1919-10-02

FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 16, respecting The North Empire Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Blake.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. OALDER presented the second report of the special committee on Bill No. 10 to amend the department of Soldiers Civil Re-Establishment Act as follows:
The Special Committee on Bill No. 10, an Act to amend the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Act beg leave to present the following as their second report: Your committee recommend that their quorum be reduced from eleven to eight members.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Calder the report was concurred in.
Mr. CALDER moved:: That the name of Mr. McGregor be substituted for that of Mr. Tremain on the special committee on Bill No. 10, an Act to amend the Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Act.
He said: Mr. Tremain has been obliged to be absent some time and he is not able to attend the sittings of the committee. It is suggested that Mr. McGregor should take his place.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This motion can only be entertained by unanimous leave of the House.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Might I ask the minister when we may hope to get a final report from this committee? Are they making good progress and is the end in sight?


James Alexander Calder: The end is not in sight as yet. We are sitting practically every day two or three times a day but there is a great deal of ground to be covered. I should think that by the end of this week we would begin to see daylight, although daylight is not in sight yet.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Report of Dominion Bureau of Statistics on lumber, lath and shingles.-Sir George Foster.
Report of the Superintendent of Insurance for the year ended December 31, 1918. -Hon. A. K. Maclean.

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

Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Did the Government Purchasing Board call for tenders in the months of May, June and

July, 1919, respecting supplies of cedar timbers and fence posts for the use of railways?
2.	If so, whose tenders were accepted, and what were the prices submitted for the different grades of timber therein mentioned?
Hon, Mr. DOHERTY:
1.	No. Purchases for the Government Railways do not come within the duties of the War Purchasing Commission.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


FIBRE FLAX PRODUCTION.
Mr. GLASS:: 1.	Pursuant to the recommendations made in the discussion in this House on the 16th April last re fibre flax production in Canada and the opinion then expressed by the Minister of Agriculture as to the importance of cleaning, standardizing, branding and marketing of Canadian flax fibre seed, what action, if any, has been taken by the Government to this end?
2.	It is said that fifty per cent of the total acreage in Great Britain and Ireland sown to flax fibre in the year 1919 was seeded with Canadian fibre seed. In view of this and the need of securing a future permanent market for, our exportable surplus of flax fibre seed, have any steps been taken by the Government to ascertain the relative results obtained from use of this seed compared with results likewise obtained with:-
1st. Dutch (White flowering) seed.
2nd. Yorkshire seed.
3rd. French seed.
4th. Irish seed.
5th. Russian (Perneau Crown) seed.
3.	Has the Government received from the British Government or from any one authorized by such Government or from any other Government, inquiries or request having for their objects the conservation or securing of the 1919 crop of Canadian flax fibre seed or any portion thereof? If so, what steps have been taken, or are in contemplation concerning same?
4.	With a view to establishing a permanent future market for exportable surplus of Cana-ian flax fibre, has the Government given serious consideration to the need of standardization and grading our fibre? If so, what measures have been adopted? If not, does the Government contemplate action in this direction?
5.	Has the Government prchased for their equipment in their experimental flax station at the Experimental Farm, Ottawa, a new modern scutching machine? If so, has the machine been installed, and what results have been obtained in its operation?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	In order to safeguard Canadian export trade of fibre flax seed with Ireland, through the maintenance of a uniform standard in cleaning, inspecting and branding, the Department of Agriculture had made provision for the inspection and grading of the-1919 fibre flax crop. The attached circular which was sent to the Ontario Fibre Flax Seed Producers by the Fibre Division of the Experimental Farms Branch of the Department of Agriculture will give full particulars as to

the .methods to be followed in the inspection and grading of the 1919 crop.
2.	The Department of Agriculture is making every effort to ascertain the relative results obtained from the use of Canadian Fibre Flax Seed in Ireland as compared with results likewise obtained with other varieties of fibre flax seed sown in Ireland.
3.	No.
4.	Arrangements have been made to start a grading system at the commencement of the .present scutching season, with a view to establishing grades for flax fibre and tow. A circular entitled " Notes on flax scutching and grading " has been prepared and distributed to all growers and mill-owners. A copy of this circular is attached hereto. As soon as scutching operations are under way, it is proposed to send the Flax Expert of the Department of Agriculture to visit each mill and personally set and supervise the grading of flax fibre and tow.
5.	A new modern scutching .machine has been purchased by the Department of Agriculture from the Fibre Corporation, Ltd., 40 Frederick St., Belfast, Ireland, and has arrived at the Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa. This machine is now being assembled and it is hoped to have it working in about ten days' time.


DEPORTATION OF ALIENS.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: Is it the intention of the Government to introduce legislation in order to deport to or repatriate in their country of origin subjects of enemy nationality at present in asylums or penitentiaries in this country?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: The intention of the Government will be disclosed at the proper time.


CLAIMS OF .CANADIAN CONTRACTORS AGAINST U.S. GOVERNMENT.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. ARCH AM B AULT:
1.	Is the Government aware that the War Secretary of the United States, Newton D. Baker, has appointed two American officers, called Assessors for the Canadian contracts, to sit on the Imperial Board of Munitions and concur in the decisions of the said Board, in the settlement of the claims of Canadian contractors with the Government of the United States ?
2.	Is the Government aware of the predicament of the Canadian contractors, by the fact that about ?15,000,000 of these claims consisting in disbursements and damages is not paid to them although the Board of Imperial Munitions has declared and judged these claims to be just and reasonable, the. recommendation of payment being stopped, because the American officers do not concur in the award of the Imperial Board of Munitions, and would like to settle with the Canadian contractors at 50 per cent discount?
[Stage Direction]
3.	Is the Government aware of the fact, that notwithstanding that the offer of the American officers is found unjust and unreasonable, the Imperial Board of Munitions refuses to come to the aid of the Canadian contractors in giving their decision to the Secretary of War of the United States, and for some unexplainable reason, they advise the Canadian contractors to accept the offer of the American officers?
4.	Is the Government aware that the large amount of $15,000,000 which is kept back since nearly 11 months is equivalent to a loan to the United States, and that its unjust retention threatens to ruin certain Canadian industries?
5.	Is it the intention of the Government, in view of these facts to leave their constituents at the mercy of these two American officers, or are they not of the opinion that they should intervene immediately to the Imperial Board of Munitions to force them to protect the Canadian contractors and to report forthwith their decision to the Secretary of the War, Baker?
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With respect to this question, I wish to direct the attention of the House to the fact that this question goes far beyond rule 37 and also the practice that has heretofore obtained. It is only open to make assertions of fact in a question sufficient to enable the basis to be laid for the answer. This; question, in so far as statements of fact are concerned, goes very much farther than that. It also, in effect, introduces opinions and arguments in a way which properly cannot be done in the case of a question. In these circumstances I would ask that the question be dropped. Tne hon. member can later so revise it as to bring it within the rules.
Question No. 21 dropped.


P. O. SAVINGS BANKS.
Mr. P. R. McGIBBON (Argenteuil):: What were the deposits during the last year in the Post Office Savings Bank of Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: For a return showing the cost of the Military hospital at Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue; the number of patients received and treated therein, to date; expenses to date for maintenance as to (a) coal; (>b) wood; (c) electricity; (d) food; (e) lingerie; (f) remedies; (g) social events and recreations ; the cost of theatre installed in hospital; names of physicians, officers, nurses, and privates of the general services, showing those who went to the front, and those who did not; their nationality and religion : salaries paid to each of the said persons ; and the names and salaries of the chaplains attached to hospital.


Mr. PARENT:: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, contracts, and plans, passed between the Commission of the Trancontinental Railway, or the Government of the city of Quebec, the different transport companies, the Harbour Commission of Quebec or any other persons, corporations or companies, from 1910 to date, concerning the construction of a railway station at the Champlain Market in the city of Quebec, also the construction, in the said city, of wharves, docks, elevators to facilitate the transport of grain from the West, via the port of Quebec.


Georges Parent: For a copy of all letters, plans, and contracts between the Government or the Commission of the Transcontinental and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, concerning (a) the construction, by this Company, of a railway station at '* the Palais " in the city of Quebec; (b) the conditions of exploitations of the said station by the Transcontinental Railway Company or by the National Railways, and also any Orders in Council in this connection.


Georges Parent: For a copy of all documents, letters, and plans,. exchanged between the Government and any person, commission or company concerning the construction, in the city of Quebec or in the suburbs, of a tunnel to facilitate the entrance of the Transcontinental or of any other company in the said city.


Georges Parent: For a copy of all documents, letters, and plans, submitted by the Harbour Commission of Quebec since 1910 to date, concerning the construction of wharves, docks, elevators, cold storage, terminal facilities in the port of Quebec, for the transport by land and water.


Georges Parent: For a copy of all documents, letters and plans passed between the Government and the city of Quebec or any other corporation or

construction and transport company or any other person, concerning the construction or non-construction of a dam on the St. Charles river, in the city of Quebec.


Mr. BROUILLARD:: For a copy of all telegrams, letters and other correspondence and documents exchanged between Mr. Boulay, ex-M.P., and the Post Office Department in connection with the Sayabec Post Office and the Sayabec Station Post Office.


CANADIAN CASUALTIES IN CERTAIN BATTLES.
[Stage Direction]
Lieut.-General Sir SAM HUGHES moved:
For a return showing:	(a) The Canadian
Casualties by battalions and other subordinate units in each of the battles, St. Julien, Festu-bert, Givenchy, Zillebeke, VimyRidge, Parvilliers (or Fouquescourt), Passchendaele, Arras, Dro-court-Gueant, Cambrai, Mons. (b) The strength of each battalion or unit immediately before entering action at the said battles, respectively, (c) The respective number of reinforcements added to each said battalion ana unit during the fighting at each of the said battles, (d) The respective strength of each said battalion and unit on coming out of the fight at each of the said battles. (e) The plans and conduct of each action, including incidents and events leading up to, as well as bearing on each.
He said: When I left the Government in November, 1916, I had two courses open to me to pursue; one, in defiance of the well-established custom, to attack the Government, and to attack any measure they might introduce which I did not conceive to be in the interest of the service or of the country, and the other, to pursue a passive course, assisting the Government in every legitimate way I could, in the meantime withholding any criticism I might want to make until a later period. I might have been more or less vindictive towards a couple of my colleagues, but I chose to give them a friendly support in any way I could in reference to matters concerning their departments.
I could have given rein to ambition, Sir, and have exposed the Military Service Act, the registration fad, the Food Control scheme, and various other operations of the Government that certainly gave one opportunity to criticise if necessary. But, Sir, I checked my ambition 'and loyally assisted these gentlemen in any suggestion they had to make to me. I could have gone in for personal glory, ot I could have sharply criticised1 the operations and administration here, in England and at the front; but whether it was the Minister of Militia, the Minister of Naval Service, or any other

*ministers in the Government, anything I could do to help them in a quiet way was done, and my criticisms were confined, as far as 'possible, to legitimate action. I could also have exposed the outrageous loans and bad financing of the Government; but I contented myself with following the same line in regard to these matters. Everything was made subordinate to winning the war. I did make suggestions to my predecessor, as I say, but everything of *that nature had for its object the interests of the people of Canada. When the Military Service Act was brought forward I spoke to the Minister of Justice and endeavoured1 to point out to him that the tribunals' were just loopholes for having certain people escape service. I pointed out the weaknesses of that Act in as kindly terms as I could, but I regret to say my suggestions were not *much heeded. The Minister of Militia will bear me out in saying that in any communication I may have bad with 'the Prime Minister referring to anything at the front 'and which was of interest to Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, General Currie, or any of the other officers, I invariably marked my communication as open to their consideration and sent each a copy. The same with General Turner. But now the war is over, Sir, I owe allegiance only to the constituents who for thirty years have loyally stood by me in political matters. Union Government has made no change in the principles of the old Liberal-Conservative party .of Sir John A. Macdonald. I have been carefully studying all the acts of the Unionist Government and I can see no acts worthy of consideration that were not embodied in the principles of the old Liberal-Conservative party of Sir John A. Maodbnald many years 'ago, and therefore I have loyally stood by those principles and quietly submitted to actions wdth which I could not agree. But others have not been so considerate in regard to me. I have seen my war plans set aside; I have seen my honour impugned; I have seen my friends in the service treated with injustice bordering on persecution; but worst of all I have seen the gallant four hundred thousand soldiers whom I had raised needlessly shot to pieces. Therefore I do feel keenly in the premises. I have long 'adopted the motto that next to : the honest convictions of my own heart and conscience I value the approval of my honest fellow-men and women. Therefore, knowing the facts; knowing the honest convictions of my own heart and conscience; this review- only a small fraction of the facts that
[Stage Direction]
might be given in detail-is presented to Parliament and the country for the consideration of my fellow.
It is submitted:
1.	In full justice to myself and family of whom I >am rightfully proud.
2.	In justice to my many friends throughout the Dominion of Canada and the world at large. '
3.	In delayed justice to many a gallant and capable officer and man such as for instance:
Lieut.-General Sir W. E. Turner.
Colonel John A. Currie, M.P.
General Sir John Carson and Colonel Murphy.
To the memories of the splendid fellows resting peacefully beneath the golden lilies of France or the crimson poppies of Belgium.
To the hundreds of thousands of the returned lads and their friends in Canada.
And last, but by no means least, to Lieut.-Colonel Sir Arthur Currie.
Now, Sir, there are variouus forms of .calumny and slander. I do not know whether these have been indulged in during the recent war or not, but for the last number of years there has been a propaganda followed. Propaganda! I would like to see a definition of the word. But, Sir, there are various forms of propaganda. For instance, we have found:
1.	Indiscriminate praise of others undeserving.
2.	Calumny directly against the person concerned.
I have had the full limit of both forms from men whose motives' have been most unworthy. The man is a coward, unworthy of association with his fellow-man and woman, who unjustly and deliberately deprecates another:
1.	By promulgating what is false concerning him.
2.	By boosting others in untrue praise ~ with the object not only of helping the one
boosted, but to deprecate the other.
Truth, fair play, justice for all, must he the watchwords. He who wishes more is unworthy the name of soldier; he who deliberately plans for more or accepts more than truth, fair play and justice is a moral leper among the half million gallant Canadians who so heroically did their duty; but he who would wantonly by word or pen, or by silence dishonour the fair name of a comrade by permitting falsehood, misrepresentation or slander in deed or word, active or passive, should occupy the pit of infamy.
Injustice always breeds rebellion:
1.	In the person defamed or injured wrongfully.
2.	In the person deprived of credit for actions honestly done.
3.	In persons who see credit given to one who does not deserve it.
4.	In propaganda, camouflage and suppression of the truth to' advance untruth and hide the facts in order to advance another.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that Lord Finlay is about to enter the House. Will you be good enough to state how I am to proceed? What I mean is am I now to take my seat, or do you wish me to continue?
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If it is convenient to the hon. member, he may proceed and I will try not to have him interrupted except at a convenient opportunity.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: It is immaterial to me what the form of procedure is,
I am ready at any time to defer my remarks.	.
Now, Sir, I have some interesting data which'I propose placing before the House and especially before the country.
Justice is the sheet-anchor of the ship of state of civilization. It is the corner-stone of freedom, liberty and progress. It is the foundation rock upon which humanity rests. My aim was that from the highest to the lowest the certainty should be that each should get even-handed justice.


VISIT OF VISCOUNT FINLAY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker suspended the session of the House during pleasure to enable hon. members to meet the Right Honourable Viscount Finlay of Nairn, former Lord Chancellor of England.
After an interval of fifteen minutes the House resumed.

Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my remarks will be very interesting to His Lordship and to the House, but I will pursue the even tenor of my way.
I was speaking about the propaganda which had been instituted concerning my actions and conduct both before the war and during the war. Now, that the war is over, I feel that I am justifying myself in placing these facts before the House and the country in order that a proper review may be had of them.
The propaganda to which I refer was active even before the war began. I do not



*wish to impugn the honour of any of the persons concerned in the premises, whom I shall name here as having been influenced directly by German money. But we now know that German gold in vast quantities had been distributed throughout the United States, Great Britain and Canada in order to create a public sentiment adverse to everything like preparation for war or the development of the defences of the country along proper lines. As Minister of Militia, and feeling as a result of my visits to Germany -that this war was coming on, it was my duty to prepare the country as quietly as possible for the struggle which I felt was impending. It was therefore more or less unpleasant, Sir, to find myself attacked by various organizations and journals. For instance, one of the most ardent journals in the matter was the Toronto Telegram. I was unkind enough to attribute the influence of that paper to the association of the then Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) with it. The Toronto Globe was very bitter in its attacks upon my preparations. I never could understand the reason for it. But some years ago I found that the editor-in-chief of the Toronto Globe was receiving fifty per cent or thereabout of his salary-within a fraction of that percentage -from a peace society in the United States, associated with which was Ur. Starr Jordan of the Leland Stanford university of California. Subsequently, it transpired- absolutely unknown to the editor of the Globe, mark you; I have no hesitation in saying that-that peace society was supported by German gold. The people of Canada, myself in particular, were subjected to attacks from that paper because I was making preparations and getting ready for the war. The Montreal Mail and Evening News-established through the instrumentality of the then Finance Minister; at all events, the proprietor of it was a brother of the then Finance Minister-day in and day out attacked my policy, belittled me before the country and belittled my projects. The Winnipeg Telegram and Evening Post, for reasons of its own, also treated me to some consideration in this regard. In clubs, restaurants, prayer-meetings even, and on trains, the propaganda went on, all leading towards the same line-that my policy was wrong; that other lines should be pursued, and that we should not make the progress which we were making.
I regret to say that both Lord Shaugh-nessy and Sir Joseph Flavelle lent them selves in 1915 and 1916 to the policy of stopping recruiting. I understand that Lord 
Shaughnessy claimed that the war was going to be over by the 1st of June, 1916, and that the whole agitation to raise troops and .send them to the front was a fad of my own and had no foundation in necessity.
I wish to relate an incident that occurred in New York in March, 1916, when I was on my way to Europe to review the Canadian troops. Just as I was starting for the boat, I received a telephone call from one of the leading financiers in>
the city of New York who told me that undeT no consideration must I sail; that a conspiracy was afoot to destroy me. Thinking that he meant the German submarine campaign, I jokingly told him that I had arranged with the Kaiser that nothing was to happen to my ship, and that everything was all right. He said that this was a much more serious affair than that; that it was a conspiracy on the part of a couple of my colleagues in Canada to get rid of me. Knowing that I was the bulwark that .stood between Sir Robert Borden and some of the conspirators in and out of the party, they had conspired to destroy me in order that they might get rid of Sir Robert Borden also. I immediately notified Sir Robert Borden to this effect and stated that if any controversial matter arose affecting him or myself in any way, I would immediately return to Canada and defend him. I had scarcely got across the Atlantic when, through the instrumentality of certain gentlemen. who are now well known, an inquiry was commenced into the fuse contracts. In passing, let me say that no more searching inquiry than that was ever held, and never did men come through an inquiry with a cleaner record than, did the gentlemen concerned. Had that Shell Committee been permitted to continue its operations and to enter into similar contracts after the establishment of the Munitions Board, we could have helped them out. Mr. Russell, a protege, a creditor of the financial interests with which Sir Joseph Flavelle was asso-" ciated, had, on the first million- fuses he took, got a bonus of $675,000 over and above a fair contract price, and, as it was, when he found he could not load them, he got nearly $350,000 more for his first million fuses than did the Northern Electric Light Company of Montreal for an exactly similar contract. The scope, however, of the commission was not extended, although it may be at some future date.
On the evening before I spoke at the Toronto Empire Club in October, 1916, I had the privilege of being waited upon about eleven o'clock at night by a number of

leading Liberal-Conservatives of the city of Toronto. I may inform the House that in the city of Toronto the term " Liberal-Conservative " is still used. These gentlemen explained to me that the reason why they were out so late was because they had had a political meeting and the question had arisen whether the then Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) could get a seat in Toronto or not. They said that the meeting had unanimously decided that owing to his unpopularity in the city, he should not be nominated. The next day my staff officer came to me and said: " Something is wrong; last night we were told by these gentlemen that the Finance Minister was so unpopular here that he should not be nominated; now he is in everybody's mouth, it being said that he should become Prime Minister and that Sir Robert Borden, who is a weakling, should go."
I asked him who the gentlemen were who were carrying on the canvass, and in presence of two officers of the institution he pointed out eight men who were openly canvassing against Sir Robert Borden, demanding that the Prime Minister should go and that the Minister of Finance should succeed him. Each one of these gentlemen was associated with one or another of the commercial or financial institutions with which Sir Joseph Flavelle and the Minister of Finance were more or less directly connected. I shall not mention the names of the institutions. They are well known; they are known as the financial group in Toronto that has been manipulating the affairs of this country so long. That -was in October, 1916. I notified the Prime Minister of that and gave him the data so that he could verify it.
Then came the Borden-Bennett trip to the West on that national registration scheme, on which a lot of blotting paper and a good deal of money was wasted, but from which nothing resulted. During that trip Sir Joseph could not contain himself any longer, but must make a speech, and notification was given that he was going to make a speech and to drive Borden from the Cabinet. It appears from an 'article that came out in the Toronto Globe at that time that an effort was made on the part of the Prime Minister to induce Sir Joseph Flavelle to moderate his tone a little until Sir Robert Borden returned and not to come out so flat-footedly as he was reported to be intending to do. The effect of the Toronto Globe article was that a meeting was advertised in the interest of Sir Thomas White, to be held on a Monday evening, the evening that the
40J
article appeared, and that there was a charge of conspiracy against the Prime Minister. That meeting was suddenly changed; a startling announcement that was to be made did not materialize, and altogether the matter was more or less of a frost. The Minister of Finance was on the defensive rather than on the offensive, the cause being the exposure in the Globe of that day of the actions of Sir Joseph Flavelle.
Then followed that famous speech of Sir Joseph Flavelle, in which he relegated profits to a warmer climate than we have in Canada at the present time, but which caused people to inquire into the profits he was making on bacon and other commodities with a result which was not very creditable to him. After the Empire Club meeting, when I found this propaganda at work- and it was a revelation to me-I examined the system that I found had been in operation before the war, all through the formation of the Valcartier camp and all through the conduct of operations until the time that I left office, and I found the same friends were directing the show right through. At every meeting at Toronto or elsewhere the propaganda would be at work belittling General Bertram and the Shell Committee. I should like to say at this point as regards the Shell Committee, that when Lord Kitchener asked me to get a couple of hundred thousand shells-a quantity which at the time the war closed could be turned out in a few hours by half a dozen of our institutions-from the Bethlehem steel works, 1 told him I could get them. But I saw that dinner pails in Canada were not filled; that our men were out of employment; that the country was in danger of becoming bankrupt; and that it was questionable whether we could raise the money to send the first 20,000 men over. I, therefore, decided to make the 200,000 shells in Canada, and we summoned the steel men of the country to Ottawa, with the result that after a time we got them started making these shells, and thus money was brought into the country. For the first time in history we used our own basic steel instead of acid steel. I want to point out two things in connection with the manufacture of these shells. This was the first time that shells had ever been made outside of arsenals; we made them in our factories, and this was the first time that basic steel instead of acid steel was used in the manufacture of shells. The result was that millions, aye, billions of money came into Canada, and if we have prosperity to-day and can float our Victory

Loans, that is due to the fact that those industries were established at that time, and they kept the country prosperous and buoyant. This year some are out of business. Men like Mr. Russell and Mr. Lloyd Harris, who 1 regret to say is misrepresents [DOT]ng, or, to be parliamentary, is " representing " this country in connection with trade matters at the other side at the present time, were agents who were active in securing the destruction of the Shell Committee which was doing so much to help the Empire in the great struggle which has just closed.
Subsequently to the attempt to squeeze out the Prime Minister, another move was tried. A number of able statesmen in Toronto-I may mention their names, Mr. Rundle, an officer in one of the departments of Sir Joseph Flavelle; Mr. Ames, a financial broker; Mr. Gundy, a little broker, friendly with Sir Joseph Flavelle, and others -came down to Ottawa, where they met Sir Joseph Flavelle on a Sunday morning, and had a conference with him. They then went to visit Sir Wilfrid Laurier at his residence at twelve o'clock, had lunch with him, remained until four o'clock, and then subsequently met some other leaders of the Liberal party. On the following Monday, another meeting was held and it was decided that


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Samuel Hughes: I will just finish
my sentence and then I will stop-it was decided that the thing should not go on.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must remind the hon. member that the motion before the House is for a return for the production of certain papers and for the obtaining of certain information, and 1 hope the hon. member will bring his remarks more closely to bear on the subject before the House.


Samuel Hughes: I think if Your Honour will read the last phrase of my motion you will see I am absolutely in order. I deliberately put that phrase in so that I could talk on the subject. Well, they met on Monday and nothing came of it. The wily old Liberal leader failed to see anything in this offer from these gentlemen to give him the Prime Ministership, let him retain it for nine months and then be put out for Sir Thomas White.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: I think he has the unanimous consent of the House.


Samuel Hughes: I do not want to enter into any discussion. My object in all this is to show how I was handicapped and the organization of our forces was handicapped leading up to all these engagements, by the interference and misconduct of certain gentlemen who pursued lines that were not in harmony with those I was pursuing. I may not be h lawyer but I drew the motion up with the intention and expectation that it would give me scope to carry on, and I think I am within the limits. However, I am through with the Canadian end of it, and I will now take up the Old Country end, which has to do with the training of the troops oyer there.
In 1914 I arrived in England, from New York, on the same day as the troops. I found that the High Commissioner for Canada was there and my presence seemed very objectionable to him. He even went so far as to tell me "You do not pretend to control the troops." The same words were put in the mouth of Lord Kitchener, and when it came to Lord Roberts' inspection of the troops the plan was that he was to go to the inspection without me, but Lord Roberts informed Lord Kitchener that he would not go without me. When we got to the grounds Lord Roberts insisted with General Alderson that I should take a prominent stand in the review. I shall not dilate on this further, except to say that all the actions carried out in connection with the troops were interfered with by press agencies friendly to the High Commissioner's office, and that adverse criticism after adverse criticism, all of which was found to be groundless, was made of the Dominion of Canada.
There is another matter. In October 1914 I had called on Lord Kitchener and asked for the return of all our machine guns which we had loaned him at the beginning of the war, and I also asked him for the return of our field pieces, some sixty or seventy 18-pounders. He said he would be prepared to return them as they had ordered 300 more 18-pounders and 2,500 machine guns. I suggested that instead of that number he should have ordered 30,000 18-pounders and 250,000 machine guns.

talion and unit on coming out of the fight at each of the said battles, (e) The plans and conduct of each action, including incidents and events leading up to, as well as bearing on each.
The hon. member will be speaking beside the question in referring to conversations as he evidently purposes doing, and I must ask him to bring his remarks more closely to bear on the subject before the House.


Samuel Hughes: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I will take the proper occasion to tell the story. I do not question your ruling -in any sense whatever, Sir. I might point out that when we went over to England our motor lorries were thrown out and a propaganda was carried on there which I shall tell you about. Our wagons were thrown out on the ground, alleged by the officials who were attending to the business, that they could not turn in the narrow roads of France, as the English wagons could, when as a matter of fact an investigation showed that they could turn in three feet nine inches less space than the English wagons and that the Canadian wagons were in every sense better than the English wagons. This was a piece of camouflage, such as they carried on-from start to finish, in order that they might reject the things that we sent over there. I could go down through a long list of articles which were all thrown out, on the ground that they wanted uniformity at the front. I had taken the ground that Canada was a unit in herself, exactly the same as Field Marshal Haig was a unit under General Foch. I claimed that our forces were a unit under Haig in this great war. I regret to say that it was only at a later period that I could get any recognition of my contention, not by the British authorities, because Lord Kitchener, Lloyd George and all those prominent statesmen, when the matter was explained to them were prepared to concede it, but from the subordinate officers. These subordinate officers would reject everything we would send over there except our men. They rejected motor lorries, wagons, harness, collars, shovels, belts, rifles, bayonets, boots, clothes, field kitchens, tents, and machine gun batteries.
Later I found that an Order in Council had been surreptitiously passed by the Canadian Cabinet-I was not once consulted about the matter, although I was present at several of the meetings-giving General Alderson full control over the appointment of officers without consultation with any person in Canada or with myself.

I had this immediately altered, and with a view to giving the facts which led up to the passage of this Order, I shall read the correspondence which occurred with Mr. Cubitt, representing the War Department, transmitted through His Royal Highness the Governor General, and my answers in reply thereto, establishing the basis upon which the two forces, the Canadian and the British, should act. I wrote the following memorandum:
Referring to the communication from the Right Honourable Bonar Haw to His Royal Highness, the Governor General enclosing the War Office letter from Mr. B. B. Cubitt (L21/ overseas/1826 (M.S.I.) concerning appointments and promotions, kindly permit the following. Paragraph 2 states:
Hitherto the promotions of Canadian officers serving with the Expeditionary Force has been approved in this office and published in the London Gazette when recommended by * the General Officer Commanding, Canadian Corps, and concurred in by the General Officer Commanding in Chief and the promotion of officers serving at home has similarly been approved on the recommendation of the General Officer Commanding at Shorncliffe. This procedure is in accordance with the arrangement laid down in the approved minute of the Privy Council of Canada, a copy of which was enclosed in your letter of 8th October, 1915, No. 45,889.
Thiafc Order in Council was passed, although I was never consulted about, at. It was immediately rescinded. My reply to that is this:
When the "approved minute of the Privy Council of Canada" above referred to was passed-and which has since been cancelled there was but one division in the field and it was not anticipated that the war would be prolonged. This accounts for the non-advancement of the principle of the supremacy and constitutional position of Canada in the premises and the lack of uniformity in the system therein authorized.
Paragraph 4 states:
It is observed that one of the effects of the new proposals might be that the appointments and promotions recommended as a result of observation of an individual's value in the field would be subjected to the veto of the Governor of _ tbe Dominion in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Militia who would have no first-hand cognizance of how an officer had behaved under active service conditions.
The expression "veto" in the above paragraph does not seem constitutionally to apply. The authority of the Minister of Militia and Defence, and the Governor of the Dominion in Council are constitutional rights and duties-* not "veto."
But it is observed that it was to avoid these very objections and to ensure that promotions and appointments should be made on an even and meritorious basis, and upon reports of those competent and in a position to judge of the fitness or unfitness of the officer that the new rule has been established.
Under the former Order in Council it was found that promotions and appointments of senior officers had been recommended on a

mental officers were made, and were never interfered with.
Under the former conditions, it is understood the appointments took several weeks to finally go through but the officers selected acted num the date of their nomination. Thus there would not be more than two or three days' difference in time in any event between the two systems.
Under the new plan, the proposal regarding all appointments and promotions at the Front is that they shall be submitted to Colonel Sir Max Aitken, as the General Representative for Canada at the Front, and be, by him, taken up with the War Office, while the more important ones should be informally talked over by that "officer with the Commander-in-Chief, or his representative, before any action be taken. In all probability positive agreement could be reached through this informal conference without any hitch whatever.
Regarding promotions, etc., in England:-The plan is that those shall be sent through the various corps to General Carson who, with Sir Max Aitken, will consider them; and then both they and those from the Front will be by the latter officer submitted unofficially to the War Office and officially to Canada. *
By pursuing this course it appears evident that any possible friction will be reduced to a minimum. The presence of the General Representative at the Front, who will be advised by the Canadian Minister of Militia and Defence without any delay as each important appointment or promotion presents itself, will: obviate the possibility of the action proposed in the last paragraph of the letter of Mr. B. B. Cubitt. Hence, the statement therein contained that " it will therefore not be desirable that vacancies should be left over until the concurrence of the Dominion Government has been obtained" cannot be accepted by Canada, the matter of cabling from the Front to the Minister of Militia and Defence for Canada on the one hand, or to the Secretary of State for War in England on the other being a difference of only a few minutes.
Moreover, the question of appointments to important positions on the Staff and Brigades, Divisions and Corps is one which would especially come under diplomatic consideration between Canada's General Representative at the Front and the Commander-in-Chief, or his representative. These appointments being important and there being many members of the Canadian Force who are well qualified for them, it would be most desirable that the consultation and agreement should take place in the preliminary stages rather than later. However, where parties are actuated by the supreme welfare of the Empire and by the most honourable and patriotic motives, and where no personal or local interests find place, there should be no trouble in amicably settling any and every possible difference that might arise.
Further, it would be very undesirable that any such appointments should be temporarily filled. It would be a very delicate matter to remove an officer once he were so appointed. In justice to our own deserving officers Canada respectfully asserts the constitutional principle that these appointments shall be controlled by her; and that as she has officers competent to fill any of these appointments with credit, capability, and honour, it is essential that such Canadian officers be given first consideration

and that among them selection be made on the basis of merit and fitness alone.
I may point out I have a double object in placing these facts before the House. One is to dispel the misapprehension which has been caused in the country by the speech delivered by Sir Edward Kemp last session in which he claimed that this position had not been taken until he himself had taken it some time previously. I point out now that away back in 1915 and 1916 I had laid it down as a principle, and asserted it from the very beginning; also demonstrating that it would have a very great effect in the developing of our troops and keeping lip that splendid spirit with which they entered the war and which continued until the end.
I now come to an article written, I think, early in 1918, by Lord Rothermere in the Sunday Pictorial on " The Menace of a Seven Years' War," and I quote from it the following:
Lessons of Passchendaele.
Now, as to the future; it is imperative for the Allies not to be recklessly wasteful of manpower in the field, no matter how great their numbers may become.
No nation, certainly not Germany, has been so prodigal of man-power in the battle line as Great Britain has been. France learned her lesson early. We have not learned it thoroughly even now. Our operations have been conducted as though we had an inexhaustible reservoir of men. As most men know the evil consequences which flowed from Passchendaele directly contributed to the break through near St. Quentin last March, which placed France and the Allied cause in jeopardy.
There has been far too much secrecy in official statements with regard to these battles.
The British tradition appears to be that while admirals and commanders of ships must suffer for grievous blunders, generals can do no wrong. This should not continue. A measure such as M. Clemenceau has introduced in France, by which military commanders, however exalted, may in future be tried by court-martial so constituted as to include not only generals, but also eminent members of the Senate and Chamber, and the head of the highest French legal tribunal, should be adopted.
In the fifth year of the war it is time that British generalship was not necessarily taken for granted. It should be submitted when necessary to close, competent, and ruthless scrutiny, in the interests of the real fighting men. The range of selection for the highest commands should be widened.
Now, in connection with this matter, I wish to say a few words concerning Lieut.-Gen. 'Sir E. W. Turner, V.C., of Quebec. Turner went to the South African war and won there the South African medal, the Distinguished Service Order and the Victoria Cross. In 1914 he enlisted for the recent war. He sought to serve in a subor-

dinate capacity in the Princess Patricia's Regiment, offering to take command of a company. I declined to allow him to serve in that capacity and at Valcartier gave him command of the Highland Brigade. At St. Julien, at the second battle of Ypres-which I think in some respects was the greatest battle of the war, owing to the fact that it was the first time the horrible poison gas was used by the Germans-this officer practically had entire command of the whole defence system. General Alderson, it is true, was in reserve; he was in the rear, as commanders usually are, ten or fifteen miles away, and was therefore not in actual touch with what was going on. Turner was actually in the firing line and had command of the whole force, of the entire line, some battalions of the 2nd Brigade and some battalions of the 1st Brigade, as well as the entire Highland Brigade, being placed directly under him, so the general control of the whole fight devolved upon Turner. He carried that fight through all Thursday afternoon and night, Friday and Friday night and Saturday, and retired only late on Saturday night, when the British troops came in to help him out. I think I am right in the date and that he had the general command up to Saturday night. Further than that, in 1915, about a month later, he ' distinguished himself at the battle of Festu-bert. Although the attack as a whole at that time was not a success, Turner's part, the Canadian part, of it was a complete success. The troops on either side of him encountered machine gun positions which the reconnaissance of the Imperial forces had not disclosed, the troops on each side being Imperials. The machine gun nests held the Imperials up, but Turner got through and maintained his position until he was relieved by Imperial troops. When the second division was being organized in 1915, General Steele not being fit to take command owing to having been injured twice, I recommended Turner for the command. Now, Sir, in justice to General Turner and in justice to the late Lord Kitchener, I must point out that there was an agitation at that time, or, rather, there was a feeling that only Imperial officers should command divisions. Even when the Valcartier camp was formed the idea was entertained by some that colonels of our regiments should be taken from the Imperial service as far as possible. I repudiated that.
The next thing was the command of the brigades. I did not find any fault with those who recommended appointments contrary to my views, no doubt their motives
were absolutely honest, but I insisted that our own officers should be placed in command of our brigades. Then when the Second Division was formed I felt that General Turner was entitled to recognition and should have it, so I stood up for him. He had distinguished himself in South Africa and also at St. Julien-the greatest battle in many respects in the history of the world-and also at Festubert. Sir Robert Borden reached London the day before I did, but I did not see him on the morning of my arrival. I immediately called on Lord Kitchener at 8 o'clock, as previously arranged, and discussed with him General Turner's appointment. He recommended some excellent English officers but as he had not given them anything above a brigade in the British Army, I did not think we should give them the command of our division. When I asked him why Turner was not put in command, he said that Turner was insubordinate at Festubert. I inquired, "How insubordinate; he won Festubert." Lord Kitchener said, " When the order came to him to take Festubert he said, "What, more bloody murder!" I said, " What would you have him call it? Was not that * a very proper description?" I assured him that no staff officer of any decency would ever report what was said by an officer when an order was handed to him. I had been a staff officer and had carried orders, but I never thought of reporting what an officer said. Officers always damn the orders they receive, but I thought it was beneath my dignity to report their remarks. However, this had been reported to General Alderson, and by him reported to Kitchener. Alderson was against Turner from start to finish and used his malign influence for all he was worth. I stood out for Turner's appointment. Kitchener asked me to see him again in an hour's time. In three-quarters of an hour he telephoned to me to come to him. He said: " I have seen His Majesty the King, who said, ' I pinned the South African medal on Turner's breast, I pinned the Distinguished Service Order on Turner's breast, I pinned the Victoria Cross on Turner's breast, and I want Turner to command the Canadian Second Division.' '' Kitchener then said that Turner would command the Second Division. Turner took over the command and held it with great credit until he was removed and brought back to England to act as staff officer to the Overseas Minister of Militia- one of the greatest blunders in the history of the war.

as commander of the Second Brigade.
It was pointed out by officers-well, objections were raised; I won't say any more -personal, I found out afterwards, rather than military. I wished to have no friction or anything of that kind, so I waived Leckie and on the recommendation of another officer in whom I had great confidence I wired Currie to come east and take command of this brigade. After some delay he came east and took command of the brigade; and that was how Arthur Currie happened to 'be brought into the Canadian force. I had always observed that Arthur Currie was a very good organizer and a fairly good administrator, and for that class of work I thought he would have been a very good man. He would have been a better man in England than Turner, and Turner would have been a better man at the front than Currie; I think a great mistake was made in reference to these two positions. That is my opinion, and I am prepared to back it up at any time later on if need be.
Sir Arthur Currie has never had anything but absolutely fair treatment from me. About this story of Jack Currie and the Snow dugout- a story which is common to-day-a colonel recently returned from the front, a Highland brigade colonel, too, said to me: "There is no use in your telling me anything different; I know it was Jack Currie who was kicked out of Snow's headquarters." I said: "Well, he never was there." When I asked Jack Currie if he had had any conversation with Snow, he said: "Yes, I met him Tuesday near Wiltjy after the battle"-poor Jack Currie did not know what he was being charged with at that time. Three sessions ago I made a statement in the House of Commons with reference to this matter; I was anxious to do justice to'both the Curries and that I did more than justice to Arthur Currie will be admitted. Here is a letter written to me by General Sir Arthur Currie:
1st Canadian Division,
25th March, 1916.
Major General,
Sir Sam Hughes, K.C.B.
Dear General Hughes,
I have been shown a cutting from The Evening Telegram of Toronto of the issue Wednesday, February 23, 1916. One column of that issue is headed " Victim of Mistaken Identity," " Minister of Militia says Commander of 15th Battalion was confused with Brigadier of same name."
I am attaching herewith a copy of two paragraphs of article which follow above mentioned heading, also a tracing of the area around Ypres.
In the first place let me say that I will not be mixed up in any way with any rumours concerning Colonel J. A. Currie. I have nothing whatever to say of his actions at Ypres or any other place.
I may point out that I did not myself read this letter. My secretary casually read it to me and I immediately dictated a cablegram in regard to it. But when I did that I had not seen this paragraph, which expressed more or less contempt regarding Colonel John Currie. (Reading):
In the second place, I know you are a man who loves truth and fair dealing. You want a fair deal yourself and you are inclined to give the other fellow always a little better than a fair deal. At least you will not do him an injustice. I think it is fair to you to ask if you ever made the statements in the paragraph attached. If so, it is fair to me to tell you that you have been misinformed.
In para. 1 you are doubtless referring to a visit I made on Saturday, April 24, about 3 p.m. to Potijze, the Headquarters of the 27th Division I was not there more than twenty minutes but even Potijze is not behind the Yser Canal,-
I want you to note the word "behind" the Yser canal. (Reading):
-and, as you were good enough to say, I had a perfect right to be there.
Para, 2 is not true in any particular in so far as it refers to me.
Apparently Colonel Currie has been accused of being "back in rear of Yser Canal behind Ypres '' and yon have been informed that he was not there, but that I was. I know nothing about Colonel Currie being behind Ypres, but I do know that I was not " back " in rear of Yser Canal, behind " Ypres " at any time between the afternoon of April 22nd, when the battle began, and 11 p.m. on Tuesday the 27th when my brigade was ordered there. At no time between the dates mentioned did I go to consult with General Alderson.
I have put on the map attached where I was each day from April 22nd to April 27:th. Hundreds can verify this statement.
I know that you would not intentionally make a false statement, but some one, for reasons I know not, has told you what is not true.
That statement about his going back to see General Alderson is a mistaken one, because it was Turner who was summoned back on the occasion referred to. I don't care to mention it, but the command was given, at all events, from General Alderson for a thousand men to charge with fixed bayonets against thirty thousand Germans. Turner knew the futility of such a thing, and after a telephone communication he was ordered back to talk the matter over. It was Turner, therefore, who went back to consult about this order, not Arthur Currie, so that there is no more confusion in that regard. But that does not matter. The crux of the whole thing is the question who was in Snow's dugout? - That was the

Douglas Haig to follow along similar lines, he declined to do so and did not follow along those lines but held to the one corps, a closed corporation under his own command, I shall not enter into the details of that further than just to give the framework.
I took the position that the following advantages would accrue from having the two corps. There would be greater rest for the men; it would be a complete system running in bunches of three; there would be honest rivalry between the two corps; it would require no more men than for one corps because the same length of front was always to be held, the men would be exposed to the same fire; there would be the highest efficiency when we had two corps instead of one, and there would be no vendetta with England. Anybody going from England to France or from France to England at times had to take his life in his hands because there was so much bad blood between the two places. Finally the Prime Minister got the parties together and the trouble was smoothed over. There would be no swash-buckling, and no using of the Canadian corps as a " bouncer." If there was a nasty job, it was a case of " send for the Canadian corps." All that the Canadian corps was entitled to do was to take its place in the fighting line, and it was not entitled to be regarded as a " bouncer " for the army. There would not be nearly such heavy losses, and there would be an opportunity for efficient officers. Let me point out here that the Canadian force has developed thousands of splendid officers. There were in England hundreds upon hundreds of excellent officers who could not get to the front; hundreds of them came home, and we hear men from their places in the House taunting officers because they did not go to the front and fight, when these men would have given their last drop of blood .to be permitted to go, but they could not go except as privates, and they were too old for that. We had at the front any number of boys who were fit for promotion. There was young Rogers of Toronto who was competent to command a division, and there was Colonel Allan of Toronto, now deceased. These are only two of hundreds I could name if I could take the time. There were many fellows who would make excellent divisional commanders- take McBrien, no man would have ever made a better divisional commander than he. There are our friends Griesbach and Peck in this House, and they are no exception to the rule; there are hundreds like them who would have made the best of
brigadier commanders, staff officers, regimental commanders that it was possible to find. Yet, under the closed corporation of one unit, there was no opportunity for these men. I have no hesitation in saying, with all kindness to certain of the gentlemen who held these high positions, that they were not superior to men who were serving under them, and it would have been a great thing for the service if there had been six divisions instead of five eighteen brigades instead of nine, and so on right down the line. Sir Edward Kemp, in his speech, pointed out the terrible increase in cost which he said would result from the adoption of such a scheme. The cost, however, would not have been greater. These men were drawing almost the same pay, if not higher, than they would have got at the front, in whitewash jobs in England where they were rolling over each other, in the way, breaking their hearts- but they wanted to serve their country in some way, and so they took these jobs in England. Had my scheme been adopted, recognition of worth would have been possible; publicity of facts would have resulted, not propaganda. I could give a chapter on that, but I shall not detain the House. There would have been no closed corporation. Inefficient officers would have been weeded out; blunders would have been avoided, and there would have been a larger force at the front training instead of deteriorating at the base. I shall not enter the details of that, but can give the figures at any time they are needed. There would have been a comparison of command which was not otherwise possible. Hundreds of good officers for the staff could be found in the force, both at the front and in England; more officers and men would have been trained, so that hundreds of officers and men who have returned without service would thus have had it. Junior officers at the front would have had promotion; competition would have eliminated weak senior officers, and there would have been no actions such as Lens, Passchendaele and Cambrai. At the end of 1916 there were enough recruits in uniform to keep six divisions at strength until the end of the war. There is not one argument against six divisions and two corps, and not one argument for only four divisions in one corps under one command.
I was going to take up the question of the dual ministry, 'but I will save that for another occasion, and will simply say that there was very bad blood between England and the front. I was also going to take

Tip the question of control of generals, but that comes under another heading, so I will defer it.
We come to the time of the retreat of the Germans, and I want hon. members to picture this in their mind's eye. These are my ideas, and while I may be wrong, in many things I came pretty close to what happened. The line from Nieuport on the North sea to Verdun, is an air line of 200 miles; the trench line between the same points is 260 miles in length. From Chateau Thierry, the south point of the German advance, to Namur in Belgium, is upwards of 100 miles. The funnel is thus 200 to 260 miles at the mouth with a depth of 100 miles and at Namur the neck that the Germans would have to retreat through is about 30 miles wide. The whole German line, 260 miles in length, had to retreat 100 miles and then go through that thirty mile neck. If the line were broken perceptibly at any one point, a large part of the force, if not the whole force, might have been cut off, and that was Foch's game, to pin them up against Sedan at the right, to smash them off to the left, and to smash them in the centre. His plan was to cut off two small salients from Rheims to Soissons and from Noyon to Arras. Some people thought that if he had adopted the big plan better results might have been had, but his plan succeeded very well. The centre of that funnel was Douai, Cambrai, Le Gateau, and Hirson. I might point out that on my maternal side I had associates in the city of Valenciennes and Oambrai which I visited thirty years -ago or more and in which I took a great interest. It is the centre of the funnel and any one could understand that the- German army, in order to save itself from annihilation must on one side hold the centre of the funnel by the best forces, and the Canadian troops which were against them, as they did on every occasion faced fearlessly and manfully these soldiers. The world never before has seen soldiers like these Canadians. The river Meuse runs from Verdun northwest to Charleville and Mezieres, and there is a splendid road, which I have had the opportunity of travelling over on three or four occasions and down which the Germans had to get all their heavy material. In order to hold themselves on their line they 'had to get their impedimenta and munitions of war back through this funnel as fast as they could, and in order to do that they had to hold the positions all along the front. The Meuse runs north west to Charleville 
and Mezieres, then north -to Namur, then northeast to Liege.
The causes of the retreat, in general terms, were the splendid advances made by the Yankees. They had brought millions of troops into France, and their entrance into the war and their advances in attack was one factor; secondly, there was the disruption and discontent ill Germany, and for evidence of that you have only to read I.udendorff's story. Thirdly, the front German line had two salients, one from Rheims to Soissons, and the second from Noyon to Arras, and any break in any part of the line endangered the whole line. I have no hesitation in saying, from the viewpoint of the student of military history, that Luden-dorff, in retiring his army as he did against these splendid assaults of the British, French and other Allied forces, made what must be admitted by military men to be one of the most masterly retreats that has ever occurred in history. The Germans had, to hold these positions in order to avoid disaster, and I maintain that any general must have known that in going up against these positions he could expect to hit a snag and he should be prepared for it.
We have read a great deal of the qualities of soldiers in times gone by-of Horatius and his comrades holding the bridge; of Leonidas and his three hundred men at Thermopylae, of the charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava, but we must remember that all these men were inspired by the enthusiasm of personal combat and the impelling glory of a cavalry charge. The heroic cavalry charge at Balaclava, for instance, was accompanied by sounding trumpets that inspired the men to brave deeds, but in this war, again and again and again men have walked silently up to almost certain death. They could not see their enemy once in a thousand times, for he would be hidden in some dugout, firing with a machine gun from some unseen position. The history of warfare shows nothing more glorious than the cool bravery of our men.
The retreat of the German army was begun at Chateau Thiery. I happen to know intimately a Yankee officer, who, with his battalion, was surrounded. He did not know that the Germans were so close to him, but when he saw the Germans behind him he realized there was only one thing to do and that was to shoot. " We were good shots," lie said, " and we trimmed them to a finish; we would have run like good fellows if we had only known, but there they wTere behind us and we had to fight our way out." And so it went on. They got there fighting

little by little, until finally the Yankees made a good showing with the French to the south. Some two divisions of Americans also made a good showing with the British to the west. The conduct of the soldiers at. Arras, Parvilliers, and elsewhere was magnificent. I have had questions put to me regairding the lose of the 32nd British division which was attached 'to the Canadians, and which was almost wiped out of existence-needlessly, the British officers claim. The Drocourt-Queant line was smashed; a tremendous artillery fire preceded', the tanks smashed through and the infantry followed up. At the same time the British claim that their naval divisions .broke through a little farther to the south. The Canadians did their duty fearlessly and well, following out their part in the general plan of attack. I might refer to a letter which the Prime Minister has in his possession, and which I wrote away back in 1915, and again to the same effect in 1916, protesting against these blanket attacks running up against trenches. It was only a waste of men, and I suggested that the narrow front and a smash through with tremendous force, then mushrooming -out, was the only plan of attack. Ludendorff admits that this narrow yet deep attack Is effective. On November 27, the British had advamced- to Cambrai. Considerable criticism has been made that I was wrong in my statements in regard to Cambrai. What I said in my letter, which appears on last year's Hansard, was that it entailed a "needless loss of men," was "foullheaded," and that there was fighting in "suburban villages." I have here maps which were taken off a German officer, stained with his own gore, and good rich blood it seems to be. I have scores of reports from lieutenants, corporals, captains, majors, and colonels who were on the field of Cambrai, and some of them are not unknown to this' House. These facts have been furnished me in justification of my position in this matter. I shall not weary the House by reading them, nor divulge the names of my informants. Incidentally, I might say that in South Africa I never divulged the name of any person who informed me of anything. In this war 1 had considerable difficulty on that account with some of my colleagues. I pointblank refused to divulge the name of my informant in each and every case in matters concerning secret missions and things of that sort. I would not divulge these things to any human being. Any information given me I treat as sacred, but lest some
one should say "Oh, it was Jones sent him that, or Brown," I want to point out that they have done nothing of the kind. These reports have been sent to me by men who held them and who have been discharged from the army. I have scores upon scores of original orders and reports justifying the position I 'took as regards Cambrai where for example, in one attack, one whole company reduced to the command of a lance-corporal, was shot to pieces inside of two hours.
On September 27, 1918, Bourbon Wood wias attacked, and after considerable fighting was taken. The Canadian force lay with its right on the Amiens-Oambrai road, and its left extended beyond the Arras-Oambrai line. On the 28th of September the British and Canadians met at the village of Fontaine, having failed to take it. Subsequently it was taken by a Canadian infantry brigade. St. Olle, a suburb of Cambrai, was not taken on the 28th, the attack being repulsed. Some guns of' the Canadian artillery rode in the next morning and were shot to pieces. On the 28th the officers of infantry battalions reported to the higher command that machine guns were in St- Olle church tower. The high command replied that this was not so, and refused to have artillery fire upon the church tower. The report was repeated the next day, and the church tower was then fired on, and a nest of machine guns cleared out.


Mr. W. A. GRIESBACH:: What division was involved in that fight?


Samuel Hughes: Different divisions on different days.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Will the hon. member name one division that was in the fight at St. Olle?


Samuel Hughes: I am satisfied that the 3rd Division was one of them. I know the artillery rode in. The Princess Patricias were there too, also the R. iC. R. and I think the 49th; they were close to it.


William Antrobus Griesbach: What warrant has the hon. member for saying that the artillery were shot down at this particular place by enemy machine guns? What is the source of his information? Is it an historical fact? I was not very far away from there and 1 did not hear of it.


Samuel Hughes: I am not called on to give names. I am assuming responsibility for my statements here to-day. I am not going to stoop to giving names. We have seen that game played many a time

here. Sam Hughes assumes responsibility for any statements he makes. I said that it was in the early morning and foggy, and the artillery did not know they were so close to St. Olle. As the main line of the Canadians had been advanced and the right wing curved back, they thought the linh would be farther up, and the first thing they knew they were shot down and lay wounded in the suburbs of St. Olle for half a day. St. Olle was taken that evening and they were relieved.
St. Olle is a suburb of Cambrai and machine guns were in a church tower at St. Olle. The word was sent back that the machine guns were there but the higher command said " there are no machine guns there;, go on." That is not disputed, if it is disputed I will give the data.
I met Major Edgar when the Princess Patricias were here, and I said in the presence of Mr. Smellie, a barrister of Ottawa: " Edgar, I do not want you to open your mouth; I am going to do the talking; you are not talking; you notified the higher command on the night of the 28th that you were up against wire entanglements, but the higher command replied that there were no wire entanglements there and instructed you to go on." Edgar said " There are wire entanglements over a mile long and sixty yards in width " but the higher command said: " No, go on."
Mr. GRIB9BACH:	Who would be the
higher command-the brigade commander, the divisional commander or the corps commander?


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman knows the routine as well as I do.


William Antrobus Griesbach: No, pardon me; the hon. and gallant member is too subject to inferences of that kind. I desire him to say whom he means-the brigade commander, the divisional commander or the corps commander.


Samuel Hughes: I do not presume it went back as far as the Field Marshal but I would expect a brigade commander would consult the corps commander before he would order any one to go up against wire entanglements like that.


William Antrobus Griesbach: That would eliminate the divisional commander?


Samuel Hughes: When the command came to these boys to go on, the higher command was responsible no matter where it might be. On the night of the 28th the artillery was ordered forward after one o'clock in the morning 6,000 yards to their positions before they were to fire the bar-

rage*. On the 29th the Canadian division passed through a narrow passage left in the wire entanglements, deployed outwards and took their positions. Inside of three hours they were shot to pieces. Lance-corporals in some cases were in command of companies. Colonel John Thompson of Ottawa came out with less than 100 men. The Highland battalion came out with less than 150 men, another battalion came out with 40 men, and other battalions met similar terrible losses. Next day two tanks started up, punched through the wire entanglements and in less than an hour one of them destroyed 59 German gun positions with the loss to the tanks of one man slightly wounded. In one instance it was a question of sound judgment and in the other it was a matter of sending splendid and gallant Canadian soldiers up against machine guns. There were machine gun nests every nine or ten yards and our battalions were mercilessly sent up against these and shot to pieces. That is what happened to Major Toipp's company of the 42nd Highlanders. I gave him the data-I did not get it from him-and he had to admit that it was correct. The losses on the 29th September were simply terrible. On the 30th the tanks came forward.
On the morning of the 1st of October I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada. I had seen- by the reports how the boys had been handled and I protested. I immediately sent notice to General Currie, to Field Marshal Haig, and to the overseas minister, and inside of a week after Ramillies had been taken an order was issued that there should be no more concentrated attacks, but that there should be, to use the words of General Foch, "peaceful penetration;" that is, penetration after heavy military fire-smash them to pieces and then advance. Our machine gunners also had been rushed forward on the night of the 29th to try and occupy positions.
Colonel PECK, V.C.: I would ask the hon. gentleman if he could give us any map reference as to the location of the German lines where the machine guns were, or anything else, because I have been trying to follow him closely. As far as I can find out the artillery seem to have been ahead of the infantry-something that I have never heard of before.
(Sir SAM HUGHES: I have maps here which I am not going to bother the House with because all the members could not gather round and see them. On October

1, when the magnificent battalion, so splendidly led by my hon. friend (Col. Peck, V.C.) fell back, I am free to s>ay the artillery was not ahead of the infantry. They were up on the line that had been left that morning, and the artillery, the camp equipage and everything of that kind had to he retired precipitately to the rear, something it had not done before. They feared that the Germans were following up, but fortunately the Germans were not strong enough to follow them. Up north of St. Remi the hon. gentleman's battalion retreated from Ban-tigny. I do not reflect on anybody. Fighting such as that had never occurred in the history of the world, but the occurrences showed lack of proper discretion on the part of some person in the rear in failing to make sure of the position, with the result that thousands of men were rolled up between the marshes of'the iSensee canal and Cambrai. It was criminal to send men blindfolded and empty-handed against positions like that. On the 30th September they sent the tanks in and cleared the German machine gun nests out. They had no proper barrage of any kind on the morning of the 29th. As I say, they had not sufficient artillery barrage and on the 1st October the 16th battalion, commanded by the -hon. member for Sheena (Col. Peck) was badly shot up, and the remnant of the battalion in the end had to retire with the loss of one complete company and the balance badly ishot up.
Col. PECK, V.C.: I would like to correct that statement; it is not the fact. I might inform the House that my battalion did not retire then and never retired in the war. I was ordered to keep in touch with another battalion, but in coming up we were left with a flank of two or three miles. The Germans came through in behind Avecourt and my battalion, along with others, having reached their objective, were forced not to retire but to move to the right and form the flank on the right.


