1919-06-30

SENATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 169 for the relief of Cecilia Agnes Thomasson Lukis.-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 170 for the relief of Burton Mat-tin.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 171 for the relief of Annie Elizabeth Augusta Warke.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 172 for the relief of Margaret Flora Burrows.-Mr. Wallace.
Bill No. 173 for the relief of Blanche Gray Law.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to have any official celebration of the signing of peace?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: Only one treaty of peace has been signed so far. The signing of the treaty does not bring about peace; that can only be accomplished by royal proclamation issued after the treaty has been ratified. Under the terms of the Treaty of Peace, the proclamation cannot be issued until three of the Allied powers have concurred in its ratification. It is thought by the Government that the most appropriate time for the celebration of peace will be when peace has been proclaimed by His Majesty.


Jacques Bureau: Is it the intention, then, when peace is proclaimed to have a Dominion celebration?


Robert Laird Borden: There will be eventually a proclamation of peace.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend did not tell me whether or not there would be a Dominion celebration at that time.


Robert Laird Borden: Oh, yes; so far as I am aware, it is understood that there will be a celebration. I cannot speak for the United Kingdom or for the other Dominions, but I think we should celebrate the proclamation of peace when it is issued.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT DEFAULTERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. D. MACKENZIE (Cape Breton North):: I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister of Militia a matter about which I have received communications from different parts of the country. He need not answer me now, unless he thinks proper, as I had no opportunity of giving him notice that I was going to take this matter up this morning. The communications I have received complain about the eternal worrying of people in every town and village by police constables in regard to so-called defaulters. Now that we have peace practically signed, when are we going to have peace among ourselves, and when are those fellows to be called off or some effective action taken to put an end to this eternal worrying of our people?
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia and Defence): So far as the Department of Militia is concerned, we have no police constables taking action against defaulters. I do not wish " to pass the buck," but I am afraid I will have to ask the Acting Minister of Justice to deal with my hon. friend's question.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I would like to ask the Minister of Militia to assign my question to the Acting Minister of Justice.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Acting Minister of Justice):: The hon. member will observe that there is a Bill on the Order Paper dealing with the question of the cessation of all prosecutions for offences under the Military Service Act. I may say that so far as I am informed, no other belligerent country has yet determined to no longer prosecute military defaulters, and doubtless Canada will be prepared to act as soon as any other country.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Why should Canada bother about any other country? Might I ask, why are not all defaulters put in one class and one Bill passed fixing the penalties, to put the matter on a definite basis?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. This discussion
is obviously out of order. The so-called question is not even in order, but I felt that considerable latitude ought to be permitted inasmuch as we are approaching the end of the session and the information asked for could not be obtained in the ordinary way. But iiY no case should such a matter be turned into a discussion or debate.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the minister, is it the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to cover all these cases and get rid of them once for all, as the leader of the Opposition has pointed out?


Arthur Meighen: No Bill has been determined on at all except the Bill on the Order Paper.



PEACE TREATY-LABOUR PROVISIONS.

Mr. E. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: I desire to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister as to the labour provisions adopted at the Peace Conference and embodied in the peace treaty. At the recent meeting of the American Federation of Labour, Mr. Gom-pers, the president of the Federation, read the following cablegram from Mr. Woodrow Wilson, one of the leaders of the Peace Conference :
Tour message came while I was in Belgium and reached me too late to make a full reply, but, as X indicated in an earlier message, while the labour provisions are somewhat weakened, it is the opinion of friends of labour, and my own opinion, that they are not materially weakened, and that they will constitute a most serviceable magna charta. Will cable labour provisions, but fear I will be too late for the convention.	Woodrow Wilson.
Can the right hon. gentleman give any information to the House as to the alterations which have been made to the labour clauses in the peace treaty, and in what way they have been weakened?


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman will put his question on the Order Paper I will answer it.



PEACE TREATY-COPY OF TERMS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HERBERT AMES (St. Antoine):: Will the right hon. the Prime Minister inform the House whether copies of the peace terms will be printed and available for circulation among members of the House; and, if so, when?
266}


Robert Laird Borden: I should be very glad if I could answer my hon. friend. We have a copy of the peace treaty as it was originally presented to the German plenipotentiaries. According to press reports, as well as according to official information, several amendments have since been made, and we have not yet received an authenticated copy of the treaty as finally signed.. I sent a cablegram last week inquiring of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at what date we might expect a duly authenticated copy of the treaty. As no reply has yet been received, I have cabled a further inquiry this morning.	[DOT]


Herbert Brown Ames: Will copies of the treaty be circulated among members of Parliament when available?


Robert Laird Borden: If the treaty is to be considered by Parliament it will be printed and circulated.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is the Prime Minister in a position to give the House any information in regard to the refusal of the Chinese delegation to sign the treaty?


Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX:: It may be a.
Chinese puzzle.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no information in regard to the incident beyond what has appeared in the press. It is perfectly well known that the plenipotentiaries for China were not satisfied with the decision which was reached with regard to Shantung.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 161 (from the Senate) intituled: "An Act to incorporate the Victory Trust Company."-Mr. Nickle.-E.F.
Bill No. 162 (from the Senate), intituled: "An Act for the relief of William Wesley Galbraith"-Mr. Fripp.-E.F.
Bill No. 171 (from the Senate), intituled: "An Act for the relief of Annie Elizabeth Augusta Warke"-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 169 (from the Senate) intituled: "An Act for the relief of Cecelia Agnes Thomasson Lukis."-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 173 (from the Senate), intituled: "An Act for the relief of Blanche Gray Law."-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What kind of tonnage was handled over the Pugwash Nova Scotia Railway spur to

Brickyard up to the end of March, 1919, and how much of this tonnage was outgoing, and how much incoming?
2,	How much has been paid by the Nova Sootia Clay Works, Limited, as rental for said spur?


Hon. Mr. HELD:: 1.	Four hundred and twelve (412) tons coal inward, and two thousand and sixty-seven (2,067) tons brick outward.
2.	No rental has been paid. The agreement has not yet been executed, as it is held for consideration of some points raised by Clay Works as to terms, etc.


SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT DEPARTMENT.
Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: 1.	Are there any medical, legal or other officials employed by the Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Commission, who have no overseas military record?
2.	If so, what are their names, and what salary is paid to each?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	A list of the administrative and medical officials employed by the head office of the department is to be found on the Official Report of the Debates of the House of Commons for June 18, 1919, page 3711. It is not possible at present to furnish definite information in regard to those employees of the department who might be designated " officials " within the meaning of the inquiry, but this information is being obtained. An analysis of the male staff of the department as at March 31, 1919, shows it to be comprised of the following:
Class 1. Those who have been in the C.E.F., 1,698, 70-1 per cent-
These are subdivided as follows:
Service in France	1,350 Service in England	
183 Service in Canada	
165	P.C. 79-5 10-7 9-7	P.C.Total	
Class 2. Those who have been rejected for service in the	99-9	(100)C.E.F	
Class 3. Those who are over age or under age with respect	88	3-6to service in the C.E.F	
(Total of classes 1, 2, 3, 2,043 or 84-3 per cent). Class 4. Those not in classes 1,	257	10-62 and 3	
Class 5. Those unclassified, due to incomplete returns being	247	10-2received	130	5-3Total	2,420	100
2. Answered by No. 1. 
* Hon. Mr. MURPHY:
1.	Has a new director of Medical Services in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment been appointed?
2.	If not, who is performing the duties of the office, and under what arrangement?
3.	Was the position mentioned successively offered to Lieutenant-Colonel McPherson, Captain W. C. Arnold, and Lieutenant-Colonel Wilson, and refused by each of them?
4.	Was the fact of these refusals reported to the deputy minister of the department? If so, what was the reason given for the refusal in each case?
5.	Did each of the medical officers mentioned refuse to accept the position of Chief Medical Officer because of his objection to the medical services being unnecessarily divided?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	No. 2. Pending the appointment of a director of medical services, the duties of the office are being performed by Major J. F. MeQuay, iM.D., chief inspector medical services of the department, assisted by the headquarters medical staff.
3.	No.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 3.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY-EQUIPMENT TRUST OBLIGATIONS.
Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):: 1.	What was the volume of Equipment Trust Obligations outstanding in the name of the Canadian Northern Railway when that road was taken over by the Government?
2.	What was the amount of such obligations to the Fidelity Trust Corporation of Philadelphia?
3.	Do these obligations represent a direct mortgage on equipment?
4.	If so, what percentage in value of the total equipment of the road is thus under lien?
5.	In taking over the Canadian Northern, has the Government recognized this lien on equipment to the extent of assuming the obligation involved ?
6.	If so, in what respect does such a liability differ from an ordinary bond secured by mortgage upon the physical assets of the Canadian Northern?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	$13,526,000.
2.	None of the equipment trusts were executed in favour of the Case Fidelity Trust Corporation of Philadelphia, but there are $2,659,000 of securities outstanding of equipment trusts executed in favour of the Fidelity Trust Company of Philadelphia.
3.	These bonds represent a direct mortgage on the equipment until such time as the bond issue is retired when the equipment becomes the property of the Canadian Northern Railway Company.
4.	The total cost of the equipment of the Canadian Northern railway at the time the Government took over the road was $61,398,385. Of this amount $39,588,643 was

pledged as security for the equipment bonds outstanding at that time.
5.	The Dominion Government are shareholders of the Canadian Northern railway and, as such, do not necessarily assume all its liabilities, but the equipment trust bonds are a direct liability of the Canadian Northern Kailway Company.
6.	The only difference between a bond secured by equipment and a-bond secured by mortgage upon the physical assets, is that the interest and sinking fund payable on account of equipment bonds are part of the working expenses of the railway, therefore, they have priority over interest and sinking fund payments on the bonds secured by the physical assets.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY-LIABILITIES.
Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):: 1.	Has the Government, or the Canadian National Railways, decided to assume all liability in connection with the outstanding bonds of the Canadian Northern Railway System?
2.	In the event of the net earnings of the Canadian National Railways for the current fiscal year being insufficient to meet the interest charges on the bonds of the Canadian Northern Railway System, to whom must the bondholders look for the payment of said interest?
3.	Does Government, as the possessor of the property mortgaged by the bonds of the Canadian Northern Railway System, repudiate liability for the payment of Interest charges?


Hon. Mr. KEID:: 1.	The outstanding bonds of the Canadian Northern Railway System will remain a direct liability of the Canadian Northern Railway Company and subsidiary companies.
2.	If the net earnings of the Canadian Northern railway are insufficient to pay the bond interest, the Government has arranged to provide for such interest for the current fiscal year.
3.	The Government are the owners of the capital stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and the title to the physical property is vested in the name of the Canadian Northern railway. This company is, therefore, directly liable for payment of the interest charges on the bonds issued on such property.


STEAMER CANADIAN WARRIOR.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: What rate of freight per ton did the Department of Railways and Canals receive on the 2,000 tons cargo and on the 76,000 feet of lumber carried from Montreal to Barbados and Trinidad by the Government steamer Canadian Warrior?


Hon. Mr. REID:: The Canadian Warrior is operated by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, who advise that it is not in the company's interest that rates of freight paid by private shippers should be made public. They advise full information covering the company's operations will be submitted to the shareholders, who are the Government, at the close of the company's fiscal year.
WAR SERVICE GRATUITIES.	'


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Has the Government any reasons for refusing war service gratuities to the following persons who have been discharged from military service: No. 282345, Pte. Jos. Hordenski; No. 261716, Pte. Steve Prokop ; No. 18085, Pte. Tarac Semke; No. 449044, Pte. Maksim Suet-ski; No. 448708, Pte. Nikolai Kornelow; No. 121583, Pte. John Garlick; No. 121854, Pte. Mikita. Poleschuk; No. 1010193, Pte. Jacob Koroal; No. 811448, Pte. William Sparrow; No. 7177, Pte. Jefice Parluk?
2.	If so, what are those reasons?
3.	Has the Government investigated the matter? If so, when, and by whom?
4.	What report has the commissioner made upon the matter?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	In all cases referred to, war service gratuity has been authorized to the soldiers enumerated, and instructions have been issued to the Assistant Director of Pay Services, Military District No. 11, Victoria, to make the necessary adjustments.
2,	3, and 4. Answered by No. 1.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR RETURNS.
Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):: For a return showing the tenders received for coal for the Canadian Northern Railway and Canadian National Railways, between 1st January, 1918, and 1st April, 1919, also a statement showing the tenders accepted during the same period.


Herbert John Mackie: For a copy of all correspondence between the purchasing department of the Canadian National Railways and Messrs. McKenzie and Mann, or the direct or indirect representatives, of Messrs. McKenzie and Mann, in relation to the purchase of supplies; and for a copy of all tenders, propositions or contracts between the same parties with respect to supplies.


Mr. FIELDING:: For a return showing for each year from July 1st, 1867, the amount received into the Dominion Treasury as (a) Customs duties; (b) Excise duties;	(c) Custom and Excise
duties together; also amount paid to the Governments of the provinces as (a) allowances for support of governments and legislatures; (b) annual grants of subsidy to the said governments ; (c) allowances and subsidy together, and the proportion which such payments bore to the receipts from Custom and Excise.


$100,000,000 GENERAL PURPOSE LOAN.
[Stage Direction]
'On motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That It is expedient to provide,-
1.	That the Governor in Council may, in addition to the sums now remaining unborrowed and negotiable of the loans authorized by Parliament by any Act heretofore passed, raise "by way of loan, by the issue and sale or pledge of securities of Canada, in such form, for such separate sums, at such rate of interest and upon such other terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve, such sum or sums of money as may be required, but not to exceed in the whole the sum of one hundred million dollars, for-
(a)	paying maturing loans and obligations of Canada;
(b)	carrying on of public works authorized by Parliament; and,
<c) meeting expenditures for general purposes authorized by Parliament.
2.	That when securities issued under this proposed legislation have been pledged as security for a loan, and the loan has been paid off and the pledge redeemed, the securities shall not be deemed to have been extinguished, but shall be deemed to be still alive, and may be reissued and sold or pledged as if the former pledging had not taken place.
3.	That the principal raised by way of loan under this proposed legislation and the interest thereon shall be charged upon and payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.-The Minister of Finance.
Sir THOMAS WHITE:: The purport of this resolution is to enable the Government to borrow moneys for the purposes which are mentioned and which are as follows:
(a)	paying: maturing' loans and obligations of Canada;
(b)	oarrying on of public works authorized .by Parliament; and,
<c) meeting expenditures for general purposes authorized by Parliament.
My view is that the money will be used tor the two first mentioned purposes only. 3 explained to the House the other day, in answer to a question, that the Dominion ''Government has a maturity of about $75,000,000 coming due in New York on August 1.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this the only loan for which the minister is to take authority at this session?


William Thomas White: The only general purpose loan. I took authority for a loan for demobilization and war purposes. My [DOT]hon, friend will recollect that $350,000,000 *was the amount mentioned in the Bill, and ~we took borrowing powers in respect to that. That is not connected with this transaction. This is a general purpose loan, and the money will be raised and used, first,

for the purpose of meeting the maturity which I have mentioned, and second, for the purpose of meeting our capital expenditure. Before coming to the House I received a note from my deputy pointing out that the Main Estimates contain $86,000,000 of capital expenditure, and that the Supplementary Estimates will contain $12,500,000 more. It is not at all likely that all that money will be expended in the present fiscal year; but in my Budget speech I estimated that this year there would be $50,000,000 of capital expenditure which we would be justified in borrowing. We have in this resolution asked for just as small an amount as we can get on with. There is a residue of borrowing power provided for in the Appropriation Act of last year, and we shall, in this year's Appropriation. Act, show also the unexhausted borrowing power of the Dominion.
For the information of the House I might say that we are paying off in London tomorrow a loan of about $20,000,000. We are not renewing that loan, but paying it off in cash, by borrowing the money from the British Treasury and setting it off against the moneys they owe us here.


John Ewen Sinclair: With reference
to the loan negotiated in New York about two years ago, the notes of which are due on August 1st of this year, I understand that this loan was issued at 98 and that the interest rate was 5 per cent. It has been stated in the New York papers that this loan has subsequently been put on a 6 per cent basis. Is that correct?


William Thomas White: That is an error. There was no change made, nor could there have been any change made. I remember however reading an article in the press which was most curiously confused respecting this loan. We put out two-year notes in 1917 bearing interest at 5 per cent, but the loan was issued at 98.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Sir THOMAS WHITE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 164 founded on the resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
William Thomas White: If it meets with the convenience of the leader of the Opposition I would suggest that the second reading of this Bill be now taken, in order to facilitate the business of the House. The Bill follows precisely the wording of the resolution which has been adopted.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have no objection.
On the motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 164 to authorize the raising 'by way of loan of certain sums of money for the public service was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. iBoivin in the Chair.
On section 3-power to re-issue, sell or pledge securities:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it the intention
of the minister to raise this money by issuing bonds along the same line of last year's big loan?


William Thomas White: We have under
negotiation at the present time a loan in New York. I am not able to state the precise amount, and it would be premature to make any statement as to the terms of the loan, because they are not yet settled. It is not our intention to raise the entire amount here authorized in New York. T}ie balance we shall borrow in the future, possibly in Canada or elsewhere, but I am unable to make any definite statement about that at the present time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend any statement to make as to the use to be made of this $160,000,000?


William Thomas White: I explained that a while ago, on the resolution, but evidently my hon. friend did not hear me. We have a maturity of about $75,000,000 in New York on August 1.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the old loan?


William Thomas White: Yes. We desire to pay that off, and to do that we shall have to make a new loan there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do you expect to make it at a better rate?


William Thomas White: I can assure my hon. friend we shall do the best we can in that respect.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend gave us the reassuring statement the other day that the Bank of Montreal would act as agent for the Government as usual.


William Thomas White: The negotiations are being carried on by the Bank of Montreal, through Sir Frederick Williams-Tay-lor, and myself on the one side, and the parties with whom we are negotiating on the other. The Bank of Montreal has placed all our loans. I keep in constant touch with the situation as minister, but the immediate negotiations are carried out
by the Bank of Montreal through its general manager. I am anxious that the House should realize that in our New York financing during the war we were confronted with war conditions. I took the trouble some time ago of getting a statement from a very dependable firm in New York, the William A. Bead & Company, one of the largest firms of bond dealers in the United States, as to the rates of interest which prevailed there on high class securities during the war, and I should like to put it on Hansard because 1 think it would be useful to hon. members. The letter is dated July 15, 1918, and says:
(In the midst of the war) the Dominion of Canada 5 per cent loan of April, 1921, was quoted nominally around a 6| per cent basis; that was the offering price. The British Government 5i per cent notes due 1919-1921 were quoted on a basis around 7J per cent, and the French Government 5J per cents of April, 1919, on an 8 per cent basis; both these issues being secured by first-class collateral well regarded in these markets.
Look what that meant. Here was the British Government and the French Government on a 7i arid 8 per cent basis. We were able to float our loans in New York at a lower yield of interest than the British Government, or as a matter of fact, than the British and French Governments jointly on the Securities which they issued.


John Ewen Sinclair: Did we put up any collateral?


William Thomas White: No, we have put up no collateral. Getting away from Government issues, let us see what the American Telephone and Telegraph Company did:
This company with its splendid credit has offered if40,000,000 seven-year 7 per cent notes to its stockholders with a syndicate underwriting of 3 per cent of the whole issue. Generally speaking, issues coming out in this market by corporations of the highest investment standing, have been offered around a 7J per cent to an 8 per cent basis.
Many business men here will appreciate the fact that when you are raising loans in the market you must face the conditions that prevail. When this loan was put out in 1917 we were obliged to have the money owing to the demands of the war and for our own purposes, and we faced conditions that were exceedingly difficult. The United States had just entered the war in April and had made their first Liberty Loan, and it was in August of that year that we floated this loari. We floated it for two years and paid a shade over six per cent, but in comparison. with the issues of other governments I have mentioned it was, on: the

whole, very favourable. I keep on record communications showing what the view of the Bank of Montreal was with regard to our financing at that time, so that the documents are available at any time for the information of the House. Sir Frederick Williams Taylor negotiated this loan, keeping, as I have said, in constant touch with me, and I believe he did the best that could possibly be done under the circumstances. He is a very conscientious man, anxious to the utmost to serve the interests of the Dominion, and he has had a long and wide experience. He said in his letter:
I am satisfied you have done the hest that could be done, and if the one-duarter per cent commission mentioned is conceded, it is in my opinion, a good piece of business, all things considered.
I can assure the committee that we feel very greatly the responsibility of placing these large loans, and we do the best we can in the financial conditions in which we find ourselves.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course, a loan is always to be deprecated, and I hope some day my hon. friend will keep himself out of the market. Much as I have confidence in his judgment and great ability, I must qualify that confidence by the statement that I am pleased to see my hon. friend negotiating this loan with the Bafik of Montreal as agent. The prestige of the Bank of Montreal is certainly on a par with that of the Bank of England and the Banque de France in the financial world, and it is undoubtedly to the credit of Canada that the Bank of Montreal should take up our business. What my hon. friend says about Sir Frederick Williams Taylor is perfectly true; he is the highest financial authority in the land. My hon. friend spoke of collateral securities a moment ago. It may interest him, if he did not observe the fact at the time, to know that in connection with the Anglo-French loan, which, as my hon, friend knows, was advertised in all Wall Street publications, one of the collaterals, to my great pride, was the province of Quebec bonds. The only province in the Dominion called upon to furnish collateral security was Quebec. Quebec bonds were considered exceedingly attractive, and at the time they were quoted at a higher rate than bonds of the Dominion. In connection with this loan, which the present one purposes to wipe out, will the holders of those notes be able to exchange?


William Thomas White: They will be paid off in cash. It is the only way the trans-

action can be carried out. If any of them desire to subscribe to the new loan, they can do so.


John Ewen Sinclair: Will the minister explain clause 3?


William Thomas White: The explanation I gave the other night was concurred in by the former Minister of Finance, the member for Queens and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding). The occasion of pledging these bonds is not at all likely to arise. This is what you might call a standard clause inserted in the Dominion's borrowing bill. The clause arose out of a decision in the House of Lords a few years ago, which held that where the debentures of a tramways company, secured upon the assets of that company, had been pledged to a bank, and were afterwards got in by the paying off of the amount borrowed upon them, they could not be reissued. It had been the practice, as it is to-.day, for a company once its issue is authorized by its shareholders, to borrow temporarily against the bonds. Let us assume that $100,000 of bonds were pledged for a loan of $50,000. The company, when the period arrived for the bonds to be sold, would pay off the $50,000 and get back the $100,000 of bonds and issue them to the public. That was done, I suppose, by all companies in the Empire at that time, but when that decision came out it was found that it was unlawful to sell the bonds once they had been pledged. This provides, therefore, that notwithstanding their pledge for a loan, upon the pledge being paid off, the bonds may be issued just as if they had not been pledged. In other words, this clause keeps the bonds alive.


John Ewen Sinclair: Does this mean that bonds, if they are pledged to secure a loan, can be re-issued prior to maturity or after maturity?


William Thomas White: It only refers to redemption. When securities issued have been pledged as security for a loan and the loan has been paid off and the pledge redeemed, the securities shall not be deemed to have been extinguished.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The great object which my hon. friend should have in view, in order to get as favourable a rate as possible, should be the re-establishment of the sound financial credit of the Dominion. I would not like to enter into any controversial discussion at the present time on the railway policy of the Government, although much could be said on the question, which would prove without doubt that the Govern-

ment's policy will ultimately have very serious effect on our credit. But if my hon. friend would only state that the Government does not intend to carry out the negotiations which were so much talked of at the beginning of the session about the Grand Trunk, he Svould certainly enhance the credit of Canada. I am told that in England the bondholders of the Grand Trunk have in the press and even in Parliament questioned very much the proposed legislation of the Government. We have not heard anything on the subject for some weeks, and I consider that if that project were abandoned, an announcement to that effect would certainly help the minister in negotiating any future loan.


William Thomas White: I may say that the negotiations with the Grand Trunk are still proceeding.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Quietly?


William Thomas White: Well, we have had several interviews with Mr. Kelley, representing the Grand Trunk Railway Board. We had a proposal from the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and have been making certain investigations as to allegations that in some respects the findings of Messrs. Drayton and Acworth were not entirely accurate, particularly with regard to the amount set aside for depreciation by the Grand Trunk from year to year, and the amount accumulated in reserves of subsidiary companies. Further than that, I am not in a position to make any statement to-day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am rather pleased
to hear the statement of my hon. friend and the public will read between the lines when his speech is presented to it. It seems to me that the Government has practically decided to deal fairly with the Grand Trunk Railway Company on this question and not to take the company by the throat and thereby involve Canada in a serious financial tangle.


William Thomas White: The Government's course throughout, I think has been very fair towards the Grand Trunk Railway Company having regard to its financial position and its heavy liabilities respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. I stated in the House on more than one occasion that the Government desired to be fair but the Government is the trustee for the 'Canadian public and it is its duty to see that if the Grand Trunk railway is taken over it shall be on terms that will npt only be fair to the Grand Trunk Railway 'Company but fair also to the Canadian people whom we represent.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister has told
us that the expenditure, according to the Estimates this year, on capital account alone will be about $92,000,000. The Main Estimates make provision for an expenditure on capital account of about $80,000,000 and the Supplementary Estimates provide for further expenditures to the extent of about $12,000,000, making, on capital account, only, an expenditure of some $92,000,000. I would like to remind the minister that in 1910-11 the total expenditure of the Dominion of Canada for all public purposes was only $87,000,000 as shown by the public accounts. On that occasion the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), then leader of the Opposition, stated not only in Parliament but out of it that the expenditure was prima facie evidence of reckless extravagance and incompetent administration. That was part of the manifesto of the then leader of the Opposition in 1911. I wish to remind the Minister of Finance that it is a startling state of affairs when we find that the expenditure on capital account this year, in the midst of hard times and difficulty in getting money, is $92,000,000. I do think that the Finance Minister could have held the Estimates down more than he has done this year. When expenditures are to be made, and money is to be raised, I can readily understand that the Minister of Finance has no alternative but to find the money as best he can but it is a good plan for the Minister of Finance to try and keep out of these difficulties and not allow the Government to commit itself to these extraordinary expenditures. I think, Sir, that during the war years-and this is called a war year-we have kept on too much 12 noon sail in the way of expenditure and that really very little notice has been given of the great necessity for cutting down expenditures. We could have done that. If the Finance Minister will look back to what is getting to be perhaps ancient history now, although it was only in 1909, he will find that we had a sudden drop of something like $12,000,000 or $15,000,000 in the revenue of this country. He will also recall that the Finance Minister of that day immediately dropped the expenditure so that we came out a little better than even that year. I wish to protest against keeping on full sail in regard to expenditure when we are not getting the money to spend, and when now, and for

the future, we should, as much as possible, live within our means and measure our expenditure by the amount of our income and avoid borrowing as far as possible.


William Thomas White: I take no exception whatever to what my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) has said. I confess there is a great deal of wisdom in it. The expenditures on capital account are undoubtedly large but it has to be borne in mind that included in the amount is our shipbuilding programme which is 'keeping employed thousands of men in various parts of the country. I must pay a tribute to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell). I think that, remembering the pressure that has been put upon him from all parts of tha-country, he has had regard .to what my hon. friend has put forward. This is a war year and in all the nations that have been engaged in the war very large expenditures are being made. It is not' too much to say that in certain of the nations money is being poured out in order to prevent the disturbances which would occur if thousands of men were thrown out of work. In Great Britain they are paying out money at the rate of millions of pounds a day in order to prevent unemployment, notwithstanding which they have a very troubled industrial situation. In the transition period between war and the firm establishment of peace, all nations find themselves in the position that Governments are 'looked to to find work as far as they can and to prevent unemployment and hardship with consequent unrest and disturbance. We have a pretty large programme in this country. I have thought a great deal about it and I do not dissent very strongly from what the hon. gentleman has said. We must look forward to the period, as I stated in the Budget, in which the artificial character of our business in Canada must be changed and industry got back to a normal peace basis.
I would submit for the consideration of the Committee that if we had suddenly shut off expenditures after November last upon shipbuilding and other enterprises in which we were engaged, and, had refrained from going ahead with public works which give employment in cities, we would have had a very serious situation on hand, and, more than that and worse than that, there would have been a great deal of human suffering in this country. That is all I can usefully say.


