, we copy the United States in many ways, and there you will find that pharmacists are represented on boards of similar character, being represented even on the Board of Health.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not mind saying that they will be represented.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What Act is repealed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There was an Act known as the Doherty Act which contained a clause that had reference to patent medicines, and that should not have been in that Act. The amending Bill at page 3 in the second last paragraph contains an amendment by inserting immediately after section 16 a provision to the effect that any penalty incurred under the provisions of this Act shall be deemed an addition to and not in substitution for any penalty incurred under the law of any province. That is the section which we are repealing and which is in chapter 19 of the statutes of 1916. We are taking it out of one Act and putting it into this, because it has relation to patent medicines.
Bill as amended reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Steele in the Chair.
(Mail (Subsidies and Steamship Subventions- Steam service between Quebec and .ports on the north and, or south shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and, or between the ports in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and the .Magdalen Islands, $70,000.
["Owing to war\nconditions no linen thread has come forward from Great Britain since January 1, 1919. As Canada would be unlikely to secure adequate supplies, and as a suitable quality of flax is grown in sufficient quantity, in Canada, and as there were manufacturers of linens here who were disposed to undertake the spinning of linen threads and yarns from Canadian flax, an Order in Council was passed to bonus fox a limited period the manufacture of linen thread. It [DOT]is provided that the following bounty be paid for three years from 1st April, 1919, to 31st March, 1922.\n. 03c per lb. on linen yarn not coarser than 12 lea or finer than 20 lea.\n. 0'6c per lb. on linen yarn 20 lea and finer, but coarser than 40 lea.\n.09c per lb. on linen yarn 40 lea and finer.\nThe total bounty is not to exceed $25,0-00 in any one year, or a total of $15,000 in the three years.\n\nNo bounty is to be payable until the day following the declaration of peace.\nResolutions reported.\nOn motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean the House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.\nMonday, June 23, 1919."]
Mr. CHISHOLM:: What are the subsidies under this item, and what trips will be made, and so forth? I should like some information in this respect.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is a combination of services that were performed last year under separate services and separate votes. It means no increase whatever. It is a re-arrangement of old services. It does not mean an additional vote of money. The contractors have not been able so far to perform the Newfoundland end of the service. They were to call at Prince Edward Island, Pictou, Mulgrave or Hawkesbury proceed through the lakes and on to Newfoundland. The company have been unable to obtain a steamer suitable for the service but we are hopeful that they will be able to do so any day now. At the time the contract was entered into last year it was thought that the steamer leaving Quebec and calling a't ports of the south shore of the St. Lawrence would proceed:- en route to Newfoundland but the company have been unable to do that. Later, they asked to be allowed to take a portion of this subsidy and apply it to a direct service between Quebec and Newfoundland via Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton ports. While, up to the present time they have been unable to get a steamer to go on the service, we are hopeful that they may get one any day now.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Will the minister name the ports that they call at in Nova Scotia?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I find I was in error in saying that there were several ports in Cape Breton that the bo^t would call at. Apparently there is only Sydney.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the name of the boat that used to perform that service?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It has not been performed for several years. It is a revival of an old service that was performed by some of the Dominion Coal Company boats.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Black Diamond
line?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Black Diamond line. Very strong representations have been

made by the people of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Montreal for the establishment of this service but unfortunately it has been impossible up to date to get a steamer to perform the service. There is no service but I am asking for the vote so that it may be available at the time that a boat is available.


Alexander William Chisholm: If this service is to
be established, I want to make a strong appeal to the minister to have the boat call on the western coasit of Cape Breton. I think that the boat might call at Chet-icamp. It is right on the route to Sydney. The only question is whether there is enough water and, due to the fact that there are no boats, we cannot discuss that feature of it. The boat that usually comes down there calls at that port. There is 21 feet of water. There is considerable amount of freight to be carried and if the boat calls at this port, it would give connection between that part of the country and the port of Sydney.
Mr. A. K. MAOLEA'N: If my hon. friend will be good enough to write a letter to the department covering that matter it will be inquired into.


Alexander William Chisholm: I will do so.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not in a
position to give him any more definite answer. If Cheticamp harbour has not a sufficient depth of water to accommodate the steamer that would be a sufficient answer. I think that the Newfoundland subsidized services from Nova Scoia require rearrangement. There are too many different subsidies voted.


Mr. DUFF:: At what pout in Newfoundland will the boat call?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: iSt. John's.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister say
that St. John's is the objective?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In this service.
There is a subsidized service to Newfoundland, I think from Halifax. They go through the Bras d'Or lakes and then on to some port on the west coast of Newfoundland.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not know that it is good business to send boats around to St. John's from Quebec unless it can be shown there is really business to be done. There is a line of boats running between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, connecting with the line of railway across the island of Newfoundland unless it was found that the rail-4 p.m. way and the Reid line are unable to cope with the traffic

and that there is business to be done it would hardly be desirable to add another subsidy.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is a very
real demand for a steamship service between 'Canadian ports and Newfoundland at the present time. The Reid-Newfound-land company are unable to handle the-traffic arriving at North Sydney for delivery to their railway system. Great quantities of goods are now in Canada which should have been in Newfoundland months ago. Owing to the inability of the Reid company to handle the traffic, the Government had before it yesterday a representative of the Newfoundland Government who was here to ask that we loan them temporarily a boat to run between Sydney, or North Sydney and St, John's so as to relieve the congestion on the Reid-Newfoundland line. It will also be helpful to the Intercolonial railway. I think the Minister of Railways, or the Canadian National Railway Board, was enabled to meet to some degree the request of the Government of Newfoundland. There is a great congestion at the present time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The route between
Canada and Newfoundland is established as far as North Sydney is concerned because the trade converges by rail at North Sydney. If it is necessary to add a further boat to carry the goods -from the terminus of the Intercolonial railway at Sydney to Newfoundland I think it is good business but I do not think it is good business to start a boat from somewhere on the river St. Lawrence calling at intermediate ports and then going to North Sydney to take on goods. The railway is quite capable of handling the traffic going out through North Sydney and which can then be carried by boat across to Newfoundland. *


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is a considerable quantity of goods being purchased for Newfoundland in Quebec and Ontario. There is apparently a very substantial amount of business in Prince Edward Island which goes to Newfoundland. The steamer en route can call at Charlottetown. Later, I suppose, when the Reid-Newfoundland Steamship Company are in a position to purchase more steamers, they may be able to relieve the congestion. Our trade with Newfoundland is developing and Canadian merchants are anxious to maintain and improve their position in that regard. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to get this additional steamer.