Samuel Hughes: I do not wish to
detract from the credit to which any particular battalion or regiment is entitled, simply because it had to retire. I never knew of a battalion yet that had not to retire at some period or other of its history during the late war. What I have to say is that the gallant 16th Battalion had to retire or had to go back in an oblique direction, and the flanking British troops on their left were caught by the fire of the Germans posted in the marshes along the Sensee canal. One company of the 16th Regiment was
practically wiped out and the balance badly shattered were retired southwesterly to the position held by the Canadians in the morning. There is no glory in saying that any particular battalion did not retire. The best soldiers in the world have had to retire again and again. As one officer said to me speaking of his experiences, " I came back much faster than I went in." The point I want to make is that on the 29th there was not sufficient preparation. On the 30th there was proper tank preparation and a good artillery barrage. Still they first attempted to make the dash without that proper preparation and came to grief. They did not capture the place until the 10th of October. I wrote my letter on October 1, and the statements I made were absolutely true.
There was at St. Olle, St. Remi and Petit Fontaine fighting in the suburbs and bull-headed work all along the line. On the 30th more adequate preparations were made and more was gained with the loss of only one wounded man than was achieved with such terribly heavy losses on the 29th. On the 1st October an infantry attack developed north of St. Remi with the result as my hon. friend (Col. Peck) points out that the 16th Battalion had to retire obliquely to save itself. I think I am safe in saying that at least one company of the 16th was wiped out and the balance badly cut up as is' proved by my records and also the German records. But that is no discredit to the men. I say that better fighting was never displayed in the history of the war. These men went on to certain death again and again and there was no protection for them. I wonder at the higher command permitting such a thing and allowing the men to go on. I want to point out that in one instance Lord Cavan took full responsibility early in the war for not advancing and declined to make the attempt, notwithstanding the order of his superior officer, because he knew the reconnaissance that had been made was wrong and there was no proper barrage. I know that the 27th Regiment was cut up early in the war because of failure to disobey. At St. Eloi I know that four colonels followed my instructions. I had given them orders "Unless there has been a proper reconnaissance don't put yourselves at the mercy of any fellow over you; do not sacrifice one man's life needlessly unless you are absolutely sure that you are right." Those instructions were followed by four colonels. One pooT fellow who did not follow these



instructions lost some 827 odd men of his battalion oh the battlefield of St. Eloi.
I do not want to dilate on the affair of Moos, or say anything here that will not do the highest justice to the gallant officers and men concerned; they had to live up to their general instructions. As I said at the time, my one object was to save the lives of these gallant men and to use brains instead of something else. My object in writing that letter was absolutely justified. Inkerman was a soldiers' battle, tout every battle in this war has practically been another Inker-man. I tried to do justice to all without doing injustice to any; but justice delayed is never the same as justice rendered at the time. As to Mons, I have data here (I will not weary the House with it at the present time) showing that the general officer commanding the Canadian Corps congratulated the troops at 10.50 o'clock that morning on the capture of the historic city of Mons. I want to point out that the Canadians were eight miles beyond) Mons on the north and more than abreast of it on the east. I saw a tetter written by General Morrison, in which he stated that the night before the [DOT]armistice smoke was going up from fires started by the Germans preliminary to their retirement. So that the Germans were retiring, and anyhow Mons was not a city of any great importance; I would not give the snap of my finger for it. It is a nice little place, but to sacrifice the lives of Canadians on the eve of the armistice was quite out of place and more of a piece of bravado than an attempt to help the great cause of human liberty at an acceptable time.
There are some other matters that call for consideration, but I must take the privilege of dealing with them on a future occasion. At present I shall not detain the House any longer.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no objection to producing the papers called for by the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. E. FRIPP (Ottawa) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, all persons who have served overseas in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, including British Reservists from Canada, are entitled to be placed in as good circumstances financially as before enlistment by being (a) restored to their former positions by their employers; (b) appointed to all positions in the outside and inside branches of the Civil Service of Canada if possessed of the necessary qualifications without passing any
fSir Sam Hughes.]
academic examinations and in priority to all other applicants; and (c) given an annuity for a limited period sufficient to augment their present earning capacity reduced by disability arising from such service, to equal the amount earned at the time of enlistment. And further, that the necessary legislation to provide for the purposes of this resolution be passed at this session.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution was introduced by me at the last session of Parliament, in March last, as the result of personal interviews with a great many returned soldiers. I do not know whether any other hon. gentleman has had the same opportunity as I have had to receive and interview many of the men who served us so faithfully overseas. Whether it is because this is the Capital city or not I do not know, but we certainly do receive a very great number of returned men in Ottawa. As a result of my interviews I came to the conclusion that this Government had not up to that time, that is, in March, 1919, taken such practical steps to rehabilitate the returned man as they ought to have and might have taken. Since I introduced this resolution I have received thousands of letters from all parts of the country, and some of them I would like to place upon Hansard.
I imagine that every hon. gentleman-will agree with the preamble stated here) that the members of our overseas forces are entitled to be placed, as far as this country can place them, in as good a position as they were in before the war. That is not such a very big order if it is considered properly and fairly. What was the position of these men when they came back home last year? As far as I can find from these personal interviews as well as from the letters I have received, their position amounts to this: A large proportion of them find that the positions which they held are not now open to them; and the first proposition which I asked the House to consider is that those men should be restored to their former positions by their employers. I am not unmindful of the fact that perhaps this Parliament has not sufficient jurisdiction to enact that an employer shall reemploy his former employee; that is possibly a matter .that the local legislatures must deal with, because it may come under " property and civil rights;" but I do think the Dominion Government can restore returned men to their positions in the Government service, and from the correspondence I have received it appears that that has not been done. I think it is important that this House should affirm the principle,


Ernest Lapointe: No, read them.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: -and come to the part which is pertinent. He states:
I am a returned boy of twenty-five months' service in France and over three years in khaki. 1914 I obtained my qualifying certificate for a Railway Mail Clerk, and having no prominent friends at that time was naturally unsuccessful in obtaining an appointment. Since the war the appointments are made direct from Ottawa and not from the various M.P.'s-
This will meet the approval of a great many hon. gentlemen because the writer goes on to say that appointments should be made by members of Parliament and not by the Civil Service Commission.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: He continues:
I am not asking any favours, holding the necessary qualifications as I do, and with your resolution an accomplished fact, we may get the appointments, which in the past seemed to be impossible for a boy such as myself, with no people here in the country to help me along.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a straight, honest letter, which would not be written without cause by any man who had served his country as faithfully as did the writer of it.
Another statement appeared in the Toronto Globe which I shall read because it is short, because it expresses the idea embodied in nearly all the communications which have come to me. The words of a returned soldier are quoted as follows:
We won the war, but I as a veteran do not want any cash won in that way. Like many of my chums, I am a citizen and a taxpayer of Canada as well as a soldier, and I know that every dollar raised by Canada comes from our

pockets, and that we cannot hoist ourselves by pulling on our own boot-straps.
We all want a chance to get a good Job-as good or better than we left behind us. If the chaps doing all this talking were busy working they wouldn't have so much time to spend looking for so much easy money.
Again I ask, why should a conscript get $2,000 of our taxes because he was forced to go to Prance when the war was finished?
There are in Ottawa to-day, I have no doubt, at least five hundred returned men out of employment-although Ottawa and the Government at Ottawa have done excellent work in providing positions as far as possible for returned men; and that is much to the credit of the Government here. In The Veteran, published by the Great War Veterans' Association, it is estimated that fifty thousand men will be out of employment this winter in the larger cities. What do we propose to do about it? It is true that this matter of the re-establishment of the soldier has been referred to a parliamentary committee, but I am sorry to say that there is one notable feature about that committee-those who represent the majority of the men who rwent to the front are not represented on it. I hope that thiat will not cause the committee to fall short of dealing with this matter thoroughly. A large body of men who went to the front, eighty per cent of them, were labourers and mechanics from the large cities. Toronto did its duty nobly; I believe that that city alone sent 75,000 men overseas. But there is no representation of members from Toronto on that committee; neither is there any in respect of Winnipeg, Ottawa or Hamilton. I mention this only to express the hope that the House will strengthen 'the hands of that committee by adopting this resolution so that those on that committee who are not as much in touch with the condition of the returned men as we who represent cities will, nevertheless, do their part in giving effect to *such legislation as may be necessary to .rehabilitate returned men.
I think I have said enough about the employment end of the resolution. I have somewhere heard the expression-and it seems to me most apt-that a Government that is strong enough to take a man out of his job and put him in the army ought to be strong enough to take him out of the army and put him hack into his job. That is a principle which any Government might well adopt in dealing with the question of restoring 'to these men, as far as possible, their former positions.

Then, I ask fih'ait all persons who have served overseas in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces be 'appointed to all positions in the inside 'and outside branches of the Civil Service, if possessed of the necessary qualifications, without examination. That suggestion ought to be accepted unanimously 'by the House. Any hon. member who will read soTne of the questions put to candidates for poisitions in. the lower grades *in the Civil Service will see at once how absurd they are. Had I known that this resolution was to come up 'this afternoon I would have brought with me some examples of these questions, for the benefit of hon. gentlemen who have not seen them. One question, for instance, was: "What is St. Petersburg noted for?" Evidently that examination .paper was written before the name of the Russian capital was changed to Petrograd. Candidates were also asked to name several cities in India where certain 'articles are .produced or manufactured -'and all this for a man who is going to earn $800 a year. Then, there are questions in arithmetic; the applicant is .asked to multiply twenty-eight figures by twenty-eight figures, and so on-questions that were submitted by a gentlemen who then held a position on the Civil Service Commission. I suppose they (were his idea, coming as he did from .a university not far away, of 'the best way to get at the proper qualifications of a postman, a letter-carrier or messenger. Any returned 'Soldier, who, as the result of an oral examination, can show that he has enough common sense to perform such work in 'the lower grades *as I have mentioned1, ought to get the .position without having to write any examination.
The last clause of 'the resolution involves, perhaps, a more difficult question; it asks that we augment 'the present earning capacity of the soldier, which has been reduced by disability arising from service. That, of course, is a very big order. I have considered the matter seriously, and I do think that we ought to augment the present earning capacity of the returned man so that it will be made at least equal to his earning capacity before he went overseas.


Samuel Hughes: Do you mean the wounded man?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: The wounded man, the partly disabled man, and the man who has been rendered unable, by reason of his having taken part in the war, to hold the position that he held before. Let me give you a single example. Not long .ago a

young man came to me and said: "Mr. Fripp, I would like to get a position in the Government." "Well/ I said, "what was your position before you went to war?" He said: "I was a qualified plumber. I was shell-shocked. When I came hack I went to my old job, but I find I cannot do the work that I did before. I cannot go on a high building; I cannot do plumbing work at any considerable height from the ground, so that all I can earn now is what I can get as a plumber's helper." He put the question to me: "Why should I lose, after my service of four years overseas, the difference between the wage that I was able to earn when I offered my services to my country and wihat, through no fault of my own, is the most that I am able to earn now?" That is only one case out of thousands of the same nature. Many returned men are not quite fitted for the positions that they held before, and the question arises, what are we going to do about it? My judgment is that we have to deal with these returned men practically as individuals, not as a class. If the Department of Militia and Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment are doing their d'u'ty, they have a complete record of every man who went overseas. They ought to know what his former occupation was; what disability, if any, he suffered or is suffering; what his earning capacity was before he went away, and what his earning capacity is to-day. Having that information, it would not be difficult for us to take hold of these men individually and find out exactly what can be done for them. In my judgment, with all due respect to those w'ho think differently, the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment is a very expensive piece of machinery for the amount of good that it is going to do or is doing. If I remember rightly the figures given by the President of the Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell) the other day-of course, I am subject to correction in this-he said that 22,000 returned men were being re-trained. That is an excellent and very essential work, no doubt, but there are thousands of men who cannot take the training that is necessary to fit them for better positions in life.
If, as I understand, we are paying out of the treasury for the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Department $30,000,000 or $40,000,000, it seems to me that is too expensive for the results we are obtaining from it. Would it not be better for us to take each soldier individually, and to say to him: We will offer you a position; we will help you to secure such a position as you are able to fill? These men are the wards of the Government, and it is the duty of the Government to take them individually and to see that their present condition is, at all events, as good, if not better-and we would all like to see it better-than when they went overseas. There are many men whose positions are better to-day than they were when the men went overseas. We can eliminate them, but there are many men whose present positions are much worse, and such men must be attended to by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, or some other organization, and money is required for that.
I am satisfied that we must either deal with the problem in the way I suggest or give them a cash bonus or gratuity such as that with which the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Currie) dealt in this House some days ago. We must face the situation one way or the other, and that will require money. As regards the money part of the matter, I am not one of those who may toe or are pessimistic about it. There are large sources of revenue yet untapped for the returned soldier. I do not say that we could raise such a sum or should shoulder such a responsibility as that which was suggested as regards giving them $2,500 and $2,000 each; but there are in this country many people who have not made any sacrifice whatever, and they could raise a large sum of money which would pay the interest on a larger sum. If, for example, we put a special soldiers' war tax on every man, woman and child in Canada, we could raise a large sum of money. We could raise very much larger sums from men who are not yet, through the income tax, paying their fair share of the burden of this war. Of course, my first proposition would be to put a tax on our farmers., who have not yet, I think, contributed their fair share to the war. I am sure all hon. members are of opinion that there are sources of revenue from which we can obtain such a sum of money as will be sufficient, in part at least, to mete out to those young men who have come back to us some such measure of civil re-establishment as will give them a fair start for the future.
Then there is the alien question. This Government lost thousands of friends in this country by not taxing the alien. The time is not yet too late, and there is no reason in the world why we should not pass legislation compelling the employer of the alien to deduct every day or every week a certain proportion from his earnings so that he may pay his share of the war. I do not see any serious difficulty in that respect. In Australia and New Zealand the Governments are moving along the lines I suggest with regard to compelling em-

ployers to take back soldier employees if they are able to do the work. We have a " Master and Servant " Act in this province and in every other province, so why should not a soldier be able to go in a simple way before a magistrate and lay a complaint that his employer refuses to take him back and say to the magistrate: You can decide whether I am to be taken back or not? That would be a very simple remedy.
There are many ways in which we can deal with the problem to. the advantage of the returned men. I do not want to detain the House any longer, because I presume this resolution of mine will go to the committee .that is now dealing with the soldiers' civil re-establishment. My sole desire is that it will go to the committee so that their action may be as wide as it is possible to make it for the purpose that we have in view, namely, the re-establishment of the returned man in civil life. I am satisfied that the committee will deal with the matter seriously if they realize that the House is in earnest-and we are in earnest and the Government must realize that. Any man who has anything to do with the returned men must know that there is amongst those men a current of feeling that they have not received justice. I know no body of men in the Dominion of Canada who say less about what they should have and what they think they should have than the returned soldiers. The returned soldier is the most modest man I have ever had to deal with, and as you know, Sir, during the time I have sat in Parliament, I have had to do with thousands of persons wanting Government employment. I have never yet met a class that equals the returned man in his humility, modesty, want of braggadocio, any attribute that would lead one to believe that he was expecting more than he thought he ought to get. On the other hand, I find they expect less than we ought to give them, and it is our duty to face the situation and to see if we cannot put them back as nearly as possible where they were before they , made the great sacrifice and did so much for Canada and future generations of this great country.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the resolution moved by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) raises questions very much of the nature of and 
cognate to, those which are at present engaging a committee of this House appointed to consider the Bill dealing with soldiers' civil re-establishment, and acting upon the suggestion of the hon. member himself- without undertaking at present to express an opinion one way or the other upon his proposals-I beg to move that the resolution be referred to the said committee.
iMr. SPEAKER: That motion could not be entertained at this stage except by consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. [DOT]

[Stage Direction]
M,r. LEVI THOMPSON (Qu'Appelle) moved:
That in the opinion of this House, it is
desirable that a limit should be placed on the time that may toe occupied by members in addressing the House and Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be agreed that this House transacts more important business than any other institution in Canada. One would, therefore, naturally expect the business of this House to he transacted in the most 'business-like way. But no one, I -think, will claim -that it is so conducted. I -think most people will agree that the work of this House is transacted in a more unbusiness like- way than that of any other business institution in Canada. That certainly should not be the ease.
There may be some reason for this, but to-night I shall deal with only one. The length of time occupied by many hon. members of this House in making speeches on different questions, and the frequency with which they address the House, is becoming both a public and a private nuisance. It is a public nuisance in that it wastes the * money of the country. I do not purpose giving an estimate of the amount of money wasted by unnecessarily long and frequent speeches. Estimates have been made, however, of the cost per day, and even per hour and per minute, of the cost of conducting the business of this House. There is no doubt that the sessions are unduly prolonged by reason of these lengthy and frequent speeches, and I do not think it requires much arguing to make it plain that this practice, which is daily becoming worse, does constitute a public nuisance, if for no other reason than that money of the country is unnecessarily expended in carrying on the work of the House.
It constitutes a public nuisance also because the business of the House is
[Stage Direction]
unnecessarily retarded, and in consequence, important measures are left over from session to session. There may sometimes be other reasons why measures are left over, but the main reason, in my opinion, is that so much time is unnecessarily taken up in discussion that the Government are discouraged from bringing forward the legislation they would like to present.
The practice is also a private nuisance, because it compels members of this House to remain here longer than is necessary. It is in the interests of the country, I believe, that men who want to conduct the business of the country in a businesslike way, promptly and with despatch, should be encouraged to seek seats in this House and to keep those seats so long as they are able. At present men of that type are discouraged from entering Parliament. The last thing this country needs is orations. We need, rather, business men from all walks of life-the business labour man, if you will, and business men in every other line. We require men who believe in conducting the business of the country with promptness. But the time that is now wasted in making speeches discourages these men from entering the House. Further, from the beginning to the end of the session, the voices of a great many members of this House are hardly ever heard, and they are silent largely because of the length of time taken up by others. I believe that the views of some of these men who are conversant with the subject under discussion would be more useful to the House and the country than the views so frequently and fluently and freely expressed by others, but these men are silent because they feel themselves outclassed by orators, or near-orators, or those who think they are orators, who are anxious to address the House on all subjects that come before it whether they are posted on them or not.
I want to refer briefly to the Debates of the session of 1918, the last session for which we have a bound volume of Hansard. I have made a few calculations, and while I would not lender take to say how much of the time of the House each member occupied to air his views-I am referring to private members, and that does not necessarily include the Speaker of the House or the Chairman, the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition or his desk mate, nor any one holding a portfolio under the Government-I find that there were 204
private members, and that nine of them took up twenty-five per cent of the time occupied, as nearly as I could figure it-
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Name them.


Mr. DEVI THOMSON:: and that over
half of the time was occupied by twenty-five members. Those hon. gentlemen may consider that their views are so important that they are entitled to that proportion of time, but I do not think the majority, of hon. members would agree with them. To make matters worse some of these gentlemen who took up this extra time were new members, and when we think of what may happen when they become thoroughly familiar with the procedure of the House and " get into their stride," the prospect gives us cause for serious reflection.
It is proposed that we shall express ourselves in the terms of the resolution I have moved. We are only asking for an expression of opinion. No plan is being proposed except, if the House should express itself favourably to this resolution, we would expect the Government, or the House, in some way to take action upon it because there is very little use in expressing the view of the majority of the House unless action is taken. I do not want to suggest any particular way in which this plan could be worked out, but one thing that strikes me is that if we think favourably of this proposal a parliamentary committee should be appointed at the beginning of next session which would take the matter into consideration and decide upon some plan which it would ask the House to adopt. It would be useless to take the question up at this late day in the session, but it seems to me that it would be well to take it up at the beginning of next session.
While, I say, we are only asking the House to adopt the principle, I would suggest that it would not be out of place for me to make some suggestions that have occurred to me, and I make them merely as suggestions. It seems to me that if we were adopting such a rule we would have to make some exceptions. Necessarily, it would go without saying that the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees, the leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition, would be excepted from the rule. If a time limit were fixed for each member, it would be only reasonable that certain members should be allowed a greater time than others, for instance the heads of departments or the holders of portfolios in the Government. The work of the Opposition, no matter which party is in

opposition, constitutes a very important part of the work of this House, and I believe that it would be necessary, if any such rule were adopted, that the, leader of the Opposition should be allowed to select a certain number of persons whom he would call his lieutenants and who would be given additional time. These are merely suggestions.
There is another thing that occurs to me. According to present appearances, in the next Parliament we may not work on the old two-party basis; we may find ourselves with additional parties in the House. That possible fact would have to be taken into consideration if we were framing any plan.
There is another thing that I have not brought to the attention of the House in particular although I think it would be a very important consideration. If the time were limited we would have condensed speeches upon different subjects, which would be very much more interesting than some of the unboiled speeches we hear at the present time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. SHEARD:: Boil down the speakers.


Levi Thomson: Perhaps I should
say uniboiled-down speeches. These are merely suggestions. All we are asking for is that the House give an expression of opinion on the principle involved, which, I hope, in the interest of the House, in the interest of the country and in the interest of humanity generally, will be favourable.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that this subject has been ventilated in the House. I am not going to say that it partakes of the quality of the proverbial chestnut, but similar ideas have been floating around within the halls of Parliament ever since my entrance into Parliament in 1882. I do not think there is any doubt at all that a good might be gained if the doctrine of self-restraint were practised by each individual member. You can often get a man to put a rein upon himself who would be restive under a rein put upon him by a second or third party.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Then the hon. gentleman is not a prohibitionist.


George Eulas Foster: A school for teaching proper methods of conducting business in legislative and parliamentary assemblies might be a very good thing and every member of Parliament and prospective member of Parliament should be obliged

to take a course and get a diploma from that school. A great deal, I think, conceivably might be accomplished in that way; whether we could practically carry it out or not I do not know.
Then again I think there is quite as much waste of time in Parliament-not speaking of any others now but our own-by the intrusion into the parliamentary arena of subjects the reason for 'the introduction of which it takes a good deal of ingenuity on the part of the common-sense-minded man to unravel. If we had some kind of censorship, some sieve through which all these things should be put, or some sort of questionnaire, which would eliminate altogether irrelevant and altogether irreverent subjects which are often brought to the attention of Parliament, I think we might gain a good deal of time and in public respect as well.
But when you begin putting the throttle on, you always have the right of the individual to contend with. The individual represents his constituency, .and you run the risk of the accusation that you are trying .to cripple and shut out the voice of the great electorate in so far as that constituency is concerned by tying down the man who represents it and not giving him the free use of his speech, his powers of oratory and his power of thought. You have to take that into consideration. The individual member, the representative of a constituency in Parliament, has a pretty good platform upon which to expatiate-almost as good as has the newspaperman when he hurls his anathemas against any attempt to restrict the freedom of the press and to prevent the voice of the people from being heard through that medium.
As far as this motion is concerned, it asks for an expression of the opinion of the House, and if an expression of the opinion of the House is given on the principle that we should try in some way or other to place limits on the extraordinary usage of time, we, the Government and the House itself, through its proper machinery, must take cognizance of that wish and try to devise some way by which, by amendment of and addition to the rules of the House, less time may be wasted than is wasted now. We will include all of ourselves as being wasteTs of time. In these later years I do- not take up very much time, bu't may be if we went back far enough those with memories as persistent as my own must recall a period when I took up a considerable amount of the time of the House myself.

But coming down now to what really may he said of the -question, I think it is possible for us to make of ourselves a more efficient and more respected body than we are at the present time by putting some restraint upon the misuse of time to -which we must all, in the course of long parliamentary careers, plead guilty at one time or another. It is true that of late there have been deep questionings in refer- . ence to the efficiency of parliamentary institutions not only in our own country but in other countries. It may be that we are considerably to blame for these questionings in the outer world; and that if we did really put ourselves down under reasonable restrictions which would enable us to do business more efficiently in shorter time and to the greater satisfaction of the public, parliamentary institutions might not be attacked as much as they are. It may be that the proposals of alternatives which are so disastrously advocated to take the place of parliamentary institutions of the past may have been to a certain extent aided by the misuse of time in legislatures and parliaments, and that we would exercise a wholesome influence upon the growth of what you might call the direct political action if we made ourselves a more efficient body. Now those thoughts just come to my mind. I am an old member of Parliament and my time in parliamentary life is drawing towards its close. Those that are about me are younger, they will be responsible for the future work; but I cannot help but be very strongly impressed with the fact, and with the idea, that parliamentary institutions may have made arguments against themselves by the lack of efficiency and method and purpose with which they have applied themselves to their task. I have always found that when a man is limited to time he will draw upon his best resources, and he will put himself on his best behaviour-he will marshal his facts and his arguments so that the time that is at his disposal may be most advantageously used. And I am entirely of the opinion that shorter speeches, debating speeches, speeches which do not have for their main object an object outside of the House itself, are most effective in parliamentary work and conduce to the better understanding of the subjects which are being discussed.
There is no objection at all to this motion -this is a proposition for the House. If the House thinks it is better that we should put ourselves into a position of thought and possible action as to how we may best
economize our time, but which in a larger sense is the people's time and for which the people pay, I think that some method can be found by which that opinion, that laudable wish and recommendation, can be carried into effect.


John Hampden Burnham: The right hon. gentleman (Sir
George Foster) has touched, I think, if he will allow me to say so, on the central point, or kernel rather, of the situation. He says it is for us to make ourselves a more respectable body. How can we do that, Mr. Speaker, when but a short time ago, when the question of patronage arose, we committed political and moral hari-kari by stigmatizing ourselves as a crooked bunch-the most extraordinary scene that was ever enacted in this House, or probably that ever occurred in the annals of -Canada.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. gentleman will not fail to adhere to the subject before the House which has purely to do with the length of time consumed in making speeches.


John Hampden Burnham: That being the case, Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible for us to consider length of time. Length of time would have no place in the matter at all, and we ought to be snuffed out at once;- we set- ourselves by ourselves, and we ought to know.
Then the right hon. gentleman has touched upon representative institutions. There are only two institutions, or sorts of institutions, in the country so far as I understand-those that are representative and those that are not. Even the Russian 'Soviet is simply the saifie -representative institution in different hands. The word "Soviet" means a council; and in Russia they have the village councils, the district councils, the general councils, and the national councils (which is only another name for Parliament), and they are representative. The confusion of the revolution is -simply due to the fact that the people have lifted up the mighty burden and overthrown what is in existence-they have not overthrown the principle. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that our representative institutions should not be tampered with-either the freedom of speech or the freedom of the press-and that if we would allow ourselves to enjoy a reputation which every respectable man ought to wish to enjoy-that is -some belief and regard for his reputation for probity, and not stigmatize himself as a crook-then I think we would have done


*COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
very largely that which the resolution seeks to attain.
Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome):: As a young member who -spoke perhaps on more than one occasion last session, I rise with a certain amount of diffidence after the weighty words pronounced by the member (for Qu'Appelle (Mr. L. Thomson) and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my remarks shall be very brief. I recognize, and I think all recognize, the wisdom of the words which fell from the lips of that famous parliamentarian (Sir George Foster) who is leading the House to-night; but let me say this, that as a new member I have been deeply impressed by the fact that we do a tremendous amount of our most important business-that is the passing of the estimates -and expending of 'the people's money-without, in my humble opinion, anything like adequate discussion -and adequate examination. I do- not wish in a family talk of this sort to be unduly critical of the -Government, but my short experience has led -me to- the belief that very often a great number of important Estimates are only brought down -at -an hour of the session when it is practically impossible to dea-l with -them ias -they should be dealt with. -Now, should- we limit by the rules o-f -this Chamber the right of members -to speak -a certain time? I remember a story of a curate who, having preached a sermon of a length of on-ly -ten minutes, asked his bishop, who had listened to him, whether he had not done well in making such -a short sermon.


Ernest Lapointe: Was he -a Presbyterian?
Mr. M-cMASTER: The -name "curate" implies, to those who understand the different deno-minatio-rus into which the Protestant church is divided, that he was not a Presbyterian. Well, this curate asked his bishop whether the sermon could not be commended upon the grounds of shortness, and the Bi-sho-p replied that it was one of the most tiresome as well -as shortest, sermons *he had ever listened to. Some speeches are tiresome -that only occupy ten -minutes. Other speeches -are much more interesting although they -may. occupy an hour and -a half.
But are there not other methods which we could adopt besides the method of individual self-restraint which has been commended to us by the Minister of Trade and Commerce? I think there are. For instance, there is a rule of this House that if a Bill is not com-

pletely passed in one session it has to be taken up de novo the next session. In the recently published life of Sir Edward Clarke he tells us of his efforts to introduce into the British House of Commons a rule whereby if a Bill went as far as its second reading and was then shoved aside by pressure of other business, it should not be thrown into the waste paper basket, but should at the next session of the same Parliament be resumed at the committee stage. These are suggestions I throw out as a short and, I hope, not tiresome contribution to the discussion.
Mr. D. D. (MclvENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the idea of the resolution, that we should waste no time. A certain amount of time is necessary for the proper conduct of the business of this House. The problem is to draw the line between where we use our time well and where that time is wasted. One thing is certain, that every member elected to this House should realize that he is coming to an assembly where there is sympathy and good will, where there are no austere rules, and where the representatives of the people are expected primarily to present their views to the public, if you please, and, in a secondary way, to the House of (Commons.
Whether we are in the schoolhouse, or on the farm, or in a business-whatever position in life we occupy, there is much to be gained by the example set by our teachers or principals; and I would suggest not only to this Government, but to all governments, that much time might be saved by the Government itself being ready with its business and putting it forward with every possible despatch. Much time is wasted for which Governments are to blame by reason of their not being ready with their business, which unreadiness invites long speeches and dilly-dallying while they are preparing something to throw into the mill. Very few hon. members will continue with* a long speech if they find they are impeding Government business and that the Government has really live business to bring on. I would therefore suggest that hereafter the heads of departments should have their business ready when Parliament meets so that it will be manifest to the House that there is work to do and no time to waste.
A.-j far as freedom of speech is concerned, Sir, I am absolutely opposed to trammelling any member who has anything to say. I think a good example can be set by the leaders of the House not talking away

from the subject, and their followers being kept as close to the line as possible. I would like to bring to the notice of the leader of t)he House (Sir George Foster) that last year, during his absence- I presume he would not tolerate such a thing if he had been present-we had the closure applied after two hours' discussion of a Bill; and after the Government had taken that course five pages of closely printed matter were added to the Bill. That is going to the other extreme, and while I am not in favour of any waste of time, I must necessarily, as a Liberal, I suppose, be absolutely in favour of the fullest opportunity being accorded to every member to express his views. It may be a mistake to allow that latitude at times, but it is certainly keeping on the right side, and, after all, perhaps it is the best use that we can have of wasted money. I do not wish to tantalize my good friend the leader of the House, but I was very much amused tonight when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) was speaking to notice my hon. friend listening very attentively until he discovered that the hon. member was not criticising the heads of departments, when he immediately exclaimed: "Name those long speechmakers." He felt he was safe.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend gives .me credit for more shrewdness than I possess.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There are advantages in long speeches from hon. gentlemen like my right hon. friend who leads the House. His speeches contribute, much to our literature, for they are conspicuous examples of splendid English, fine thought and lambent wit, and are a source of inspiration and education to us, as they will be also to those who cOme after us. In cases of that kind it would be a pity to restrict the scope of the speaker's eloquence, imagination and learning on public matters, which are to the advantage of this House and of succeeding generations.
I have only one remedy to suggest, Sir: That those of us who realize the difficulty should set an example, and endeavour to develop a public opinion in this House against too lengthy speeches, and that public opinion will undoubtedly prove thoroughly effective and salutary.
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, the atmosphere of the House tonight gives one the impression that hon. members are opening up their hearts in the direction of effecting a reform, and in that
line I cannot help but add my small contribution. During last session I had occasion to oppose a motion which was made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) that the House should sit during the remaining days of that session every Saturday and every forenoon. In so far as I remember, I was the only one who dared oppose such a motion, because, at that time every hon. member was very anxious to go back home, especially when the session dragged into the sultry days of summer. I said then that it was totally impossible for hon. members to do their duty to their satisfaction-at least, I was speaking for myself-and I contended, as I still contend, that with my humble attainments it is absolutely impossible for me to follow the sittings every day, six days in the week, in the forenoon, in the afternoon and at night. The occasion does not arise now for a protest on my part, but I am simply taking this opportunity of warning the Government that if we are going to have a free Parliament they should take the necessary means to convene the next session at a sufficiently early date to allow business of the House to be transacted during reasonable hours. This question, I understand, is not irrelevant to the motion under discussion, which has for its object the limiting of the time to be occupied by hon. members when addressing the House, and so, incidentally, limiting the time during which the House sits. A man of ordinary physical strength cannot sit in the House all night and still be in a position to assist in a reasonable way in the passing of legislation-legislation, at any rate, which has been duly weighed in the estimation and conscience of every one.
During this session hon. members have not been very busy. Only one important matter has come before the House-the ratification of the Peace Treaty. And what happened? Hon. members are called upon to cast their vote on that subject before an opportunity has been had for free discussion in this House. I take the responsibility which goes with my words; I say that the Treaty was adopted before a free discussion had been allowed. For it is not a free discussion in any Parliament when the members of that Parliament are called upon to vote on a certain subject at a time which has been fixed. In this way hon. members are debarred from expressing their views freely on a given subject. Upon this one important subject with which we were called upon to deal this session we were asked to vote at half past one in the morning,

when several members had no opportunity of expressing their views with regard to it. Well, Sir, I think that the Government should take the necessary measures to provide that the House should sit only during reasonable hours. I would isay that only under very exceptional circumstances should the House sit after midnight.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. DENIS:: There is no reason why the House should sit until one, two or three o'clock in the morning.
Further, if the Government wants to bring about such a reform as that of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) spoke a while ago, they should establish the principle that the House should not sit during the summer months-in July, for instance. During the war that was all right enough. If the House had sat twelve months in the year, no one would have complained; those who were here at the time realized that it was necessary. But now that the war is over, there is no reason why the House should sit during the months of July and August, and I appeal to the ministers who hear me now to convene the next session of Parliament sufficiently early so that we shall finish the business which has to be done not later that the middle of June.
During the last two weeks of the last session I came into this Chamber day after day, sitting after sitting, and saw on your left, Mr. Speaker, perhaps ten or twelve members, and on your right fifteen-just enough to make a quorum, although the House was, perhaps, discussing a most important measure. Estimates were passed by the millions and scores of millions, yet hon. members had no control over them at all; it was physically impossible for them to have any control over them. Hon. members would stand the strain for a day or two and then walk out disgusted; some of them would go home, saying: "We have had enough of it." A reference to this condition was on the lips of many during the latter part of last session, both inside this House and outside of it.
Now, Sir, if we are to have reforms, if there is to be a limitation of the length of speeches, I do not object. If other reforms have to be made, I am ready to help the Government as much as I can. But certainly there is a reform to be made in the matter of which I speak; the abuse was referred to on many occasions during the last session as well as after its close. Im-[Mr. Denis.1
mediately after the session closed I read an article on this subject in the Ottawa Journal, which certainly is a supporter of the Government. Had I known that this subject was to come up to-night I would have had that clipping with me. The Ottawa Journal said it was a crime to cause Parliament to cease to exist through these long sittings. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the advice which has been given them from the other side to-night and see that some reform is accomplished.


Joseph Archambault: Mr. Speaker, when I heard the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. L. Thomson) make the speech supporting his resolution, I went to the library of the House and looked up the Hansard which contains the report of the proceedings of the House at a time when the hon. member was not so shy as he seems to be now.
I find that in those days when the hon. member was not straddling the fence, as he is now, he covered many pages of Hansard in the addresses which he made to this House. In 1914, on the occasion of the Address and in reply to the speech from the Throne, he covered about eight pages of Hansard. In 1915, on the Budget, his speech covered about the same number of pages. In 1916, on the Prohibition question, his speeches covered pages 1479, 1480, 1481, 1482, 2557, 2883. On the Military Service Act in 1917-coming closer to the present-his speech covered nine pages, and his speech on the Budget of that year covers pages 976, 977, 978, 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, and 985. May I suggest that the reason why the hon. member is not making any speeches now is that he is in such a position that were he to rise for the purpose of . addressing the House he would probably be obliged to make long speeches of criticism of the Government? My hon. friend probably thinks it is better for his health that he should sit down and not air his opinions at the present moment, and that is probably the reason for his continence.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have hesitated very much to intervene in this debate, as I was anxious that my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. L. Thomson) for whom I have great respect, should receive some measure of support from those who agree with him. It follows from what I have already said, Sir, that I do not find myself in absolute agreement with my hon. friend.

The hon. gentleman, as my hon. friend (Mr. Archambiault) has pointed out, made to-night what is perhaps his shortest speech on record. I certainly think it was the worst speech of his that I ever heard-not because of its brevity, but because it contained so little. He said, so far as I can remember, that there is <a great deal of time wasted in Parliament, that long speeches are the cause of it ; and without going into detail, having made his diagnosis, he proceeded to the treatment, which of course was the suggestion that the speeches should be curtailed. Well, that is a very summary way of dealing with"this question. One has, in such a debate, Sir, to speak with one's watch in one's hand.
The very points that my hon. friend mentioned in his speech which seemed to reveal a feeling on his own part that the subject was defective are those which he should have elaborated. He said that he was not going into detail. Now, that is a pity, because if he was going to curtail speeches, he should at least have given us some idea of the point to which he would allow the speeches of those who are not heads of departments or ministers to go. He did not mention any time limit that he himself would put on. Another great defect in the speech, so far as I may be allowed to judge it-and my good friend will allow me, I know, because he and I have always been on the very best of terms, and will continue so, even though I venture to differ from him on this subject-was that he failed utterly to take note of the fact that a large variety of subjects come before hon. members of the House.
Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly obvious to the youngest member of this House that there are some subjects which naturally lend themselves to brief speech, and I have heard in the House debates in which no speech exceeded a very few minutes, because of the nature of the subject being dealt with. The debating was, from my point of view, admirably varied and spread over the whole House. I have known other subjects come before this House which naturally lent themselves to be dealt with by hon. gentlemen who had given perhaps a lifetime of study to those subjects and the very nature of which caused the speeches of these hon. gentlemen to occupy a large proportion of the time. I repeat that I wish my hon. friend had gone more into detail and that he had taken note of that other matter. In supporting his resolution he ventured a long way in criticism of his fellow-members. He practically classified
this House, so far as it has an existence outside of himself, and the classification took this form. He gave some very interesting figures about hon. gentlemen who spoke a great deal in the House, and then he went on to express the opinion that there were a large number of hon. gentlemen who never speak at all, who did not open their mouths, yet could speak at least as well or perhaps better than the speaking gentlemen. In other words, he seemed to classify the House as consisting of speaking nonentities and dumb philosophers. I am quite at a loss, and I am sorry that my hon. friend did not enlighten us, as to how he arrived at an opinion of the ability of the dumb gentlemen. That is a matter which is a very great puzzle to me at the present moment. It must have been because they have taken him into their confidence in private, and then, I suppose, they must have spoken, and it is possible after all for members of Parliament to waste a great deal of time in private conversation when they ought to be attending to speeches, short or long, within this chamber. I could not help thinking that when he was forming his opinion of the amount of wisdom that is contained within the heads of the hon. gentlemen who seldom or never speak in the House, he was a somewhat more superficial observer of men than Shakespeare was. Shakespeare, you remember, Sir, said:
There are a sort of men, whose visages Do cream and mantle, like a standing pond ; Who do a wilful stillness entertain,
With purpose to be dressed in an opinion Of wisdom, gravity, profound conceit;
As if to say, " I am Sir Oracle,
And, when I ope my lips, let no dog bark! "
Well, the poet, so far as he describes the kind of members of the House-I do not describe them-as they appeal to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Levi Thomson), has described them; but in the subsequent lines, if my recollection is correct, the great student of human nature goes on to utter about this dumb people some further sentences which are by no means complimentary, because you, Mr. Speaker, who are a student of Shakespeare, will very well remember that he goes on to say that if these dumb gentlemen did but speak, their speech would so horrify the community that their brothers would wish they were dumb. That is my recollection of the subsequent portion of the poem.
I want, without exceeding my time limit and in a single sentence, to enter a serious protest on behalf of the only speaking animal upon the face of the globe. We have,

from the jelly fish, up through the insects and the worms and the reptiles and the molluscs and the birds and the fishes and the quadrupeds, an infinite variety of animal creation; but it so happens that the only animal capable of articulate and well-reasoned speech is the human being, and I want to enter a modest plea on behalf of the head of the animal creation on this globe. I should be very sorry to vote for the resolution in the form and shape in which it stands. I find myself almost in entire accord with the very wise words that fell from the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie). There is a certain waste of time in Parliament, though it is a very pleasant place to spend one's time in. I am a confirmed believer in Parliamentary institutions, and I enjoy seeing those Parliamentary institutions in operation, even when they lead to Parliamentary speech. There is a great deal in what the leader of the Opposition said about the methods by which Governments do their business. He did not, I think, for a moment want us to believe that that applies to any one Government in this country or in the Old Country upon whose great Parliament our parliamentary institutions are founded. The fact is, Sir, that in this connection certain broad traditions have gathered around Parliament, and one of these days, especially when our people are in such a businesslike frame of mind as I believe them to be at the present moment, when our people are looking for some product from Parliament for the benefit of (he people, it will be necessary for some party, composed either from the old traditional parties or by an unparalleled .and swift growth on the part of the cross benches in this House, to see to it that those traditions are abolished, broken through, and that when we meet for business, the Government of the day, Which after all is responsible for governing the country and for the running of Parliament, .shall bring its business before us in a businesslike manner.
In previous discussions, I have heard the rules of the House blamed upon this question. I would say in regard to that, emphasizing what was said by the leader of the Opposition about the importance of free speech, merely that those rules have grown not only through generations hut through centuries of practice of the Parliamentary order of debating and deliberating, and that I should be slow to blame those rules. Nearly all of them are 9 p.m. framed originally to curb arbitrary power on the part of mon-ardhs and governments and to preserve the 
rights of the people. They may be improved, and they are being improved from time to time by the Acts of Parliament itself and by 'the rulings of Speakers in the Chair. I do not think my hon. friend was successful in making out a good case for voting for so abstract a resolution as the one he has brought before us, and if it went to a vote, I for one would certainly vote against it.
In addition to the very practical and wise suggestions which fell from the leader of the Opposition, we must 'all have been impressed with the equally wise suggestion which fell from my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) who is leading the House on this occasion, namely, that a wise restraint upon the part of the individual would help very much. There are other restraints, of course. At every general election the public applies a restraint, because I believe it is a fact that, one-third of the House disappears at every general election, and I am not at all sure that in that disappearance the speakers fare any worse than the dumb philosophers. The public is a wise restraint and a purifying process in that way. And the members of the House have, after all, their own methods of controlling any undue tendency to speak on the part of any individual member. Cbm-mon sense in my humble judgment, may be trusted in this matter to control us. Of course, I may remind myself and the House of the three wisest rules I know of in regaad to public speaking which were once pronounced in a famous address on the subject by a former Governor General of Canada, Lord Dufferin. Lord Dufferin gave rules for public speaking which, if we followed, would at once make needless such a resolution as that we have before us to-night. He said to an audience of young men once, " Never rise unless you have something to say. When you rise, say it. And when you have said it, sit down."
Motion negatived.


DISMISSAL OF JAMES CONNER.
Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Springfield) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence relating to the dismissal of James Conner from the dual positions which he held at Snowflake, Manitoba, under the Departments of Customs, and Immigration and Colonization.
He said: When the Estimates of the Customs Department were under discussion last session I brought to the attention of the House a little matter that I thought required ventilation. I referred to a member of the

Civil Service, James Conner, who was appointed a preventive office at Snowflake, Manitoba, about twenty-one years ago. He first was appointed to guard the public domain in the matter of timber, for which he got about $200 a year. Later he was appointed Customs officer at a very small salary. After from fifteen to twenty years' service, he was receiving a salary of $600 a year. About eight years ago when the immigration movement began from the United States, Mr. Conner was asked to look after the immigrants, and $100 a year was added to his salary. So he received for this dual position the magnificent sum of $700 per year. I have known Mr. Conner for some thirty .years. He is a man of sterling character, devoted to the public service. He guarded the boundary for a considerable distance as faithfully as if the country belonged to him. During the eight years in which he received $100 for performing his immigration duties he spent many a night from sunset until eleven or twelve o'clock doing all in his power to perform those duties, and he lived in a tent in order to do it. I looked up the records and I read the report of a Government inspector who went down there and reported to the Government that Mr. Conner was a faithful officer and had done his duty efficiently. Mr. Conner has brought up a family of ten children in that country. They live there yet, and have added greatly to the wealth of the country. They farm something like eight quarter-sections of land. That man has laboured on the farm as very few farmers have ever done. I was moved when I was member for Lis'gar, because of his faithfulness and industry as a man, to suggest to him that he might look after the timber for the Government and become a preventive officer. He did so and received this small salary. I have not represented that constituency for a great many years, but I know this old Scotchman, and he wrote me a letter about a year ago saying that he had just received notice on October * 4 that he had been summarily dismissed as on the previous 30th of September. I was naturally indignant at an action of that kind on the part of the Government, and especially on the part of the Union Government, so I wrote to the Commissioner of Customs, the late Mr. McDougald, and he replied that the dual positions which Mr. Conner had held had been combined and Mr. Conner let out on the grounds of economy.
I want to preface what I am going to say by stating that I am not blaming the Minister of Customs or the Minister of Immigration because they knew absolutely nothing about this. I took the trouble to inquire into the facts, and I discovered that although one of the reasons assigned for Mr. Conner's dismissal was that he was an old man, there had been appointed in his place to do this immigration work a man from Winnipeg fifty-seven years of age, at a salary of $650 a year. Through a little contemptible wire-pulling on the part of some officers in the departments, for which they should be dismissed, they got this fine old farmer fired from the Customs Departs ment, giving the dual position to this Mr. Nesbitt at a joint salary of $1,200-on the ground of economy, mark you!-whereas Mr. Conner had done the work of preventive officer for $600 and immigration for $100 a year. Any hon. member with a sense of justice would naturally be aroused at a contemptible action of that kind. I found by inquiry that the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) knew absolutely nothing about it. It was done before the Government of which he is a member took office. I inquired into the reasons for the dismissal of Mr. Conner from the Customs and the other department. The matter was very properly referred by the Minister of Immigration to the officers of his department, and one of these officers, Mr. Scott, Superintendent of Immigration, reported-I hold in my hand a copy of his report-that Mr. Conner had been discharged because he was inefficient; and a more efficient man appointed in his place. Inefficient, mark you. Now, Mr. Conner only received $100 for performing his duties as immigration officer, and during the eight years in which he performed his work we had the heaviest immigration into this country from the United States that we ever had. We shall never in all probability have such a heavy immigration again. And although Mr. Conner had performed this work during all these years up till the time immigration absolutely ceased, he was dismissed on the ground of inefficiency. It annoyed me still more to have these peti*- officers who conspired to put a decent man out of business make a lying report kv the effect that he was inefficient. I read the report of a Government officer who inspected the work of Mr. Conner at the time and he reported that he was entirely efficient. Now, to add insult to injury, these petty conspirators put forward the claim that Mr. Conner was inefficient and they had to get another man to take his place; and, just think of it, on the

ground of economy, forsooth, when the new man is drawing double the salary that was paid to this old gentleman, Mr. Conner. In writing to me, Mr. Conner said that he would not have minded at all if the job had been given to a returned soldier, but it was a different matter when the position was given to an official sent out from Winnipeg, because there was nothing for him to do in the Winnipeg office and because wires had been secretly pulled to undo him. I inquired very carefully into this matter, because it interested me, and I am not able to see that any member of the Government even knew about it, but in the correspondence I was able to -examine I found one letter that gave me a slight clue to what probably occurred. Here is a letter which Mr. Cory, Deputy Minister of the Interior, sent to Mr. John McDougald, late Cbmmissioner of Customs. He says :
Mr. F. H. Nesbitt, Immigration Inspector at Snowflake, Manitoba, who draws a salary of $1,050 per annum could do the Customs work as well.
He was to get $1,050 to do the immigration work whereas Mr. Conner had done it for the years when there was immigration coming into the country for $100 a year. This man was to get $i,050 when there were no immigrants coming into the country. If Nesbitt was getting $1,050 as the immigration officer and $600 for customs he was being paid a pretty handsome salary. What business was it of Cory's to conspire against this splendid old officer who had done his best for the Government for twenty-one years?
I believe that your officer at that point is very old, and, from what I can gather, very inefficient. The commissioners, who have been investigating our immigration service recommend that the duties of the two departments be combined and that Mr. Nesbitt be -placed in charge; the cost of the service to be apportioned between the two departments.
This is the matter about which I spoke to you over the telephone. Will you please let me have confirmation of this arrangement?
That is a very suggestive statement. This man Cory speaks to John McDougald over the telephone in order to conspire against this prime old officer who, after twenty-one years' service, receives a letter Sn the 4th of October saying that he is summarily dismissed. This is most contemptible conduct towards any officer. Here is the copy of a report that Mr. Scott, Superintendent of Immigration wrote to the hon. the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) after I drew the attention of the Government to it last session. Mr. Calder asked for a report. I will read from it.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I would like
to ask the hon. gentleman if that is not part of the correspondence that his motion calls for. '


Robert Lorne Richardson: If I were quite sure that I would not get myself into a hole by answering that question, I would answer it frankly. -Supposing I said it was part of the correspondence would I be ruled out?
Mr. DEPUTY .SPEAKER:	The correspondence certainly could not be read.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Well then I will
not admit that it is.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon.
member is moving
For a copy of all correspondence relating to the dismissal of James Conner from the dual positions which he held at Snowflake, Manitoba, under the Departments of Customs and Immigration and Colonization.
It is not permissible for a member to read .papers which he is asking the House for an order to produce.


Robert Lorne Richardson: 

heading for Alberta where they had friends. As no land had been taken up I collected duty on their outfits. However, they lied to me, that about trying to enter at Emerson. If Emerson or Winnipeg had phoned or wired the Mounted Police stationed at Mowbray and Snowflake, or myself, we would have rejected them. In the meantime I reported their entry to Percy Reed who was acting Commissioner of Immigration at Winnipeg. He wrote in reply that I should not have allowed them in as they had been rejected at Emerson.
These men lied to Conner, they said that they had not even reported at Emerson.
Mr. Reed wired the Mounted Police Commissioner at Regina who wired the Mounted Police at Snowflake to follow them, arrest them, and bring them back. They were found north of Crystal City; four of the men I think were brought before a J.P. there and sent to the jail at Morden for making a false statement when entering Canada.
Mr. McLeod, a lawyer in Morden, took up their case on appeal for their release. The case went before a judge at Morden; as no one appeared from the Government to prosecute they were let free and deported.
If this report of the Superintendent of Immigration has any effect at all in condemning Mr. Conner for letting in these gypsies, how comes it that neither he nor the department thought it worth while even to send somebody to prosecute them when they were in the jail? The Government, or the department, must have treated the matter with entire indifference before these people were let go. Nevertheless the commissioner uses that as a pretext for the ignominious dismissal of this officer.
Mr. Scott says they were gypsies: I find nothing in the immigration regulations respecting gypsies; one of them, a well informed man, told me they were truck farmers and had negroes working for them down in the State of Georgia.
Mr. Scott says in his reply to Hon. Mr. Calder on the 12th September, 1918-you sent me a memo, asking that I ascertain whether P. H. Nesbitt, our officer at Snowflake, had been appointed customs officer. The Commissioner of Customs replied to say that Jas. Conner, sub-collecor of customs would not be acting for the Customs Service after the end of Sept. 1918, and that the Customs Dept, would utilize the services of P. H. Nesbitt and would pay $600 towards his salary. Now the question arises who recommended Jas. Conners' sudden dismissal from the Customs?
That is one of the questions I have been working on, and I have come to the conclusion that it was a little put-up job on the part of the understrappers and officials to get rid of this man and obtain the place for some favourite of their own.
Mr. Conner has just sent me this memo, with regard to the work he had to perform and his remuneration. He says:
On page 73, part 1, trade report, Department of Customs, 1917. Revenue collected (Man.) Snowflake-

Remember, Conner got a salary of only $600.
Revenue collected at Snowflake $2,066.33.
Now at Crystal City, which is supposed to be a much more important port the revenue collected was $1,398.30. Yet the collector at Crystal City received $1,000 a year salary from the Customs, and James Conner who collected far more revenue, received much less salary. The mam at Crystal City who collected $1,398.30 received a salary of $1,000 from the Customs Department, whilst Jas. Connor, who collected at Snowflake $2,066, only received a salary of $600, and yet Connor is the man that is dismissed. It just looks to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is precious funny conduct to display to the most decent and efficient officer in that part of the country- to dismiss him on the ground of economy.
I was wondering if the Civil Service Commission had anything to do with a case of that kind. Is it possible that a little conspiracy can be hatched on the part of a few understrappers that the head of a decent man may roll into the basket because of this conspiracy and how are we to guard the interests of men of that type? I got no satisfaction last session when I brought this matter up. As in the case of the old Presbyterian minister the Government looked the difficulty squarely and savagely in- the face and passed on. Therefore I have brought the case up again, and I want to know what is going to be done .about this ignominious dismissal of Mr. Conner? Is this Union Government going to rest under the stigma of even being in existence whop ia man as decent as that is summarily dismissed without notice, without a thank you, and under such circumstances as I have described, or is he to be reinstated? I want to know if these things can be done in this year of grace 1919 and no redress forthcoming to this decent man? What (incentive will /any civil servant ever have to serve the Government faithfully if just because of that faithful service he is to be summarily dismissed without any notice being given him-in fact, Conner was dismissed and his salary stopped before he got his notice of dismissal. I would like a declaration from the right hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster) who is leading the House, a man to whom we all look up and who is the acme of wisdom, and I take it also of justice. I would just like him to tell the House what ought to be done in the

case of a man like Mr. Conner. Mr. Conner does not even know I am bringing up his case, but my sense of justice was outraged;
I felt I would keep at this thing to find out whether justice could be obtained in a case of this kind. If the position had been given to a returned soldier, probably Mr. Conner would have been perfectly satisfied and so would I. I am not trying to get a job for him but simply to have some little consolation offered to him for the manner in which he has been treated. Now I pause for a declaration from the Government as to what it will do in this case.