John Ewen Sinclair: The Treaty of Peace has been signed, we all heard the

guns this morning and the news was very welcome. Is the minister in a position to give the Committee any information as regards Canada's share of the German indemnity, how much it is going to be and when we may expect it to be paid?


William Thomas White: I am unable to answer the question of my hon. friend. Our claims have been filed by our representatives in the negotiations leading up to the signing of the treaty.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the amount of the claim?


William Thomas White: There was first the amount of our war expenditure which was something like a billion and a half of dollars.
Then there was the capitalization of our pensions; I have forgotten the amount, but it was very large. Then, there were the claims for direct damage to our shipping and to some of our nationals through the illegal operations of German submarines. The claim has been put in, as I have stated, but what dividend will be declared I am unable to state. In my Budget speech I mentioned that it would be better for us, while pressing our claims against Germany, to depend upon our own resources for meeting our debt. I do not mean to say that Canada will not obtain a substantial indemnity from Germany, but how much and when obviously I cannot say.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Resolved, That it is expedient,-
1.	To consolidate and amend the Acts respecting- the Ottawa Improvement Commission.
2,	To authorize the Minister of Finance to *pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada the sum of $ lfiO, O'O 0 annually, for a period not exceeding ten years from the first day of July, 1919; in four equal quarterly instalment®, payable on the first days of April, July, October and January, respectively, in each year; the first of such quarterly instalments to be paid on the first day of July, 1919, the amount of each instalment to be paid by the minister into a chartered bank, to be designated by him, to the credit of the Ottawa Improvement Commission, to be expended as prescribed for all or any of the purposes for which the commission is authorized under the proposed consolidated legislation to expend sums placed to its credit.
William Thomas White: Under legislation of this House in 1899 and 1909, provision

was made for a grant, which finally amounted to $100,000 a year, to the Ottawa Improvement Commission, which was constituted for the purpose of the systematic planning and beautification of the city of Ottawa and the establishment of parks and driveways for the benefit of the people and of visitors to the Capital. During the war the work has been considerably interrupted; the amount which the commission received has been practically all required for the maintenance of existing parks, driveways and other properties which they have had under administration, and for the taking up of debentures which matured from year to year. The grant to the Ottawa Improvement Commission, while it was a recognition of the responsibility of the Dominion Government tow'ards the capital of Canada, was also, by the express terms of the legislation, a part of the consideration to the city of Ottawa for fire protection, water, and other services which the Dominion Government enjoyed from the municipality.
I stated that $100,000 was the yearly grant which was finally made under the legislation, and that amount has been paid for the last ten years. In addition to that there is a sum of $15,000 a year which is paid for the services or some of the services which I have mentioned. The agreement with the city of Ottawa respecting these services and the legislation respecting the Ottawa Improvement Commission terminated on June 30 of this year. It became necessary, therefore, to negotiate a new agreement with the city of Ottawa for the services which I have mentioned and to consider what grant should be made by new legislation to the Ottawa Improvement Commission. The two questions have been taken up in negotiations which have been carried on with the Ottawa municipal authorities by a committee of the Council of which the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Carvell has been chairman, and I believe that an agreement has been reached. I am unable to give the details of that agreement; they will be given by the Minister of Public Works, who will introduce a Bill for the purpose of sanctioning the agreement. The amount of $150,000 which is provided by this resolution was part of the consideration passing from the Government to the city of Ottawa in the agreement which has just been negotiated; I am therefore asking the Committee to approve the resolution so that we may introduce a Bill for the purpose of defining the services which the Dominion Government will get and of setting forth the other consideration
which we shall pay. It was thought advisable, as the Dominion Government has a direct and intermediate interest in the Ottawa Improvement Commission, that the legislation respecting it should be separate. In order that the Committee may know the purposes to which the $150,000 will be devoted for the coming year, I may say that amount of $102,000 will be needed for maintenance, leaving only $48,000 for any new work. The whole of this balance could be expended, and probably will be, on the extension of the retaining wall of the Rideau canal from Laurier avenue southwest, a very necessary work which the commission is taking over from the Department of Railways and Canals. The plans of the commission are fairly extensive for the future, but it is not advisable that publicity should be given to them, as that might lead to speculation in land. The commission does not make public its plans in advance of acquiring properties; but for the present year, as I have said, the programme is a fairly simple one.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What was the vote at first, under the Act of 1899, and how has it been extended from time to time?


William Thomas White: Speaking from
memory, I understand -that in 1899 the vote was $60,000 a year. The commission was given the power to issue debentures which were to mature not beyond a certain date.


Mr. COPP:: Was the commission appointed by the Dominion Government?


William Thomas White: Yes, in 1899 the Government of that day created the Ottawa Improvement Commission and named its members, Sir Henry Bate being the chairman.
I may say that the laite 'Sir Wilfrid Laurier took a very keen interest in the work of this comiriission. I talked over a number of matters with him, and I do not recall anything in which he was more interested. In 1909 the amount was increased from $60,000 to $100,000 a year, and a further grant of $15,000 was given for water service for fire protection, I think, or for both. The grant therefore was $115,000 a year. That money was used ih Ithe first instance for the acquisition of properties, 'and the commission, by issuing 'debentures and raising money on them, employed those funds also for the same purpose. Then, when they acquired the properties and got their drives and parks established, the maintenance charges, of course, became considerable, so that the $115,000 was practically spent in this way in recent years: $15,000 went direct to the

city of Ottawa for the services I have mentioned, and the $100,000 a year was used for maintenance and for the retirement, as they matured, of the debentures which had been issued by the commission. The last debenture matures on July 1, and will be taken up from this grant of . $150,000. I was talking to Sir Henry Egan the other day about the terms and he estimated that the maintenance charges, leaving out the payment off of this debenture, were about $75,000 a year. With the payment off of the debenture, I think something like $100,000 will be required this year, apart from expenditure on any new work, and the balance will be taken up in building retaining walls along the Rideau canal.


John Ewen Sinclair: Does the city contribute anything towards the maintenance?


William Thomas White: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who is the president oi the commission?


William Thomas White: Sir Henry Egan. During the last few years very little has been spent on new work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the reference made by my hon. friend I suppose he had in mind the results of the negotiations that have taken place between the very progressive mayor of the city, Mr. Fisher, and the Minister of Public Works. Might I ask, is the city of Ottawa satisfied with the offer, made by the Government? At the time the letters which were exchanged between the Hon. Mr. iCarvell and His Worship the Mayor appeared in the press I noticed that his worship was pleading very earnestly for better terms. Will this resolution embody a settlement satisfactory to the city?


William Thomas White: I understand from the Minister of Public Works that they have practically agreed upon the terms, one of which is contained in the resolution which is now before the committee. I assume therefore, that the negotiations have been handled quite satisfactorily to all concerned. Of course, my hon. friend knows that there are always two parties to a negotiation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thought His Worship the Mayor made a strong point when he stated that the fact that Ottawa was the capital of the Dominion reduced the city's tax revenue and thereby prevented the city from giving the necessary aid to industries which otherwise would find their way to the city. Of course, Ottawa is magnificently situated and lends itself to the development of industries by reason of its enor-

mous water-power. That was, in my judgment, a very strong argument. Of course, I know there are two sides to the question, and that the seat of Government being here brings quite a population to the city and is a very great advantage. I suppose we shall hear from the Minister of Public Works as to what conclusions have been reached.


William Thomas White: Yes.
Mr. McKENZIE": I always understood that we had certain control, and I would expect that a Government engineer, for instance, who is an expert in these matters should have something to say as to where this money should be expended and how. I am rather surprised that the Mayor based his [DOT] plea for more money upon the ground that the seat of Government should not be here at all-that it is a disadvantage to Ottawa I might instance the city of Halifax, which is happy to look after the Provincial Parliament and Provincial Government property. There are millions of dollars worth of Government property in that city not paying a single farthing of taxation. At one time a man introduced a Bill in the local legislature to impose a municipal tax upon Government property in the city, but when the Bill came on for its first reading he could not get anybody to support it. I am pleased to be a party to giving money for the ordinary beautification of the capital city of the Dominion, but I do not want the Mayor of Ottawa or anybody else to think for a moment that we are paying tribute to .the city to be permitted to stay here. I think the advantage is entirely the other way, and that any other city would be only too proud to be constituted the capital.


William Thomas White: I may say, Mr. Chairman, that all expenditures by the commission have to be approved by the Governor in Council. An estimate is made of what the commission desires to do, and that is laid before the Government and approved before the commission proceeds with the work. That is provided for in the Bill which I will introduce afterwards.


John Ewen Sinclair: I quite agree with the statement made by the leader of the Opposition. I was under the impression that the city contribute to the maintenance of the public parks-.


William Thomas White: I was speaking only of the Ottawa Improvement Commission's properties. There are certain properties in the city which the city does maintain.


John Ewen Sinclair: But I mean the grounds of the Ottawa Improvement Commission, which are very extensive as we all know, and a great credit to the commission. But it must be remembered that people who come to Ottawa from other parts of Canada spend the winter here as a rule, and the parks are no good to them.
During the summer season, when the parks are really an advantage to the citizens of Ottawa, and they have the use of them, the money is expended. That is one reason why they should not press too hard for those concessions for which the (Mayor of Ottawa has been asking. I am quite in favour of the expenditure in beautifying the city of Ottawa; we are all very proud of it, and we want to make it as fine a city as possible. What the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) said about the late leader of the Opposition is quite true. He took a very lively interest in the Ottawa Improvement Commission, and I remember hearing him say once that when he got too old to lead a party in the House of Commons, he would like to be Chairman of the Ottaw.a Improvement Commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I must not be misunderstood. The Mayor of Ottawa, Mr. Fisher, never regretted the fact that the city of Ottawa was the seat of the Government, but he, representing the citizens of Ottawa, had to speak of the tax exemption enjoyed by the'Government and realizing the very large amount which the exemption involved, he certainly had a right to comment on that. I repeat that the point he raised last winter was a very strong one. The fact that the Government enjoys a tax exemption, which tax, if the Government did not enjoy such exemption, would yield a very large revenue to the city of Ottawa, makes it so that the citizens are heavily burdened, and the city is unable to aid certain industries which would otherwise establish themselves here. Of course the Government does a great deal for Ottawa by the fact that it is here, but the city is unique as a site for a capital. There are I know arguments pro and con, but I claim the city of Ottawa is doing as much as is being done for the city of Ottawa. But this is a matter of business which can be settled, after friendly negotiations as was hinted by the Minister of Finance.


Mr. FONTAINE:: Is this sum supposed
to be spent only in the city of Ottawa? I understand that the law provides that it could be spent in Ottawa and in surrounding municipalities. As a matter of fact, in
1910 or 1911, the city of Hull received the sum of $5,000 out of this fund to improve one of its parks, and I presume we received that under the provisions of the Act. It is all right to make a beautiful city of Ottawa, but it would be too bad if visitors, after leaving the beautiful city of Ottawa, were to cross over to Hull and see such a difference between the two cities. The Government should see to it that the city of Hull-


Ernest Lapointe: The free city of Hull.


Joseph-Éloi Fontaine: Yes, the free city of Hull, receives a share of this sum once more. I understand that the law permits the spending of this money not only in the city of Ottawa, but in the surrounding municipalities, including the city of Hull. As a matter of fact, when I was mayor of Hull, in 1911, we secured a certain amount of money from the Improvement Commission, but that, of course, was during the regime of the late Government under the leadership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Sir THOMAS' WHITE: The Bill provides that:
The commission may purchase, acquire, and hold' real property in the city of Ottawa, or in the vicinity thereof, for the purpose of public parks or squares, streets, avenues, drives or thoroughfares.
It is for the Ottawa Improvement Commission in the first place to determine the plans which it will carry out, and as I stated, they are then laid before the Government for its approval.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Three years ago a magnificent plan was published in connection with the Improvement Commission. It was distributed to the members, and it, of course, involved a much larger expenditure than the one mentioned this morning. What has become of this plan, and has the Government reached any decision as regards those extensive improvements?


William Thomas White: The plan was made in order that the city might have the benefit of a certain systematic development. The object of the plan was the beautification of the city of 'Ottawa as the capital of the Dominion. The planning was carried out by a commission of which Sir Herbert Holt was chairman, and on that commission were, amongst others, Mr. Frank Darling, a very eminent architect of Toronto; Mr. Cousins, of Toronto, an engineer of ability and standing, and Sir Alexandre Lacoste. They engaged a town planning architect, Mr. Bennett, of Chicago, and the result was a plan which, I think,

met generally with the approval of the pep-ple of Ottawa. The idea was that all interests, transportation, municipal and governmental, should, in connection with the buildings which they found it necessary to erect, or the streets which it was found necessary to lay out, follow that plan. That course was adopted in connection with the city of Washington which has had the bene-fit_ of working to a plan which was drawn for its development many years ago by a very distinguished French town-planning architect.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Le Captaine Lenfant.


William Thomas White: The members of the 'committee wall realize what that plan has meant to the city of Washington, which is one of the most beautifully laid out cities in the world. As regards the Dominion Government, we shall endeavour to follow, in any buildings which we erect, the lines laid down in the plan mentioned, and it is hoped that the railway companies, and also the municipal authorities, will do likewise. During the war, expenditure naturally could not be made upon projects of that kind, and at the present time there is need for expenditure, more upon essentials than upon the matter of beautification, but I hope that the plan will mean much to the further development of the city of Ottawa, and that all parties concerned will work to it.


Mr. FRIPP:: I should like to assure the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) that the citizens of Ottawa fully appreciate all the advantages of having the capital city in their midst. At the same time we are giving the Government of Canada many advantages for which the citizens of Ottawa think they are not fully compensated. As regards the present resolution, which provides for a grant of $150,000 for the Ottawa Improvement Commission, I pointed out to the House on a previous occasion during this session, that the city of Ottawa does not in any way control the expenditure of that sum or have anything whatever to do with it. While we do not directly contribute towards it, we do indirectly; the grant that is made to the Improvement Commission is partly in consideration of services which are rendered by the city of Ottawa in the way of fire protection, sewers, water, and other matters of that kind. The payment to the city of Ottawa direct is I understand now the subject of an agreement between the city and the committee of which the Minister of Public Works is

chairman. I always felt that the mayor made out a very good case for the Government's paying the city at least $800,000 a year in consideration of the benefits derived. I am told that the agreement which the city have reluctantly accepted provides for a very much smaller sum. However, as it has been agreed upon and accepted by the mayor and corporation I presume that Parliament will pass the Bill when it is brought down.


Mr. PEDLOW:: I am sure that the city of Ottawa will take all that is given to it by the Dominion Government, and apparently look for more. I should like to know whether this $150,000 is included in the agreement now under negotiation between the city and the Minister of Public Works for t|ie Government, or is it a separate item? My hon. friend (Mr. Fripp") considers the mayor has made out a good case for the Government paying the city $800,000 annually. On looking over the Estimates passed this session under the Department of Public Works I find that a total of $733,616.20 has already been voted to be spent in the city of Ottawa during the coming year. On page 70 of the Estimates, under item 115, I find $6,616.20 for local improvements on Carling Avenue; on page 72, under item 121, $450,000 for repairs, furniture, grounds, snow and street maintenance, etc.; on page 78, under item 132, $120,000 to replace the present Union bridge over the Ottawa river below Chaudiere, and on the same page an item of $7,000 for maintenance and repair of bridges and approaches. These amounts to be spent by the Dominion Government in the city of Ottawa during the coming year aggregate $733,616.20. So the interests of Ottawa are not being neglected.
I remember also that the Minister of Public Works explained that one of the items Parliament has voted included an amount of $11,000 for salaries in connection with the upkeep of one mile of Wellington street, for which stretch the Government is responsible, I submit that that is a pretty liberal contribution in wages alone; in addition to that there is the machinery, the road material, and other et ceieras. We are all interested in Ottawa, and would like to see it put on its best bib and tucker at all times, .so that visitors from the United States and elsewhere will have something worth while to look at, and will form a good impression not only of the capital but of the whole Dominion.


Jacques Bureau: The members are enough for the visitors to look at.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: So I do not think Ottawa has anything to complain of.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
*Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 165, to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting the Ottawa Improvement Commission, founded on the resolution.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 159, to amend the Dominion Lands Acft Amendment.
Jacques Bureau: Would the minister give a general explanation of the proposed amendments to the Act?


Arthur Meighen: I might say that we discussed them on the resolution which has been passed. The first section raises *the rate of interest on pre-emptions from 5 to 6 per cent; the second section makes the same change in respect of purchased homesteads. The third section provides for the sale of surface rights in the case of school lands in certain cases where mining rights have been obtained but could not be exercised without injuring the surface. The provinces, of course, are interested and have agreed to this amendment. Section 4 provides for greater latitude in the area of timber leased for pulp purposes. It has been found that the areas limited by the Act, which never had regard for pulp at all, are insufficient to warrant the establishment of any extensive pulp industry.


Jacques Bureau: What was 'the area undei the old Act?


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend will find it in section 59; I will send him over a copy. Another section provides for increasing the rate of interest on money payable in respect of timber lands. It is simply carrying out the principle we have adopted of making the regular rate of interest 6 per cent. The rate of interest on arrears is made 7 per cent. Section 7 amends section 10 of the present Act by accepting land reserved for soldiers' settlement. Section 10 of the Act as d't now stands provides for squatters' rights. This Bill will accept lands reserved for soldier settlement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-rate of interest increased on overdue instalments for pre-emptions:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is the rate fixed in these
agreements?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the rate of interest is fixed, and we do not alter any agreement already made. In these cases, I notify the party who is in arrears that he must pay up, and if he is not ready to do so I submit to him a form of agreement in which he undertakes to pay interest on arrears at seven per cent. That has been the policy in relation to school lands ever since the House established seven per cent as the rate on arrears. I would suggest,, with the consent of the committee, that clauses one and two be allowed to stand: for the present. At the moment, it seems to me that it should be from five to seven instead of from five to six per cent. I am not sure why it is printed as it is.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-sale of surface rights in certain cases to lessee of mining rights:
Jacques Bureau: Is it the object of this clause to recoup those who are entitled to the value of the land for the uselessness of surface as a result of mining operations.


Arthur Meighen: No, this does not purport to deal with any land alienated at all. This has reference to land unsold. It provides for the sale of surface rights where the mining rights have been acquired, without submitting surface rights to auction sale. The Dominion Lands Act provides that school lands must be sold by auction.. If it is found in certain cases that mining rights cannot be used for farming, and can be of value only to the owner of mining rights, it would not do to sell them by auction. So that we communicated with the governments of the three provinces and obtained their assent to an amendment to enable us to fix the valuation of the surface rights and sell them to owners of mining rights at these valuations. It does not apply to lands other people own, but only to lands owned by the Grown.


Jacques Bureau: There are two separate interests, the surface and the mining. When a man acquires the mining rights, he has to acquire the surface in order to exploit his mine.


Arthur Meighen: He may have to acquire it if the mine runs close to the surface.
On section 4-limit of area to be included in timber permits:


Jacques Bureau: I suppose this is necessary on account of the new industries of pulp and paper being established in certain areas of public lands?


Arthur Meighen: Exactly.


Jacques Bureau: On what law was this based: on the ordinary regulations of the provinces that lease their lands for pulp and paper exploitation?


Arthur Meighen: I think it is based on the regulations of Quebec. It enables the Governor in Council to extend the area that may be leased for purposes of pulpwood exploitation. At Grand. Rapids, in Manitoba,. 35,000 horse-power development is under way, and can he utilized certainly to the best advantage, and probably only, for the purposes of pulp mills. It is impossible for capital to invest in the magnitude it must invest to establish a pulp industry there, unless there are areas that can supply the industry, and which areas can be assured. The present regulations do not provide for any such area, and this enables the Governor in Council to make the necessary provision, dependent in each case upon the surrounding circumstances. The Government of Manitoba is most anxious for this alteration to be made. Naturally, they desire this industry to be established at Grand Rapids.


Jacques Bureau: The section does not seem to me to be based to any great extent on the Quebec regulations, except in the fact that the lease will last only one year. The section reads:
Notwithstanding the foregoing subsection, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the minister that the establishment of a paper or pulp-mill requiring large capital expenditure is dependent upon the acquiring of the right to cut pulp-wood in the vicinity of such mill in sufficient quantity to justify such expenditure, the minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council and subject to such regulations as the Governor in Council may provide, enter into an agreement granting the exclusive right to cut timber for pulpwood within a specified area until the specified quantity which has been agreed upon as justifying the expenditure shall have been cut.
In Quebec a man goes before the Government and makes application for the acquirement of certain timber limits. The 'Government advertises these limits for sale on a certain day, and the highest bidder secures them. Of course, the man acquiring them has to pay the ground rent yearly and stumpage according to the number of logs cut, but he does not get any concession from the Government by reason of the importance of the industry which he wishes

to establish. The first thing he has to get is the raw material, or timber, and he can secure this only in competition at public auction with all lumbermen or people desiring to obtain timber limits, and the sale is made on a day fixed by the Minister of Lands and Forests. He may ask the department to put a certain area on the market, but that is the only extent to which he may be considered as being privileged, all the rest being done by competition in the open market. In this case, if a man says he wants a certain area for the purpose of establishing a mill, and that he cannot properly and with any benefit exploit that industry unless he secures additional lands, the minister may recommend to the Government that such an area be granted to him. Is that right?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: So that the public are
excluded from any competition, and have no ojjportunity to buy the land if they desire.


Arthur Meighen: The reason for that is
that the timber cannot possibly be used for pulp purposes except by those who are developing the power. The power is administered by the Water Power Branch of the department, and power rights were in some cases obtained years ago. The area could be of no value to any one else, and that is the position in which we find ourselves. If the area were put up for auction it would either mean that competitors who would otherwise go there for the purpose of forcing the hand of the owner, of power concessions would be bought off, or there would be no sale on account of these men endeavouring to make money out of the only ones who could establish an industry there and take advantage of the opportunities.
It seemed to me that the only thing that could be done-and this was the view of the Manitoba Government-was to enable the Government to place a valuation on it, by means of so much stumpage, the payment of rental and so forth, fix that at a fair price and give a lease on those terms to the owners of the power concession. I do not know when the power rights were given. They are conditional. Power rights are not alienated; they are conditional upon certain expenditures being made and on certain development going on. Power rights are given, wherever they are owned by the Crown, after the fullest engineer investigation to see that development along the lines proposed by the concessionaires is practically feasible. That is the method

of our power administration. Once you have them in the hands of a company there is no way by which you can usefully put the timber up and sell it except in connection with the power site. The reason is that it is so far from civilization and from the inhabited part of the province that it is useful only for the purposes in connection with the power site and it could not be developed profitably in any other way except by the use of the power in that locality.


Jacques Bureau: This seems to be rather a drastic measure. I understand there is one case in which this measure would apply and that by an agreement which is to be entered into between the owner of a power and pulp mill ,and the Government he is to have the exclusive right to cut timber for pulpwood within a specified area and for a specified time. I do not see why a man should be held up by an act of this kind. If a man is going to invest money in pulpwood and if power is absolutely necessary to exploit this pulpwood, he is taking a big chance in the event of matters coming to a deadlock. I do not think there is a man who would be foolish enough to invest his money in the business on these terms if pulpwood is worth as much in Manitoba as it is in the region of the St. Maurice river.


Arthur Meighen: It would be of no value otherwise and we would get no value for it.


Jacques Bureau: Is it the fact that this power can only be used for the purpose of grinding pulp?


Arthur Meighen: That is the only purpose for which it can be used on account of its location. My hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Cruise) would know the location better than I would but any one who looks at the map will see that it could not be used for any other purpose.


Jacques Bureau: Is this only an exceptional case we are legislating for now?


Arthur Meighen: This is the only case we have in mind, but there may be others on the Nelson and Saskatchewan rivers and in some other similar positions.


Jacques Bureau: If this is only to meet an exceptional case and to prevent a hardship to some important interest in Manitoba, well and good, but I think the principle is wrong if this legislation means that when a man goes and buys a water-power it will preclude anybody else from going into that region and buying pulpwood. There may be small mills operated by steam generated by the use of the refuse from the wood. This is not exactly a restraint upon trade, but it is an impediment to the development of the natural resources of a part of the country. Still, if it is an exceptional case, we will have to consent to this legislation because we do not want to block anything, but I would suggest that this special case should be defined. Grand Rapids, I understand, is the name of the place to which this legislation applies?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Then Grand Rapids ought to be mentioned so that the law will apply only to the particular case that the Government now has in view, because people might try to create conditions that, in the opinion of the minister, or those interested, would be like those at Grand Rapids, whereas they would not be in fact.
At one o'clock the Committee took recess.
The Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Jacques Bureau: I was asking the minister when the committee rose whether it would not be possible to specify the cases where forests might not be exploited unless the method mentioned in section 4 was followed.


Arthur Meighen: I have since had a discussion on the subject with the deputy minister, and he states that a pulp limit in the West, if you could call it a limit, would be virtually in the same position as -the one referred to here; there might be exceptions, but he thinks not. Our pulp timber in Western Canada is not like the pulp timber of Quebec. The northern areas of the province of Quebec comprise much solid bush, heavily timbered; ours is scattered and the bush is smaller, and it would be difficult to make up anything that could be called a pulp section unless there was power immediately adjoining. Very large areas will have to be given where there is a power site adjoining, but the deputy minister points out that unless the conditions obtaining are similar to those which obtain at Grand Rapids, of course the regular clauses would apply, and the department would put the land up at auction in the ordinary course. But there will certainly be other cases the same as the Grand Rapids case, and on that ground the clause should pass as it is.


Jacques Bureau: Are these pulp areas adjacent to rivers and streams?


Arthur Meighen: There is a short river at Grand Rapids, near where the power is; but the concession will have to extend quite a distance from that.


Jacques Bureau: Is there no means of carrying the logs down by water? In the St. Maurice region the logs are put in the small rivers and streams, and when the spring freshets cause the water to rise the logs are borne down to the main river where the power and mills are located.


Arthur Meighen: They might go some distance down the Saskatchewan river to Grand Rapids; I am not quite certain of that. They would have to go through some lakes on the way.


Jacques Bureau: That is easy.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but the idea is not to give concessions up the river; it is to grant certain areas in the vicinity of the power section.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 7-settling on lands reserved for soldier settlement.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister explain this clause?


Arthur Meighen: The following is the clause in the Act as it stands, without the proposed amendment:
A person who has bona fide settled and made improvements on agricultural land before the survey thereof and is in occupation of and ordinarily resident on the land at the time of survey shall, if he is eligible under this Act to make entry for a homestead, or a purchased homestead, have a prior right to obtain entry for the land so settled on: Provided that this right is exercised within six months after notice in writing that the land is open for entry has been given by the local agent to the said person, or has been posted in a conspicuous place on the land; and that entry shall not be allowed for more than a quarter-section as a homestead.
By .section 7 of (this Bill the following proviso is added:
Provided further that no person shall obtain any rights under this section who settles on land reserved for soldier settlement after such land has been so reserved.
Without the amendment, we might reserve an area of land for soldier settlement, say in the Peace River District, before survey. Immediately men would go up there and forestall the soldier by getting on that land and securing squatters' rights; so we say that as soon as we survey, the squatter is precluded from going in and anticipating the arrival of the soldier.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: Sections 1 and 2 were allowed to stand this morning. I move that the word "five" in the second last line of each of these sections he struck out and that the word "six" be substituted therefor.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it not somewhat
anomalous to have a general law providing for a certain rate of interest and then to have a special law providing for a higher rate in certain cases?


Arthur Meighen: Six per cent is becoming the general law, but unless we make seven per cent the .rate of interest on arrears, the chance of getting the arrears in is practically nothing.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why not take notes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to, and .sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why not take notes, which always carry 7 per cent?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We do not take notes.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of IHon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) Bill No. 163, to amend the Indian Act, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-leases of surface rights may be granted in connection with mining for precious metals:
Jacques Bureau: Are there any provisions in the Indian Act as it now stands for the granting of mining leases?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Jacques Bureau: This is a new law?