William Duff: The trouble is that at Port aux Basques the facilities are not adequate. Moreover, the steamship service which is now proposed to be subsidized will carry quite a different class of goods from that which has been handled by the ships of the Reid Company. Cattle, for instance, could not very well be transported by the boat *engaged in this service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques.
*Steam service from ISydney to Bras d'Or Lake ports, and ports on the east and west coasts of 'Cape Breton, $14,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is a new service which will be performed by a company now operating from Sydney. It will be a weekly service. The boat will leave Sydney, proceed through the lakes, and to points in Northern Inverness, and then run to Sydney via the south and west coasts of Cape Breton island.


Alexander William Chisholm: What are the ports of *call?	.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Sydney, North Sydney, Baddeck, Grand Narrows, Marble Mountain, Castle Bay, East Bay, Big Pond, Irish Cove, Johnston's Harbour, St. Peter's, Poulamond, Grandique, Port Hawkesbury, Port Hastings, Port Hood, Mabou, Mar-garee, Grand Etang, Cheticamp, L'Ardoise, Ariehat, Gabarus, Louisburg, Main-a-dieu, Port Morien, North Sydney and Sydney.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If this was a service
all-around the island of Cape Breton, commencing and ending at Sydney, I would look upon it as a splendid service. But the ports which the minister has mentioned are already served by subsidized boats. For instance, that part of the Bras d'Or Lakes south of the Grand Narrows bridge is served by the Richmond.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Richmond has been taken off and is replaced by this new steamer, which will carry out the service formerly performed by the Richmond. The new boat is larger and faster than the Richmond.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: A service such as the Richmond was giving in that part of the Bras d'Or Lakes should not be changed at the whim or caprice of any steamboat owner. The people have been getting a service; it is the money of the people that is being paid out in the granting of these subsidies, and merchants and others interested should be consulted. They were getting two trips a week from the Richmond, which is a very good little boat; now they are to get a weekly service simply because
the owners of this boat think that they can make money in that way. When traffic or trade routes are established by a service subsidized by the Government, that service should not be thrown aside for something less serviceable without giving the people concerned an opportunity of expressing their views in the matter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have been
under the impression that this new service would be more satisfactory to the people of the ports concerned than was the service rendered by the Richmond. It is a very much larger boat.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: She worked very well.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: She probably had to call at these ports in order to carry freight, and consequently had to make two trips a week. However, if it transpires that this service does not meet the local requirements, it will have to be reconsidered.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have a Government creamery at the town of Baddeck. The great body of people on the Bras d'Or lakes south of the Grand Narows used to send their cream by the Richmond to the Grand Narrows and then it was transferred to the Blue Hill, and there must have been three or four trips a week. If there is only one trip that service is absolutely abolished.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has my hon. friend any objections to the changed service?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If it is less efficient than the old, I certainly have. Those people are not in my county, but the creamery is, and it is a Government creamery. If this new boat is giving less efficient service to the people than the Richmond was giving, I certainly object to the change.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: Would the minister be good enough to tell the Committee the total amount of money that is paid out in steamship subsidies?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In round figures the total amount to be paid this year is $2,400,000. Of course, that includes all sums paid for services on the Atlantic and the Pacific, which form the greater part of the total I have mentioned. After all, the moneys paid out for subsidies to local services in the Eastern part of Canada do not amount to very much. I cannot give my hon. friend exact figures.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am not particular about what is paid out in the East; I merely want the total. Have the Government control, and do they exercise control,

over the tariff arrangements made by these boats with the people who trade with them? If so, what is the nature of the control ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We have a very decided control over freight rates. In the first place, the freight schedules must be approved by the Government.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What department?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Department of Trade and Commerce. For instance, we subsidize a service between the British West Indies and the ports of Halifax and St. John. We fix their rates. The rate on flour per barrel is ninety cents, and it has remained so during the war, constituting a decided advantage to Canadian millers. It was a cheap rate, too. It has the effect of keeping the freight rate on flour from points in Canada to the British West Indies via New York at ninety cents, and had we not control of the rate charged by this subsidized service, the freight rate would be very much greater to Canadian exporters of flour.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Do I understand that the rates are fixed by the Department of 'Trade and Commerce, and that the department are in a position to know what rates should be charged along the Pacific coast and the Atlantic coast without having some official set aside for that purpose?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: All subsidized services must have their rates approved by the department. They submit their freight schedules to the department for approval, and the department advise themselves in the best way possible as to the fairness of those schedules. We have an inspector of the local services, in regard to which it would be most difficult to ascertain whether the freight rates are fair or not. So far as the Atlantic and Pacific freight rates are concerned, it is not a difficult matter for the department to be advised as to what are fair rates, because they are in touch with the commercial rates and can secure the advice of men competent to advise them.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am puzzled to know the extent to which these rates are examined into from time to time. While I know the Department of Trade and Commerce are very efficient in so many ways, I qan hardly believe that they can possibly be in touch with the conditions existing at the different ports of entry that these boats are connected with, and I would be surprised to know that the department were able to control the shipping rates in the

sense that the Railway (Commission control railway rates.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Our control is absolute to this extent, that unless a contractor will enter into an agreement with ,the Government as to the rates to be charged by him, he cannot get the subsidy.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does he file a schedule of his rates with the department?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am struck with the disparity in these items, Mr. (Chairman. I know the services very well. There is a most important service under item 184, from Sydney to Whycocomagh performed by the steamer Marion. While I do not want to disparage the service rendered under item 185, I submit it is not one whit as important to that part of Canada as the service performed between Sydney and Whycocomagh. I cannot reconcile those votes. Then there is the service performed by .the same people who expect to run this new boat between Sydney and the Bay ISt. Lawrence, along a rocky coast; they are to get only $6,000, against $14,000 for the service under item 185.	i !	j


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The supplemental will contain an additional $1,000 for the service.	'	\


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend knows the island of Cape Breton and the service performed between Sydney and Whycocomagh, serving a large number of people along the Bras d'Or Lakes. The owners of the boat get only $3,000 for that service, while the other service is subsidized to the extent of $14,000.


Alexander William Chisholm: Might I ask the minister to kindly jog the memory of the Hend-ric Company, Halifax, I think, about which I wrote the minister a few days ago? This service is performed by the Strathlorn, which carries the goods past ports such as Margaree down to Chetieamp and Grand Etang, and if the weather is not sufficiently fine, carries those goods back to Halifax, and they are dumped down upon the wharf there. Such conduct is unjustifiable, and I do not see why they should be permitted to do such a thing. More than that, this year they have departed from their obligation as regards carrying out their contract to Inverness and have gone into another service, to Guysborough, which is entirely different, carrying goods to way ports, and return-'ing to Halifax without going to Inverness ports at all back (when it suits themselves.