George Eulas Foster: I will try my very best to give a declaration after what the hon. gentleman has been good enough to say about me. I do not know the least thing about the case except that I have heard the story of my hon. friend. I am not impugning that at all; it is, I dare say, correct, but I think I will have to ask my hon. friend to await an answer from the responsible head of the department-it is very dangerous work mixing in with the business of colleagues. The papers in this case will be brought down in answer to the request of my hon. friend. I have no doubt at all that the interested ministers will give my hon. friend a fair answer and if injustice has been done they will take the proper steps to remedy it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I would like to point out to the leader of the House that I was just as emphatic in my observations and presented the case just as perfectly last session. The responsible minister, Hon. Mr. Calder, did not propose any remedy or offer any suggestion, and I do not at present know whether or not any measure of justice will be accorded this dismissed officer.
If the right hon. leader of the House will say that when the papers come down, if he is leading the House at the end of the session, he will make a declaration, I will subside at once.


George Eulas Foster: I can do that right away. A declaration will be made either by the responsible minister or by myself.


Robert Lorne Richardson: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir George Foster, Bill No. 13, to amend the Dominion By-Elections Act, 1919, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir George Foster the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution; Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
That it is expedient to amend subsection seven of section ninety-five of The Canada Grain Act, as enacted by section three of Chapter forty of the Statutes of 1919, by providing that if in any year after the crop year ending on the thirty-first day of August, 1919, the total surplus of grain found in an elevator upon taking stock is in excess of one-quarter of one per cent of the gross amount of the grain received in the elevator during the crop year, such excess surplus shall be sold annually by the Board of Grain Commissioners and the proceeds thereof paid to the said Board. Such proceeds to be applied towards the cost of administration of The Canada Grain Act in such manner as the Governor in Council may direct.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister please explain the necessity of the amendment?
Mr. A. It. MACLEAN: The purpose of this resolution is to found a Bill thereon amending an Act of the last session of Parliament in relation to the Grain Act. Hon. gentlemen will remember that last session a Bill amending the Grain Act provided that overages at terminal elevators should not exceed one quarter of one per cent. I had the direction of the measure during its passage through the House, and from the representations made to me at the time it was apparent that the intention was that the Bill should first be applicable to the present cereal year. The purpose of the proposed Bill therefore is to make it clear that the provisions of the Act of last session shall not apply to grain in terminal elevators at the end of the last cereal year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the hon. gentleman tell us briefly the number of elevators to which this law will apply, and how many of them are Government-owned elevators and where they are situated ?


George Eulas Foster: They are all terminal elevators at the head of the Lakes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: All Government-owned?


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Government and private-owned elevators situated at the head of the Lakes, the Georgian Bay ports, and Montreal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are those the only
elevators to which this law will apply?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There are also
three elevators in the interior to which this will apply. It does not apply to any

elevators in the Maritime Provinces-if that is what my hon. friend has in mind.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think there
are any elevators there.


Mr. MAHARG:: Do I understand the
hon. gentleman to say that this amendment does not apply to any elevators in the Maritime Provinces and west of the Great Lakes?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I said it applied to the terminal elevators, and that there were no such elevators in the Maritime Provinces.


John Archibald Maharg: Is there not one at St. John?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The question of overages would not arise there.


John Archibald Maharg: It has just as good an opportunity to arise there, I think, as at other points.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think so. The question does not arise at Montreal.


John Archibald Maharg: Does the word "interior " bar them?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would apply
to interior elevators.


John Archibald Maharg: And also on the Pacific coast?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.
Resolution reported, and concurred in.
Sir George Foster thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17 to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


CIVIL SERVICE RE-CLASSIFICATION.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. A. K. MACLEAN, the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Civil Service Act, 1918, and'therein to provide:-
That the provisions of the said Act relating to temporary employment, dismissals, resignations, hours of attendance, annual reports, regulations, examinations, classification, appointments, promotions, transfers, and compensation he amended, and that provision be made for reclassifying the Civil Service and for any additional expense which may result from such re-classification.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Chairman, after the very interesting discussion which we have had to-night as to the undesirability of unnecessary talking, I hope that the committee will not require any lengthy
CMr. A. K. Maclean.']
address from me at this stage of the measure. I am anxious to make progress in the matter, in the first place, in order that I may have the Bill introduced and printed and, in the second place, that I may be in a position to distribute the copies of the classification of the Civil Service, which is the principal matter referred to in this Bill.
The resolution, hon. gentlemen will remember, was under discussion during the last session, but for various reasons the consideration of the Bill based upon it was postponed until the present session. During recess some amendments have been made to the printed classification as presented to Parliament last session. I think that the classification as it now stands will be much more readily understood by hon. members because of the publication of a list of classes grouped by services and the division of various services into ranks. I hope the committee will allow me to proceed and have the Bill introduced so that I may have the copies of the classification distributed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am told upon what I regard as fair authority that this Bill, which was before the House last session, and on which we made some progress, was submitted to a committee appointed by the Government for the purpose of considering it; that they had made a report and that some amendments and some reconstruction of the classification are proposed. It will be interesting to know what that report is and to ascertain wherein the Bill has been improved so that it may now be satisfactory to the Civil Service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I assume that my hon. friend refers more particularly to the classification than to the Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Well, I believe that
the Bill as submitted last session was entirely unworkable, and if the improvement in the classification or in the Bill is such as to make it workable and satisfactory to civil servants it will be a victory for the national policy, so to speak. We had in Ottawa for over a year gentlemen who were imported into this country from the United States who called themselves experts and to whom very large amounts of money were paid by the Government for the bringing about of this classification. I am told that they produced a piece of machinery so difficult of understanding, so complicated and so far beyond the comprehension of the Government and of the officials of the various departments that the thing was en-

tirely unworkable, and some ordinary minds had to go to work at it with a view to providing machinery that a very ordinary Government could understand. When I used the expression " national policy," I mean home talent, and I am glad indeed that this home talent, these men of our own who took hold of this Act, have apparently been able to put it in such shape that we shall be able to put it through. I hope that the minister, before he asks us to go very far with the Bill, will have this report printed and distributed, so that we may see exactly what changes were made and what recommendations are sent to us by this committee. I do hear a great many expressions of opinion to the effect that the Bill should go through this session. I trust that it is in such shape and that there is such accord on the subject among members of the Government themselves and their supporters that the Bill will become law during the present session.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall endeavour to give my hon. friend the information he desires. I think I shall have it in my possession on the second reading of the Bill.


Mr. CURRIE:: I notice that this resolution is rather narrow. Will provision be made to enable us, when the Bill is brought down, to discuss the question of enlarging the Civil Service Commission?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It will be open to any hon. gentleman to propose an amendment.


John Allister Currie: But if an hon. member proposes an amendment to that effect, a reference to the resolution as adopted will show that no provision is made in it for the enlargement of the commission. The hon. gentleman will see that it does not provide money for that purpose.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bill as presented to the House last year made provision for the enlargement of the Civil Service Commission. At present, however, it is the view of the Government that there is no good ground for the extension of the personnel of the commission and the consequent increase in the cost of administering the Act. However, if the judgment of the House is otherwise, I am sure that the Government will not interpose any objection.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 18, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918.


John Allister Currie: Explain the Bill.
Mr."A. R. MACLEAN: It is my intention to explain the Bill on the second reading. In the meantime, I propose to distribute the printed classification.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
On motion of Sir George Foster the House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Monday, September 30, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. M. R. Blake (North Winnipeg), rules 103 and 115 were suspended in reference to Bill No. 16, respecting the North Empire Fire Insurance Company.

[Stage Direction]
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 19 to amend the Militia Act.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Explain.
Major-General MEWBURN: The purport of this Bill is to repeal certain sections of the Militia Act which provide for the appointment of certain officers, such as the General Officer Commanding, the Chief of the General Staff, the Master General of the Ordnance, the Adjutant General, and the Quartermaster General. It is proposed to do away with certain of these offices and to try and reorganize the Militia on a different basis. It is in contemplation to do away with the Chief of the General Staff and the Master General of the Ordnance, and bring the Bill into conformity with some amendments that were passed last year leaving the appointment of officers to the Governor in Council. I may say that on the reorganization there will be no increase, and as far as expenditure is concerned it will only be such as was provided for in the Estimates last year.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister kindly explain what he means by " leaving the appointment of officers to the Governor in Council?" Is that power not invested in the Governor in Council now?
Major-General MEWBURN:	No. The
present Militia Act provides that there may be appointed an officer called the Genera! Officer Commanding, and also that there

shall be an Inspector General. As a matter of fact there were two Inspectors General during the war. The Act further provides how the rates of pay of each of these officers shall he laid down, and declares there shall be an Adjutant General.


Samuel Hughes: These officers are appointed by the Governor in Council at present.
Major-General MEWBURN:	They are
shall be an Inspector General. As a matter during the war. The Act further provides there may be a Master General of Ordnance at headquarters. The purport of this Bill is to leave the appointment of these officers and the fixing of their pay, to the Governor in Council in conformity with some amendments adopted last year.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


THE PROCEDURE UPON THE ORDERS OF THE DAY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of tlie Day:
Joseph Archambault: I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways and the Government to a most serious matter. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read a few extracts from an article published in Jack Canuck of September 6.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member will not be in order in reading articles from Jack Canuck or any newspaper in order to base an attack upon the Government; he may not do that upon the Orders of the Day.


Joseph Archambault: I put my questions in writing and I was not- allowed,-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the hon. member *would not be allowed under the rules to *put his- questions in writing, much less would he be permitted to put those questions on the Orders of the Day.


Joseph Archambault: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you have not given your decision on the question. It was the Clerk of the House who notified me that my questions could not be put.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member would not be in order in any case in submitting a question on the Orders of the Day which he had previously attempted to put upon
[Major-General Mewburn.]
the Order Paper in the ordinary course. The hon. gentleman may not proceed with his questions.


Mr. ARMSTRONG:: The question deals
with a matter which is most serious and urgent.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHN A. MAHARG (Maple Creek): I wish to draw the attention of the Government to a despatch which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday morning. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that no reflection whatever is made on the Government, so I think there can be no objection on that score to bringing the matter up. I will not read the whole despatch, but simply confine myself to giving its effect. The article points out that the work done in connection with the terminals of the railway at Hudson Bay is falling into decay, and that unless some protection to the right of way is provided the ice this winter will in all probability ruin the whole of the improvements that have been carried out there. In view of the fact that this matter is of vital importance to western Canada, and that there has been some $20,000,000 spent at Hudson Bay already on terminals, I would like to know if the Government is aware of the condition of things alluded to, and if so what it intends to do in connection with the matter.
Rt, Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister):	I can say to my hon.
friend that I also noticed the despatch to which he has alluded. The Minister of Railways is not at present in town, but 1 believe he will arrive to-day.
No doubt that matter has been drawn to the attention of that department. I will communicate with the minister as soon as he comes in and will give the hon. gentleman a reply to-morrow.
John Archibald Maharg: That is quite satisfactory.


CANADIAN RECONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION.
John Archibald Maharg: Mr. Speaker, I also have .another matter here that I would like to draw to the attention of the Government. It is rather a flashy advertisement sent out under the direction of the Canadian Reconstruction Association. It was received by a veteran in a letter sent to him from the


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is this a matter of such urgency that it would be detrimental to the public interest if the question were put upon the Order Paper in the ordinary way? Otherwise the hon. gentleman cannot proceed upon the Orders of the Day.


John Archibald Maharg: I would not dare to say that it would be detrimental to the public interest if it were not proceeded with, but it would be very interesting, indeed, to a large section of the public to have this cleared up.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The only basis upon which the question could be submitted on the Orders of the Day and not placed upon the Order Paper is the element of urgency and widespread national importance. It does not seem to me that the question the hon. member purposes to submit is of that character. He should put his question upon the Order Paper in the ordinary way.


John Archibald Maharg: I bow to your ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker. But to my mind it is a matteT of widespread importance to those who


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The element to be considered is not so much that of importance as that of urgency, because the hon. member has his full remedy under the rules by putting his question on the Order Paper. Hon. members must bear in mind that upon the Orders of the Day there is no subject matter before the House, and it is only as a matter of courtesy that question are permitted where the element of urgency is present, and where the public interest might be interfered with if the usual notice has to be given.


PUBLIC WORKS AT PORT STANLEY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. S. F. GLASS (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I notice the Minister of Public Works is in his seat and I would like to ask him a question. On the 12th instant I placed on 'the Order Paper a certain question affecting the Ipublic works at Port Stanley, and on the 15th instant it was passed as an order for return. I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works if the order is being prepared and when we may expect to have it laid on the table of tin House.


Hon.  A. L. SI ETON@Minister of Public Works: The return is being prepared, Mr. Speaker, but as it involves going through considerable material I cannot say when it will be laid on the Table. However I can
promise my hon. friend that it will be available as soon as possible.


LOBSTER REGULATIONS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question put to the Government on Friday last by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) I promised to give him some further information, and I would now like to read the reply prepared by the Department of Marine and Fisheries in respect to the hon. gentleman's question.
Chapter 33, of the Statutes of 1917 provide that "Cans of lobster shall contain the following minimum amounts of dry lobster meat:-
A one-pound can, fourteen ounces, avoirdupois ;
A three-quater-pound can, ten and one-half ounces, avoirdupois ;
A half-pound can, seven ounces, avoirdupois;
A quarter-pound can, three and one-half ounces, avoirdupois ;
No other size of can shall be packed unless the written permission of the minister has first been obtained."
This seotion came into effect December 15, 1918.
Strong objection was taken to these weights, and following a conference of lobster packers and fishermen held at Halifax in August, 1918, it was decided to introduce a Bill at the coming session to provide weights of 12 ounces, 9 ounces, 6 ounces and 3 ounces of dry lobster meat as legal weights for the above cans.
As the Bill could not be introduced in time for proper notice to be given for the season of 1919 the minister, acting on the power given him by the Act, authorized for that year only the use of the weights proposed in the Bill to be introduced in Parliament.
The Bill came before the House, was referred to the Committee on Marine and Fisheries, and was not approved by the committee. The legislation of 1917, therefore, stands and will be in force in the season of 1920, when the authority given by the minister for 1919 will have lapsed. The note in the Ottawa Journal, quoted by the member for Lunenburg, drew attention to this fact.
The department has notified the packers by circular and issued the information to the press, so that all concerned would have proper knowledge of the state of the law.


THE BOARD OF COMMERCE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. SUTHERLAND (Oxford South):: I would like to ask the Government, Mr. Speaker, in regard to a matter that I have brought to their attention on several occasions. I refer to the reported order recently issued by the Board of Commerce regarding the fixing of the price of dairy products in the province of Ontario ->a matter of extreme urgency in view of the fact that this is the last day of the month, and that the price of those products is fixed at the beginning of October, when an increase

usually takes place. I was informed by the leader of the House-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member has not laid any basis for the question. He is making an argument on the Orders of the Day, which he cannot do.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to make any argument; I was merely justifying the question for information which I was promised by the leader of the House on two different occasions.
Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister) Will my hon. friend repeat his question?


Donald Sutherland: I would like to ask as to whether the Vice-Chairman of the Board of Commerce issued a ruling, as reported in the Toronto Globe and other papers on September 17, as follows:
This is not the time for an increase in prices. Prices should go down from now on. In this connection I wish to announce now that all vendors from the farmer who increase the price on milk or anything else will he guilty of an indictable offence punishable by a line of $1,000 and two years' imprisonment.
is in effect, or whether that ruling has been revoked ?


George Eulas Foster: So far as I know, an order was issued by the Vice-Chairman of the Board of Commerce with reference to milk prices, prohibiting an increase for a period, I think, of forty days. That order, as I understand, has been rescinded, and the board has taken the matter up afresh. The board has had a session or two in the city of Toronto, and it will meet there again to-morrow, to investigate various matters, which will probably result in orders being issued. I am not quite sure just how those orders are to be communicated to the Government, but in some way or other they will come into our possession, and will be at the disposal of hon. members who wish for information with respect to them. My answer is definite with reference to milk prices, and that is all the information I can give as to whether orders have or have not been made.
With regard to the statement purported to have been made by the Vice-Chairman of the Board of Commerce, I do not think it is so much an order as it is an opinion, and I would imagine that he was probably notifying the public that orders of the board were meant to be obeyed, and that penalties would be imposed if they were not obeyed.	[DOT]
With reference to pork products, an order has been issued, which no doubt my hon. 
friend has seen, and which is the property of the House and the property of jthe public. Further investigations in respect to pork products are being taken up to-morrow by the board in connection with the interests that appertain thereto.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: With reference to the statement the hon. leader of the House has just made, might I ask for a further explanation, with your permission, Sir? My right hon. friend says that the order issued in connection with the price of milk has been rescinded. Does he mean that it was rescinded by the board themselves, or rescinded on appeal to the Government?


George Eulas Foster: It was rescinded on the action of the board itself. There is no appeal to the Government.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (York South):: Is it a fact that that milk order has been rescinded ?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: I have seen an announcement in the press that a change in the price of milk has been arranged, or that the matter is being adjusted now.


Donald Sutherland: With reference to
the orders of the Board of Commerce-a matter which is of great importance-in view of the difference of opinion that exists among members of this House who have been following the matter closely I would like to direct the attention of the House to articles which appear in the Mail and Empire and in the Toronto Globe of September 27.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member submitted a question-a doubtful question, I think, so far as its being within the rules is concerned, in view of the fact that the powers of the Board of Commerce are defined by statute. He has had an answer, and it is not competent for him to proceed now to carry on what is in the nature of an argument.


Donald Sutherland: My object was, in view of the fact that the public press of this country have not given the publicity to the rulings of the board that they have to other matters-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. minister cannot proceed with this discussion on the Orders of the Day.


John Archibald Maharg: Is this Order of the
Board of Commerce with regard to milk applicable to all Canada, or only to Ontario?


George Eulas Foster: My impression
is that it effects a section only, but I am not able to give definite information on that point. I will inquire and get the information.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. FRASER:: Has the Government any information with regard to the training of twenty-one young men on the 'Canadian National Railway between Toronto and Ottawa for employment as trainmen, conductors and brakemen, not one of whom is a returned soldier?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The question
put by the hon. member should be placed on the Order Paper.


BOARD OF GRAIN SUPERVISORS.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce) the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide.-[DOT]
1.	That the powers, duties and rights of the Board of Grain Supervisors of Canada appointed by the Governor in Council under the provisions of the Order in Council of the eleventh day of June, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen (P.C. No. 1604), as set forth in the said Order in Council and in the Order in Council of the twenty-third day of July, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen (P.C. No. 2014), the twelfth day of October, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen (P.C. No. 2867), and the fifth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen (P.C. No. 2153), in amendment thereof, and of the Executive Council, Chairman and members of- the said Board, be continued in full force and effect in so far as it may be necessary or convenient for winding up and concluding the unsettled business arising therefrom; and
2.	That the guarantee and undertaking given by the Governor in Council under the provisions of an Order in Council dated the fourteenth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen (P.C. No. 2001), undertaking and guaranteeing on behalf of His Majesty to all dealers in grain and banks carrying on business under the provisions of the Bank Act through duly authorized agents to accept from dealers in grain, or banks holding documents for such grain, all or any part of the 1918 wheat crop, making payment at the price fixed by the Board of Grain Supervisors for Canada plus carrying charges, in the event of the British or other overseas Allied Governments not arranging to purchase and to pay for such wheat when ready for delivery at lake ports or other customary points of delivery, be ratified and confirmed and continued in force.
Mr. ROBB:: Will the minister explain
the necessity tor this resolution?


George Eulas Foster: There might
really have been no necessity tor this legislation. The Board of Grain Supervisors was appointed in 1917 under the war power which the Government possessed. They have been carrying on their work during two grain seasons, but the active work of purchasing and receiving grain ceased on the 15th of August last. There are always ends of business to be looked after and settled up and it is quite probable that some transactions in the way of settlement or final disposition-not in the way of the purchase or reception of grain-will remain to be carried out by the board during the remaining months of this year and probably during a part of next year. The powers of the board are good and sufficient until the ratifications of peace have been effected, and it may be that these ratifications will not all be finally made until the board shall have completely finished its business. But the Government did not care to have them carry on further operations under their powers conferred by virtue of the War Measures Act after the war was practically over; they preferred to ask Parliament to confirm such of those powers as are necessary to enable the board to wind up the business with which they were entrusted and which they have been carrying on.
The resolution refers to certain Orders in Council. I am laying copies of these on the Table, and I am sending a copy to the leader of the Opposition. As no new powers are asked for and as it is necessary that the board retain such powers as will enable them to wind up the operations of 1917-1918 and 1918-1919, I imagine that there will be no objection to the resolution. Hon. gentlemen will be able to see the Orders in Council, and I shall be pleased to give any other information that may be desired on the second reading of the Bill.


James Alexander Robb: Is this the same board that is handling the wheat crop this year?


George Eulas Foster: No. I have
stated that the active operations of the board in the selling or reception of grain of the crops of 1917-18 and 1918-19 ceased on the 15th of August last; they are now simply winding up that business. The business of this year is in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a different organization.


James Alexander Robb: Does it consist of the same members?


George Eulas Foster: Not necessarily. Some of the same members are on each board, but the organizations are different.


William Findlay Maclean: Is the Canadian Wheat Board a permanent organization?


George Eulas Foster: No, it is established simply for the purposes of this one year; but we will come to that a little later.


John Archibald Maharg: I am informed that during its operations this board accumulated a large sum of money through the collection of charges, and so on. In what way do they intend to dispose of that surplus? To what fund will it be applied?


George Eulas Foster: The carrying and other charges which have been collected and which, 'as regards surplus, have accumulated after the costs and charges have been met, have been disposed of in part and will be disposed of as to the balance when accounts are adjusted. A very large proportion, in fact, almost the whole of the surplus, was devoted to the diminution of the price of the wheat which otherwise would have been charged to the British authorities who purchased it. I do not recollect just what the figures are, hut 1 shall have the information when we come to the second reading of the Bill; hut altogether the major portion was applied as above stated in diminishing the price to the buyers of the grain, and the surplus, whatever remains, will come into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and will -become a portion of the revenues of the Dominion.


James Alexander Robb: If I understood the minister aright, the business of this year is carried on by the Canadian Wheat Board.


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: The resolution provides:
that the powers, duties and rights of the Canadian Wheat Board appointed by the Governor in Council under the provisions of the Order in Council of the thirty-first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen,-
And so forth.
-be continued in full force and effect for the period of eighteen months from the date of the passing of this legislation.


George Eulas Foster: What is my hon. friend reading from?


James Alexander Robb: Is not Resolution No. 6 under consideration?


George Eulas Foster: No, we are discussing Resolution No. 7.


James Alexander Robb: Is 'the minister going to consider the resolution from which I have just quoted in connection with the one under consideration? Is he going to take it up to-duy?


George Eulas Foster: I am going to take up Resolution No. 6 next.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Wbait I wish to bring to the notice of the minister is that, as I understand the provisions of the War Measures Act which was passed in 1915, it contains within itself all the powers that the parties acting under the minister would require for the winding up of the business. We had that question under discussion here the other day, and if I properly understood the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), he quoted the provisions of the War Measures Act when read together with the Interpretation Act of the Revised Statutes of Canada as containing in themselves sufficient ipower to enable any board or any person who has started the transaction of any business under an Order in Council to finish that business regardless of whether a declaration of peace is made or not. We had that matter under discussion last session when the then Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) introduced a Bill for the continuance of powers in connection with an inquiry that was in the hands of a commission as to the business existing between the pulp mills and the newspapers. We passed that Bill, but the then Minister of Finance, as a lawyer, agreed with me that there was sufficient power in the Act itself. I am not raising any objection to this, but there are many Orders in Council and a large volume of business outstanding that was instituted under those Orders in Council and that must be carried to completion. If the Department of Justice thinks that there is in the War Measures Act itself ample power to carry forward those transactions, a great deal of time and labour would, be saved if proceedings were continued under the terms of that Act, thus avoiding the necessity of coming here for a special Bill for every matter that may arise unuer the various Orders in Council. I bring this matter more particularly to the notice of the Minister of Justice, because, if we can avoid multiplicity of Bills and arrive at the same result, that would be desirable.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We went through the Orders in Council vrith a view to determining which of them it might be desirable to continue in force. We arrived at the conclusion that there were, after all, but comparatively few with regard to which it might be desirable to make clear beyond perad-venture that they continue in force. Among the latter are those that are now being dealt with in order that there may be no question about the power of the board. We thought it more desirable that, even though the war

be still continuing because peace has not been ratified, when what might be described as war conditions have ceased, so far as that might be possible, any operation that would- be deemed necessary to be carried on should be carried on under appropriate legislation not depending for its effect upon the War Measures Act. I quite conceive that there may be some of these Orders in Council under which power may be exercised, where the public convenience may necessarily require that such power should be exercised under them so long as they continue in force in virtue of the War Measures Act. But where that could conveniently be done, it seemed to us desirable that we should make it quite clear that any power that was being exercised was being exercised1 under direct authority of Parliament. It is to make that quite clear with regard to these particular orders that this legislation was introduced.


William Findlay Maclean: The Minister ot Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) referred to certain operations that were carried on and stated that they had resulted in a surplus and that there was a proposal for the disposal of that surplus. Bid that surplus accrue under ordinary operations in connection with grain? If that be so, that establishes the contention of the farmers that they are paying rather excessive charges for the handling of grain in this country. If those charges are excessive and produce a surplus, they are worthy of reconsideration and revision.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend must remember this, that in normal times the cost and charges of handling grain from the primary station to the place of consumption must always be incurred and must always be paid for by somebody. They are never, I imagine, paid out of the pockets and fortunes of the grain dealers themselves, but they are really taken in the shape of profits or surplus charges on the grain, sufficient in the mind of the dealer to bring him out square. Therefore, we must always take-into account that somebody has to pay the charges of the whole handling of the grain from the initial station until it gets to the point of consumption. This ivas undertaken and carried out entirely by the Board of Grain Supervisors, and consequently costs and charges were provided for, for that body alone. I have not the least doubt that, if an investigation could really be carried out-and it is difficult tt>
do it-if it were a matter of an alternative between the handling of grain as it was done by the Board of Grain Supervisors and
the handling of grain in normal times, when those cost and charges were deducted with profits by the different handlers and purveyors of grain, the balance would be in point of economy to the handling of grain by the supervisors. The Board of Grain Supervisors were not speculators. They did not have to make any arrangements for profits. Handling grain in normal times contemplates not only charges for transportation, storage, freight, insurance, interest and everything of that kind, but it must also be loaded by a certain amount for profit to the handler, because these things are not simply done out of a benevolent spirit. So looking at it in the light to vrhich my hon. friend has drawn attention, if you take it for granted that the farmers' wheat has to pay these costs and charges, the cost to the farmers was less under the Board of Grain Supervisors than under the dealers.


William Findlay Maclean: Therefore, if there was a national handling of this grain the service would be cheaper, and the farmer might get a little more profit.


John Archibald Maharg: I had not intended to
follow the matter up any further, but, as the minister has intimated, no doubt the charges had to be borne by the grain. That would lead me to believe that there has been a very large amount of money accumulated, which in all fairness should be [DOT]allowed to the farmers by way of rebate, because they have been charged more for handling the grain than was necessary to cover the cost. If that is the situation, I think that the surplus, instead of going into Consolidated Revenue, should go back to the men who -were charged over and above the necessary amount to defray the costs.


William Findlay Maclean: If there is this improved method of handling grain in the manner referred to by the minister, then I think it is well worthy of consideration, not so much from the point of view that there ought to be a rebate, but that this new system ought to obtain in the handling of wheat. I only threw out the suggestion and I find I am more or less corroborated by what my hon. friend (Mr. Maharg) has said. I think the new Grain Board should consider the matter and see if they cannot make some saving in the handling of our wheat. I imagine the business has become somewhat of a monopoly in the West.


Mr. HENIDERS:: Some of us in the West have contended during the last few years that while the charge has to be carried

back and the producer really pays all the overhead charges until the grain is delivered in terminal elevators, it is not fair that the amount received from overcharge against the grain should go into the Consolidated Revenue. Our contention is that if there is an overcharge this year on a certain line of work and a surplus accumulates, the surplus should be retained in the hands of the Government, who are carrying on the work, and he applied in the way of a reduction of the charges next year. Then the producer would be paying the full charge, and no more, for delivering the grain to the terminal elevator. It certainly is not fair that the money should go into consolidated revenue. You cannot distribute it back for the past year, so it should be used for the benefit of those who sell to the board next year.


William Findlay Maclean: Why not have a surplus like that every year under this improved method?


James Alexander Robb: The system of handling grain from the producer to the consumer, whether in Canada or foreign countries, is not the work of governments. It is the work of long business experience in every country where wheat is a commodity of exchange. So far as I can judge, the experience of this country has not been that governments can handle wheat to better advantage or more cheaply than can commercial bodies who have been trained in that work. The first year the Government handled the crop-and this is proved by the legislation which the minister will bring down by a subsequent resolution-there was a tax of three cents a bushel which had to be paid not only by the man who sold wheat, but also by the Eastern farmer who grew only sufficient wheat for the requirements of his own family. A miller was liable to a penalty for grinding a farmer's grist unless he collected a tax of three cents a bushel. Whatever majy have been the experience in handling the last crop, the Canadian Grain Corporation, which is going to handle this year's crop, have decided that three cents a bushel is not sufficient, and they have notified every miller in Canada that he will be penalized for grinding the wheat of any farmer, whether or not it is ,required only for his own family and in Eastern Canada there are many farmers who grow sufficient only for their own family needs, unless he taxes him fifteen cents a bushel. It seems to me that should convince the minister, who is of an economical turn of mind, that this system 
of handling the wheat does not appeal to the Eastern farmer. The result is that many millers throughout Eastern Canada to-day, having been advised of the amount of red tape that has to be gone through, have decided not to bother with the farmer's grist. Any of them in a position to do commercial work prefer that to bothering with the intricacies of the cumbersome system provided by the Canadian Grain Corporation for handling this year's crop.
Another feature of the Government system of handling the grain of this country that is having a disturbing effect throughout Canada iis the 'preference that the Grain Corporation give to the exportation of grain rather than the products of grain. Now if there is one industry that is natural to this country it is the milling industry, and everything goes to show that this Government are doing everything possible to throttle and destroy that industry in this country. I think I shall be able to convince the minister of that. It is quite true that in the early days of the wot the millers made enormous profits; they could not help it, for whatever they paid for wheat to-day it was worth more to-morrow, the governments of Europe were scrambling for it and running the price up on themselves. Any miller with a stock on hand to-day naturally benefited if the price went up tosmo-rrow, but on the whole it has been shown that when the 'Government took over the business and dictated the millers' profits, the profits' of the millers of Canada on the business done was very much less than the profits on the turnover of other industries in this country. In July of this year the Government, through their grain agents, made a large sale of wheat to Greece. After the sale had been arranged the Government discovered that they could not get the wheat, that it was not in the country, except in the hands of the millers; so the Government commandeered one-half the stock in all the millers'' hands in Canada. What was the result of that?
The grain was shipped out, the mills were shut down and consequently the price of bran and shorts went up because they were scarce. Notwithstanding the howl there is throughout the country and the palliative statements of the Board of Commerce that the price of bran and shorts must oome down, the real problem, to-day is not a matter of price, but of obtaining a sufficient supply for the demand. There is not a supply of bran and shorts commensurate with the demand's of the trade, particularly for the feeding of stock, and that is why the

price of these commodities is high. It seems to me that if the Government had stood aside and allowed the business to take its natural course; if, instead of shipping out our raw material, the manufacturers had been allowed to mill wheat in Canada; if the Government had said to Greece: " We cannot sell you wheat, but you may have flour," then we should have had bran and shorts for our own stock, and there would not have been ia dissatisfied protest throughout the country at the price of milk and pork.
The minister can see very well that it would be much better for us to manufacture our own products in Canada, for we should not only have the offal, which is essential for the dairy and stock-raising industry, but we would have the immense advantage accruing from the necessary labour. The labour involved in the manufacture of a barrel of flour represents a certain monetary advantage to this country, and it must therefore be obvious that if we manufacture our own wheat into flour in Canada rather than export the grain to Greece and Rou-mania to be manufactured by the native there we shall be benefiting our own people. The same conditions are prevalent now as obtained in August. The Grain Corporation is selling wheat; no flour is being sold for export to-day by Canadian mills. I do not know where the screw is loose-if I may use a vernacular expression-but statistics show that the United States millers are making large sales in the export of flour, and we know that wheat to-day is worth more across the border than in Canada. Now, while these two resolutions are due for consideration, I may express the hope that the minister will make a statement of policy in regard to the handling of this year's crop. I should be pleased to know whether the Government will favour the policy of exporting wheat, or will encourage the manufacturing of wheat in our own country, so that we may have the advantage of the labour, and the use of the offal or by-products of the wheat to build up our stock and dairy industry. 1 should like ia statement also as to how the 15 cents a bushel tax on the handling of the crop will operate. Will the grain corporation insist that a farmer taking wheat to 'the mill to be ground for exclusively private use-for the purposes of his family and not with a view to commercial profit-shall pay 15 cents on every bushel that goes to the mill; and, if he pays the 15 cents per bushel-which in the aggregate, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, will amount to a considerable sum- what will be done with the money at the end of the cereal year?


George Eulas Foster: I would ask the bon. member to leave that question until we come to the next resolution. When the matter comes up germanely I shall have something to say. In the meantime, I think it is better not to mix the two resolutions.


James Alexander Robb: Very well. If I should happen to be absent will the minister he good enough to make a statement which I may see in Hansard?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Subsection 2 of the resolution indicates that certain monetary obligations or guarantees have been assumed by the Government, and I am sure the committee is anxious to have an explanation of the nature or extent of those obligations, and what moneys the country had to pay out in respect of them. Have we received back any moneys that we may have expended in connection with the matter, and did the exchequer finally square up in regard to the obligations assumed under the Orders in Council set forth in subsection 2 of the resolution? Further, are there still outstanding any business obligations? The minister will understand that if any obligations of this character were in the form of a statute-I am not now complaining of the Orders in Council-hon. members would be able to see for themselves the terms of the statute and would -know precisely what the obligations were. But the mere fact of an Order in Council being laid upon the table of the House does not afford busy members sufficient opportunity to secure any desired information, because the average member is unable, through pressure of time, to search documents in order to get at the gist of them. For that reason I am not personally as conversant as I should like to be with the terms of the Order in Council referred to in subsection 2 of the resolution, nor do I know just what has been done under them. I am sure the minister is anxious that the Canadian people should be advised as to every business proposition which the Government submits, and I think that the committee is entitled to some explanation as to what is involved in subsection 2 of the resolution.


George Eulas Foster: I can satisfy my hon. friend to this extent, that such necessary guarantees as were made by the Government have not involved in any respect

the payment of any moneys by the Government. The expenditures have been made by the Board of Grain Supervisors. All the costs and charges have been met, and a very considerable surplus was left over, so that there was no call upon the Government toi pay monetary guarantees in any shape or form. On the second reading of the Bill I shall be able to give more details, but I think that this answer satisfies my hon. friend on the general question.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Sir GEORGE FOSTER thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 20, to continue in force the powers of the Board of Grain Supervisors of Canada so that it may conclude its business and to continue in force a guarantee given by the Governor in Council with respect to the 1918 wheat crop.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce), the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution; Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
That it is expedient to provide that the powers, duties and rights of the Canadian Wheat Board appointed by the Governor in Council under the provisions of the Order in Council of the thirty-first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, P.C. No. 1589, as set forth in the said Order in Council and in the Orders in Council of the seventh day of August, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, P.C. 1659, and the eighteenth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, P.C. No. 1741, and the Executive Committee, Chairman and members of the said Board and of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, be continued in full force and effect for the period of eighteen months from the date of the passing of this legislation, and that the Governor in Council shall have power during such period to fill any vacancies in the chairmanship or membership of the said board, and to make any regulations that he may deem necessary or convenient for the extension, conduct or management of the business of the said board.
James Alexander Robb: Will the minister be good enough to give the Committee some explanation on this?
Sir GEORGE E. FOSTER: I am going to ask the House to pass this resolution in committee, if it can see its way clear to do so, and reserve certain information, * which I have not at my hand just now, for use when we come to the second reading of the Bill. This is a hoard which assumes duties similar to and largely cognate with duties which were assumed by the

Board of Grain Supervisors for the two preceding years. The powers that have been vested in it have been vested by virtue of the War Measures Act, and are practically similar powers to those that were exercised by the Board of Grain Supervisors.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it a permanent proposition?
Sir GEORGE E. FOSTER: I may as well set that point at rest at first. It is not a permanent proposition. It is simply effective for tills year. The Government would have been very much better pleased if, in the two preceding years, as well as during this year, the grain trade could have taken its normal and usual methods. My hon. friend opposite, who has just spoken, is quite right in calling the attention of. the House to the fact that there has been, there is, and we hope there shall continue to be, a prosperous, thriving and well ordered system of disposing of the crop of cereals which are raised by the farmers until they find their way into the homes of the consumers. Several businesses combine, co-operate and lend their efforts one to the other in that whole business of great and growing importance. There is the producing interest, the farmer himself. He is primarily interested in getting rid of his Wheat as early as he possibly can, and at the best price that he can possibly get. Millers may come and millers may go; transport companies may exist or they may go to pieces. The farmer is interested in these to a certain extent but his primary interest is, as I said, to get rid of bis wheat at the earliest possible opportunity and at the best price 'that he can get. The millers come in as a secondary and subsidiary operation, and they provide for the domestic requirements of this country, absorbing such grain as is necessary from the producers of grain, putting it in shape for the consumers of the country, and carry on besides a more or less large and thriving trade. I't 'has its vicissitudes, of course, in what we call export business. Its aim, after supplying and whilst supplying the domestic interests of the country, is to sell as much of its product as it possibly can and at the very best possible rates to outside countries who wish ft and who are able to pay for it. It is a legitimate industry, has been long established, and will be a very large and important industry in our country, I hope, as long as our country exists. Then there are numbers of people whom we may designate as the handlers of grain-those who buy the crop

from the farmer at different points and at different stages of the transit of grain, see to its transport and finance its cost and its charges, and in the exercise of their [DOT]wisdom and shrewdness put upon this grain about what they think is necessary in order to give them an immunity of loss and a fair and reasonable profit for the work that they do. That is a large, a distinct, and a very important interest; and if you take by and large these three interests connected with the grain trade, they all have very great importance; and I am one who believes that in their co-operation and free existence, one with the other and in the general interest, you will get probably the best solution of the grain business and the food business problem of this country in so far as that business is derived from cereals. Over and above that, there is the supervising interest which the Government has undertaken in its system of investigation, of examination, of .certification, and of storage; and under the Canada Grain Act a system has grown up which, whilst it may have its faults, still, I think, has gone on from good to better from year to year and has established itself as a useful, and I am inclined to think necessary, factor in the general economy of the grain trade of the country. Now it may be that these interests clash one with another to a certain extent, and it may be that all of these interests in abnormal times are not able to function as they would like and to the extent that they would like, and as they do in normal times. The experience has come to us in these last four or five years; and I think we all-whether we are producers or handlers of grain or whether we are millers and exporters of grain, whatever we are-have been taught that in these abnormal, times all these interests could not have just the play and just the extension that they would have liked for their own individual advantage and gain. Now my hon. friend in criticising- but before I go further let me say this, and it is something in 'answer to the 'hon. gentleman who questioned me a moment ago: That the Government would very much have preferred if during 1917-18 and 1918-19 the ordinary and normal methods of conducting the grain business in this country could have been followed. The operations which were carried on under the Orders in Council for the grain supervisors, as also which are being carried on under the Orders in Council for the Canadian Wheat Board, with respect to the crop of
those years are organizations and methods which the Government, after careful consideration, thought were necessary under the present abnormal conditions; but it is not the wish and not the intention of the Government to carry out those systems outside of the emergency period which we limit to the present crop year of 1919. These different interests-particularly the handlers and the exporters of grain-had their legitimate, their lawful, and their proper business largely interfered with during the years 1917-18 and 1918-19. All of these different interests bemoaned the necessity for the measures taken, but they submitted, I think, in a truly patriotic and reasonable way, to what was dictated by the necessities of the times.
This year a peculiar situation confronted the Government and the grain interests of our country-a situation that prevails all over the world-not only with reference to the methods of handling the grain, but with reference very particularly to the financing of the grain, to the providing of the credits which are necessary where the cash cannot be found. And it was with that peculiar situation confronting it, which, as I said, is not peculiar to Canada, but is 'world wide, that the Government decided, after mature consideration, to give the management of the present year's crop into the hands of a board consisting of practical and approved men. Therefore the Canadian Wheat Board was instituted. Its membership is known to the House and to the public. What the Government tried to do was to get practical men, those who had had the experience and who were trusted and approved as business men in their different capacities, to handle this business as a board, and I think we were successful in getting together a board which has the general approval of the' country, provided it be agreed that the business should be handled by a board at all. The producing interest is well represented on the board, as are also the transporting interest, the consuming interest and the milling interest, and it is the representatives of those four great interests who are carrying on this business under approved principles
My hon. friend puts to me certain questions as to why they do this and why they do that. I am not able to answer his questions. The Government is not managing this business. The Government has put the business into thj hands of the board, and the board must be trusted to carry out its work in the most practical, the most economical and the most efficient way. That,

I believe, it is trying to do. But any information that my hon. friend asks for, and that I can get by communicating with the board, I shall be only too glad to give to him and to the House, because T am sure the board would desire that such information so far as it is possible to be given should be given.
Now, I want just discursively to mention one or two things that were brought to my attention by my hon. friend, because I am not arguing this question on any set plan. He says: "You are doing a wrong to the milling interests and to a certain extent to the live stock interests of this country, because what is best for those interests is that every bushel of wheat raised by the farmers shall be milled in this country, and that this country shall get the added profit upon the milling from the country to which we export over and above what is necessary for our own domestic consumption, and that there shall be the largest possible quantity of bran and shorts available for distribution among our live stock interests." I agree that it would be on all those grounds a very excellent thing if the
200,000,000 bushels, or whatever it is, of surplus grain over and above what is necessary for our own consumption could be milled in this country and disposed of in foreign countries in the milled form so that we would have the benefit of the subsidiary products. Yes, that would be a good thing, but this year it is an absolute impossibility for this country to accomplish it. It is a thing which in any year is probably impossible of accomplishment in completeness, but this year it is an impossibility. My hon. friend has instanced one example, and it happens to be an example with which I am familiar. He says: "This board, or the Government, instead of selling flour to the Greeks and keeping these subsidiary advantages in Canada, has actually sold to them some 12,000,000 bushels of wheat. Now, they should not have done that, for it is against the milling interests and the live stock interests of this country." All I have to say to him in answer to that is this. I know as a matter of fact that neither he nor the whole Dominion of Canada could have sold to the Greeks one single barrel of flour of that 12,000,000 bush-les of wheat. The Greeks wanted wheat, and wheat only. If they do afterwards want flour, then they will negotiate for it. But it was an absolute condition of that sale that it was to be made in the shape of wheat or it could not be made at all.
Now I come back to the farmer, and I put him alongside the miller and let them argue

it out. I am sure of the conclusion that a third party would make, that under those circumstances, the Government, through its commission, had nothing else to do but to see that the farmers got rid of that 12,000,000 bushels of wheat, even though it did not filter through the subsidiary and fructifying processes of the millers of Canada in their different operations. Am I not right absolutely in that respect? My hon. friend would be right if it had been possible to make that sale to the Greeks in the shape of flour; it was not.' And I may go further than that, I may say that the very same difficulty arises with reference to the other European Powers who are negotiating for our products. Go to Great Britain and study the conditions there. My hon. friend whom I have in my eye now understands those conditions thoroughly; so do others of our friends sitting in this House. If any country in the wide world has a famine for food for its live stock, it is Great Britain to-day. Look at the prices she is paying when she wants a bit of feed for stock which is being raised for the market. The price is almost fabulous. Great Britain has also flour mills. Her interest is twofold; she wants to get the offal in order to sustain her live stock industry; she wants to get the grain in order that her mills may grind it and give her that food. And neither my hon. friend, nor all his friends alongside him who 'belong to the milling interests, can go into Great Britain to-day and dictate the purchase of our cereals, as to whether it shall be in the shape of flour or in the shape of the grain itself. That decision is for Great Britain to make for herself. She will buy all the wheat she can for these subsidiary benefits that I spoke of just a moment ago. She is justified in doing it. Canada would do the same thing if she were in the same position. Consequently Great Britain's interests must be borne in mind. But that does not imply that Great Britain is not also going to buy flour from our millers. She will do so. There is not the least doubt about it. But we cannot dictate to her or to any other European Power that any of them shall take the wheat product and shall not get from us the grain itself out of which the products are made for the sustenance of their people.
Now, I happen to know those circumstances, because I was in the negotiations which led up to the purchase of the grain by the Greeks, and these are conditions, without labouring the subject any further, that obtain outside, and Canada must not feel, as I am sure she does not feel,


SEPTEMBER 30, 19X9
[Stage Direction]
that she is the only and the supreme arbiter as to how our cereals shall go out to the countries that have borne the bloody burdens of an exhaustive war, and whose people in their homes and in their activities are put to it as never before to reconstruct themselves into comparative happiness and comparative prosperity.
We cannot leave that side of the question out of our thoughts when we are talking about what we would like to have done.
My hon. friend has said that the United States is paying more for wheat than we are here. The United States fixed the price of the crop for this season at $2.26 a bushel. The initial payment made by the Canada Wheat Board to the farmer the moment that he brings his wheat to the station is $2.15 a bushel. Whatever may happen as a surplus when the wheat is finally disposed of, after costs and charges have been accounted for, is divided among the original sellers of the grain. If the wheat nets $2.26 the original sellers will get $2.26; if it nets $2.30 they will get $2.30; if it nets $2 they will still get their $2.15, and the Government will pay the difference. They get what a competent wheat-selling board gets for the product on the markets of the world, less costs and charges. On the other hand, the seller in the United States gets $2.26, no more and no- less. If the surplus is sold at $2.50 he gets no more for the grain than $2.26. That is a fair statement of the case as between the two systems.
The question of finance was really the governing question in the Government's reaching a decision as to the medium through which the purchase and disposition of the grain should be made this year. I am not going very fully into the matter at this moment; questions will probably be asked and we may discuss it later. The farmer could not sell his wheat unless there was somebody to buy it, and that somebody could not buy it unless he had the cash to pay for it. It was that idea and that consideration which determined the Government to adopt the method it did in order to provide that the very moment the farmer got his wheat to the station-no matter whether it was the last of August, the last of September, the middle of October, or any other time-he would get $2.15 as a basic price. The market was made absolutely certain, and the price was made absolutely certain up to $2.15. Thus governments have to do with governments, and finance was provided for.
Now, I do not want to go into, the matter any more fully at this time. I am not able

[Stage Direction]
to give all the whys and wherefores as to what the Canada Wheat Board is doing; it is doing that business, not the Government. But I shall be quite glad to give all proper information that may be asked for when we come to the second reading of the Bill.	'
James Alexander Robb: With the personnel of the Canada Wheat Board I have no fault to find. I hope that later the minister will make some statement with regard to the reason for the fifteen cent tax and what is going to be done with that money at the end of the year.
Now, the minister has made an excellent plea on behalf of the exportation of Canadian products in the raw state-raw material-and of the manufacture of our products in other countries. The minister points out that Greece would not buy one pound of flour; she would buy wheat. Very well, if Greece would not -buy flour, Finland would. The minister contends that the real object of the Government was to help the farmer to get rid of his wheat and to get paid for it. But the farmer had already got rid of the wheat that was sold to Greece; that wheat had been paid for and was held by the Canadian millers who were prepared to mill it and take chances on what they would do with the product.


John Archibald Maharg: How much wheat did
the Government commandeer from the millers at that time?


James Alexander Robb: They commandeered just
fifty per cent of the wheat stocks in millers' hands; I understood the total to be about
12,000,000 bushels. I suppose my hon. friend will not contradict that in view of the assertion just made by the minister that 12,000,000 bushels were sold to Greece.


George Eulas Foster: But that 12,000,000 bushels sold to Greece runs over the year.


James Alexander Robb: We will not argue about the number of bushels; the fact remains that the Government took away from the millers one-half of the wheat that they then had in stock. The minister will not dispute that assertion.


George Eulas Foster: No. But let me put the thing to my hon. friend from a humanitarian as well as from a patriotic point of view. Suppose we had an opportunity to sell 12,000,000 bushels of wheat to Greece provided we could get the millers to give us a portion of their surplus wheat


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
to fill the first order. If we put it to the millers whether they should keep more than they really required rather than give us a certain quantity which they could make .good by future purchases, should not the milk of human kindness cause the millers to say: We do not want you to miss that good offer. We have a surplus here; you take half of it and we will make it up afterwards?
James Alexander Robb: We are not discussing the humanitarian point of it.


George Eulas Foster: We are all human.


James Alexander Robb: What I am trying to point out is that the minister is reversing the policy he preached for years.


George Eulas Foster: Not at all.


James Alexander Robb: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Were actual sales of wheat made at that price?


George Eulas Foster: And to what extent?


James Alexander Robb: I have not before me the figures as to the extent, but there was trading and wheat sold at $2.45, and it was

bought and sold by the men who had been buying and selling for years, by the same men to whom my hon. friend (Mr. Henders) sold his wheat before he was able to sell it to this Government, and, I imagine, sold it at just as great a profit.


George Eulas Foster: It was to a
limited extent that sales were made, and the wheat was bought in some instances, maybe in the major part of instances by brokers or parties on the other side of the line w'ho had no entry into the United States for Canadian grain to the extent of a single peek. The United States has a surplus of grain; it fixed the price at $2.26 for its own farmers; it, therefore, had to put around its border an 'absolute prohibition of wheat going into that country to interfere with its own national operations.


James Alexander Robb: The United States fixed a minimum price of $2.26.


George Eulas Foster: Oh, no, an absolute price.


James Alexander Robb: I hold in my hand the Winnipeg Free Press of September 27, .and these are the quotations in Minneapolis for cash wheat:
No. 1 dark Northern, $2.65, $2.95.
No. 1 Northern, $2.60, $2.70.
Everybody along the line knows to-day that Canadian farmers who are adjacent to the international line are taking their wheat into the United States and getting more money for it than they are getting in Canada. Will any western man dispute that statement right now?


George Eulas Foster: Will my hon. friend be perfectly frank about the matter and inform the committee about what proportion of the total crop of Canada that is marketable is allowed into the United States under those conditions?


James Alexander Robb: If the promise made to the farmers of Western Canada by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) is of any good at all, the whole crop can go into the United States, because the Government represented to the western farmers that there is reciprocity in wheat, and with loud acclaim they told the farmers they had all the advantage of the American market.


George Eulas Foster: Without going hack to musty arguments, will my hon. friend answer my question? What proportion of the grain of Canada which is to be sold and is.looking for a market is allowed to go in on farmers' wagons? Never mind

what old theories have been' or anything of that kind.


James Alexander Robb: The Minister of Trade and Commerce apparently -wants to run away from the argument.


George Eulas Foster: I think there is another man that wants to run away. He is getting his seven-leagued boots on.


James Alexander Robb: I will be quite frank with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There is . a very limited portion going in.


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: The farmers are doing only a retail business, a peddling business, and why? Because the hoard appointed by my hon. friend have passed certain regulations, and they are working in harmony with the board in the United States; they are allowing in wagon-loads; a farmer can draw his wagon-load into the United States and sell it, but he cannot ship a carload as that is prohibited by the regulations. As I am not familiar with the inside history, I do not know whether it is the United States that is prohibiting the shipment of carloads or whether it is the Canadian Government; but I know and I make this statement- and if I am not right, I want the minister to correct me-that wagon-loads of wheat are going into the United States all along the Canadian border and that carloads cannot be shipped into 'that country.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend is absolutely right. How many wagon-loads are going in, I cannot tell, but even those are under regulation. But Uncle Sam appears to be big enough to say: Whilst I have an absolute policy for my great grain production, I am not so bigoted but that I will allow a poor Canadian farmer that lives within a few miles of the border to take his wagon-load over, and I will say nothing about it; but he is not allowing the importation of Canadian grain into the United States, not on your life.


James Alexander Robb: But he is allowing all that the farmers can draw in on wagons. Where does the Canadian Government come in as regards that? Does the Canadian Government permit this traffic to go on without protesting when it sees a man, say fifty miles from the line, at a disadvantage of fifty cents a bushel as compared with his Canadian brother farmer who lives nearer to the line?


George Eulas Foster: He has the advantage of geographical position. This, the
43J
first protest I have heard against this comes from a miller in Eastern Canada and not from a farmer in the West.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is endeavouring to place a mis-construction upon my words. My protest is that the Government prevents all the farmers of Western Canada from taking advantage of that market.


George Eulas Foster: There is an assertion, that the Government of Canada prevents all the farmers of the West from taking advantage of the American market in this year 1919. I deny that absolutely, and I challenge my hon. friend to the proof. It is patent to any man that when you have a country which has fixed an absolute price which it will pay for the surplus grain in the United States to its own producers, the Government of that country is not going to allow hundreds of millions of bushels to be imported into the United States and the seller to get the same advantage as the men who are citizens of that country itself have. It must protect its own surplus. This is not to be thrown as a fault upon the present Government or upon any Canadian Government. It is absolutely the policy of the United States, and not a barrel of flour nor a bushel of grain under that policy in the large is allowed to entrench upon that United States' market.


James Alexander Robb: I have not, under my hand to-day, the proof of what this Government are doing, but I have under my hand proof of what this Government were doing only a few months after they introduced reciprocity by Order in Council and advertised throughout all the West that they were going to give the farmers of Western Canada the advantage of the United States' market. I have here a letter dated February 11, 1918, from the" Canadian Food Control regarding the exportation of flour. It states:
I am in receipt of your letter of the 8th instant and beg to inform you that the exportation of flour in quantities of 25 barrels or over is absolutely prohibited to the United States, as per memorandum No. 2147 B enclosed herewith.
That was an Order in Council of the Government. They were the people who then stopped the information. I do not know who is stopping it to-day. Let us get on with this story.


George Eulas Foster: It is a story.


James Alexander Robb: I told the House a few moments ago that the Government policy early in July was for an open market, and that

as a matter of fact they did have an open market. When it was announced to the trade in Canada that there was to be an [DOT] open market, the Winnipeg Grain Exchange sent to England Professor Magill whom, 1 am sure, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will acknowledge as an expert in his particular line of business, no matter what others may say of him. It was my hon. friend himself who selected Professor Magill as the head of the grain handling business of Canada. Subsequently, he left that work and became associated with the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. After his return from England he made a report to the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, in which he says:
I was one of those who believed (and I still believe it) that the sooner we could get back to commercial methods in handling our business, the better it would be for our country, ourselves and everybody concerned.
Now let us see what he says of conditions as he found them in England. The Canadian High Commissioner and Doctor Robertson took the matter up with the British authorities. Professor Magill says:
They had an interview with the Royal Wheat Commission on June 13th. I want to speak of that interview for a moment. There were present on behalf of the Government of Canada, Sir George Perley and his secretary, Mr. Griffith, and Dr. Robertson, and on the other hand the Royal Wheat Commission. I was not asked to be there; I had no right to be there. That interview was on June 13th. What happened? Mr. Griffith sent me a letter stating what happened. I will read it to you.
I shall put this letter on Hansard so that all members of the House may have this statement from the man who was handling the grain business over there at that time. The letter is as follows:
Dear Dr. Magill:	Following the conference
with the Wheat Commission a letter has been received from the secretary stating that it is impossible at present to outline any specific buying policy, partly owing to the crop situation in both consuming and producing countries still being subject to large variations, and partly because it is not yet known how far the responsibility of the Royal Commission may extend in making purchases on behalf of the Allies. The Royal Commission, therefore, is unable to state what proportion of the new Dominion crop it will desire to buy, but as the Commission is alive to the fact that the Wheat Export Company was necessarily a hindrance to the normal conduct of the export trade during the war, and they desire to revive the activity of commercial enterprise, they propose to liquidate the Wheat Export Company (Winnipeg) as a trading concern so that complete freedom may be restored to the Dominion grain trade to sell its produce in the simplest manner without restriction of destination, during the ensuing year.
It is added that the Commission, as at present advised, will probably make its purchases

on an f.o.b. basis as and when stocks are wanted, and it will probably prove advisable to establish an office at the Canadian seaboard to ensure promptness in the correspondence which must take place between London and Canada. The Commission believes that an early announcement that the Wheat Export Company (Winnipeg) will cease to operate and that trade will be able to resume some normal courses, will remove the element of uncertainty which we deprecated.
Tours faithfully,
W. N. Griffith.
Referring to this letter, Professor Magill goes on to say:
That is from the High Commissioner's office. What does it mean? It means that the Royal Wheat Commission on behalf, of the British Government undertook to buy our crop from the Canadian Grain Trade at the Atlantic seaboard f.o.b	They said in
substance " We will buy it in quantities as we need it. As we need it, we will furnish the ships and pay for it f.o.b. We will not interfere with your selling to neutral countries-sell to them on a commercial basis." These neutral countries have their own tonnage and they are wealthy. They have money to pay for wheat without credits, and Germany is said to be buying through them. That was the proposal of the Commission-that we should sell to neutral and enemy countries direct and to the Royal Wheat Commission at the Canadian seaboard f.o.b.
I think the minister will accept the statement of Professor Magill that he did not anticipate any trouble in selling or financing the crop. My complaint with the minister to-day is that the Government, through their methods, are not helping the trade, but are rather injuring it. If the Western farmers who live along the border are able to sell a portion of their grain to the United States at 50 or 60 cents a bushel above our prices, what is to hinder them from carrying that wheat to within five miles of the international boundary and hauling it over as fast as they can by teams? Is there anything to hinder them?