Arthur Meighen: This is new; that is,
there is no provision for the lease of surface rights without surrender from the Indians. The old section reads as follows:
Except as in this Part otherwise provided, no reserve or portion of a reserve shall be sold, alienated or leased until it has been released or surrendered to the Crown for the purposes of this Part: Provided that the Superintendent General may lease, for the benefit of any Indian, upon his application for that purpose, the land to which he is entitled without such land being released or surrendered, and may, without surrender, dispose to the best advantage, in the interests of the Indians* of wild grass and dead or fallen timber.
This ia amended so that:
The Governor in Council may make regulations enabling the Superintendent General with-

out surrender to issue leases for surface rights on Indian reserve, upon such terms and conditions as may be considered proper in the interest of the Indians, covering such area only as may be necessary for the mining of the precious metals by any one otherwise authorized to mine such metals, said terms to include provision of compensating any occupant of land for any damage that may be caused thereon as determined by the Superintendent General.
This is asked for by the Government of the province of British 'Columbia, where the mining rights, of course, are held by the province, to prevent mining operators being held at bay by the Indians.


Samuel Hughes: Is there no provision made for the consent of an Indian tribe being obtained?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. Wherever an
Indian tribe holds the mining rights it must surrender them before any mining leases are granted. But once the mining rights are surrendered-and there are cases where they have been surrendered-then the Indian tribe says, " You cannot go on the land to get the minerals out." This provides that leases for surface rights may be issued on making compensation therefor.


Mr. MORPHY:: On what principle are
leases of mineral lands granted; for what length of time and on what terms and conditions?


Arthur Meighen: I am not sure that I
can answer the question in detail, but before mineral lands are leased or sold at all a surrender is secured from the Indians. I have had a few such cases and I will tell my hon. friend what occurred. The terms of the surrender itself contain the provisions under which the mining land is to be dealt with. Usually the Indian tribes are intelligent enough and capable of looking after themselves with the assistance of the agent, and they say: You must advertise the conditions, a long lease for so many years at a royalty charge ir a sale by auction, and the terms must be carried out. If there are no fixed terms in the surrender as to what is to be the method of handling the property, then the Superintendent General, with the approval of Council, provides the best way for dealing with the property in the interests of the tribe, and, of course, either tenders are asked for or an auction is held.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: These mineral lands may be valuable in places?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I understand that long leases are granted on a royalty basis, or
270}
the land may be sold outright. Now, applying, that to all the mineral resources of Canada, has the Government any policy for the nationalization of these- 'mineral resources so that the profits may go to the state?


Arthur Meighen: There might be individual cases where it would be in the interests of the state to, what is -called, nationalize our mineral resources-that is, to go into the mining business, to put it in plain English. But if I may venture the opinion, in a great majority of cases, if the Government weie to go into the mining business, there would be no need of discussing in advance what should be done with the profits, because there would be no profits to distribute. There -might be individual cases where there would be profits, but I have not very much hope that as a general policy Government mining could be made a success. Mining is a most hazardous business.


Samuel Hughes: But on coal might there not be a royalty?


Arthur Meighen: That means private development on a royalty basis. That is the present system.


Samuel Hughes: That is what the hon. member means.


Arthur Meighen: What the hon. member -means is, * rather, that the Government should itself undertake the mining, smelting, and so forth, and then sell the product.


Samuel Hughes: Oh, no.


Arthur Meighen: I know that is in the minds of some people in this country, and the Government has been importuned to adopt that policy. Very elaborate schemes have been worked out for the distribution of the profits in such an event, but I have never been bothered much on the question of the distribution of profits resulting from Government mining. I do not think their distribution would give any Government very much trouble. But there may be individual cases where that policy should be pursued, and, indeed, we have acted on that assumption. For example, there are large areas of oil lands now held from entry, the intention being that those lands should be reserved for the uses of the state-possibly to be developed privately, possibly to be developed under public ownership. It may be that the same policy should be pursued in regard to certain other minerals, but oil is the mineral in regard to which action hae been taken first.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that the object of this clause is solely to allow the superintendent general, without the surrender, to issue leases of surface rights, to be used by the mine owners either as loads to and from the mine or for dumping purposes.


Arthur Meighen: I would think that that was a pretty full statement of it. I do not think the surface rights would be needed for anything except dumping purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 2-Minimum with respect to amount to be paid to members of band struck out:
Jacques Bureau: You are striking out " and not exceeding 10 per cent of the proceeds of any." Any what?


Arthur Meighen: I will asik that this clause be allowed to stand.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the minister mean " of any," or " if any?"


Jacques Bureau: It may be "of."


Arthur Meighen: It should be "of" if the amendment is gone on with at all.
Section stands.	.
On Section 3-Part Three-Soldier Settlement.


Jacques Bureau: Would that have the same application as in the case the minister has just mentioned in the Dominion Lands Act, that wherever any surrender is made and the land is set aside for soldiers' settlement, squatter rights will not be considered as against soldier rights?


Arthur Meighen: What portion is the hon. gentleman referring to?


Jacques Bureau: I see that the Soldiers' Settlement Act shall apply. This has reference, if I understand rightly, to the Indian Act?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: My question is if the application would be the same as in the case of the Dominion Lands Act when squatters have settled? The case I have in mind is this: Supposing a reservation is surrendered for the purpose of soldiers' settlement, all prior settlements will be void as against the soldier; he shall have priority? Or what cases are contemplated by the Act? I have not had time to read it.


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not think this has anything to do with what are called
[iMr. Meighen.1
squatters' rights. The old Indian Act contains provisions enabling individual Indians to secure farm lands on their own reserves, which they work as their own. This Bill provides that the proper sections of the Soldiers' Settlement Act shall be applied to the Indian Act, that the deputy superintendent general shall be enabled to grant to the Indian soldier lands on his own reserve, and then assist him on those lands as a returned soldier, thus taking care of the Indian as an Indian instead of endeavouring to take care of him as a white man under the Soldiers' Settlement Act. That is the sole effect of this.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-minimum with respect to amount to be paid to members of band struck out:
Jacques Bureau: What is the effect of
the change?


Arthur Meighen: It means this. Under the clause as it stood, in the event of a sale of Indian lands, the surrender might contain terms enabling the Governor in Council to distribute up to 50 per cent of the proceeds of any land and 10 per cent of the proceeds of timber, that being the maximum in each case respectively of the money, to the Indians. Now it has been found necessary to change the percentage as respects timber up to the same as that as respects land, and therefore, the special restriction with regard to timber should be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the title:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have a mining
branch, and as the Government of Canada owns minerals in the West and elsewhere, it is highly important that we should have a mining Act or legislation dealing specifically with mines. In Nova Scotia where we deal with coal largely, we have a very well considered mining law, but as regards coal mines in the West, I have never come across any proper regulations or mining Act which would govern the mines and the method in which they are worked. Unless it is the intention of the Government to pass over the mining rights, etc., to the provinces, in which case they will, of course, make their own mining laws, it is highly desirable that, while we own those minerals, we should have a mining law dealing with them. Such a law would be very desirable in the case with which we are dealing now. With us, if a coal mining company, for instance, wants land, they have to prepare a

plan, have it sworn to by proper engineers of the company, submit that plan to the Minister of Mines, and then he issues a summons to the owner of the land and to the company and they both appear before the minister and there is a hearing before him, and if after that hearing the mining company satisfies the minister that they should take the lands, an order is made to pass the land over to the mine owners. I believe some such proceeding is what the minister has in mind.


Arthur Meighen: While I would not like to give a positive acquiescence in the hon. member's suggestion, it is certainly worthy of consideration. Of course, our mining properties are at present administered under those provisions of the Dominion Lands Act which appertain to mining, and regulations are made in pursuance of the powers contained in that Act, and under those regulations the Mining Branch of the Department of the Interior administers all mining lands. That is our mining law today, and in consequence of that law, the property of Canada in minerals is wholly administered. We cannot, of course, have a mining law in the sense that it is asked for by some mining engineers of Canada, and that may be what the hon. member has in mind. We cannot do anything practical towards making uniform mining laws in the different provinces, and that is what they have in mind. It would be better if there were a little more statutory law as regards mining and perhaps a little less of regulations. I have taken occasion at this session to put in more elaborate form the statutory laws governing the administration of water-powers, and I am disposed to think similar action with regard to the administration of mines would be advisable, and it will be a consideration at the next session.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


BRITISH NATIONALITY, NATURALIZATION AND ALIENS CONSOLIDATION ACT.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 138, to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to British Nationality, Naturalization and Aliens, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 11-national status of married women.
Jacques Bureau: Does this mean that a married woman, the wife of an alien, can be naturalized just the same as the husband can, and that if she becomes naturalized the children follow the nationality of the father?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Yes; this is put in more as a declaration to clarify the law.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-status of children.
Jacques Bureau: This is the section that affects the case I mentioned the other day.
It says:
Where a person being a British subject, ceases to be a British subject whether by declaration of alienage or otherwise, every child of that person, being a minor, shall thereupon cease to be a British subject, unless such child, on that person ceasing to be a British subject, does not become by the law of any other country, naturalized in that country.
Take the case of a child whose father is a British subject in Canada. The father crosses the border and becomes an American citizen. That child, being a minor, would lose his fiationality as a British subject.


Hugh Guthrie: Unless the law of the United States provides otherwise.


Jacques Bureau: But suppose he keeps out of the reach of the law of the United States, and that while the child is still a minor the father comes back to Canada and becomes re-naturalized a.s a British subject; what then?


Hugh Guthrie: That is a pretty involved proposition, and I do not know that I could answer offhand. It might be a case for the consideration of the Secretary of State under section 4-a doubtful case.


Jacques Bureau: We ought to make the law clear.


Hugh Guthrie: It is clear in my mind, but the question is rather an involved one.


Jacques Bureau: We passed a section the other night providing that if a man becomes re-naturalized the names of his minor children must be included in his certificate of naturalization in order to make them British subjects. Thousands of cases of this kind may arise in view of the intercourse between the two countries. A man may leave Canada to work in the United States, and take out naturalization papers while he is there. Under this section his child, being a minor, would lose his nationality as a British subject. When that father returns to Canada and becomes re-naturalized here, it is only in very few cases that the minor children would know that their names must be in-.
*4258

eluded to the father's naturalization certificates for them to become British subjects again. Why not provide that if the child when he reaches the age of 21 does not make a declaration as to the nationality he wishes to take, he shall follow the nationality of his father. That would make the law clearer, and would prevent a lo't of difficulty. Otherwise these children might go on living in Canada believing in perfect good faith they were British subjects, whereas really they would be aliens, and then if any law was passed affecting aliens they would be affected by that law. I think 'the child should follow the nationality of its father in a case of this kind, and we ought to amend the section accordingly.


Hugh Guthrie: T think tlia't case is pretty well covered by sections 13 and 5. Section 13 says:
Where a person being a British subject ceases to be a British subject,-
We will suppose that the father and the children were born in Canada, and that the father removes his family to 'the United States.

every child of that person, being a minor, shall thereupon cease to be a British subject, unless such child, on that person ceasing to be a British subject, does not become by the law of any other country, naturalized in that country.
I am assuming that there is no law on the subject one way or the other in the United States, and that the child becomes an American citizen. Then his father comes back to Canada. Now under section 5 his father could then become re-naturalized as a British subject, and should include in his certificate all his minor children. If any of his minor children on reaching the age of 'twenty-one do not wish to become naturalized all they have to do is to make a declaration to that effect. The child has the option; he can remain an American or he can become a British subject. So I think that case is pretty well covered.


Jacques Bureau: A good many men will
become re-naturalized and will not think of including the names of their minor children in their certificate. Let me submit another case. A British subject goes to the United States, and before becoming naturalized a child is born to him on American soil. The father afterwards becomes a naturalized American citizen, and while the child is still a minor, returns to Canada and is re-naturalized as a British subject. Why not put it in the law that the child when attaining the age of

twenty-one years shall become a subject of the country to which his father belonged?


Hugh Guthrie: The child was to all intents and purposes an American citizen.


Jacques Bureau: He was an American by birth.


Hugh Guthrie: If his father comes
back to Canada and is re-naturalized he has the option, on attaining the age of twenty-one, of choosing his nationality. I do not think we should bind the child as my hon. friend suggests.


Mr. MARCIL:: Suppose the father when he goes over to the United States leaves his family at home in Canada, takes out naturalization papers in the United States, returns to Canada and again becomes naturalized in Canada? The children never went to the United States, but remained in Canada. What will be their status? It happens in Quebec that large numbers of men go into the lumber camps in Maine and stay there for considerable time. Some men take out naturalization papers in the New England States, but their families never leave Quebec. Suppose a man made up his mind to come back to Canada, what would be the position of his children if they never left this country?


Hugh Guthrie: They are British subjects, there is no question about that. They never lost their nationality.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Another class will have to be provided for. Section 7 provides that if a Canadian citizen lives outside of this country for seven years he loses his naturalization. Suppose a man lives abroad for seven or eight years and decides to return, his family having been all born in this country. What will be the status of those children if they become of age by the time he decides to return?


Hugh Guthrie: They would be British subjects. But the father would not lose his nationality unless he severed connection with the British Empire.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The Act says distinctly that he does, if he has been resident, since the date of the granting of the certificate, for a period of not less than seven years out of His Majesty's dominions, otherwise than as a representative or employee of a British subject, firm or company carrying on business, etc.


Hugh Guthrie: Further on it says "and has not maintained substantial connection with His Majesty's dominions." If his family were here and he communicated with

them, I would unhesitatingly say that he had maintained substantial connection.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Suppose he leaves the country and takes his family along with him, and after seven or eight years he loses naturalization. If he returns to Canada with'his children, who become of age during their residence abroad, although they were born in Canada, what will be the position?


Hugh Guthrie: His children, on attaining the age of twenty-one, would be entitled to declare whether or not they desired to be British subjects. The man would have to be re-naturalized. If the children had been born in Canada and went abroad as minors and the father became naturalized in a foreign country, they would take the citizenship of that country, but on returning here they would be entitled, within a year after attaining their majority, to elect whether they would be British subjects or not.


Charles Marcil: And if they do not elect they remain citizens of the foreign country?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: Section 11 says that the wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien. But subsection (a) provides that the wife of an alien may be naturalized "in like manner and with the same effect as if she were a femme sole." Is there any provision whereby the wife of a naturalized British subject applies personally for naturalization?


Hugh Guthrie: Later on there is.


Ernest Lapointe: I ask the question for the reason that when the Franchise Bill was under discussion in this House it was suggested that the wife should have personal naturalization in order to be entitled to vote.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 12 deals with the subject.


Ernest Lapointe: That applies only to widows.


Hugh Guthrie: It provides that a woman who, having been a British subject, " has by or in consequence of her marriage become an alien, shall not, by reason only of the death of her husband or the dissolution of her marriage, cease to be an alien."


Jacques Bureau: That is only as regards widows.


Hugh Guthrie: And further, "a woman who, having been an alien, has by or in consequence of her marriage become a British subject, shall not, by reason only^ of the death of her husband or the dissolution of her marriage, cease to be a British subject."


Ernest Lapointe: It has already been suggested that to exercise the franchise a woman must be personally naturalized, and-not only be a British subject by reason of the fact that she is the wife of a naturalized citizen.


Hugh Guthrie: Under this Act it is most clear that the wife of a British subject, wherever she came from, shall be deemed to be a British subject, and that the wife of an alien shall be an alien. The declaration is quite plain. Even if a woman is Canadian-born, she is an alien if she is the wife of an alien.


Ernest Lapointe: According to my hon. friend the wife of a naturalized British subject shall be entitled to vote as well a3 heT husband under any franchise law?


Hugh Guthrie: There is no doubt about that.


Mr. BUTTS:: If a young woman who is a Canadian citizen should marry an alien who is not naturalized, would she lose heT Canadian citizenship?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, under section 11 she would be an alien. The law of all civilized lands is that the nationality of the wife is that of the husband, except in special cases provided for here.


Jacques Bureau: The principle, then, is laid down, that for no purpose whatever shall there be a husband of one nationality and a wife of another.


Hugh Guthrie: There are some exceptions. In cases where the husband has been an alien enemy there is _ provision whereby the wife may be naturalized under special conditions, but the general law is as my hon. friend states.
On section 17-saving of obligations incurred before loss of naturalization:


Jacques Bureau: What is the purport of this section? I would like to have a case in point. The section says that where .a man ceases to be a British subject he shall not thereby be discharged from any obligation, duty, or liability in respect of any act done before he ceased to be a British subject.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that I can cite a case.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: By his change of citizenship he is not relieved of his liabilities.


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose that if a man were sued in a court of law he might set up as a defence the fact that he was a foreigner, but under this section) he could not raise any special defence by reason of nationality. I think it is meant to cover cases of that kind.


Jacques Bureau: After all, the parties to a contract are subject to the laws of the country where the contract is made.


Hugh Guthrie: A man's property would be, but his person would not be in a civil action.


Jacques Bureau: You would summon an American before our tribunals with respect to a contract made here in the same way as they would summon a Canadian before an American court.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-capacity of an alien as to property; real estate may be held by aliens:
Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am strongly of the impression that aliens have no right to hold properly in this country, and I would not permit them to hold property until they are naturalized. I think it is time that we adopted some such policy as that. It has partly been adopted' under our homestead laws. Many aliens in this country prior to the war held land in Canada without becoming British subjects; in fact, held everything that a British subject could hold. They held on so well that they did not care for Canadian citizenship, did not need it, did not value it and preferred ,to hold the citizenship of the foreign country from which they came. I do not know that we will ever have another great war; I hope not, but it seems to me that it is time for the general advantage of Canada that, when we are dealing with the alien, we should prevent him from getting title to any land until he completes his citizenship and puts himself on the same basis as any other British or Canadian subject. While this may not be germane to the present Act, I cannot refrain from expressing the view that I have long held that we should not allow property, especially land, in this country to be held by aliens.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not quite accept the view of my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy) in regard to that matter. I think we are in a better position as we are [(Mr. Bureau.]
now by restricting our citizenship, not by enlarging it. I would not agree to the proposal to restrict the ownership of real estate to our citizens. We have been trying to induce capital to come into this country. The more foreign capital we get in the better, but if we insist that the property of the country shall be owned by citizens only we will greatly curtail the amount of capital coming in. Remember, that when the alien holds property we are in the best possible position; in case of war we can deal most expeditiously with his property, far more so than we can with the property of a British subject. The trouble we have experienced in the past results from the fact that we had granted certificates of naturalization too freely. The object of the Bill is that they shall be granted less freely and more carefully so that a man applying for naturalization shall be thoroughly approved before he shares the benefits of British citizenship.
I know that in many states of 4 p.m. the United States up to thirty years ago restrictions were put upon the rights of aliens to hold real estate. Up to 1890 the state of New York did not permit it hut a great deal of property there was owned by residents of Great Britain and held by various trust companies in New York city for them. That system did not work out well; the law was repealed in New York state and I think it has been repealed in almost every state across the line. Great Britain has always thrown the door wide open to investments in this country. She can control investments far easier than she can individual citizens and that is the policy which has been adopted in pretty nearly every country in the world. I think it is a good policy and I "would not favour exchanging it for the policies proposed by my hon. friend.


Jacques Bureau: You would want the majority of the directors of a company to be British subjects.


Hugh Guthrie: The question is a big one and there are arguments to be advanced on both sides.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: My recollection goes
back to the beginning of the war when some of the boldest aliens were those who were permitted to hold property.


Hugh Guthrie: That property has all been seized.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There are a great many things that can be done with property before you can seize it and there were a great

many alien property holders in the United States who were entirely opposed to that country going to war. With regard to extending the time for naturalization, I have long held the other view and I hold it still. I would make the time shorter and I would compel a man to be a citizen within a shorter period of time than five years, say, two or three years. This Parliament extends the time from three to five years. That provision of the law can be abused and I have always felt that it has been abused. If you compel a man to become a citizen and thus give him the right to hold property sooner than he otherwise would be able to he would be more likely to respect and obey the laws that other citizens have to obey. The reasoning that the longer you give an alien to become a citizen the better, does not work out in the way that those who advance the argument believe i't does. I know hundreds of persons in this country who have never taken out citizenship papers because they did not think they needed to. They were Amstrians, or they belonged to other nationalities, and 'they were never interfered with. They had their freedom in the country just the same as British subjects had and sneered at the citizenship of Canada. They held property under the same conditions as Canadians and British subjects held it. I would compel a man 'to be a citizen of Canada, or at least 'make him declare has intention of becoming a citizen within a year, and I would insist that he become a citizen within two years and that he should become a citizen before being allowed to hold real estate. The Solicitor General refers to the question of capital coming in. Capital will come in if the country offers advantages. Capital generally comes into the country in joint stock companies anyway, and in that regard the principle of nationality does not prevail. I remember not very long ago that some Americans were surrendering their citizenship to go and live in England. The day may come when they may feel like doing that in regard to Canada. They have their eye on the natural resources of Canada, resources that in my opinion should go to the citizens of Canada. I do not think that an American citizen or any other foreign citizen has any right to pre-empt or take over our valuable coal and iron mines unless he becomes a citizen of Canada. It may be as 'the Solicitor General has said that they have recently changed their laws in regard to the holding of real estate in the United States, but they have changed them after the public domain has been frittered away and everything taken out of it. Let us preserve for Canada and'for Canadians and British subjects the natural resources of this country, the like of which do not exist anywhere else in the world, and which must be developed to help out the nationalization of our railways. Let our forest, mineral, and agricultural wealth be devoted by the people of Canada to the purposes of Canada and handed over to our highways of commerce. The nationalization of our railways compels it. Notwithstanding what the Minister of the Interior said about the nationalization of all the splendid resources we have in this country, whether that day will come soon or late I do not know, but it seems to me that with the incubus of debt that we have before us we should throw everything as far as possible into the hands of our own people and every resource we have should be developed along national lines, kept free from the influence of the exploiter; the man who is called a coal baron who comes in and takes these great resources and develops 'them for nobody but himself. The national wealth should be conserved for the nation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 21-posting of application:
Jacques Bureau: We have adopted a section providing for the issue of certificate by the Secretary of State in cases where doubt exists as to nationality as a British subject. In such cases would it be necessary for the applicant to go through the procedure mentioned in sections 20, 21, and 22?


Hugh Guthrie: No, that is in cases where it is necessary to settle rights of inheritance, and the like. I do not think any cases of that kind have ever arisen in Canada. There have been one or two in England under a similar section, but they are very rare.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 23-proof of qualification:
Jacques Bureau: This section provides
that the applicant shall appear before the court in person. Suppose there is no opposition to his application?


Hugh Guthrie: This clause is taken
from our Naturalization Act passed in 1914 and adopted from the English Act. Formerly, if there was no opposition to the granting of the application at the sitting of the court, then the judge granted the certificate; now a man must appear before

the court, and the qualification is put in that he must be familiar with French or English. For that reason he must appear to satisfy the judge; if he does not take enough interest in the matter to appear, then I do not think the judge could make a favourable report. Personal attendance is one of the things that I look upon as very necessary. In Ontario courts I have seen as many as thirty or forty applications dealt with in half an hour-applications from men whose names you could not pronounce, who could not speak or write English, and who were not there themselves. The court sits for two days, and at the end of two days these men are British subjects, the certificates being granted without any attempt at inquiry, simply on the sworn statements made by the applicants before a magistrate. It is to avoid procedure of that kind that the new method is proposed and the attendance of the applicant before the court required so that the judge may see the man, inquire as to his knowledge of English or French, and pass upon it.


Herbert John Mackie: What facilities are afforded to those who desire to oppose applications for naturalization certificates? A man who lives two hundred miles away from the court-house may not know that an application is being made for naturalization by a person whose application he wishes to oppose.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know, except the general notice that is given and the general knowledge one is supposed to have of what takes place in connection with judicial proceedings. A man who is interested can take some step to obtain information in the matter; if he is very anxious to take action he can make application from time to time to the clerk of the court for lists of those who are desirous of obtaining naturalization. If you took steps to provide that all the people should have actual notice of every application, you would reduce the law to a condition in which it would be impossible to enforce it.


Herbert John Mackie: I do not mean that. Why should notice not be posted also in the post office in each locality, so that when people go to get their mail they would know that applications for naturalization were being made by certain persons, and could take steps to oppose them if they wished to do so? There is provision for opposition of these applications, but there is no means of conveying the knowledge that the applications are being made.


Hugh Guthrie: A man who desires to oppose an application can obtain from the clerk of the court the names of the applicants. If he is really zealous in the matter he can certainly, without very much trouble, obtain the information which he desires. It would be a good deal of trouble to have these notices posted up in the various post offices.


Jacques Bureau: It may be very important, for business purposes or for inheritance purposes, that a man who, we will say, is very ill, should get his naturalization certificate. He cannot appear in court; yet his estate may go to the wrong persons on account of this provision. I admit that in certain cases the applicant should appear before the court to answer any objection that may be made in connection with his application. In such cases the judge, if he is not satisfied as to the qualifications of the applicant, may recommend that the certificate do not issue. I understand that when the issuance of the certificate is not recommended, the Secretary of State has no power to issue it; he has power only to refuse to issue a certificate which is recommended. But why require the personal attendance of the applicant when notice of his application has been duly posted and everybody has had an opportunity of finding out whether or not he is properly qualified ? Let us provide that if there is any doubt as to the man's ability to read or write, the tribunal shall have the right to require his attendance before the court; but let us not say that in every case the applicant must attend in person. The remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. H. A. Mackie) suggest the case of those who live hundreds of miles away from the place where the court sits, and who, if it was possible at all for them to attend, would be put to great trouble and expense if they did so.
Sometimes it is practically an impossibility,-they have to travel through country where no roads are open, and the distances are so great that they have to camp on the way to and from the court. Let us say that the judge shall have power to summon any man to appear before him before he makes any recommendation, but take away this kind of drastic provision that in every case a man must appear. I do not think under the section as now drafted we would be any better protected, and, on the other hand, it would work a hardship on the applicants.


Hugh Guthrie: The application is not
to a judge in court; it is to a judge. I real-

ize though that in practice it would work out probably in nine cases out of ten that the application would be to a judge sitting in court. No matter whether in court or not, it is a judge who must make the inquiry, and I cannot conceive that any judge in this country would find it so inconvenient to attend a sick applicant that he would not go to his house and make the inquiry there.


Jacques Bureau: The application has got
to be delivered at the office of the clerk.


Hugh Guthrie: If a judge of that kind is to be found in Canada, he ought to be disciplined by authorities which are above judges, namely, this Parliament. Judges are appointed and courts sit for the convenience of the people. There has been abuse in regard to naturalization. I do not know how these matters are attended to in other parts of the Dominion, but I know that in the province where I live there has been abuse, and I think it is of the utmost importance that applicants should appear personally. Where I live we have naturalized scores of men who cannot speak a word of English, and do not want to, and who only became naturalized, I suppose, to get a vote, which they say is of value to them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What nationality were
those men, Poles?


Hugh Guthrie: They come from southern Europe. I do not want to refer to them more particularly as some of them are my friends. It is to stop that practice that this provision is inserted. If the man is anxious to become a British citizen, he will have to put up with the little inconveniences of travelling a mile or two. If he has no anxiety on the subject, let him stay at home. I do not think the idea of this Act is to extend citizenship to any one by any means; it is to restrict it.


Ernest Lapointe: What language does the hon. minister use when he speaks to those friends of his who come from southern Europe and who are unable to use the English language?


Hugh Guthrie: Some of them have
acquired a knowledge of English since. But perhaps I do not confine myself to the English language when communicating with them.


Jacques Bureau: The section says that the application shall be made to the judge. I gather from that that it shall be addressed to the judge, because the other section says the application shall be made at the office of the clerk or other proper officer of the
court during office hours. It is not before the judge that the hearing takes place, it is before the court; and it is not the judge that decides, but the court. Therefore the judge must be in banco. The only place where the word "judge" is used is in section 20, from which I would infer that the petition instead of to the court is to the judge; but after that the court is acting all the way through, and I do not think the court would move to the hospital.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, they will in our province. If you make out 3. proper case the judge will sit in a man's house. I have known it to be done.


Herbert John Mackie: is there any provision in the Act for notifying the applicant that his application is opposed, so that when he has to travel three hundred miles to the court he may have an opportunity of bringing evidence in the shape of persons or documents?


Hugh Guthrie: He has to go anyway
whether his application is opposed or not.


Herbert John Mackie: I know, but if he has notice of the opposition against his application he can bring evidence to meet it. For instance, if he finds suddenly that his application is opposed on the ground that he was charged with a criminal offence, then he has an opportunity of getting evidence that he did not commit the offence charged.


Hugh Guthrie: He would have to get an adjournment.


Herbert John Mackie: But the man might come from three hundred miles away.


Hugh Guthrie: There would not be many of those cases.