[Stage Direction]
If this be true, I would ask the minister to eee ito it that this is stopped or the boat he discontinued entirely. We are dependent upon that service.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The company will be asked for an explanation.
Trade and Commerce-trade commissioners and commercial agents, including expenses in connection with negotiations of treaties or in extension of commercial relations : miscellaneous advertising and printing, or other expenditures connected with Canadian trade, ? 180,000.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the increase for?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This increase is asked for just to have the supply necessary if any extraordinary expenditures are undertaken during the year in the way of development of Canadian trade abroad and by way of establishing additional trade commissioners. It is quite improbable that the additional amount will be used this year. Since the termination of the war, however, the department is frequently in receipt of requests to send trade commissioners to many new places with a view of ascertaining if it is possible to develop trade in those places. One would expect that these requests would be made at this time when all nations are contesting very keenly for commercial supremacy in all parts of the world. I thought it would be well that we should have, perhaps, a small amount in addition to that of last year for this purpose. At the present time, I cannot say that it will be used; it does not look as if it would be this year.


John Howard Sinclair: The statement was made by the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) the other day that some $6,000,000 was expended by the Government in financing the sale of meat to Italy. Can the minister tell us what prices are being paid to producers of this, meat and from whom it has been purchased?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it was my hon. friend who asked the minister about this matter or, perhaps, it was some other hon. member, and upon his request I laid upon the table of the House this forenoon a copy of the Order in Council to which I would refer my hon. friend. I think it will give him the information he desires.


John Howard Sinclair: Does this Order in Council give the names of the parties from whom the meat was purchased?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, I do not think it would do that.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the minister furnish us with the names and the prices the meat was sold at?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I cannot promise to do it to-day, but I would be in a position to do it on Monday.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the meat taken from cold storage warehouses?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This was meat that was purchased in anticipation of sale to the Allied powers for army purposes, and, in fact, I think the Allied powers were morally obligated to take this meat. When the armistice came, the demand was reduced very materially, and the meat was on the hands of the contractors, who endeavoured to sell it to the Canadian public, but I believe they were unable to do so almost at any price. The British Government, my recollection is, undertook to make a disposition of it so far as they could, and they entered into some arrangement with the Government of Italy whereby they would take this quantity of meat that was in cold storage in Canada and which was in danger of being destroyed altogether or becoming useless. It was for that purpose the Canadian Government gave credit to Italy.


John Howard Sinclair: I understood the minister to say that the British Government was handling this business and that the meat had to be sold and that Canada undertook to finance the transaction. Is the Canadian Government by taking this step relieving the Imperial Government of a responsibility?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is a matter of business with which I have nothing to do, and I am speaking without accurate knowledge of the facts. I will send for a copy of the Order in. Council, and I will endeavour by Monday to get the further information for my hon. friend.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I must reiterate what I said to the minister some time ago about the sale of goods of this character or the sending of such goods out of the country. The law of supply and demand means the supply in a country itself and the demand in that country for that supply, or the demand that a foreign country might make upon that supply with its own means or money. The Canadian consumer was entitled to the competition, that would arise in this country in connection with the sale of supplies of food that were in this country and the Government is not dealing fairly with the consumer when it is furnishing money to a foreign country in order to buy

those goods and take them out of Canada, because that has certainly a direct effect on keeping prices higher than they would be if the matter was left to trade and 'traffic in this country itself. I cannot see any justification why the Canadian consumers are compelled by this Government to a foreign country, when that money is to be used for the purpose of keeping-prices at the high top-notch figures at which they are now. If we have a reduction at all by competition, it is 'by the supply 'becoming large and people toeing obliged to bid or do the best they can to get the current prices for their goods.


Mr. BURNHAM:: What method would the hon. member adopt to establish the proper balance between the producer and the consumer?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The law which exists and which is as old as the hills, the law which regulates itself as to supply and demand. If there is a large supply of beef in this country, and the merchant or [DOT] the owner of it cannot keep at his high prices in ordeT to get rid of it, he must sell at a lower price. But this Government steps in and says to that man: You need not sell at any lower price; we will keep you at war prices, and we will give money to foreigners so as to enable them to come into this country and buy that extra supply and take it out of the country and enable you to keep at your high prices. The law of supply and demand, as I understand it, is put out of operation in that way by artificial means, and I say that the Government of this country is not justified in doing that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There are just
two views on the question which my hon. friend has raised. One is that no aid in the form of credits be given to -our export trade, and that it be allowed to operate as in pre-war days. The other view is that you assist the purchasing country to pay for our goods by lending them the money. My hon. friend says that we should allow the law of supply and demand to govern all trade and commerce. Every nation desires that, but there is no such thing in some countries to-day as the operation of the law of supply and demand. The question of wheat, for instance, which we are likely to discuss some day next week, presents a great many difficulties. We shall have a wheat crop this year of probably 300,000,000 bushels, and an exportable surplus of from 200,000,-

000 to 225,000,000 bushels'. Everybody knows that it is important that this Canadian wheat gets out o>f the country. Wheat is no better than any other product, except that dt is more useful as a food than some others, and the wheat producer has no right to expect better treatment than the farmer who is producing other products, but it is very desirable from the standpoint of exchange that the wheat should get out of the country, because it is one of our exportable products. If we export
200.000.	000 bushels of wheat, that means
8400.000.	000 coming into this country with which to pay for our imports from the United States, and therefore it is desirable that we should have a movement in our grain trade this year. But the Western farmer cannot export his wheat unless he gets paid for it in some way or other. Suppose that Great Britain says next September or October "We will not guarantee the price of wheat, and we have no way of buying your wheat unless you advance us tire money. We will buy of Argentina or of Australia, who are willing to give us a credit." If that event should occur the situation would he serious, unless we loaned Great Britain the money.
Money will never pay for the imports of a country. Great Britain's gold supply would be exhausted in a week is she had to pay for her imports in money. So while natural trade is desirable, and is better for producer and consumer, and the sooner all nations get back to it the better, still conditions prevail which prevent it and for which nobody is responsible. I quite agree with the views of my hon. frienl, but it may very well' happen that we may yet have to give credits to help our export trade. Where would Canada be to-day if we were not exporting what we are under the credits that were given last year. There would be a congestion in this country of our exportable goods, and production would immediately diminish, because there would be no encouragement to produce. However, that matter has been discussed several times in Parliament, both sides of the case have been presented clearly and ably, and the question is likely to come up again next week on the amendments to the Grain Act. The Government are not anxious to establish further credits to any other country. It may well be that we have reached the point where it would not be wise, and might even be impossible, for us to grant further credits. I can assure my hon. friend that