George Eulas Foster: They would very soon have a customs officer after them.


James Alexander Robb: We have not noticed any of that yet. I hope the minister will make a clear statement and tell us that we are going to be rid of this government control of industry. It is not good for the country. I am sure the minister himself must be bothered night and day with these restrictions. I think it is better that the trade should be open. Let us get down to sound business principles. That is the only way to build uip any industry and build up the country.


Mr. PROULX:: I wanted to say a word about the fifteen cent tax. The farmers have to pay this tax on the wheat they bring to

the grist mill for gristing. The millers in my constituency have made representations to me. They object to this tax. The farmers also object to it very much. These farmers do not sell their wheat to the millers; they only bring it to the grist mill for gristing. If they sold it, I understand from the minister, that they could he given a participation receipt for this fifteen cents a bushel that they have to pay, and they would get the balance later on. When they bring their wheat to the mill for gristing they want the flour and the offal back. It is a disadvantage to the miller to have to charge this fifteen cent tax, and I hope the minister will make representations to the Wheat Board with a view to having this tax abolished as far as gristing is concerned.
' Sir GEORGE FOSTER: I will have it looked into. I will take it up later.


Donald Sutherland: I am sure we all have a distinct recollection of the agitation throughout the country by those interested in the growing of wheat of a few months ago before the Wheat Board was appointed. After the board was appointed and a minimum price fixed a great many of these same people were dissatisfied that the Government had moved in the matter. I can readily understand how much easier and more agreeable it would have been for the Government to have let business follow its usual channels rather than undertake the difficult problem of handling the wheat for the farmers of Canada.
There is a mistaken idea, I believe, on the part of many people that a tax is being levied on wheat, particularly where grists are taken to the local mills, and even where wheat is purchased in small quantities for feed purposes. I hope that when the minister speaks on this point to the committee his statement will reach everybody throughout the country. It is essential for the farmers of Canada to grow wheat, and to find a market for their wheat abroad. We are all prone to lose sight of the fact that success in agriculture demands the application of scientific methods, as well as industry and skill, and is not a mere mechanical process. Agriculture is undoubtedly ^the greatest industry in Canada, and it is not by raising grain or some other such product and disposing of it in its crude unmanufactured state that we shall reap the maximum profits. When it is borne in mind that a large part of Canada is comparatively new agriculturally, and that for centuries there has been stored up in its soil richness and fertility, which in many
sections has for years been exploited, it requires no great stretch of imagination to picture the result if the present practice that obtains in many parts of the country is continued. In the district in which I lived when I was, a young lad, there were in all the small towns grain warehouses, one after the other in succession, all along the railway siding. These warehouses were provided for the storage and shipment of grain, but to-day not a bushel of grain is shipped from any of those towns in that district. On the contrary, thousands of tons of feed are purchased and fed on the farms. By the application of scientific methods, and in the manufacturing of raw materials and shipping finished products, such as live stock and dairy produce we achieve our greatest success. The fertility of our soil cannot be maintained under the system which generally prevails at present-and I am particularly referring to western Canada, because the system now in vogue there no longer exists in the older provinces. My hon. friend from Huntingdon has referred to the question of the disposal of by-products of wheat and in view of the statement of the minister that the demand abroad is for our wheat and not for our flour, I think I may deal with this matter for a moment. I believe that the transportation charges have a good deal to do with the present state of affairs. Reference has been made to the farmers of Great Britain and some other countries, I believe that there are in Great Britain a class of farmers who are superior to those in any other part of the world. They have developed their business on strictly scientific principles, and are [DOT]able to produce to-day crops such as they were never able to grow in years gone by. In the old country the fertility and productivity of the soil is being increased rather than depleted, as a result of the development of the livestock industry, which has been cultivated to a remarkable degree. Our greatest handicap consists in the method by which we dispose of the produce of our farms in many districts. I admit that no effective remedy oan be undertaken as regards the present crop. The matter presents a problem which has to be worked out, and I believe that this discussion this afternoon will be one ol the most valuable contributions of Parliament if it will serve to stimulate a real interest in the question of transportation charges on wheat and flour. I hope I shall live to see the day when every bushel oi wheat in the country will be manufactured

into flour, and the bran and shorts or byproducts fed to the live stock in Canada. When we reach that condition we may rest assured o! a prosperous agricultural. community. Until then, we shall be far short of the acme of our industrial attainments; and ruined lands will be the portion of those who persist in the present practice. The difficulties are largely attributable to the cost of transportation. Wheat is a convenient ballast for steamships, and I think a preference in transportation charges is given in its favour over flour. If it were necessary, I believe it would be in the interests of this country to secure enougli ocean carriers to take the crop overseas and place it on the markets, so that there might be no discrimination as a result of charges, and there might be a preference in the carrying of flour as against wheat. I think that the day is not far distant when Canada, in its own interests, will adopt such a policy. The member for Huntingdon said that the by-product of wheat is hardly obtainable in this country, and that some of the wheat in the millers' hands had been commandeered by shipment to Greece. The minister has pointed out that only a very small proportion of the twelve million bushels has so far been shipped, so that it appears that this has not affected to any great extent the supply of mill feed in Canada. It is a fact, however, that bran is practically unobtainable in the part of the province from which I come. There is a greater demand at present than has existed before in many years, but strange to say you can purchase any quantity of shorts, and as a matter of fact there is a difference of ten dollars' per ton between the prices of bran and shorts. Shorts today is simply bran ground fine. The millers do not want to sell plain bran but they are delighted to sell it in the shape of shorts as long as they can get ten dollars a ton moire for it. This is one of the things that have a very important bearing on some of the questions that are agitating the. minds of the people tenday-the high cost of living.


James Alexander Robb: Who fixed the price?


Donald Sutherland: I hope the hon. member will discover 'file person who fixed the price and have him held up before the public gaze, if such a price as I have referred to has been fixed.


Mr. CAHIDL:: There is the prioe fixer right in front of you.


Donald Sutherland: Let me say that whoever is responsible for the difference in price
[IMr. Sutherland.]
between bran and shorts must see what a harmful effect it has. To-day the millers are grinding the screenings, which contain a small proportion of cracked Wheat, and mixing it with bran in order to bring it up to the requisite standard:. That is precisely what is being done with regard to bran and shorts'. The quantity of weed seeds that are being ground up and mixed with bran and shorts represents to the farmers of the country tens, yes, hundreds of thousands of dollars annually through the poison that is being sent out in this way, to say nothing of weed seeds that are being scattered throughout 'the land.


John Archibald Maharg: Do you purchase shorts at all? Don't you buy everything under the name of middlings?


Donald Sutherland: It is really a distinction without a difference. There was a time when we considered shorts as shorts, but to-day there is another by-product of wheat which iis commonly called "red dog'' or low grade flour, which is really the old form of shorts which the farmers were able to purchase a few years ago and which is commanding a very high price to-day. Bran and shorts are scoured to-day to such an extent that it will not come up to the standard required, and in order to make this possible, wild buckwheat and screenings containing small bits of cracked wheat are ground up. There is sufficient of this cracked wheat and buckwheat included to bring of the bran and shorts up to the standard called for. This is quite obvious to every one engaged in stock-raising in Canada. Bran and shorts are essential food stuffs required by those engaged in the breeding and producing of stock and for dairy produce. Take up the newspapers and see what prices are quoted for mill feeds at the present time. You will find that corn meal is now quoted at from $80 to $82 per ton or a trifle over 4 cents per pound. Now what is the effect of the high price of feed? It is this: that in many parts of the older provinces, at least, wheat is being ground up by the farmer and fed to the stock rather than take the chance of buying some of the dirty, foul, poisonous mill feed, bran and shorts, that are being sold off by the millers Thousands of animals are dying yearly <as the result of being fed on this stuff. Yet under the laws of the country the millers are permitted to engage in the sale of this adulterated product and do it from year to year. I have a Bill before the House dealing with that subject and I .am not going to refer to what I hope the House

will consider or do with regard to it; but let me remind the hon. gentleman (Mr. Robb) that the millers of this country have justly earned for themselves the censure-
I was going to use a harsher expression than that-but they certainly are deserving of the censure of the people for the policy which they have pursued in the adulteration of these two important by-products of wheat.


James Alexander Robb: Why not expropriate them along with the railways?


Donald Sutherland: I am one who believes in competition. I think that governments have quite enough to do without interfering in matters that can much better be conducted by the people themselves-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear.


Donald Sutherland: -and if we have public ownership of railways in Canada 1 do not think anybody will say that it has been from a desire or any particular effort on the part of the Canadian people; it has come as a result of existing conditions and we have it whether we want it or not.
Now I do not intend to say anything further on this subject more than this: The agitation that was carried on before the Wheat Board was appointed, and the dissatisfaction expressed after that board's appointment, is somewhat significant and remarkable. Strange to say, it is very largely the same people who were agitating and objecting in both cases, which goes to show that it is absolutely impossible for the Government to try to please all the people-that is out of the question. However, I do want to emphasize the need for the Government to exercise great care with regard to this matter because wheat is the one commodity above all others-above even gold, which regulates the standard of living and prices in Canada as well as any other country. I do not think ' there is any getting away from that, it is conceded by every one who has studied the question; and I am not too sure even yet, in view of the fact that the wheat crop of Canada is not likely to he anything nearly as great as it would have been under more favourable conditions, whether it would not be advisable to let this cereal reach the consumer through the usual channel.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to say two or three words in connection with this discussion, The first is that under these unusual conditions in regard to the supply of wheat and of flour, and the measures that have had to be taken by the
Government on the other side and the Government here, one outstanding feature was the elimination of speculation in wheat from the Chicago market and from our Canadian markets. I think that was a good thing for the farmers of Canada and I do hope that lesson will in some way be continued. We have had better prices for wheat during the war, of course there was another reason for it, but without speculation in wheat by reason of the exchanges in Chicago and Winnipeg. That has been beneficial and if an advantage has been derived from it, let us continue the practice. Another thing has come out in this debate and that is that in these times-while speculation has been stopped as far as the grain exchange is concerned-there have been enormous profits made by the millers of this country in grinding. Now, are we watching those profits? Are we, in these times of stress and of great need of money Jor carrying on the business and the affairs of- the country, watching those profits of the Canadian millers, and are we getting our fair share in the way of -a profit tax? I think that should be looked into. My hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) referred to another thing and that is the price of mill feed. That is a matter that I have had farmers come to see me about. Only on Friday last I had a long talk with a farmer whose main grievance was the high price of mill feed. He is also a milk producer and he referred to the Board of Commerce then sitting in Toronto dealing with the price of milk. He inquired: "Why does not the Board of Commerce which is regulating the price of our milk see we get mill feed at a fair price, and ilso get real bran and shorts," as pointed out by my friend from Oxford " and not some adulterated feed"? The farmers have grievances in all these matters and those grievances ought to be removed. We ought to so arrange our national policy that if it be possible to sell the flour and keep the bran and shorts in our country for the live stock industry we ought to do it. I agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce that in connection with this sale to Greece we could not do that, perhaps it could not be financed in that way; but the national policy of Canada ought to be as the member for Oxford said, on the line of encouraging the shipment of flour in preference to wheat, and in that way have the benefit of the mill feed for our own country so as to encourage the Canadian live stock industry which is a great source of revenue to our farmers. Of course you cannot always dictate to the buyer what

he must take. That brings up another question, which was also referred to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland), that we can develop our railways just as much as we like, we can spend all the money we like in creating a national system of railways, but unless we have steamships under our own control in connection with our national railways, we will never be able to get the best advantage and dictate to the greatest extent the character of the export of our grain, whether it shall go as wheat or whether it shall go as flour. All this is on the line of national policy; I hope that the policy of the Government, the policy of this Wheat Board, and the policy of this Board of Commerce, will have in view on every occasion the securing of such prices and such handling of the profit as will be for the advantage of the country, and will see to it that the making of a great business out of speculating in wheat in this country shall not continue. Furthermore, if the millers are to make large profits out of the handling of our grain, reasonable taxes on those profits should be taken for the benefit of the treasury of the country. I hope that the Board of Commerce which is now fixing prices will see that when it is fixing the price for the farmers' milk-and the board is telling the farmers that they must not sell their milk beyond a certain figure-will also see to it that the millers are regulated in the prices they charge for mill feed, and that mill feed shall be of some kind of guaranteed quality.
If that is done it will be a benefit to the whole farming industry of this country. I quite agree with the minister that he has put forward a very fair case to justify the creation of this Board. I am not at all of the belief though that is to be the end of control of grain and other food products. The best security for the farming business of this country will be a constant regulation of the price of wheat, I believe, and, connected with that, an averaging of the price by years. I believe that a real substantial uplift will be given to farming, and especially to the production of wheat, when we can keep three crops of wheat in store, if that is found to be feasible-and I believe we can do it-coupled with a fixed price, and " valorizing," if I may use that word, in connection with such fixed price. If we can do that it will result in a real benefit for the country at large. We must also see to it that speculation is eliminated and that no unfair profits are made by the milling interests, but that the man who raises the wheat shall get every cent he
[Mr. W. P. Maclean.!
ought to get out of his industry as a grain grower.


Mr. MOLLOY:: the Government closed the market when it was an ascending market?	.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: This has developed into a very important discussion, Mr. Chairman. Apart altogether from setting the price of wheat, whether it sells at $2.10 a bushel or $2.50 a bushel, I think a very important point was brought out by my hon. friend the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) in his very excellent speech, namely, that tens of thousands, yes, I believe hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock has been poisoned by the action of the millers in mixing poisoned seeds in the stock feed they have sold throughout the country within the last few years. Last year a number of farmers brought to my attention the loss of their hogs from some mysterious complaint. One of them, after he had lost several hogs, had a sample of the feed sent down to the department here for analysis, and he received a very comforting reply to the effect that they did find poisoned seed in the sample, but they would not say that it was sufficient to kill a hog.


George Eulas Foster: They did not know the hogs tenacity of life.


John Albert Sexsmith: Every farmer handling feed put on the market, particularly during the last five or six years, has been paying for so-called shorts which was only ground bran, oat-hulls and every kind of dirt which the miller could add to the mixture and sell it as shorts. I do not know, but perhaps the millers also mix straw in what they sell as shorts, but they undoubtedly mix oat-hulls, corn cobs, with a sprinkling perhaps of corn, and many other things, with a trifle of cotton seed oil or oil cake to give the feed on analysis a showing of protein, and so practically rob the farmers. It is a very serious condition of affairs, Mr. Chairman. I do not like to charge the millers with the intention of deliberately going out to rob their patrons, but I will say that they deliberately deceive the people when they pretend to sell a commodity that is not at all up to the standard which the purchasers might reasonably hope to expect.
Six or eight years ago I introduced a Bill and it was placed on the Statute Book, which required the miller to put on the outside of the bag or other container an analysis of mixed feed. That regulation was observed to a certain extent, but not as rigidly as it should have been, and it seems to me that it is important that something should be done in the near future to absolutely prevent the sale of these mixed fraudulent feeds, and above all to prevent the sale of any feed containing a percentage of poisonous seeds. There is no reason under heaven why a miller should be allowed to mix in his stock feed seeds that are poisonous. Therefore I would like to ask the minister to take this into serious consideration and see if something cannot be done to prevent such a practice in the future.
Mr. MoOOIG: I agree with much that has been said by gentlemen who have spoken this afternoon, and have no doubt ithalt the discussion will be productive of good effects. I am glad that the minister is paying so much attention to the con>
plaints that are being made with regard to these matters. Complaints are heard from all parts of the country concerning the class of feed that is being sold at large prices throughout Canada, and anything that can be done to remedy that -condition will meet with the general approval of producers of stock.
It is complained by the farmers in m-any rural sections that they have been unable to sell their wheat. In my section of the -country we are receiving $1.94 for our wheat, but in many cases the- farmers are unable to get a market for it. The- present regulations seem to be having the effect of closing the elevators in the smaller centres; only in the large centres will the millers or grain buyers purchase wheat. If the operations of the Wheat Board -are -having -any bad effect in this regard the -minister should direct their -attention to the matter and see that this unfortunate state of -affairs is remedied. Would it not -be -advisable for this board-which, no doubt, will -be a grea-t expense to the people-to take into consideration the advisability of regulating the prices of agricultural -implements that -are absolutely necessary in the production of wheat? If the board would go thoroughly into this matter the fanners would he better satisfied, because they would feel that they were not the only class of the community whose products were being regulated as to price by Government or by a commission.
M-r. BOYCE: As one who has occasion to purchase considerable quantities of cattle feed, I wish to express my approval of some of the remarks that have been made this afternoon with regard to these feeds. I do not think that some of the millers are as had as they have been depicted, but I know

that sometimes they have been pretty bad. Three years ago we paid $20 a ton for bran; now we pay $50. If it was good feed, I would not object so much, but I have actually got bags of some kind of seed from this bran. I do not know what kind of seed it was, but I know that it was very bad indeed. There is no question about its being poisonous; I have seen hogs refuse to eat it. Of course, the cattle have to eat it because it is mixed with ensilage and such other feeds, but as food for hogs it is .poison of the worst description. Cattle are very expensive; you cannot get a cow for less than $150 or $200, and anything so valuable as that should not be fed with stuff that is apt to injure it. The Government, therefore, ought to investigate this matter and prevent such rubbish from being put on the market, at the same time fining the offenders so heavily that it wall be a lesson to others not to repeat the offence. The sooner this state of affairs is done away with the better for all concerned. The cost of everything is high now, and the farmers cannot afford to throw away their money in the purchase of stuff that is of no use to them.


Richard Coe Henders: The member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) raised a question with regard to the milling in this country of all our own wheat. I wish to point out that Great Britain takes an average of 75,000,000 bushels of our wheat yearly. She has a large population to feed. She grows a large quantity of wheat, but it is of a type that does not make the quality of bread that the British people want to eat. Britain, therefore, has to go to some otheT country for a wheat to blend with her own in order to bring the flour up to the standard required by her people. She has discovered that Canada is a producer of the kind of wheat that she requires. Other countries produce the same type of wheat; Siberia produces it, and so does Northern Russia. The price paid by Great Britain for the surplus wheat that she requires regulates in large measure the price of wheat on our own market-in fact, in the markets of the world. If Great Britain, therefore, because of our adopting the policy of grinding all our wheat in this country and selling simply the flour, is prevented from securing ill Canada the wheat which she requires she will go to Russia or Siberia for that wheat. That would mean that each year we would have this 75,000,000 bushels of wheat on our hands without a market. Furthermore, it would take out of our hands the very commodity that fixes the price we secure for the rest of our crop.
IMr. Boyce. 1
Can we afford to let that happen? Britain must have that type of wheat. We ought to be the very first to see to it that we secure that market for our wheat.
Some hon. members who have sipoken this afternoon have made reference to the kind of work that is being done by the millers and the kind of offal that they are sending out. Suppose we force the .millers to grind that 75,000,000 bushels of wheat yearly that ordinarily goes over to the Old Country, and they have to find a market in the Old Country for the offal from this 75,000,000 bushels of wheat. If they supply to the Old Country the same kind of offal that they supply to our own trade, what effect would that have upon our market in the Old Country? Not a very good effect, I am sure. But my main point is that the wheat that we send from this country is a determining factor in fixing the price that we receive lor the whole of our crop. We must keep production in this country in a healthy condition; otherwise we may put ourselves in such a position that we will have to go out of wheat production.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think that we should depart from what is a good policy for this country simply because the people of some other country require some of our wheat.
If we in this country are the sole producers of an article that must be had in other parts of the world, if other nations must have our goods, we must not, to the detriment of our own people, and to the extent of causing the production of poison for the hogs of this country, send wheat out of Canada. The minister is very sympathetic for men in Greece who may want wheat and for the cows in Greece that may want by-products. I do not see why his heart should be so tender for the Greek cow as against the Canadian, cow.


George Eulas Foster: As a matter of fact, it was a British cow.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Canadian people
who use the products of the cow require the by-products in this country, and if a Canadian is able to buy that by-product and if he has the money to pay for it at a reasonable price, I do not see why it should be put beyond his reach and sold to a man who cannot buy it at all, we ourselves being obliged to come to the fore and to furnish the money to the Greek who wants to buy the wheat and who takes it out of this country. By this process, we put the price away up in the clouds in this country for our own people; in fact, we put ourselves

in such a position that we have not the article at all, and I do not understand that to be good business. When the people of any country produce an article and there is in that country a fair price for that article under fair competition, I do not think it is the duty of a Government to interfere and to furnish money to a foreign country to buy that article and, by so doing, put the price beyond the normal and to make it difficult for our own people to exist. That is not good business, and that procedure should not be allowed to exist in this country; but that is what has been done, not only in wheat, but in clothing and various other articles. We find in this country clothing, exceedingly high in price and difficult to buy, because every shred of cloth that could be available in Canada is bought up, made into garments and sent out of the country, bought up by the money of the Canadian people. That is a policy which for the last few months I have been protesting against as much as I can, but my protests are of no avail, and we are dealing with ourselves and sending the result of our purchases out of the country and bringing no advantage whatever to the Canadian people.
I wish particularly to refer to this charge of fifteen cents that appears to be imposed upon grain in parts of Canada where we may say there is no grain trade at all. In the province from which I come the farmers raise for their own use what may be regarded as a fair quantity of food, but such a thing as exporting grain or flour or selling grain to any noticeable extent, is not known to our people at all. Within the last few years there have been established in Nova Scotia a few mills for the grinding of wheat, just as good mills and producing just as good flour as mills in the West or in Ontario. That has brought about the growing of more wheat, so that many farmers in Nova Scotia to-day produce sufficient wheat to furnish their own flour. There are only two or three of those mills in that province, and (the (farmers go to those mills with that wheat and have it ground; but I confess I never heard before of this impost of fifteen cents on every bushel that every farmer in Antigonish or Victoria or any other county in Nova Scotia may bring to a mill for the purpose of furnishing flour for his own family, and, by the way, getting the by-product of that for his stock. I wish as emphatically as I can to protest against any tax of that kind. Whatever benefits may inure to the farmer who is in this trade in the far West and who sells
grain and gets the benefit of this tax because it is necessary for sending his wheat to market, that does not in any way touch the farmer who may have a small quantity of wheat which he brings to a mill and has ground for his own purposes. He does not tax the railway; he does not tax the elevators; he has not the benefits of any of the machinery that is set up for the purpose of handling the larger quantity of grain. The minister should differentiate between the man whose business or living is the handling of grain and the farmer who raises a few bushels and who handles them entirely and exclusively for his own purposes and not with a view to entering into competition with anybody who is in the business of raising wheat or other grain for the purpose of selling for export or otherwise. If this tax is applied now, or if it is being collected now at the mills in my province or in the other Maritime Provinces where they have no grain worth speaking of to sell, steps should be taken to differentiate in the matter and to see to it that the tax is no longer collected.


George Eulas Foster: I will have that looked into and will give my hon. friend the information. Might I ask the committee to pass the resolution and to let me have my Bill introduced, and the discussion can be taken up and continued on the second reading of the Bill? I have not replied to several questions which have been put to me, because I want a little fuller information before I endeavour to give to the House just what is involved in some of these technical alternatives that they are making in the course of procedure.


Frank S. Cahill: Will the minister when
lie is making his explanations, be good enough to remember what the hon. member for Oxford South (Mr. Sutherland) said regarding the spread in price between bran and shorts?


George Eulas Foster: I have a note of that.
Resolution reported, and concurred in.
Sir GEORGE FOSTER thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, respecting the Canadian Wheat Board.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 12, to amend the Board of Commerce Act.
Donald Sutherland: In view of the prominence that has been given to the actions of the board during the past few days, I think it is very important that we should have some further information with regard to the effect of their attitude and what their policy is going to be before we consent to pass this Bill. The Board of Commerce have been given very wide powers indeed under the Act, and efforts have been made on a number of occasions during the past week to ascertain what the members of the board are doing. Apparently, members of this House here in session are not in a position to advise those who have sent us here as to the extent and effect of the xulings that are being made by this board. Some one may say that I have been rather too persistent in attempting to obtain information during the past week as to the Board of Commerce reported rulings on milk, etc., but I come from a county that is affected possibly to a greater degree than any other county in Canada, and I was endeavouring to look after the interests of my constituents. The ruling was made by a member of the board -by the vice-chairman, I understand, though I am not sure, and he seems to deny it-but we have an admission by the leader of the Government (Sir George Foster)this afternoon that the order was rescinded. It affected, as I have already pointed out, an industry that is highly developed, particularly in South Oxford-an industry of about five million dollars per annum for that county alone, and one that is rapidly growing. The province of Ontario to which the ruling applied produces more than one half of the total dairy products of the Dominion of Canada, which amounted in 1917, the last year for which we have the figures, to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100,000,000. At the time when we have a Bill before the House fixing the salaries of the members of this board who are given such extensive powers, we have a member of the board meeting the people in a glib and flippant way and making a ruling on which we are unable to obtain any definite information. I should like to read a statement which appeared in the Toronto papers, and I believe in other papers throughout the -country, on September 27, as follows:
That Man O'Connor Ties His Own Hands. Issues Reply to Critics and will let it go at that.
The sarcastic criticism to which he was subjected a few days ago from members in the House of Commons called forth an answering statement from Vice-Chairman W. F. O'Connor, 
K.C., of the Board of Commerce, at yesterday morning's sitting of the board at the City Hall. He emphatically declared that the speakers to whom he referred had dealt with "things that were not so."
The statement was as follows:
"Some days ago in the House of Commons certain observations were made affecting myself as to my character, disposition, attainments and otherwise. Certain of those who made these references to myself of the peculiar personal touch mentioned thought they were making them of a judge. This is a court, but not of judges, although these observations were made by those thinking the members were judges and therefore could not answer, as a judge is not allowed, nor is it considered proper for him to make any observations.
"To this board are given functions of an administrative and judicial nature combined. As to the observations regarding myself as to the things I have said or I have done, I say the things that I have been alleged to have said, I have not said, and those things that I have been said to have done, I have not done.
"The statements that the newspapers have published certain things that I have been alleged to have said or done is wrong. No paper ever published them. From the be. ginning to end every speaker dealt with things that were not so. But if everything was said which had been said, and if everything was done which I was alleged to have done, I would have an absolute and perfect right to do that thing.
"With respect to the gentleman who exhibited knowledge as to my earnings, and with peculiar appropriateness I mention him last, my earnings previous to 1914 were larger than they are now. If I chose to go out into the world my earnings would be larger than they are in the position I now All, and which I refused four times before accepting it on the fifth. While I am here I intend to do my duty and pay no more attention to any of these remarks.
"Those who wish to make any remarks like this in the future are making them of a man who has tied his own hands, and not of one whose hands are tied by either law or custom."
Well, if his hands are tied, he has shown the people of this country that his tongue, at all events, is not tied. He does not give out very much edifying information in this statement which he is alleged to have made in the city of Toronto a few days ago.
I picked up The Toronto Globe on Saturday morning and noticed in the middle of the third page a small paragraph of four lines which intimated that the Board of Commerce had passed a ruling of some kind which would be found in another column. I searched the paper carefully, page by page, but was unable to locate the ruling. I went over it again, but failed to locate the ruling, although I noticed a statement that the Board of Commerce had met and an account of what they had done, but there was no reference whatever to the order that had been issued at Hamilton, when Mr. O'Connor, according to newspaper reports,


SEPTEMBER 30, 1919 G85
[Stage Direction]
threatened to fine and imprison any one who would dare to increase the price of farm produce during the next forty days. After going over the paper a couple of times, column by column, I found on the social page under a large half-inch type heading "What Women are Doing," in a column at the top of which was a prayer, Lord make it fit the article, but after reading it I was unable to understand what change the board had made, and that was the reason why I was anxious, if possible, to have an answer this afternoon to the question I was justly entitled to put to the leader of the Government. We now have the admission that the order has been rescinded.
Mr. PEDLOW:: Was that in answer to the prayer at the head of the column?


Donald Sutherland: I presume it was; 'however, this is the condition of affairs. Now, I regret exceedingly that the press of this country has given as much prominence as it has to certain things that have been done or are alleged to have been done by these gentlemen-and not publish the fact that the injunction had been rescinded. I was rather amused to see in some of the papers a photograph of the two commissioners coming down the steps of a building-I think it was in Montreal-with large calabash pipes in their mouths and satchels in their hands, beneath the picture being the terse allegation: "Nothing to do." They had evidently straightened out all the trouble in connection with the cost of living; there was nothing else for them to do; and apparently they were two of the most contented men one could imagine.
An hon. MEMBER; They were in Montreal.


Donald Sutherland: I believe that is where the picture was taken, but they were not in the district where the vice chairman, Mr. O'Connor's ruling applied. His ruling applied only to the provinpe of Ontario. Right across the river from here you find a different condition entirely. I believe that in the city of Ottawa milk is selling higher than it has been in almost any other part of Ontario. Why have the board singled out one particular province, and what is the real condition of affairs to-day? These are questions which I think this House should know or have some definite information on in regard to the operations of the board, and a statement should be made concerning what they intend to do. We desire to know something as to the effect of their ruling in connection with dairy produce in this country. Any one who
knows anything about agriculture realizes that at the end of the summer season, when the pastures are dried up, when the cold weather approaches and stock have to be stabled, feed is much more expensive than it is under other conditions, That is the situation now, and you will find in almost every section of Canada that there is an increase in prices at the beginning of October. Yet one of these commissioners threatens to tie up this industry which, as I have pointed out, amounts to about fifty millions of dollars in this province. They threaten to take this drastic step regardless of the effects it will have on production in Canada, which, is pre-eminently the panacea for our present, chaotic difficulties. It is not by ill-considered restrictions issued without due consideration as to its effect by a well paid Board of Commerce that you will reduce the cost of living, for such restrictions will only tend to put an end to production.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Donald Sutherland: When the House rose at six o'clock I was referring to the possibility of the object sought for when, the Board of Commerce was appointed being defeated by reason of the course that members of the Board are pursuing. I feel very strongly that, whatever be the -aim of the board, the course they have followed during the past week is likely to have that result. I think the opinion of the country was unanimously in favour of the purpose sought to be accomplished when the Bill creating the Board was passed. It was the desire of the people of Canada to see that profiteers, those who were charging undue prices, should not be permitted to continue to do so. That, I think, was clearly Parliament's object when the board was appointed. I made some reference before six o'clock to what the hoard have been doing during the past two weeks-particularly to the operations of the vice-chairman of the board, and the ruling which he is alleged to have recently made-and to the lack of information before this House as to what the board are really doing. I also referred to the fact that in order to overcome the difficulties with which we are faced, and in order to meet the obligations that have to be met by this country, it is important and absolutely essential that the production of Canadian exports should be very greatly increased rather than curtailed in any way. That, I think, is quite

evident to every one who has looked at this question seriously and who sincerely desires that we should be placed in the best possible position.
Now, the situation is one which makes it necessary to deal with personal matters, which is not a very pleasant thing to do namely, the salaries of the men who have been appointed to the board, this being the subject dealt with by the Bill now before the committee. I would not say the salaries in question were too large if we had the right men to conduct this work; but we have had what I believe to be absolutely convincing evidence that the members of the board have made a wrong start, that they are not following the lines that Parliament desired they should follow, and that they are not likely to accomplish the purpose contemplated when the statute in question was enacted. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer more particularly to a ruling which is alleged to have been made by Mr. O'Connor either in Hamilton or Toronto. In order to do so, let me quote from what the newspapers have published on the subject, and up to now that is all the evidence in the matter that this House has before it. In the Toronto newspapers of September 17, I find the following:
Stop Upward Move.
This is not the time for an increase in prices. Prices should go down from now on. In this connection I wish to announce now that all vendors, from the farmer who increases prices on milk or anything else, will be guilty of an indictable offence punishable by a fine of $1,000 and two years' imprisonment."-W. F. O'Connor at Hamilton.
Mr. Speaker, these are very heavy penalties to impose on a'ny one who might think he was carrying on a legitimate business and endeavouring to do so at a very reasonable profit and it might be at a loss. An order, or injunction, is issued and a threat implieed that if the parties concerned do not comply with it the penalties mentioned will be enforced. Now, I would like to know from the minister who is leading the House whether this board has the power to impose any such penalties or not? I think it would be in the interest of all concerned to know whether we have placed such absolute powers in the hands of the board. If it is true, then instead of passing the present Bill I think we should certainly see that the measure does not proceed any further.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The power of the board is not for the imposing of punishment on their own authority. When they make an inquiry and find that a person in their judgment has been guilty of unduly en-
|}Mr. Sutherland.]
hancing prices, or has committed the offences set out in the Act, it will then become their duty to make a finding. A report of that finding would be submitted to the Attorney General of the province and a proceeding' might be instituted, but the punishment would finally be imposed by a court.


Donald Sutherland: What about the
penalty?


Charles Joseph Doherty: At the moment I have not got the Criminal Code before me and the precise penalty to which a man may be liable for an offence committed under the Act I am not prepared to state; but it does not belong to the board to impose a penalty for an offence of that kind. The result of their report, following any inquiry, would be that, the matter being so referred, a prosecution might be instituted, and the court before whom the trial would take place would fix the penalty to be imposed for such an offence. Perhaps I might suggest that if it is a matter of giving information-and I am most anxious to give that information as far as it lies in my power- we could deal with that feature of the subject more conveniently in Committee than would be the case at present by interrupting the hon. member's speech.


Donald Sutherland: I can hardly understand a responsible commissioner making a statement of that kind, and I hope that is one of the statements that Mr. O'Connor will deny having uttered. I notice in the papers to-day that the board has also decided to fix the price of pork and pork products at the level at which they stood a year ago. It will be remembered that about a year and a half ago Mr. O'Connor, who was then on the Cost of Living Commission, made a statement with regard to the profits that certain packing houses were making, and as to how they should be regulated. Well, as a result of the ruling that has been made in Toronto with regard to the price of pork and pork products it will be found that it will not be the packers who will suffer, but that it will again be the producers.
Now, I would ask those hon. members who have an intimate knowledge of conditions throughout the rural districts during the past twenty-five years whether there has not been a continual movement from those districts to the urban centres? Is it not a fact that the greatest difficulty we have to contend with as the years pass is how to prevent the young people and the middle-aged leaving the farms and going

into the towns and cities? If you go through the old-settled districts, Mr. Speaker, you will find empty houses everywhere. During the debate on the advisability of the Government doing something to solve the housing problem, I often thought that we have in the rural districts ample housing accommodation to take care of a great many more people than are in those districts to-day. I believe that the rulings the Board of Commerce are now making will have a tendency to further aggravate that situation. As I mentioned this afternoon, I believe in competition, and I further believe that where you eliminate competition and fix prices, you are doing something that is not in the public interest, something that is bound to defeat the very object you have in view. If you once start out to fix the prices of certain commodities it will become absolutely necessary to fix prices all along the line. That is the difficulty I see with regard to fixing an eight-hour day and a minimum wage scale, for once you do that you have to carry that out in every branch of industry, and it can not be done in agriculture.
Now, what has been the result with regard to the very industry that this Board of Commerce ruled on in Toronto but a few weeks ago?-I refer to the dairy industry. During the war it is well known that as a result of the difficulty in securing shipping facilities the price of our cheese was fixed by the British Food Control Board, and practically exists to-day. The result of that price-fixing is that in the old districts where cheese factories have been established for fifty or sixty years they are closing up one after another. In order to bring that home a little more forcibly I want to refer to a statement which I noticed in the local press of Oxford a few days ago. A "statement, made by a well known cheese buyer in the city of Woodstock, who a few years ago came there from one of the adjoining counties, was as follows :
The cheese industry will soon toe a thing of the past in the province of Ontario. In the vicinity of Woodstock alone during the past few years thirty cheese factories have been closed up, and in the district from which I come-

which, I believe, was St. Thomas, in
the county of Elgin

over one hundred cheese factories have been closed up during the past few years.
That is one of the things we have to face largely as a result of the fixing of prices and the low price of cheese. The price of
cheese is not keeping pace with the price of other dairy products. The same remark applies to butter. In fact, the majority of dairymen in the county from which I come buy their butter; they do not make it for the simple reason that they are selling their milk to better advantage.
It is now proposed to step in and to close up some of the channels or avenues of trade that have been developed and are proving profitable. You would be surprised to know, Sir, the millions of dollars that are being invested in this country by what is known as the. American Milk Produce Company. Large condenseries are being established here by the parent firms in the United States with branches scattered all over the country. Some of the British firms aTe also establishing factories in this country. As a matter of fact, this is one of the most profitable branches of dairying that we have to-day. And that is the reason why I was so anxious that we should have some announcement from the Government as to whether the order passed by the Board of Commerce on the 16th instant was to apply to all dairy products, because prices are fixed at about the 25th of the month to apply on the following month. I am not very clear even yet as to the effect of that ruling, and I think that is one of the un* satisfactory features of having ,a commission doing the things that ought to be done by Parliament itself. I am absolutely opposed to delegating to irresponsible commissioners the duties that ought to be performed by the people's representatives and by the Government. To me it does not seem to be in keeping with responsible Government because in the final analysis I will be held responsible by the people who sent me here for the absolutely irresponsible acts of these men whose salaries we are asked to provide in this Bill.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: A sensible speech.


Donald Sutherland: I want to say further, Mr. Speaker, that I have evidence that another branch of this industry, the butter branch, is being adversely affected by the Board of Commerce. It is not very long ago that we permitted oleomargarine to be imported and to be manufactured in this country and to incorporate butter into it to deceive people so that it would give the grease or tallow that the packers were manufacturing into oleomargarine the flavour of butter. As a result of that action, I believe, we have done much to destroy a branch of the dairying industry; and now we propose to' permit a board such as I have

referred to to destroy another branch. Evidence was given by the packing interests before the Cost of Living Committee appointed at the last session of this House, land the general manager of one of the packing companies-I believe it was the Davies Company, but I am not sure as to that-stated when questioned as to ithe quantity of butter they held in cold storage, "Why, we buy up all the June butter that we possibly can." "Why June butter?" he was asked, "Because it is so highly coloured that it will colour oleomargarine and make it look and taste like butter," he replied. That is what the packers are doing. By Act of Parliament we provided that they must not put any colouring into their margarine, and in order to get over that difficulty they buy highly coloured butter and incorporate it with tallow, thereby accomplishing their purpose and defeating the very object we had in view when framing the law, that of preventing colouring being added.
I referred to the fact that the population in the rural districts was gradually being reduced and I want to make some further reference to that, because I regard this as a very serious matter. You may say that the farmers are reaping undue profits at the present time; I say that there never was a greater feeling of unrest in the rural dictricts of Canada than there is to-day. Why is that the case? Not because they are not getting pretty fair remuneration for their labours but by reason of the fact that they have to do more work than should be necessary on the part of any one, for labour is not to be had. By working long hours, early in the morning and late at night, they have been able to carry on, but they have in many instances come to the conclusion that the game is not worth the candle. They have got tired of it. We have passed, or permitted to go into effect, what is known as Daylight Saving which has further aggravated the situation. Agriculture to-day requires not only industry but the application of scientific principles. You who have made a study of what the successful agriculturists of this country are doing will Teadily appreciate that. There are many who, knowing little or nothing about what the farmers are doing or what they have to contend with, think it is merely a matter of sowing the seed in the spring, taking off the harvest in the fall and then sitting around all winter and waiting until springtime comes round again. That is not the case. I believe a prosperous, contented and happy people is the nation's greatest asset, for if there is

one lesson taught by history it is that the permanent greatness of any country must ultimately depend more upon the character
of its country population than upon anything else; no growth of cities, no growth of wealth, can make up for a loss in either the number or the character of the farming population. It wrnuld be a calamity to have our farms occupied by a lower class of people than the hard-working, self-respecting, independent and manly men and women who first settled in this country.
The words I have just spoken are not wholly my own; they are quoted from recollection from a speech of the late Theodore Roosevelt. He was speaking of the United States, but his words, unfortunately, apply equally to Canada, and not to Canad-a only but practically to every country in the world. We ought to be very careful indeed to see that we do not do anything, or permit any commission which has been appointed by this House to do anything that will further aggravate the situation. If you look . over this country with its vast extent of nearly four thousand miles from ocean to ocean and realize its enormous agricultural resources, and possibilities you can come to no other conclusion than that the very foundation upon which we must build for the future and to meet our obligations is the agricultural industry. Yet you permit this industry to be attacked by this commission at the very outset. Why did they not go after those people who, it is claimed, have been profiteers? Mr. O'Connor alluded to the packing industries of this country. Why does be not get after them if they are the profiteers he alleges they are in place of going after the producers?
Mr. CAHILL; Because the Government will not let him.


Donald Sutherland: I think the hon. gentleman will -agree with me that the Government have not very -much control o-ver them, -and that is the reason why I want this House to be very careful indeed before they pass this Bill to fix the salaries of men, one of whom at least it is apparent is unfit to carry on the duties that we have entrusted to him. I do not -blarhe the Government altogether in this -matter. There was a clamour throughout the length and breadth of the country that Mr. O'Oonnor had been removed from office by the Government as the result of certain things which he sai-d about Sir Joseph Flavelle a.n-d the Davies Packing Company. That feeling was quite evident. It was general throughout the county from which I come,

and I have no doubt that hon. gentlemen have been bombarded from all quarters to have this man O'Connor reinstated. I want to put on record a letter I received from the County Council of Oxford under date of April 24, 1918:
The following is a copy of a resolution passed by the County Council at a special session held on the 22nd day of April, 191S :
Moved by Councillor Lilllco, seconded by Councillor Denton, and resolved:-"That this Council desire to express their regret that Mr. O'Connor, Cost of Living Commissioner, should have resigned and that his resignation should have been accepted.
" Mr. W. F. O'Connor has shown himself an independent and fearless official, and we are of the opinion that when found, such a man should he retained in the service of the country: and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the representatives of the county in the Federal House."
Carried unanimously by a standing vote.
Certified,
N. E. Birtch, County Clerk.
I am not going to say to the House what the opinion of some of these people is in regard to Mr. O'Connor to-day. He has trod on their toes a little sooner, evidently, than they had expected. If there are profiteers to be found among the farmers or any other class in this country I hope they will he shown up and punished. As soon as the chairman of the commission arrives here and consults with his colleague there is a stay of proceedings and the ruling or injunction assured by Mr. O'Connor is not put into effect. It appears that the order has been rescinded and that a very substantial increase in the price of milk has already taken place. The price cf milk in some of the cities-in Toronto at least- for an eight-gallon can, containing 80 pounds was $2.55. Since the new ruling has been made, 1 understand, the price has been increased to $3.10 per eight-gallon can, or $3.87J per hundred. There is absolute proof that this man, O'Connor, issued the first order without giving any consideration as to the merits of the case and without evidence. The fact that a substantial increase has taken place condemns the attitude, actions and threats of that commissioner. In the face of that condemnation by the chairman, as well as by himself, are you going to say that he is worth $8,000 a year to this country? If that conduct is pursued it is going to cost this country hundreds of millions of dollars instead of being a benefit to the country. There is no getting away from that.
I thought at the time, and I still think, tha* we have, or ought to have, in the various departments of the Government
the machinery to put into effect all that we are expecting this board to do, and we could then hold the departments or the Government responsible for what they were do'ng. I still think that would be much better than the course which we are pursuing.
I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the House with regard to this matter* but I want to place myself on record as being absolutely opposed to paying the salary of a man, or the salaries of men who, I am satisfied, will, as a result of their unfitness for the position of carrying on the work which we intended they should do, cost this country millions of dollars.


Frank S. Cahill: Before the hon. member takes his seat, I should like to ask him a question. If his speech is to any purpose, I think he should move an amendment, to give this measure the six months' hoist.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member has submitted no question whatever.
Mr. SAMUEL F. GLASS (Middlesex East): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House and the country will feel indebted to the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) for having presented this matter in the form he has to the House. The Bill before the House has to do with a proposed increase in the allowance or salary which shall be paid to each of the members of the commission who in their proper sphere have very important functions to perform. We would naturally think that the first important requirement would be for the men who were appointed to that commission to have given some demonstration of their efficiency for their important duties. It may not be fair for me generally to criticise the fitness of the members of this commission, and I do not intend to imply that I am criticising their fitness, because 1 believe, from what I have heard of the gentlemen who occupy positions on that commission, that they are men of ability. As the hon. member for South Oxford has pointed out, from all parts of this country came the call to this Government to recognize the outstanding fitness of Mr. O'Connor for just such an appointment. But it might have been well had that commission had on it some outstanding figure representative of the great agricultural productive interest of this country, so that he might have been a stay and a guide to them in considering the important matter of production.
This is not a new thing in this country. There is an ample reason for the condition



in which we find ourselves to-day, and the same condition exists in all parts of the world. If there be one thing that is more important than another, and the importance of which is realized by other countries, it is that if we are to get down to lower levels, that can be accomplished ultimately only by a greater production from the resources of the soil. The hon. member for South Oxford has referred to the importance and the stability of rural life, to the splendid men who have been raised on the farms of this country. He has well and rightly said so. The quotation he gave from remarks of the late President Theodore Roosevelt, was appropriately duplicated by Mr. Lloyd George in July last when, meeting a deputation of the Agricultural Committee of the House of Commons, he said:
I do not think there is an industry in mis land which is as important to its life, to its health, to its strength. It is the place to grow men. The mines of South Weirs would have been derelict, they would have had to be worked by black labour, if it had not been for the big, brawny men brought up in the agricultural districts of Wales and Somerset and the Western Counties. This nation has been living on its capital in more way than was imagined, It has been living on its capital in strength. These people brought from the agricultural districts are its capital in vitality; and that has been eaten up by the industrial life the country without anything being put into the bank again. On the contrary, it has been drained and drained and drained; and unless we put our backs into this I think the prospect will be a serious one, and it will show we are not a nation which can understand a lesson when it is taught us, when it is written by the finger of Providence clearly for us, even in the blood of our own children.
Proceeding, Mr. Lloyd George made this important statement:
Therefore I think it is important that we should, during the next year or two, immediately put our minds on the best methods of developing the agricultural resources of this country, and bringing the population hack. I can see in France what a difference it makes now; it gives them a sense of security. When you talk about Bolshevism, M. Clemenceau says, you must remember half our population is on the land. You cannot make a Bolshevist on the soil; it is not the place to make him, especially if you give him some sort of an interest in it. Therefore I think it is right, and as far as I am concerned I need no convincing about the overwhelming importance of this problem, but it has got to be done thoroughly; and I am very sanguine, from my experience of those who are on the land, that they are going to look at It from a patriotic point of view.
We know that what Mr. Lloyd George said on that occasion is equally true in this country of ours, namely, that the farms have been drained, not only through the war, hut through decades past. The very

best of our life-blood has been drawn into the cities to engage in industrial pursuits of various kinds, and we are not giving back to the soil, to the farm, any of that brawn and sinew which have been the strength of our agriculture in years past. This country must face that situation. We cannot get on; we cannot meet the enormous responsibilities of this nation nor solve the problem of the enormous debt we have to face unless some unusual effort is put forth to stimulate production on the farm-. How are we going to do that? It seems to be one of those problems that, even during the war, it was impossible to solve. During the war we induced our industrial community, our town life and our city life, to get out on to the soil; we interested the women, and they responded nobly in their efforts to assist in production in this country; but just as sure as the night follows the day, unless we can solve this problem of greater production, we are not going to solve the problem of cheaper living. And we are not going to do this by commissions such as we have if they commence by striking right at the very, base of production. If a commission were appointed, or if sober men were to set themselves to a consideration of the important problem of how best to stimulate production, how best to carry on that propaganda which was so effective during the long years of the war, the result might be a much earlier reduction in the prices of the necessities of life. There are functions for this commission to perform in connection with that.
I am of opinion that one of the greatest difficulties, and one of the greatest causes of unrest and increased cost, is the inordinate greed of the distributor. There are, of course, different kinds of middlemen. There is the middleman who, at an opportune time, when production seems to be short and when the prospect of prices ascending seems certain, corners supplies of food stuffs and holds them in cold storage to await the higher values that are bound to come. These are illegitimate middlemen who should not be allowed to exist, and wherever in this country there are cold storage plants holding large supplies of food for higher prices, there is a root of evil at which this board can well strike and eradicate altogether. The man who is engaged in -trade as his regular calling in life is in a different position, but nevertheless it is just as necessary that he should be carefully watched and not be allowed to extort exorbitant prices from the people of this country.

The price of milk has been under discussion this evening, and the case has been well put before the House by my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). I am glad that at last he had the opportunity of putting this matter squarely before the House, because I have observed that during the past few weeks he has been consistently thwarted in his efforts to get some information on this important subject. A high price for milk is not peculiar to this country; it is the same all over the United States and Great Britain. I have in my hand a copy of The London Times of September 12 last, and these are the words of Mr. G. H. Roberts, M.P., Food Controller:
Fears and apprehensions had been expressed by many persons as to the future price of milk. He had been advised that he must not allow milk to reach a certain figure, otherwise there would be universal discontent. On the other hand he was told that unless he largely exceeded that figure, no milk would be produced. For a month or two past he had been going through all sorts of reports from all standpoints, and he could say that the cost of producing milk was three times that before the war.
He had reluctantly, therefore, come to the conclusion that the price of milk this winter must be three times the pre-war cost.
That was to him a very alarming prospect, for it might place milk beyond the reach of large sections of the poorer people. Yet, if milk could not be produced and sold at a reasonable profit below a certain figure, then that figure had to be granted. He wished to emphasize that the prices issued by the Mini-try were maximum prices and they could be modified in many districts.
The report says further:
The Director of Milk Supplies has written a letter to Mr. Harry Binner, of the Industrial Reconstruction Council, in reference to a statement by Mr. Binner that there was no excuse for the high price of milk, if supplies were sufficient to permit of " strapping male adults " drinking large glasses of milk in the tea shops. He states:-
"Milk is an extremely valuable food, not only for children, but for adults, and at times when there is an adequate supply for everyone there can be no objection to adults consuming milk. Even at the present high prices, milk is a relatively cheap food."
In Great Britain they made an effort to conserve their cream by forbidding it to be used for any other purpose than that of making butter. The fixing of milk prices in Great Britain brought out its production cost, and the Commission that was appointed to investigate the matteT came to the conclusion that the cost of producing a gallon of milk in the summer time was Is. 4jd., that is, 33 cents. I cannot conceive on what grounds we could assume that the cost of producing milk in this country is
less than in Great Britain, where they have splendid pastures and the cows give heavy milking. The foodstuffs for cattle there do not cost any more, I presume, than here, and therefore in view of the ascertained cost of producing milk in Great Britain can any one say that the price of milk in this country has been inordinately high? Let me point out-I am speaking more particularly of the western part of Ontario- what has been the factor that has regulated the price of milk there during recent years. It 'has been the price that the condensing factories or the evaporated milk factories could afford to pay the farmer for his supply. If the condensing factory finds that it can raise the price of milk to $3.25 a hundred pounds, it must necessarily follow that if the farmer has to choose between selling his milk to the distributor in the city at $2.50 or $2.75 a hundred pounds, or to the condensing factory at $3.25, he is going to sell his milk to the condensing factory. And if you are going to put a board between that man and his market, what is going to happen? He is not going to produce for that lower price. He is going to shut off production at once. The effect of the board's action will be a largely decreased production of milk.
I find by the last issue of the London Times received here that they have fixed the price of milk in Great Britain for the coming winter. How did they do it? They did not set a fixed price for the whole winter, but graded the price according to the season and the varying possibility of production. They fixed the price to the consumer for a quart of milk as follows: October, lid., or 22 cents; November, December, January, February and March, Is., or 24 cents. With the return of spring in April and the possibility of pasturage, milk drops back to lid. No regulations are made covering the following months. The wholesale price per gallon from the producer is fixed at 2s. 2d. Our price here is fixed at 39 cents. Even after paying the exorbitant price to the profiteer-farmer, as they have called him, 39 cents is away under the price authorized to he paid to the producers in Great Britain. The wholesale price to the producer in Great Britain has been fixed as follows, per gallon: October, 2s. 2d., November 2s. 8d., December January and February, 3s. 3d.; March, 3s. 0d.; April, 2s. 2d. When we compare those prices with the prices here I do not think there is any reason why this board should endeavour to undermine at its very base the milk supply of this country.


Mr. BOYCE:: It takes more than that.


Samuel Francis Glass: If that be so, then I presume we make better cheese and the percentage of butter fat is greater in our milk. But, even assuming my hon. friend to be correct, it shows that the cost of production of cheese in Great Britain is around 40 cents a pound.