Herbert John Mackie: There would be thousands in the Peace River country.


Charles Marcil: Under section 23 the applicant may satisfy the court that he is unable to appear by giving good and sufficient cause.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: I think the objection raised by the hon. member for Edmonton is well taken. It is very easy to have a subsection providing that notice should be sent to the applicant. I have no doubt that that is the intention. I think there should be provision for having notice served upon the applicant or sent to him by registered mail. With regard to the objection raised by my hon friend from Three Rivers, I do not know whether he has ignored the latter part of section 23, which provides

that when a person is sick or dying he may be exempted from appearing by giving some good and sufficient cause. That would get over the difficulty there, but I think the objection raised by my hon. friend from Edmonton should be met.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 24-Order of naturalization.
Mr. W. H. WHITE:: Before this clause carries, I would like to bring before the Committee a case from my own constituency. It is that of a man who has been a resident there for some twenty-two years, and about eighteen or twenty years ago he went before a magistrate, then the mayor of the town, and became, as he thought, naturalized,-in fact, he really made an application for naturalization. He went to another man who was then representative of the district in the Conservative interest, a responsible and respected gentleman known very well to my hon. friend from East Edmonton, Mr. J. W. Shera, who acted as his agent in making his application in court. For some reason or other it appears that the record of that application has been lost. The officials of the court think that, perhaps, owing to the subdividing of the judicial districts it may have been transferred to some other district in the province of Alberta. The man I have in mind has held the positions of councillor and trustee and is a very prominent citizen in that section of the country. He has always had a desire to be a Canadian citizen.
I can remember very well that in 1911 he was a very strong opponent of mine and a man of considerable influence; he was carried away by the fear that the reciprocity agreement might lead to annexation to the United States. When in the last election he tried to get a record of his naturalization, with the intention of opposing me again,- although, I must say, he is a good citizen -he found that he was not naturalized or could not get a duplicate copy of his naturalization certificate. He went before Mr. Justice Walsh and made application, and took with him ex-Mayor Langworthy, the man who had taken his application before. He made a sworn application to the judge, together with Mr. Shera, now customs collector in the city of Edmonton, who swore that he actually brought this man's certificate to court and paid tne fees. Mr. Justice Walsh recommended to the Secretary of State that a naturalization certificate should be issued. However, the department did not seem to be inclined to do so. About two months ago I had an interview 
with the Secretary of State and asked him if anything could be done.
Nothing has been done in the matter. Here you have a man who was a good citizen, a particularly active man in patriotic work, a large subscriber to Victory Bonds and who has every intention of being a good citizen, but who now, under this new Bill, may be compelled to wait for ten years longer before he can become a citizen. It is a hardship that this man should be placed in this position. He has been a resident of this country for some twenty-three years, and some provision should be made whereby in such a case, where the local judge is satisfied by sworn evidence that the man made application, he should be granted the rights of citizenship.


Mr. BURRELL:: I thank my hon. friend spoke to one about this case. I have forgotten the details now, but it is somewhat allied to cases that have come up for consideration during the war, namely, those of a very large number of men of alien enemy birth who were under the impression that they had been naturalized or made citizens, because for a very long time past they had been taking part in municipal and provincial elections and had been good citizens as far as we understand the ordinary meaning of the word, but who, it was found, had not actually been naturalized. The hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Euler) knows that in his constituency there were many cases of that kind. Two special Orders in Council were passed under the War Measures Act by which, in case of men of alien enemy birth who had been a long time in the country and who were under the impression that they were naturalized, the ordinary proceedings could be dispensed with and they could be naturalized. After the Orders in Council were passed, there were no applications at all for a while, but finally one came in and, as there was something technically wrong in his application, it was sent back to the judge, and when it came back corrected, he was granted naturalization. Then a very long list came in, about ninety-two or ninety-four, and although I confess I have a great deal of sympathy with men who have been a long time in the country and who have been peaceable people, good neighbours and citizens, at that particular time we had reached a point in the war when public feeling was very bitter-and probably rightly so-against everything German. It was at the time of the great German push

and when all sorts of atrocities were perpetrated by the Germans, and there was a strong feeling throughout the country that we should go slow about naturalizing Germans even if they had been a long time in the country. The Council, after considering the matter very carefully, decided that at that time they would not naturalize any more under the ordinary Act, and the matter drifted along until the fall. I pointed out that if they were not going to naturalize any more people of this kind the Orders in 'Council should be repealed, and they were repealed before this House met. Now the question is in abeyance, and men who are in that position and who wish to become naturalized can be dealt with under the provisions of the Naturalization Bill which the Solicitor General has before the House. The question whether we should naturalize men of alien enemy birth now is, after all, a matter of some policy. My hon. friend (Mr. W. H. White) raised a question whether the Secretary of State should be the judge whether a certificate should be finally issued when the judge had pronounced. During the past three or four years the judges of the courts have taken different views of this matter. The Chief Justice of Ontario laid down the principle that it was absolutely wrong and illegal to naturalize any man of alien enemy birth, and I think he did not pass such applications. Some judges in other provinces passed a very large number of them, and some of them, under the powers of the old Act, which ran concurrently with this Act, naturalized, I think, two or three hundred Germans and Austrians when that was within the power of the court under the three-year system. Of course, under the five-year system, such men would have to apply to the Secretary of State.


Herbert John Mackie: Do men who hail from alien enemy countries and who are within one year of getting patents to their homesteads, now have to wait for ten years before they can get patents?


Hugh Guthrie: Under the provisions of the Dominion Lands Act I think that is right. I discussed it with the Minister of the Interior since the question was brought up by the hon. member for Victoria, Alberta (Mr. W. H. White), last week. Personally, I see no reason for continuing that condition in the Dominion Lands Act, but officials of the Department of the Interior are considering that point now. I do not know what the conclusion will be regarding
the matter, but I assume there will be no difficulty in amending the Dominion Lands Act so as to remove that restriction on the issue of patents owing to lack of naturalization. At the present time I understand the provision is that patents shall not be issued to those that are not British subjects by birth or naturalization. If that restriction is removed -and, in my judgment, it ought to be removed-that will overcome the difficulty. Whether it is necessary to do it now, or whether it could be done at the fall session, is another matter. 1 am expressing only my view, because the officers of the Department of the Interior are going to make a report on the matter.


Herbert John Mackie: If it be the case that men who should have received their homestead patents but for the declaration of war, must now wait for ten years, that is nothing but a shame. Within the last week, I have brought to the attention of the Government the fact that 150,000 aliens want to leave this country and1 have asked the Government to give them passports. The Government claim that because they are not British subjects, they cannot give them passports. If the Government are not willing to grant these men homestead patents and so keep them in the country, and want, in addition, to keep them in abeyance for ten years, why not deport these men? The Government cannot blow hot and cold. The Government must either make them citizens or make the laws reasonable, or allow these men to get out.


William Henry White: In the case I mentioned, the man satisfied the judge that he was regularly naturalized.


Hugh Guthrie: That is a different proposition.


Martin Burrell: I think I spoke to my hon. friend about the matter before. If reasonable proof could be shown, I think the matter could be got over in that way.


Hugh Guthrie: The case cited by the hon. member (Mr. W. H. White) is the case of a man who had become through naturalization a British subject. There is nothing in this Act to deprive that man of his rights. He has only to establish them by some kind of proof.


William Henry White: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there any provision in this Bill wherelby a person can obtain a duplicate certificate, should he have lost his certificate as has likely happened in

this case? We should provide that a duplicate certificate shall he issued if the applicant can satisfy the same officials who granted the original.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Once a man is a British subject he is always a British subject.


Jacques Bureau: We are legislating to the contrary here.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 29 deals with the question of proof. It says:
Entries in any register made in pursuance of this Act or under any Act hereby repealed may be proved by such copies and certified in such manner as may be directed by the Secretary of State of Canada, and the copies of any such entries shall be evidence of any matters, by this Act or by any regulation of the Governor in Council or of the Secretary of State of Canada, authorized to be inserted in the register.
I think that in the case cited by my hon. friend (Mr. White), proof could be established under that section.


William Thomas White: The trouble was they could not find the record. Mr. Shera swore he had taken this application to court and paid the fees, and the other man swore that the application was made before him. They satisfied Mr. Justice Walsh that the man was really naturalized, but for some reason or other there was no record of it. The application was made eighteen years ago.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If there is nothing on the records now, I would be disposed to think he would have to start all over again.


Hugh Guthrie: Unless he could prove his naturalization by the evidence of some person who knew the facts.


William Thomas White: He did so, and Judge Walsh reported in favour of the issue of the certificate, but the Secretary of State refused to issue it. This man went to all the expense of going before a judge and bringing his witnesses.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that case is entitled to further inquiry.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 25-issue of certificate ol naturalization:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I see by one of the sections that notice of application for citizenship has to be posted for three months. That seems a very long time; it used to be three weeks.


Hugh Guthrie: I think in the Act of 1881 or 1883 it was three weeks or one month, but in the Act of 1888 it was three months, and continued so up to 1914.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Not up to 1914. I know that three weeks was the notice we had to give to the courts in my province.


Hugh Guthrie: There was a time when it was three weeks, and another time when it was three months; T am not certain as to the dates.


Jacques Bureau: We have determined the procedure whereby a man shall obtain a recommendation to become a British citizen. We compel him to make application addressed to a judge, to file his papers, and to have his name posted for three months in the office of the clerk of the court. After all that has been done, we compel him to go personally before the court, and the court has to issue a certificate, if it thinks proper that the man is fit . to become naturalized. After the man has been before that tribunal where everybody had a chance to be heard, he is still subject' to the will of another man called the Secretary of State. That there may be no ambiguity about it the section provides that:	"The Secretary of State of Canada
may thereupon in his absolute discretion issue a certificate." I think that is giving too much power to any one man. We have not yet reached the millennium. In spite of all the good people who are in the Government, in spite of all their efforts to uplift the people, in spite of all their restrictions of evil and evil dispositions, in spite of their control of everything that is bad, we have not yet reached the point where I would trust this power in the hands of one man, especially when that man is a politician of one political party, I do not care whether it is Unionist, Tory, Nationalist, Grit or any other party that may be formed hereafter. We have seen things done by the powers-that-be that they would never have dared to do under different circumstances. Those circumstances may repeat themselves, because history repeats itself. We have had the War-time Elections Act, for instance. If any man had suggested before 1917 the possibility of the things being perpetrated under that Act which actually have been perpetrated, no one would have listened to him; everybody would have said " Impossible." Therefore, after the judge sitting as a court has heard all the evidence and passed upon the qualifications of a man for Canadian citizenship, after he has recommended that the applicant is a fit and proper person, why should we give the Secretary of State power to refuse or withhold the certificate on an ex parte judgment, which may be based upon the recommendation of a political


SO, 1919
[Stage Direction]
friend or a political foe? I say there is a tinge of immorality in that section, and it should not be put on the statute books.
I presume the Solicitor General will justify its being there by saying that it has been the law since 1914, but in 1914 we did not know of the political and administrative crimes that have since been perpetrated in the name of the war. If the people of Canada have reached the point where they have no more confidence in the judiciary of this country, I doubt whether they have any greater confidence in a member of a political party. I think that the judgment of the president of the tribunal before whom the application is made ought to be final. We have just passed a section giving the Secretary of State power to cancel a certificate of naturalization, and I certainly do not want to give him the right to refuse to issue a certificate after all the requirements of -the law have been complied with, and after the judge has recommended that a certificate be issued. The Secretary of State does not hear the case or see the man; he simply gives an ex parte judgment. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. W. H. White) has just submitted an instance in which a judge passed qpon a case and hi? recommendation was dishonoured I think I can use that expression-by the Secretary of State. Now, who is better able than the judge to pronounce upon these matters? He lives in the community where the applicant seeks naturalization and is acquainted with all the circumstances, being in an eminently advantageous position to secure the most reliable information about the man and his bona fides. I cannot adequately qualify this clause. To say the least, it is most arbitrary. Why is this right reserved to the Secretary of State? No ordinary man can come to any other conclusion than that this power is retained in the Secretary of State to be used as a club in political exigencies and as a means of distinguishing between friend and-well, I will not say. foe; at all events, it seems palpable that it will be used to differentiate between political friends and adversaries when applications are made for naturalization. I shall move that this clause be struck out of the Bill.
Herbert John Mackie: I support the objection taken by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) to this section, for the reasons he has advanced, although I may qualify his remarks 'to this extent, that I do not believe that the present Secretary of State nor any Secretary of State, for that matter, would use this power for political
purposes. The fact remains, however, that it would be a source of temptation, and for that reason it is objectionable. There is a vital objection to the clause in so far as the revision of the judge's decision is concerned. The section provides that upon the applicant taking and subscribing the oath of allegiance the clerk shall deliver the certificate to him. Now, if the Secretary of State is to reconsider the judgment of the court, it will involve a considerable amount of travelling on the part of the applicant, in many instances, distances of even a thousand miles, to a court. It will necessitate two tjips of the applicant, and it is absolutely unreasonable and altogether too expensive, having regard to the distances that must he travelled, in our province at any rate. I do not see any reason for the clause, and I heartily support the objection of the hon, member for Three Rivers.


Hugh Guthrie: In answer to my hon. friend's criticism, all I have to say is that nationality and citizenship are questions which should come within the authority of the Parliament and Government of the country, And if they have at any time in the ' past been delegated to the judges, that in my judgment was an improper delegation of the rights of Parliament. Parliament should control the nationality of citizens and the question of their franchise. It is just as able to do so as the judges, if indeed it is not better able. It is true that this section vests in the Secretary of State an absolute discretion. The language is absolute in form, but in reality it is just a judicial discretion to be exercised as that of a judge would be, because it must be exercised in accordance with the plain meaning and intent of the Act. Those of us who happen to be members of the Bar well know that wills, trusts, settlements, etc., where trustees are appointed, case after case comes up in which absolute discretion to do this, that, and the other thing, is granted the trustee. " Absolute and unfettered discretion " is a commonly used expression, which the courts interpret to be discretion that must be reasonably exercised in accordance with the clear meaning of the document. So it is with an Act of Parliament. Under this section, the Secretary of State cannot act upon any mere whim, fancy, or caprice of his own; he is bound to act in accordance with the meaning of the Act. He is not by any means unaccountable or irresponsible. As a matter of fact, he is far more accountable and responsible than is any judge in the Dominion, because, if he does not act rea-

sonably,-if his action in granting or refusing a certificate is at variance with plain reason, or if he acts without good faith or goes beyond the letter of the law, he will be amenable to this Parliament at the very first session after his action is called into question. This is the high court of appeal in such a case as that which my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. W. H. White) brought up to-day. Every case in which a wrong is done or is charged can be ventilated here and punishment meted out if the House sees fit. But you cannot take any action of that kind in respect of a judge. The judge in this case is not asked to decide. He is merely asked to inquire and report. It is the minister of the Crown who decides, and the minister is responsible to his own colleagues in the first instance and, next, to this Parliament. I do not know of any greater safeguard that can be employed. My hon. friend suggested that the reply could be made that this had been the custom for the last five years. It has been the law of the land for the last five years, and I will say that for twenty or twenty-five years preceding that, these certificates were granted by the judges. I want to impress this upon the Committee that, knowing as I do the method which was adopted in Ontario during those twenty-five or thirty years in the granting of these certificates, the whole practice became a joke and a by-word. It is to overcome that defect that we are bringing the matter within the province of the responsible minister, who can be held accountable for what he does. I have seen in the city of Toronto long lists of names of men who had been granted certificates at a single court and who never appeared in court,-cases in regard to which little or no inquiry had been made and to which absolutely no consideration had been given.
I have known of justices of the peace in Ontario going through the foreign quarters of a city and, at two dollars apiece, drawing, preparing and swearing affidavits, and filing them in court; and I do not believe that the poor applicants knew actually what they were doing. Eventually, however, they got the certificates, and afterwards voted. What is the procedure? At the opening of the court-I am referring to the larger cities-the clerk reads the list of applicants iwith unpronounceable names who want to become citizens of Canada, and now, if this law goes through, of the British Empire. These documents are filed and no one pays any attention to them. The court adjourns the next day, or a day 
or two after, and if no objection is taken before adjournment the applicant becomes a British subject. There is no inquiry as to his intelligence or his general fitness of character, moral or otherwise, and nothing is asked as to his education. They know absolutely nothing about the matter, but the judge grants the certificate, as he is permitted to do under the former law. Is it not fair and better, as is suggested in the present Bill, that an inquiry shall be made and that the man shall be required to attend and ibiing proof, and -that he shall be familiar with English or French? These questions will be ascertained deliberately by the court. There must be an investigation -and a thorough inquiry and the court will report to the Secretary of State, who then will have a discretion to act or not to act. Whichever way he exercises his discretion, he is responsible to Parliament, which can condemn him if he -has done wrong. I cannot suggest a better mode or one that will yield more satisfactory results from every point of view than the one laid down in the Bill. It is the law in England and has been so for many years, and we will do very well to adopt it in this country.


Herbert John Mackie: Is it not a fact that the applicant will have to go home and wait until the Secretary of State has decided whether naturalization papers will be granted or not, and must then come back and take the oath before the clerk of the court? Is it not true that he must go back to the court and fake the oath before the clerk of the court? If that is the case I submit that it is an absolutely unreasonable thing with the great distances that we have in this country.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that might be remedied because it does not say that he must take the oath before the court.


Herbert John Mackie: It says:
Upon the applicant taking- and subscribing the oath of allegiance the clerk shall deliver the certificate to the applicant.


Hugh Guthrie: The certificate might be presented to the clerk of the court as is usually done in numberless cases but that does not mean that the applicant .must go before the clerk of the court. I have no objection to embodying that in the clause because it would not be reasonable to ask a man to go before the court again.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend claims that Parliament should control naturalization. We certainly do. We are enacting a law prescribing how a man shall go about it to become naturalized. Who is going

to witness that these conditions shall be complied with? The Solicitor General says that the court will report favourably if an applicant is a fit person to become a British subject and that otherwise the court does not so report. But, this clause says that the Secretary of State shall have "absolute discretion" to issue a certificate of naturalization. That is what I object to and I move that the clause be amended as follows:
By striking out the word1 "may" in the first line of section 25 and substituting the word " shall " and by striking out, at the beginning of the second line thereof, the words " in his absolute discretion."	,
It will then read:
The Secretary of State of Canada shall thereupon issue a certificate of naturalization.


Hugh Guthrie: My objection to that is that the law is now five years old and it has caused no wrong, injury, or inconvenience.


Ernest Lapointe: A case has been mentioned.


Hugh Guthrie: A case has been mentioned, it is true, but the evidence goes to show that it only requires the proof of an act that was done some years ago and that,
I have no doubt, could be established. But this has been our law for five years.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Section 25 is marked " new " is it not?


Hugh Guthrie: That is a mistake in the printing. The only change in this section is that the old section provided for a duplicate certificate, one to he kept by the court and the other to be given to the applicant. This provides for one certificate. The provision with regard to " absolute discretion " was in the Act of 1914. This is the system that has been adopted by Great Britain, although that would not mean that we should adopt it, and it is a system that has been in force here for the last five years.
It gives us everything we are entitled to, it protects every applicant and I would not like to consent to a change in the clause.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Upon what is the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion? Discretion is exercised by a judge in regard to the question of costs in a lawsuit.
If he finds that there is some blame on both sides, while he gives his decision in one way, yet there is not enough justification for the decision to allow costs and he exercises his discretion in that way. Under this section, a judge, we will say, sitting in


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
Toronto, hears an application and after hearing all the evidence he decides that the man is entitled to a certificate of naturalization. He sends his certificate to the Secretary of State at Ottawa. There is to be no hearing before the Secretary of State. There is nobody to appear before him; he is to have nothing before him but the decision reached by the judge. On what is he going to exercise his discretion? Is he to go on what is reported to him by the proper tribunal and on that is he to base his discretion? I always understood that discretion is exercised on some fact that the party exercising the discretion has the privilege of weighing in his mind. There is nothing before him other than the judgment of the court which says that the man is entitled to the certificate. I would like to understand- from the Solicitor General what material is submitted to the Secretary of State on which he is to exercise his discretion.
Hugh Guthrie: I do not assume that there is going to be merely the bare, bald report that this man is entitled to a certificate. I assume that the judge will produce an intelligent report stating the circumstances and reasons in each particular case. Judges are very human like other people and [DOT] there is no uniformity in the minds of judges throughout the country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thought that justice was an attribute of divinity.


Hugh Guthrie: Justice is but judges are not.


Jacques Bureau: How much superior is the Secretary of State?


Hugh Guthrie: There is one central board which is responsible to this Parliament in the case of the Secretary of State and a judge is not responsible.


Jacques Bureau: He is responsible.


Hugh Guthrie: No, he is not unless you impeach him and he cannot be impeached for a wrong judgment.


Jacques Bureau: How are we going to deal with the Secretary of State?


Hugh Guthrie: You can charge the Secretary of State before this House upon any question you like.


Jacques Bureau: And you will whitewash him.


Hugh Guthrie: You can hold him to the strictest account.


Jacques Bureau: And you will whitewash him.


EDITION
Hugh Guthrie: You should not assume so much as that. Some men will assume anything that is not fair.


Jacques Bureau: I am basing my statements on past experience.


Hugh Guthrie: If my hon. friend is going to assume wrong-doing in the administration of the Act by one of the responsible ministers of the Crown, he is going to bring into disrepute the whole Government in its administration of the Act.


Ernest Lapointe: It cannot be worse than it is now.


Hugh Guthrie: There is no warrant for any insinuation of that kind.


Ernest Lapointe: Certainly there is.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) asks: How is he going to form his discretion? He is going to have a report showing on certain facts that a certain man is entitled to a certificate or he is going to have certain other facts in another judgment showing that a man is not entitled to a certificate. The Secretary of State will inquire into' these things. He will try to administer the statute in accordance with its provisions and he will exercise his discretion accordingly. If he has the complete report of a judge before him stating that a man is entitled to a certificate, there is no chance of exercising a discretion in a case of that kind, but a judge might hold that a man was entitled to his certificate without the complete evidence before him. Something might transpire to change the situation in the interval between the making of the report and the granting of the certificate.


Mr. ROSS:: It would be cancelled if it were not properly granted.


Hugh Guthrie: It is not the easiest thing in the world to cancel a certificate of naturalization after it has been once granted.


James Hamilton Ross: Does my hon. friend argue that the Secretary of State is going to read the evidence in all the cases of naturalization?


Hugh Guthrie: No; he is going to read the report.


James Hamilton Ross: In each case?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


James Hamilton Ross: He will be kept busy.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, no.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The law, as provided by section 24, is this:
If the court decides-
After a full hearing.
If the court decides that the alien is a fit and proper person to be naturalized and possesses the required qualifications, a certified: copy of such decision shall be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary of State of Canada together with the application and such other papers, documents and reports as may be required iby any regulation made hereunder. (Naturalization Act, 19:14.)
With all due respect for my good friend the Solicitor General, I see nothing there about the decision of the judge. If he finds that an applicant is a fit and proper person to be naturalized he so decides and he sends the certificate to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has to reverse him or grant the certificate. That is all the latitude that he has; he has to reverse him without hearing a word of evidence and he has to reverse the decision of the judge who saw the man and heard all the evidence.


John Ewen Sinclair: My objection to the section is that it implies a star chamber method of dealing with naturalization. It does not seem to imply that an appeal is to be granted. If the decision of the Secretary of State were subject to appeal-


Hugh Guthrie: There is an appeal here.


John Ewen Sinclair: There might be an opportunity for arguing the case and presenting both sides, as is done in the law courts, but there is no provision for a hearing. The Secretary of State seems to be authorized to go behind closed doors, take up the decision of the judge and reverse it. That is altogether against the principles of British law and British fair play. If my hon. friend wants to organize a court of appeal and make the Secretary of State the judge of that court, let him make provision for that and let both sides be properly heard before any decision is given. That is my chief objection to this section, and I shall vote for the amendment.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It seems to me that the section is all right. There may be in the hands of the Secretary of State, of the chief of Dominion Police, or of some department of the Government, information concerning the character, disposition, criminal tendency or otherwise of an alien which, had it been placed before the judge who adjudicated upon the application, would have caused the judge to submit an entirely different report. Consequently, as a safeguard this section is necessary.


Jacques Bureau: The Secretary of State has power of revocation.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is also true, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The power of revocation might not be exercised until something happened that was inimical to the best interests of the country. I do not like the word "thereupon" in the section. What does it mean? If it relates to the preceding section only, I can understand it; but if it does, I think the section should read "may, upon compliance with the requirements of the last preceding section."


Hugh Guthrie: Or, "On receipt of the report and evidence referred to in the last section."


Robert Hamilton Butts: From my own experience I can speak in the highest terms of the provisions embodied in sections 24 and 25. I am not the only lawyer who is here from Nova Scotia; I am not very much of a lawyer, anyway. But I have been in politics for quite a number of years-and I am going to be frank and candid with this Committee. For some years the lawyer who was running an election in Nova Scotia was always prepared to naturalize a foreigner for the sake of getting his vote; and I was a sinner in that respect as well as the rest of them. If this section does away with some of that, then let us have it. I have known Huns, Austrians, Hungarians, and all the rest, to go into the court-house at Sydney, though they had not been long enough in the country to know east from west, and swear that they had been here three, four, or five years, just for the sake of getting clear of the fees that a lawyer who was not in politics would likely charge them. Now, if the Solicitor General, by this section, is doing away with that, he is doing well.


Mr. POWER:: Mr. Chairman, I think that under the circumstances the hon. gentleman (Mr. Butts) should resign.
Amendment (Mr. Bureau) negatived on division; yeas, 23; nays, 43.


Herbert John Mackie: Does the minister intend to amend section 25 so as to avoid the necessity of a second trip on the part of the applicant?


Hugh Guthrie: 
Jacques Bureau: Would it not be well that this be transmitted so that there may be a record that he has subscribed ? The granting of a certificate by the Secretary of State is no evidence that the applicant has complied with all that is required of him to become a British subject.


Hugh Guthrie: He cannot get the cerifi-cate until he has taken his oath.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would it not be well for the clerk himself to take that oath. As a rule clerks are commissioners, but I think in this case the clerk should be named, as it is better that he should take the oath when the man comes for his certificate.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the objection on the part of the hon. member for Edmonton, that the applicant is going to have to make two long trips, one to prove his case, and another when he comes back for his certificate. It is to avoid the second journey that we are going to permit him to take the oath before a justice of the peace at his own home or to go to court, as he sees fit.


Jacques Bureau: The certificate has got to be delivered by the clerk to the individual, has it ?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Why not swear him when it is delivered ?


Charles Marcil: Is the Secretary of State required to report on the granting or refusal of these certificates?


Hugh Guthrie: I have not considered that point.


Charles Marcil: It would be important for Parliament to know if the Secretary of State did refuse those applications.


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose a member can always ask the question and get returns.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended, agreed to.
On section 32-Saving for letters of denization:
Jacques Bureau: I would like to have an explanation about that.


The CHAIRMAN:: If the hon. gentleman wants an explanation I must remind him that he should rise in his place and address the Chair.


Jacques Bureau: I have not time, because the clauses are passed quicker than a man

can rise, even, if he had a spring to push him up.


Hugh Guthrie: Letters of denization are special privileges granted by a sovereign state for the residence of its nationals in other lands without prejudice to their citizenship. They are never granted in this country,-at least, I have never heard of such a thing.


Jacques Bureau: That is because we are not a sovereign state.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 33-Definitions-British subject; alien; certificates of naturalization; disability; territorial waters; Secretary of State:
John Ewen Sinclair: Subsection (a) provides:
The Expression " British subject " means a person who is a natural-born British subject, or a person to whom a certificate of naturalization has been granted, or a person who has become a subject of His Majesty by reason of any annexation of territory;
A part of that clause is extraordinary, that by reason of the annexation of territory all the inhabitants of that territory become British subjects. Suppose, for example, that the state of Maine decided to become a part of the Dominion, the moment that state was annexed, all its inhabitants under this subsection would appear to become the subjects of His Majesty, and to be naturalized.


Hugh Guthrie: Would not that be right?


John Ewen Sinclair: Is an inhabitant of that territory a naturalized British subject?


Hugh Guthrie: No; but because hi3 country is annexed he is a British subject.


John Ewen Sinclair: Is not that an innovation?