no one is more anxious to cease the granting of credits than the Government, because many difficulties are involved in securing the credits and taking care of their distribution.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has not dealt with the main question at all, that this manipulation of finance maintains high prices. Does he expect to go on doing this or is he going to stop? If it is true that the granting of credits is the cause of the inflation of prices, every time a credit is granted increases the price to the home consumer. When is i't going to come to an end?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the end will come when we reach the time hoped for by the leader of the Opposition when natural trade conditions will prevail, when the nations of the world will be importing and exporting as they did before the war, when we shall again have international competition. When Canadian products are sold, the price is agreed upon by the purchasing country. If Canada furnishes credits for the purchase of Canadian products by other countries, we do not fix the price. There is such a demand, particularly for certain food products and some manufactured articles, that prices are extremely high to-day. Take the case of wheat. The fixed and guaranteed price in the United States for this year is $2.26; ours last year was $2.24. That is a very high price for wheat, but I doubt very much whether the world will ever see again the price levels of days gone by when wheat was selling below a dollar a bushel. Although $2.24 seems a high price, the view prevails that it is not an excessive price. When the United States fixed the price at $2.26 last year, they submitted the whole matter to a committee of eight very expert men, and it was their judgment that that was not an unfair price for the producer. I have discussed this matter with a great many Canadian wheat producers, and I am bound to say that I doubt very much whether it is an excessive price, particularly if there is a small or average crop. The cost to the farmer of producing wheat is exceedingly high at the present time, or at least very much in excess of the cost which prevailed prior to the war. I suppose that if credits were granted freely by governments to all countries desiring to purchase their goods it would have the effect of driving up prices, but no country is anxious to give credits to-day. The United States Government is not giving any, although they realize that somebody in the United States must make
advances to European countries or they would not toe able to sell. I cannot see how any European country can purchase anything of any kind to any extent unless somebody advances them the money.


John Hampden Burnham: We can all buy if you give us the money.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But these credits have to be repaid.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister is
speaking as if he were solicitous about the farmer, but i't is not the farmer that is going to be benefited by this transaction which we are discussing; it is the owners of the cold storage plants, who have hoarded up this meat to fetch a high price. The people of Canada needed this meat, tout the cold storage men would not sell it to them. They held it until, as the minister says, it was in danger of being destroyed, and then the Government steps in and furnishes money .to export it to Italy, financing the bills for Italy. I have no doubt Italy is just as able to do its own financing as Canada. Why does the Government do this for the cold storage people? It is not in the interests of the farmers, for not one dollar of this money will go into the pockets of the farmers; it will go to the profiteers. That is what makes it so difficult for the people of Canada to accept the situation. It is not only in regard to meat and wheat, but in regard to other things as well. I was speaking to a merchant tailor this morning and he told me about the difficulty he had in securing cloth to keep his business going. He said that if you went to one of the jobbers' shops there were half a dozen persons looking for the same web of cloth, and one man would offer $5 a yard and another $6. They would bid against one another because they had to have it. The mills are busy making cloth for Rumania, and the Government is borrowing money from the people of Canada to finance the business. The millers do not care anything about Canadian trade. They are doing very well by selling their goods in foreign countries. This has to stop, and the sooner the better.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I quite agree that it must stop, and the sooner the better. I am sure that it is the desire of all countries to get back to normal trading. But unfortunately there has been a war for four years or more and all trade and commerce has been disrupted and has been conducted for some time along artificial lines. I did not know when I was speak-



ing that my hon. friend had in mind this credit to Italy for the purchase of wheat. I was speaking generally of the policy of granting credits. I am [DOT] not very well acquainted wiith the facts concerning the sale of meat to Italy.


Frank S. Cahill: Who were morally obligated?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The British Government acting on behalf of the Allied governments. The producers in Canada were urged to get supplies together and have them ready for export, and the goods would have been required had the war continued. I understand that this meat that was sold to Italy was of such a quality that no purchaser could be found in Canada for it. It was known as "thin" beef and the owners offered it to the Canadian public at, I believe, very fair rates. I remember conversing one day with an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who was engaged in this business in Quebec or Montreal, and he informed me that in that particular city

I think it was Quebec -you could not induce any one to purchase this beef because it was frozen or chilled. I shall endeavour to get the information my hon. friend requires about this sale of beef to Italy. I must repeat that I am not w'ell acquainted with the facts.


Frank S. Cahill: Are these bonds in the case of Italy taken at the same rate as in
the case of Rumania-5 per cent?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: At 5J per cent.


Frank S. Cahill: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not desire to delay the Committee, but it would be a mistake to allow to pass unchallenged the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cahill) and others. The hon. member's opinion that the trade policy of the Government at this time is simply pandering to the profiteer is absolutely unfounded. He evidently overlooks the fact that the market in Europe today is bare of goods of all classes, including foodstuffs, which must be supplied and will be supplied. Where will the supplies come from? Chiefly from the American continent, that is, from Canada and the United States. We can, if we choose, take advantage of this extraordinary position, by arranging Government credit-where private credit has been eliminated by the war-through no fault of the manufacturer or trader-in Rumania, Belgium and France, where the factories have been blown up and storehouses have been under German control for years. These business concerns have no organization or credit, -and the Rumanian, Belgian, or French Government, as the case may be, establishes national credit which this Government takes advantage of, and to the result of which I invite the attention of the hon. gentleman, because it is a matter of vital importance to Canada. Taking advantage of this dearth of goods in Europe, and being in the fortunate position of being able to supply those goods by the medium of Government credits replacing the shattered private credits, we are putting Canadian goods on the European market where they never were before. In other words, we are building up foreign trade. I have heard hon. gentlemen on the floor of this House chide the Government for not sending out more trade commissioners, and time and again attention has been drawn to Great

Britain, the United States, Japan and other enterprising counties that were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in sending trade commissioners the world over to develop foreign trade, Now, here we have a perfectly natural opportunity to inject our trade into the European market. I come now to the point suggested by my hon. friend from Peterborough. The argument is advanced that we should not send goods to Europe at the present time under any arrangement of Government credits. It is contended that because there is a scarcity in Canada we should keep these goods here for the local market and prevent export. Let the hon. gentleman consider this point:
Supposing we shut off these Rumanian, French and Belgian credits, what would be the result? The American buyers would come over here, buy these goods, ship them to American ports, send them into Europe as American goods, and we would be in the same position as we are in to-day, except that we would not have secured an entry into the foreign market. My hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) smiles. I speak in all seriousness when 1 say that that is exactly what would occur.