I am safe in saying, however, that it must cost considerably more than that because the price the Government pays the producer is 48 cents a pound. On the other hand, our farmers here are offered 25 cents a pound, and the purchasing of New Zealand and Australian cheese makes it possible to bring the average cost down so that the British Government can sell to the wholesaler at 31 cents ia pound.'
I think these facts clearly indicate the disadvantage of the farmer here as compared with producers in Great Britain. A oareful and scientific study has been made of the cost of production by men who know, and if it costs 40 cents to produce a pound of cheese in Great Britain I do not see how there can be excessive (profit in production in this country at 25 cents a pound. The farmers have said all along that these prices for dairy products do not give an adequate return and reasonable encouragement, and in addition to this unfavourable condition the farmer is confronted with the element of uncertainty in regard to his market. My hon. friend from South Oxford referred to the large reduction in the production of cheese. This is due to some extent to the uncertainty of the market, and also, in a measure, to the fact that the condensing factories can afford to pay a higher price for milk than the cheese maker can in order to sell cheese at the world's market prices. We have to meet this situation, and at this juncture I might refer to the comments made in the Farmers' Advocate of Saturday last. The Farmers' Advocate has observed the movements of this commission, and it says-:	[DOT]
The logical place to begin is at the beginning, and trace an article through the various channels of production and distribution to its ultimate destination, the consumer.
No one will deny the truth of this statement.
Already the agitation amongst consumers has given rise to a whole series of investigations by governmental agencies. Great Britain, the United States and Canada are each making strong efforts to reduce the costs of food-stuffs, and the effects are already noticeable. The man who noticed them first, however, is the farmer; just as he is the last to gain by any increases in values. When hogs took a sudden drop in the United States market, due to a combination of consumer, government and packer, it was some time before a reduction of price was noticeable in retail stores.
History repeats itself -and right in this country we are experiencing that condition at the present time.
Nevertheless, the price has stayed down for the farmer in spite of the same exceptionally

high cost of production. This phenomenon is being repeated in Canada, where, due to a combination of circumstances to which United States and Great Britain have contributed, prices of hogs have suddenly and seriously declined. Here is where the Board of Commerce, which has such full powers, might do some permanent good in the interests of the consumer and producer alike. Last year, with bran and shorts around $40 to $45 a ton, oil-cake in the neighbourhood of $70, and prepared hog feeds in the vicinity of $60 per ton there was not enough difference between market prices for live hogs and the cost of production to encourage farmers to increase their output. Bran and shorts, since then, have risen to about the $60 plane, oil-cake is in the neighbourhood of $85 when it can be obtained, oats are worth between $2.80, and $3 per hundred, depending upon whether they are new or old, and prepared hog feeds have been climbing up towards $70 per ton	
A more complete analysis of the situation reveals several important facts. A combination of these feeds, such as have just been mentioned, will range around 3$e. per pound, and it requires about five pounds of grain to make a pound of gain. It will, therefore, cost in the neighbourhood of 16c. per pound for feed alone to produce hogs ; but it has been demonstrated at the Central Experimental Farm, that the feed cost is only 67 per cent of the total cost of production, so that on the basis of these figures, hogs should sell for $20 and over.
The farmer says that at present prices there is no encouragement to increase production of hogs, and I think that this view is only in accordance with the truth and the facts as they have been clearly demonstrated. In view of the present high prices of food stuffs he will not be justified, with the falling price of hogs, in increasing his production. The markets of Great Britain are glutted with bacon, some of which is spoiling on the wharfs and in cold storages by reason of difficulties in transportation and so sorth. At present there is a cessation of importation from this country, and as a result the farmer who has produced hogs on high-priced food stuffs now finds himself bound to sell in a depressed market. If we are to have a satisfactory and stable production we must have a steady fixed prices. Great Britain is fixing the prices of wheat for next year, and it has also fixed the prices for many other commodities. No country has more fully realized the need of increased production to the limit of possibility than Great Britain has done during these serious years of war, and she is not relaxing her endeavours at present. By various means she is' encouraging production for next year, and has appointed a commission with a view to ascertaining how best agriculture may be stimulated. During the wa*r the Department of Agriculture in this country issued to the farmers a pamphlet which was brimful
of patriotism. It presented the situation that prevailed throughout the world and eloquently pictured the urgent need there was for a miximum of production. Even in our towns and cities, by means of back gardens and otherwise, an effort was made by local committees with the result that there was an enormous production. What happened last year? As soon as the Armistice was signed the farmer, unable to gauge world conditions as was possible in countries where a minimum price was guaran-ted by the Government, had no encouragement and necessarily became pessimistic. He was afraid there would be a reaction in prices which might drop to such a level that he could not produce at a profit.
Sir, I say now, as I said a few nights ago, I think it was incumbent on the Government at a time like that to give leadership. The Department of Agriculture of this country were pretty well aware of what the conditions were, and if that same effort to stimulate production had gone on amongst the people in the rural parts last year we would now have had a much larger production than has been the ease. I point this out, although not so much in criticism of what was done last year, in view of the opinion of the world's statesmen, such as Lloyd George and other men who thoroughly understand the situation, that the duty incumbent upon the Federal Department of Agriculture, and of the Department of Agriculture of every province in Canada for the next year is to get at the very root of the matter and see by what means and by what efforts they can best stimulate the greatest production of foodstuffs in the coming year. Talk as they may, and appoint commissions as they may to regulate matters, the law of supply and demand is going to count in the matter of the prices of food. And, Sir, all the commissions this Government can employ or can appoint will not, by any system of reasoning or argument, or by any orders which they may promulgate, encourage the farmer to greater production by limiting his prices. As I have said before, the farmers of Canada at their meetings throughout the country have declared: " Leave us alone. We are willing to take our chances on the world's market." Great Britain does not take that attitude, but that is because Great Britain needs a big production at home in order to conserve her tonnage. The more foodstuffs she can produce there the less she has to import and the less shipping she has to provide. But our farmers say:	"Leave us alone.
We will take the world's prices, we will take our chances. Do not hamper us and throw

bring their little production of an acre or two acres of flax to the scutching mill, and Mr. Larose would scutch it for them and deliver the fibre. They took the fibre back to their homes and there with their old loom and hand spinning-wheel made it into linen. I am told that the farmers down there spin a very nice quality of linen which is used for cloaks for the clergy and for other purposes. Now, Sir, this man in connection with scutching-and this is the part. I wish to emphasize to show how much native wealth is lying idle-had accumulated four tons of what we call tow, that is the waste when they are getting the shell from the straw and extracting the fibre. In years gone by it was used mostly for upholstering furniture. This man had not been able to find a market for it, but the flax expert of the experimental farm, Mr. Hutchinson, who happened to be down that way and had seen the quality of flax, asked why he did not market all this good tow. The man replied, "I do not know where to sell it." Mr. Hutchison said to him, "Give me a sample and I will find you a market for it." He took a sample, and in a week got an offer of 28 cents a pound, $560 a ton, or $2,240 for the four tons of waste lying in the man's barn, its value not appreciated. Of course, at present high prices the value of that tow would be very much greater. My friends in the province of Quebec grow as good flax as anywhere in the world. Why don't they get going down there, why don't they get up steam and show us what they can do in the way of greater flax production? I hope to be able to aid in such a way that we may give them that protection which they are so fond of and encourage them to develop this industry. I am told that already in the province of Quebec there are three thousand acres under contract for the production of flax next year.


Mr. JACOBS:: What about the price ol milk?


Samuel Francis Glass: Well, I got away from milk.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Samuel Francis Glass: I am rather inclined to agree though with every word of my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). 1 am of opinion that the present prices of milk are not inordinately high. I cannot say whether those prices give a decent profit to the farmer, but I do say this, Sir, that it is an extraordinary thing, that notwithstanding the statemens that have been made on behalf of the farmers in the dairy
districts, unless they have cows of the highest producing capacity they are giving up their herds, and unless a cow produces more than 4,000 pounds of milk her owner cannot afford to keep her at the present prices of feed.
I do not take the position my hon. friend did and say that these commissioners are not worthy of their hire, or that the salaries we purpose to give them are inordinately high. They are men of outstanding capacity, Mr. O'Connor is a man of peculiar fitness as an accountant and for ferreting into facts and figures, and I believe he will prove a useful member of the commission. But I think, Sir, the discussion in this House may have, indeed, I believe it has already had, its effect in leading the commissioners to believe that they were working along unsound lines when they commenced to attack the producer. Therefore I hope that as a result of what has been said in this House, and with 'the little experience the commissioners have had, they will desist from taking any further action against the producer, and instead will try to solve correctly the problem of increasing production.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one or two observations on this subject, and I promise not to take more than two or three minutes. It does seem to me that this discussion has wandered very far from the Bill before the House. I cannot help thanking that our good friends the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) and the member for East Middlesex (Mr. Glass) have become unduly exercised and are labouring to make out a case in favour of the farmer. So far as I can see no blow has been struck at the farmer by this Board of Commerce. It is perfectly true that an order was talked about or passed by one of the members of the board, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) informed the House this afternoon that that order has been rescinded. As a matter of fact, that is the only evidence, if it be evidence, that can be brought against the board by those hon. gentlemen, who probably are making a laudable effort to stand pat with their farmer constituents. I represent a great many farmers in my constituency, but I would dislike do take the position that a fanner should not bear his burden as well as any other member of the community.
Now, let us glance at this matter for a minute. All our people were clamouring, practically unanimously, against the high cost of living and demanding that the Government should make some effort to control

prices or to limit profits, and even threatening that certain things might happen if it did not make such an effort. Yielding to public opinion the Government appointed this Board of Commerce. For myself-and 1 think my opinion was shared by the majority-I never thought that this board could control prices, I never thought it was desirable that it should make the attempt to control prices; but I believed it could be effective in limiting profits, and. I am satisfied that the great majority of the people also believed that the board could be effective in limiting profits, <and that it ought to be effective in doing so.
The next question was, who should constitute this Board? When the matter was before the House T took very strong ground against the appointment of too many lawyers. However, when the name of Judge Robson was suggested I said that he was exactly the man we should have.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is he a lawyer?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I have known Judge Robson for a great many years. He rendered magnificient service to the Province of Manitoba as Public Utilities Commissioner. He is a man, in my judgment, whose heart bu^ns to serve the people, and when his name was proposed I did all I could to secure his appointment. While I am on that subject I may refer to his salary. Judge Robson, I understand, was drawing $15,000. a year when he agreed to accept this position. He gave up that great salary in order that he might be of real service to the people. So you can see he is the identical man for the office. With regard to Mr. O'Connor, I had my own reservations; I feared that he lacked the necessary discretion and ballast; but I believe that if the people had been polled as to who should occupy the position of Vice-Chairman on that Board, Mr. W. F. O'Connor would have received a great majority of the votes. I was pleased to hear my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) pay tribute to Mr. W. F. O'Connor the other night when he spoke of him as a worthy and efficient man. I happen to know that Mr. O'Connor made the statement that he was earning a larger amount of money annually than is provided for in this Bill. It is true that Mr. O'Connor was charged with making statements in Toronto as ViceChairman of the Board, and when they were published I believe the general opinion was that they were indiscreet. I happened to meet him about a week ago, and he absolutely denied that he had made the statements that were at-
tributed to him in the newspapers. But I do not think we are going to cavil as to whether he made them or did not make them. Let us admit that he might have been indiscreet in that one particular. But, he has come under the influence of Judge Robson, they are now sitting as a united board, and I will venture the guess that you will not find that W. F. O'Connor will be indiscreet in the future. I think he is a man who would like to be of service to the public, and, while I would not probably have appointed him myself, I am hopeful that he will make a satisfactory member of the board.
Let me take one instance. I notice that the board has made an order that, as I read it, the price of bacon be reduced on an average of from two to six cents a pound. Well, that at least is something. If you take the consumption of bacon in Canada and take an average reduction of three cents a pound, you will find that it will be a very considerable saving to the public. I did not hear our hon. friends from South Oxford and East Middlesex denounce this regulation in regard to the reduction on bacon because one would at least expect them to say that this interferes with the price to the farmer.


Mr. SMITH:: It does.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Our hon. friend (Mr. Smith), one of the dumb philosophers of the House, says that it does interfere with the price. I would rather think not, because bacon in the city from which I come was selling as high as 70 cents a pound, and if the farmer was only getting 17, 18 or 20 cents a pound for his pork, I should think those who made the profit were the manufacturers of bacon-the pork packers, f believe that the order of the board is not aimed at the producer of pork, but at the profiteer and the manufacturer. Anyway, somebody's ox is sure to be gored, and no [DOT] matter what this Board of Commerce may do, it is sure to be criticised. There is a quotation that I frequently make, and it seems to apply in this case.
You'll be damned if you do,
You'll be damned if you don't.
But we have a board, 1 believe, that will prove eminently satisfactory to the people of Canada. I think they ought to be given a chance. I do not think that every time they make an order, be it small or great, the members of the Parliament of Canada should rise up and denounce them. How are you going to get service from anybody

if you are going to keep on harping upon their acts, criticising, and tearing them down? Surely the people's representatives should stand by something! Let us be constructive, let us make some progress, let us support these men.
I believe that if you ask the people of Manitoba they will be a unit in saying that Judge Robson is the very highest type of man. He will give the very best service he can, and if you want a commission of the highest efficiency, he is the best man that could have been selected to conduct its work. Then, in Heaven's name, let us support him loyally. If this board does something absolutely wrong and inimical to the public interests, it will be time enough to criticise it. But this House has got into the habit of criticising and carping at everything that is done, and if we keep on we are going to rock the boat and it will go under. If there is one thing that is needed in Canada more than another at the present time it is to try and prevent rocking the boat. With our enormous commitments and responsibilities, if this policy is continued, ultimately the ship of State is bound to be wrecked. It is only, in my judgment, by the most careful steering, by pursuing the most judicious course, by husbanding our resources and by endeavouring to stand by what appeals to the best judgment of the people as being right and in the best interests of Canada, that we can succeed in saving the ship at all.


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the debate has wandered very far from the question before the House, which is the fixing of the salaries of the members of the Board of Commerce. That is the matter which should engage the attention of the House, and nothing further. I have very little sympathy with the Government which is responsible for bringing on this debate. There was no necessity to have brought this matter before the House. The Government was given power at the last session, when the Bill was before the House originally, to fix the salaries of the commissioners. The Governor in Council had the power to fix the salaries, and why we are now called upon to discuss this whole question again is something that passes my poor understanding.
I must deplore the criticism which has been levelled at the Board of Commerce by the members seated on your right, Mr. Speaker. With the exception of the lion.
member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Richardson), and who condemned the board with faint praise, there was not a * single member on the Government side who had a good word to say about the Board of Commerce. I was not very much enamoured of this board when the question was first mooted in the House but I was willing that it should be given a chance. To-day we have a number of gentlemen representing the farming community who, finding that possibly the actions of the board may interfere with there profits, are furiously attacking the personnel or membership of the board. I think it is highly improper on the part of members in the House to criticize the composition of the boiard in -the way that they have done. This is not the proper place to discuss milk prices and agricultural economics. The proper place to do it is before the Board of Commerce, before Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Justice Robson. But here we are discussing before this House a matter ex-parte with no one on the other side to say a word in defence of the board. I have no sympathy at. all with the Government who find themselves in the position of having a quarrel in their own family, inasmuch as it was not necessary for them to bring this matter before the House at all.
I would like to say a word or two in regard to a matter which was brought before the House by one of the members when discussing the effect of the rulings of the board upon agriculture. I would like to relieve his mind, if I can, as to any fears which he may have that the rulings of the board are'going to affect his particular business. If he will refer to "the Act itself, he will find t-halt the board has practically no power at all. The Government has surrounded the board with barbed wire entanglements and made it impossible for the board to do anything. The Government has seen to that. If hon. gentlemen will refer to section 41 of the Act, they will notice that:
The Governor in Council may, in his discretion, either upon petition of any Person interested, lodged within one month after the making: of the order, decision, rule or regulation, or within such further time as the board under special circumstances may allow, or of his own motion, at any time, and without any petition or application, vary or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the board.
That is to say, the Government itelf may, without any complaint whatsoever, rescind any order of the board. The board really has no power at all. Its claws were drawn before it was brought into existence.

Furthermore, we find that when any order is made by the board, nothing can be done by that board beyond making the order, they are impotent. The board send the 0'i'der to the Attorney General of the province in which the alleged offence was committed, and it is for the Attorney General to pigeonhole it or not just as he thinks fit, but the matter at once falls into the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of the province. Therefore, hon. gentlemen have no reason to be frightened; nothing is to be done to their business; they can charge any price they like for their milk, cheese, butter, beef or any other commodity, so that all this talk is really to no purpose at all. And, when I listened to one hon. gentlemen after another taking up the time of the House, I was rather inclined to agree with the resolution introduced here last night by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Levi Thomson) who stated that most of the speakers in this House developed into public nuisances. I do not wish to attach any such expression to the hon. gentlemen who have spoken to-day; I do not think they ore public nuisances. For instance, I was rather interested in the remarks which1 fell from the lips of the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Glass) who regaled us with an interesting speech upon the price of milk in Great Britain and the price of flax in Quebec. I find that every time I come into this House I learn something from hon. gentlemen who talk with so much intelligence upon every subject- that comes before us.
The hon. member for. Springfield (Mr. Richardson) paid a very high tribute to Mr. Justice Robson, with -which tribute I wish to 'associate myself. I am very glad that Mr. Justice Robson's ability has been brought before the House in such a striking manner, and I am sure the Government ought to be congratulated on the appointment of Mr. Justice Robson to this high and important position. Everything the hon. member said about him I can heartily endorse. I was, however, rather sorry to think that the hon. member should have stopped there. He said that there ought to have been no criticism of the board; that they should have been given a -chance; that their efficiency is going to be affected throughout the country if we criticise them in the way in which we have done. Then in the same breadth he told us that he did not know anything about Mr. W. F. OfCb-n-nor, but he rather thought he was an indiscreet gentleman, but under the influence of Mr. Justice Robson, for I do not

know how long, he might -perhaps develop into a useful official. Then we were told that the board talks too much. I wonder what the opinion of the board is with regard to members of Parliament, whether they reciprocate that view or not.
We have already appointed to this board three gentlemen, one of whom is merely a locum tenens. When the Bill, creating the board was introduced into this House at the last session, I raised the question that it was highly necessary and proper that a French-speaking man should be appointed -as a third member of this Bo-ard of Commerce, -and I s-till make th-at pretension. I took the view that in this country, where more than twenty-five per cent of our people are French-speaking, who do not understand the English language as they do their own language, it is essen-ti-al that the third member of the board should be a Frenchspeaking man. It may be, of course, that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the Government feel that the whole province of Quebec is so free from profiteering and from excessive charges in matter of products that there is no necessity at all for having any sittings in that province; but perhaps there is -another view, -and I think it would be a s-afe thing -at all events, to appoint some person from Quebec who would be conversant with the Frencli tongue and at the same time would render useful service to the board by his ability to speak the English language.
What makes me believe that the Board of Commerce is at present rendering useful work to the community and to the country is the fact that we have such a chorus of disapproval in this House from members representing the farming community. You know,' Sir, the old saying that when you throw a brick down a dark lane at night and you hear a howl, you know you have struck something. That is the view which I think the community generally will take. I think the board is doing excellent work in investigating everything, not only the farming community, but the pork-packers and others. Every interest ought to be investigated by this board, and I trust they will be. The farming community who are not yet affected by any order of the board should wait before they lay their complaints before the House. One gentleman went so far as to say that he felt that the-	*
Mr. MoCREA:	Would you investigate
the lawyers?


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not think the lawyers require investigating. I think it will he

found in the case of most lawyers that, when they come to give up the ghost either their estates are insolvent or their relatives accept the estates under the benefit of inventory. That is the best proof that they are not profiteers. In any event, I think the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. MoCrea) would prevent them from . becoming profiteers, even if they wanted to be, at his expense.
One hon. member-I do not remember from what constituency he hails-said that this discussion ought to do good, as it would teach the men who are on the board just what their duties should be and should not be. I cannot take that view at all. It seems to me that those men who are appointed to. the board should proceed with their work in no manner affected by any views to which expression may be given in this House. We know that, in our courts of justice, any attempt made to affect the views of a court or a judge is treated as contempt of court, and punished accordingly, and we in this House have no more right in that respect as members of Parliament than we would have as private members of the community going about our daily avocations.
I ran across Mr. O'Connor on Sparks street to-day, and he assured me that, as a result of the operations of the board, they have already caused a reduction in the price of beef of ten or twelve cents per pound. I have not yet felt the effect of that myself, but I hope I shall in due time. He also told me about the price of pork, but for obvious reasons I was not interested. So far as I am concerned, I only hope the price of that article is put up to a prohibitive degree in order that the members of the community may not be permitted to eat of the unclean animal.
I trust that we shall hear nothing further about the conduct and action of this Board of Commerce. Let them continue on their way. Let us see what they ai'e able to do, and if, at the next session, we find that we have made a mistake in creating this board the same body.-the Parliament of Canada- that brought this court unto existence can give it its coup de grace. But I bespeak for it the support, not only of the members of this House, but of the whole of the country, and let us see if something cannot be .done towards reducing the cost of living, a consummation devoutly to be wished by every one of us.


John Albert Sexsmith: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any ihon. member can class me as one of those who take up the time of the House
with long speeches, and I invite them to look over the pages of Hansard for the last ten or twelve years and see how the record bears out my statement. I w.as very much interested in the remarks of the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), who was loud in his condemnation of the hon. members for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) and East Middlesex (Mr. Glass), who, as he put it, were voicing the sentiments of their constituents and of the farmers of this great country.
I ask the House to think of the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Jacobs) and ask themselves if he was not voicing the sentiments of his own constitutuents as loudly as any other hon. member did this afternoon.


Samuel William Jacobs: Only on the pork question.


John Albert Sexsmith: His whole speech was a condemnation of the farmer and the price of foods stuffs. Why, in every paper you picked up during the last few months you saw the price of eggs and of butter and of bacon complained of, and the Government was bombarded to appoint a commission to bring down the high cost of living. The high cost of what? Boots and shoes and clothing? No, of butter and eggs and food stuffs generally. If we are to judge by the reports that have appeared in the papers the last day or so, this is no Board of Commerce at all, but a board to control the price of food. I have nothing to say against the personnel of the Board, but I do say that the great agricultural interests of his country should be represented on the Board by at least one member. Prom forty to fifty per cent of the people of this country live on the farm, and are producing the stuff that is going to pay the war debt of this country if ever it is paid, and yet a board is appointed to look after the interests of the. consumer, and the forty to fifty per cent of the people of this country who are producing and upon whom the consumer is dependent for his very life, have no representative on the Board. That is what I protest against. I also'protest against the members from the great cities and urban centres crying down the farmer and saying that he is the man who should be throttled. I .say to those hon. members that this is a broad and vast country, nearly four thousand miles across, with millions of acres of virgin soil. Go and tell your constituents who are shouting about the high cost of living, "Canada has millions of .acres of virgin soil. Go and produce for yourself the eggs, the butter the cheese

and the milk that you need". If they did that, there would be no cause for complaint about the high cost of living. But hon. members from the city will not tell them that, and a hoard is appointed to fix the price of food. Why, to my mind, it is the most absurd thing under Heaven. I was amazed to hear my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson) say that lie did not know that fixing the price of bacon influenced the price of hogs. Has he read the market reports for the last few weeks?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Sure.


John Albert Sexsmith: Then he must have seen that the price of live hogs has gone down from 5 to 7 cents a pound. Has he not seen the papers from the great city of Montreal announcing, sometimes under big headlines, what this board has accomplished?


Robert Lorne Richardson: The hon. member
would not say that the fall in the. price of hogs was due to regulating the profits of the manufacturer.


John Albert Sexsmith: I would not say it was due to regulation, because I do not believe any bacon should sell at 70 cents a pound. I am not here to protect the profiteer, but I am here to protect the honest producer, in his interest and the interest of Canada. When I was home a week ago I had farmers ask me "What are the prospects for the prices of hogs next spring?" I said "Do not ask me. Ask some one with a greater knowledge of those things than I have." 1 have been a producer, of hogs for forty years, and I say that if you set the price at 15 cents live weight, you cannot make anything at it to-day with the present price of wheat and other cereals, and if that price is fixed, instead of having $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 of bacon to export you will have the same condition we had a few years ago with regard to butter and mutton and lamb, and the like,-we shall be bringing these things in from New Zealand, and eggs from China, and all the rest of it.	*


Robert Lorne Richardson: My hon. friend admits that 70 cents for bacon is an outlandish price. If the board set the price at 60 cents, does my hon. friend say that that would mean the price of hogs would be 15 cents? The board is not setting the price of pork at all. .


John Albert Sexsmith: When you fix the price for the product of the hog you set the pTice for the whole hog.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Then you would justify 70 cents a pound for bacon?


John Albert Sexsmith: No. I know that price has been often quoted. I might say that for a little piece of Windsor bacon $1.50 might not be out of the way. Let me explain. It is only a very small part of the hog that sells at 70 cents, but judging by the papers you would think every part is sold at that figure. You do not have to pay 70 cents a pound for the shank or many other parts. When you get a choice piece of 'bacon specially cured with all the bone taken out, the rind taken of, and cut in slices one-sixteenth of an inch in thickness, done up in a quarter-pound package and delivered at your house, do you think 70 cents a pound is too much for that? I repeat, it is only a small part of the back that sells for that figure, but the whole hog is held up to scorn on account of that price. Foodstuffs are not the only element in the high cost of living, and if this Board has been appointed especially for the purpose of bringing down the price of foodstuffs and is going to act along these lines alone, it will strike at the very foundations of the greatest industry of this country.
When I have gone up and down the country I have tried to point out to the people that the only thing for us to do is to produce more. Before the war Russia was producing about one-third of the world's wheat supply, running over 1,000,000,000 bushels every year. The world's consumption of wheat was a little over 3,000,000,000 bushels a year, and up to 1911 no country in the world had come near Russia's production. But in 1911 or 1912 Providence provided a bounteous harvest in the United 'States, and for the first time in her history she equalled Russia's production of wheat. Russia also produced 700,000,000 bushels of rye, over 52 per cent of the world's production. Eggs and butter from Siberia were pouring into Great Britain, and other parts of Europe. That supply has all been cut off. Belgium and France and other parts of Europe have been laid waste for five years by the most dastardly war the world has ever seen. A starving Europe looks to this Continent for bacon, butter, eggs and other foodstuffs. Only two years ago practically every school teacher, clergyman, and member of Parliament in this country was out on the side lines and back lanes begging people, even the boys at school, to own a pig and produce bacon. "Produce, produce, produce!" was the cry; "give us bacon to feed our armies." The farmers rose to the

occasion. Did we not export some $52,000,000 worth of bacon during one year of the war? And now the ho-n. member from Montreal, because he represents a city riding, is clamouring to have the screw put on and prices kept down.
In conclusion!, Mr. Speaker, I would give this advice to the members of the great city ridings of Canada: If your food is too dear and your people are clamouring, tell them that God has provided a great and bounteous land for them, with millions of acres between the Atlantic and the Pacific, on which they can make a living honestly and uprightly, and bring up their families under God's open heaven far better than they can in any slum in the city-land on which their children may grow up to be men and women eminently fit to bring Canada to the forefront and make her a nation whose name will be glorious throughout the world.


William Findlay Maclean: I am in favour of a commission of this kind for the purpose of regulating the cost of living which has been hearing heavily upon the people not only of Canada hut of Great Britain and the United States. The authorities have regulated the prices of foodstuffs in Britain with some success, and in the United State's an active campaign has been launched. Here also we are taking steps to reduce the cost of living, and I sincerely trust that our efforts will meet with -appreciable success. I agree with my friend from East Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith) in the view that the -cost of food is not the only matter that needs to be regulated; it is necessary also to regulate the prices of manufactured goods, including clothing, boots, e'tc., and I hope the Commission) will pay due attention to this matter. In considering the high cost of living -we naturally ask ourselves the question: What is the justification of commissions such -as these and of investigations? Well, the justification lies in this, that publicity is given as to th-e conditions that exist -and facts- are brought Out on which reasonable action may he based. Let us take -the question of milk which we were discussing this -aftem-oon, and which is one of importance to the city of Toronto and to the farmers who live -in the townships I happen to represent. It has been revealed that the farmer -at best receives 7 cents -a quart -for his milk. Milk produced in the neighbourhood of Toronto is sold wholesale by the farmer to the milk dealer a-t 7 cents, (whereas the city dweller pays	14 cents for
it. In other words,	there is	an
astounding spread. All the investigations that have taken place in Europe, in the United -States and in Canada are bringing various facts to light, and the great economic fact is that the matter for gravest complaint in -Canada on the part of those who live in cities is the difference between the price paid the producer 'and that which the consumer is charged when the product finally reaches him. I do not think that we ought to pay 14 cents for our milk in the city if the farmer gets only 7 cents, and it is obvious that there is an economic difficulty of some kind that demands a remedy. This spread in -prices exists to a greater extent in connection with hog products. Hogs run from 20 cents to 25 cents a pound live weight, and bacon and ham and pork have gone from 40 cents to 60 cents a pound. Such a discrepancy in prices should not exist; there is a profiteer somewhere who ought to be curbed. I do not say it is the fanner, but it is in the interests of the public that all these facts should be established, and if there is anything wrong-and certainly there is, so far as the people in the cities are concerned-an effective remedy should be applied. I think, therefore, that a board of 'this kind is n-ecessary. While perhaps they may have made mistakes at first, they are bringing out facts and getting results; and the predominant fact witli which the people of this country and those of tile Unitted States are now acquainted, as a result of investigations into the cost of living, is that there is an injustifiable difference between the price which -the producer of the food receives and that which is paid by the consumer. As a result of investigations in the United States the farmer i-s not being hurt, but the profiteer is being haled before the bar of public justice and made to reduce h-is profits, with the result that prices are going lower. That is one phase of the operations which justify the board in the United States, and I believe that similar proceedings have been taken in Great Britain. We must find a way in Canada of dealing with this exorbitant spread between the producer's price and the consumer's. This matter is worthy of the attention of Parliament. It is worthy of the attention of a high court of some kind, and it should receive the support of the Government and of every member of this House. In doing what it has done Parliament has in a measure responded to a great public demand.
In regard to the personnel of the Commission I agree that the farming element ought to be represented. The farmers know a great deal about the production of the

necessities of life, and the board should include a representative of agriculture, as is the case in connection with the Board of Commerce in the United States. I should like to deal with some other questions to-night, but time does not permit. But the disclosures that have been made in the United States have justified the investigations that have taken place there. The public have obtained better treatment, and we must see that similar results are attained here.
The only other criticism I would pass upon the board, and it is a strong one from my point of view, is the fact, as the hon. member for Montreal said, that there is not a real enforcement of our law as in the United States. There they have a federal enforcement of a federal law. I have spoken already on this matter in the House, and I believe that the Government differ considerably from me in that respect. But if we have a strong commission and a proper enforcement of the regulations that are made, we shall have better results. As was said this afternoon, we want some one in the House who can be held responsible for the enforcement of these regulations. We ought to make the Government responsible for the enforcement of the law, and I have said before that the Attorney General ought to be the responsible official. He should be able to employ various assistants, attorneys and special agents to investigate the matter of prices, and should have at his disposal proper experts to advise him. Let there be accountants to ascertain whether there is or is not an unfair spread; and if there is unfair profiteering let us take adequate steps to eliminate both these elements. It will not be done in a day.


Mr. LALOR:: Have you any information as to the prices of hog products in the United States as compared with Canada?


William Findlay Maclean: There is a very substantial reduction of prices in the United States.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: That is not the question. Are our prices higher than in the United States?	i


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I doubt it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Findlay Maclean: Live pork is cheaper
in the United States to-day than in Canada.


Mr. COWAN:: Live pork?
[Mr. W. F. Maclean.l


William Findlay Maclean: Yes. The price of live pork is higher in Toronto than in any other place in America. It has been so for several years, and the price of meat products has been higher in Canada generally. The great fact that 'has been brought out by the investigations in the United States is that there is a substantial reduction in the cost of living, the benefit of which the people are feeling. There are two large classes in this country, those who work on the farms and those who work in the cities; and between them there is a third class who do not produce but sell to the consumer. These are the packers, and in the United States and Canada this class of the community is under public investigation. The general opinion is that their prices are altogether unfair, and the net result of this Commission will be, I trust, some relief to the public.
In the same way there are unfair charges on manufactured goods in this country by reason of combines and organizations of that kind, and these must be investigated; it is not quite fair to the farmer that his products should be the only products to be investigated. I have been charged with being a protectionist. Perhaps I am, perhaps I am not, but what I wish to say is that you cannot justify the exorbitant profits that have been made in connection with manufacturing industries in this country; you cannot justify the prices of clothing in some cases, or of boots, or of many other manufactured articles. Take the building trade and it will be found that the prices in Canada to-day are so high for builders' 'hardware that notwithstanding the duty, it pays to import these goods from the United States. Now a protective tariff is not justified in that case. We want investigation into all these matters; we do not want them set aside and the clamour of the people not attended to; we have got to have an investigation, we have got to bring out the facts and ascertain if there is any such spread in prices and any such profiteering as we believe there is in many lines. My objection to the Board of Commerce is that it has not enough members and they are not directing their energies in a sufficient number of directions, unless they go into the high cost of manufactured goods.


Mr. KEEFER:: During the days of the [DOT] Food Board was not the spread of prices regulated?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not know whether it was or not, perhaps the hon.

gentleman oan tell us, but the fact I am pointing out is that the people of Canada are up in arms against the high cost of living, and against this unjust spread in prices and this unjust profiteering; they are not against the farmers, but they want fair treatment in this matter. Let me point out what happened in the United States. President Wilson has just returned to Washington, more or less ill, after an effort that he made to explain to his fellow-countrymen the meaning of the League of Nations and the Treaty of Peace. Before he went out on that expedition he sent a friend of his to swing round the circle and advise him as to whether it was advisable or not for him to take this discussion to the people. But before he went out he was advised by his friend, and his friend, I think was a good judge, "Never mind the League of Nations; devote your energy to a reduction of the cost of living." The president has undertaken the two things, and he has put the whole resources of the United States Government behind an investigation into the high cost of living. And ho has got results. A good deal of money has been spent in connection with it. but there is a very powerful commission at work over there. The Government has strengthened that commission; they have put any number of attorneys, prosecuting lawyers and experts to work on the investigation, and, as I say, they are getting results. The question for the people in the United States is the high cost of living just as it is here; and we must have a commission that will bring out the facts, that will bring out the amount of this spread1-as it is called-between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays, and if it is unfair there has got to be Government, regulation in some respects, especially in war time, or in the times that follow war. There is one economic condition that exists at the present time and more or less interferes with the situation, and it is this: If the high cost of living is increased unnecessarily, there is an increasing demand for wages and as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Glass) quoted from an English authority, it is a case of just going round in a vicious circle; first, it is a case of raising wages, then it is a case of raising the cost of living -the cost keeps going up and no relief is afforded. Therefore, we must have these investigations. You are not going to improve the conditions of labour unless you reduce the cost of living, so that we have to reduce both the high cost of living and exorbitant profits.


Donald Sutherland: Why not investigate the cost of high living?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not object to that. Let the cost of high living be investigated for there is a good deal of it in this country. If my hon. friend will start a movement in that direction, or if he will lay information against the high livers, perhaps Mr. O'Connor will take the matter up and some facts will be disclosed in regard to it. But the great fact is that we have got to deal with public opinion here. Public opinion is crying out against the high cost of living, and expects Parliament to do something. The Government are doing something, they have made a start. They have not gone as far as I would like to see them go, but inasmuch as they have made a start I have no object to the passage of this Bill. I would not only make the remuneration to the members of the board adequate, but I would make the board still more efficient by legislation that would strengthen their usefulness and achieved the desired results. What they should achieve, and what I think they will achieve later on, is a substantial reduction in the high cost of living.


William Smith: It is true that I do not worry the House very much, but I have had a fairly long parliamentary experience and I have had time to think over two or three things since I was accused of being a " dumb philosopher. " One of the things that I thought of occurred during the session of 1918 when a certain honourable gentleman coming from the riding of Springfield (Mr. Richardson) made a speech and in half an hour apologized for doing so.
In connection with the present Bill it is possible that an extreme view may be taken. In some respects I might hold that it was unnecessary to appoint a Board of Commerce, but considering what we have passed through during the past four or five years it was possibly a wise course for the Government to take. Having appointed such a Board they certainly were justified in having on it the very best men they could find in Canada. As far as the two members of that board are concerned, I do not think any exception can he taken to them, although it is true that some of my friends of this side have objected particularly to Mr. O'Connor. I notice in the press to-day that a suggestion has been thrown out that a returned soldier from Montreal shall be appointed as a third member. Now, I agree entirely with every-

thing the honourable gentleman (Mr. Sex-smith) has said that upon the Board of Commerce there should be at least one farmer. Upon that point I might say-and I make the statement for the information of the Government-in the case of all the commissions that have been appointed the farmers have been practically overlooked. From my knowledge of agriculturists-living and working amongst them as I do, because I happen to be a farmer myself-it occurs to me that surely in all common sense the Government might have been able to find, throughout this broad land, one farmer qualified to sit upon that commission. If we appoint good men on the Board of Commerce, I think it is only fair that they shall be well paid for their services-I do not object in any particular to that. The point is being made in connection with the Board of Commerce that they can regulate if they can do nothing else.
The farmers of Canada during the last three of four years have been told that they must produce and keep on producing. What was the object of that advice? It was in order that increased production might lower prices to those living in cities and towns. But unfortunately, and I say this with full knowledge, many of those living in the cities and towns are trying to-day to increase wages and shorten the hours of labour. The resr.lt is that the price of manufactured articles must necessarily go up, and what the farmer has to use for production is thereby greatly enhanced in price. Now there come in between the producer and the customer those who are retailing,-and take my word for it, their profits never vary; they are as large on the last day of December as they were on the first day of January-they never in any shape or form decrease. The hon. gentleman from Springfield (Mr. Richardson) surely must know that if the prices of bacon and of live hogs go down, it necessarily follows that the farmer does not get as much for his work I need not labour that point, because it is only common sense. To-day we farmers think that we can run our business to suit ourselves, and we realize that we are perhaps not very far from a crisis. Labour cost has not gone down-it cannot very well go down for a considerable time-and the result necessarily follows that the profits of the farmer must be less.
We hear a great deal to-day about the farmers not only in the province of Ontario but in the other provinces. And for the Jife of me I cannot see what they want to unite for to-day with the prices we have

had for the last four years. The farmers of Canada never had four such years as they have had since 1S'14. But if the farmers of Canada had heard the discussion this afternoon and to-night they certainly would think it unnecessary to have this House composed of actual farmers. If there is one thing I am proud of, Mr. Speaker, it is that I am a farmer, but even if with that feeling of pride I have to act the part of a "dumb philosopher"; when the interests of the farmers are at stake, it is possible that my voice may be raised in their defence.


Francis Henry Keefer: As representing not a farmer's
constituency but a city constituency, Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with those representing rural constituencies in the criticism of this Bill, against any talk about fixation of prices, be it of farm products or anything else. It is rather interesting to listen to the discussion that has taken place from time to time on this question, and then to remember the slams, to use a slang expression, that the poor old Food Board got during its short regime. Hon. members will remember that when the late Mr. Hanna was appointed to the position of Food Controller the cry went over the country:	What don't you fix the prices?
Everywhere that was thrown at him. Fortunately he was a man of parts who was not going to be misled by the hue and cry and the first thing he did was that which has been advocated by the hon. member for York (Mr. Maclean) and by other members, he gathered around him business men who had experience in these subjects, and his investigations soon convinced him of the impossibility of fixing prices. As soon as the cry went out that the price of milk was to be fixed by the present Board of Commerce telegrams came down from my constituency protesting against it, and rightly so, when it was pointed out what was the price for bran and shorts. How could you expect the farmer, Sir, to produce the milk and have his price fixed if you did not fix the price of the feed that went to make the milk, and so forth?
Price fixation is as old as the hills; there is nothing new in it. In the olden days trading was merely a case of barter and exchange with no price. That was found inconvenient and the Romans introduced the piece of money " Praetium "-something that passed between. How absurd it is to attempt to tie one end of that piece of money and leave untied the other end! It cannot be done without causing econo-

mic disorder. The very fixation of the price of wheat resulted in this, that we were informed on the Food Board that it was cheaper for the farmer because wheat was fixed at $2.20, which was thought to be a very high price, at the time to feed his wheat to the hogs and sell at good prices his oats or say his flax at $4.50 a bushel, and we had therefore to pass an order prohibiting the feeding of wheat to hogs. That simply shows the futility of trying to fix the price of one article unless you fix the price of all other articles, and I do hope that this Board of Commerce will endeavour to profit by the experience of men like the late Hon. Mr. Hanna, or Mr. H. B. Thompson, who gave long study to this question and gathered the best practical men around them to arrive at a satisfactory solution.
Take the price of milk; that is no new question. The Canada Food Board called in the milk dealers from all over the country and had them in session here several days, with the result that a report was issued on the milk question which is practically a classic on that subject, citing one of the western towns as an example to follow, that town having lowered the price of milk to the consumers during the war and yet increased the price to the farmer. It is largely a question of distribution. It was shown that in the city of Toronto, for instance, on Spadina avenue there were probably fifteen or sixteen milkmen delivering milk-fifteen or sixteen overhead charges for drivers and wagons. It was shown that here in the city of Ottawa milk was cheaper. Why? Because one company has practically almost a monopoly, and that company said, " Give us the whole city and we will even lower the price again.'' It was the cost of distribution, not the cost to the farmer.
I sincerely hope that we will have less of these scare headlines. There 'is a member of the Board of Commerce who fairly revels in publicity; he thrives on it. And what is the effect? It is simply stirring up ithe unthinking people, and it is very hard to get them to again look at things correctly. If we are going to have a Board of Commerce let them try ;to get down to the kernel of the matter and not gO' off on these side questions. With regard to what the hon. member for York (Mr. Maclean) advocates, that the Government should administer these laws, that is not correct. The popular idea is that the Minister of Justice is the policeman of the country. That is not correct.
Sir iSAM HUGHES: He was at ithe time of the Military Service Act.


Francis Henry Keefer: The Attorney General of each province is the policeman of his province. One attorney general made the remark: "I am not a policeman." He was. It was his duty to enforce the law. The provinces draw their subsidies for the civil administration. Our criminal law is a Dominion statute, but it is enforced by the provincial authorities. We had that same difficulty up in the Food Board. There the ground was taken that these Orders in Council should not be enforced by the provinces, but by the Dominion. At once we saw that if we attempted that we would have an army of men from one end of the country to the other, a lot of new officers in conflict with existing officers and consequent confusion of authority. We came to the conclusion that it was most inadvisable to promulgate such a doctrine, and instead of that Mr. Thompson wisely called in the chiefs of police of the different parts of the country for a conference. After that conference they stood loyally behind the Board, they did their work well. To remunerate them we put through an Order in Council saying that all the fines should go to those instituting the proceedings. If they were municipal, the municipality profited; if they were provincial, the province profited. These things might be solved in that way should difficulties in enforcement arise.
Then, as regards the question of spread, as my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) indicates, that is the keynote of the whole problem. I asked him the question: "Was that spread fixed?" It was. The food board did not advertise, it did not have scare headlines, but all the ti'me, after Mr. Thompson was chairman, and during the war up to the Armistice, we had the spread in Canada fixed; the wholesalers' spread was so much, the retailers' spread was so much. We did not have to prosecute. There was a remedy. How? We made each dealer take out a little license to do business and required him to pay a trifling fee of a couple of dollars. With these fees we paid the whole of the board's expenses, and we had a surplus when we got through of $37,000, which was paid into the Receiver General of Canada. That license was the key to the situation. If we found a dealer violating the spread, we simply notified him that if it occurred again we would have to cancel his license.



He lived up to the transaction after that. But we did not have any scare headlines.
You remember the prices of food during the war-we were only regulating the prices of food. But the same system might have been applicable to clothing, and so on, if such also had been under the board. The prices of food were much lower during the war in Canada than they were in United States with the exception of four or five articles that were peculiar to the United States. We regulated the spread, we controlled the number of transactions for the benefit of the community and yet we were criticised and condemned in this House from A to Z. One reason for that was that we did not make public everything we did. We kept right on with the work and we got no thanks for it. But we are getting our thanks now. The criticism that is now being heard through the country is the best commendation of the work which the Board did.
Why were prices rising? That is not difficult to ascertain. During the war the Allies-not the neutrals-came seeking our products. They wanted our cheese. France was bidding against England for our cheese, Italy was bidding against France for our condensed milk, and prices started _ to climb. We said: "You are acting against your own interests and against ours; you must stop competing in our markets for goods; form an Allied purchasing commission amongst yourselves so that this Allied Purchasing Commission. can buy all this produce and distribute it amongst yourselves; you will get your produce cheaper and there will not be any unnecessarily enhanced prices." We did our best to increase the supply, with the result that people went up and down the side lines just as a previous speaker said-including boys and teachers-every one preaching the gospel of increased production. We spent considerable money advocating increased production with the result that farm products increased two-fold or from about $300,000,000 to $600,000,000.
Sir SAM. HUGHES:	How about the
quantities?


Francis Henry Keefer: And the quantities also. The price did not vary so much, with the exception of that of wheat. The reason why they did not vary was that we held control through the Allied Purchasing Commission.
Then came the Armistice. The old countries wanted at once to get away from these restrictions and they said:	"We will go
back to normal conditions." They dissolved 
their Allied Commission, and this Government saw fit to abandon any further food control in view of the unjust criticism of the board. What was the result? Immediately these allied nations began bidding against one another and the prices started to climb. What was the next result? Neutrals who, prior to the Armistice, could not purchase, entered the field upon the signing of the Armistice and prices climbed higher. Then, under peace conditions came the enemy aliens who also are starved for leather, clothes and goods of whatever class was lacking. So long as this bidding goes on outside of the country; so long as the production of this country is insufficient to meet the demand, prices have got to climb until you get to the apex. We may talk until we are black in the face in this House but we oannot regulate prices unless we dislocate the entire economic conditions of the country.
Furthermore, you cannot properly bring down prices unless you do one of two things -either make some arrangement among the nations to do their buying collectively or increase our production to such an extent that the demand is less than the supply. If we do not do either of these, prices are bound to rise. I think it is high time for all of ns to do our best to inculcate in the minds of the people the real causes of these increased price-s and to point out that they are not due so much to profiteering and all that sort of thing as to economic law's. There is a small amount of profiteering which may be controlled by regulating the spread. Mr. Thompson and bis associates on the Food Board did that. I had the pleasure, during the war, of receiving from one of the largest milling concerns a cheque for over $9,000, representing undue profits which that company had made on bran and shorts and which amount they wrere obliged to pay into the Treasury of Canada.
You might control the profits by regulating the spread, and this the Board of Commerce has power to do.
Now, as to this Bill providing for the salaries of the Commissioners, let us pay them a decent salary, let us see that they do t'heir work, and if they do not, then let us put other men in their places who will.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, there is
one thing that I would wish to point out to the minister, and possibly it would not be amiss at this stage. There seems to be considerable confusion about the orders that are made, and perhaps might have been made by this board. I think the minister

will see the necessity of having these -orders filled somewhere. I do not know that any one department more than another has to do with this board. I presume that it is supposed to be absolutely independent of any department of the Government. Nevertheless, I think there should be some connection between this board and some department-possibly the Department of Labour or the Department of Justice. It js not for me to say, but I think there should be some department of the Government in which the orders made by this board should be filled so that the farmers, the manufacturers and others who are concerned in the orders made and the decisions reached will know where to find them.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-salaries of Chief Commissioner and other commissioners.


Mr. PROTJLX:: Is it the intention of the Government in the near future to appoint a third member of the board?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, I think in a day or two there will probably be an announcement of appointment.


Isidore Proulx: I suppose the recommendation made by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) that a French speaking gentleman be appointed to the board, will be taken into consideration by the minister.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When the organization
is completed, I think it will be seen that the necessity for the French language being thoroughly understood has been given consideration and has been provided for.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: This clause fixes the
salaries of the commissioners. How has the Government arrived at a salary of $10,000 for the chairman and salaries of $8,000 for the other commissioners? I know other employees of the Government in other departments holding very responsible positions and performing very valuable services who are being paid very much lower salaries than are named in this clause. I do not understand why there should be this difference.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is difficult to lay
down an exact basis upon which one fixes a salary of $10,000 or $8,000; but with regard, for instance, to the Chairman of the Commission, we had to press him to abandon a larger income. We wanted a gentleman whom we could regard as being most
45J
highly competent, and we found that most highly competent gentlemen, to take one instance, earning more than $10,000, and I think the hon. gentleman himself will hardly doubt that a man competent to perform the duties of this very important office, where he is called upon to deal with the most difficult as well as the most important problems, is in view of what similar salaries are paid in other walks of life, not overpaid at $10,000. I cannot go into a comparison with all the other salaries in the whole * Civil Service and endeavour to say why one ought to be lower or ought to be higher. The nature of the work that is to be done and the capacity that ought to be brought to the doing of it, in the judgment of the Government fully justified the fixing of the salaries as proposed, and I do not think I can go more into detail than that.


Donald Sutherland: In the original Act as it was passed in July of this year, section 9, which is amended by the present Bill, provided that the chief commissioner should be paid such annual salary, and each of the other commissioners such, annual salaries, as might be determined by the Governor in Council. I do not, therefore, see that we are justified in passing the present Bill as the matter of fixing salaries was left entirely in the hands of the Governor in Council under that Act. It might be easier to get rid of some of these men if they should not discharge their duties as they ought to do if the Act were left as we passed it in July. I do not want to criticise the chairman of the commission at all. From all that I learn and hear and from the attitude of the other commissioners since the chairman came back from the West, I have good reason to believe bis judgment is sound, and we shall not be entertained with some of those freak judgments or injunctions that we have been treated to during the past few weeks, and that have agitated and upset the business of the country to a greater degree than possibly most members of this House realize. I personally would imagine that the matter would be quite safe in the bands of the Governor in Council, it being left exactly as it was in the original Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I might just say that 'there was in the Governor in Council power to fix the salaries, and in the view of the Governor. in Council, these salaries would have been proper salaries to fix; but it was thought more desirable that Parliament should be asked to deal with the matter, and that it should be made a matter of statute. That is the entire difference. If

?08
we liad fixed the salaries, we would have fixed them at precisely these amounts, and that would haive implied precisely the same contract with the gentlemen whom we appointed as to the permanency of their salaries as the statute does; but we submit the matter to Parliament and we make the salary a statutory salary. That does not alter the power to remove if there were sufficient cause -to remove. The most that might be suggested is that it might modify any power, if we had power, to alter the salary; but I do not think it would be suggested that, even although it remains with the Governor in Council to fix the salary, if we ask the gentleman to leave another occupation and appoint him for a fixed period at a fixed salary, the Governor General would be justified in altering that salary. He might, if there were proper cause for removal, and there were power to do that, remove the incumbent; but I do not-think it would be suggested that he ought to hold over the gentleman's head the power of changing the salary in order to exercise an influence over him. We want this Act carried out reasonably to attain the purpose for which it was intended. But it is impossible that a board of this kind should be constituted with th-e idea that the Government is to stand over the members of that -board, and let us -suppose that the hoard pronounces a judgment or comes to a decision which the Government d-oes not -approve, there is a remedy -by -appeal. But leaving that matter of the right of appeal to the Governor in Council aside for the moment, such a board must not be in a position of rendering its decisions under supervision of the Governor in Council, and with perhaps a suggested power to change their -salaries if we do not like their judgments. An element of independence is, I think, essential to -the satisfactory working of any board .of this kln-d.


Samuel Hughes: Did I understand the minister to say that there is an appeal to .the Privy Council?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is an appeal to the Governor in 'Council, which appeal was referred to this evening. It -is in that regard precisely -the same provision that is made with regard -to the Board of Railway Commissioners. It is a reserved power seldom exercised, but it is thought wise to give the same power as is given in- 'the case of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Donald Sutherland: I realize the force of the argument -advanced by the Minister

of Justice (Mr. Doherty), but I think he will admit, -and the members of the committee -will agree, that it is rather unfortunate that we should be called upon to fix, by Act of Parliament, the salaries of the members of this board, in view of the exhibition that we have had -as to the absolute incompetence of a member of that board to carry out the duties with which he was entrusted. That is admitted -by the action of the hoard in rescinding the in-, junction that was issued a few weeks ago. despite the threat that wa-s made to the people of this country that if it was not observed a penalty would be imposed. I do- not think you could have clearer evidence than -that of the unfitness of the commissioner for his position, and it seems hard for me to agree to fixing the salary of a man who has given ample and abundant evidence of his total unfitness for the position to which he was appointed.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: I wish to say
in the first instance in connection with the clause before the committee that I was personnally gratified to learn that the thought expressed when the Bill was going through the House in July that the -salary of the Chairman of the board would be fixed at approximately $8,000 has been -changed, and that the Chairman of the Board is to get $10,000 and the commissioners $8,000 each. I believe that no group of men has ever undertaken a -more important work in this country than that performed by the Board of Commerce. They have in the statute bringing -them into existence very wide powers, given to them very largely as the result of the wide-spread feeling throughout the country that some means should be taken to control profiteering, if such existed, and -at least to stabilize public opinion. If men of the right kind to carry out that work are to be -secured the salaries named are not too great.
The next point is with regard to making the salary statutory. It seems to me that no -more dangerous condition could exist with regard to any judicial pr semi-judicial body than for them to he placed in the position suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland), where the Government might tamper with their salaries if the Board's judgments did not at all times satisfy them. We hope at least that the judgments of the Board will be free from political bias. They could not he looked upon throughout the country as free from political control if a condition such as that suggested was imposed, whereby the Government might reduce the salary of a man in the hope

that he would get tired of his job and quit, because he was not performing it to their satisfaction. You might as well say that in the case of the judges of the Supreme Court if their judgments did not suit the Government their salaries should be reduced.
Reverting to what has been referred to by my hon. friend as the "admitted incompetence" of one member of the Board,
I have been forced to the conclusion, having read the greater part of the discussion that has taken place and also listened to a part of it, that there is a certain hysterical feeling abroad with the work of the Board of Commerce. It may be due to the nervousness that the country seems to be suffering from that is permeating all classes of men. They accept the startling headlines in some morning or evening paper, and without digging down into the facts take if for granted that the headlines tell exactly what happened. That is one of the troubles through which this country is passing. If my hon. friend, and those who have repeated on the floor of this House statements similar to those he has made here to-day, had taken the trouble to find out just what the Board of Commerce did when sitting in Toronto-


Donald Sutherland: I cannot find out.


George Brecken Nicholson: You could if you had made an effort. This is what took place with regard to the milk question. The Board of Commerce did not arbitrarily fix a price which could not be changed for forty days. What they did say was this, that the price of milk should remain as it was for forty days, or pending an investigation that might take place to determine whether a rise in price was justified or not. In carrying out that principle what did they do? They appointed a Fair Price Committee upon which were representatives of the producers, the distributors, and the consumers, to go intd the whole question and report to the Boar-d of Commerce. The result was that the producers, the distribu

tors and the consumers agreed upon what they considered to be a fair price and reported to the Board of Commerce, and the the BoaM of Commerce issued an order making that the legal price for milk in the city of Toronto. What else could they do? It is true the information was not given to the public. I do not know why, and I am not going to make any assertions as to the reason why but I have given the facts.
Let me give another instance. Perhaps hon. members read in the Toronto papers
published yesterday morning that the Board of Commerce-and in this case His Honour Judge Robson was sitting as Chairman-had issued an order, or were going to issue an order, reducing the price of certain articles of food 6 or 8 or 10 cents a pound. No such order was made; no such order, apparently, was ever contemplated. What the Board did do, after considering the question, was to say that prices would go back some time between now and the 15th of October - providing conditions with regard to the raw product of that particular industry remained as they are to-day-to the level of the 15th of March last, when the price was about the same as it is today. That was a perfectly reasonable order to make, but the country is agitated apparently by the scare headlines in the newspapers, and that agitation is creeping into the House of Commons.
I think it is only fair to give the Board of Commerce a chance. Surely none of us can deny the fact that from one end of this country to the other there was an agitation amongst all the people, and I know of nothing for which the Government was more universally condemned by those who wanted to find fault with it, than that they were not making some comprehensive effort to control the spread in prices. The Government enacted the legislation bringing into existence the Board of Commerce, and in doing that, went further than any other country in the world. I believe that they exercised the greatest possible care in selecting the commissioners. Their judgment may not have been right; time alone will disclose that. But it is not fair on partial evidence to condemn these men- I care not whether it be the chairman or any member of the commission-until we have had an opportunity of seeing just exactly what they are doing and how it is going to work out. It would be equally fair to condemn any man who is administering justice in this country without knowing the basis on which he delivered his judgment. I sincerely trust that the Board of Commerce will be given a fair opportunity to go forward and do its work unhampered by adverse and unfair criticism.


Samuel Hughes: May I aAk the minister if the third commissioner has been' appointed yet?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Personally, I am not in a position to say that he has been appointed, but I expect the matter will be dealt with almost immediately.


Samuel Hughes: I understood that he had been appointed, and I should like to have his name before we pass this clause so that we might discuss him too.


Samuel Francis Glass: The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), in endeavouring to apologize for the board has, in my opinion, given one more proof of its inefficiency. He says in reference to its order regarding the price of milk


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. A discussion of the milk order would not be in order on this clause. A great deal of latitude was allowed hon. members in discussing the principle of the Bill on the second reading, but speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Looking to the improvement of procedure, there are one or two amendments which I should like to move. The first one is to subsection 2 of section 6 of the Act. That section provides that when the Chief Commissioner is present he shall preside, but in his absence either of the other two may preside. The purpose of this is to determine which of the two shall preside, and the method of determination is that the chairman shall designate the one. It will be seen how inconvenient it would be in the absence of the Chairman to have two commissioners each entitled to preside and no method of determining which of them shall do so. I move therefore this amendment:
Section six of the said Act is amended by striking out subsection 2 thereof and substituting therefor the following subsection:-
" (2) The Chief Commissioner when present shall preside, and in the absence of the Chief Commissioner a Commissioner to be named by the Chief Commissioner, or, if no commissioner is so named, then a commissioner to be named by the Governor in Council shall preside. The opinion of Chief Commissioner or the presiding Commissioner upon any question arising when such Chief or presiding Commissioner is presiding which in the opinion of the commissioners is a question of law shall prevail."
Section as amended agreed to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Also for the purpose of perfecting the matter with regard to procedure I move the following amendment:
Section 48 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
" (3) The Board or any Commissioner or any officer of the Board or person named under this section may by order require the attendance of any person or persons before the Board or any Commissioner or officer or person aforesaid to be examined upon oath touching any matter and to produce books, papers, documents or articles and any person who disobeys such order shall be guilty of an offence and liable on

summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars, together with .costs of prosecution. The offence shall be deemed to have been committed every day the disobedience continues." This provision shall not exclude or restrict the application of said section.
This is merely to provide for a method of compelling the attendance of witnesses.


William Findlay Maclean: It provides for only a fine.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes; only a fine.