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose it has been the law since there Was any law, that in case of annexation by conquest the people of the annexed state acquire the nationality of the conqueror. The particular words to which my hon. friend refers were put in the Imperial Act of 1918, I think, in view of the peace treaty, and I believe in South Africa some people will become British subjects who were formerly German subjects.
Mr. W. H. W1H1ITE: I understand that Bukowina and Galicia are now claimed as Polish territory. The Poles not being considered alien enemies, what status would the people coming from Polish Austria have?


Hugh Guthrie: Subsection (4) (B) of section 8 provides that no alien enemy shall be naturalized for a period of ten years after the waT, but that that provision shall not apply to members of a race or community known to be opposed to the enemy governments. That was inserted! in the Imperial Act, and is followed in our Act, by reason of the fact that the Czecho-Slo-vaks, the Armenians, and people in Poland were, it is said, absolutely opposed to the Central Powers in the recent war. It is not intended to deprive these people of their right to naturalization unless they were actually alien enemies. For that reason that subsection has been inserted in section 8.


William Henry White: In the opinion of the Solicitor General, would Poles coming from Polish Austria be considered as alien enemies?


Hugh Guthrie: I cann t tell that. That part of the law would have to be very carefully administered,


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Clause 20 says that the application shall be made, not to a court, but to a judge, and clause 23 says that the applicant shall produce his proof to the court. Therefore, some definition of the word "court" should be inserted in clause 33, so that the proof may, if so desired, be produced before a judge sitting in Chambers.


Hugh Guthrie: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If you had it simply:
The word " court " shall mean the court or a judge.
That is all that you require. There is no question in the world about that.


Hugh Guthrie: I really do not think any difficulty would arise if you do not

define the word. The two expressions are used "judge" and "court." They mean the same thing, and there would not be any conflict. The word "court" is not defined in the Imperial Act, and our language is the same.


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON:: Clause 20
reads:
An alien desiring to be naturalized shall apply for a decision establishing that he is qualified and fit to be naturalized under the provisions of this Act to any Judge of any Superior Court, or to any Judge of any Circuit, District or County Court, and in the Northwest Territories to such authorities or persons as the Governor in Council may prescribe.
Does that include the 1?ukon Territory?


Hugh Guthrie: Northwest Territories
would include the Yukon, I think.


Alfred Thompson: No, the
Yukon is a distinct territory.


Hugh Guthrie: I am glad of that information. We can remedy that very readily by referring back to clause 20 and inserting the words " in the Yukon and " after the word " and " in the 32nd line.


Alfred Thompson: That will be all right.


Hugh Guthrie: I will leave the other
section as it is.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My purpose is this.
Under clause 20 you can make your application to a judge of a Superior Court or of a county court, but you are told in clause 23 that it is only a court that can hear you. You can make your application all right to a judge sitting in chambers or anywhere else, but when you come to a hearing you are told that your hearing will be before a court. In some parts of Canada a court may sit only once or twice a year, while a judge may be there quite frequently, and the man should be permitted to go before the judge when he is not sitting in court. My object is that the judge shall have power to hear the evidence as a judge just as he has power to receive the application.


Hugh Guthrie: I move to strike out
paragraph (f) and to replace the said paragraph by the following words:
The expression " court " shall means "court" or "judge" where used in this Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 20-application to court:
Hugh Guthrie: I beg to amend this section by adding after the word "and" in line 32, the words "in the Yukon and."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is putting the Yukon in the same category as the Northwest Territories. There is a judge in the Yukon, and wherever there is a judge he should be the authority.


Alfred Thompson: Under the section as amended, would it be possible for an alien to appear before the judge of the Yukon territorial court?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He would have no authority at all under the section as amended.


Alfred Thompson: The Governor in Council will have to prescribe the judge of the Yukon territorial court?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the Yukon is left in the same category as the rest of the country the applicants would go before the judge in any event.	>


Alfred Thompson: That has
been the custom there.


Hugh Guthrie: I see no necessity for naming the Yukon, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-revocation of certificate of naturalization:
Hugh Guthrie: I beg to move to amend this section by inserting after the word "State" in line 3 of page 4 of the Bill the words "of Canada."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In the absence of my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster), who is the grammatic critic of the House, I feel called upon to say that there is quite a conflict of opinion as to whether we should say "Secretary of State of Canada" or "Secretary of State for Canada." Personally I think the latter expression is the better.


Hugh Guthrie: I looked up the revised statutes, and they say "of Canada."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: "Secretary of Canada
for the Colonies," "Secretary for India," "Secretary for War"-these are all good English expressions. The word "for" is always used in the Imperial statutes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-effect of revocation of certificate of naturalization :
Hugh Guthrie: I beg to move that the words " of Canada " be inserted after the

word "state" in line 10 of page 6 of the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section stands.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I see that the territory of Papua is included with the Commonwealth of Australia in the schedule. I understood that Australia was given only mandatory powers by the League of Nations.


Hugh Guthrie: I could not give any information on that. The Imperial Act includes Papua.


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask whether the Imperial Act of 1918, the provisions of which we are adopting in this Bill, was submitted to the Canadian Government for approval before being introduced in the British House?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know whether it was submitted directly, but all the provisions of the Imperial Act were, discussed at the Imperial 'Conference in England prior to the introduction of the Bill in the British Parliament, and all these provisions were assented to by the representatives of the Dominions. Two or three other points which were discussed at the Conference were not embodied in the Imperial Act, and we have not embodied them in our Bill, but I understand there has been some discussion in England as to the necessity of further legislation covering these outstanding points. All the provisions of our Bill were tentatively agreed to by the representatives present at the Imperial Conference in London last year.
Progress reported.


PENSION ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 108, to provide pensions to, or in respect of, members of the Canadian naval, military, and air farces, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Mr. ROWELL:: When the Committee rose on Saturday we were still discussing section 41. Since then I have given consideration to the various suggestions made with reference to the phraseology of the section, and I think it would probably meet the object desired if we eliminated the expression "unmarried wife." Objection was taken on both sides of the House to this expression, and we might strike it out from the second line and insert after the word "forces," in the third line, the words "or of a woman awarded a pension under subsection 3 of section 33 of this Act."


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I have been doing some thinking, too, in regard to the phrase. My objection to it was very clear on account of its being a contradiction in terms. A "wife" is a woman to whom a man is married, and ah "unmarried wife" is a woman to whom a man is married and not married. The phrase is ridiculous. I understood that no hon. gentleman objected to the money going to a person occupying that position. Therefore, how would "conjugal dependent" do?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Will my hon.. friend note the suggestion I have made to strike out the words "unmarried wife" and insert in the proper place the words I have mentioned. It seems to me that removes all objection to this section, and later I will move that we return to section 33.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Instead of the words "unmarried wife," would it not be better to use the expression "outcast?"


Jacques Bureau: For that matter, we might call them "Gretna Green brides."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, let me say once for all to the minister, that I do not think that this Parliament should recognize any rights in a woman who is improperly living with a man. If a woman chooses to break away from the laws of society and of morals, the laws of God and of this land, and to live improperly with a man, she takes all the responsibilities upon herself, and the law cannot recognize any rights in her. She could go into court and claim wages if she could show that she was not living with the man for immoral purposes. The law would help her to get her wages, but nothing else. If it is true that in every court in Canada such a woman is absolutely tabooed and cannot for one moment claim assistance from the law, is the House of Commons of Canada going to recognize her as having rights? It is absolutely impossible; let us once for all disadvise our minds of any such ideas. If the man with whom such a woman lives can provide for her, and if under the law they are permitted to live together, that is not our business; but this House is bound to see to it that the moral law as regards marriage and the proper relations of the family in this country are maintained; this House must stand by the sanctity of the marriage tie. If a man has money he has a right to do what he pleases with it, so long as he does not interfere with any one else. It is sad that people should be living together in that way, and if we have no law at present to deal with such a

condition, I suppose it must continue. But in the interest of good morals, in the interests of the rising generation, in the interests of the people as a whole, it must be understood without the slightest equivocation that the Parliament of Canada will not recognize any family relation except that which is sanctioned by the moral and social law.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I repeat what I said on Saturday on this subject, and in so doing I entirely agree with the remarks just made by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie). I do not understand why my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council should insist on such an immoral clause. Sir, it is an insult to every mother as well as to the entire womanhood of this fair country, to think that the Parliament of Canada will discard all recognized principles of decency because, forsooth, it happens that some soldiers are living irregularly with women. What is the foundation of law? The elements of Roman law which is the foundation of our civil law and of the common law of England, are based on two principles: honeste vivere, to live honestly; neminem laedere, to injure no one. What are you doing by this legislation? Are you inculcating in the people of the country the injunction that they must live honestly in order to have the protection of the law? Are you giving them to understand that in order to be within their right they must injure no one? No, Sir! You are prostituting the name of every mother and of every honest woman in crystallizing such a principle, and I say that no synod, no conference, no church, no decent organization in the country, knows of this clause, because the Government would have been bombarded with petitions and protests foT having introduced such legislation. I do not understand the mentality of my hon. friend. Why, this is putting a premium on immorality. Some people think that because it affects the returned soldiers we must give way. Well, is it the course to be pursued by a Government to give way to every whim and passion of people? The Government must resist and say, even to these returned soldiers: You are wrong; when you are right, we stand by you, but when you are wrong, we are against you and will resist. I would not be afraid to speak that way before a meeting of returned soldiers.


Michael Clark: From the moral point
of view is the soldier who lives with a woman under those conditions not exactly in the same position as the woman, and
would my hon. friend go the length of refusing the man his pension on the same ground?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Because he went to the war, because he was at the front, because he exposed his life and came back maimed and a cripple he is entitled to his pension. But, he does not get his pension as a result of living with the woman. He gets it because he served his country at the front. The unfortunate woman, if she is in a position of dependence, while she is living an irregular life-and I have much human sympathy with her-under the law cannot claim the protection which she could claim if she were the honest and legal wife of that soldier. I think it is a most dangerous principle.


Jacques Bureau: Mormonism.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is asserting a most
dangerous principle when you sanction such a thing in this Bill because, forsooth, the returned soldiers ask for it. At the present time, in the Senate, there is a Bill amending the Criminal Code in such a way as to make the law more drastic than it ever has been just on account of the violation of this seventh commandment.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Sixth.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The sixth commandment. The legislation which is contained in this Bill violates first the law of God and second the law of every civilized country, the law of the land.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
After Recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Surely the President of the Council will reconsider clause 41 before he asks the Committee to adopt it in its present form. The amendment which he proposes is simply a play upon words; it does not strike at the root of the trouble. He suggests that the words " unmarried wife '' be struck out, and that after the word " forces " in the third line, the words " or of a woman awarded a pension under subsection 3 of section 33 of this Act " be inserted. Subsection 3 of section 33 reads as follows:
A woman who, although not married to the member of the forces, was living with him in Canada at the time he became a member of the forces and for a reasonable time previously thereto, and who, at such time, was publicly represented by him as his wife shall, for the purposes of this Act, be considered to have been his unmarried wife and may, in the oase

of his death and in the discretion of the commission, be awarded a pension equivalent to the pension she would have received had she been his legal widow.
I can only repeat what I have already said: This provision is placing a premium on immorality, and any law enacted by this Parliament, or by any Parliament in a Christian country, should be based upon morality. I mentioned the other day an article which was published in a Toronto magazine last week, which shows clearly that on this question of the relation between the sexes we are passing' through a revolution in Canada, and possibly in the world. But the standing of our nation so far has been very creditable and highly Christian, and tp crystallize into this Act any such principle as that which is proposed is to go against the Christian traditions of Canada-I should say, of the British Empire. But evidently there appears to be a lessening of the consideration for the matrimonial tie. The following few sentences from the magazine to which I have referred, will show how people have lost all sense of respectability now that the war is over. The article is published under the caption, " Three Million Husbands Wanted." I quote:
First, therefore, our divorce laws must be drastically revised and facilities granted for reasonably easy divorce on all reasonable ground. It should be possible to dissolve a loveless marriage without the necessity of making a public exhibition of "irregular incidents,"' in order to justify a divorce in the eyes of the law. This would at once set free a large number of men at present bound in marriage which is unhappy and sterile. These men would be free to remarry and very many of them would do so.
After all, would any one 'be the loser by the dissolution of all the existing definitely unhappy marriages? The old arguments are still heard urging that married misery must be perpetuated, and the parties to it held1 to their bond, for the various reasons familiar to most people. But are not these reasons more than a little old-fashioned, and do they not appeal to the past and passing generations more than to men and women of the rising generation, in whose hands rests the future?
The cancelling of existing unhappy marriages and permanent provision for easy dissolution of such marriages in the future, would help towards solving the problem of our surplus women. But far greater help would be given by making marriage altogether freer than it is at present.
There is only one valid, one legal, one moral relationship between the sexes, and it is that which takes place in some societies by the sacrament of marriage, and in others by the contract of marriage, because 'some claim that marriage is a sacrament; others that it is a contract. But

whether it is a sacrament or a contract, if it is admitted all over the civilized world, more especially in Christian countries, that it creates a spiritual tie between the parties concerned, how can we, in any legislation, go against that principle?
Why, our Criminal Code provides against such relations as are protected by this clause 41; and, as I stated this afternoon, a Bill has just been passed by the Senate, and will be before us in a day or two, whereby such illicit or irregular relations are branded as criminal, and may bring the parties to the bar,-not of public opinion only, but of the criminal courts as well; and yet by this clause we are putting a premium on these illegal and immoral relations. Matrimony should be encouraged by the State, because it is accepted by the Christian religion as the basis on which our social relations must inevitably rest. Even under the pagans of Rome there was a great distinction between concubinage and marriage. The state of concubinage created illegitimate children, and the concubine was never known as the uxor to the Roman law. There was not what the Roman law styles as the dignitas mariti on the part of the man who thus lived in a state of concubinage, and the issue were considered as liberi naturales-natural children; or liberi quasi sine patre nati-children who have no father. While the children born of a lawful marriage,-which even in Rome was dignified by a religious ceremony,-were considered as liberi qui patrem habent. It is so clear, that the sons of those immoral parents were and are inscribed in the registers as children born of unknown parents-they are not recognized by law.
According to our civil law-I do not know how it is in the other provinces-you cannot make a donation, for instance, to your concubine. There can be no contract validated by the fact that such relations have existed as between this woman and that man unless they marry. So the whole trend of our legislation is against such a mode of living. If I refer to the prayer book-and I think my hon. friend is more familiar with it possibly than I am-I find that it lays down the reasons for which matrimony was ordained: first, for the procreation of children; second, for the avoidance of sin; third, for mutual society and sympathy. According to all authors matrimony is the basis upon which civilized nations have built their social fabric, thus obeying the teachings of Christianity and, at the same time, furnishing themselves

with a sound position on which to treat the rights of succession to property and other cognate matters.
Therefore, I say: You must not by this proposed legislation lessen the esteem in which the sanctity of marriage is held at present. This legislation is prejudicial to general morality, because the essence of marriage is spiritual. The Christian is moved-do not forget it, Mr. Chairman-by moral impulses and is guided by moral principles which are peculiar to himself. He cannot look on marriage, for example, from either the purely economic or the purely sensuous point of view, because piar-riage is an exalted state of society existing between two persons of different sexes. It is sanctified by God. I repeat, I cannot understand why my hon. friend, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), who is supposed to be austere in his views, should press this legislation. Perhaps he will tell me, "Well, the soldiers are clamouring tor it." Sir, I have the highest regard for the soldiers,-like them, I am human-and I do not believe that I am unduly austere or severe, but there must be a limit to our generous treatment of them. We must give liberally to the soldier what he is entitled to receive-and I claim, Sir, that the soldier in Canada, comparing his lot with the soldier who served in this war in the other countries, can say that he has been generously treated by a grateful nation, and I do not begrudge what the nation has done for him-but when it comes to infringing on the essential moral principle upon which our society is founded, and which draws its inspiration from Christianity, you must not go any further; it is time to say:	Halt! .Do not
listen to every passing whim and to every passion of the moment. Be stern.. Be firm. The Government must know how to resist when unjustifiable demands are made upon it. Will my hon. friend, in view of the gravity of this question, tell me if the Government has been requested or petitioned by any class of soldiers to enact this clause? I would be very much interested in knowing if this is the case. I would not, of course, ask for the names, but even if the Government had been petitioned, the Government could turn down the petition because it is not based upon any moral ground.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think, in fact I know, that the hon. member (Mr. Le-mieux) has spoken from his heart and that he is absolutely sincere in the plea that
he has made to the House. Five years ago I would have made exactly the same plea, and probably I-would make the same plea to-night, had it not been for the fact that during the last few years I have come into personal contact with so many problems that I have altered my point of view to a considerable extent. Had there been no war, many veils would not have been lifted, we would probably have never known of many of the domestic tragedies that have necessarily been uncovered by this war. A great many men, in these days of migration, passed from one country to another because of unhappy domestic relationship. It oftentimes happens that a man living in the Old Country, let us say in England, does not live happily with his wife, and they separate, perhaps by mutual consent. Perhaps the woman abandons him; perhaps the fault is on her side. The man's home is broken up, and very often that man goes to some new part of the British Empire, to Australia or New Zealand or Canada, and starts again. He does not hear from his former wife perhaps for many years. He makes new affiliations; in the new land where he has his life to begin all over again, he finds another mate and they set up a home together. He is honest with the other woman; he tells her he cannot go before a minister and be married because he says: I have a wife somewhere; I know not where, who left me ten or fifteen years ago, but if you live with me, we shall be faithful to each other and our home will be to all intents and purposes that of a married couple. I do not think the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) has any idea of the hundreds and hundreds of such families there are in Canada.
Nor would the question ever have been raised in this way had it not been for the war. Over and over again, branches of the Canadian Patriotic Fund all the way from Cape Breton to Vancouver have been faced with this case. A man would come in and say: "I wish to enlist; will you take care of my wife while I am gone." The Patriotic Fund officer would say:	" Will you ask
your wife to show me her marriage lines or her marriage certificate and the certificates of birth of her children so that I may know that the marriage is legal and that the children were properly born." The woman would say:	I am sorry but I can
show no lines." It was found necessary at the very beginning of the war for the military authorities to say that where such a case had existed, they would give the separation allowance and pay it to the de facto wife, to the woman with whom the man was

living, to the woman and children whom he was accustomed to support, whom he would have to leave when he enlisted and went overseas. When that woman would come to he Patriotic Fund and tell her story, we would say to her: "Yes, he may go overseas, and while he is gone, although you have not the necessary marriage certificate, the Patriotic Fund will help you and your husband's children." A pledge was made by the military authorities to that man that that woman would be regarded as his wife, and the same pledge was made and kept by the Patriotic Fund. If that man is killed and that woman is not in any way to be recognized by the Government or by any other organization because the marriage was not legal and because the children were not born to the first wife to whom he was originally married, then a very great hardship will exist. Hundreds of women, who were innocent women because they lived with a man not always knowing his previous history, oftentimes assuming that they were married to him or expecting to be married to him, and many of whom were faithful to the men with whom they were respectively living, cannot be left without any recognition by the Pension Bill or any other fund. I know it is a condition that from a moral point of view we deplore, but we cannot get beyond the fact that it exists and that it must be met, and this House, notwithstanding even the plea that has been so admirably made on moral grounds by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), should allow the clause to stand in the Bill.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Just a word or two in further reply to the hon. member for Maisonneuve. With all that my hon. friend has said about the importance of the sanctity of the marriage tie, I am in absolute agreement, and with all that he has said about the desirability of not incorporating in our legislation anything which would tend tb weaken the sanctity of the marriage tie I also cordially agree. Therefore, there is no difference of opinion between us on the importance of this question or on the sacredness of the relationship established by the marriage of two persons. Where I differ from my hon. friend, however, is in this: My hon. friend has expressed his amazement that I should present a Bill to the House, which, he says, encourages immorality. He asks: Is it possible that the Government has sanctioned and approved such a Bill? He asks: Have returned soldiers petitioned for it? If so, who? I will tell my hon. friend where this comes from, what is the origin of this clause. The clause

grew out of the necessities of the situation as explained by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames), but it comes from a committee of this House appointed in the year 1916, of which committee my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) was a member, and that committee reported this clause to this House and this House sanctioned the incorporation of this clause in the Pension regulations.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I shall read to my hon. friend the clause in the report of the committee of 1916. The seventeenth paragraph of the report, to be found in the Votes and Proceedings of the House, 1916, sixth series, at page 727, reads:
That, in the event of an application being made for a pension on behalf of a woman who has, without being married to a member of such force, lived with him as his wife, or on behalf of the child or children of any such man or woman, the Commission be authorized to grant the customary pension for a wife or for a child or children, on being satisfied that the circumstances were such as to warrant the conclusion that the woman had at the time of enlistment and for a reasonable time, previously thereto, publicly been represented as the wife of said member of such Force, or if the commission is satisfied that Justice would be done by the recognition of such woman, for the purpose of pension, as the wife of such member; on the marriage of the woman 'her personal pension cease, but that she be entitled to draw a gratuity of an amount equal to one year's pension.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am sure my bon. friend doees not want to be unfair to me. It is true that every member of the House is appointed to several committees. I remember having attended some meetings of the Pensions Committee two years ago, but I was not ia regular attendant last year or .this because I had so many other duties to perform. I have never personally sanctioned the principle which is embodied here, but that does not mean, that my hon. friend is wrong when he says that being a member of that Committee I was bound by its report. To a certain extent that is true, but the legislation is now before the House and I take my stand on this question freely. I was not present at the meeting of the Committee at which this particular point was discussed; I should have been present, but I am a member of so many committees and have so many duties to perform that I could not attend that Committee regularly. I admit, however, that my hon. friend is right when he says that I am bound by the report of the Committee of which I was a member.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I quoted that in .answer to my hon. friend's expression of surprise that I should have introduced and stood sponsor for this Bill in this House. My hon. friend wanted to know if the Government stood sponsor for such an immoral Bill as this, and I say to my hon. friend that the Bill is based in a report of a committee of the House of which he was* a member, which report was approved unanimously by the House at that time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is never too late to mend.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so. Let me go a step further. This provision in the report of the committee of 1916 was unanimously approved by the House, not because the House did not recognize the importance of maintaining the sanctity of the marriage relation, but because a condition existed which the House felt it could not ignore, and which must be dealt with to prevent very grievous hardship. Last year there was a large and influential committee of this House which reviewed all these pension regulations, and they did not recommend any change in the regulations in this respect.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend any information as to the number of these
cases?


Herbert Brown Ames: There were 184 cases in Montreal alone where the marital arrangements of the dependent families were not normal.	.


Ernest Lapointe: That is no reason why we should encourage these irregular relations.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We are dealing with a condition that exists. This year this Bill was printed at the very opening of the session and distributed confidentially to all the members of the Pensions Committee. The Bill has now been in the hands of the members of the Pensions Committee for three months or more. It was before the committee for consideration at many meetings, and so far as this clause is concerned, it passed the committee without a dissentinng voice.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Was the point that is raised now raised in the committee, and was there any discussion on it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There was an explanation by my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle).


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Was there any discussion?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The question came up and my hon. friend from Kingston explained to the committee the reasons why it was necessary to put such a clause in the Bill.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Was it objected to by anybody on the committee?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not recall that it was objected to by anybody, not because the members desired to lessen the sanctity of the marriage tie, but because the statement made by the hon. member for Kingston of the actual conditions existing apparently impressed the members of the committee that it was necessary to have provision made, and convinced them that the committee would not be justified in changing the law in that respect. So this comes to us with the backing of the Pensions Committees of this House for three sessions, and I think under these conditions it is deserving of the very serious consideration of the House.
The section now before us is not the one which authorizes the granting of the pen- ' sion to a woman in the condition we have been discussing. That is an earlier section of the Bill which has already passed the House. What this section provides is that in case of the marriage of such a woman the pension should cease, and I am sure that with that all the members of the House will agree. My amendment this afternoon was to strike out the expression "unmarried wife," to which strong exception had been taken, and 'to substitute therefor a reference to the prior section-"a woman granted a pension under subsection 3 of section 33."
tdr. LEMIEUX: In other words, as long as she is living an irregular life you pay her a pension, but the moment she marries and becomes an honest woman you cut the pension off.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We do exactly the same with the honest woman. The pension of a widow ceases if she re-marries.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would you put those two on an equal footing?


Newton Wesley Rowell: So far as cutting off the pension is concerned, if they re-marry, yes. The pensions of both are cut off if they remarry. Now a word with reference to the remarks made by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) before six o'clock. If I understood him aright he said that we are putting a premium on immorality by legalizing such a relation. I think my hon. friend is under a misapprehension as to the effect of the earlier provision. We are
i

not legalizing such an arrangement. We are not giving such a person the right to a pension, but we do provide that in such a case the Board of Pension Commissioners shall have a discretion to grant a pension if they think the case is one in which the pension should be granted. That is as far as the clause goes. It does authorize them to grant a pension in their discretion if they think one should be granted. Those are the reasons why the clause was inserted in the Bill, and that is the history of the clause now before the committee.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I regretted very much to hear my hon. friend (Sir Herbert Ames) make the admission here this evening that there were 184 cases of unmarried wives in Montreal.


Herbert Brown Ames: I did not say that.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Were there any such conditions in my county, and I represent one of the largest constituencies in Canada, I would try to hide them. Unmarried wife! Neither Shakespeare, nor Webster, nor any other man who wrote immortal English or compiled a dictionary ever defined an "unmarried wife." There are one or two words to describe them: "Concubine" is one; "strumpet" is another.
These are the only terms that have the same significance. I trust that our statutes will not be blemished with such an unworthy and meaningless expression as " unmarried wife ". Are we going to put a premium on immorality and infidelity in this country by statute of Parliament? Are we men sitting around the Council board here going to1 legislate' in such a manner as virtually to countenance a state of immorality? I hope not. Shakespeare was not only a great writer; he was a great philosopher, and a theologian of no mean repute. And hon. members will recall the words he put into the mouth of the Prince of Denmark, when he found the dishonest step-father praying at the bedside. He had dagger in hand ready to stab him, and expressed his wrath in these words:
No; Up sword and know thou a more horrid hent.
When he's drunk, asleep, or in the incestuous pleasures of his adulterous toed,
Then hit at him, that his heels may kick at Heaven,
And his soul he as damned and hlack as Hell whereto it goeth.
We are legislating to sanction a state of affairs similar to that which is reprehended in these tremendous words. At any rate, we are attempting to put through such legislation, and I sincerely hope that we
[Mr. Rowell.)
will not besmirch our statute-books and our moral records by passing such a section as section 41. For my own sake, and that of my family, I will not countenance it. I would be ashamed to face my wife and children if I voted for section 41.


Mr. McMASTER:: I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House to-night in discussing this matter. I have too high an appreciation'of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) to impute any unworthy motive to legislation which he supports. I can well understand the hardship which a strict adherence to legality imposes on a woman who has lived openly with a man as his wife when they are not married. I listened with the closest attention to what the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) said, and the case he puts forward is this: A man comes out into a new country after an unhappy existence in the old land, perhaps through no fault of his own. His wife over in the old country may have deserted him. He comes to this country and becomes friendly with a woman to whom he discloses his inability to marry her. He takes her to his hearth and home as his companion, and they live openly as man and wife. Now, I was brought up perhaps in a severe school, but I was taught that the woman who contracted a relationship of that sort with a man who could not marry her was living in sin with him, and was doing what was morally wrong. I believe that attitude is correct, although I grant that it may cause hardship. But is that not the very foundation of our Christian conception of the relation between the sexes? I concede that it may cause hardship, but is not that hardship something which society must suffer for the preservation of the purity of the marriage bond? I think it is. The children are in an entirely different position. They have no responsibilities attaching to them, and are entitled to the full benefit from anything which the state may afford. I do not want to see these women starve. Charity, if they are able to look after themselves, will grant them relief, on the ground of charity. But this Act implies, nay, directs by permission, that the Pension Commissioners may grant a pension in such cases as these, if they think proper so to do. I cannot vote for this. I trust I have no harsh feelings against any persons in this position. We have the best authority that he that is without sin should first cast a stone, but we cannot, unless we are prepared to debase

the whole moral and spiritual level of the Canadian people, pass this clause.