Frank S. Cahill: That would be fine; we would get our money back then.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We would get the money back then? Then the hon. gentleman hinges his whole argument upon the point whether the French, Belgian or Rumanian Government will redeem their pledges. The hon. gentleman suggests that, because of the low value of the bond, this Government is selling goods worth 100 at 72. He knows perfectly well that that is-I was going to say a false argument-but I will say an inaccurate argument. These bonds may only be worth 60 or 70 or 80 but the value of the goods fixes the amount that is paid for them in bonds. If the goods are worth 100 in gold, and the bonds are worth only 72 in gold, they will have to make up the difference in bonds.
There is another point. We were told by the hon. member for Guysborough a moment ago that this Government was encouraging the cold storage companies to hoard up meats for the purpose of shipping goods overseas. I have absolutely no sympathy with the so-called packing institutions. I have no brief for them; in fact, if I could drag anything out of them to show that they had been doing wrong I would be almost pleased to do so. But still we ought, as a Parliament, and as the leading element in this country, to send forth to the public the facts. As near as I can
243i
judge from the facts produced, the situation was simply this: There was a surplus of frozen beef last winter brought about by this condition, namely, that at the signing of the armistice current contracts-not prospective but existing contracts-were cancelled leaving, as it were in transit between the farmer and the ultimate market, large quantities of beef. My hon. friend suggests that the beef was spoiling, but experts of the Government have told us that this beef cannot spoil as long as it is-frozen and that it will keep in good condition for a long time. There is no truth in the story, or inference, that the beef was-spoiling. But there was a large accumulation at that period caused by the cancelling of these contracts. That beef was exported. As to the hoarding of other stuff in cold storage plants, no evidence has yet been brought forward, so far as I have been able to learn, eithei before the Cost of Living Commissioner or before the special committee of this House, to show that there has been a hoarding of other foodstuffs in cold storage warehouses. If that is so, we ought to know it. Let mer just again emphasize this point at issue, which is all important in connection with getting into the European market, that if we fail to take advantage of the opportunity now, we will simply give the same privilege to the American traders and 5 p.m. will not be one whit better off in Canada as far as the shortage of food is concerned. It is infinitely better for us to sell our goods at their market value in order to establish a market for future trade, even at the cosit of a slightly enhanced value here at the present time. If there is anything that should be done by this Government at all it is the fixing of the spread ait home. That possibly is a matter that may be brought to the consideration of this House a little later on, but under no circumstances should anything be done to interfere with the establishment of a Canadian foreign trade.


Frank S. Cahill: The hon. member has
given the besJt argument in the world why we should discontinue these credits. He says that the American people would buy the goods. If they did so we would be paid for them. We would get our money at the rate of 103 cents on the dollar instead of 72 cents on the dollar. The condition, according to the argument of the hon. member, is that Europe is bare of goods. I tell him that the pantries of this country are bare of goods and it is our duty to see that the people have provisions at a reasonable


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: Is that right?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: If the bonds are selling
at 72 we are not getting them at 72 but we are getting them at 100. Therefore we are losing the difference.
Mr. A. 'K. MACLEAN: We expect that these bonds, when they mature, will be at their par value of 100. If Rumanian bonds could bring par in the markets of the world they would not have to ask for credit, but they would buy their goods wherever they liked.


Frank S. Cahill: I suppose that we may expect that our dollar in New York will be iworth 100 cents but it is not so to-day; it is only worth 97. Thait condition of affairs prevails at all times and there is always fluctuation in the value of credit.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The very reason that Great Britain cannot buy to an unlimited degree in Canada is that the British pound is worth a,bout $4.60 and it is liable to go to $4 any day. If the rate of exchange was $4.86J Great Britain would not ask for credit for the goods she buys from us. The fact that Rumanian bonds are quoted at 72 does not prove that they will not be retired at par when they mature.


Frank S. Cahill: It is a mighty poor business man who pays 100 for bonds that are only worth 72. It is mighty bad business to send goods to some foreign country and take their bonds at 100 when they are only quoted at 72. There is no argument for that. The people must suffer as they are suffering. While you are telling the people that the dealers are not able 'to sell their meat in this country and that they are sending it to Italy, it is significant that the price has been increasing and is higher now than when the armistice was signed. If these dealers offered these meats to the
I Mr. Cahill.]
Canadian people they would find a ready market for them here, but perhaps the price would go down. Instead of doing that they have held them, shipped them to a foreign country and they have sold the goods on the strength of 'Canada's credit. When you take these credits which have been granted to Great Britain, that is a different proposition. The Canadian people probably owe Great Britain a billion dollars to-day, .taking into consideration the obligations of cities, corporations and municipalities. That is a matter of adjustment between Great Britain and Canada. But there is no adjustment between Italy or Rumania and Canada. When we sell goods to these countries we should take their money for what it is worth in the market. There is no question in my mind but that we are doing mighty bad business when we charge our people 100 cents on the dollar and sell to a foreign country the same goods at 72 cents.


John Hampden Burnham: The most serious question before the country to-day is the high cost of living and if we bonus certain industries at the expense of the general consumer the high cost of living for the consumer will not go down but will go up and there will be greater unrest than there is now. The hon. member (Mr. Stevens), at the close of his remarks, said that there is a great temptation to make use of, or to .take advantage of, the foreign market at the enhanced price. That is to say, the subsidized exporter is to have the benefit of this credit at the expense of the general consumer. But the general consumer will not stand for it. It is all very well to have a brilliant prospect, but it may be a rainbow dream; and that is what this is. If the money we were making by taking advantage of the foreign market and of foreign possibilities enured to the general benefit of the Canadian consumer, then the argument would be justifiable, but when ft is not so, you are, to use plain language, robbing the general consumer in order that the exporter may profit. The people of Canada are endeavouring to find out what the difliculty is, and when they find that it is because our butter, eggs, meat, and so on, .are being rushed to a foreign market which is subsidized by our own people, and that they are being tortured accordingly, I am very much mistaken if they do not rise up and call a halt, saying: The limit is the suffering which we have to endure and the extra high prices which we are asked to pay but which we refuse to pay. If we are going to play fast-and-loose with the affairs