William Findlay Maclean: Could you not threaten imprisonment in case of refusal to attend and give evidence?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the existing section 48 they have the power to exercise, for the enforcement of such orders and punishment for disobedience thereof, all the powers that are exercised by any superior court in Canada for the enforcement of subpoenas to witnesses or punishment for disobedience of them. This particular amendment is-made at .the suggestion of the chief commissioner, who thinks it would more effectively compel attendance if there were such a penalty adding to itself day by day.
Section as amended agreed to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I move that section 44 be amended:	[DOT]
(1.) By striking out the word "letters" in the third line of clause (a) of said section and substituting therefor the word " letter," and by striking out the word " and " where it appears in the fifth line of the said clause (a) and substituting therefor the word "or."
The provision was that to serve a company you should send a letter to the manager and a letter to the secretary. The effect of the amendment is that you send one letter to the manager or to the secretary, avpiding a duplication of letters.
Section as amended agreed to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I move that section 44 be further amended:
By inserting after the word " employ " at the end of clause (b) thereof the words "or by mailing by registered letter postage pre-paid addressed to such firm, co-partnership, or individual at such last place of abode or office or place of business."
Subsection "B" deals with the services of a firm, co-partnership or individual, and provides that the notice shall be delivered to any member of such firm, or to the individual; or at the last place of abode, or at the office or place of business of the firm or individual, or to a clerk in such firm. The effect of the amendment is simply to permit that the service may be made by

sending a registered letter, postage prepaid, addressed to the firm or partnership.
Section as amended agreed to.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suggested to the minister that it would toe well to have some provision made for the filing of the decisions of the board, and I thought he would take steps in this regard. Under the Act there is an appeal, and in a case of that kind it is only right that the parties who may wish to appeal should know where to look for a copy of the decision. It might toe provided that within, say, ten days, the decision might be filed in some office of Government.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the Act the board is authorized to establish an office, and to appoint a secretary and give him such assistance as may be required. When it gets into operation I do not think there will be any difficulty for the general public to obtain copies of the orders from the secretary. With regard to the status of the board, the desire was that it should be as nearly as possible in keeping with the position of the Railway Board.
Now the Railway Board does not report to the Government the decisions it arrives at, but there has never been any practical difficulty in the Government, or any person interested, obtaining copies of the orders that are made. I think it is not desirable to attach a board, at all events one of this quasi-judicial character, to a particular department of the Government in the sense of calling upon it to report to the Government. The secretary of the board will be a public officer, and it will be his duty to keep records and it will always be possible for the Government and the members of the House, or any of the public who may be interested, to obtain copies of orders from this board just as the public obtain copies of the judgments of any court, or of the decisions of the Railway Board. I think it perhaps would be a little invidious to make a distinction between this board and other analogous bodies.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If there ig a provision in the Bill establishing an office of the board in the city of Ottawa with certain machinery such as the Minister of Justice has mentioned, and if there is something in the Act to say that all decisions of the board shall be in writing and obtainable in that office, that answers my purpose. It is not very long since we passed the Act but I cannot at this time remember all its terms. There should be in it a provision
stating that the findings of the board shall be in writing and filed in Liieir own office so that any person wanting to see them or wishing to take an appeal to the Governor in Council, as provided in the Act, should be able to find something that would be available, and a place designated where he could get the requisite information.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, there are provisions to that effect in the Act. If the hon. gentleman will look at section 16 he will see this requirement-the secretary shall keep a record:
-of all the proceedings conducted before the Board or commissioner under this Act.
The secretary will have custody:
-of all records and documents belonging or appertaining to the Board or filed in his office.
The secretary is also required to obey all rules and directions given by the board or the Chief Commissioner and is also incumbent upon him:
-to have every regulation and order of the Board drawn pursuant to the direction of the Board, signed by the Chief Commissioner, sealed with the official seal of the Board, and filed in the office of the Secretary.
And then subsection No. 3 provides:
Upon application of any person, and on payment of such fees as the Board may prescribe, the Secretary shall deliver to such applicant a certified copy of any such regulation or order.
I think the proceedings are as nearly similar as possible to those of any court of record.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do the words " regulation or order " mean a decision of the board, or are they rules and regulations in regard to procedure?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In most of the provisions it is considered that a proceeding of the Board results in an order. Then in addition to the use of the words " regulation or order " we have the provision that a record shall be kept of all proceedings conducted before the board under the Act. If the hon. gentleman thinks there is any doubt about it, I shall be very glad to move an amendment to subsection No. 3 to provide that the secretary shall deliver a certified copy of " any such certified order or proceeding." I think "proceeding" would cover the point if it is thought desirable, but in my view we may safely leave the provision as it is because I think it is the usual provision in the case of analagous bodies.

Mr. McKENZIE.: I have no purpose in the matter beyond meeting what appeared to have been a difficulty for some time past -a difficulty which has been aired in the House to a very great extent-that there was an uncertainty abroad as to whether in certain cases there was an order or not. It is not desirable to have any uncertainty of that kind; there should be' a fixity about these orders and one should know where they are at any time.
Bill reported with amendments, and amendments read the second time and concurred in.
' Mr. SPEAKER: When shall the Bill be read a third time7


Charles Joseph Doherty: If there is no objection to such a course I would be glad to have the third reading now in order to get the Bill speedily before the Senate.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister will get his farmer friends to agree to that we have no objection'.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion, of course, can only pass by leave of the House.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


PRIVATE BILL.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 16, respecting the North Empire Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Blake.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty for the adjournment of the House.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Can the minister give us an inkling of What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that tomorrow is private members' day. If we get through the business under that heading of course we could take up the Bills that are on the Order Paper.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned
Wednesday, October 1, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Two o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
First report of the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.-Mr. Cockshutt.
Report from the Civil Service Commission on the classification of the Civil Service.-Hon. Mr. Maclean.
Memorandum of the Board of Grain Supervisors containing certain Orders in Council and regulations with reference to

the Canadian Wheat Board.-Sir George Foster.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 22, to amend the Royal North West Mounted Police Act.
Andrew Ross McMaster: Explain.


Mr. ROWELL:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to make provision for the amalgamation of the Dominion Police with the Royal North West Mounted Police, constituting one'Federal Police Force. The name of the Royal North West Mounted Police will be changed to " The Royal Canadian Mounted Police," " Canadian " taking the place of " North West " as being more truly descriptive of the functions and territorial jurisdiction of the Force. But, as the Force is generally known as the " Mounted Police " throughout the country, it will preserve that distinctive characteristic. Provision is made whereby members of the Dominion Police Force may become members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Frank S. Cahill: Under this amendment will the Dominion Police automatically become members of this Force?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No; it must be by
their own voluntary action. But I would think the benefits to them under the Bill will be so obvious that they will be very glad to come under its operation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
QUESTIONS.	.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk )
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Have the Medical Officers of the Canadian Army received an increase in stipend since November 11, 1918?
2.	If so, what is the proportion of this increase ?
3.	Did the Medical Officers, who were in France or in England, receive the same increase as their colleagues who remained in Canada?
4.	Did these increases affect in any way the war gratuities of the aforesaid officers?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Medical and Dental officers retained for duty were granted an increase in pay effective 1st April, 1919.
2.	50 per cent increase in regimental pay of rank.
3.	The increase is received by officers re-
OCTOBEE 1} 1919
turning from overseas to full time duty in Canada, vice officers permitted to retire from duty in Canada.
4.	No.


Mr. REDMAN:: 1.	How many district offices are being operated by the Board of Pension Commissioners and where are they located?
2.	What are the names of the male employees in each district office and what position does each hold?
3.	What actual remuneration, computed on monthly basis, is now being paid to each male employee in each district office?


Mr. HUGH CLARK (Parliamentary Secretary):: 1.	The Board of Pension Commissioners operates twenty-one District Offices, located at:
Calgary, Alta.
Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Edmonton, Alta.
Halifax, N.S.
Hamilton, Ont.
Kingston, Ont.
London, Ont.
Montreal, P.Q.
Ottawa, Ont.
Quebec, P.Q.
North Bay, Ont.
Port Arthur, Ont.
Regina, Sask.
Saskatoon, Sask.
St. John, N.B.
Toronto, Ont.
Vancouver, B.C.
Victoria, B.C.
Winnipeg, Man.
Sydney, N.S.
British Branch, London, England.
2.	The names of male employees in the district offices are placed on the table of the House.


Mr. KAY:: 1.	Is there a Hugh S. Spence employed in the Mines Branch? If so, in what capacity, and at what salary?
2.	Was this man's name formerly Hugo Schmidt?
3.	If so, for what reason was he permitted to change his name and retain his appointment in the Civil Service?
4.	What are his professional and practical qualifications ?
5.	Is he, or was he, engaged on the compilation of a report on the graphite industry of Canada? If so, what qualification has he in connection with that industry?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes. Mining engineer. $2,309 per annum.	_	,
2.	No, according to the records of this department his name formerly was ''Hugh Sweyn de Schmid".
3.	Mr. Spence is a British subject, born in Devonshire, England. He changed his name on the 24th January, 1913, following the usual procedure in such cases. Nr, one objected to his course at the lime, nor had any reason to do so.
4.	Mr. Spence is a mining engineer, a graduate of the Royal School of Mines, Freiberg, where he made a special study of non-metallic minerals, and in this connection, during his ten years' service with the Government, has conducted independent investigations and prepared reports thereon, such as the Reports on Mica and on Feldspar deposits in Canada.
5.	Mr. Spence has recently completed a report on the Graphite Deposits and Industry of Canada. His general knowledge of graphite deposits, both in Canada and *abroad, the methods of mining and preparing the mineral for the market, qualifies him as one to whom an investigation on the subject of graphite could be entrusted.


PROGRESS OF DEMOBILIZATION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia and Defence): Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House I desire to give the following information with regard to the progress of demobilizatin:
Total C.E.F. troops embarked from overseas from 11th November, 1918, to 30th September, 1919, 264,045.
Total troops discharged from C.E.F. in Canada up to 15th September, 1919, 70,731.
Siberian force returned to Canada and demobilized, 4,057.
Total troops demobilized to 30t.h September (including those still at sea about 367), 338,833.
Total number of hospital patients still overseas to be returned to Canada as of the 19th of September, 126. All other military patients have been returned to Canada. The total number of hospital cases now in the military hospitals in Canada is 6,598. We have now reached our peak load and there will be a very rapid clearing of the hospitals.
It is gratifying to know that in the handling of this large number of men, not a single life has been lost through* accident at Sea. Three casualties occurred by derailment of a train in December last.
The rapid handling of the troops by the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railway, and the Grand Trunk; Railway, has been carried out with the greatest possible efficiency.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders or the Day:
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways):: Mr. Speaker, the member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) asked for some information yesterday with reference to an item that appeared in the press in connection with the Hudson Bay Railway. I have asked the chief engineer for information, and he gives me this in reply:
The Chief Engineer of the Terminals, Mr. D. W. McLachlan, who is at present engaged in other engineering work with the Department at Ottawa, informs me that the statement with regard to the condition of the Terminals and the probability of the works being crushed to pieces by the coming winter's ice, has no foundation. He further states that the works have successfully withstood the storms and ice of the past three years without material impairment or injury, and he has every confidence that they will continue to do so during the coming winter.
We have at Port Nelson at the present time, a capable superintendent with six men whose duty is to look after minor repairs and immediately communicate with the Department in the event of any serious damage. His monthly reports show that everything is in first-class condition.
With regard to the roadbed. It is to be expected in a country of the nature through which this railway passes, that the frost will affect and dislodge numerous temporary trestles and telegraph poles which will have to be set up again, but not to any greater extent than *would take place if the road were under operation-the only difference being that they will all be replaced at one time when the work is again gone on with, rather than from' time to time as the damage occurred, as would be done if the road were in operation.


GAGETOWN-WESTFIELD RAILWAY LINE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. B. COPP (Westmorland):: May I ask the Minister of Railways whether arrangements have been entered into between the Canadian National Railway Board and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for running rights over that portion of their line from Westfield to St. John, in order that the Canadian National Railways may operate the section of the )St. John Valley Railway which has been completed from Gagetowi? to Westfield?
Hon. J. D. REIiD: I know that negotia-t: ms were had some time ago and I am under the impression that they have been completed. I will give my hon. friend more defirite information at the next sitting. [Major-General Mewburn.]


BOARD OF COMMERCE-APPOINTMENT OF THIRD MEMBER.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
"Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Verchgres):	May I ask the Government whether there is any truth in the report that Mr. James Murdock has been named as the third member of the Board of Commerce?
George Eulas Foster: Mr. James Murdock has been named as third member of the Board of Commerce.


Samuel Hughes: When was he appointed? Had he been appointed yesterday when the question was put in this House with regard to the appointment of a third member?	[DOT]


George Eulas Foster: I am not sure as to the date, but the appointment was made within the last two days.


THANKSGIVING DAY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I wish to direct the attention of the Government to the fact that the date selected by the Government for Thanksgiving Day, as announced in the press-October 13-as the day on which the Ontario Government has decided that nominations for the coming provincial elections shall be held.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is not in order in directing the attention of the Government to this matter unless he wishes to submit a specific question with regard to a matter of urgency.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The question comes next. What does the Government propose to do in that regard?


George Eulas Foster: The date that my hon. friend has mentioned has been proclaimed as a holiday by the Dominion Government. Perhaps my hon. friend had better put his question to the Premier of Ontario.


ADULTERATION ACT AMENDMENT-BRAN AND SHORTS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (Oxford South) moved the second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Adulteration Act (respecting bran and shorts or middlings)
Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. member should give some explanation of this Bill.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, I shall make a few observations in regard to some of the objects which I had in view in introducing this Bill.

It may be contended that the Adulteration Act of 1906 and subsequent amendments thereto make ample -provision against the adulteration of the by-products of wheat in the milling of flour. Unfortunately, however, for those who would so argue the adulteration of these commodities has been and is the practice of nearly all the milling companies of Canada to-day. It is a glaring and flagrant outrage that these things should be permitted, particularly in view of the fact that our present legislative enactments enable the millers to do that and still remain beyond the reach of the law.
Some reference was made yesterday to the value of these by-products -and to the necessity of using bran and shorts in large quantities in connection with -the raising of stock. Young and growing stock -are in great need of bran because of the protein, fat and other food qualities which it contains. The best breeders and feeders of live stock in the old- land feed enormous quantities of bran to their growing stock. In the feeding of d-airy stock also, the use of large quantities of this commodity i-s necessary. I have repeatedly pointed out that stock raising in this country should receive greater attention at the hands of the farmers than it has done in the past, because it is the only -possible means whereby the fertility of the soil can be maintained and increased. The truth of this contention will he conceded by all who are engaged in agriculture. It is, therefore, very important and most essential that these products should reach those who purchase and feed them, in a pure state.
I regret that steps were not taken many years ago to -accomplish the objects that I had in view in introducing -this Bill. Some hon. members may recall that in 1913 I spoke as strongly as I could with regard to the spread of weed seeds throughout the country and the l-ack of any effort on the part of the Government to control that menace to agriculture.
it is a very singular thing that even in those by-products of wheat weed seeds should be found in tremendous quantities and should thus be sent broadcast throughout the country. Every one who understands the milling of wheat into flour knows that it is thoroughly cleaned and put through several processes before the wheat "is ground into flour. Consequently, there cannot be any appreciable quantity of weed seeds or anything except pure wheat when it is milled. Therefore, if anything be found in the bran
or shorts other than that, it must have been placed there deliberately by the millers or others, and that is what I seek to have remedied by this Bill. If you go back a few years, you will find that the Act as it was originally passed contemplated the preventing of just such things as have been taking place during recent years. On May 3, 1911, an amendment was passed to the Act, and I will read the words that were included with regard to bran at that time. The section as originally passed read:
Bran is a product of the milling of wheat or other grain and contains not less than 14 per cent of proteids, not less than 3 Per cent of fat, not more than 10 per cent of crude fibre.
This is what was added on May 3, 1911:
And must be free from vital seeds of any of the noxious weeds defined toy the Governor in Council.
What does that imply? It cannot imply anything other than that the miller is permitted to put almost an unlimited quantity of ground weed seeds into the bran and shorts as long as the vitality of those seeds is destroyed. I should like to know what pressure was brought to bear and who was agitating for any such legislation as was placed on the statutes at that time. Why is the word " vital '' mentioned? That very word ** vital " implies that if the vitality be destroyed, no exception would be taken to the mixture. The result has been that immense quantities of weed seeds have been ground up fine and mixed with the bran and shorts, and no complaint can be lodged on that account against the millers of this country, as this amendment implies this can be done. More recently, however, further legislation was passed with regard to this matter. On December 10, 1917, it will be found that another clause, clause 17, was added to the definition of grain products :
The presence of presumably vital weed seeds in any form of feeding stuff shall be held to constitute adulteration under the Act, when more than 25 seeds per pound, as enumerated in the Seed Control Act of 1911, are present in the feed.
Step by step, this continued until in 1917 an Order in Council was passed permitting further adulteration by having as high as twenty-five vital weed seeds per pound in addition to all the ground stuff that the millers saw fit to place in the bran and shorts. What has been the result of this? The result is that there is not a department of the Government connected with agriculture, the Department of Trade and Commerce, also the Department of Inland Revenue, when -it was in existence, but had

numerous complaints from farmers throughout the country and from branches of the provincial Departments of Agriculture pointing out that large numbers of stock were being poisoned and had died as a result of this stuff being fed to them. That being the case, the House can readily understand that a great and serious injury was being done to a large proportion of the stock which might not have died but whose health was impaired as a result of eating this mixture. But in view of the fact that those complaints were being continually made and were on file with the departments of the Government, I say that the Government were lax and recreant in their duty in not seeing that some steps were taken long ago to eradicate this evil. Further, if the Board of Commerce desire to do something in the interest of the people of this country, they will immediately get busy on this matter.
There is a very wide range of weed seeds that are termed noxious. I am not going over the list; but in addition to that, there are many seeds that are not termed noxious and it is quite permissible for the millers to put as much of this in the bran and shorts as they see fit. The law prohibits more	than	twenty-five vital
noxious weed seeds per pound, but you can dump into it as much of the other stuff as you see fit, and the law cannot interfere with you.
I should like very briefly to refer to something which happened before a special committee of this House at the last session cf Parliament when we had before the special committee that was dealing with the cost ol living in this country evidence given by Mr. Hedley Shaw, managing director of the Maple Leaf Milling Company; Mr. William Allan Black,'representing the Ogilvie Milling Company, and Mr. W. W. Hutchinson, vice-president and manager of the Lake of the Woods Milling Company. In answer to a question that I put' to Mr. Hedley Shaw on that occasion, he said:
Bran and shorts are better with the screenings added thereto. If you take it out, it would reduce the quality of the bran and shorts.
It is well known that in the cleaning and the milling of wheat there is a certain proportion of cracked wheat that is broken into four quarters. This is left with the wild buckwheat and other weed seeds that are taken out of it, and by reason of the fact that there is a certain quantity of flour in wild' buckwheat and in this cracked wheat, the millers can scour the bran and shorts so fine that it would not come up

to the standard required, the one to which I referred to a few minutes ago which requires 14 per cent of proteids, 3 per cent of fat and so forth; 'but by reason of the fact that they are permitted to incorporate into those by-products this other stuff that should properly be termed as screenings, they are enabled to bring up the standards of bran and shorts.
The result is we have another by-product of wheat on the market to-day called Red Dog, a low grade flour, which was formerly considered as shorts or middlings. The bran and shorts to-day are of such poor quality without the addition of the wheat and the buckwheat in the screenings that they do not come up to the standard. One of the objects I had in view in introducing this Bill was to remove this very serious defect. When Mr. Black, of the Ogilvie Milling Company was before the committee, I questioned him with regard to the practice they were pursuing and pointed out some of the results. I asked him whether it would not be advisable and in the public interest for them to dispose of their screenings as screenings, because they would have a commercial value if the seeds were taken out. He replied:
I think it is rather a puttering thing to do to take it out and separate it and work it oft. It would he a good deal of a bother and a great deal of a nuisance to start out with. Of course, it is entirely up to the Government to say what we can do and what we cannot do. If the Government says nothing can go in except pure bran and shorts, of course, we will have to abide toy that.
So the millers were quite within their rights in doing what they did. A little further on, Mr. Hutchinson, replying to a question I had put to him said:
Might I make a suggestion, if it is as serious as you have brought out to-day?
Mr. Sutherland :	Yes, certainty.
Mr. Hutchinson:	Why does not the Government make it illegal altogether?
That was a straight honest statement from the general manager of one of the biggest milling companies in this country. So the blame is not on the milling companies entirely, but rests on Parliament and the Government for having permitted such a practice to be pursued. Let me qualify that by saying that it has been during the last year and a half that the most serious legislation has been enacted enabling the millers to carry on in this way. Instead of endeavouring to remove this nuisance the Government through the Department of Agriculture have contracted for what is termed reeleaned screenings to be disposed of by the department to the farmers of

Canada. During the past year 16,889,450 pounds of this stuff had been purchased by the Government and disposed of to the farmers of this country, *much of it unground. More than 10 per cent of that stuff was wild oats, and about 2 per cent of it was made up of noxious weeds of the very worst kinds1-mustards and others. This stuff has been sent broadcast all over Canada, and I say as emphatically as I can that some one in the Government is to blame for having permitted such a thing to be done. The greatest possible injury that could be done to agriculture in Canada has been done through the action of the Government in this regard. I say further, it may well be asked whether the Minister of Agriculture for the Dominion of Canada during the past year and a half considered himself to be in the employ of the people of Canada or in the employ of the Grain Growers' Grain Company.
I wish to refer to a document published by the Government, Bulletin No. 412, from the laboratory of the Inland Revenue Department, prepared by the chief analyst, Dr. McGill, relating to the inspection that has been taking place. The information contained in this Bulletin is compiled from reports of inspectors sent out by the Inland Revenue Department all over Canada. What did they find? In Nova Scotia one sample of bran from the Ogilvie Flour Milling Company contained 80 lambs' quarters, 8 black bindweed, 16 field pennycress, 8 hares' ear mustard. Another sample from the same province contained 168 black bindweed, 112 lambs' quarters, 8 ladys' thumb. Mind you, all these seeds were found by the inspectors in a pound sample of bran. Another sample from the Robin Hood Flour Milling Company of Moosejaw contained 108 lambs' quarters, 64 field pennycress. A sample from the Dominion Flour Milling Company of Montreal contained 88 black bindweed. 208 lambs' quarters, 40 field pennycress, 8 cow cockle, 8 ball mustard, 16 wild mustard, and 56 hares' ear mustard. A sample from the Ogilvie Milling Company in the Quebec City district contained 224 lambs' quarters. In the Quebec district a sample from the Alex. Brown Milling Company of Toronto contained 224 black bindweed, 8 lambs' quarters, and 16 hares' ear mustard, and 8 ball mustard.


Richard Coe Henders: Were these seeds found in the bran or in the mixed feed?


Donald Sutherland: In the pure bran, not mixed feed at all.


Richard Coe Henders: How could they make that analysis of the 'bran?


Donald Sutherland: The system which they followed, and which is considered very accurate, is explained at the beginning of Bulletin No. 422. In the district of Three Rivers a sample from the William Scott Flour Milling Company of Ottawa contained 784 lambs' quarters, 32 black bindweed, 48 field pennycress, -and 16 hares' ear mustard. Another sample in'the Eastern Townships from the Dominion Flour Milling Company contained 16 black bindweed, 64 lambs' quarters, and 16 stickseed. Another sample from the district of Montreal from the Ogilvie Flour Milling Company contained 224 black bindweed, 192 pennycress and 3,376 lambs' quarters. These seeds were all found in one pound oi bran.
The compound which has been sold throughout this country as bran much of which is not bran at all is the rankest possible kind of poison. In the district of Montreal the figures show: Ogilvie Flour Milling Co., black bind weed 416, lamb's quarters 880, 96 hare's ear mustard, 96 field pennycress, 16 wild mustard, 16 stickweed. Dominion Flour Milling Co., of the same district: 48 black bind weed, 16 wild mustard, 32 lamb's quarters, etc. District of Ottawa, Lake of the Woods Milling Co.: 704 lamb's quarters. Renfrew Flour Milling Co.: 32 wild oats, 48 black bind weed, 16 field pennycress. District of Hamilton: 192 lamb's quarters, 96 black bind weed, 48 field pennycress. Kirby Milling Co., Portage la Prairie: 16 lamb's quarters, 32 black bind weed, 32 wild oats, 16 pennycress, 16 hare's ear mustard. District of Windsor, manufacturers unknown, 16 black bindweed, 16 wild oats and '6 couch grass. In another unknown case the figures given are: 64 cress, 16wild oats, 144 black bind weed, 16 pennycress, 16 wild mustard. District of Manitoba West, Panada TUour Milling Co., St Boniface: 432 lamb's quarters, 336 black bind weed, 48 pennycress, 16 wild mustard, 32 field pepper grass. Western Canada Flour Milling Co., St. Boniface, 176 lamb's quarters, 64 stickweed, 96 bind weed, 16 pennycress, 16 buttercup, etc. District of Manitoba, Lake of the Woods Milling Co., Portage la Prairie: 48 pennycress, 96 buttercup, 16 chiekweed, 32 field pennycress. District of Saskatchewan: 128 bind weed, 48 wild oats, 80 lamb's quarters, 16 pennycress, 16 stickweed.
My object in enumerating so many of these examples is to show that it is a common practice in every province of
* 718

Canada, not confined to any particular mill or any particular district. In the district of Alberta, Ogilvie Milling Co., of Medicine Hat, the figures are: 592 lamb's quarters, and again in the case of the Ogilvie Milling Co., 608 lamb's quarters, 16 pennycress. Western Canada Flour Milling Co., of Calgary, in the Alberta district shows 256 lamb's quarters and 16 bind weed. Lake of the Woods Milling Co.: 128 lamb's quarters, 16 pennycress, 16 hare's ear mustard. District Rocky Mountains, Ogilvie Milling Co., 1,392 lamb's quarters and 768 tumbling mustard.
Just imagine, Sir, 768 tumbling mustard seeds in a pound of bran, and in the face of this the report in the records of the department says that there were noxious weed seeds in excess of adulteration! Then there is Lake of the Woods Milling Company, with 2,208 lamb's quarters, 16 field pennycress. In the District of Vancouver on the west coast the Lake of the Woods Milling Company again appears with a violation, and the Ogil-vie Milling Company shows 864 lamb's quarters and 96 tumbling mustard, and the comment is made that there are noxious weed seeds in excess of adulteration. The figures in the case of the Vance Milling Company of Vancouver are: 528 lamb's quarters, 480 black bindweed, 32 wild oats, 16 field pennycress. Lake of the Woods Milling Company at Vancouver: 8,608 lamb's quarters, 48 black bind weed.


Mr. J. R. WILSON:: Are the weed seeds to which the hon. member refers intact or do they show evidence of having been ground?


Donald Sutherland: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. Speaker, the Bill of my hon. friend the member for South

Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) proposes to amend the Act respecting the adulteration of food and other articles. As my ho.n. friend has said, the administration of that Act has been transferred to the Department of Health, and the proposed legislation comes under the jurisdiction of the department over which I have the honour for the time being to preside. The matter brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for South Oxford is undoubtedly one of great interest to the agricultural community. It is important on the one hand to keep the soil free from weeds and on the other to see that the live stock im-dustry does not suffer from the character of the feed provided.
There is no doubt upon the facts disclosed in the bulletins already issued by the head of this branch, Dr. McGill, that the existing law has been violated by those engaged either in the production or the _ sale of certain classes of feed. My hon. friend has read certain extracts from some of the publications issued by the department, and they do disclose a seed weed content far beyond what is permitted by the regulations. The administration of the Act has only been transferred to my department in the last two weeks, and therefore I am simply speaking from information received from the chief of the branch, Dr. McGill. As I understand the situation, it is not possible as a practical proposal to have feed absolutely free of foreign matter, that grain even when cleaned is not absolutely pure. The amount of weed seed residue may be very small, but there is always a certain residue. Unfortunately it happens that to-day the grain is not so free from weed seed as it was perhaps a few years ago, and there is an increase in the weed content of the grain grown in many sections of the country. Of course, methods are adopted for freeing the grain as far as possible of these weed seeds; and in the grinding the seeds in a large measure become pulverized and the number of vital seeds that pass through should be very limited. Then in the case of bran and shorts fed to cattle or sheep, my information is that the method of mastication should still further devitalize the seeds that may be left in such cases. But whatever may be the facts in reference to the present situation, the law authorizes the Governor in Council to pass regulations governing the matter, and regulations have been passed to which my hon. friend has referred. These regulations were issued in the year 1917, and they define the character of the 
feeds to which my hon. friend refers. They are as follows:
14.	Bran is a product of the milling of wheat or other grain, and contains not less than fourteen (14) per cent of protelds, not less than three (3) per cent of fat, not more than ten (10) per cent of crude fibre and must be free from vital seeds of any of the noxious weeds defined by the Governor in Council under "The Seed Control Act."
15.	Shorts or Middlings is the coarser material sifted out from the products of a second treatment of the grain by crushing the coarsely ground material that is sifted out from the bran after the first grinding; and contains not less than fifteen (15) per cent of proteids, not less than four (4) per cent of fat, not more than eight (8) per cent of crude fibre and must be free from vital seeds of any of the noxious weeds defined by the Governor General in Council under "The Seed Control Act."
16.	Chop Feed is whole grain of one or more kinds more or less finely ground, and contains not less than ten (10) per cent of proteids, not less than two (2) per cent of fat, not more than ten (10) per cent of crude fibre and must be free from vital seeds of any of the noxious weeds defined by the Governor in Council under "The Seed Control Act."
17.	The presence of presumably vital weed seeds in any form of feeding stuff shall be held to constitute adulteration under the Act, when more than 25 seeds per pound, as enumerated in the Seed Control Act of 1911, are present in the feed.
As I understand the matter, if there is a smaller weed seed content than 25 seeds per pound, the presence of these weed seeds is not considered as adulteration under the Act, and any person handling such feeding stuff would not be subject to the penalties prescribed for selling adulterated feed; but if the product contains more than 25 of these seeds per 'pound, those manufacturing or selling it would be liable to the penalties.


Donald Sutherland: That is vital seeds?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes. Now, it is quite true that as a result of the investigations by the department they have found that *a weed seed content beyond the maximum permitted is present in many of the samples taken, and they have instituted prosecutions against the parties selling such adulterated products. As soon as the matter was brought to my attention I gave instructions that proceedings should be instituted in every case where the law was being violated. In addition, if the large milling concerns do violate the law, not only should they be punished, but the widest publicity should be given to the fact that the products of those concerns are being manufactured and sold in violation of the provisions of the Adulteration Act. Dr. McGill is now considering methods of giving wider publicity to the fact that convictions have been registered against certain firms for such viola-


1, 19X9
[Stage Direction]
tions of the law. I can. say to my hon. friend that so long as I am responsible for the administration of this Act, I intend, to see that the law ds carried out and that adulteration is prevented as far as possible. I believe that Dr. McGill has been working -most industriously and faithfully along these lines with a view of putting the law into motion against those who either manufacture or sell adulterated feed.
Dr. McGill informs me that the present legislation i-s sufficient. If the 25 vital seeds per pound is too high a number to permit, then the provisions of the Order in Council can be changed. According to the information he has furnished me, -an examniation of a large number of samples which contain this number or less showed that -there was no deleterious result so f-aT as -the stock were concerned, but where a larger number of vital seeds was found there were in some cases at least unsatisfactory results from the use of such feed. But there is power under the existing legislation ito reduce the number of these vital weed seeds, and if an investigation proves that that number is too high

and I know some of the officers of the department -have reported- that in their judgment that number should be reduced-J can see no reason why i-t should not be reduced to a minimum consistent with what would be the reasonable -and proper requirements of the trade.
I do not know iny-self, I -am only speaking on the information -that has been f-urn-ished to me, -but I am informed that it is not po-ssihle to get feed- -absolutely pure. My instructions -are that the amendment, as my hon. friend has put it, if carried out to the letter would be unworkable, inasmuch as weeds and intermixture of other grain in the field, is inevitable. There -is no such thing known to commerce as wheat bran entirely free from material other th-an wheat, or corn bran entirely free from other than -maize products, that in all cases there is some of the weed content in the grain, and that it would not be -commercially possible to carry the law out to the very letter. I had the matter looked into -and I received this information to-day. In view of it I would suggest to my hon. friend that instead of pressing the Bill to the second reading he should let it stand over until the next session, -and I undertake, as head of the department, to go into the whole matter very carefully in the interval with a view to remedying the conditions to which my hon. friend (Mr. -Sutherland) has referred.
He has rendered a public service in directing attention to the importance of this matter; the whole question is as to the best method of dealing with it. I would have no objection to the second reading of the Bill were it not that I am instructed by officers of the department that, on a strict interpretation of the Bill, it is not feasible to carry out its provisions; that it would have the effect in some cases of preventing the sale of ordinary bran and other animal food of that kind. What we all have in view is to accomplish a certain result in the public interest, and, having regard to the information at hand, it appears to me that the course I have suggested would be the more likely one to secure the best possible results. Any violation of the present regulations will be prosecuted to the limit of the law, and the names of the offenders will be made known so that the public will be fully advised as to what firms or corporations are violating the law. Then, if the present weed seed content permitted under this Order in Council is too high and it can be lowered without serious prejudice to normal business operations, I shall be very glad indeed to see it lowered.
In fairness to my former colleague, the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. T. A Crerar) who is not here to-day, I wish to add that in whatever he did in connection with regulating the work of his department, I am quite sure that he was guided solely by what he believed to be the public interest.
Mr. GEORGE BOYCE. (Carleton):	Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that it is not possible to have bran pure. I agree that it is pretty hard to have it pure, and in that connection I wish to draw attention to a matter that I had personal knowledge of. On one occasion I received a consignment of bran, and in the carload there were two bags of seeds. How did those seeds get there? 1s- it not fair to assume that they were gathered together for the purpose of mixing them with the bran that we are paying $65 a ton for? We are paying a great deal for the tricks of the people who are producing this stuff. It is necessary that this commodity be pure, because we are paying for a good article; besides, it is a very serious thing for the people who use milk in the cities, especially children and aged persons, if the dairymen who supply the milk feed their stock with stuff that is poisonous. The sooner this matter is taken in hand, the better for all concerned. The member for South Oxford
[Stage Direction]


deserves great praise for bringing the subject to the attention of the House.
James Robert Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much interest to the remarks of the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) on this subject. The milling industry is one of the important industries of Canada; it is growing and expanding and improving from year to year. The member for South Oxford would seem to be in favour of drawing the line so closely that every miller in the country would be open to prosecution on evidence of there being something in the bran which was not of wheat, but which was grown with the wheat. I have had a great many years' experience in the milling business, and a number of years' experience in the handling of grain. To my knowledge-leaving the hen out of consideration-there is no machinery manufactured that will separate certain kinds of grain or weeds from wheat. The report read by the hon. member showed that traces of wild oats were found in bran. A great deal of the wheat grown throughout the West contains from eight to fifteen per cent of wild oats, and I do not think it is possible-anyhow, it is impracticable-to clean out all traces of the wild oats before it passes through the rolls. Kernels of that wild oats will remain, and although it does not go into the bran without being crushed, the presence of the hulls shows that there is wild oats in the bran. Buckwheat, too, will go through the screens; it is hardly possible to take it all out. No machine has been manufactured up to the present that will separate barley from wheat. But under the Bill presented by my hon. friend, if a trace of barley, of oats, or of seed is found in bran the miller is liable to be hauled up and prosecuted for something that it is beyond his power to remedy. As the President of the Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell) has suggested, it would be well for the hon. member to allow his amendment to stand until the next session and give the minister in charge of the department an opportunity to enforce the law which is already on the statute-book. I think that the present law is about as far as we can go without having impracticable legislation. There is no doubt in my mind that the mills have been injecting seeds into the bran and shorts, outside of what was in the feed when it went through the rolls. By close inspection of the feed by officials of the department, a few examples might be made which would soon cause the practice to stop. I support

the suggestion that this matter be allowed to stand over until next session.


John Archibald Maharg: Mr. *Speaker, the member for Saskatoon (Mr. J. R. Wilson) suggests that itjs not practicable to prevent buckwheat and wild oats from getting into bran. If buckwheat and wild oats were the only things that went into the bran there would be very little complaint. In fact, I would not complain at all; I would be quite satisfied even if there was a large percentage of buckwheat in the bran. But there is no difficulty in separating from the 'bran the other objectionable seeds my hon. friend did not refer to; any ordinary fanning mill will take them out. I refer to small black poisonous seeds, which are worse than useless.
We would not object very much to paying for something that was useless if it was not harmful, but this is both useless and harmful; in fact, it has caused the death of scores upon scores of animals. There is an excuse for the hon member for Oxford South (Mr. Sutherland) dealing leniently with the matter of wild oats, but there is no excuse with regard to black poisonous seeds, they can be taken out without any difficulty at all. There are, however, other things that go into bran. If you get a sack of bran to-day in Ottawa, I venture to say that if you take a handful and hold ii't up to the light you will see a growth of the finest fuzzy whiskers on that bran you have ever seen in your life; you can see a small fuzz all over the top of it. There is something more than seeds in that; it looks as though all the sweepings and screenings and everything else that it was possible to gather up around the mill had been thrown together and ground up in a simplex grinder and sold as'food under the guise of bran. This is something that should be looked into. Personally, I have not had a pound of bran on my farm for the last fifteen or eighteen months, because I came to the conclusion that I was far better without it entirely even if it had almost beentgiven to me. Unless something is done, serious consequences will arise.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have very little to say with regard to the Bill that is now before us for our consideration. I have listened with a great deal of attention to the speech of the hon. member for Oxford South (Mr. Sutherland), who has given evidence of having gone very fully into this question and who has produced and placed on Hansard very strong reports

aud e\idence in support of his contention that some steps should he taken to put an end to the sale of what he says is poisonous or deleterious animal food. I take it for granted that the facts as put forward by the hon. gentleman are sustained. While I do .not profess to be very familiar with the Act that is now on the statute-book, we have an Act which comes pretty close to the subject, if it does not cover it altogether. If we have an Act which could be enforced and which could put an end to what is complained of, that Act should be enforced; but if the Act itself is deficient and does not cover the ground or does	not give enough authority	to
the Government officials to put an end to whait is complained of, I should be in favour of providing that remedy at the earliest possible moment. I do not speak with authority as to what the old Act contains; but if it is lacking in any particular, or if it falls short of furnishing the machinery necessary to put an end to this evil, we should not allow this fall to pass by and permit people who are producing-this kind of food to do more mischief. I think the Bill should be passed, and then if it be required, it is available; if it be not required, it can do no harm; but a great deal of harm may inure to the people of this country by reason of the fact that we have no legislation to deal with the subject which is provided for in the Bill of the hon. member.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Mighlt I juslt answer the question of my hon. friend? I myself think that the Act at present gives sufficient authority, and it is a question- of the exercise of that authority by regulations passed by the Governor in Council. Section 3, of the Act provides:
Food shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this Act.
And-	[DOT]
"Food" includes every article used for food or drink by man or cattle-
And so forth. The Act provides that food shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of the Act-
(a)	if any substance has been mixed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength;
(b)	if any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article ;
(c)	if any valuable constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted.
The latter will not apply, but I should think both (a) and (b) would apply if the
46J	J J j
bran contains weed seeds as that is certainly contrary to the provisions of that clause. If it contains a mixture such as the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) has referred to, I should certainly say that it contains an inferior or cheaper substance which has been substituted wholly or in part for the article. Then (f) would also apply:
(f) if it contains any added poisonous ingredient or any ingredient which may render such an article injurious to the health of persons or cattle consuming it.
Under one or all of those three clauses (a) or (b) or (f), I would think that regulations might be made by the Governor in Council to cover this. Pursuant to those provisions, regulations have been made which I have read to the House, and under section I, subsection 17, if the article contains a minimum of twenty-five of these weed seeds per pound, it is considered adulterated. As I said before, it may be that that should be changed and the number reduced. But I think under the existing legislation there is power to deal with the matter.


Mr. BALL:: Is there any provision for
inspection?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, the Act provides for inspection, and the Adulteration of Foods Branch has certain inspectors. It may be that more attention should be paid to inspection. I speak with a very limited knowledge of the matter, but I know Dr. McGill is deeply interested in the whole question and in seeking to put an end to these practices and to get the best results, because he has already discussed the matter with me.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker


Georges Henri Boivin: It is my duty to inform the House that the hon. member is exercising his right to close the debate. If any other hon. member desires to speak, he should do so at once.


John Archibald Maharg: Will you permit me,
Sir, to ask a question of the minister after the hon. member has closed the debate?


Georges Henri Boivin: The system of asking questions would he in order only in Committee. The rule is very clear that on the second reading of a Bill, each member is entitled to make only one speech, with the exception of the hon. member introducing the Bill who has a right to close the debate.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: By common consent,
the hon. member could ask a question. I

am sure he has the consent of the House to ask any proper question.


John Archibald Maharg: It is not exactly a question. It has been suggested that the Bill be withdrawn, and while I do not know how the hon. member feels about the matter, I would not care to see the Bill withdrawn, unless we have the assurance of the minister that a test will be made between now and the next session so that we may know where we are at.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I thought I had made that point quite clear.


John Archibald Maharg: Perhaps the minister did.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I intimated that I had already taken the matter up with the Dominion analyst, Dr. McGill, who has been working at it under the Department of Trade and Commerce under the minister in charge of that department, and it is the intention to pursue the subject to the end with a view to putting a stop to the practice which undoubtedly has existed, which the departmental reports show exists to some extent at the present time, not only punishing to the limit of the law the men who are guilty, but making known to the public the fact that these firms have violated the law and are selling for animal use foodstuffs that are contrary to the law. Further, it is the intention to have the whole situation examined with a view to seeing if the existing regulations should not be more stringent than they now are in order to meet the situation to which the hon. member for Oxford South has drawn the attention of the House, and which is certainly a most important one. I believe the publicity which this discussion has given will focus public attention more and more on this important question.


John Archibald Maharg: That will apply to all
stock feed, I suppose, not merely to bran and shorts?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Perhaps my hon. friend is aware that there is a special Act dealing with other classes of feeds, known as the Act respecting Commercial Feeding Stuffs, under which parties desiring to sell this feeding stuff must register and get a number. The stuff can only be sold under that number and the sale must comply with certain conditions. The Chief Analyst passes upon these commercial feeding stuffs. Under this Act also the necessary proceedings are being taken to prevent feeds containing deleterious substances being sold for animal use.


Donald Sutherland: At the outset of
my remarks in moving the second reading of the Bill I said that some might argue that the present Bill makes ample provision for remedying the very thing I seek to remedy by this amendment. I pointed out that it was a common practice with nearly all the milling companies in Canada to do what I have described. I would point out that the Adulteration Act is not the only one that has a bearing on this matter. The Grain Products Act and other Acts and Orders in Council have a bearing on it. Those Orders in Council in my opinion have made the enforcement of the Act more difficult. I also pointed out the effect of the amendment to the Grain Products Act of May, 1911, which contained the words "and must be free from vital seeds of any of the noxious weeds defined by the Governor in Council under the Seed Control Act." No provision was made there for excluding seeds other than noxious weed seeds. Let me give another analysis from Bulletin No. 412, from which I have already quoted. In a pound sample from the Ogilvie Milling Company in the Vancouver District there were 864 lamb's quarters seeds, and in the same district another sample there were 528 lamb's quarters. These are not noxious weed seeds, and they are not covered by the Grain Products Act. The very fact of the amendment being made to that Act implies that weed seeds other than noxious weed seeds were quite permissible. The regulation made in 1917 went even further and provided that vital weed seeds in excess of twenty-five per pound would be considered as adulteration. So all these things have a bearing on the Adulteration Act.
The difficulty in enforcing the present law is so great that I do not think this Parliament would be justified in deferring action on the matter. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Wilson) has pointed out that it would be absolutely impossible to clean wheat so that it would not contain a certain percentage of weed seeds or words to that effect, and he referred to wild oats and wild buckwheat. Now the milling companies admitted in this very building at the last session that wheat was put through seven different processes before being ground into flour, that it was made as clean as it was possible for them to make it, and that only a very small percentage of any kind of seed, or grain of any other kind than wheat, could possibly get through to be milled into flour. I think that is the belief of every one who knows anything about the milling processes. An odd kernel of barley would be more likely to get in than buckwheat; because I can see

no reason why every buckwheat seed should not be taken out in these seven processes. The wild oats could also be taken out very easily because they are so light. I venture to say that you would not find one kernel of wild oats ground up in a whole barrel of flour. That being the case, you can rest assured the inspectors will never detect the very very small percentage that might get through. The general managers, of the milling companies all admitted that this stuff is piped back into the bran and shorts deliberately. They say: "We purchased it in the wheat and there is sometimes from four to ten per cent of it." In Western Canada this year there are large sections where the crop has been very poor indeed, but it is a remarkable thing that no matter how poor the crop may be, there will be a rank growth of weed; weeds grow without any encouragement. I believe there will be a very great percentage of weed seeds in the grain this year in those places. There is no reason why more than a very small percentage of that stuff should * ever reach the elevators or the mills. The millers pay for their wheat according to its cleanness. We have a very large number of men engaged in farming operations in Western Canada and I doubt if there is one of them *who will not admit that you could very easily put a sieve in a separator which would remove practically all of the small black seeds. Some wild oats and barley might get through it, but the more dangerous weed seeds could very easily be taken out. But the thresher does not want to do that. He is threshing by the bushel and wants to have as big an output as possible, and he will not take very good care to see that the wheat is kept clean. The result is that to-day this stuff is considered a marketable commodity, and has been distributed by the Government all over the country during the past year. I have already spoken of the way it is disposed of. The Government purchased, that stuff at $35 a ton, and sold it to the farmers of this country. It has become a commodity in which the grain growers are very much interested, and they are anxious that it should be disposed of in this way rather than be taken out by the separator when the grain is being threshed, and burned on the farm which is the only proper thing to do with it. I do not wish to be unreasonable, and I do not think that I have been, in view of the fact that I have been patiently referring to this matter for the past six years, and on more than one occasion have received the promise that the departments were looking into it and hoped that some
redress would be found. I would ask the minister if he will undertake to reimburse the farmers of Canada who suffer losses as a result of feeding this stuff to their stock in the meantime. I would also ask if he will undertake in the meantime to take off the hands of the farmers in this country the bran and shorts they may purchase in which is found a large percentage, not of vital weed seeds, but of ground weed seeds, which will be quite permissible unless this amendment to the Act goes through.
You have placed in authority in this country a Board of Commerce who have been going around threatening with a fine of a thousand dollars and imprisonment any farmer who dares to increase the price of his produce during the next forty days. This was the mandate issued a short time ago. I understand that it has since been partially rescinded, but it shows the disposition of the men who comprise the Board of Commerce. Notwithstanding the fact that a plain, straightforward question was asked here last night as to whether the third member of the board had been appointed, we find in the press this morning that this appointment has been made and that the man who has been chosen has no particular interest in agriculture in this country, quite the contrary. In view of the fact that this adulterated commodity is to be found all over the country to-day, I think it is only fair that wherever a farmer has it on hand he should be provided with some recompense or relief. With the spread of price between bran and shorts to-day, if delay takes place in remedying the present condition, the milling companies will reap an enormous advantage by being permitted to grind up the bran into shorts and dispose of it in that way during the next few months. It is not to be wondered at, Sir, that bran is almost an unpurchaseable commodity in Canada to-day under these conditions, and in face of the regulations that are being enacted against the farmers who are being held up now that they have to purchase large quantities of mill feeds. As I pointed out before, I doubt whether in the whole history of the province of Ontario feed for stock was ever before so scarce and dear as it is at the present time, and I also pointed out that thousands, yes, tens of thousands of cattle are being disposed of, to be slaughtered and cut up as canners, as a result of this condition. I do not think it is fair to the people engaged in this great industry. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Wilson) has stated that the milling industry is one of the greatest in the coun-

try. Well, I say, without fear of contradiction, that agriculture is the greatest industry of Canada, and it is the industry that is apparently receiving the least consideration. In view of all the circumstances, therefore, I do not feel justified in withdrawing this Bill, at any rate at the present juncture, because I consider that the evidence I have submitted is absolutely authentic and cannot 'be controverted. I therefore respectfully decline to withdraw the Bill.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will of 'course appreciate the fact that I cannot give any undertakings such as he mentions. We have exactly the same object in view, the only difference being one of method. I said I had no objection to the second reading of the Bill, except that this was unworkable. If my hon. friend wishes the second reading, perhaps an amendment can be made in committee. I thought the proposal I made would meet the situation, but personally I have no objection to the second reading.
Motion 'agreed to and Bill read the second time.


ALLEGED MANIPULATION OF SOLDIER VOTES.
[Stage Direction]
Debate resumed on motion for parliamentary committee to investigate.
Mr. W. D. EULER (Waterloo North Riding) resumed the debate on the motion of Mr. McKenzie for the appointment of a parliamentary committee to investigate the alleged manipulation of soldier votes in the general election of 1917.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which is before the House on the motion of the leader of the Oppoisition has elicited what in my opinion was a most remarkable speech from the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Meigben). The feature of that speech which attracted my attention most particularly was the enunciation of a new *code of political morals which must come with a shock to the moral sense of the people of Canada. The motion of the leader of the Opposition is based u-pon a certain telegram purporting to have been signed *and sent by the Minister of the Interior to the Prime Minister of Canada during the fall of 1917, or, 'to be precise, in December of that year while the Dominion elections were in progress. That telegram is dated at Winnipeg, and reads as follows:
Would like one thousand soldier votes at large for Manitoba, of which 300 for Selkirk, balance divided between Provencher, Macdon-

aid, and Springfield, or same proportion or division no matter what our allotment may he.
Mr. Speaker, viewing that telegram carefully, I contend that, on the face of it, it is obvious that the motion of the leader of the Opposition is -absolutely in order. 1 do not think it can be disputed that a case has been made out which requires the strictest investigation. What does the telegram mean on the face of it? Does it mean that the Minister of the Interior is merely expressing a desire that the -Prime Minister should supply him with -a thousand votes or so, which might be thrown into any constituency in which the opposition candidates appeared dangerous, or in which their election seemed probable? I do not think we can gather that from the telegram. It means more than that. There is no doubt whatever that it indicates that there was a stock of votes somewhere that was at the disposal of Unionist candidates. That presumption is borne out by the very significant word "allotment" in the telegram. That word "allotment" implies that there is a supply of a certain commodity on hand which may be drawn upon at the will or discretion of those who wish to avail themselves of it. I do not think that any other explanation would -satisfy any member of the House. I am quite sure that none of the members -are so credulous tir innodbnt as to imagine that anything else was meant than that there was an allotment of votes which could be used practically at will to defeat any candidate of the Opposition who seemed likely to win his election. I had thought that possibly the Minister of the Interior would disclaim all responsibility for sending the telegram, but he does not do so. I did not believe, however, that he would actually justify the sending of a telegram of that kind or the object that it sought to attain which was nothing less, than to defeat the will of the people. When the Minister of Interior s-ay-s that it was a perfectly lawful proceeding that these votes of the soldiers should be applied, to use his own cynical expression, where they would do the most good, I did not think he would also justify it by any contention that it was -a right and decent and proper thing to do in a democratic country.
Joseph Archambault: He has a special mentality.


Mr. EULER:: The minister does not deny sending the telegram. He does not remember that he sent it but- he does -say that the Prime Minister did not receive the telegram. After -all that has no very great

significance in view of the fact that the minister claims that it was a perfectly lawful and proper proceeding. I was disappointed at the attitude of the hon. member for Red Deer in his speech on the resolution. I have a high regard for that hon.' gentleman, and his sentiments are usually not only couched in admirable language, but they are also of a very lofty and noble standard. If it is his view that it is well to forget all, to bury the matter altogether, I cannot see eye to eye with him; I cannot understand his position. Perhaps it should be remembered that it is the traditional practice of the members of the medical profession to desire as quickly as possible to bury their mistakes, say, about six feet deep, in preference to calling in 'the coroner to investigate and establish the wrongdoing if such there be. I was still nore [DOT]disappointed when, throughout the whole '.of his speech, he gave the impression that he subscribed to the vicious doctrine that the end justifies the means. I contend that t-haJt is what bis speech implies. While he admitted-perhaps not in so many words- [DOT]that things which had taken place during the election were not just what they should have been, ye't, after all, he took the position that they bad brought .about the desired result and that all was .well. I do [DOT]not believe in the policy of hushing up 'matters, nor in the doctrine that the end justifies the means. If that be the principle, then may we expect this country to enter upon an era of corruption such as has never been known. I venture to say 'that there never was .a government, bad 'as it may have been, that did not believe that it was about the best government 'the 'country ever had. It necessarily follows that, believing that the end justifies the means, that they will naturally act upon that- principle and adopt any plan whatever that may bring them back into power. Surely the hon. gentleman does not desire that.
' The hon. member also stated that that which was irrevocable might as well be forgotten and the dead past be permitted to bury its dead. I do not subscribe to that policy iu all cases. If 'that is a good principle to follow then we might as well abolish the criminal law entirely. If the man who slays his fellow man shall be allowed to escape simply because the life of his victim cannot be restored to the body, then, I say, we may as well do away with our criminal law altogether. It is not difficult to imagine the results which will flow from
the policy that exposure and punishment shall no longer follow wrong-doing.
It may be well under some circumstances to let bygones be bygones. Perhaps some of the things which have been discussed in this House might very well be treated in that way. But, Sir, when a shameful wrong has been perpetrated upon the Canadian people, when their constitutional rights have been set at defiance, when a minister of ithe Crown practically glories in what has been done and attempts to make wrong appear right, black appear white, then I think it is the duty of the Canadian Parliament to disavow the wrong that has been done and to reaffirm its belief in the principles 4 p.m. of democratic and responsible government. We have heard, Sir, a good many startling revelations since the election of 1917 as to how the election was won by the Union Government. We have heard of perjury, subornation of perjury, personation, plural voting and the coercion of soldiers. I think every member of this House could add his quota of evidence to the charges that have been made in regard to that election. 1 do not propose to go into these details but to confine myself very largely to the attitude that was taken by the minister in regard to the legality and propriety of the placing of soldier votes. The minister states that the telegram in itself implied nothing that was not perfectly lawful. If that is the case it means that it was legal in this country to use certain votes that were cast by non-Canadians in an election to defeat the will of the bona fide Canadian people in the various constituencies and that the Government could destroy its opponents at will. If that be true then the law is a great deal worse than I thought it.
According to my reading of the Military Voters Act it was entirely the duty of the voter himself to designate where his vote should be placed. There was no provision whatever that he should vote by proxy or that he could assign his vote to some one else, not even the Union Government. Yet on the face of that telegram there can be no reasonable doubt that these votes were appropriated to use not at the behest of the voter himself but at the behest of the Union Government committee. That argues such a departure from what, in my opinion is fair, just and decent, that it strikes at the very vitals of democratic institutions.
I hope, Sir, that I am not Pharisee enough to claim higher standards of conduct than those of the ordinary good citizen who has

a definite code which he lives up to in a more or less successful way. I assuredly make no such pretence. But, after all, such a broad and well defined line runs between what is essentially right and what is essentially wrong, that it is incomprehensible how men can mistake one for the other.
I stated a moment ago that if the law gave the right to any other than the man who actually voted to place that vote where he desired, then the law was a good deal worse than I had thought. The Minister of the Interior the other dtay in his address made the statement that the Opposition .through their representative overseas had striven to give ithe impression that .all soldier votes could be placed wherever the Government desired. I do not know whether or not that is the case but I do know that a similar impression tv.as in the mind of at least one member sitting on the other side of the House. I will give the instance with which I am most familiar. Shortly after the election of 1917, and during the first session of this Parliament, I had the pleasure of a conversation with an hon. member on the other side of the House. We discussed the election. During the course of the conversation he made the statement that both the leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition had the undoubted right to place the soldiers' votes wherever they pleased. I thought at first, Mr. Speaker, that he said it as a joke and I said so, but he adhered to what he had said.
He stated, " I can prove it, because our organizer came to me and said, ' Mr. So and So, how many soldier votes do you want? ' I told him I wanted about two or three hundred." I have no doubt that he got them. Now, Sir, I would not'speak of that if it were not for the fact that i.t is evidence of the comprehensive plan indicated in the telegram. I do not know whether the minister based his statement that the procedure as outlined in that telegram was perfectly legal on anything else but wihat is in the Act itself. It may be, Sir, that among the multitudinous Orders in Council which have gone forth from the Union Government. there is an order -which makes it legal to treat those votes in that manner; I do not know.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what did it mean if it was lawful that those votes could be used in this manner? It meant that it was within the power of the Union Government to compass the defeat of any Opposition candidate anywhere. There were, I understand, something like 10,000 or 12,000 votes [Me, Kuler.]
available for use in this way, and which I suppose, according to the wording of the telegram, " no matter what our allotment may be," could be thrown into any constituency where there was a likelihood of an Opposition candidate being elected. There was not a single constituency in all Canada, I should judge, in which the vote could not he " fixed " beyond peradventure. The Opposition candidates were not at the mercy of their electors; they were at the mercy of the Union Government Committee. Any man could be defeated with almost absolute certainty whether his own individual riding gave him a majority or not. The Opposition candidate was practically in the position of the man who sits in a card game while his opponent has the winning card up his sleeve ready to play it whenever he needs it-that .surely is the very negation of representative government. The Prime Minister in the first session stated that in his opinion the election of 1917 was the fairest election ever held in this country.