Mr. PECK:: May I ask the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) whether or not he thinks the State has a duty to perform to these dependents of dead soldiers?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The state has a duty to prevent any one suffering from 'hunger. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Peck) has failed to grasp my point, probably because I was not as clear as I should be. I trust I am not an unmerciful man. I would be sorry to see any woman suffering, but the claim of a sufferer must not be put upon a relationship which the law cannot and should not recognize. Let me put this case to the hon. member for Skeena. A man has been living with a woman as his concubine-for I must say in passing that the term "unmarried wife" is the most absurd term I have ever heard in my life; it means an unmarried married woman. The man has been dwelling with this woman as his concubine, and is killed in a railway accident. The law of this land would not allow this concubine to go before the court and get compensation, even though the railway was to blame; not because the state wishes the woman to suffer; but believing that the sanctity of the marriage tie should be kept inviolate, as the very basis of our whole social system the State says that if a woman enters into an irregular relationship of this kind the law will not recognize it, and no rights will flow from it. I do not want to see these people treated with harshness. I am not opposed to their receiving charity, but there must not be, on our statute books, even inferentially, a regulation providing that they have a right to receive aid from the State by reason of an irregular and improper relationship.


Mr. MANION:: I believe that the argument on the morality or immorality of such a condition in our land is beside the question. According to the statement of the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames), and in my own understanding of the situation, these women who have been living with men as their wives and have probably borne children by them, have been receiving from the Government, whiie the men were overseas fighting, separation allowances. That constituted an absolute pledge from this Government that these women were going to be looked after if the men .should die. I observe that the other side of the House frequently takes the Government to task for the alleged breaking
of pledges. Well, I do not think that this is a pledge that we should break. To my mind, the moral aspect of this subject does not concern us in this connection. No one is attempting to defend the morality of such a condition of domestic life as is defined by this term. I do not like the term "unmarried wife," and I would vote against the use of it, but I understand that it is being discarded. I do not believe, however, that we, who are all so prone to sin, every one of us,-I have no doubt that no hon. member in this Chamber would be able to throw stones if he lived in the days when the Lord found the woman in adultery-should take .the high moral ground that we would throw these women out into the streets to the mercy of uncertain charity, compelled to hunt for a living, possibly immorally. I personally will support the clause as amended.


John Ewen Sinclair: My hon. friend
must remember that we are here in a representative capacity and we have to deal with the public sentiment of this country in matters of this kind. My hon. friend may have a certain view upon this question, and so may I, but we are proposing to place legislation on the statute-book that is recognizing the rights of a concubine and placing her in the same position as a woman lawfully married. That is what we on this side of the House object to, and I am sure there are many hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who have just as strong objection to it as we have. My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) has pointed out that we do not recognize such women in relation to property. When a man dies, a woman of this character does not inherit his real estate. She does not get any dower rights, and she has no rights of this kind that have ever been recognized by law. The reasons are well known and they are as have been stated by my hon. friend from Brome. We are proposing to break away from that position in this case. I want to place myself on record as distinctly opposed to any such step. The only question that troubles me is that which relates to the children. We ought to provide for the children, and there ought to be some way found in which they can be cared for; but I do not 9 p.m. believe we have any call to place anything on the statute-books of this country that would recognize a woman who was living with a soldier as a concubine. By doing so we open the door to all kinds of trouble. Apart from the moral question, they will come by thousands and by tens of thousands and make claims on

the Government. How are we going to resist these claims? They will have the proof to a large extent in their own hands, and the department will not he able to say whether they are telling the truth or not. These claims will, of course, be investigated, but we are throwing open the door to all kinds of trouble if we once admit that a woman who has not been married to a soldier has the right to a pension. Besides, we are putting her on the same basis as the lawful wife. There is another Bill before this House in which we make it a crime to teach the doctrine that one may resort to force in order to get what he claims to be the rights of property. Twenty years in penitentiary for teaching doctrines of that kind. The rights of property are very sacred to this Government, but the Ten Commandments do not seem to be in the same class with them. I am opposed to this measure. But I would vote for a measure by which the children of the soldier can be cared for.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: We are discussing clause 41, but as a matter of fact clause 33, paragraph 3, absolutely disposes of this question. Be that as it may, let us come down to brass tacks and decide exactly what we are going to vote on. Is it the attitude of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House that they refuse to make any provision at all for the woman who has been living as a man's wife, or are they quibbling about the use of the word " unmarried wife"? Is it a question merely of the language that is being used, or is it a question of the fact? Do they propose to go out and absolutely state that in their opinion thesp women and these children shall not be protected by the State?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In order that there may be no mistake about it, let me say this: We recognize that the children should be looked after, but we say that there should be absolutely no recognition by the Parliament and the people of this country of prostitution and immorality of that class.


William Antrobus Griesbach: After that explanation let us go a step farther and see where we are in this matter. I commanded a battalion in which 6,000 men enlisted, and sub-quently a brigade through which 25,000 men passed, making in all about 30,000 men. A proportion only of these men came under my observation, hut I was made the recipient of the confidence of a large number of very excellent men. While I am not at liberty to discuss any of the cases that came under my observation, I will 
say this, that the House and the country would be surprised, as the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) was surprised, to find to what an extent this sort of thing has been going on. For different reasons, most of which seemed to me to be quite sound at the time, men had separated from their wives, wives had separated from their husbands, and this relationship to which the hon. gentleman has referred, sprang up. I am able to say of my own knowledge that these people were living together, illegally if you will, but happily, honestly and properly, bringing up their children with the greatest possible care and attention, and there was nothing in their outward lives to suggest for a moment what actually was a fact. These men were splendid soldiers, they were urgently needed, their services were highly valued and highly considered, and many of them have been killed or become incapacitated. Probably these men would not have been enlisted at all if they had not known that the country was going to protect their wives and families, and in the end, protect them by way of pension. I cannot for the lifq of me see how any man, while he may object, while he may regard, as I am sure we all do regard, this relationship with the deepest possible objection, can fail to treat it, not as a theory but as a fact which has developed in our national life and which we must deal with. The leader of the Opposition has said that he would provide for the children but he would absolutely refuse to provide for the woman. Even with the lowest woman, it is generally admitted that she best can mother her own children, and for these women I unhesitatingly say that they are the only women who can bring up these children and look after them. Therefore, I desire to put before the committee in the strongest possible manner my belief that the obligation rests upon this country very heavily, in so far as these women and children are concerned, to make absolutely the same provision for them as we do for those who are legally and properly married.
Mr. H. A. MAC'KIE: I do not know that I can add anything of interest to what has been said this evening, but i was struck a moment ago when my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) quoted us an authority which stands without an equal in this world but is also known to have been of immoral life. I am not at all surprised, Mr. Chairman, at the attitude of a portion of this House by reason of the fact that it is constituted of men alone and it

has been the duty of men from Christ down to the present time to throw the stone at woman. I will agree with the general principles enunciated by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) and the leader of the Opposition, that marriage is a sacrament and that all legislation should tend in the direction of upholding Christianity in that respect.
But you did not tell the man who enlisted in this fight not to sacrifice his blood on the battlefield lest his widow and children should have no assistance from the State. You accepted everything that he could give, and now that he has paid the great price-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We stand by the widow and the children of any man who gave his life at the front, but we do not pledge ourselves to support a concubine.


Herbert John Mackie: When the military authorities accepted the services of a man who declared himself to be living in. a state of concubinage, you permitted him to go on the battlefield and sacrifice himself for your liberty and the liberty of the people of the Dominion; and if the sin ' of that man would cause you to say, com-mitto in inferno et in aetemam, then you lose absolutely the Christian spirit that has been inculcated in you when you do not say, absolvo te a pecatis tuis. Why do you say that, as concerns these two cases, there should be a difference between the treatment accorded to the women, and children? If the sin is to be visited upon anybody it must be visited upon the seventh, generation; why exclude children from the benefits of this provision because they were ushered into this world without their consent? You have accepted the sacrifices of these men, and I am surprised to hear hon. gentlemen say that because a man lived in a state of sin, his natural wife and natural children should receive no benefit whatsoever from the pension system of the State, although he made the greatest sacrifice that man could make in the defence of his country and of this Empire. -A little Christianity is about all that is needed in the consideration of a question that faces us as a bald fact. If our Saviour came to this earth, I wonder whether He would take the opinion of the leader of the Opposition and the member for Maisonneuve, or whether he would be prepared to say that such a man as we have been discussing had redeemed himself at least in a measure by performing his whole duty to his country, a duty which other men
failed to perform, although they were capable of doing it. I heartily support this measure, without adopting the principle that we do in fact support concubinage. We are dealing with one special case, and one that is deserving in the eyes of every Christian.


William Stevens Fielding: We seem to be discussing the propriety of granting pensions to a certain class; but is that the subject of section 41, which is under consideration? Section 41 does not grant pensions. It provides for what seems to be a marriage gift, one year's pension in the case of marriage or the remarriage of the women in the classes mentioned. But the main purpose of this section is to stop pensions which are already granted, and if you omit this clause you do not stop anybody's pension, but you prevent the commission from stopping any such pension when the marriage or remarriage takes place.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was upon the expression " unmarried wife " that the discussion arose.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand that that has been amended.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The amendment is a
change of words, but it carries the same meaning.


William Stevens Fielding: I again make the point that this section does not grant any pensions, except that it provides for one year's pension as a marriage gift. If you omit this section you do not refuse pensions to the classes of women mentioned; you continue them. The object of this section is that, in a given condition, the pension may stop.


Mr. NICKLE:: My hon. friend (Mr. J.
H. Sinclair) is, I think, incorrect in his assertion that if these sections pass in relation to the status of the unmarried wife, we shall have " thousands and tens of thousands " of applicants for pension under this provision. Only 60,000 men were killed overseas-a multitude, in fact, but only those women can make application for pension who were the wives of men who were killed or died, and the statistics will prove beyond possibility of contradiction that the proportion of married men to those who were unmarried would not permit tens of thousands of applications to be made. Of many of the applications that will * be made and in respect of which pensions will be granted, the domestic relationship was quite regular and no dispute or question could arise.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Subsection 2 of section 33 says:
Subject to paragraph one of this section, the widow of a pensioner who, previous to his death, was pensioned for disability in any of the Classes 1 to 5 mentioned in Schedule A shall be entitled to a pension.
Is the unmarried wife also included in the word " widow " there?


William Folger Nickle: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Then I would like to correct the hon. gentleman who said a moment ago that only the relatives, if I may use the word, of those who had fallen in France would come under subsection 3.


William Folger Nickle: The hon. member is quite correct in directing attention to the error in my statement. I should explain to the committee wherein he is correct and wherein I was incorrect. There is a provision in the Bill under which, on the death of a man who was wounded to an extent of disability exceeding 80 per cent, the widow shall be entitled to the same pension as if the man had continued to live. That would give occasion for an award in those cases where a married man, having been awarded a pension for disability exceeding 80 per cent, died and left a widow. There are not a very great number of those cases, although there are some. I have been on these pension committees since 1916 and I doubt if any other members of the committee have given more careful consideration than I have to the domestic problems that have arisen in reference to the war and to the pensionability of men. It is not a theory we have to face; it is a condition. I know, as a member of the Central Executive of the Patriotic Fund, and the member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) knows as the organizer and chief force behind that Fund, that the war has thrown aside the veil from many a home of which otherwise we would not have known anything, and we have found that conditions existed that we little suspected. But, as I say, we are facing a condition, not a theory, and the question is, what is to be done in reference to the unmarried wives1-if, in order to be brief, I may use that objectionable term-whose husbands were killed or died in the war? The member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) said there was provision in our law that made the relationship of a man who lived with a woman unmarried to her a crime against the law. If my recollection of the criminal law is correct, there is no provision in the Dominion criminal law, although there is in the criminal law of New
[Mr. Nickle.J
Brunswick, by which an adulterous relationship is made a crime. The hon. gentleman also directed the attention of the committee to the fact that a Bill was now before the Senate, and would shortly come before this House-


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend may be right on that point. I know that the Social Service 'Congress have on various occasions petitioned the Parliament with a view to having such a law placed on the statute-book. I think that such a Bill as I have referred to has been passed by the Senate; if not, it was at least discussed there the other day. Was it rejected?


William Folger Nickle: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Sentiment cannot be a basis for sound law, and even all hard cases as brought out by my genial friend from Skeena (Mr. Peck) are a poor argument indeed as a basis for law. Let us carry his principle a little further. You give a pension to this unmarried wife- what a strange expression!-because forsooth her man fought gallantly at the front and sacrificed his all for his country. You are ready to pass a sponge over this little irregularity of his living with the wife of



another man, or with a woman of bad repute, because, forsooth, he went to the front and fought. Now, suppose that on his return, instead of parading himself as the master of that woman, this soldier finds himself stranded in a large city. We promised before he left that he would be looked after; he cannot find employment,-as is actually the case in many large centres-; he is hungry; he steals some food from a butcher's shop or a grocer's store; he is arrested andj brought before a magistrate. My hon. friend can there again, I suppose, quote law based on sentiment and say: It is a hard case; the man was hungry and stole; hut, Your Honour, he must not be punished because he is a soldier who served at the front, and is now unemployed! There is as much law in this contention as in the other.
Notwithstanding the sermon of my hon. friend the pastor from Edmohton (Mr. H. A. Mackie) once you begin to depart from the only safe principle, once you depart from sound principles recognized since Christianity, then there is no more law and there is>
no more respect for the ethics of civilization. You might just as well say, if the new social conditions brought about by the war must prevail: Let us give passion, the senses, and contempt of the law, full sway in the land; war is our excuse ! Am I to be told by the two hon. members for Edmonton that I am playing the Pharisee because I stand by British law? I fear not to go before the soldiers themselves and to advocate the same principles I have advocated here this afternoon and evening. Have the courage of your convictions and do not give way to every whim and passion, even though you cater to the returned soldier. Teach him to respect the law. He fought for the respect of the law in Europe. I am really dumbfounded-when I read in the press and hear in this House such extraordinary statements. Let me read another passage from a magazine from which I quoted a moment ago and which is published in Toronto. The two hon. members for Edmonton spoke in similar language to that used by this writer vrho says:
Some of our prejudices will have to go, some of our dearly cherished notions of respectability will have to be thrown on the scrap heap, and some of our national reluctance to look actual facts in the face will have to be overcome.
We heard about "facts" this evening. We are facing "facts." Here are "facts":
But that is all. Our surplus women can be given full opportunity to satisfy their just claim to enjoy marriage and motherhood without any upheaval or revolution, if only we have 
the sense to see that it would be definitely wiser to broaden our views than to invite the disastrous results which are certain to come if we adhere rigidly to our present conception and deny our surplus women their clear right.
Let us look around us. Let us take from our eyes our prejudice-tinted1 spectacles. Let selfish and fortunate women force themselves to think just a little unselfishly. Let the strict individualist listen just a very little to the man who considers the good of the community before that of the individual. Let the rigid moralist face actual facts, whether doing so be pleasant or unpleasant. Let us be frank.


Ernest Lapointe: Free love.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I need not read it all
nor give the name of the magazine, but it shows us how we have become colour blind as regards what is moral and what is not moral, as regards what is regarded as Christian and what is unchristian, as regards what is traditionally British and what is unBritish. I will ask the President of the Council to tell me what is the pension law of the United States of America, what is the pension law of Great Britain. I should like to know if, in the Parliament of Great Britain, such a principle as that under discussion has been advocated, and I should also like to know if our neighbouring republic has advocated such principles. If I speak a little heatedly, it is because I resent the suggestions which have been made that those of us, the leader of the Opposition and others, who oppose this legislation, are playing the Pharisee. I am not a Pharisee; I am unfortunately a publican; I am a sinner; but I stand by the best traditions of Canada and also of Great Britain in opposing this legislation.


Herbert John Mackie: I feel that "the
pastor from Edmonton " is entitled to reply to the able and distinguished gentleman from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) and I desire to do so in most unmistakable terms. What is he going to say about the Grey Nuns in the province of Quebec, the only women who are looking after bastard children in that province and in the other provinces of the Dominion? Are they encouraging immorality? In the whole Dominion there is no institution that deserves the credit that those women deserve for looking after those children. Are they to be condemned because they are looking after the progeny of men and women who lived in sin?


Ernest Lapointe: What has that to do with the question?


Herbert John Mackie: What has that to do with the question? Yes, I know philosophers such as my hon. friends who may distinguish as they may see fit for the benefit

ol their argument, but they cannot by any means put it over in that way. By the way, perhaps the hon. gentleman from Maison-neuve would like " the pastor " to be on his job and read what St. John says in chapter 8. I am not a Presbyterian like the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), and I do not know that I am a Roman Catholic like the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), but at any rate, I should like to read this - because " the pastor " must at least enlighten the Opposition to this extent:
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers?-
Not from Maisonneuve.

hath no man condemned thee? She said. No man. Lord. And Jesus said unto her. Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
That is exactly what this Bill says to-day. We provide for the woman who has committed a sin, but we say in this law: Go, and sin no more. I do not understand the frame of mind of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux), when he takes it upon himself to lecture the members of this House with a sort of ex-cathedra authority. There is no one on this side of the House who is infallible, and I dare say there is no one infallible on the opposite side. The hon. gentleman has no business to assume to lecture us when we are trying to do what Christ has told us to do in looking after fallen people. Their men gave the best that was in them, and the State accepted their services, and it is the business of the State to-day to see that those who were unfortunate, as we have heard their circumstances described to-day, should be taken care of properly.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind the Committee that the point raised a few moments ago by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) was well taken. The pension that is now being discussed was granted in clause 33 of this Bill, and no vote having been taken upon it, it must be considered as granted unanimously by this Committee. This clause 41 is to take away that pension after a certain time. I do not want to keep any hon. member from speaking, but I must hereafter insist that the discussion be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I have already discussed many of the features of this question, and my intention on rising was to confine myself strictly to the provisions of clause
272i
41. It is my intention to vote for any amendment that will delete this clause from the Bill. My hon. friend (Mr. iH. A. Mackie) has referred in a sneering manner to those who differ from him on this question, and has quoted St. John, chapter 8, verses 10 and 11. While I am sure many of us on this side of the House are conversant with that portion of the Scriptures, it is not pertinent to the question under discussion. The point I want to raise now is in connection with the, provision that is made by this clause for the unmarried wife.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind the hon. member that an amendment has been moved by the minister striking out the words "unmarried wife."


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I submit that a woman in that position may continue to -live in the same relation with another man, and in the eyes of the law she would be entitled to continue to draw her pension.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Oh, no.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must again call the hon. member's attention to the fact that this clause provides that upon the marriage or re-marriage of any such person the pension shall cease. That is provided by clause 41. The clause granting the pension is clause 33. Therefore the remarks of the hon. gentleman are certainly not in order, and I shall be obliged to so rule.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I have not the amendment before me, but clause 41 reads:
Upon the marriage or re-marriage of the mother, widow, unmarried wife or divorced wife of a deceased member of the forces.
The point I was making was this: If the man a woman of this kind is living with dies she could take up with another man and her pension would continue under this law.


Georges Henri Boivin: The clause says very clearly that her pension shall cease.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: There is another point. The minister a few moments ago called the attention of the House to the amendments made to the Criminal Code this session regarding unmarried people registering at hotels. What provision has been made to cover a man with an unmarried wife? Apparently they would be able to register at an hotel and travel all over the country.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: I was not in the House when the clauses of this Bill were going through, and I should like to have the privilege of calling attention to one aspect of this question which I have not

heard discussed, and that is the position of the women and children of a very large number of men who came forward voluntarily and went to the front from Northern Ontario and from the northern parts of Canada generally, from one end of the Dominion to the other. I refer to the native Indians. I know several hundred Indians from the section of the country from which I come, all the way from the Height of Land up to as far north as Fort Churchill, who came forward voluntarily, and many of them have made the supreme sacrifice. Many o| them were living in the relation that has been referred to in the discussion of this clause, and a very great hardship would be done to many of these people who were living together according to the customs of their race if the Pension Bill was framed as it has been argued it should be framed. I know personally that several hundreds of these men have left large families, who would be absolutely cut off from any remuneration under the pension scheme were the provisions that have been outlined here to-night by the minister not in the Bill.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I wish to explain why I
intend to vote in favour of the amendment of the President of the Privy 'Council. As I understand it, if that amendment should carry the pension of an unmarried wife, *that is, a woman who comes within subsection 3 of clause 33, will cease after a year. But should the amendment not carry, as we have adopted clause 33, her pension would continue indefinitely. Therefore I consider I am justified in voting for the amendment.


Mr. FULTON:: I should like to draw
the attention of the committee to the fact that there is a precedent for such legislation as this. We have had legislation on the" statute books of British Columbia for a number of years providing for the concubines of old-timers in that country. In the early days many of the men in that country lived with Indian women as their wives, and had children by them; possibly in many cases there was no opportunity for them to get married. Now the [DOT] old-timers in that province thought it was only right and just that if a man had lived with a woman for many years and had had children by her and had died without making provision for the women and the children, legislation should be passed to take care of them. It may be that we were too broad-minded out in that province, but it was thought only right and fair that these women and children should be provided

for by law, and accordingly provision was made by statute for them.


Michael Clark: I do not want to prolong this discussion and I certainly do not want to put myself for one moment in opposition to your ruling, Mr. 'Chairman, but surely it is an extraordinary ruling coming after the speech of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve, where he appealed to certain other countries. If he is under a wrong impression, surely one ought to have a chance of removing that impression and giving correct information to the committee. Again, it is contrary to your own previous practice, Mr. Chairman. You have again and again allowed the committee a certain latitude. It has been granted to certain members of the committee, and I think we should be able to bring the debate to a conclusion within a reasonable time.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is not the contention of the hon. member that the hon. member for Maisonneuve was in order. The discussion drifted very far from the clause under discussion, and after a certain amount of latitude had been given the Chairman felt it his duty to remind the committee that they must come back to the' clause under consideration. If, however, the hon. member for Red Deer feels that he has something to say in answer to the remarks of the hon. member for Maisonneuve, and that the ruling was not made at the proper time, I am sure that with the unanimous consent of the committee he will be allowed to answer the hon. member.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend from Maisonneuve appealed to the practice of Britain. What I do know about Britain is that pensions were paid to exactly such people as we have been discussing here, described as " wives by habit and repute." That happened during the war, and that is exactly the practice which is recommended, under more humanitarian considerations, in the case of those women who have lost their support by the death of their supporters either at the front or afteT their return. So that his appeal to the case of Britain falls to the ground. In the debates on the subject in the British House, what I venture with all respect to call the narrow, somewhat sectarian', and church, view was taken by some very high churchmen of a very old Tory school. Such men, of course, would have a natural attraction for my hon. friend- the leader of the Opposition, but the broad humanitarian practice of Britain has been to pay pensions in these very cases to women de-

scribed as " wives by habit and repute." I venture to call that the broad, humanitarian and, I might add, Christian vierw. I add the word " Christian " advisedly, in the light of t'he passage of Holy Writ which was read to this committee by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. H. A. Mackie) to-night. He who taught all of us our Christianity, if indeed we have been permitted to sit at His feet and receive the pure and unadulterated truth from its source, in the presence of such a woman uttered a dictate which should be the guide for men surely in all times: " Let him that is without sin cast the first stone." There is no other road for myself, Mr. Chairman, not being sinless, than to wonder at those who take what is the attitude of the sinless in the view of the founder of Christianity Himself. My hon. friend quoted the question: " Where are these thine accusers?" If he had read the whole passage, he could have brought home to this committee the fact that the accusers, under the appeal of the only pure and sinless One, had slunk one by one from His presence. They had gone out and left the woman to the only One who had the right to condemn her. That I take to be the Christian view, and it is also, as I have tried to describe it, the broad and humanitarian, view. I would like to support that just in a sentence.
My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has the greatest regard, on many grounds, for the great Scottish poet. What did he say in such matters as to the attitudes assumed by hon. gentlemen in this House? He said:
Then at the balance let's be mute:
We never can adjust it.
What's done, we partly may compute But know not what's resisted.
The great American orator, Ingersoll, referring to a preacher of a Presbyterian body, of great eminence, who had made a posthumous attack upon George Eliot, to whose brilliant salons the elite of literature and science in London were proud and glad to resort; George Eliot, who lived exactly in those conditions with George Henry Lewes-said, quoting Shakespeare:
Lay her i' the earth,
And from her pure and unpolluted flesh let violets grow.
I tell thee, churlish priest,
A ministering angel shall this woman be,
When thou liest howling.
I take it these men represent the broad and humanitarian view. But I do not want to follow that line of debate, because I am debarred from judging my fellow-men
or my fellow-women by the highest sanction of Christianity itself. * Mr. Gladstone, on a famous occasion, said about a great Irishman, restraining his action to the purely political ground: "I sit in judgment upon no man." Surely, what guided Ingersoll, and Shakespeare, and Burns, and the founder of Christianity himself, should be a fair guide for us as to our attitude to our fellow-mortals whom we, forsooth, chose to describe as sinners and beyond the pale.
I leave that tempting line of thought apd , these considerations with my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition.
I want to say one word as to the attitude of the Opposition on this question. What is it they propose to do under the sanction of morality derived from one particular commandment? Morality is a broad thing. It tells me that the only thing I ought to do to a sinner is to help him or her if I can. But it also tells me that other people who, restricting themselves to one particular commandment, denounce a woman by the use of the strongest language in regard to her that parliamentary forms will permit, ought themselves to be sinless. What is it that we in this Parliament are asked to do? We are asked in effect to say to a woman of this particular class: You may go and starve, as far as we are concerned: You were a certain man's wife by repute: He died for our cause and he thought that what he had done for his country would send on to you some little support after he had left you. We in this Parliament are asked to say now that this great country of Canada should take the position in regard to this woman, for whom in a minor sense the man died, after his country, that because, forsootth, .she had not gone through certain forms, which I should be the last to speak with any disrespect of, she should starve. We are asked to say to her: You shall starve so far a= we are concerned, because in one of the commandments you have erred. I could not take that attitude. I should proclaim myself sinless if I used strong language about her; I should proclaim myself, in my judgment, wanting in humanity if I did not see that her ordinary creature wants were looked after, after her only support in the world had died.


Samuel Hughes: Perhaps if the
President of the Privy Council would explain what the section really means, it might be found that there is no great difference of opinion in the Committee on th* subject.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The amendment simply strikes out the words "unmarried wife" because objection has been taken to that description of the relationship referred to, and we use other language which refers back to an earlier .section of the Act.


Samuel Hughes: Do the unmarried wife and children get the pension under section 33? '


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Pension Board is entitled under section 33 to give a pension to the unmarried wife and children if in their discretion they think it proper.


Samuel Hughes: When does the pension cease?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Upon her marriage, or re-marriage if you choose 'to describe it that way; in the same manner as the pension to the widow ceases upon re-onarriage. I beg to move that .clause 41 be amended:
By striking out the words " unmarried wife " in the second line, by adding after the word " pension " in the third line, the following words, " or of a woman awarded a pension under subsection 3 of section 33 of this Act."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to on division.
On section 43-inducements to assign, charge or attach pensions:
Newton Wesley Rowell: It has been suggested that we might amend clause 43 so as to allow the Canadian Patriotic Fund, or any other patriotic or benevolent corporation to make advances on account of the pension provided such corporation is approved by the Board of Pension Commissioners, these advances to be made without interest to tide the pensioner over in case of illness or for other necessity. I would therefore move that the clause be amended by adding the following:
Provided however that t'he provisions of this section shall not apply to loans, credits or consideration made or given without interest or other profit by the Canadian patriotic fund, or by any patriotic or benevolent corporation, society or association approved by the commissioner^
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 45-false statement under oath or otherwise:


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would suggest that in
view of the fact that the clause has been amended the words "or otherwise" in the margin be struck out.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so.
Section as amended agreed to.