of the country in this way and take advantage of a temptation which is only going to carry its own sting with it, any attempt to solve the difficulty will be hopeless.
There is a prevailing heresy amongst some members of this House that if you sell goods in a given market you can always buy other goods from that market; that people must have goods bought from them if they expect to buy goods from you, or you hope to sell to them. That takes no account whatever of the element of profit, all of which is comprised in the single phrase " rate of exchange." Everybody knows that when the rate of exchange is against a country, as it is against Canada and in favour of the United States at the present time, this country pays from $13,000,000, to $15,000,000 in hard cash for the privilege of having the balance of trade against it-and that is the very thing that has come up in this argument now. To my mind, it shows a complete absence of a grasp of the difficulties of the situation.
Salaries, rents, wages, and contingencies under the Canada Grain Act, $1,150,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The increase is
due to that which we have just been discussing, namely, the increase in the cost of living. The Government have to pay higher salaries to all those who are engaged in administering the Canada Grain Act. But there is this comfort: the revenue derived from the operations of the Grain Act is more than enough to pay for its operation. Up to February 28 of this year, during a period of eleven months, the fees collected amounted to $998,000, while the expenditure was $906,000, so that we have a surplus of some $92,000


John Howard Sinclair: Upon what basis are these fees collected?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They are elevator charges, fees for the inspection, weighing, and storage of wheat, and so on.
M!r. J. H. SINCLAIR: I saw some time ago a criticism by the Auditor General that these receipts had been placed to the credit of the Grain Commission and had not come into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Has that been adjusted?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That was in connection with the work of the Board of Grain Supervisors which was created to handle the wheat purchased in Canada last year and the year before by the Allied Governments. They controlled the wheat movement, designated what amount should go to the British and Allied -Governments.
and. what amount should be kept in the' country for domestic purposes, and what amount should go to the mills. The operations of this commission cease on the 31st of July, when all the wheat crop of last year will be out of the country. Unless fresh arrangements are made for financing the marketing of the Canadian crop, the Board of Grain Supervisors will not continue to exist.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the large balance that they have on hand be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund?


Michael Steele: The item under discussion has to do with the Canada Grain Act.


John Howard Sinclair: How many persons are employed in connection with the administration of the Canada Grain Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There are four members of the Grain Commission. On the inspection and weighing staff there are 140; Port Arthur elevator, 33; Moosejaw elevator, 17; Saskatoon elevator, 10; Calgary, 12; Vancouver, 3; total number of permanent employees, 224. Last year there were 254 temporary employees. This makes a grand total of 478. The total disbursement last year for salaries of permanent employees was $395,815; and wages to temporary employees amounted to $277,000: total, $673,000.


Frank S. Cahill: Who is the superintendent at Saskatoon, and what is his salary?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is no permanent superintendent at that point. The acting superintendent is Mr. Seddon, whose salary is $2,500.


Frank S. Cahill: Why has the appointment not been made, Mr. Chairman? The vacancy has existed for a couple of years, I think.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Board of Grain Commissioners are of the view that the amount of work done there does not necessitate the appointment of a permanent superintendent, and they think the present arrangements are quite sufficient.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I read in the newspapers, or was told, that the grain elevators in the Northwest and at Port Arthur and Fort William were practically commandeered by Americans last year, that they filled those elevators with their grain to the exclusion of Canadian grain, and that that is causing stagnation of trade among our own wheat producers. I submit to the minister that whatever facilities for

transportation we have should be first utilized for our own people, and that no foreign country should be permitted to take advantage of them to the exclusion of Canadian wheat growers and transporters. Of course, I am only giving you rumours, Mr. Chairman, but if such has been the case I hope it will not be permitted to occur a second time.
Mr. MA.NION: The hon. gentleman is wrong in thinking that the elevators at the head of the Lakes were so used. Some elevators down on the Georgian Bay ports had American wheat in them, and there was a certain amount of, blockade on that account. It really amounts to the same thing as the hon. member speaks of, but I just wish to make that correction.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the elevators were outside the control of the Government, I do not blame the Government. But I am referring to any facilities we have in Canada; our first duty should be to ourselves, and those facilities should not be permitted to get into foreign hands.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Of course, the Government last year could control the movement of grain in or out of all elevators, whether owned by the Government or by private individuals. It is quite true that last autumn some American wheat did come into the elevators on the Georgian Bay ports, but none went into the elevators in the Prairie Provinces or at Port Arthur or Fort William. My recollection is that about 10,000,000 bushels of American grain came into the Georgian Bay elevators, and some people were apprehensive that it would react to the detriment of Canadian interests. However, as it happened, it did not injure our interests and has not caused any delay in the export of our wheat. At the present time the wheat crop of last year has been almost wholly exported either in the form of wheat or flour; in fact, there is hardly enough wheat left in the country for milling and seeding purposes, plus whatever the Wheat Export Company want. They feel they were rather oversold. I might say that recently permission has been given for the use of our elevators and railways for the carriage of American grain in transit to, Atlantic seaboard ports for export, but we will only allow this for the next two months, July and August, and whenever any American grain gets in to. a Canadian elevator it will be only upon the understanding that the owners have shipping space for that wheat when it leaves the elevator and gets to an Atlantic seaboard
fMr. McKenzie.]
port. If we have a large crop of wheat this year in the Canadian.Northwest, as appears probable, our elevator storage capacity will be taxed to the utmost to carry our own wheat over during the winter.
To provide for the construction, acquisition, leasing or expropriation of terminal elevators, $*30,>000.
Mr. J. H. 'SINCLAIR: Are any new elevators under construction?
'Mr. A. K. 'MACLEAN: No. It is rather an emergency vote we are asking for in the event of there being an unforeseen necessity of constructing some buildings in connection with our elevator system.


John Howard Sinclair: There have been no demands for elevators this year?
Mr. A. K. (MACLEAN: I know of only two demands for elevators this year, one from Ontario, and one from Alberta. No definite decision has been reached by the Government as to whether those demands will be met.
Dominion Bureau of 'Statistics, $125,000.


Frank S. Cahill: Why the increase?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is due to the development of this particular Bureau. Arrangements have been made to acquire a much wider, and I hope, more useful range of statistics. The Bureau of Statistics is working closely in co-operation with the provinces in relation to certain statistics, and is also embarking upon a wider field of statistical work, necessitating a bigger staff to cope with the additional work.


John Howard Sinclair: Will a census be taken next year?
Mr. A. K. 'MACLEAN: I do not think so, but in 1921.