Joseph Archambault: The most honest.


William Daum Euler: I believe, Sir, that it was the most unfair election ever held in this Dominion. Indeed, in my opinion the term " election " is a misnomer. It was not an election at all. In the language of the times, I would say that we might describe it as the " parliamentary selective draft." Sir, was it not true that the members of this House were drafted at will according as it was desirable to elect one or defeat the other? I am quite serious when I say that I consider it little less than a miracle that some of us are here at all. In Ontario and the West apparently there were a few cases of miscalculation, or perhaps a saving sense of shame on the part of our opponents, because eight of us from Ontario and two from the West were allowed to be returned. Under the ingenious system so warmly defended by the Minister of the Interior, a non-Canadian voter had greater power in Canadian elections than the genuine Canadian himself. The real Canadian had to east his ballot in a certain constituency, as I read the law. If he should happen to come from the city of Toronto, or some other Unionist hive, he was obliged to cast his vote there, although he might be well aware that it would be practically wasted. But the soldier who was not a Canadian, who came under the description of " voter at large," could cast his eye over the whole Dominion, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and then place his vote as he pleased, with the result in some

cases that he thereby would defeat the will of the people of the constituency itself. Of course, this privilege was more apparent than real; a kind and disinterested Union Government relieved him of the necessity of making a choice. Again in the words of the minister " it placed the votes where it would do most good." Mr. Speaker, surely it is not an exaggeration to say that if such views prevail the very foundation of democracy must crumble. They are based on the free franchise of the bona fide Canadian citizen. When you destroy that, the superstructure must fall. If, Sir, it is indeed right that men can obtain membership in this House by any means other than the will of the actual residents of any constituency, then I say democracy has departed and we may as well own up to the sham and know ourselves for what we are.
Mr. Speaker, I judge from the remarks of the Minister of the Interior and his friends that the request of the leader of the Opposition for an investigation will not be granted. But, Sir, outside the walls of this Parliament the great jury of the Canadian people is sitting in judgment. During the last five years they grimly bore many things which were abhorrent to them, but which they thought were unavoidable. They closed their eyes, sacrificing much of lifelong conviction and of principle while their sons were engaged in the deadly conflict overseas. But the war is over, Sir, and the people are going to hold this Government responsible for its actions. I do not believe the people endorse the shameful things of the election of 1917. I do not believe either that they will subscribe to the new political doctrine enunciated by the Minister of the Interior. Indeed, Sir, if I believed that they did I would be ashamed to be-a Canadian.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I do not intend to take up very much time, Mr. Speaker, on this subject, because I realize the truth of the Prime Minister's declaration some time ago, that in his judgment the election of 1917 was one of the fairest ever fought in the Dominion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. MeCREA: What is that?


Ernest Lapointe: Especially in Springfield.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Members may smile, but let me say in regard to Springfield that the civil majority was between 1,200 and
1,500, and that the legitimate soldiers' vote, votes cast by soldiers who came from the constituency of Springfield, ran the majority up to considerably over 2,000, and that 525 soldiers' votes for myself were cast at large. Soldiers appeared anxious to give an old friend a lift and so voted in Springfield. They were, however, disallowed by the returning officer. Had it not been for improper misrepresentations by men like Mr. Preston and others, those 525 votes might have been distributed in other constituencies where possibly they could have been of some advantage. But the legitimate majority in Springfield was considerably over
2,000,	*and I do not think I have any apologies to offer.


An hon. MEMBER:: It will never be that again.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It is not necessary for me to go any further than the figures furnished toy the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) the other night, when he pointed out that of the 82 constituencies in the great province of Ontario only four could possibly have been influenced by the soldiers' vote, and that if the same proportion of soldiers' votes had been cast in these four constituencies as were oast by the civil vote, the members1 returned would have been elected. The story is practically the same throughout the entire Dominion. If hon. members will look up the returns they will find that candidates in Manitoba supporting the Union Government were returned by a sufficiently large majority to wipe out the minority of Government candidates, in a very large number of constituencies in the province of Quebec. Why, the majority of the hon. gentleman who represents Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews) was something like 23,000 or 26,000. As a matter of fact, the people were overwhelmingly in favour of conscription, overwhelmingly in favour of the union of the two parties in order to carry the great war to a successful issue. I have always marvelled at the position taken by some hon. members of this House in criticising the result of that election. I would have thought that after seeing the verdict of the people, after reading the figures, such hon. gentlemen would have been satisfied to retire quietly and maintain a discreet silence with regard to this election.
The hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Euler) spoke of the election as a parliamentary selective draft. I would reply to that by saying that we on this side who were in that selective draft have reason to bt:

proud. As for those who for personal motives stayed at home rather than devote their energies to the preservation intact of our country and the empire-well, if they are satisfied, I think we also have perfectly good reason to offer no complaint.
After all, the great point-and I sometimes wonder why our friends on the other side have failed1 to grasp it-is that a mighty struggle, the greatest in history, was going on. The people of Canada, the most important Dominion of the Empire, were heart and soul in that war. They realized that the liberties of the world were gravely at stake and they resolved to spend their all in order to carry on their part in the great struggle. As a result of that election the resources of the Dominion were placed at the disposal of the British Empire. I need not relate here or emphasize the part that Canada took in that great war; it is a matter of history that it was the Canadians who broke -the Hindenburg line. But we hear hon. gentlemen, instead of expressing themselves as proud of the achievements of our Canadian forces, constantly carping and criticising the election that enabled that great fight to be carried on by our own people.
I do not agree with the member who has just spoken that our friend from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) took the position that the end justified the means. I can easily understand, however, that honourable men, good citizens of Canada, might think that in a great crisis such as that with which the country was then faced, almost any methods to save the liberties of the world would be justified.


Joseph Archambault: The German
philosophy.


Mr. BUREAU:: Kultur.


Robert Lorne Richardson: One of. the reasons why I intervened in this debate was because of some remarks that fell from the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) with regard to the position taken by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the question of political corruption when he was leading the so-called Liberal party. The leader of the Opposition quoted some remarks made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as well as some remarks of the then former member for West Toronto, Mr. Osier. I happened to be a member of the House when the remarks which the hon. gentleman quoted from Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. E. B. Osier, were made. I well remember that celebrated debate, and there are members of the House -I do not see them in the Chamber this

afternoon-who also were members of the House at that time. I want to give a little of the history of this case, because I took a very deep interest in it.
The debate occurred on what was known as the Brockville and West Huron byelections. These two by-elections had been held in 1899 to fill two vacancies, one for Brockville and one for West Huron, and it was charged in the House by the present Prime Minister, then Mr. R. L. Borden, that the grossest corruption had taken place in both. An inquiry was held before the Committee on Privileges and Elections in 1899, and although the evidence offered was of a most important, convincing, and I might add, disgusting character, the partisan majority of that committee failed to make a report to the House in accordance with the evidence; it merely reported the evidence and left the matter for the House to deal with. In the following session Mr. Borden, who was then the lieutenant of the leader of the Opposition, Sir Charles Tupper, re-introduced the subject, and asked that the ease be again referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. But notwithstanding the evidence that had been adduced, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his following-and I was one of them-resisted any reference back to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Day after day passed and the debate was continued; member after member on the Government side spoke against any further investigation into those elections.
Now, I dislike very much to read when I am addressing the House, because I know it is apt to distract the attention of members and to cause them to lose interest in what is being said. But for the purpose of making out this case and of making it so that there shall be no possibility of any mistake with regard to what occurred, I am going to read a brief extract from the speech which Sir Robert, then Mr. Borden, made upon that occasion with regard to what was proved before the Committee on Privileges and Elections. I sat day after day in the Committee room and can vouch for the truth of what the present Prime Minister then said. I quote:
Now, the next question is: What did X undertake to prove when I made this motion before this House during last session and what did I prove? I undertook to prove, in respect to one polling section, No. 4 Colfoorne, that 43 or 44 electors had deposited their ballots in favour of Robert McLean-
He was then the Conservative qajididate. (Reading):	'

and that at the conclusion of the polling, when the ballots were counted, only 30 ballots

for Robert McLean were to be found. I proved by distinct evidence before the Privileges and Elections Committee, that at that particular polling subdivision, No. 4 Colborne, 98 ballots were cast, that none of them were spoiled, that at the conclusion of the polling 68 ballots were found to be marked for Robert Holmes, and 30 were found to be marked for Robert McLean. I brought before the committee 43 men who distinctly and unequivocally swore that they had marked their ballots for Robert McLean at that election, that they had handed their ballots to the deputy returning officer, and that they believed he had deposited them in the ballot box. I also showed that 125 ballots had been delivered in the first instance to the deputy , returning officer, Donald Cummings, and that twenty-seven were unused. I need not go into the various minor irregularities of the appointment of four scrutineers for Mr. Holmes at that polling place, and the disregard of the provisions of the election law in regard to giving information during the holding of the poll as to what electors had voted and what electors had not voted.
Mr. Borden then went over the evidence of Donald Cummings, one of the deputyreturning officers. Fourteen ballots were produced. They had been deposited in the box; they bore the initial of this Donald Cummings, the deputy returning officer, and they were supposed to have come off the ballot pad. As you, Sir, and every hon. member must know, these pads are cut with a cleaver, and they could not vary in width one hair breadth. Yet, those fourteen ballots were about one-eighth of an inch wider than the ballots on the official pad from which they weie supposed to come. In addition to that the ballots were twice as thick as the ballots on the stub from which they were supposed to be taken. There was produced before the committee a paper expert from Eddy's mills, Mr. Harvey, and he placed his micrometer on the bogus ballots which he declared were twice as thick as the ballots belonging to the regular pad. I sat by and heard this Donald Cummings first swear that the initials on the ballots -were his. He was not so definitely sure about that later on when he was cornered up, but he had to take some position, for there is no doubt that the ballots bore his initials. They, never came off the pad; they were switched in and placed in the ballot box by some nefarious operators, and in that way the worst possible fraud as practised in that election, the same as in Brockville.
I have one more extract which I think I ought to read to the House. In that election, there was employed a man named Pritchett, a man whose name was a household word throughout this country because of its notoriety in connection with those two by-elections. , It would be unfair for me to place this case before the members
of the House without reading the most important portion of the affidavit as made by Mr. Pritchett, and I am going to do so:
To wit:
I,	John G. Pritchett, of the city of London, in the province of Ontario, contractor, at present of the city of Detroit, (make oath and say:
1.	I have for several years taken part in municipal affairs and in politics in the said city of London, and have acted as deputy returning officer in municipal elections, and also in the elections for the Legislative Assembly.
I always acted -with and on behalf of the Liberal party. In 1898, I was elected an aider-man for ward No. 6, in said city of London.
2.	In the general election for the Legislative Assembly of 1898 I took an active part as a canvasser for votes on behalf of Colonel 'Leys, and was appointed by sheriff Cameron his deputy returning officer for the said election at polling division No. 3 in the 6th ward of the said city of London.
3.	From my experience in the various elections

Mark this. This is really worth while.
-I formed the opinion that elections could be more easily and surely won by the manipulation of ballots than by buying votes; and after the said general election, I, in conversation with friends used words to that effect.
4.	Thereafter, at the request of John O'Gorman, of London, I took part on behalf of the Liberals in by-elections, my special duty being to instruct deputy returning officers in the method of manipulating the ballots so as to win the election whatever the vote might really be.
5.	At the request of the said John O'Gorman, I went from London to Goderich in the spring of 1899 to take part on behalf of the Liberals in the federal by-elections then about to be held. I arrived in Goderich on Thursday or Friday between the nomination and the election, and went to Craig's hotel, where I registered. The first person I met after my arrival was Alexander Smith, 'the chief organizer of the Liberal party.
I presume this Alex. Smith is the same stalwart who for forty years was the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night which sought to lead the hungry children of Israel into the promised land.


Ernest Lapointe: Will the hon. gentleman be kind enough to tell me how he connects this with the telegram sent by the Minister of the Interior? What has this to do with the present case?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I do not think the question of my hon. friend is at all relevant. The leader of the Opposition quoted from the debate which I am reading from to show the position of the then Liberal leader, evidently intending to contrast the lofty principles of the then Liberals or so-called Liberals with this " Unionist Selective Draft Party."


Jacques Bureau: Might I put a question to my hon. friend?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Just sit quiet,
Jacques, for a little. They do not like this old medicine, Mr. Speaker. It rather gets on their nerves and I am not surprised-it is perfectly natural. But just take it as it will not do you a bit of harm, and it is a good thing. I am not claiming that the Liberal party was very much worse than the other party at that date, as I shall probably state later on.


Samuel William Jacobs: You have been both.


Robert Lorne Richardson: But it is a good thing that the beans should be spilled on the table as between the parties, because we want to get rid of all those methods and start on a new plane.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I rather enjoy it if you, Sir, can stand it; it does not worry me a particle. I was going on to observe that in view of the. work that this pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night, especially cloud by day, did for the old party, it seemed peculiarly fitting that he should be nominated as the leader of the party at the recent nomination which was held at Ottawa. I am going to continue reading this affidavit. I am sure the hon. member for Kamouraska will enjoy it.
I asked him where the boys were. He said, Oh. about town. Shortly afterwards, O'Gorman came in. He said there would be nothing for me to do for a little while, as they were not in shape. He also said that he wanted me to act as a deputy returning officer. I said all right, I will act. In the afternoon of the following day O'Gorman asked me to drive out to see a person whose name I cannot now recall. This man lives about four miles from Goderich, and was a carpenter and pump-maker, and had some other business as well. He was to he a deputy returning officer, and O'Gorman asked me to see him and instruct him how to do the work. I drove out, 'but when I met the man and talked to him, I did not think it wise to use him. I therefore returned to Goderich wihout disclosing my mission. On Saturday a man named Grant, a school teacher of Goderich, began to bring deputies to me. He brought a man named Parr, who, he said, was to he a [DOT]deputy returning officer. He went away, leaving Farr with me. I talked with Parr, hut did *not consider him safe. I suspected him of having a leaning towards the Conservatives, and he looked like a man who drank.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Drank?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I would not laugh too soon, because it really turned out to be a " Liberal ** who was employed. It goes on:

I reported to Grant that I did not think Farr a safe man, and that I would not have anything to do with him.
After my report, Grant and a Mr. Horton talked about Farr in my presence, and they decided to get -back from him his authority to act as deputy. That was on Saturday afternoon. After that Grant came to me again and said they had to let Farr go through, and that he would be all right.
I pause for a horse laugh from the other side.
I replied, "Well, if you are willing to risk it,
I am willing." Grant brought Farr to me again on Sunday afternoon, and went away at once, leaving Farr with me. I then talked to Farr.
I instructed him how to substitute ballots, and showed him how to work it. He did not seem ' to understand how I could do it, and made me do it very slowly for him. Then he tried it, and got quite handy with it, though rather clumsy. I told him to keep on practising. He had been drinking some. He seemed amused, and quite delighted with the thing. He said,
" By kripes, I will take them all. There will not he a vote in the box but Grits."
Now is the time for a laugh.
1 said, " Do good work and you will be well paid for it." He said, " How much." I said I would give him $10 if he worked five ballots, and $15 for twenty. He said, "All right." I gave Farr twenty ballots and he put his initials on them. I tore off the counterfoils and made the twenty ballots up in a parcel and gave them to him to use. On the night of the election he came to me terribly excited, and asked where he was to get his money. He said he had fixed twenty-three ballots. I had only given him twenty, but he said he had sent out and got more. I told him to take his good ballots over to* Horton, who would pay him. Either Grant or O'Gorman- had told me to say that if there was any question about payment of money. I saw no more of Farr. On Sunday night-[DOT]
Sunday seems a favourite day for this kind of work, as was indicated by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) in his statement with regard to that prince of ballot manipulating artists, Mr. W. T. R. Preston.
On Sunday night Grant also brought me an elderly man with a grey beard, slight in build and rather tall. I think Grant said the man's name was Cummings, but I am not at all sure about that. I would recognize the man if I should see him. Grant said he was to be deputy returning officer. He left the man with me. I instructed him how to manipulate uie ballots, and showed him how to do it. I made him the same offer of money as I had made to Farr. He did not try to work the ballot in my presence, but said he would see what he could do. I tore the counterfoils off fifteen or twenty ballots and folded up the ballots and give them to him. He did not initial them while with me. He took the ballots away with him, and I did not see him again.
I skip to paragraph 9.	[DOT]
At the hotel I did my work at O'Gorman's room, as my bedroom was on the third floor. When I went into his room on Sunday morning


X, 1919
[Stage Direction]
no person was there. On the table under some writing paper, there were some packages of ballots-four packages, I think. I knew they were for me, to be distributed among such deputies as I should arrange with. I took the ballots and gave some of them to Parr and to the man I supposed to be Cummings, as I have stated. The others I burnt on the night of the election.
Then comes an interpolation by Mr. Borden, now Sir Robert:
I pause here. Where did these ballots come from? All the ballots were printed with the blocks of McGillicuddy. McGillicuddy or Mc-Gillicuddy's agent must have been fraudulent abettors of this scheme.
I attended that inquiry and satisfied myself that McGillicuddy was an abettor in this nefarious work.
Samuel William Jacobs: How did you vote on that occasion?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I voted against this iniquitous thing, as I shall show later on. Do not forget to ask me.


Jacques Bureau: I rise to a point of order. The question before the House is a motion for a committee to investigate certain matters. The hon. member for Springfield is reading the evidence which was taken before a committee some twenty years ago, and I submit that what he is reading is not relevant tc the question before the House. I believe that his object is to occupy the time so that other members will not have an opportunity to speak, and so shelve the debate. This House of Commons should not be the place where hon. members can get up and thwart the will of the House and the printed rules.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does any hon. member desire to speak on the point of order?


Ernest Lapointe: I
remember very well last year or two years ago, when we were discussing a motion of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) following certain troubles that had taken place in the city of Quebec, I was compelled to restrict my remarks exclusively to what had taken place in the streets of Quebec on that particular night. I really think that the hon. member is wandering far from the question before the House, which is with respect to the propriety or impropriety of the Minister of the Interior sending a telegram in 1917 recommending the allotment of a certain number of votes to certain constituencies. The hon. member, instead of discussing that question, is reading the evidence given before the
Committee on Privileges and Elections twenty years ago, on a question totally different.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The point is not altogether free from difficulty, but there are one or two considerations that I would point out. In the first place, this discussion has taken a more or less wide range, and there is always a difficulty in circumscribing debate in connection with any matter that has to do with party politics, which difficulty does not present itself when the discussion is of a more or less academic character on a question that does not affect parties. As I appreciate the situation at the moment, it is this: A portion of the motion before the House calls for the investigation by a Parliamentary Committee of an alleged irregularity, and I understand that the hon. member for Springfield is dealing with the manner in which a motion for an inquiry by a committee was considered by the House on a previous occasion. It matters not whether that occasion be twenty or forty years ago, if he chooses to use it as a portion of his argument.


Jacques Bureau: May I be allowed to say that the hon. member is not dealing with the motion for an inquiry on that occasion, but reading the evidence given before the committee at the time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It would be perfectly competent for the hon. member to deal with some of the evidence as indicating how much it called for or justified the granting of a Parliamentary Committee. If I have stated the grounds of the hoii. member's argument correctly, I do not think it would be competent for me to restrict him at this stage.


Jacques Bureau: May I be allowed one word ? I do not think your Honour has stated the grounds correctly, and I say that with all due respect. This is a motion for a committee to investigate certain matters, and if the hon. member was discussing how the evidence justified the granting of a committee on that occasion, I am with you.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is reading from a debate on precisely the same subject as is now before the House.


Jacques Bureau: He is reading evidence that

. Mr. SPEAKER: I am subject to correction and I shall verify my ground. But I distinctly heard the hon. member state that

he was reading a portion of the evidence submitted by the Prime Minister, then member for Halifax, upon a motion of his that the matter should be re-committed to a Committee of the House. Upon that ground I say that it is competent for him to deal with the evidence given at that time.


Jacques Bureau: I do not think that ground is right either.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I will verify it by an examination of Hansard.


Jacques Bureau: It will be too late then. It will be six o'clock shortly.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It will be done immediately.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Now, Mr. Speaker, to resume.


Ernest Lapointe: Come down to modern times.


Jacques Bureau: Don't be ashamed of yourself.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Never mind, Jacques.


Jacques Bureau: Go on, Bob.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I shall now read
paragraph 10:
On the day before election day, O'Gorman paid one $25 for my services and $15 for my expenses. I left Goderich on the morning after the election.
. 11. On the night of the election, i took part in the procession celebrating the Liberal victory. D. McGillicuddy, Tom Lewis and I *occupied one carriage.
I think Grant was in our carriage also, but I am not sure about him.
12. The method of substituting a false ballot for the genuine one which the deputies which I have mentioned were to use, is as follows: He would keep the false ballots so that he could readily take one in his left hand when he wished to work it. When a known Conservative voter would be in the act of handing his ballot to the deputy the latter would place his left hand upon the table with a false ballot, *without a counterfoil, under the hand. At the same moment he would accept from the voter, *with the right hand, the genuine ballot and counterfoil. He then would place the genuine ballot under the left hand fingers, as if for the purpose of tearing off the counterfoil, and, with a quick movement of the right hand he *would remove both genuine ballot .and counterfoil, at the same moment raising the left hand *and leaving on the table a ballot from which the counterfoil had apparently been just removed. He would put what he had in his right *hand in his coat pocket, and then put in the *box the ballot lying on the table. This ballot, so put in the box, would he one of these previously furnished by me to the deputy, *and on which I had put a cross opposite the *name of the Liberal candidate. I made an exception in my practice of making the cross myself in the case of ballots given to Cummings, as he objected to putting his initials upon
[Mr. Speaker.!
them in my presence, and therefore I concluded not to put the cross on them.
The affidavit concludes with another statement by Mr. Pritchett that he instructed a number of scrutineers and other workers how to destroy ballots when they came to be counted after having been taken out of the ballot boxes. He showed that if you cemented a piece of blacklead ingeniously under the nail of your finger, you might be able, by proper leger de main, when the ballots are being counted, to put such marks on them that they would be rejected in consequence, and he added that in that way you could materially assist in winning an election, I shall not read any further from the affidavits of Mr. Pritchett. He has an affidavit with reference to the by-election in Brockville in which he participated, and it is pretty much along the same lines, showing how he had instructed deputies in the art of switching ballots in the endeavour to defeat the will of the people. I now propose reading an extract from the speech which Mr. E. B. Osier, to whom the leader of the Opposition referred, made in connection with that debate. He says:
I am prepared to say without any hesitation that X had a great deal of sympathy with the Liberal party, before the last elect'on. I felt that the other party had been perhaps too long in power, and I had a sort of half belief that the promises and professions of honesty and honour which the Liberal party made before they came into office would more or less ibe carried out. But have we seen one single solitary instance of this? Certainly not since *I have been in this House.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries: You have seen honest government ever since.
Mr. Osier: I have not. I have seen a government that has made me ashamed of my country.
I contrast that with the statement from the hon. gentleman's speech which the leader of the Opposition made. Now I want to read a brief extract from a speech I my-, self made and I would especially commend it to the hon. member for George Etienne Gartier (Mr. Jacobs). He will be especially interested in the position I took. I was under the impression that the hon. Mr. Oliver, who was then a member of the House, also took the same position but I do not find his speech recorded in Hansard, although I am satisfied from conversations I had at that time that he very largely shared my view. Let me read what I said:
I attended almost every session of that committee and for my part I was absolutely satisfied that the greatest corruption was practised in the election of West Huron and Brockville.
Bear in min'd, Mr. Speaker, that I was a supporter of the Liberal Government.

I examined that ballot pad very carefully, and I claim that the conclusion ws.3 irresistible -that those fourteen ballots never came off that pad at all. If my memory serves me correctly, there were some 150 ballots on the pad, and -the majority were torn off, but these fourteen ballots-and I took the trouble to compare them very carefully-were a shade wider at the perforated line than the good ballots, about which there was no dispute. I made that examination two or three times and perfectly satisfied myself. If there was any possible dispute as to these stubs and ballots, surely a silent instrument could make no mistake in its register. We had an expert from the Eddy mills who came there with his micrometer. He -tested every stub left on the pad, some 150, I think.
Mr. Borden (Halifax) :	One hundred and
twenty-five.
Mr. Richardson: and if my memory serves me correctly, there was not the slightest variation with regard to these stubs. Am I right?
Mr. Borden (Halifax) : That is right.
Mr. Richardson: Then he took the ballot that had not been torn off and we found that these ballots corresponded exactly in thickness with all the stubs. Then he took the ballots about which there was no point raised, that they were not good ballots, and he found that these billots were identical in thickness with the possible exception of one with those on the stubs. Then, in reference to the fourteen ballots, about which there was a dispute, and that I have satisfied myself never came off that pad, he found that they were 4-1000ths of an inch in thickness, while the others were 2-1000ths in thickness, so that the fourteen ballots were double the thickness of the other ballots. Is any man going to ask me to say or can I be expected to say that these fourteen ballots were good ballots, and that they came off that pad? It is flying in the face of reason, of honesty, and I might almost say of decency, to expect me to believe anything of the kind, and I absolutely decline to do so.
Mr. Borden (Halifax) : I might also say that this expert proved that the paper was made on a different machine.
. Mr. Richardson: Yes, I had forgotten that point, but he doubtless stated that. . . .
Then there was the other point as to the initials on those fourteen ballots. I think, and I speak subject to correction, that Mr. Cummings swore in the first case, that- these initials were his. I think in cross examination he said that they looked like his. The conclusion is irresistible that if those initials are his, John Cummings could not possibly be an honest man. If these initials are his, and the ballots never came off that pad, then the irresistible conclusion is, that Cummings initialled these ballots before he went to the poll. And if the affidavit made by Pritchett, in regard to the wholesale initialling of ballots by deputies in the electoral division of Brockville, is correct, this furnishes the sequel that the ballots were initialled in advance in West Huron.
I concluded with these remarks:
It is surely inconsistent with the best traditions of Liberalism that we should fail to pursue and' punish these crawling creatures, these slimy assasins of our liberty, together with the greater criminals who inspire, lay the plans, and pay for the execution of these crimes. Unless we throttle the monster, he will assuredly throttle us and we shall deserve the fate which
is sure to overtake us if we fail in what the people of Canada will regard as our clear duty. Let the Parliament of Canada strike with deadly intent at political corruption, and its action will meet with the hearty approval of a grateful people who would welcome such a course. That in my mind would be the best political move and the best political tactics which any party could adopt in this country. For every heeler whom it would alienate it would gain scores of friends. What the people most need is to be honestly led, and to the party which so leads, their gratitude, when they realize the results, will not be in stinted measure. For these reasons, unless such a judicial investigation as I have outlined is promised, I shall feel compelled to vote for the motion of the hon. the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Borden).
As I said at the outset, the Government set out to resist itha-t inquiry and the debate dragged on day .after day for a considerable time. The idea was tih-at no inquiry would be granted. The debate had kept on until about two or three o'clock in the morning when there was evidence that members supporting the Government would vote for the resolution of 'the hon. member for Halifax unless the Government granted that inquiry. Then between two -and three oclock in the morning, Sir Wilfrid made a complete volte face. He rose in -his place an-d denounced in the roundest terms all kinds of political corruption. I have his remarks here and I shall he gl-ad to read them if .any hon. member would like to hear them. I do not want to take up any -more time than is necessary. Sir Wilfrid denounced in the strongest language political corruption -and -announced that the Government had decided to have a complete and efficient investigation into electoral irregularities, but he added that not only would they inquire inlto the Brockville and West Huron elections, but they would go into the electoral corruption that had occurred in both parties extending back for a number of years. Then Sir Charles Tupper, in- -a manner characteristic of himself, rose and twitted the Government with having hacked down because they were afraid of having -a revolt in their own ranks. When- it was found that they would inquire into the misdeeds of both parties, the fat was in the fire. I never was able to discover really what happened but I could fancy I heard our old friend, the late Jim Sutherland, whip of the Liberal party, talking to the managers of 'the other party .and saying, " We would be blankety-blank fools would we nolt, if we .appointed a judicial committee to inquire into the scoundrelism of both parties." Jim would tell the other side that the country would spew -both parties oult li-f they did .anything of that kind. Therefore, you can understand why

nothing happened. The thing died right there. It was just 'as if a depth bomb had fallen and bit it on the head. It never afterwards wias heard of.
In regard to my own position, I always felt that that was the time when I committed the unpardonable political sin with regard to the party with which I had been associated almost from childhood. I then became what the member for Brome would describe as a. "separated brother." Communion was withdrawn from me and a little later on, when the House was dissolved and we appealed to the country, 1 found that I 4id not get the nomination. The wires had been pulled against me. I had offended. I had endeavoured to stand upon the plane of common honesty, common sense, and common decency and I had tried tto adopt such an ethical standard as ought to warm the heart of the hon. member for Brome. According to the ethics of the then party you were sure to become a separated brother if youpreferred principle to party. I would say to the hon. member for Brome that he talks well, that, of course, 'his ethical standard is all right and of course he is associated with a group-I am not going to call it the Liberal party-that he thinks is all right. He talks like that and I give him full credit, but let him vote once against his party. Let him do so just once and, in the language of the street he will receive a rude jolt; he will find that he has become a "separated brother" quicker than he imagines it possible. That is what makes separated brethren on that side. I 'have no doubt it would have been 'the same with the Old Tory party. If you stand up and talk principle, and if you vote against the supposed interest of the party, you 5 p.m. are fired out of the synagogue without delay and without ceremony.


Joseph Archambault: May I ask the
hon. gentleman a question?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Certainly, I think 1 would like to hear it because there might be a come-back.


Joseph Archambault: I would like to ask my hon. friend if it was on account of principle that he did not vote on the titles question two years ago?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Well, I have not time to answer such a puerile question as that. Let me point out a few instances. The hon. the president of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) has taken the position of differing from the party with which he was

formerly associated and he is now a "separated brother". The hon. the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) has followed suit and he is also a "separated brother". The hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Mowat) and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), following their consciences and standing by conscription and the war have also been placed in category of ".separated brothers." The hon. member for Shelbourne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Pardee) did not seem to possess the necessary courage to stand until the end. Instead of becoming separated brothers, they crawled quietly back to the fold. Let us hope that they will find peace, happiness and contentment therein.
The hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) always interests me. There is a certain frankness about him that appeals to most people. I think he believes in his code of ethics, and I fancy he honestly thinks there is a higher code of ethics on that side of the House than on this. Perhaps, as far as he himself is concerned he would like to practise as high a code of ethics as possible. I trust he will be able to succeed. He bubbles over with the exuberance of political youth and it is interesting to sit here and listen to him, because one cannot help but think that he is in deadly earnest. I sometimes think he will have an awakening somewhat like poor old Jim McMullen had. You know Jim, in the old Liberal Opposition, used to discuss pen knives and other extravagances, and when his party got into office he found that there were even more pen knives, and more extravagant things done because the country was growing, old Jim subsided and finally went into the Senate and we never heard anything more about him. That may some day be the fate of the enthusiastic and exuberant member for Brome. Speaking of higher political standards, some who are more indifferent than I am towards him, might suggest that the hon. gentleman takes the position of the Pharisee who stood in the temple and said, " Lord, I thank thee that I am not as other men "-not even as this rather indifferent bunch of publicans that sit around me.
I believed for a great many years just as the hon. member for Brome seems to believe. I had an abiding conviction that if we could just get the Liberal party into office all the ills of public life would disappear. I believed the Senate to be a political excrescence. I know the appointment of members of Parliament to office was

most vitiating. I believed every vestige of protection should be wiped out of the tariff. And I advocated these things. I thought ours was a party of political purity. I ought to have known better. This is rather a reflection on my common sense, because as a young newspaper jman I ought to have been able to see that morally there was really not a tittle of difference between the men sitting on one side of the House and the men sitting on the other.
They are pretty much tarred with the same stick. I had lessons that should have convinced me. I remember one-and seeing that I have turned this into an experience meeting I am going 'to tell it. I remember sitting in a committee in South Winnipeg in the old days when I was a very enthusiastic young worker. I took charge of a polling subdivision-


Jacques Bureau: I rise to a point of order, Sir. I 'think the thou, member for Springfield ought to be delicate enough to make a motion/ to turn this into :an experience meeting before he continues it as such.


Robert Lorne Richardson: If the hon. gentleman will subside for a little while-


Jacques Bureau: I 'think the bon. member for Springfield ought to stick to the subject.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think the point of order raised by the hon. member, for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) is well taken. The hbn. member for Springfield, by his own admission, has strayed from the subject of debate, and I must ask him to bring his remarks to bear upon the subject under discussion.


Robert Lorne Richardson: You are not going to let me tell /this story, then? lit is ia pity, because it is a good one, and I think you would have enjoyed it yourself. I will tell it /to you privately and you will be awfully sorry that you woulijl not let me relalte it to the House. If I were allowed to place it on Hansard it would help quite a little. However, I shall run through my notes and see if there is .anything else I can refer to and keep strictly within the limits of the debate.


Ernest Lapointe: Is it very hard to do?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Would I be in order if I discussed the difference between the two parties as I observed it? Of course, 1 want to keep strictly within the rules, but I have some real good stuff that I would like you to have the benefit of yourself. I was going to point out whalt in. my view was the difference between the parties. I
was going to say-and you will stop me if I transgress the rules-that while an apostle of the old so-called Liberal party might on the Sabbath Day give an address to the children of a Sunday school and have them sing that beautiful hymn, " There is sunshine in my soul to-day," and in the evening gather " the boys " around him and teach them all the villainous scoundrelisms of ballot switching, etc., I do not believe you could get anybody connected with the Tory parity, not even an organizer, to join in the same practices. He might be just as bad, but the Tory organizer would sit around his hotel, smoking cigars and swapping stories all Sunday, and then, go upstairs and

	[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: And send telegrams.


Robert Lorne Richardson: That Tory organizer might teach the boys pretty much the same methods or practices as the apostle of the old so-called Liberalism, but he would not play the hypocrite. It is just possible that after I sit down some member may rise and say, " What do you think of the member for Springfield? Why, he was himself unseated on one occasion for bribery and corruption?" Just to anticipate that, I want to say that in the election after I made that speech and announced that I would so vote, I was deprived of the nomination in Lisgar, and I ran as an Independent candidate. The Conservatives did not nominate, and while the other party did, yet I was elected by a large majority, somewhere between three and four hundred. Now, I swore to my own election expenses being within five hundred dollars, and the constituency was one hundred miles long and fifty miles broad, so that there could not be much corruption.


Mr. McCREA:: You ran very cheap.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a new point of order. It is very interesting to know the personal political history of the hon. member but I do not think it has anything to do with the subject under discussion.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I was anticipating what might be said, Mr. Speaker, when 1 would not have an opportunity of replying.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member has a right to be heard on the point of order.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I would certainly
not refer to the matter at all if nothing were likely to be said impugning my political honesty; but inasmuch as I may not



have an opportunity to explain it after the anticipated misrepresentation is made I would like to say a word about the matter now.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nobody said anything about it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I would not think of intruding my personal political affairs upon the House except to anticipate something that might be said.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think the
hon. member (Mr. Richardson) should have an opportunity of, and would be in order in, saying anything which relates to himself in connection with electoral frauds or corruption.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I was going to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Well, I did not
catch the point.


Jacques Bureau: You understand it too
well.


Robert Lorne Richardson: All right, Jacques. I was just going to say, Mr. Speaker, that I ran as as an Independent candidate, but the Conservatives in the constituency supported me very largely. I had no idea generally who the workers were. But after I was elected by a large majority I took issue with the Conservative party at the following session of the House on a very important railway matter touching Manitoba. Mr. Bourassa, then the member for Labelle, supported me, as did also Mr. Charlton and some other members, but I offended the 'Conservative organization. So they conspired with Mr. Sifton, who was Minister of Elections in the Government, and with Bob Rogers, who was Minister of Elections on the other side, and they decided to have me unseated-
Mr. MdMASTER: They are both now on the same side.


Robert Lorne Richardson: -and of course they succeeded in getting some obscure party heelers, whose names I did not know and had never heard of, to swear that teams were hired. Two judges heard the case. They are dead now and have gone to their reward either down or up-I suspect down -and therefore I can criticise them. A bribe was dangled before those two judges whilst they were considering their verdict. One was to be appointed to the Supreme Court, and the other to the Chief Justiceship of Manitoba. As a result those judges, notwithstanding the flimsy and absurd nature of the evidence, gave their decision

against me and they both received the respective official bribes of promotion shortly after they rendered their iniquitous judgment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Robert Lorne Richardson: -and I was unseated.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Robert Lorne Richardson: That is all. Now,
before I sit down, I am going to say something that will probably appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite. If I were to suggest that electoral corruption had been or was confined to one party or the other in the old days I do not think I would deserve the respect of fair-minded men. I think the " honours " (putting quotation marks on the word) in the matter of electoral corruption have always been about even between the old parties. It was a case of scoundrelisin on both sides. Having referred to electoral corruption in elections where the old so-called liberal party was concerned, I want to say that later on I ran at a by-election in the electoral division of Macdonald.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes, they will say " hear, hear." You see, it all depends on whose ox is gored.


Ernest Lapointe: No, we do not want him.


Robert Lorne Richardson: When you say some little thing and it pleases one side they will all giggle and say "hear, hear;" and ditto with the other side: the middle course is the correct one. I ran in the Macdonald by-election as an Independent and as a supporter of reciprocity, in which I strongly believed at that time, and still believe. I am free here to confess that I do not think the records of Hades could be searched for a class of electoral scoundrel-ism such as was practised against me in that election. Why, Sir, men went about armed with a bundle of blank warrants a night or two before the election, and if they found anybody working for me or likely to be of any use to me they just filled in the man's name, gathered him in, and then a day of two after they filled in the crime of which he was supposed to be accused.
Two men were caught personating in that election-caught red-handed. They were seized by the police and taken to the police station, and their trial was set for eleven o'clock the next morning. Well, would you believe it?-the magistrate, who stood in with the gang at that time, had these men

brought before him at nine or ten o'clock the next morning, long before the time set for their trial. He imposed nominal fines upon them and let them depart, which they hurriedly did. When the lawyers on the other side came along later and were wanting to inquire into the matter, and one of the under-strappers was giving some particulars, the magistrate stopped him with the exclamation: "God Almighty, you are giving the whole snap away !" I just mention that to show that I want to be perfectly fair in denouncing election crookedness. Election corruption is bad, no matter where it is found or by whom practised. I have tried in my humble way to oppose election corruption; I believe that it is a dangerous thing for the country and a very dangerous thing for the party that indulges in it. I believe that such a thing reacts upon the party which has anything to do with it. I believe that a party will receive more votes and have a much better chance of success if it does the square thing on the occasion of the holding of elections.


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to devote any time to answering the remarks of the member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson), because he has been discussing matters which are far afield from the motion which we are now considering. I suppose that my hon. friend felt the necessity of making himself believe that he was alive, (because he quoted from remarks that he made twenty years ago. I congratulate him upon having the courage to go back that far. I am always afraid to look back that far; time seems to pass very quickly and I would much rather look ahead than look behind. But whatever his political conduct may have been; whatever his remorse may have been-


Robert Lorne Richardson: No remorse.


Jacques Bureau: Then my hon. friend is a more hardened sinner than 1 thought he was. Whatever his actions for the future are to be is a matter for my hon. friend himself to settle.
The question before you, Mr. Speaker, is embodied in a motion calling upon this House to recommend the appointment of a committee to investigate " the existence of a widespread system of manipulation of votes, under the direction and with the approval of ministers of the Crown, for the purpose of defeating the will of the Canadian people as expressed at the polls." That is the question at issue.
47i	[DOT]
The motion gives a reason for this request for a committee of investigation when it goes on to say:
*Such scheme of manipulation involves not only the honour of the ministers concerned, but the constitutional rights of the people.
I would be willing to exonerate the minister if he only were concerned, because he is only one man, and one man is very little when it comes to considering a whole country. But there is the question of the constitutional rights of the people. You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that for some time there has been- an impression among most of the people of the country that the last election was not carried on as it should have been. Some of the people are convinced of this-they are the people who have had a chance to talk with those who are conversant with the facts. There are others who are certain that the election was stolen-I use the word advisedly-that the election was stolen, and that the result did not actually represent the wish or will of the people; and those who know this are the men who were the actors in the conspiracy to steal the election.
Now, we are asking that this matter be investigated. The Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Meighen) answers: You have not made a prima facie case, and the time to make it is now-this with a great tragedy gesture. We must first show that ballots have been (switched and that there has been manipulation of the voters who went to the poll to express their views.
The Speaker of this House is the First Commoner; he it is who guides the proceedings and guards the honour of this House. For the purpose of winning your sympathy, Mr. Speaker, and in order that you may see fit to advise the Government to grant this committee, I shall refer more particularly to those votes which are most familiar to you. I want to show that there has been manipulation, and I shall do so by relating certain facts, giving a few examples of the votes as they were cast, and stating how they were cast in the county of Cumberland, Nova Scotia.
Captain W. H. Burke was the deputy presiding officer at Ashdown in the county of Surrey, England, on the occasion of the last election. The ballot box number was 175. Now, certain evidence with regard to the polling in this constituency is under the control of the House, or can be obtained if the House wants to obtain it. I do not want to weary the House with unnecessary deitails; I will give a few names and figures for the benefit

of those who may be inclined to doubt She correctness of the statements which I make but which I am prepared to prove from the public records.
A certain number of votes were polled and counted in Cumberland', Nova Scotia. First let me take the Act as interpreted and explained to the House by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) himself. He said that there was a certain class of soldiers who in the last contest had the right to choose the constituency in which they should vote. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the soldier had that right, not the deputy presiding officer or any one else. (Reading):
They were those who being British subjects had not resided for any four months of the year preceding enrolment in a particular county and who besides had never at any time lived in Canada. If a man had resided for four months or more in any electoral district, there his vote could count and nowhere else. If he could not specify an electoral district wherein he had resided for the time mentioned but could specify a place in a certain constituency in which he had at any time resided his vote could count in that constituency and nowhere else.
If he was a British subject and had at no time resided in this country, there was no place to which Parliament could with propriety allot his vote and the only way to give him the franchise was to permit him-
I want to underline the word "him," because there lies the whole thing. It was not the deputy presiding officer, not the minister, not the military officer, who had that right, but the soldier himself who came to cast his vote, who 'had had no residence in Canada, but who was a British subject and bad the right to vote. (Reading):
The only way to give him the franchise was to permit him to select his constituency. Will hon. gentlemen suggest any other way of giving that soldier the franchise? Did hon. gentleman suggest any other way in the session of 1017?
I do not object to that, Mr. Speaker. There was the law. The minister said, while putting up a so-called defence, that the impression had 'been created abroad that any soldier could throw his vote wherever lie pleased, and as evidence of this impression going abroad and being entertained by men of prominence, he cited the case of Isaac Campbell, of Winnipeg, a prominent lawyer, who took the trouble to telephone the minister and ascertain whether in reading the Act he had not failed to see something which would justify this impression. The minister said: No, there is nothing.
The minister says that he was not the sponsor of the Bill, but he must have been acquainted with every detail of it, because

lie took a very active part in the discussion at that time. Although the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Doherty) was the sponsor, the Minister of the Interior must have had something to do with the Bill. No man knew better what the Bill meant, what it was intended to convey, to what extent the soldiers would have the right to vote and in what manner they should cast their votes.
It was the duty of the Government to protect every one of the deputy presiding officers or presiding officers at that election; to instruct them in their duties, so that the soldiers could not be misled and so that nothing wrong could be done. My hon. friends may yell " corruption," as a common thing; they may say whatever they please; but this Act was an Act of Parliament, and Parliament had entrusted the Government through its officers to see that the Act was enforced honestly and legally. Therefore, I conclude that all these officers must have received from the Government, or from the proper authority, such instructions as would permit them not only to guide but to force the soldiers to live within the law and to cast their votes according to the law.
The minister says: Come out now and show us the telegram, and where is the fraud ? I will come to that in a little while. What I want to show now is the switching of the ballots. In order to do that I must give the number of the ballot box, the name of the deputy presiding officer, the number and name of the soldier, the residence of the soldier as ascertained from the records of the Militia Department, where he enrolled, and how he voted. I take the county of Cumberland.
No. 9481, F. A. Finnimore, swore that he resided in Springhill. When we come to ascertain what this is, you find that the real name is W. G. Parsons, 3 Mark street, Toronto. This man voted in the county of Cumberland, N. S.. The next is No. 183232, F. Withip, who swore that he resided in Springhill. Upon looking up the records of the Militia Department, we find that his residence is given as Calgary, Alberta. No. 1245, J. Stott, swore that he resided in Springhill. The Militia Department records show that he was from Toronto. No. 709917, J. Ellis Gagne, swore that he resided in Springhill. He is from Albert county, N. B., and enlisted in Sussex. No. 183268, E. Alfred Hayball, swore that he resided in Springhill. Upon looking up the records of the Militia Department, we find his residence to be given

as Calgary. No. 120345, W. Watson, swore that he resided in Springhill. The records show that he resided in Sherbrooke. No. 835021, Leonard Owles, swore that he resided in Springhill. The records show that he resided in Kingston, Ontario. No. 901087, E. L. Skerry, swore that he resided in Springhill. The records show that he resided in Colchester country. No. 417502, P. E. Vermette, comes from 880 Dorion street, Montreal. Yet he voted in Cumberland.


Ernest Lapointe: His vote would do the most good there.


Jacques Bureau: I have pages of this.
This is as far as Springhill is concerned. Let us see how votes were polled in Amherst. These are some of the names that are given: No. 457723, J. H. Skinner, swore that he resided in Amherst. On looking up the records of the Militia Department, we find that Mr. Skinner is a resident of Montreal, Q.ue. No. 406212, Sgt. Wiseman, swore that he resided in Amherst. We find that his residence is in Brantford, but that he enlisted at Hamilton, Ontario. No. 736956, A. Russell, swore he resided in Amherst. We find from the records of the Militia Department that his residence was in Lethbridge. No. 802638, Henry Edgett, swore that, he resided in Amherst, but his residence is given as Ealing, Ontario, and he enlisted at London, Ontario. No. 725523, J. R. Wood, swore that he resided in Amherst. The records show that his residence is in Fenelon Falls, Ontario.


Samuel Hughes: What is the name, please?


Jacques Bureau: Mr. J. R. Wood, Fenelon Falls.


Samuel Hughes: That is in my constituency.


Ernest Lapointe: That is one of your votes.


Samuel Francis Glass: He ought to he all right.


Jacques Bureau: I do not say that these men are not all right, and that is the reason why I say that a committee should be granted. Every one of these boys was all right, but he was induced to vote all wrong through all sorts of threats and misrepresentations, and that is why we are asking for this committee.


Samuel Hughes: How does the hon. member know that Wood did not vote for me?	*


Jacques Bureau: He may have voted for the hon. member; but if the hon. member goes to ballot box No. 175, with Deputy Presiding Officer Captain W. H. Burke, he will find that a man by the name of J. R. Wood, bearing number 725523, who enlisted, voted in Cumberland, Nova Scotia; but when you take the same number and the same name from the records of the Militia Department, it will be found that this gentleman is from Fenelon Falls, Ontario. It is not up to me to explain that. I am sorry my hon. friend was deprived of that vote, because I am satisfied it would have - been a fairer vote given in the proper place and perhaps for the proper man-who knows?


Samuel Hughes: He could not return to Fenelon Falls to vote. Was he not entitled to vote at the place where he was stationed?


Jacques Bureau: Why was he not?


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Because the law says so.


Samuel Hughes: I understood the law gave a man the opportunity


Jacques Bureau: No, I just read the law as explained by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen). Perhaps some other gentleman may be interested.
The next man was No. 198813, Mr. A. Wolmsley, who swore that he resided in Amherst, in the county of Cumberland, and whose residence appears from the records of the Militia Department to he Dryden, Ontario. No. 625333 is another Wood, Mr. G. H. Wood, who came from Alberta. There is no particular place of residence given, but he swore that he resided in Amherst. No. 907720 is John Young, who came from Regina, Sask., and so on. As I said, I do not desire to weary the House with all these things; but the Speaker being a man interested, I thought I would take a few of those names out of hundreds, that he might go to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), the Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and insist that they should 'tell their supporters to grant this investigation.
I have another list from Oxford in the same county. Perhaps I shall find some names of mien coming from ridings of some of my hon. friends who think they have been cheated out of their votes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Was that vote for Cumberland county polled in England or Canada?


Jacques Bureau: I could not say. It was polled in the presence of Captain W. H. Burke, Deputy Presiding Officer. I understand that he is a relative of Mr. Speaker, a brother-in-law, or a cousin, or some other relation. He seems to have been very sympathetic, even if not related. All I have here is the number of the ballot box, the name of the Deputy Presiding Officer, the names of the men who voted, the residence they swore to, and the actual residence according to the records of the Militia Department.


Samuel Hughes: In the case of that gentleman who had the honour of coming from Victoria County, he was stationed at Amherst, I presume. Where else could he have voted hut at Amherst?


Jacques Bureau: Physically speaking he could have voted nowhere else, but the law allowed him to apply his vote in the county where he resided.


Samuel Hughes: How do you know he did not?


Jacques Bureau: He voted for the candidate in Cumberland county. That is why he swore he resided there. I could not vouch for it, but it is the fact that the vote was actually polled in England. Here are the names of other men who swore they resided in Oxford, but whom the militia records show as living somewhere else. Sergeant Sweet, No. 54147, swore he resided in Oxford, whereas the military records give his residence at London, Ontario. Pte. G. B. Harris, No. 113276, swore he resided in Oxford, whereas his residence is given as in Peterborough. He enlisted at Ottawa. Pte. D. A. Robertson, No. 412847, swore he resided in Oxford. He enlisted at Lindsay, Ontario. There are others who swore they resided at Tidnish, but whom the record shows were residents of. Hamilton, Val-cartier, Regina, Toronto, Brandon or Edmonton. Others swore they resided at Jog-gin Mines in the county of Cumberland, whereas their residence was at Pembroke, St. John, New Brunswick, London or Montreal. Others swore they resided at Shulie, whereas their residence was at Montreal, Toronto, or St. Catharines. Others swore they resided at Nappan or Pugwash, but not one of them resided there.
I think we have shown that there was something done with the ballots. Now, let us see the manner of allocating the votes of

military electors to constituencies other than where they were legally entitled to vote. Take the roster of the 208th Battalion. The number of names on this list is 656. The military electors whose addresses we have been able to trace with the limited means at our disposal, and who voted in constituencies other than where they were entitled to vote, number 240. This official roster was issued in May, 1917. At the date of the election Lieutenant-Colonel W. P. Malone, of Owen Sound, was commanding officer and presiding officer. There were 766 votes polled by this battalion, of which 541 were apparently fraudulently switched to different Ontario constituencies. Of course, the discrepancy between the names on the list and the number of votes polled may be explained away by saying the men were transferred to this battalion, but that is not satisfactory to me.
Let me summarize. I find by this roster that constituencies received switched ballots as follows: First of all, I will take the officers: South Bruce, 1; South Essex, 2; 'South Oxford, 2; Kent, 2; total, 7. Now the men: South Bruce, 34; South Essex, 42; South Oxford, 67; Kent, 28; North Waterloo, 27; South Waterloo, 7; North York, 27; South Ontario, 2; South Renfrew, 1; Brant, 3; Ottawa, 1; Durham, 1; total, 240. That is the number we have been able to ascertain. I have got the name and number of each man who voted, his country of birth and residence. Surely these men, who had been in Canada, should have voted where they resided. The names and addresses of these 240 men can all be verified by the records of the Militia Department. These people refused to answer questions 6, 7 and 8. In order to connect the authorities', my friends the ministers, and those they were instructing with the whole scheme I shall read a letter which was written by Mr. W. P. Purney, in England, as follows:
47 Victoria Street, S.W. 1, 2Sth January, 1918.
To Special Returning Officers and Clerks at London, appointed under the provisions of the Military Voters' Act, 1917.
Having been requested for a decision where questions 6, 7, and 8, on the voters' envelopes are unanswered, but question No. 9 fixes an electoral district, I decide that in all such cases, such envelope shall be allocated to the electoral district thereon named.
W. P. Purney,
Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for Canada. London, 28-1-18.
I do not see how the Government can evade the responsibility, so far as that is concerned. Either this man was particularly

instructed or he was not, and if he was not it was his duty to get particular instructions.
Talk about influencing voters ! There was a conspiracy among men immediately under the control of the Government to influence voters, and they influenced them not only without reprimand, but were promoted for so doing. I hold in my hand a circular letter addressed " To My Comrades in Canada," by H. A. Machin, Lieut.-Col. late O.C. 94th Overseas Battalion, and late O.C. 1st Canadian Labour Battalion B.E.F.
This Lt.-Colonel Machin, Mr. Speaker, was the very gentleman who I believe was charged with the oversight and proper enforcement of the Military Service Act so far as the province of Quebec was concerned.


Ernest Lapointe: He was the director.


Jacques Bureau: He was directing the enforcement of the Military Service Act, a legal procedure which we were assured was carried out without bias or prejudice, and with an eye single to absolute justice to all. We were told that the enforcement of the Act would be carried out in such a manner as to merit no criticism whatever, but events have shown how vain were our expectations in this regard. I shall not read the whole of the circular because I have no intention to cumber Hansard. But let us see how broadminded and fair, how scrupulously just was this gentleman-who of course, had no sympathy with any particular party and was actuated with nothing but a keen desire to see the Act properly enforced and fair play done to all. Let us see what this just and unprejudiced man said:
If I.aurier wins (which God forbid) what will be the result? Tour wounds and suffering were in vain-your 30,000 comrades asleep in [DOT] Prance and Flanders all died in vain-their widows and children have suffered in vain-. all the hardship, suffering and sacrifice endured will have gone for naught-for a vote for
I.aurier, or any one of his candidates, is equivalent to a vote for the Kaiser himself.


Ernest Lapointe: Shame!


Jacques Bureau: (Reading):
Laurier would quit, the war-he'd take a referendum-what an insult and mockery to you and our dead. 'Shun! You're warned for duty. Your last Duty-on the 17th December, 1917.


Ernest Lapointe: He was an officer
of the Government.