On section 46-supplementary pension on disability of members of His Majesty's Forces other than those of Canada, to effect equalization:


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make an amendment to this clause by adding, in the thirty-fifth line, after the words " His Majesty's" the words "or allied " so that it will read:
In any of His Majesty's or allied naval, military or air forces, etc.
This would include soldiers who fought in the allied French, Belgian and Italian armies. We have made provision further on in the Bill for the widows of those soldiers so as to equalize their pensions with those of Canadian soldiers. As these men have fought the same fight, have fought for the same cause, have shed their blood on the same soil of France and Flanders, they should be entitled, if they were bona fide residents of Canada before the war, to absolutely the same treatment as our own Canadian soldiers. Their pensions should be supplemented to make them equal to those of the Canadian soldiers. A distinction has been made by section
10 p.m. 46 between a British reservist or soldier of the other Allied armies, but there is no distinction made between the widows of soldiers of the Canadian, British and Allied armies who fell on the field of battle. If we want to be fair to the residents of Canada, whatever be their nationality provided they fought on the side of the Allies and in-one of the Allied forces, we should give them the same pension as we give our own soldiers.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Does my hon. friend refer to men who resided in Canada before the war?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The clause reads: .
When a person who was domiciled and resident in Canada at the beginning of the war.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The question raised by
the hon. member (Mr. Power) is one which received very careful consideration at the hands of the committee. I am quite sure that the members were sympathetic with the idea


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. gentleman explain what the idea is?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The idea is that men who were domiciled in Canada


Samuel Hughes: Canadians?
Mr. ROWELL-Canadians, and who enlisted in any Allied force should have their pensions supplemented so as to bring them up to the Canadian pension.


Samuel Hughes: That means those
who served in the British forces?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No; the clause provides for those who served in the British forces. The committee had before them the proposal to supplement the pension of all Canadians who fought in the Imperial forces and also the question raised by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) of supplementing the pensions of all Canadians who had fought in the Allied forces-French, Belgian, Russian, Italian and Greek. The committee, after giving the matter very careful consideration thought that if we supplemented the pensions of the Canadians who had fought in any branch of the Imperial service that was as far as they could justify going at the present time, except in the case of the widows and children of Allied reservists.


Samuel Hughes: Allied reservists resident in Canada.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Allied reservists resident in Canada. The increased pension charge created by this Bill will he in the neighbourhood of $5,000,000, and the Committee felt that that was as far as they were justified in going.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, but I do wish to say a word in support of the proposition brought fojward by the hon. member for Quebec (Mr. Power). This matter came very close to me in connection with a French reservist who lives in my county. He had lived in Canada for at least seventeen years before the war broke out, and had been a naturalized Canadian for fourteen years. When the war broke out he wished to join the Canadian army, but he was advised by the French consul that he should join the French army. He did so. He fought very gallantly; received the Croix de Guerre from the French Government, and came back home with two of his hands partially shot off. That man is receiving a very substantially smaller pension than that which has been allowed to men who enlisted in the Canadian army. He was a Canadian citizen before he went over. He fought the same fight and in the same cause as the Canadians who joined the Canadian or the British army, and I ask on what score of fairness can you give a man who joined the Imperial army an augmentation in his pension and refuse to pay the same pension to a man who joined the French army?	.


Newton Wesley Rowell: On the same principle that you grant a preference within the Empire.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is no answer because this man before he enlisted in the French army was a naturalized Canadian. He wanted to enlist in our army, but he was told by the French Consul that he must enlist in the French army, which he did, and gave loyal service. I am not asking for justice for him because he is a French Canadian-and he only represents a class-I am asking for justice for him as a naturalized Canadian citizen who served in the French army instead of the British or the Canadian army. The Pension Committee has recognized that if he died his wife and children would be entitled to an augmentation of pension which would bring that pension up to the Canadian scale. How does the Government differentiate between the claim of the widow and children and the man's own claim? It may be said that to extend this provision to the class to which I refer would cost money. But after all, justice should prevail before financial considerations; besides, there cannot be a great number of men who were French, Italian or Russian reservists who went to fight for the Allies in the armies of their respective countries. I submit that in all justice and fairness a man in this position should be recognized.


Samuel Hughes: The men who went from Canada and served in the British army, whether Canadian-born or naturalized Canadian citizens, did so with the consent of and by arrangement with the Canadian authorities. The soldier to whom my hon. friend (Mr. MoMaster) refers did not join the French army through the Canadian authorities; he obeyed the order of the French consul to recognize, not his Canadian nationality, hut the authority of France as superior to the authority of Canada. That sums the case up in a nutshell.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is it not a fact that by the authority of the Minister of Militia and Canadian military authorities, Polish troops, consisting of men who were Polish reservists, were trained in Canada?


Samuel Hughes: This was done at the request of the Governments concerned. But the British and Canadian soldiers who entered the Imperial service did so by arrangement with the British Government and on the authority of the Canadian Government; the others did not.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Take the case of an Italian who obeyed the call of his country and went to fight in Italy; because he did his duty in that way he would not obtain the same pension as that obtained by another Italian who, because there was higher pay in the Canadian army, refused to do his duty to his country as he should have done it. The man who did his duty conscientiously is entitled to a pension as well as the man who did not.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Many of these aliens came to Canada, lived here a long time, became naturalized, and instead of enlisting in the Canadian service-as they should have done, because Canada was the country they swore to defend- they went off and served in the army of their own country. Some did that from choice; a great many did it because it is a law of the country whence they came that their Canadian naturalization was of no effect and that they should return to their own country to fight. In other words, the law of their own country is such that our naturalization does not touch them at all. I am absolutely opposed to extending this consideration to them; a large number of nationalities are involved, and there is no telling where it would end. But there is substantial reason for extending this privilege to those who have enlisted in the British army. The President of the Council has given, perhaps, the best reason. We are all under the same flag, all in a family of nations which are Very closely connected. But there is absolutely no reason why we should pension men who served in other armies. If we saddle ourselves with such an obligation the time may come when, because of having undertaken this burden, we shall not be able to do justice to our own people. .	[DOT]


Mr. H. A. MACKJE:: My hon. friend
does not use the word " aliens " as applied to those who fought in the Allied armies?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: They are friendly aliens.


Mr. CAHILL:: These soldiers joined the forces of their various countries at the very commencement of the war and I do not see any reason why they should not get the same consideration as soldiers who joined the Canadian army. This is the first war that Canada ever took any great part in, and these men from France, Italy, and other European countries probably had a better idea of what the war really meant than the Canadian people did. When the war broke out we talked of a force of 50,-
000	as being a huge army for Canada. These French or Italian reservists went to their own countries because they expected to be in the fight and because they supposed, perhaps, that the Canadian army would be absorbed by the British army.


Samuel Hughes: The member for
Brome (Mr. McMaster) intimated that some soldiers joined the armies of their own countries by order of their own consul in Canada.


Frank S. Cahill: In some cases, possibly
they did.


Andrew Ross McMaster: In the case with which
1	was familiar the man desired to enlist in the Canadian army, but he was told by the French consul in Montreal that, having been a French subject, notwithstanding the fact that he had been a naturalized Canadian citizen of many years standing, it was his duty to join the French army. He did not haggle about the matter; he went overseas and was in France by the end of August.


Frank S. Cahill: The ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) was one of the few men in Canada at the outbreak of the war who thought that Canada would have moTe than 50,000 soldiers in France, or who thought that we would have any soldiers there at all in time to take part in the war. These French and Italian and other reservists who enlisted to join their own units overseas took a more serious view of the situation than the Canadian people did. They were willing to make the sacrifice; they wanted to get into the fight as quickly as possible. They had been invited to make Canada their home; they were Canadians. For the sake of the paltry sum of $5,000,000 per annum, I would hate to put these people in a class by themselves and say they are not as good as Canadian-born or British-born men or others who happened to join the Canadian forces, possibly believing that they would not get to the field of battle as soon as the fellows who joined the French, Italian or other allied armies. I cannot see why these people should be legislated against and treated as a separate class, to the detriment not so much of ourselves as of the honour of Canada. I hope that the amendment will carry.


Newton Wesley Rowell: One of our difficulties, in addition to those which I have mentioned, is that we have no reliable data covering all the cases involved. Some members of the committee' would have been glad to include French and Belgian reservists but

were not favourable to including certain other nationalities. The committee thought we could not undertake to discriminate bysaying that the reservists of one ally should receive this treatment and that those of another should not. We have this year included all Canadians who enlisted in the Imperial forces. Before another year is over no doubt we shall have fuller information and fuller data, and if it is decided that further action should be taken, the matter may be dealt with ano'ther year. The Pension Bill has to come up for review next year because this will only continue for a year. I submit that the House will be well advised to accept the considered report of the committee on this matter and leave the clause over for another year.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I would be very happy to support the amendment of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) if he would confine it to the French and Belgian armies, and if it does not put such a strain on our finances that we will not have enough money for ourselves. I have the most profound admiration for the French army, as I fought beside it for a very long time, and I should very much like, if it is possible, to see that army and the Belgian army included in the benefits of this pension scheme. But with twenty or thirty nations in the Alliance, I do not believe we can extend the benefits of the scheme to all of them. Ecuador was in the Alliance and other countries that I had hardly heard of before.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am quite willing to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend for Skeena (Mr. Peck) and to limit the application of this to the British, French and Belgian soldiers. If my hon. friend will support me in that, I will change my amendment accordingly.
Amendment (Mr. Power) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On schedule A:
Cyrus Wesley Peck: I am not going to repeat what I said* the other night, but in regard to the two schedules, I do not think the amount is adequate, and I hope the Government will seriously consider raising it, especially the amount of the widow's pension.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have this year made two very marked advances in dealing with the widow's pension, and the committee thought it was as far as we could go this year; that is, we have increased it from $40 to $48, we have increased the pension to
the orphan child and have exempted the widow's earnings from consideration in dealing with the pension.
Schedule A agreed to.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Now I move that we revert to section 2, paragraph (c), and that we strike out the words "his child by his unmarried wife" in lines twenty-two and twenty-three.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I move that we revert to the sections 23 (4); 24, 33 (3); 35 (1); and that we substitute for the words "unmarried wife" the words "wife by habit and repute." I am advised that that is the description of a woman of this class which appears in the British Pensions Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I submit again, Mr. Chairman, that I am opposed to that amendment. A great deal of preaching has been thrown across the floor, and we have had a great deal of illegitimate use of Scriptures, if I may use the term-We are talking about illegitimate wives and illegitimate children, and surely we have had illegitimate quotations of scripture. When people ask "Who shall throw the first stone?" they must not lose sight of the punishment meted out by the Mosaic law to a woman found in that sin; she was to be taken beyond the camp and stoned.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: That was Mosaic, not the Christian law.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If my hon. friend wishes to put himself up as the champion of this kind of morals in Canada, I want to know.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I am simply calling attention to the fact that that is not the Christian law.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I simply want to know if the hon. member for Skeena, with the distinction he has won in the army, wants to come back to this country and put himself forward as the champion of those who refuse to recognize the sacredness of the marriage tie?


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I want to put myself forward as one who wishes to look after the dependents of those brave men who fought beside me in Flanders.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not going to be wiped out by this everlasting quoting of the war to justify everything, whether moral or immoral. I am not going to stand for it. I am as much a champion as any

one in this House of the women who are legitimately widows as a result of the war; I am as tenderhearted as any man in this House. But I want to be so without putting this class of women on the same footing as the married women of this country. Is there a member in this House who has a widowed daughter, or daughter-in-law, who wants to go home and tell either of them: I have put you in the same position as the concubine Indian women of Canada? That is what we have been asked to do here tonight. I want to help the Indian women by putting some money apart for them, if necessary.
I want to help the woman that was living in sin by putting money apart in some certain way to assist her, if that is necessary and proper. But I do not want to give her the status and recognition of the married women of this country. That is what I am opposed to. And I am to be told by hon. gentlemen that I am a " crusted Tory," as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) calls me. I should like to know what he is. He ought to be a judge; he was on both sides and in the middle, so that he ought to have some idea now what sort of a man he is. He was but a short time with the Tories when they had to change the name of the party to get clear of him. They called themselves Unionists; they could not call themselves Tories while they had a man like him with them. Now he comes back and calls me a Tory. At least I know what I am; I am in the same place all the time. The hon. member for Red Deer used to go down to our part of the country to preach Liberalism; he and I have spoken on the same platform, and he then found no words strong enough to condemn the Borden Government. It was a Government of funks with the hon. gentleman in those days, and yet he comes back at me and calls me a Tory. And he puts himself in the class of those men who refuse to recognize the marriage tie between a man and a wife and their duty to their children. I am not against helping anybody in this country that requires help, far be that from me; but I do not want any woman who is living in this way illegally and improperly to be put upon the same basis as the honest widow who, by reason of the fact that she was properly married, is entitled to come under this law and to get this right. That is my position, and I cannot conceive of any member of this House being capable of calling such a woman a wife at all. She is not a wife, and surely no hon. member, who loves and respects his wife and who

calls her " my wife " and " my beloved wife," will use the same term " wife " in regard to this woman, who, perhaps, induced a man to leave his wife and his children and to become an outcast here with her. Is she to be called or blessed by this great Parliament of Canada as the wife of some one? She is not a wife; she is a woman who is, perhaps, in need and who ought to be helped; and if she ought to be helped let some money be set apart,'properly handled by this board or some other board, and let her be helped, but not as the wife of anybody, because she was never anybody's wife. I am told we have instructions and directions from the Holy Book in regard to " casting the first stone." Let people who are so familiar with the. New Testament as regards who a wife is and who thinks that a woman can be a wife to more than one man, go with the Master to the well when the woman came to where he was. What did He say to her? "Go, call thy husband and [DOT] come hither." The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said unto her, " Thou hast well said, I have no husband, for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband." That is Scripture, if hon. members opposite want the sayings of the Master. There was one legitimate marriage; there could not be five legitimate marriages, and he at once said to her: You have no husband at all. He would permit her to drink out of the well all the same, but he would not regard her as the wife of anybody. The word "wife" in this country is too sacred a thing. The word "children" and the word "family" are sacred things, things to be guarded at every standpoint; and while I am not opposed to using money for the purpose of helping these unfortunate people, I do not want to give it to them because the relationship of wife or family ties or legitimate obligations brings it to them. If we are going to use the word "wife" here, we are using a word that we have no business to use at all. Use the word "woman" or any other name you choose to take-help her if you can; but I am deadly opposed to using the word "wife." Why use the word "wife" in connection with a woman who was living with a man against the law, who was not his wife according to the law of Canada? Are such people to be regarded as man and wife? I was never more in earnest in my life about anything that has come up in this House than I am in regard to this. Are we to ignore the first principles of

right and law in this country? Is Bolshevism to be brought into this country? Is Parliament going to recognize what is a tenet of Bolshevism, that any man may pick up a woman and live with her and she with him? That is Bolshevism. Is Parliament going to recognize that principle to-day, and are we [DOT] to forsake the basic principle' of constitution and liberty and law in this country ? If so, what basis are we going to have, and how are we going to settle our standing? The Canadian people, those who are born and who live in Canada, who are brought up as Christian people and in Christian homes, must stand by those principles, not giving one whit in any way; and if we must deal with people who have forsaken those principles, let us deal with them individually and not on the principle that they are wives. I see the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) laughing at my ideas of morality. I am not surprised at that at all. When it comes to a question of what can be done with money and the methods in which money can be used, I fail to accept the hon. member for St. Antoine as a guide in morals; I have heard too much of his doings. Those are the reasons why I am opposed to theword "wife being used and receiving the sanction of the House of Commons, the Senate and the King in this Parliament, to calling a woman a wife who is not a wife, who never was and cannot possibly be of the man to whom she was supposed to be a wife. Is there not some other word that can be used and some other way in which this woman can be helped without putting her in the class of the respectable women of this country? I am surprised that the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), coming from that seat of learning and philosophy and education and religion, and Presbyterianism-I am of that famous body myself, and that is why I am fighting against the use of this term - should come and acknowledge that he has coined a phrase which is, going to go down the ages, to put a woman of this class in the same class as his wife and his mother. I do not think he should do it.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Do I understand that the words " wife by habit and repute " are to be employed throughout in all the sections?
Mr. ROWELL; Wherever "unmarried wife" appears, except section 41 where we struck it out and referred back, and except paragraph (c) of clause 20 where we struck it out entirely, as it was not necessary.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If the minister has
changed the wording in one place, why should he not continue that throughout? I was glad to hear the leader of the Opposition take common ground with what I believe to be the opinion of the whole House, namely, that he, as well as the Test of us want to see the women protected, and the whole difference as I see it now before the committee is the phraseology that is to be used in describing that woman. I think subsection 3 of section 33 can be amended so as not to refer to the woman at all in the highlv objectionable way in which she is referred to there. I would have that subsection read as follows:
A woman who although not married to a member of the forces, was living with him in Canada at the time he became a member or the forces and for a reasonable time previously thereto, and who at such time was publicly represented by him as his wife, shall be considered entitled to a pension.
It will be noticed I have struck out the words " for the purposes of this Act " and the words " to have been his unmarried wife." Then in section 34 I would strike out the words in lines 34 and 35-the lines are not correctly marked, but appear as lines 34 and 35-" unmarried wife who is entitled to a pension " and substitute therefor the words " other woman under section 33 entitled to a pension." We would then be simply legislating with respect to the woman whom the man had represented to be his wife, which is quite different from this Parliament going on record as recognizing her as a wife. I think the leader of the Opposition is entitled to the thanks of this House for standing out strongly against any legislative enactment that would give the status of wife-one of the most sacred words we have in the polity of our nation, and related closely to the motherhood of the nation-to a woman who is a concubine, who is living in adultery and prostituting the name of wife. We as a Parliament ought certainly not to give her the status of a wife. I am willing to give any woman who mothered the children of a soldier who fought for his country, any reasonable benefit that the country can afford to give to her and her illegitimate children, because they are entitled to it. I agree with the hon. gentlemen who have pleaded for them, but I also stand with the leader of the Opposition in no half-hearted way, and I am surprised that the hon. gentleman who is in charge of this Bill should not see the absolute necessity of divorcing any such language from the legislative enactments of this House. I believe he does see that

necessity. Otherwise, an " unmarried wife" would be exactly the sanfe as a legal wife so far as the effect on the minds of the people of this country is concerned. I do not believe that the phrase " wife by habit and repute " is very far removed from the phrase " unmarried wife." It is certainly not sufficiently removed to justify the use of the phrase when we can do without either. I hope the minister will see that the legislation is so changed that we shall not be in the position of putting upon the statute book phraseology that can only render this House ridiculous in the eyes of the country.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have not the least objection to the suggestion made by my hon. friend (Mr. Morphy). As the hon. member knows, I discussed it before, and I intimated that I was quite satisfied with it, but subsequently it was suggested that we take the definition from the British Act, and I rather understood that that would be acceptable to the House. I am perfectly satisfied to accept my hon. friend's suggestion, but I would put it a little differently, although it will be the same in effect. What I would suggest is that we strike out the words commencing in line 43 of section 33, "shall, for the purposes of this Act, be considered to have been his unmarried wife and." The subsection will then read:
A woman who, although not married to the member of the forces, was living with him in Canada at the time he became a member of the forces and for a reasonable time previously thereto, and who at such time was publicly represented by him as his wife, may in the ease of his death and in the discretion of the committee be awarded a pension.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is all right.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I therefore move that in lieu of the consequential amendment which I suggested of "wife by habit and repute," we substitute in the other sections the words "or woman awarded a pension under subsection 3 of section 33."


Mr. CRONYN:: There is another way in which this could be accomplished, and I think it would be better drafting. That is by simply defining the widow in a definition clause. Simply say that widow means not only a woman who had been legally married to a member of the force, but as well, a woman who although not married to a member of the force had been living with him at the time he became a member of the force and for a reasonable time previously thereto and was publicly represented by him as his wife.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is open to the same objection as the other suggestions. The objection of the House, as I understand it, is to defining the status of a woman in that position by any recognized terms that indicate the position of one who has undergone the marriage ceremony according to the laws of the land. 'It would simplify it, I agree, but now that we have practically reached an agreement on the clause I think we had better pass it in that way.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I object to the use of the word "wife" at all in such cases. The relationship of wife can only be created in one way.


Newton Wesley Rowell: "Unmarried wife" is
dropped out in every case, and we are substituting therefor "a woman awarded a pension under subsection 3 of section 33."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 34-pensions to parent or person replacing parent when dependent.
Hume Cronyn: I regret I was unavoidably absent on the previous discussion of the Bill, through no will of my own, but through a somewhat tyrannical order of another court than this. I wish to support the plea that was made on Saturday on behalf of dependent mothers. I do not intend to make any lengthy speech. Even had I the eloquence of some other members of this House so that I could represent the case of the mothers as it should be represented, I merely wish to-night to give to the House as an easily grasped case a concrete one that arose not in my constituency but in a nearby one. The widow of a clergyman with two sons, one married and one unmarried, is entitled as the widow of that clergyman to the sum of $300 a year. The unmarried son before he enlisted was practically maintaining his mother. He went overseas and was killed.
Last autumn the married son died. This left the clergyman's widow with a daughter, incapable of earning anything. She received for some time a pension of $480 a year as the mother of a private who had wholly or in part sustained her. But under the regulation passed in December last, which is followed in this Act, the Pension Board, who I think had no option in the matter, deducted from the $480 the $300 which she had received as the widow of a clergyman, and paid her $180. Of course we are not legislating for particular cases and I merely quote that as one readily understood as a sample of many other cases along the same line. An amendment to this clause was sug-

gested on Saturday, and I can quite see the force of the objection raised; but I think we should so amend it as to avoid all objectionable features. I would therefore very strongly urge the favourable consideration of the Committee to this amendment. Section 34, subsection 4, provides that the pension to a widowed mother shall not be reduced on account of her earnings from personal employment. I move to add after the word " employment " in the seventh line, the following: "or so long as she is in a dependent condition." This would provide that the pension of the widowed mother would not be reduced so long as she was dependent. Under the interpretation clause, the widowed mother may receive from other sources income up to the amount of pension and yet be considered in a dependent condition. As I say, I do not want to take up the time of the Committee at this hour, but I should like to see this suggestion adopted.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The amendment proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Cronyn) is in accordance with the amendment; which I asked my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) to propose in my stead on Saturday. After having made provision for the unmentionable woman so that she may obtain a pension because her support is killed, we should at least extend the same consideration to the widowed mother of the boy who was killed at the front. We have now consecrated in this law the right of the woman who is outside the pale of society to obtain a pension, but we compel the poor widowed mother to prove her dependent condition and her case must be subject to review from time to time. The agents of the Board of Pension Commissioners may go, and in many cases have gone, into homes of widowed mothers, to inquire as to their incomes, and formerly as to their earnings. ' They ascertain from what sources their incomes are derived, and in fact put them through all the questions to which a lawyer would subject an ordinary witness. My hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Charles Marcil) cited a case on Saturday last, and I know of a concrete case myself in the county of Rimouski. A widow had three sons, two of whom were killed at the front. The third son is still living. She applied for a pension and was given one of $10 a month which, at the request of some members of Parliament, was afterwards increased to $15. When she sought a further increase, she was told that she should derive a certain income from the salary earned by the third son.
who was then unmarried. Now although we recognize in this law the woman who is unmarried, the widowed mother, who in many cases is much older than the unmentionable woman, and who is less able to support herself, is placed at a disadvantage, , for you virtually prohibit her son from getting married, the reason being that he may -be free to support his mother. Such a condition is distinctly contrary to morality and public decency. It is not fair to ask a sole unmarried son to refrain from getting married in order to support his mother, when you allow a man to live with women with whom they are not married. If any woman in the country is entitled to consideration, it is the widowed mother, who should be considered before any of the prostitutes to whom we have given pensions.


Mr. J. R. WILSON:: I might mention a ease in my city of which I have personal knowledge, having known the family for thirteen years. The mother came to Canada about thirteen years ago bringing with her a son whom she was then supporting. In time the boy grew to maturity and was able to support her. Then he married and went, to the war, his mother and his family living under the same roof. He was killed and now, according to this Act, there will be only one pension which will be paid the widow and her child, although they and the mother live together. The mother is not taken into consideration. The argument will be raised that if you attempt to provide for such cases as this you will open the door to all sorts of applications and will not know where it will end. I think, however, this objection could be met by specifying that the pension will be payable only to a mother occupying the home of the son upon whom she was totally dependent before his enlistment.


Mr. HENDERS:: I hope the Committee will very carefully consider the remarks of the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn). I know of a similar case to the one referred to by him, the difference being that the husband died while two sons were at the front. One son was married, and he returned safe and sound to his wife and the family he had left. The other son fell in the war. She is thus bereft of the support from this particular son, while she has no support from the married son. Because of the superannuation allowance in respect of her husband, who was a minister, she receives no consideration, and the allow-

ance given her is not sufficient for her to live on comfortably. In fact, it is not sufficient to keep her warmly clothed.* I think the Committee would be well advised to give these special cases careful consideration.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The point which has been raised by my hon. friend from London (Mr. Cronyn) was carefully considered, in the committee and settled in. this House in another form. The judgment at that time was that we would not be justified in enlarging it as proposed owing to the very large financial obligation which would be involved and. because it would have been a departure from the principle underlying the Pension Bill. I have just suggested to my hon. friend that he withdraw his amendment. I want to get the Bill through as soon as possible because I want to get it into the hands of the Senate so that it may have consideration there. In the meantime, I will taike the matter up with the Board of Pensions Commissioners with the view of seeing what will be the probable expenditure involved in making such a change. Then, if the amount does not appear to be a large one, and if the Government feels that it would be justified in making the expenditure, this amendment can be made in the Senate. At the present time I would not feel justified in departing from the position which the committee took.


Herbert Brown Ames: Might I just add one word? I know that we are dealing with pensions on the line of justice only and that no action on the part of any outside body ought to influence this Parliament in arriving at a just conclusion. But we are feeling our way necessarily and this pension legislation we are passing to-day is not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, liable to remain unamended for the next twenty years. We may have to amend it in the light of experience. The Canadian Patriotic Fund has between $6,000,000 and $7,000,000 left in its hands. We are now authorized by Parliament to engage in -postwar relief. We are going to handle a great many of these post-war problems, now before the Pensions Board, in- the course of the next two or three years. The case mentioned by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Wilson) is one which will draw from the Patriotic Fund $15 a mfinth. I do not mention that to Parliament with a view of in any way releasing the Government from its just obligation, but I do say that under any pension Act we may -pass there will be, just outside of its limits, a number of very

deserving cases, and the Patriotic Fund executive can utilize the re-
11 p.m. maining money that it has on hand to help out those families that are just outside the limits of the Act. We cannot do that permanently but we can do it as long as the money lasts.


Samuel Hughes: How will you ascertain them?


Herbert Brown Ames: Through the Pensions Board and also through our own office, but we will, with this money, for two or three years, take care of this problem of post-war relief that is just outside of the Pension Act. We can take care of these problems for that time, and Parliament can look after the future.


Mr. EDWARDS:: We will suppose the case of a woman whose husband was living and who had one son. The son went to the war and was killed. There is no pension coming to that woman because her husband " is still living. That is right, is it not? I assume that the husband is able to support her. There is no provision made for giving her a pension. She can get no pension be-cause_ her son was killed, for her husband is living and is able to maintain her. But a month, we will say, after the son is killed, the husband dies. Is any consideration given in a case of that kind? There is a case where the woman might properly say that if it had not been for the war she could reasonably look forward to her son maintaining her.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That case is provided for in the regulations as they stand.


Georges Henri Boivin: Do I understand that the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn) withdraws the amendment that he proposed?


Hume Cronyn: Would the minister sug-get that?


Newton Wesley Rowell: What I suggested to my hon. friend was that he might withdraw the amendment on my statement that I will ask the Pension Board to- report at once- that means to-morrow, or at the earliest possible date-what charge this would impose upon the country. I will give my hon. friend the information and I will submit it to my colleagues with the view that if they think it is a case where they are justified in recommending to Parliament this additional expenditure, which the committee has not recommended, the Bill may be amended in the Senate. In the absence of that I shall have to ask the House to support the decision of the committee, because, the committee having reached that conclusion, I

do not think we would be justified in making an amendment without any idea of the financial charge involved. While I have not raised the point, and do not wish to raise it, I am not sure that the amendment is in order inasmuch as it involves an additional financial charge upon the country.
Amendment (Mr. Cronyn) withdrawn.