Frank S. Cahill: Has the Department of Railway Statistics been taken over by the ' Statistics Bureau?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Practically, although there has been no formal transfer yet. As soon as the Railway Bill passes Parliament there will be a formal transfer. The Bureau of 'Statistics is making preparations for taking over the work, and, in fact, has commenced to do so. When the transfer is completed the railway statistics staff will be taken over there.


Frank S. Cahill: The Minister of Railways and Canals has a Bill on the Order Paper which he intends to bring forward if the general Railway Bill does not pass this session; that is, the Bill pertaining to the

location of railways. He intimated that possibly the Railway Bill may not pass, and, as we all know, it has been up to the Senate and back here on numerous occasions. The Government have one view on certain clauses and the majority of Parliament have another view. Now


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We have power, anyway, under legislation already passed, to take over and transfer to the Bureau of 'Statistics the Statistical Branch of the Railway Department. Some of the clauses of the Railway Bill as originally drafted provided for the continuance of the statistical work of the Railway Department, but that was amended later, and the Bill as it now stands is, I think, satisfactory to all concerned.


Frank S. Cahill: In the event of its not going through Parliament this year, will the Statistical Branch 'be taken over toy the bureau?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.
Canada Year Book, $13,500.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this Canada Year Bootk a product of the Statistical Department?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why is it not all in one-item?	-
Mr. A. K. MA'CLEAN: It gives to the House a little more detail of the expenditure of the Bureau. By having this appropriation assigned directly to the Canada Year Book, the committee will readily see just what it costs to get out that publication, and perhaps it is better to have it that way. The item has been inserted in that way for a long time.


Mr. COPP:: Does this item cover the exact cost of the Canada Year Book?
Mr. A. K. MiA CLEAN: In 1918-19, up to February 28, that is, eleven months, the expenditure was $12,058.13; so this appropriation barely covers .the cost.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is that the only blue book that is published by the Statistical Department?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No; there are a number. Trade and Commerce Reports, Trade Statistical Reports, Agricultural Reports, Customs Statistics, will all be prepared and issued by the Bureau of Statistics hereafter, except one report of the customs showing the imports. Several other departments have their statistical work now
performed by this Bureau. It is hoped that ultimately all statistical work will issue from this one department.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It would be very much better, particularly for the information of members of Parliament, if all the statistical information of the different departments were found in one book.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: ' The Canada Year Book now contains figures referable to all departmental activities. The statistics of the Bureau will in the future toe on a much more elaborate and useful scale than at present. But it .takes a little time to get ready for that. I quite agree with my hon. friend that the greater compilation of statistics we have under one cover the better, particularly for the use of members of Parliament.


John Howard Sinclair: Some practical work could be done by this Bureau in connection with the proposed new methods of taxation. So far as I know it gives very little attention to questions of that kind. We want, for instance, to know how much the different provinces are levying for income tax and how that compares with the income tax levied by the Dominion. There is a proposition to levy a tax upon unimproved lands. Does this Bureau give any attention to these questions so as to give information?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the hon. member mean, to give a comparative statement as to the different income-tax laws of the provinces?


John Howard Sinclair: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think
it does.


John Howard Sinclair: That would be a practical thing for it to do. It would give us some information on the question.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would be very desirable for the Canada Year Book to contain a summary of all the taxation laws of the several provinces and of the Dominion.


John Howard Sinclair: As regards taxation of land values, if we knew the assessed value of all the land in the various provinces, under the ordinary municipal assessments and how much of that was city or town property, so that we would be able to tell how the taxation of land value affected the farmer, that would be practical information that we would find very useful, when these new methods of taxation are proposed. At present we have no source of

information on which to come to a decision whether such a tax is practicable or not.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the department purpose dealing with the last suggestion of my hon. friend, that is, as to assessable properties in Canada.
West India Cable, $3*8,933 .33.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Why are the odd cents added to this amount while the others are in round figures?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Frank S. Cahill: What is this for?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This appropriation has been in the Estimates for a long number of years, but as a matter of fact, it has never been used up to date. We have in the Maritime Provinces a person who supervises subsidized services, but no person has yet been appointed to perform this particular service.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suggest to the minister that it would be entirely irregular to pass this item in the absence of the hon. member for Lambton East (Mr. Armstrong) who has given so much time and such painstaking industry of this matter. He attends very regularly the sessions in this House, but he is not here at present.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall make the apology.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suppose it is understood that he can discuss this whenever he wants to.
To provide for the development and extension of Canadian trade, $150,000.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the explanation of this item?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is just the same amount as last year. The previous item of $180,000 has reference merely to Trade Commissioners work. These expenditures refer generally to our exhibits at fairs throughout the world. For instance, at the Lyons fair this year we had a total expenditure of $44,000. That fair took place in March and April, and Canada was very well represented; in fact, our exhibit is
EMr. Sinclair. 1
said to have been the most presentable and spectacular of any that was shown there. We had fifty stalls where Canadian products were exhibited, and, as a matter of fact, by virtue of this fair, several millions of dollars' worth of goods were sold in France, tentatively.


Frank S. Cahill: For money?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Very little money, but the mere fact of exchange conditions has prevented the consummation of the tentative sales that were made.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What does the minister understand by "tentative" sale?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A tentative sale means this, that somebody in France is willing to buy goods of a Canadian manufacturer exhibiting at Lyons within a given time if the former could make arrangements to pay for the goods. The prospective buyer might be very well off, 'but on account of exchange conditions as between France and the rest of the world he might have no means of paying. A man might be worth many millions of dollars in France and still be unable to pay for a small importation of goods from Canada.


Frank S. Cahill: There are dozens of such "tentative" bargains every day. Every boy that passes the store down here has the inclination to buy, but he is short of the money as a rule. Since we have to furnish the money to buy our own goods, I think we could very well do without this item altogether. The credit should surely be inducement enough, without spending more money to get this trade for which we are getting in return no money and no goods.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If my hon. friend had his way he would make no effort whatever to develop Canadian trade.


Frank S. Cahill: I would let the Canadian people do that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Canadian
people are very largely inexperienced in foreign trade. The Canadian producer has been kept fairly busy supplying the domestic market in recent years, and our manufactured products are not generally known throughout the world. A nation must develop as an exporting country just as a child develops into a man, and anything that facilitates our exports and advertises abroad our capacity to produce and supply the needs of foreign countries is beneficial to Canadian trade and helps to establish us abroad. If we had no exhibitions and

no fairs, if we declined to send our official representatives abroad, Canada would make no progress whatever in its export trade. We must pay for everything we import by our exports.