Mr. OOPP:: May I be permitted to draw the attention of the minister to section 23? This section refers to the pension allowed to children of the age of sixteen and seventeen years in the case of a boy and a girl respectively. Then' it goes on to say that if the child is unable owing to physical or mental infirmity to provide for its own1 maintenance, or where such child is following and is making satisfactory progress in a course of instruction approved by the commission, the pension may be continued until it has attained the age of twenty-one years.
I want to compare that with section 35 where the pension is given to a brother or sister, in which case there is no limitation to the age of twenty-one years. Why should there be a limit in the case of a child incapable of earning a living and no limit in the ca'se of a brother or sister?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That question was discussed by the Committee and the reason is this: Where it is a brother or sister, it is likely to be a person up in years and the charge will not be continued for a lengthened period. If an aged person is incompetent or imbecile or in such a condition as to he unable to earn a living the Committee thought it not desirable to impose the limitation that it did impose in the other case. That was pointed out in the Committee, and the Committee after considering it decided to impose the limitation in the former case.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It seems unfortunate that children absolutely unable to take care of themselves, after having reached the age of twenty-one years, should be thrown on the country without any consideration whatever.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Should there not be
some discretion left with the board?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The reason for it is that the legal obligation of a parent for maintenance ceases at that age. The legal obligation of the State which puts itself in the place of the parent for the purpose of this pension ceases at that date. It may be that the incompetent imbecile would then have to be put in some institution.
That would be the case regardless of whether the parent served in the army- or not.
Bill reported.


PORT OF ST. JOHN.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. C. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure,-
1.	To constitute and appoint a Board of Harbour Commissioners for the Port and Harbour of -Saint John in the province of New Brunswick.
2.	To empower the Corporation of the City of Saint John to transfer to His Majesty the property, privileges, title, interest and powers of the said City and the Mayor thereof, in, to and over the Harbour of Saint John and certain wharf and other -properties; such harbour privileges, powers and properties to be administered and controlled by the Harbour Commissioners.
3.	To provide that the consideration for the
transfer of the Harbour property and privileges to the Harbour Commissioners shall be two million dollars, payable as follows:	The sum
of one million, three hundred -and forty-two thousand, seven hundred and seventeen dollars and fifty-five cents, representing the present bonded indebtedness of the said city in connection with harbour development, shall be assumed and taken over by the Harbour Commissioners and that it shall pay the interest on the said bonds and the value of the same as they mature; and for the balance, that is to say, the
' sum of six hundred and fifty-seven thousand, two hundred and eighty-two dollars and forty-five cents, the Harbour Commissioners shall issue to the said city its debentures payable at the end of twenty-five y^rs from the day of issue and bearing interest at the rate of five per centum per annum, payable half-yearly, which debentures the Harbour Commissioners are to be authorized to issue, and the payment of which debentures and interest shall, if the Harbour Commissioners fail to pay the same, be paid -by His Majesty; and the assumption of the said bonded indebtedness by the Harbour Commissioners and the issue of the said1 debentures by the Harbour Commissioners of the said city shall be deemed to be payment in full for the harbour, harbour property, rights, rents and privileges to be conveyed as aforesaid.
4.	That the elevator, the property of His Majesty, and all wharves, the property of His Majesty in the right of His Government of Canada, within the limits of the Harbour of Saint John as defined in the proposed Act, shall be administered and controlled by the said Harbour Commissioners, upon the Harbour Commissioners paying in consideration -thereof to the Minister of Finance -of Canada the cost of construction thereof, and also paying to the said minister interest at the rate of three and one-half per centum per annum upon the said amount, or such portion thereof as remains unpaid, until the whole of the said sum is paid.
Mr. BALLANTYNE:: The object of this proposed legislation is to nationalize the port of St. John. Hon. members are aware that we have nationalized and have under commission at the present time the ports of Vancouver, Montreal and Quebec. The port of St. John is the second largest of our national seaports. The port of St. John holds a unique position, inasmuch as the facilities they enjoy there have been paid for almost exclusively by the city of St. John. The city authorities, the Board of Trade, and the citizens generally during the last year and a half have been representing to me as Minister of Marine that as the Dominion Government have advanced millions of dollars for the development of the ports of Montreal and Quebec, have spent millions on the port of Halifax and have recently voted $5,000,000 for the development of the port of Vancouver, it is only fair and reasonable that the citizens of St. John should be relieved of the burden which they are carrying and that the Dominion Government should advance the money for whatever further development is necessary at that point and thus treat St. John as they have treated the other ports that I have mentioned. The Bill to be based on the resolution provides for the taking over of the port of St. John and the creation of a Harbour Commission which will assume the bonded indebtedness of the port, amounting to $1,342,717.55, and issue Harbour Commission twenty-five year debentures, bearing interest at the rate of 5 per cent, for $657,282.45, making up the $2,000,000. A year ago I sent the Chief Engineer of the Marine Department and one of our auditors to St. John to report as to what would be a fair valuation for the facilities that that port enjoys, and also to look into the receipts and expenditures. In addition to that, about four months ago I asked the well known _ firm of auditors, P. S. Ross and Sons, Montreal, to make a valuation. The city of St. John also sent in a valuation; I will give-the committee the three amounts which were submitted. The city of St. John valued the port and its facilities at $2,506,966.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Who made that valuation for them?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That is according to their own books and their own auditors. The valuation arrived at by the chief engineer of the Marine Department was $2,128,000, and by the firm of P. S. Ross and Sons, $2,297,620.32. It therefore appeared to the Government, after I had placed all the 
facts before them, that a fair valuation to offer the city of St. John would be $2,000,000. It will be quite unnecessary to put up any money, because as I stated a moment ago thb Harbour Coihmissioners of the port of St. John will assume the bonded inindebtedness of the port and will issue twenty-five-year debentures for the difference between the amount of the bonded indebtedness and the $2,000,000. The bonds which will be assumed by the Harbour Commissioners are long outstanding; they mature in 1923, 1938, 1942,	1944 and 1950.
The rate of interest is mostly 3i and 4 per cent, and there are a few outstanding bonds at 6 per cent.
I have also looked into the revenue of the port as it now exists. For 1918 the receipts amounted to $159,442, and the exexpenditure to $155,600. It will be noticed that there is a small surplus, about $4,000. I have also looked into what their estimated revenue will be, in as much as this Bill will turn, over to the harbour commissioners the wharves now owned by the Government, some of which were built by the Public Works Department and some by the Marine Department, and the grain elevator, which was built by the Department of Railways and Canals. Most of the expenditure the Government has gone to at the port of St. John, this Bill provides, the harbour commissioners will have to pay 3i per cent interest, and for some 3 per cent. So that the harbour commissioners will have the entire port under their control, which includes Courtenay bay. I think it will be in the national interest that this should be done, especially as St. John is our second largest port at the present time, a'nd as so much of our western grain goes out there. A still greater quantity will be exported from St. John this year, as none of our grain will be allowed to go by American ports unless the American authorities reinstate the coasting privileges which they cancelled. That, briefly, is the purport of the Bill that is based on the resolution now before the House.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister stated the receipts at $159,000 odd and the expenditure at $155,000. Did that include interest on the bonds?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes. I should have stated that the estimated revenue will be at least $225,000. That will enable them to defray all the expenses of the port, and to meet the interest, to pay 5 per cent interest on any future advances that may be made by the Government, and to establish a sinking fund.


Albert James Smith Copp: I understood from the press of St. John some time ago, when a delegation was here from the city negotiating with the minister and also with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Garvell) I think, that the amount agreed on was $2,200,000, and that the city authorities were very much dissatisfied to know that this was cut down by the minister to $2,000,000.


Mr. BALL ANT  YNE@: I have no knowledge of that, because I was ill at the time, and did not see either the mayor or the other representatives who came from St. John. No doubt they saw the Acting Minister of Marine, but I do not think he would make any definite offer to them. The first definite offer I made on behalf of the Government is the one I have just mentioned of $2,000,000, and this will have to be ratified by a referendum that the city of St. John will shortly take. No doubt they expected more than that amount, but in view of the reports that I have just referred to, the Government feels that $2,000,000 is reasonable and fair.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that referendum by
provincial authority?


Mr. CAEVELL:: Some years ago a statute was passed by the provincial legislature authorizing the city of St. John to sell their harbour after the matter had been submitted, first, to the city council, and, second, to a vote of the people. What is being done now will be the authority to purchase, providing the people of St. John themselves ratify that by referendum.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am speaking subject to correction, of course, and I am only repeating what I saw in the newspapers, that the city commissioners and the citizens were complaining very bitterly, according to a very strong editorial in one of the papers, that the actual offer to the city when their representatives were here was $2,200,000, and they are very much put out to find it cut down to $2,000,000; indeed, they were arguing that it should not be accepted.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I am pretty familiar with all the negotiations. I have seen, I believe, every official of the city who has come to Ottawa, and I have met the commissioners and the officials in St. John on two or three occasions to discuss thisi, and I have no hesitation in saying that no such offer was ever made to the city. It is true they wanted it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is in the papers.
273	1


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not responsible for what appears in the newspapers.


Albert James Smith Copp: You saw that editorial?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, yes, I have seen many things in the newspapers. But I want to say no offer was made except the $2,000,000 offer.


Mr. WIGMOEE:: I was present at that conference when the mayor and Commissioner Bullock came here with the idea of asking this Government for $2,500,000. The conference was held with Mr. Carvell and the representatives of St. John, and before they left the room that night they asked Mr. Carvell if he thought $2,500,000 was too large a sum, and he said he thought it was. Then they asked him what he thought of $2,200,000. Mr. Carvell stated that he would do the best he could for them. There was no direct offer of $2,200,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Do I understand the hon. gentleman from St. John is satisfied that $2,000,000 is enough for the harbour?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: As representing the city of St. John, I would like to see the city get considerably more than $2,000,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is not the question.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: If the Government are determined not to give the city any more than $2,000,000 I am prepared to accept it on behalf of the city. In the reports as given by the hon. minister (Mr. Ballan-tyne) are not included certain articles that the city of St. John consider they are entitled to receive a valuation on. In making out their estimate of $2,500,000, they made it up on the basis of the valuation at which the city carry the property, namely, $2,008,000; on top of that is an amount of $75,000 that the city carry on their books for Partridge Island; besides that they took the revenue derived from the fisheries and the collections for the last four years and capitalized them at 5 per cent, which amounted to $120,000; they also took in the C.P.E. wharf-the Canadian Pacific Eail-way corporation owned a wharf commonly known as the C.P.E. wharf, in exchange for which the city gave the Canadian Pacific a 40-foot strip-at a valuation on their books of $200,000. That is the way in which the amount was made up. Eeally they have carried on their books a valuation of the harbour property at $2,900,000, but the amount they stated to the Government as $2,500,000. At the conference held between Mr. Elkin of the Board of Trade and myself last week, the Board of Trade passed a unanimous vote to accept this $2,000,000 for



the harbour. I know there is some question in the minds of the citizens about accepting it, but, as the representative of the city, if the Government do not feel disposed to pay any more than $2,000,000, I am prepared to accept this amount. I know that this has been a political football for both parties for a great number of years. Delegation after delegation came knocking at the doors of Parliament previous to 1896, asking that the subsidy that was given to the Elder-Dempster line running to Portland Maine, should be withdrawn.
The Hon. Mr. Foster at that time said: Prerpare your city; prepare the harbour; build your wharves and elevators; the subsidy that was going to Portland, Maine, is going to go to St. John and Halifax. The citizens of St. John, having faith in their city and realizing that it had a great future, were prepared to go down into their pockets to the tune of $2,000,000, and they have done that. But realizing the future of the port and the extension that will take place in the coming years, they feel it to be utterly impossible for them to carry on and to prepare the necessary developments that should take place, and, therefore, they are prepared to hand this harbour over to the Government to handle in the same way that the harbour of Montreal is handled.


Albert James Smith Copp: 
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In answer to the hon. member (Mr. Copp) and in all fairness to the hon. member for St. John city (Mr. Wigmore), I may say that the latter was most anxious, indeed, just as anxious as my hon. friend that the city of St. John should get more than $2,000,000, and he has done his fair share to bring pressure upon the Government that we should increase the amount and endeavour to meet the views of that city. But I received a report from our chief engineer, Col. Anderson, who went down to St. John a year ago and went over every one of the sheds and piers; and in view of the considerable amount of money that would have to be spent on those wooden sheds and on the piers to put them into a proper state of repair, and after a consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, I felt that the Government was treating the city of St. John on very broad, and, I might almost say, generous lines in giving that city $2,000,000. If the piers and sheds were in a good state of preservation at the present time, and if the Harbour Commission would not have to spend money on them, as I am sure they will have to do, there might be some reason for the Government to offer the city more than $2,000,000. But in view of the money that will have to be spent on the wharves and sheds, the Government are certainly meeting the citizens of St. John fairly in offering them $2,000,-
000.	I want, however, to make it abundantly clear that the hon. members for St. John City ('Mr. Wigmore and Mr. Elkin) have done everything they can to get the Government to offer them more than $2,000,000, so that the citizens of St. John have no reproach to make against their representatives for not putting up as good a fight as they possibly could.


Samuel Hughes: Inasmuch as the Government is taking over the harbour of St. John, I would suggest that the site of the old Fort Latour, the old Huguenot Fort, should be restored and turned into a public park. It would be a good memento of a very historic incident. The location is well known to the people of St. John, and it would be one of the historic landmarks of Canada.


John Ewen Sinclair: This is not a proposal to transfer the property to the commissioners; it is a proposal to transfer the property to His Majesty. We are purchasing the harbour of St. John by this transaction,

as I understand it, and I want to know whether we are getting a good bargain or not. Where do the people of Canada come in in this transaction? The hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Wigmore) says that the citizens of St. John dug down into their pockets and spent their own money. That was very creditable. I always thought they would do very well in St. John, but I am sorry they did not stick to their investment. They are now losing faith in it, and they want to turn it over to somebody else. Why do they not keep it and build it up and make it a good harbour as other cities throughout the world are doing? The whole , matter of transferring these harbours to His Majesty is a mistake. The harbours ought to be handled by the local people. It is all right for the Government to help, to guarantee the bonds. This is not the same transaction as we have in the city of Montreal, as I understand it. The Harbour Commissioners of Montreal own the harbour, not His Majesty.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The city of Montreal does not own a foot of land or anything in connection with the port of Montreal, at all.


John Ewen Sinclair: Does not the commission own it?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No, the King. The commission have merely been appointed by an Order in Council to administer the affairs of the harbour during the pleasure of the Government. The port of Vancouver is also vested in the Crown, and so is the port of Quebec. As $28,000,000 has been spent by the Parliament of Canada in developing the port of Montreal, $11,000,000 on the port of Quebec, as we have a resolution for the expenditure of $5,000,000 on the port of Vancouver, and as millions of dollars have been spent by the Department of Railways and Canals in developing the port of Halifax, on which moneys the country will not even receive interest, it is a reasonable request for the city of St. John to make that it be treated in the same way as these other ports; and we shall get interest on all the money that is lent to that city.


John Ewen Sinclair: It is all very true that we have spent a great deal of money on Halifax and the other ports, but the port of Montreal has been able to finance its own affairs with the assistance of the Government, and it has been able to pay the interest. We are putting in this Bill language which implies that the port of St. John is not going to pay the interest; at all events, we are saying in this Bill that if
the harbour commissioners fail to pay the principal and the interest of this loan, His Majesty will pay it. The inference to be drawn from that is that the harbour commissioners are not going to trouble themselves very much about the matter, because His Majesty stands behind them and he will pay the bill. I do not think you will find language like that in the other charters. And why should that language be put in this resolution? It strikes me that it should not be there. The responsibility should be thrown on the commission to finance the development of this harbour, to pay the interest and to provide for the debentures when they fall due. If it is necessary for the commissioners to get the endorsement of the Government, let them do so, but why do we put language like that in the resolution?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It is just the same as in the others.


John Ewen Sinclair: If the harbour commissioners do not pay the bill, the country will pay it? That is not necessary, surely. I was glad to hear that the finances of the harbour are in good shape, and that the estimated revenue the minister makes is, if I understand him rightly, much larger than the proceeds of last year.
I was wondering how that could be, because last year, owing to the war, there must have'been more trade than in normal times. I have no doubt, however, the minister has reasons for the estimate he has made, and I am glad to hear the chances are that the harbour will pay its way. We all hope it will.
My idea of dealing with these matters is to leave them as much as possible under local control, but the custom seems to be growing of everybody coming to Ottawa for harbour improvements instead of looking after them at home themselves. The people of Halifax have come here and got $17,000,000 of the people's money, and they want $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 more to finish up the harbour. A good many people think that the money is being badly spent, that it is not improving the harbour at Halifax, that the money is not being spent in the right place, simply because it was not the people's own money under local control and they did not take sufficient interest in the work. As a result of it being managed from Ottawa we have a harbour built in an exposed place at George's Island where some ships last winter could not land their cargoes. They had to come into Halifax because they found it impossible to land


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 1 am afraid my hon. friend has not delved into this matter as deeply as he might have done, or he would have come to a different opinion from the one he has expressed to-night. In the first place the harbour of St. John is different from any other harbour in Canada, and probably in the world, in respect of its ownership. About 1895 the people of St. John started in to build up the harbour themselv.es. They have continued on down to the present time, and have expended something between $2,100,000 and $2,200,000 of actual money, practically in the construction of wharves. These wharves have been operated and maintained by the city, and the city has received the revenue from them. As the minister (Mr. Ballantyne) has stated, during the last three or four years the revenue has been sufficient to pay the cost of operation, the interest on the debentures, to provide a reasonable amount for betterments and improvements, and leave a small balance. Some years ago it was very patent that the city would not be able to go on themselves and develop the harbour as it should be developed, because next to Montreal it is the greatest seaport from a business standpoint in the Dominion. My hon. friend talks about Halifax. Why, Halifax even in wartime did not handle one-fifth of the value of the goods handled at the port of St. John. 1 think three or four wharves have been built in recent years by the Federal Government under the Department of Public Works, and as soon as they were built they were handed over for operation to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, as all these big wharves are. The revenue from the Government wharves have gone to the Government and the revenues from the city wharves have gone to the city, and that is why the
I Mr. Sinclair.]
minister states that when these are consolidated the revenue will be considerably over $200,000. Under this agreement the harbour will be managed by local people, just as my hon. friend desires. That is one of the reasons why I, as Minister oi Public Works, have been in favour of hand ing the harbour over to the commissioners. A man has only to occupy this position foi two or three years to realize how hopelessly at sea he is as to the requirements of any port in Canada. I thought I knew St. John pretty well; I think I do. I came here with certain ideas about improvements and * developments. My predecessor had certain ideas, and so had his predecessor, and so my successor will have. These things are worked out by men who have no real technical knowledge of the subject, and my opinion is that all these works should be placed under a commission of local men, because they are the ones who have knowledge of the subject; far better results will be obtained when they are all, consolidated under one body working along a certain well defined plan, and one body receiving the whole of the revenues. The way it has been handled for the last two or three years has been a real detriment to the trade and navigation of the country. In the first place, all of the wharves in the harbour are under the control of the harbour master, and it is natural that he should want to put every ship in the Government docks that he possibly can in order to get the revenue. It is a well-known fact that ships have been held up sometimes for twenty-four hours in the stream waiting a chance to go into a city dock instead of a Government dock. So it is really against the proper administration of the port the way it has been run in the past.
Just one other point. My hon. friend is under a misapprehension. We are not making any grants to the city at all. The city owns a certain property, which they are selling to the Government. There are bonds to the amount of about $1,350,000 outstanding, which the harbour commissioners will pay. In addition to that, there is $650,000 which the people have put up by means of taxation, and the idea is to repay them. Just figure it out and see where you are. They are handing over to the Government $650,000 of property, and in my judgment it is worth a good deal more than that over and above the debentures. They naturally want some guarantee that that money will be paid, and so far as this $650,000 is concerned, it is being provided that if the harbour commissioners do not

pay the interest and the principal the Government of Canada will be responsible, because the Government of Canada, is getting the property of the city of St. John. The harbour commissioners have no assets; their assets would be of no value unless guaranteed by the Government.


John Ewen Sinclair: From whom did these proposals first come?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: From myself, probably. I was one of the first that I know of to work it out.


John Ewen Sinclair: Did the city oi
St. John come here to sell their property or did the Government go there to try and buy it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I could hardly say. I
have talked the matter over so many times that I really would not like to say where it originated, but I think I had as much to do with it as anybody else. I had not been in this office very long before I realized what a hopeless mess the affairs of that port were in. It has been a political question in the city of St. John for a great many years. This plan is nothing new; I did not conceive the idea; I only realized the situation. I believe the city are anxious to dispose of their property if they can get a reasonable price for it. I do not think it would be reasonable to ask the city to hand over their property to the Dominion Government and get no security, because the bonds of the harbour commissioners, unless guaranteed by the Government, would probably be a very poor security.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The matter has been discussed in the House a good many times.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh yes, and that is why I say I cannot answer categorically my hon. friend's question as to who first brought the matter up. It has been proposed a good many times in this House that the harbour should be nationalized, that is, put in the same position as Halifax is in. I would like to have that. I am sorry to see the port of St. John burdened with harbour dues, but that is only business. I have never asked the Government to do anything yet that is not business and that does not appeal to me as a business proposition, and I do not know why, because the Government might have made one great mistake in Halifax, we should be compelled to repeat it in St. John. As a minister coming from that province, and vitally interested in its welfare, I think it is a good fair business proposition, that the harbour itself should be
charged and the shipping pay its share of the expenses. No other city in Canada has-ever come under this condition because no other city ever owned a harbour and sold it to the Government. The city of Montreal never put a dollar into the harbour, or anything they put in would be a mere bagatelle. The city of Quebec never put a dollar into the harbour. This is in a class by itself. When my hon. friend understands the conditions he will realize that after all we have tried to make it a fairly good business proposition.	.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In answer to the hon. member for Antigonish and Guys-borough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) I may say that this Bill is almost identical with the Bill that was introduced when the Harbour Commissioner for the port of Montreal was created, and also for Quebec and the port oi Vancouver. The Harbour Commissioners of Montreal issued debentures and the Government have to stand behind them. We are doing no more for the port of St. John than for those other ports. There was another point in connection with which the hon. member wanted an explanation, and that is, how I estimate the revenue to be $225,000 when for the year 1918 it was only $159,442. Well, there are various sources from which the harbour commissioners can raise revenue without injury to shipping. I find that the wharfage dues collected on the wharves owned by the Government amount to $59,331.37. That will be additional revenue for the harbour commissioners, and they will also get revenue from the fisheries..


John Ewen Sinclair: We are giving them that in addition to the grant?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, but these harbour commissioners for St. John have to pay three and a half per cent to the Government on the cost of construction of all wharves and the grain elevator there. They have revenue from the fisheries, and I am perfectly satisfied that they will be able to pay all operating expenses of the harbour, meet interest on bonds, pay five per cent on any moneys that may be voted in the future to the port; and while I won't make a definite promise I am reasonably sure that when the bonds come due they will have sufficient revenue to redeem them. I want to make it perfectly clear that this Bill is not different from the Bills in connection with Quebec, Montreal, and Vancouver. All the properties for these ports are vested in the King, and the harbour commissioners are simply trustees.
,4306


John Ewen Sinclair: What strikes me there will be improvements at Government
as curious is the statement that if the harbour commissioners fail to pay interest on the bonds, His Majesty will pay it. Does my hon. friend say that that clause is in the charter of the harbour of Montreal?


Mr. BALL ANT  YNE@: I will not say that that exact phraseology was in it. But when these debentures of the port of Montreal come due-and I know that from experience while I was commissioner there- the Government take them up. I am responsible for having put that into the Bill because I knew that if we did not include that the city of St. John would naturally ask:	Who are the harbour commissioners
for the port of St. John if they cannot meet interest on outstanding bonds, and cannot meet debentures when tljey become due? The city of St. John would be in a rather unfortunate position, and therefore I had to put in the Bill the provision that if the harbour commissioners of St. John fail to meet these debentures when they come due, His Majesty will. When the debentures for the other ports come due, if the harbour commissioners are not able to meet them, in Montreal, Quebec, or Vancouver, the Government will also have to make them good.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The enterprising people of the city of St. John have been willing to spend some money during the last fifty *years, perhaps longer, in creating a harbour to bring trade and traffic to the city. They were getting the benefit from year to year of that investment. They got good returns by the trade and traffic and the Canadian Pacific railway going to that port, having made certain development in order to fit that place as a terminus, I rather think those early investments are falling into decay. They have done their work and the enterprising live city of St. John has, in my judgment, received ample compensation and returns for those investments. They find that the burden is too big and they are asking us to send an engineer down to estimate the cost of those works.
iMr. CARVELL: No, the value. The report of Mr. Anderson is as to the present value of those works.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I don't know how a man can value an old wharf. He cannot put it up at auction.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: These wharves have been kept in repair and good condition.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, but St. John will have identically the same benefit from these wharves and improvements after purchase as before. In fact, it will be better, because

expense. I am glad that the harbour of St. John yrill have better facilities, but I don't see why this country should return to St. John the moneys they expended on improvements which are necessary to carry trade and traffic to that harbour. I am willing that we should take it over, put it in good shape, and assume the debt in connection with it, and carry it along under a commission, but I cannot understand why we should go down into the depleted treasury and pay $2,000,000 to St. John or any other city for works which are still to be their property. There will be a change in name, but the utility will still be to the advantage of St. John. I do not see why merely because it will nominally pass to the King, we should pay cash for say the value of what remains of improvements that have been of a vast advantage to that city. I think the city of St. John should be perfectly satisfied if we took this business off their hands, which is bothersome to them, put it into good shape, and carry it along, and let them enjoy the use of it, without getting the money back.


Mr. ROBB:: The grain elevators and Wharves are being turned over to the harbour commissioners. Will the Government still retain control over the harbour commissioners as regards the regulation of rates?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Government certainly will. The same authority will prevail in the port of St. John as exists at present in other ports under commission. The rates on grain, the wharfage rates and everything else are subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Hon. Mr. Ballantyne moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 169, relating to the harbour of St. John, in the province of New Brunswick.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first and second time. The House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Progress reported.


DRY DOCK SUBSIDIES ACT, 1910, AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. F. B. Carvell, Minister of Public Works, the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That It Is expedient to provide that the Dry Docks Subsidies Act, 1910', be amended by increasing the subsidy on second-class dry docks to four and one-half per cent of the cost of the work, payable half-yearly during a period not exceeding thirty-five years after the work has been completed, but half yearly payments on account of the subsidy at the rate of four and one-half per cent on seventy-five per cent of the oost of the work done and materials provided at the time of such payment may be made during the construction of the dock, no such payment to be made until the work done and materials provided shall have cost the sum of five hundred thousand dollars, and no such payments on account to be made unless the Chief Engineer reports that the work is being proceeded with to his satisfaction.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The explanation of this is very short and simple. In 1910 the Dry Dock Subsidies Act was passed, which provided for three different kinds of docks. There was a first class dock which must oost a certain amount of money, $4,000,000 or $4,500,000. Upon that the Government was to pay a subsidy of three and a half per cent for thirty-five years. A second class dock was to cost $2,500,000 at least, and upon that the Government would pay a subsidy of 3i per cent for twenty-five years. Subsequently the law regarding first class docks was amended providing for the payment of a subsidy of 4i per cent for thirty-five years. Only one dry dock has been constructed under that provision and that is the dry dock at St. John. It does seem to me that some change must be made if we are going to get dry docks built in other places where they are required in the way of giving greater facilities. A number of applications Iiave been made during the last two or three years for the construction of second class dry docks. A second class dry dock would be one big enough to accommodate every ship that sails the seas except very large war ships and ships like the Aquitania and some of those monsters. The provision in regard to a second class dock also includes a floating dry dock. The place I have in mind in connection with this resolution is Sydney. There is a demand for a dry dock in Sydney and I am convinced that if we can change the law in accordance with this proposed resolution it will facilitate the construction of a dry dock at Sydney. Therefore, the proposal is that the Act be amended so as to provide for a subsidy of four and1 a half per cent for thirty-five years on a second class dry dock just the same as it is now on a first class dock. It also provides that no subsidy shall be paid at least until $500,000 has been expended on the work. The owners of a first class dock must put
up $1,000,000. The reason for this is obvious. The (xovernment would not be justified in guaranteeing interest on the bonds until the promoters had put up some of their own money because they might take the bonds, sell them, and not go on with the work. In the case of a $2,000,000 dock, if $500,000 were put up by the promoters, the Government would feel safe in guaranteeing the bonds. These are practically the only changes that are proposed by this resolution.


James Alexander Robb: Will it be retroactive?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. There is a special clause which reads as follows:
The provisions of section 2 of this Act shall not apply or extend to any agreement heretofore made for the construction of any dry dock.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Hon. Mr. Carvell moved for leave to introduce Bill 170, to amend the Dry Docks Subsidies Act, 1910.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second time, considered in committee and reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Carvell the House adjourned at 12.10 a.m Tuesday.
Tuesday, July 1, 1919.