Frank S. Cahill: We are paying for both our imports and our exports.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Oh, no, my hon. friend is quite mistaken about that. We are exporting a great deal to some countries, and it is being paid for. I hope within a few months my hon. friend will have all the ground cut from under his feet about these credits, so that he will not be put to the trouble of making so many speeches on the inadvisability of furnishing credits. I agree with him as to the undesirability of having to do this, and the desirability of having natural trade conditions here and throughout the world, and I hope that if the Germans sign the Peace Treaty on Monday next the world will gradually, if not rapidly, reach the conditions in relation to international trade which prevailed prior to the war.


John Howard Sinclair: Did the Trade Commissioner at Paris represent us at the Lyons Fair?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
John Howard Sinclair: Did the bureau
find out anything new this year?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am sorry my hon. friend is so sceptical about this vote.


John Howard Sinclair: I am not sceptical.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I recollect that last year and the year before he was rather sceptical. I have great faith myself in any expenditure of money for scientific research purposes, and I think we are open to criticism for not having voted very much larger sums of money for that purpose in the past. It might interest my hon. friend to know that it was wholly through the Research Bureau that an industry is about to be established in his home county at Canso. A company has been organized to utilize fish waste to produce an animal food and some by-products.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it a private concern?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is private capital, but the investigations were made by the Bureau of Scientific Research. After making a very thorough investigation they succeeded in inducing a man in the province of Ontario to invest sufficient capital.


John Howard Sinclair: What kind of food will this plant produce?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Cattle feed-linseed oil cake, and products of that character. The Bureau have also been considering the desirability of securing the establishment of a similar institution on the northern coast of the province of New Brunswick, and another on the Pacific coast.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will this enterprise be able to utilize dog fish?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bureau of Scientific Research have given some attention to that matter, but I am not in a position to say how far advanced they are in their investigations. I know they are of the opinion that the plants that were erected some years ago for reducing dog fish, and which have since been abandoned, were not suitable for the purpose. They are further of the view that proper management was not secured either for the plant at Canso or for the one at Sable island, and that not sufficient scientific work was done while these plants were in operation. They think that a great many of the difficulties that confronted these plants might have been overcome had the proper men been in charge.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister may not be aware that a private company has been engaged in reducing fish offal for fertilizer for some years past. Will the new concern that is starting utilize dog fish in making cattle feed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know
whether it would be suitable for making cattle feed; I doubt very much whether it would. It would all depend on the success they had in extracting the oil from the fish.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This new concern is not being bonused at all? It is all private capital?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: All private capital. It is not being bonused.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That will come later, I suppose.	[DOT]


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: At one time it
would have been a fair question whether the

Government should assist, but private people were found who were willing to go into the enterprise.
Patent Record, $25,000.
This vote has been transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Trade and Commerce. There is no increase.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: For some years there
has been talk of discontinuing this publication, and circulars were sent around last year asking members' their opinion as to whether the publication should be continued or not. I stated myself last year that I did not think it was any good, and I think most members would find it useless to them. There is only one man in a hundred who might care to- look at it. I can never find time to read it, and I do not think it is a, good expenditure of money.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Personally, I
would be disposed to agree with my hon. friend that the publication is very apt to provoke profanity from the average person on receiving it through the mail. Nevertheless, the department feels that it is under obligation to print these records for circulation in foreign countries. The matter has not yet been fully settled. If there is any way of curtailing the expenditure I think that should be done. -However, I believe there are difficulties in the way.
Grant to Canadian Engineering Standards Association for the promotion of uniformity of standards in metallic and other products, $10,000.


Frank S. Cahill: Is this a new item?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Canadian Engineering Standards Association (incorporated 1919) is a branch of the British Engineering Standards Committee founded sixteen years ago and closely associated with the British Board of Trade. The British Engineering Standards Committee was brought into existence for the purpose of introducing uniformity (Standardization) wherever possible in taps, dies, chasers and screw threads, all types of rolled steel sections, such as beams, deck joists, rails, angles, couplings, pipings, etc., and all detail parts in engineering structures and machinery. This standardization, if accepted throughout the British Dominions, would permit of such a uniformity that a lost part, for example, in a reaping machine-bolts, nuts, plates, etc.-could be replaced by purchase from some local manufacturer, and thus a very large amount of time would be saved and a great convenience afforded to the users of such machinery. The parts of

a Canadian reaper sold in South Africa or New Zealand, for instance, could thus be forwarded from an adjacent hardware store. The aim of the Canadian Engineering Standards Association would be to provide for this standardization for Canada and to promote it by co-operation with the American standardization organizations. If it succeeds in bringing about standardization in Canada it will repay vastly more than the outlay that is likely to be involved. At present no work has been done in Canada on standardization of mechanical apparatus or parts. The field is an untouched one and it may be, therefore, a crusade of considerable magnitude to bring about the result desired. This association is comprised largely of trade engineers and it has to secure from the public a further $10,000. Their total expenditure this year they anticipate to he $20,000. They are not paid anything themselves, the work being purely voluntary. It was deemed a very good expenditure on the part of the Government to assist this voluntary organization by giving them a grant this year.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it a branch of the Manufacturers' Association?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, it is not. The British Government renders the same assistance in Great Britain, as does the government in the United States. If we can have standardization in our products, it is generally conceded, there will be a great saving the world over and in our own country.
To provide for bounty on linen yarns spun in Canada from Canadian flax, including expenses of supervision under Order in Council of September 3, 1918, $30,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Owing to war
conditions no linen thread has come forward from Great Britain since January 1, 1919. As Canada would be unlikely to secure adequate supplies, and as a suitable quality of flax is grown in sufficient quantity, in Canada, and as there were manufacturers of linens here who were disposed to undertake the spinning of linen threads and yarns from Canadian flax, an Order in Council was passed to bonus fox a limited period the manufacture of linen thread. It [DOT]is provided that the following bounty be paid for three years from 1st April, 1919, to 31st March, 1922.
. 03c per lb. on linen yarn not coarser than 12 lea or finer than 20 lea.
. 0'6c per lb. on linen yarn 20 lea and finer, but coarser than 40 lea.
.09c per lb. on linen yarn 40 lea and finer.
The total bounty is not to exceed $25,0-00 in any one year, or a total of $15,000 in the three years.

No bounty is to be payable until the day following the declaration of peace.
Resolutions reported.
On motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean the House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
Monday, June 23, 1919.