Jacques Bureau: This, Mr. Speaker, was the gentleman who was supposed to be a fair and impartial judge appointed to administer the Military Service Act, and
who was kept in office after this circular had been issued. I am satisfied that no reasonable person will doubt that the Government was aware that this circular had been printed. I am satisfied in my own mind, and I am confident that any reasonable and rational man with the least modicum of intellect who does not care to allow his prejudice and bias to run away with him is also satisfied, that this was done with the full knowledge of the Government. But there must have been some inducement for the writer of the circular to pen such a fervent appeal on behalf of the cause it advocates.
Now, I .submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that having shown that ballots had been tampered with *- and I have addressed myself particularly to the First Commoner so that he may exercise his influence to see that the House shall take proper action in granting a committee;- having shown that those who were under the immediate control of the Justice Department,^-because I consider that Lieut.-Col. Machin came under that department, -were acting as they did, trying unduly to influence the ballots;-having shown all this, and the fact that this could not be an isolated case but must have been the result of an organization, what conclusion can we come to? Why, Mr. Speaker, the conclusion naturally forces itself upon us that the organization that undoubtedly influenced these matters was the creation of the Government, presided over by whom? By the gentleman who sent the telegram, of course. As I said a moment ago, no man was more conversant with the details of the Military Voters' Act than was the Minister of the Interior. Now what does the telegram say? My hon. friend from Waterloo (Mr. Euler) said just now that the minister asked for votes at large, but where, in the Act, did he find even the possibility of such a thing as a vote at large? There was absolutely none. But as the hon. member for Waterloo remarked, the climax is reached at the end of the telegram when the minister asks for a division of the votes or the same proportion "no matter what our allotment may be". *
Now, Sir, by virtue of what authority could, a member of the House-at least an honourable man who desired to be scrupulously just -have an allotment of votes "at large" made in his favour? The act distinctly laid it down that the voter himself should indicate the place where he would vote; and there is a further provision-I am speaking from memory, but I have a recollection of it-

whereby it was incumbent on the presiding officer to use every endeavour to ascertain precisely what the will of the soldier was, so as to preclude any possibility of his vote toeing switched. I think, Sir, that a prima facie case has been established beyond any shadow of doubt. You do not have to produce the evidence that a man has committed murder before you may empanel a jury. If a man is charged with an offence a proper tribunal is constituted to establish his guilt or innocence, and you cannot try an offender unless there is a tribunal. Now we ask for a tribunal and if it is granted we will adduce the proof. Surely that is sufficient justification for one. What is the answer? My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, who invariably is very adroit, dancing on one foot and 'then on the other, begins with the unsatisfactory and vague assertion:	" I do not
remember sending the telegram." Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not very familiar with the proceedings of petty courts in one particular respect, but I am informed that this is the precise answer that is made to the presiding dignitary in the morning by the man who happened to be boisterous the night before in the condition when his head feels rather too big for his shoulders:	"I don't remember." But supposing-so argues the minister-supposing he did send the telegram, what of it? " Supposing I did send the telegram? I would not send it to the Prime Minister." That, Sir, reminds one of the man who says: " Even if I do get full you cannot smell gin on me; I take rye." This sort of contention does not become an honourable man. The minister does not deny the fact that the telegram was sent. On the contrary, he tacitly admits it, and in that admission he pleads guilty to the charge. We are not even bound to make out a prima facie case-although we have done so in no uncertain way-because the honourable minister pleads guilty. But he goes further, and it is just here that he corroborates the arguments of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie). He says, speaking about the telegram:	" If it ever existed,
it may have been sent by some one under the authority of the general committee-I do not know. If it was sent by the organization, then I have no desire to repudiate the message; none whatever." "If it was sent by the organization" -that is what we claim, Mr. Speaker. We say that there was an organization, and our contention is that the moving spirit of i't was the Minister of Interior. He does not repudiate the organi-
zation, yet he says: Produce the telegram! I repeat, Sir, that it is not incumbent on us to produce our evidence except before a competent tribunal. Every member, the Minister of Interior first of all, will bear me out in this doctrine. What defence does he make? His sole defence is a patriotic ebullition of intense fervor, in which he takes the opportunity to throw some of his slimy aspersions on hon. members on this side, whom he calls slackers. I have been opposed to conscription. It was said that such opposition was cowardly. Well, Mr. Speaker, in the presence of my God I am proud to say that I bad manhood enough, notwithstanding every allegation of cowardice made against me, to stand firm by my conviction. I have no Charge to make against any man. It has always been my belief that every man should be free to act as he saw fit under such circumstances, and I believe so still. But in 1914 when war was declared the Minister of the Interior was then 38 years of age. Mind, Sir, I do not say this in order to>
disparage .the hon. member. But the fact is that the minister was going about the country proclaiming that he wanted 'the 'last man and the last dollar obtainable in the country, and everybody had eyes upon him. He was a prominent figure in the Cabinet and in this Chamber and he was a light in the country, so much so that one day, rightly or wrongly, rumour went abroad that he had enlisted. And I am told that he was flooded with so many telegrams of congratulation, starting from the Canadian C'lub in Winnipeg, that he was perplexed and knew not what to do. "I have nothing to say against the minister in 'this respect, 'Sir, hut when charges are being made that certain people are slackers and are white-livered, these statements being made to reflect on the honour of those against whom they are directed, then I think I aim justified in saying that the Minister of the Interior must bear in mind that the country is aware of the tact that he was bom in 1876, and knows that when he -was, with such great enthusiasm, calling for men throughout the country there was something else for him to do' besides screaming such epithets ais "white-livered slackers" at 'his neighbours. I repeat, Sir, that I do not reproach any mian with failure to do his duty by his country; but I want the country to know the state of affairs1, 'that is all.
A line of argument has been adduced that has surprised me. We are fighting in regard to this matter not on account of electoral corruption but for'a principle; we

are fighting.for the very basic principle of democracy, liberty and free institutions. If we are to fight for these things we want to take conditions as they exist and we want a fair fight. I think the statement which has been made with regard to the Minister of the Interior has made plain these conditions. May I add that when he says that we are at the other extremity of the patriotic thermometer, his patriotic currency has been largely discounted by me ever since I looked at the Parliamentary Companion and found how old he was and what his history had been.
The most unspeakable of all crimes is to violate the sanctity of the grave and to lay profane hands upon the dead. When there is an earthquake, a fire or a civil disturbance, with loss of life in some great city, the order first to be given and most readily obeyed is to shoot down without mercy the ghoul found looting the bodies of the dead. But the ghoul who merely takes a few pennies from the body of a stranger lying dead upon the street is a petty offender in comparison with the vampire who breaks into the sacred tomb of the honoured dead and seeks to filch from the departed his good name and reputation. In every well conducted cemetery men are employed to drive away and exterminate the loathsome animals that defile and despoil the mounds that mark the last resting place of the dead. The police run down with vigilance, and the law summarily punishes, the grave robbers and the body snatchers. Why have we no fitting punishment for the more obscene and degraded malefactors who violate the scancity of the grave? Now, 1 want, to refer to , some of those who have gone down to to the cemetery and opened the grave of one for whom we have the greatest reverence for the purpose of trying to make a political argument. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) quoted the late Sir Wilfrid Laurler as having said:
Well, no great mistake could be made if the Grits should undertake to fight the enemy with the devil's fire.
That cannot be found in the speech delivered on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne in 1906 by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. My leader asked the hon. member for Red Deer this question:
Mr. McKenzie:	Would the hon. gentleman
mind giving me the page of Hansard and the subject in connection with which Sir Wilfrid Laurier said he was no purist?
The hon. member for Red Deer replied:
It was in the debate on the address in the year 1906. I have not the page, unfortunately.
He says further:
I was comparatively a stranger in this country when I read that statement, hut I must say it horrified me considerably. I think I understood Sir Wilfrid as well as most other men.
It was not to establish the position of the hon. member for Red Deer in this House that he made that quotation. The quotation was made, whatever his protestations may have been, for the purpose of hurting the feelings of the men who sit on your left, Mr. Speaker, and who have the greatest reverence for the memory of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier as they had the greatest reverence for himself when he lived. I repudiate the aspersion that has been cast upon the memory of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the fact that such an argument is resorted to is one reason for granting us a committee. The side issues which have been introduced to gratify various instincts and to serve as an answer to the charge which has been made are not only flimsy but unworthy of members of Parliament.
At six o'clock the House adjourned.
Thursday, October 2, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Air. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi) submitted the first report of the special committee appointed to consider the matter of the erection of a memorial to the late Lieutenant-Colonel Baker, M.P., as follows:
The Special Committee of the House of Commons appointed to act with a like committee of the Senate and to confer and act with the Committee of the Senate and House of Commons who have in charge the building and arrangement of the new Parliament Building, in order that there may be erected therein a suitable memorial to the late Lieutenant-Colonel George Harold Baker, M.P., for Brome, beg leave tc make their first report as follows:
Your Committee recommend:
1.	That Mr. John Pearson, Architeet-in-charge of the new Parliament Buildings, be instructed to communicate with Major R. Tait McKenzie, M.D., and obtain from him such suggestions as he may be able to give, and to engage him to complete the said Memorial.
2.	That the Minister of Public Works he requested to take the action necessary to give effect to the foregoing recommendation.
All of which is respectfully submitted.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
J

Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	What is the amount of the fines collected in the counties of Temiscouata and Kamour-aska through the conviction' of the defaulters, up to the present day?
2.	What is the number of men from the Federal Police who have been engaged in the pursuit of the defaulters in the said counties?
3.	What is the amount of the expenses occasioned by the maintenance of these men from the Federal Police up to this day in the said counties?
4.	Has the Chief of the said police or his men the right to divide the fines between themselves? If not, what are the respective salaries of the chief and his men?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	$12,910.
2.	From six to ten men.
3.	$4,888.73.
4.	No. The salaries of the inspector and men in the said counties are from $3 to $5 per diem.


NICKEL-CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVIDENCE JOURNAL.
Mr. PEDLOW:: 1.	Was the Government advised during the war by Mr. Ratham of the Providence Journal that evidence existed indicating that Canadian nickel was still finding its way to Germany?
2.	Was this evidence submitted in documentary form to the then Solicitor General, Honourable Arthur Meighen?
3.	If so, what was the date on which it was received and what action was taken theron and when?
4.	Were the documents in question returned to Mr. Ratham?
5.	If so, were they returned at his request and when?
6.	Will the Government produce all correspondence with Mr. Ratham relating to the nickel question?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: I can answer this question verbally; perhaps it is better that I should do so, in view of the interest in the subject at the present time. The answers are as follows:
1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	5 and 6. There is no such correspondence.


MAJOR JOHN McKINLET.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. d'ANJOU:
1.	What position does Major John McKinley hold in the Government service?
2.	What is the salary attached to such position?
Major-General MEVVBURN:
1.	He is a quartermaster in the Canadian Army Medical Corps, employed in the directorate of the Director General of Medical

Services as officer in charge of Conservation of Food Supplies and Utilization of Byproducts.
2.	The pay and allowance of his rank as an officer in the Canadian Army Medical Corps, Canadian Expeditionary Force.

Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to
station a garrison at the barracks at St. Johns, Quebec?
2.	If so, when?
3.	If not, why?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes.
2.	When quarters, which are now being repaired, are ready for occupation.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


PRIVATE BENOIT.
Mr. PAPINEAU:: 1.	Why is it that the estate of Private Benoit, No. 120591, killed at the front on the 27th of August, 1918, is not yet settled?
2.	When can the mother of this private hope for a settlement?
Major-General MEWBURN:	It is presumed that the hon. member has reference to No. 120591, Pte. Benoit Bougie.
There is at present a credit balance of $35.34 in favour of this man's estate. Mrs. Bougie was overpaid $210 separation allowance on account of her other son, No. 3166935, Pte. Leo Bougie. She was requested to refund this amount, and, in reply, she stated that she was not in a position to make the refund, l;ut would consent that the amount overpaid be retained out of the amount which would become due to her in respect of No. 120591, Pte. Benoit Bougie. As there is only a balance due from this latter son's estate of $35.34, Mrs. Bougie still owes the Government the sum of $174,66. She would have been advised of this earlier, but the pay account has only just been received with the consignment of London files.


CANADIAN SOLDIERS SENTENCED IN ENGLAND.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir EDWARD KEMP (Minister of the Overseas Military Forces):: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked on several occasions for information regarding members of the Overseas Military Forces in Canada who are detained in England under sentences of varying [periods'. tCbnsidering the large number of soldiers who were sent overseas, I think that the figures which I am about to give will be considered as very satisfac-

tory and as indicating that the conduct of our soldiers was most exemplary and the discipline excellent. It will probably be found that the number that it was necessary to convict for various causes would be much less than the number that would be cnvicted of offences from amongst the civil population of Canada during a,.similar period.
Several months ago I requested Judge Dennistoun, of Winnipeg, who was Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Overseas Military Forces of Canada, to return to England from Winnipeg for the purpose of reviewing these cases individually, the object being to look into the matter carefully and, if possible, to reduce or commute the sentences. The policy was to exercise as much leniency as was possible under all the circumstances. Colonel Dennistoun did review the cases and he submitted a report upon each case; that report is available to any member of the House who desires to see it.
The figures to which I have referred are contained in the following statement:
Analysis of report of Deiputy Judge Advocate General, O.M.F.C., on Revision of Sentences. Total number of members of O.M.F.C. in prison on 1st July, 1919, undergoing sentences imposed by military tribunals 170 Sentenced by military tribunals between 1st July, 1919, and 1st September, 1919	29
Total number of members of O.M.F.C. in prison on 1st July, 1919, undergoing
sentences imposed by civil authorities..	46
Sentenced by civil authorities between 1st July, 1919, and 1st September, 1919.. ..	29
Total	274
Number of military sentences:
(a) Remitted	[DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT]	77
(b) Commuted in part from imprisonment to detention barracks	 90
Number of cases in which no action in respect to sentence was recommended.. ..	86
Number of cases reserved for future consideration	 10
Number of civil sentences for the commutation of which application to the Home Secretary has been made	 5
Date of release of prisoners:
Number of prisoners who have been released from Imprisonment between 1st July, and 1st September, 1919.. ..	74
Numbers of prisoners to be released during months of: September, 1919..	..	22October,	"	..	..	24November,	"	..	..	34December,	"	..	..	32January, 1920.. ..	42
(a) Number of prisoners whose sentences expire after January 31, 1920:
(1)	Where sentenced by military
courts	 21
(2)	Where sentenced by civil courts 25
(a) These cases an where convictions are for murder, manslaughter, rape, burglary, larceny.
Number of cases not yet reviewed	 5
(These cases have been tried in the civil courts within the past two weeks.)
That is two weeks prior to the 9th September last.
When prisoner is released from imprisonment and sent to detention barracks he is then retained only until his documentation is completed and arrangements for his sailing made.


DEPORTATION OF POLES AND UKRAINIANS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the eDay:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: Might I call the attention of the Government to the fact that several Poles and Ukrainians are being deported to their native countries? I am asking on behalf of these Poles and Ukrainians that the Government consider their ca es very carefully, as they claim that they are not alien enemies. I would say that the Government does not take any action without full knowledge in each particular case; but as these people are being deported to their countries where the cost of living is, according to their information, simply exorbitant and as they claim to be friendly aliens, they a9k the Government to consider each case very carefully. There are at present some at the camp-I do not venture to pronounce the name.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Kapuskasing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is more familiar with the name than I. I would like him to look up the records in order to see if they should really be considered as enemy aliens.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I understand the matter, no one is being deported exclusively on the ground that he is a Pole or a Ukrainian where he comes under the conditions which, under the Treaty, would give him the nationality of the newly-created country. There are cases of men claiming to be Poles or Ukrainians and in some instances deportation has taken place, but it has been upon tire ground of the undesirability of the individual man in any case where it has been shown that he is really a Pole or a Ukrainian. Of course, there are the cases of some men who have claimed to be Poles or Ukrainians, but who have not been in a position to establish the fact. The principle is that a man is not deported simply because he be a man of the nationality of

any of the countries which are now friendly aliens. Of course, where he happens to be an, undesirable man, he should be dealt with on the basis of his undesirability.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would ask my hon. friend to remember ith-a-t many of tihese foreigners are very ignorant and have been [DOT]kept in their own country mostly in servitude and perhaps unaware that they belong to another country friendly to the Allies. I would, therefore, like my hon. friend to weigh their cases very carefully.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They are all carefully considered.


CIVIL SERVICE ACT, 1918-AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN moved second reading of Bill No. 18, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. MACLEAN thereupon moved that the House go into committee on the Bill.
Jacques Bureau: We have not the Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: I desire to withdraw the motion, Mr. Speaker.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of hon. members that the minister should have leave to withdraw his motion that the Bill be submitted to the Committee of the Whole House?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion for the second reading I declared " carried," but the minister desires now to speak upon the second reading. Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister should do so?
Some - hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Jacques Bureau: Is the Bill distributed? I have not a copy of it.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, the Bill is
distributed. In considering many Bills I must admit that in my experience there is no advantage in discussing the Bill in Committee of the Whole; but I anticipate there will be more or less discussion on the principle of this Bill and the Civil Service Act of 1918, which this Bill purposes amending. Therefore, probably it is in the interest of orderly debate that the discussion, if any, take place upon the second

reading, and at least the few observations which I desire to make had better be made now.
The principal and important feature, of this Bill is that it purposes asking Parliament for the ratification of the classification of the Civil Service, a work delegated to and imposed upon the Civil Service Commission by an Act of Parliament passed in the year 1918. The classification so-called was presented to Parliament at its last session and near its end, and the Government deemed it advisable not to push forward the Bill at that time, but to postpone its further consideration to this special session which was then in mind.
I assume that in the meantime hon. gentlemen have had an opportunity of perusing the classification, and that it is unnecessary for me to attempt to go into the minutiae of the very voluminous report, which contains so many details of a varied character.


Jacques Bureau: Do I uriderstand that there has been a re-classification of the classification report which was distributed to hon. members last session?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The classification which was submitted to Parliament last session has been amended, and the amended report has been submitted to Parliament and distributed to hon. members. The classification submitted to Parliament last year was not in every case an object of commendation from the public, from the Civil Service, or from members of Parliament. Obviously and inevitably a work of that character was bound to -contain weaknesses and errors:. I cannot conceive that a work of that kind could possibly be carried out'by any man or group of men without containing defects which are subject to correction. As I have already said, it was the view of the Government that members should have an opportunity of studying the classification submitted last session, and it was also deemed advisable to postpone its consideration in order that during the recess its provisions might be considered further by the Civil Service Commission. Shortly after the prorogation of Parliament last session a committee, known as the Board of Hearing and Recommendation, was set up by the Civil Service Commission. The Chairman of the Board was Mr. Jameson, of tire Civil Service Commission, and he was aided by departmental representatives	-and representatives of	theCivil	Service, one of whom	was
a returned soldier. The board held many meetings during the recess and while it did

not have an opportunity of considering all the classes contained in the classification they made many recommendations, and the classification as changed in consequence of their deliberations was submitted to Parliament two or three days ago and has been distributed to hon. members.
I suppose it will be said that the classification as amended and now before Parliament is not entirely satisfactory. I should not be astonished if that is the case, nor would any reflecting man, I trust, because it is humanly impossible to expect a classification of the 'Civil Service of this country, comprising about sixty thousand persons, to be free from criticism.
I have frequently heard it said that the classification is the subject of much criticism by the Civil Service. Naturally, the Civil Service are interested in the matter. It is quite proper and legitimate that they should be, and that they should have every opportunity of submitting their objections to the proper authorities. However, I do not believe the classification should be condemned because some members of the service do not approve of it. The Civil Service is entitled to justice in this matter, and I feel sure that every hon. member of this House will do his utmost to see that justice is extended to that very-large body, who after all are very largely interested in the administration of public affairs in this country. I think, however, I may safely say on behalf of the Civil Service of Canada that 99 per cent of them desire the adoption and 'approval of the classification by Parliament this session, and in its present form. Many of the organized branches of the Civil Service have expressed to me the view that while they appreciate the classification contains defects, and while they realize it may not be possible at this short session to give consideration to all the details, they prefer its adoption now rather than have it go over to another session.
I am much interested in what shall be the procedure in the consideration of this Bill, and I should like the very frank advice and direction of Parliament. If it is given, I shall endeavour to sense it in the very best way I can, and 1 shall follow what seems to me to be the wishes of the majority of hon. members, for after all any matters affecting the Civil Service are fundamentally and primarily as much a matter for Parliament as for the Government, and perhaps more so. Hon. gentlemen realize that it is impossible for me to attempt to explain all the minutiae of the classification. I could not possibly do it, and I am
sure hon. gentlemen will not expect me to attempt it. I should require an army of assistants upon the floor of the House, and even with that aid I fear it would take very many months before we could dispose of the matter if we were to go into all the details. It appears to me, therefore, and I wish to .submit my own view frankly to the House that there are only two ways of dealing with this matter: Either accept the classification, as it now stands, in its entirety, or refer the same at once to a special committee of about twenty-five members who would give consideration to the matter and have the advice and assistance of the Civil Service Commission and their assistants, and hear from the Civil Service, from the public, and any body or bodies interested as to the principles involved in the classification. There is much to be said in favour of either course, and I am willing to accept whichever Parliament desires. There is this to say in favour of the adoption of the classification as it now stands: It would enable us to dispose of this particular item of business quickly and reach prorogation shortly, which I assume most hon. members desire as early as is reasonably possible. In making that statement I have a further view which I must give to the House, namely: that the Civil Service Bill, the second reading of which I am now moving, contains a provision that the Civil Service Commission may add to, take from, or amend the classification as it now stands, subject, of course, to the approval of the Governor in Council.
And behind that, of course, there is always to be remembered the fact that the Civil Service classification is inoperative and of no effect unless Parliament in the future votes the money with which to pay the civil servants. If the House is in favour of the reference of the Bill to a special committee I earnestly hope that we shall be in a position to do so at the close of to-day's proceedings in order that we may make some progress.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not unconscious of the fact that there is a great deal of criticism of the Civil Service Act of 1918 and all that it involves. I have been just a little too long in public life not to have anticipated that criticism, not to have heard it and not to have clearly realized tne reasons for it; and it is all, of course, quite natural to me. The Civil Service Act of 1918 was truly revolutionary.


Jacques Bureau: What is that? Revolutionary?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes. It was truly revolutionary, 'but it should stand, if Parliament has the same view concerning it as was entertained in 1918, when the measure was passed. I trust that the view of Parliament then still holds. I desire to recall to the House the fact that in the general elections of 1917 the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) issued a statement to the public enunciating his programme, in which there was contained a reference to Civil Service reform. I think I should read the statement in regard to that point:
Civil Service Reform, with a view to extending the principle of the present Civil Service Act to the outside service, and thus to abolish patronage and to malre appointments to the public service upon the sole standard of merit. The Civil Service Commission has already been directed to make a report to the Prime Minister as to the necessary steps for that purpose. Such arrangements will be subject to the existing regulations, which give preference in appointments to returned soldiers who are duly qualified.
In pursuance of that pledge to the public, in the session of 1918, the Civil Service Act was introduced and was adopted by Parliament, and I think it is only fair to say that the measure received the almost unanimous support of this House.


John Hampden Burnham: Does the Bill refer to promotion?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bill of 1918?


John Hampden Burnham: I refer to the statement which the minister is making now with regard to the Bill. He says that the basic principle of it is merit. Does that refer to
promotion?	[DOT]


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes. It refers to merit in the personnel of the Civil Service. I was about to say that the Bill met with the unanimous approval of Parliament. The Opposition, I think, without exception approved of the principle of the measure, and I assume that their attitude is the same today.


Jacques Bureau: There were some clauses which we fought pretty hard.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, but I am referring to the principle of the Bill. On the Government side of the House, while there was some criticism as to detail, the measure in principle was accepted, and I think it is greatly to the credit of the supporters of the Ministry that they took the position they did in relation to that important measure. I am sure any one who has been in public life for any length of time realizes how natural it might be for members of

Parliament supporting a Government to have some disinclination to divest themselves of a long-established power of recommendation to office. Now, what did the Civil Service Act of 1918 mean? It meant, Mr. Speaker, that the Civil Service Commission was given the power of appointing to office the members of the Civil Service, and the Commission has since 'been operating to that end. The effect of the measure was to deprive members of Parliament of the power of recommending appointments to office, thus abolishing the practice of patronage, or whatever you wish to call it, which was long known in this country to be an attribute of members supporting the Government of the day.


William Findlay Maclean: Was that a power or a privilege?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It matters not
what the definition may be; the effect was practically the same. The Civil Service Act of 1918 was passed, and the classification is merely following out the direction of the statute; and therefore there is in my judgment very little reason why a consideration of that classification itself should involve very much time on the part of the House. The wisdom of that legislation may be questioned by some, and one can very readily realize how it may be attacked. I have no doubt it will change wonderfully party organization, and probably give colouring to the future politics of this country. Yet, I submit that the principle of the measure is sound, and has the approval of the country; and I am sure that the Parliament of Canada will never presume to alter that principle in the future, in the main, at least.
The Act has been in force for one year under the direction of the Civil Service Commission. Now, I know that the commission has been the subject of a great deal of criticism. Its members are not supermen and are not infallible, but I can say of them that they are good, faithful public servants who are doing as much and as good work as any other men in the public service of this country to-day. Naturally the Civil Service Commission will come in conflict with the wishes or views of members of Parliament, of members of the Government, and of great sections of ihe public; and so long as they are discharging a public duty which brings this about they are natural-, ly open to very much criticism. I make this remark regarding the commission because I feel that they have been the subject of criticism which has not been alto-

gether fair. The commission is an independent body; if it were not it could not properly discharge its duties. I think therefore that Parliament should stand behind it or else abolish it altogether.
I know that supporters of the Liberal party will say that the Civil Service Commission is not doing its duty because in a certain case perhaps an applicant who hap' pens to be a Liberal is not appointed.


Jacques Bureau: In all cases.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I beg to differ
from my hon. friend. On the other hand, it follows that some supporters of the other party who do not receive a favourable consideration of applications in which they are interested for appointments to public office may be inclined to feel that the judgment of the commission is unsound. It is of course obvious to every hon. member who chooses to reflect upon the matter that it is utterly impossible for the Civil Service Commission to please every applicant for public office. If they were able to do that they would indeed be supermen.
The Civil Service Commission has been criticised for employing as assistants in the classification work a firm belonging to the United States. I have seen it in the press, I have heard it from some hon. gentlemen in the House, I have heard it outside of the House. But, I must say that it is criticism that I have never been able to appreciate. It was not possible to get in Canada one single person who had the slightest experience in the classification of a Civil Service and I commend the judgment undertaking the classification of the Service, undertaking the classification of the service, in going out into the world and getting the best and most experienced men they could get no matter what it cost or from what country they came. They did secure the services of an experienced firm in the United States and, at considerable expense, they have since been assisting the Civil Service Commission. I think it would be a small position for public men to take if they would deny the right to the Government, or any body created by the Government to perform a special duty, to go outside of the country and purchase experience and wisdom if they could not obtain it at home. Such, I say, was the condition of affairs. I hope, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the Civil Service Commission will not be subjected to criticism by reason of the fact that they brought to their aid experienced men who were not resident in Canada.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: Does the minister think that it would be . proper and in the interest of this country to disclose to the citizens of another nation all the inside workings of this Government?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it would not be quite proper to disclose the inside workings of this Government to any foreign government or to any body but I do not see any objection to disclosing to the entire world the internal economy of our Civil Service. Many cities in the United States and many of the states have classified their civil services just as we are proposing to do and my hon. friend, or myself, by making a request, could obtain the book containing all the information.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what does classification mean? After all, that is the main feature of the Bill inasmuch as it asks Parliament to approve of the report of the Civil Service Commission upon classification. There is nothing else of much importance in the Bill, although I shall come to that later. Classification is simply an effort to standardize the public service of this country. In other words, it is an attempt to establish on a business basis the work of those engaged in the Public'Service of Canada. It is an effort to do what is done in well organized and well directed business concerns to-day. The purpose, I think, is laudable, and whatever be the future wish of Parliament as to the manner in which persons are appointed to the Public Service, surely there can be no objection to the classification fo the Service.
I do dislike reading to the House. It is not easy for the one who undertakes to read and it is not usually very interesting or intelligible to those whom he asks to listen while reading. But last year there was submitted to the members of Parliament, a report accompanying the classification in which the Civil Service Commission attempted to present the principles which guided them in making the classification and the purposes and objects which they sought to accomplish by it. I have had prepared a typewritten statement gathered entirely from the report and I ask the kind permission of hon. gentlemen to read the same to them. It is simply a digest of what is now in the report-a report which I trust all hon. gentlemen have read, or if they have not, I hope they will do so as early as possible. That report indicates the reason why the classification was commenced, the principles which guid-

ed the commission in the making of the classification and the objects which they had in mind. If hon. gentlemen will be good enough to give me fair attention while I read this, I think it will make clear to them the purpose of the classification much better than I could do it myself. It is as follows:
(a)	The Civil Service Act of 1918 specifically called for a classification of the Outside Service. Section 52 (1) provides.
"The Commission shall, as soon as practicable after the passing of this Act, . . . - Prepare schedules containing lists of the positions and the duties and salaries attached thereto and the salaries and increases or other remuneration that in the opinion of the Commission are necessary and proper, .... and, upon the approval of the same by the Governor m Council, and by resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament, such schedules shall come into operation."
It was clearly the intention of Parliament that the 50,000 positions in the Outside Service which constitute about 85 per cent of the entire service, should be studied and classified as the first step in the application of the extended Civil Service Act. The classification as submitted constitutes such an analysis and complies in a practical way with the requirement that "the positions and the duties and salaries attached thereto" be "listed."
(b)	In order to make possible a practical administration of the Act with regard to examinations a classification of positions is essential. The law under, "Duties of Commission" section 4 (1) (a), reads:
"To test and pass upon the qualifications of candidates for admission to and transfer and
promotion in the Civil Service	
and in section 38, part III, the matter of tests is prescribed in the words:
"Appointments to positions in the Civil Service shall be by competitive examination which shall be of such a nature as will determine the qualifications of candidate for the particular positions to which they are to be appointed. . ."
Obviously the Commission cannot pass upon the qualifications of candidates to fulfil the duties of particular positions unless they know what the duties of these positions are. If they are to wait until a vacancy is to be filled to ascertain the duties not only will a serious delay be introduced but a separate test of applicants wiil have to be conducted for each vacancy, which is an absolutely impracticable method. Only by a system of classification by which positions having substantially the same duties and calling for the same qualifications are grouped together can examinations be held in advance and lists of qualified persons be secured and maintained. Then when vacancies occur, appointments can be made without delay from those whose names are on the appropriate list and examinations need be held only when lists need to be replenished.
(c)	The provisions of the Act respecting the organization of departments also impliedly called for a classification of positions. Section 9, part II of the Act requires the Commission, after consultation with department heads, to prepare plans for the organization of each department of the Civil Service, and particularly provides in clause 4, page 5:
If, after such organization and classification

has been effected, the number of officers, clerks, and employees in any portion of the Civil Service, or in any class or grade thereof, is greater than the number allowed under such organization, the remainder shall be supernumeraries-*
Clearly, if the Commission is to indicate what classes of positions and what numbers of each class are required for the work of any department, it must be able to refer to a classification and scheme of nomenclature by which the duties of given classes are prescribed and designated.
The fact that the country was, and had been for more than three years, engaged in war, with a resulting increase in prices and a corresponding decrease in the purchasing value of the dollar caused an unrest in the public service which could >be properly met only by a most thorough-going consideration of the duties of the various positions in the Civil Service and the compensation which should be provided for these positions in order to effect uniformity and provide for just and equitable compensation throughout the service.
The Civil Service Act of 1918 greatly extended the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. It not only turned over to the Commission the administration of the Outside as well as the Inside Service, but at the same time made imperative a classification of the Outside Service

I think I am correct'in saying that under the provisions of the Civil Service Act of 1918, a classification of the Outside Service was directed.
The standardization of compensation, the preparation of plans of organization for departments, the organizing of the commission's staff, the examinations of applicants for recruiting the Civil Service, the preparation of regulations, and other matters of equal importance.
In order that the commission might not be distracted from giving its attention to the current needs of public business, it decided to retain special temporary assistants for its organization Branch to make the investigations and formulate the recommendations, upon which a classification might be based. Inasmuch as this work was of a permanent character and of the highest value to the country, and as the time element was most important, it was considered inadvisable to train a special staff for this temporary purpose. After a thorough canvass of the professional field the commission found that the firm of Arthur Young and Company was engaged in this highly-specialized line of work and well able to furnish experts of the kinds and numbers needed. It was found that this firm maintained an organization of civil service specialists, employment experts, efficiency engineers and accountants, thoroughly experienced in classification work, had been established in business for some twenty-five years, and had been retained over a period of years by the British, French, and American Governments on important commissions.
I remind the House further that while some of the Civil Service indulged in criticism of the classification report and of the work of the experts which the Civil Service Commission have secured, they themselves -the Civil Service-have employed experts from the United States in the matter of

classification and brought them to Ottawa to study the subject.
The staff thus secured was assigned the work of the permanent staff of the organization provided under the general direction of the commission. Its work was carried on according to principles and policies approved by the commission.
The next paragraph of the statement reads as follows:
What the Classification is.
Classification is the bringing together of like things. This particular study has endeavoured to bring together positions of like nature. The basis of the classification has been the duties and responsibilities of the positions existing in the Civil Service. Positions having similar duties and responsibilities were thus brought together in what is called a class. All such positions were then given a standard title, a standard definition of duties, standard qualifications and requirements, suggested lines of promotion, and a standard salary range. By this process the sixty or more thousand positions in the Civil Service were grouped into approximately 1,600 standard classes. These classes further gathered together into thirty-four occupational groupings called services-
To which I will refer later.
-and within the services they were grouped, on the basis of responsibility, into ranks, the classes of lesser responsibility being placed in the lower ranks, and the classes of greater responsibility in the higher ranks. The classification does not attempt to present an ideal classification. The attempt has been made to classify the positions now existing in the service whether such positions indicate good organization or bad organization.
The principles and policies adopted as a basis for the recommended schedules of compensation were as follows:
1.	That rates of compensation should be uniform for the same work. This means the same hours and the same pay should apply to all positions of the same class, and automatically to the incumbents of such positions.
2.	That rates of compensation should be relatively right for the different classes.
3.	That the rate for each class of employment should be equitable, that is, fair to the employee and fair to the tax-paying public.
4.	That the schedules of compensation should provide for an absolute minimum and an absolute maximum and intermediate rates in this range. The minimum is to be that compensation to which an employee should be entitled immediately upon his appointment, it being assumed that he is qualified for the place. The maximum compensation is to be the figure representing the limit of usefulness which the employee, no matter how experienced or efficient, can reach by reason of the limitations inherent in the employment or in the work he is doing. The intermediate rates are to make possible a regular advance from the minimum toward the maximum as an employee's proficiency and consequently the value of his services increases.
5.	That the salaries proposed should not be based on the depreciated value of the dollar at the present time. Conditions are not now stable. Economic conditions the world over are in an unsettled and uncertain state, and to
found a salary revision on what may prove to be temporary conditions might involve the necessity of a downward revision when conditions return toward the normal. On the strength of these considerations it was decided to base the general level of salary schedules on what would have been normal conditions for 1918 had the tendencies of the period prior to the war continued and had not the war occurred.
6.	It was thought that for certain classes at least a special war bonus should be paid to employees in addition to the salaries provided by the schedules.
What the Classification Accomplishes.
The classification accomplishes six distinct desirable ends, thus furnishing six reasons why it should be adopted. They are as follows:	.
1.	Equitable Compensation:	The state of
affairs with regard to the compensation of positions discovered in the course of the classification work was exactly that which invariably develops in any service administered under a decentralized system and without regard for sound and scientific employment principles.
(a)	In many cases highly qualified employees were found to be as a class under paid.
(b)	In other cases employees were found who had no scruples in holding sinecures and drawing salaries large or small for doing nothing.
(c)	' Throughout the service there was serious lack of uniformity in salaries for persons performing the same work. In one branch of one department of seven employees doing identically the same work, two received $600, one $900, one $1,200, two $1,300, and one $1,350. In another branch where duties, responsibilities, hours of work, and personal qualifications were found to be identical, one employee was receiving $600 per year, and another $1,800.
(d)	In many cases it was found that supervision has not been recognized in the amount of salary received. One striking case of such injustice involves an employee who has been receiving $1,000 while of the fifty-five employees under his supervision two receive $1,400, one $1,300, two $1,200, and several $1,100.
(e)	Considerations of humanity one often finds to be a prolific source of over payment. One official was found of advanced age who at present is practically incapacitated but is retained at a very substantial salary and doing purely nominal duties.
Such anomalies will, through the proper administration of the classification, disappear within a few years. It is the plan to raise to the minimum provided for each class the salaries of all persons in such classes which are at present below the minimum. This action will go half the way by giving incumbents of all positions at least what the minimum of the class calls for. The other half of the standardizing process, namely paying no more than the maximum provided for the class, will take some time for the accomplishment, as according to the proposed Bill incumbents receiving more than the maximum of their positions will not be reduced, but will be allowed to retain not only their present compensation but also be permitted to advance to the maximum of their cItss obtained under the 1908 classification. When such employees retire from the service, however, their positions will be filled at the minimum rate.
2.	Advanced Employment Administation: Inasmuch as the classification provides not only standard compensation but also a uniformity of nomenclature, the Civil Service Commission and the employers, that is the department heads,



are enabled to deal with each other in a uniform and standard commodity, that is to say the titles of positions are standard throughout the service. The department may requisition six clerk-stenographers, one assistant chemist, one hydrometric engineer, two statistical clerks, and one office boy with the assurance that the Civil Service Commission will send to them appointees having qualified for these particular classes, and therefore having the standard qualifications, and toeing able to perform the duties prescribed for these respective positions. This decided advantage in making requisitions and appointments is manifestly just as advantageous in connection with advancement in compensation, promotion in position, and transfer from department to department.
3.	Standard Employment Conditions: From the viewpoint of the man on the street seeking to enter the civil service, or of the employee already in the service, the classification presents standard employment conditions throughout. A study of the classification volume, particularly of the sequences of positions as set forth in the rank and service groupings will indicate to the prospective or present civil servant just what his chances are for entering or having already entered, promotion in the civil service. He finds that the positions are set forth under standard titles. In the definitions of the respective classes, he finds the duties and responsibilities of the position for which he seeks appointment clearly set forth, and also the minimum qualifications which he is expected to have upon taking the examination clearly specified, so that if he does not already possess these qualifications he may take steps to secure them. In addition, he finds that standard compensation rates for the various positions have been set up and he may accept am appointment with the assurance that he is getting at least what the position is worth and also that upon the performance of efficient work he may be advanced from rate to rate within the range, until he reaches the maximum. The promotion examinations provided for will make it possible for an employee possessing the required qualifications to attain any position in the Civil Service.	-
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need read further from this statement, which, as I have already intimated, is a series of extracts from the report of the Civil Service Commission which accompanied the classification submitted to Parliament at the last session. This report is a very interesting document, and 1 hope that it will be read by hon. members. I do not expect concurrence in all the views expressed therein-I certainly do not concur in all of them myself. But I think 1 can truthfully say that it contains much matter of great interest to any person interested in the welfare and efficiency of the Public Service. The statement which I have just read gives almost unanswerable arguments in support of the necessity of the classification which is now submitted to Parliament, as well as of the classification itself.
I do not know whether hon. gentlemen have examined the classification report which I tabled two days ago. It is pracfMr A. K. Maclean.]
tically of the same size and same number of pages as the classification submitted at the last session. However, the classification is improved by the inclusion, in the latter portion of the book, of a grouping of Oivil service positions into classes. At page 787 of the classification you will find a grouping of all those engaged in the service of the country, Inside and 'Outside Services, into thirty-four classes. There are, for instance, the following services: Natural science service, engineering service, postal service, book-keeping, accounting and statistical service, legal service, physician service, chap-"lain service, instructional service, commercial development service, police service, marine navigation service, marine engine-man service, marine skilled labour service, and so on. Inat simply means that the commission were able to group into thirty four divisions all those engaged in the Public Service, and having done that they believed they were in a position to recommend that the compensation to the various ranks within eacn of these services be standardized and fixed.
Following this list of classes grouped by services, you will find that each service is divided into ranks and the minimum and maximum rates of compensation for each rank are stated. For instance, I have before [DOT]me the page which refers to the agricultural research and development service. This service is divided into six ranks, beginning with: " Canning Specialists " and ending with " Plant Disease Investigator," the minimum salary being $75 a month and the maximum $120.
In reference to the designation or nomenclature of the positions, I may say that the classification does not introduce any new positions; it simply attempts to classify positions that are now in existence. The fact that positions are given a title sh.uld not destroy the value of the work, as has been argued' by critics of the classification. There are in the Civil, Service men or women, boys or girls, carrying out the duties of the positions set forth under these different services and their various ranks. Although the positions may be designated by terms different from those by which they have been generally known, still, the effort of the commission has been to designate each position according to the duties to be performed by the one who holds it.
Rank 2 of the agricultural service commences with " Assistant Apiarist," and ends with " Supervisor of Illustration Stations," the salaries running from $120 to $150 a month.

Rank 3 commences with animal husbandman and ends with tobacco specialist, the salaries ranging all the way from $160 to $200 per month. Rank 4 commences with the position of animal pathologist and ends with the supervisor of agricultural instruction, with salaries ranging from $185 to $225 per month. Then follow ranks 5 and -
6.	All the services are divided into several ranks, and most of them are, I think, limited to about six different ranks.
It will be found that the post office service includes nobody other than those engaged in that service. If you take another service such as the engineering service, that will apply to many in the Outside Service and in the Inside Service. It will apply to positions in the Marine Department, the Department of Public Works and other departments of the public service, where engineering services are required. This is an effort to pay the same compensation for the same work no matter in what department of the Government a civil servant may at present be employed.
It might be interesting to hon. gentlemen present if I should give a few more illustrations of the inequalities in compensation in the Civil Service. It was a matter of fair criticism in the past that members of the Outside Service in particular had never received justice as regards compensation. I know in my constituency of Halifax of great inequalities, and I know very well just how they occurred. It would happen that when one political party was in power, friends of that party would receive some consideration from the sitting member or from some members of the Government and would receive promotions and increases in compensation while those in the service belonging to the other party would be entirely neglected. I think I can say this very frankly to the House, because hon. gentlemen are just as well aware of it as I am, and it was a weakness as boldly disclosed by one party as by another. It would be impossible to find a body of intelligent men who would dedicate themselves to the public service if they were not to receive fair treatment from Governments, regardless of their political affiliations.
In the public service to-day there are a number of assistant archivists, and the salaries at present run from $500 to $1,950, although the duties are practically the same. The commission recommends that the salaries range from $1,080 to $1,320. The minimum will be higher in that case, while the maximum will be lower, but I believe it
will do justice to those employed in that class of work. Assistant district inspectors of customs are paid salaries ranging from $1,000 to $1,900 and the duties are, so I am informed by the person who prepared the statement for me, practically the same. The commission recommends a range of compensation beginning at $1,500 and going up to $1,800. Assistant immigration agents get from $900 up to $1,800, although their work is practically the same. The Commission recommends a range of from $1,200 to $1,500. Baggage examiners are to-day paid all the way from $750 to $1,400. The Commission recommends a minimum of $1,080 and a maximum of $1,500. Computing clerks are now in receipt of salaries ranging from $900 to $1,600. The proposed range, as contained in the classification, commences at $1,320 and rises to $1,800. The salaries of customs examiners at present range from $600 to $1,700, and that is, of course, based on no basis of reason or business at all. The classification proposes a range beginning at $960 and going up to $1,440. So, I might proceed giving hon. gentlemen many illustrations of great divergencies in compensation paid to employees in the public service where the duties and responsibilities are practically the same. I do not, however, purpose wearying the House with a further explanation of the details of the classification.
Just a few words as to the Bill itself, the second reading of which I am now moving. The important feature in the Bill is, after all, the clause approving the classification. I should like, however, to read to the House that section of the Bill which authorizes the Civil Service Commission to re-classify new positions in the future and to amend existing classifications, that, of course, being subject to approval by the Governor in Council. Section 42 reads :
The Commission shall hereafter, as it may from time to time deem necessary, establish additional classes and classify therein new positions created or positions not included in any class established in the said classification and may combine, alter, or abolish existing classes. Each such class shall embrace all positions similar in respect to the duties and responsibilities appertaining thereto and the qualifications required for the fulfilment thereof, and shall be given a classification title indicative of the character and rank of the employment.
Possibly it might come to 'the minds of hon. gentlemen that it is asking too much of Parliament to allow the Civil Service Commission to re-classify the service. On reflection, however, I think hon. gentlemen will see that there is not much objection to that. Parliament has always given to

the Government the power of classifying the service as regards salaries and duties. By that I mean that members of the Civil Service are placed in the positions they occupy by direction of the executive; the salaries they have been receiving are entirely due to the initiative of the Government; the Government simply comes down to Parliament and asks Parliament to vote the money, and Parliament has always done so. I think, therefore, this provision is, in the first place, necessary, and secondly, desirable in all respects. It was by virtue of that .provision in the Bill that I presumed to say to hon. gentlemen at the beginning of my remarks that we might very well pass the classification as it is without an incursion into the minutiae of the thing, or we might assign it for consideration to a special committee, asking them to go into the general features of it, because they possibly cannot consider all the details. The Bill also provides that the classification shall come into effect on the first day of Aipril next. The Bill as introduced last year did not contain that provision. In fact, it provided that when the classification was approved by Parliament it should date back, so far as compensation was concerned, to the first day of the present fiscal year, namely, April 1, 1919. Since the prorogation of Parliament, however, a special bonus has been granted by Order in Council to members of the Civil Service, both Inside and Outside, and the Order in Council provides that the bonus shall continue until the end of the present fiscal year.


Mr. MANION:: Does that bonus apply to all the Civil Service, or not beyond a certain salary?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It does not apply to all; there are some exceptions. I have not read the Order in Council for some time, but I laid it on the Table a few days ago. It provides, however, that those to whom it does apply shall receive the bonus until the beginning of the next fiscal year. Therefore, it would not have been fair to the country to enact that the classification, so far as compensation is concerned, should date back to the beginning of the present fiscal year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Was that Order in
Council passed under the authority of the War Measures Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it was. I do not think there was any other authority, except this: Parliament voted $10,000,000 for the purpose of this bonus, and to that extent we had the authorization of 
Parliament. The mode of distribution was settled by the Government, and if they did not have inherent powers which I think they likely would have under the vote, they would have authority under the War Measures Act. I think, however, they had inherently the right under the vote.
The Bill before the House does not contain two provisions which were in the Bill introduced last session. The Bill introduced by me last session contained a clause empowering the Government to enlarge the membership of the commission from three to five, and provided a method whereby the membership might be automatically reduced in course of time to three. The view had been strongly pressed upon the Government at that time that the commission should be enlarged so as to permit of direct representation-upon it of the returned soldiers. At that time rightly or wrongly there was also considerable complaint manifested both outside and within the House that the returned men were not securing appointments in sufficient numbers to the public service. Whatever may have been the merits of that criticism then, it cannot possibly be urged to-day. I fancy there is no country in the world doing so much for the returned men, so far as appointments to the Civil Service are concerned, as Canada is, and I think we can say that of Canada generally in respect to all matters of justice and fair treatment to the returned soldier. I am informed by the commission that !i5 per cent of those being appointed to the Civil Service to-day are returned m'en; in fact, nearly all those being appointed are returned men. No other country has gone so far as we have in this respect, that we have by statute directed that returned men shall receive preferential treatment in examinations for admission to the Civil Service, and further, we have provided no age limit for entrance. I assume that some time Parliament will take this matter further into consideration. As it stands to-day, it reads as if this preferential treatment would extend forever, and I frankly say I think it works an injustice in some respects. I would be just as anxious to see appointed to the Civil Service the qualified dependent, the widow or the child of the man who had fallen in France, as the soldier who was fortunate enough to come back. I think in many respects we have gone too far altogether in our restrictions, and have shut out possibly a very deserving element which has a close relationship to the returned men. However, that pro-

vision bad been in effect by Order in Council long before the Civil Service Bill was introduced, and that I presume is the reason why it went into the Bill just in that form. If Parliament thinks that provision should be amended, I shall be bold and shall not hesitate a moment to make an amendment if it seems light so to do.
Coming back to the membership of the Commission, by reason of the facts which I have just related, the Government were of the view that there was no necessity for enlarging the personnel of the commission at the present time, and I think the position of the Government should receive the endorsation of the House. I have reason to believe that it has the approval of the many representatives of the returned men at the present time. However, this is a matter upon which the Government are not inflexible, and if anybody can give very good reasons for enlarging the commission they will receive the consideration they deserve.
The Bill of last year also provided that the members of the Civil Service Commission should have the status of deputy ministers, That wias left out in the printing of this Bill, but it will be inserted as an amendment. It is a matter upon which I should like to hear from the House. Personally, I think it is only fair that the members of the Civil Service Commission should receive that status. They are a hard-worked body. I cannot conceive of any body in the public service, with possibly few exceptions, which is obliged to do the volume of work the Civil Service Commission is obliged to do, Furthermore, it is a disagreeable duty they have to perform, involving the constant hearing of complaints, having accusations made against their motives and actions, and finding themselves opposed by persons of influence. I think on the whole, being members of a body which should be entirely independent, they should have the rank and status of deputy minister. It involves only a very small financial consideration.
I have been discussing a matter which perhaps is not very interesting, but I .am very grateful for the exceedingly kind attention -which iso many lion, gentlemen have .shown' me to-day. At present there is nothing further I desire to say, except to move the second reading of the Bill.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Will the minister indicate in the Bill wherein the amendments differ from the law as it at present stands?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend is quite right in asking that question. Possibly I should have referred more in detail to the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: If I remember rightly, in 1918 there was a provision in the Bill we passed then that when the classification was made no employee should be put in a class with a salary lower than that which he might he receiving at the time of the classification. It seems to me that that clause is repealed by the Bill presented to-day, and I should like an explanation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: On page 2 will be found certain clauses in reference to temporary employment. Clause 23 empowers the Commission to employ, by reason of a temporary pressure of work, extra assistance on a written report of the deputy head that such extra assistance is required; and subsection 4 of section 23 is- as follows:
(4) When employees are required on short notice for emergency work outside the city of Ottawa, the responsible agent or officer of the department requiring such extra assistance may engage the necessary employees, and the said agent or officer in each case shall forthwith report to the Commission through the deputy head of his department the names of the persons so employed. No such employment shall extend beyond thirty days unless approved by the Commission.
The purpose of that section is to enable some administrative head in. the outside service at any distance from Ottawa personally to employ any assistants who are urgently needed temporarily. It frequently happens th^t at some place, say Vancouver, it is necessary for the marine agency to employ someone for some temporary and unforeseen work, and it would occasion in some instances endless delay and embarrassment if 'the officer at Victoria, for instance, were obliged to write to Ottawa for permission to^employ such persons. It .is provided, however, that persons so employed shall not be continued for more than thirty days.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Last year I asked my hon. friend if civil servants who were superannuated a number of years ago would be reclassified as regards their salary, and I adduced reasons 'at that time.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I fancy my hon. friend is asking a question of similar purport to that of the hon. member for Three Rivers. No member of the Civil Servioe loses any status or right he had under the classification that existed prior to the introduction of the 1918 Bill. If any person under the Civil Service Act prior to 1918 had the right to a maximum of $3,500 upon

promotion, that right is not taken awey from him even although the classification .fixes- a maximum of $3,000 for his position and the particular duties which he is performing.


Jacques Bureau: That clause is amended.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No. It was struck out last year, but is restored this year.


Mr. DEVLIN:: That point, I know, is responsible for considerable worry in the Civil Service. Section 3 enumerates the clauses which are repealed, the first being Clause 11. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) and the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) referred a moment ago to subsection 5 of section 9.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is not eliminated. Subsection 5 of section 9 remains, although I think it is true that in the Bill introduced last year it was repealed either directly or by implication.


Jacques Bureau: Section 3 of the present Bill says that sections 11, 12, and 15 to 21, both inclusive, and subsections 1 and 2 of section 23 are repealed. It is apparent, therefore, that certain sections remain, and I think that in the present Bill we ought to state what they are. 13 and 14 are not repealed, and this is true of certain subsections of the other sections. We have not the Act of 1918, and it is difficult to understand the precise situation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Subsection 5 ol section 9 of the Act of 1918 reads as follows:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prejudicially affect the status or the present salary or rights to future increase of any officer, clerk or employee, whether permanent or temporary, who is dn the Civil Service on the date of the coming into force of this Act


Charles Sheard: Under the classification, where a minimum is increased $300 over and above what the employee receives now, when does he receive the $300 increase?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Under the provisions of the Bill as it now stands he would not get that increase until the beginning of the next fiscal year by reason of the fact that sometime in July a bonus was voted which related back to the 1st of April and which continues until the 1st of April next. It would be obviously improper, in most cases at least, to give an employee a bonus and then perhaps a very substantial addition. It might transpire that that would work out an injustice in some cases.


Mr. CHABOT:: In the case of a possible increase in the numerical strength of the 
Civil Service Commission, did the Civil Service, either through its federation or through any other channel, make strong representations to the Government to have one of its members appointed to the commission?


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: Yes. They have made representations for the appointment of a gentleman in the Civil Service.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I feel it my duty to remind the House that we are not in committee and each hon. member is limited to one speech. The hon. member for Halifax (Hon. A. K. Maclean) has the floor at present, and while a great deal of latitude has been allowed in the putting of questions, I submit that they are in the main relevant to matters of detail and have nothing to do with the principle of the Bill. I shall therefore ask the House to conform more strictly to the rules of debate, leaving questions of detail to be discussed in committee.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that this Bill-is to be referred to a special committee? If it is, then the House will be debarred from a discussion of its varioris clauses. As usual, it will go to a special committee, whose report will be submitted and carried.
Mr. A. It. MACLEAN: The report of the special committee if it is decided to send the Bill to one, will come back to the House and in due course be referred to a committee of the whole House, when all details may be discussed.
However, I am anxious to give any explanation of the Bill I can. The next clause in the Bill, which is new and to which I would like to ask the attention of hon. gentlemen, is to be found on page 3 and it refers to examination:
(1) The examinations held by the Commission to establish lists of persons eligible for appointment may be written or oral in the form of a demonstration of skill or any combination of these, and shall be of a character fairly to test and determine the relative fitness and ability of candidates actually to perform the duties of the class to which they seek to be appointed.
The purpose of that is to make the examination a test of the duties of the work to be performed by the applicant. This is an answer to the criticism of the Civil Service examinations which I heard somebody in the House making the other day. I think it was on your left, Mr. Speaker, but I am not certain as to that. I think that the provisions of the Bill should meet with the commendation of hon. gentlemen. There really is no important departure from the Civil Service Act of 1918. In most respects the amendments are very trifling. Of course,

the clauses with respect to classification, compensation and promotions are new, hut in other respects the amendments are not very important, and I think they might with more satisfaction be discussed in Committee of the Whole House.


Mr. ANDREWS:: It is provided by section 43 of the Bill that:
Appointments to the Civil Service shall be upon competitive examination. Whenever a vacancy in any position in the Civil Service is to be filled, the deputy head shall request the Commission to make an appointment.
I was under the impression that in the old Bill returned soldiers had the preference.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That provision is still in the Act. It is not repealed. This must be read subject to the provision respecting preferential treatment of returned men.


Mr. H. C. HOOKEN (West Toronto):: If I understand the statement of the hon. the minister (Mr. Maclean) the Bill is to go to a committee, but he asks the House to put through the classification without the examination of the schedules.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I meant that the classification should go to the committee too.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am very glad to hear that, because I have only had this classification book upon my desk within the last hour, and I have not been able to look it over. There were such gross errors in the first classification that one would naturally be a little bit suspicious as to what this present one may contain. I have no desire to unduly criticise the members of the commission, but I think I ought to draw the attention of the House to at least one or two things in the classification that was sent down to us last year and which would justify us in giving some care to any document that they might present for our consideration. In the report transmitting the classification of last year we read:
The staff thus secured was assigned to work with the permanent staff ot the Organization Branch under the general direction of the Commission. Its work was carried on according to principles and policies approved by the Commission, and each step in the programme was considered and sanctioned before it was taken.
I gathered from that statement that the commissioners had read the classification and that they knew what the book contained. I am not sure whether I am mistaken in that but if we are to understand that they had examined this classification.
then all I can say is that they sent us a most extraordinary document. I find some statements set out here that somewhat astonished me in view of the experience of the chairman of the commission. I have just had time to notice that they have been corrected in the classification that we have had presented to us to-day. As an example, we read in last year's classification that the duties of the Clerk of the Privy Council are to attend the meetings of the Privy Council, take minutes of the proceedings, and so on. I can only conclude, after reading that definition of duties, that the commissioners, and especially the chairman of the commission, who at one time was a member of the Privy Council, could not possibly have given any consideration to the document that they sent to this House to be adopted. It makes it imperative that we should go into this classification with a good deal of thoroughness.
I find, in so far as I have been able to look into this book in the few minutes during which it has been available to me, that they have corrected some of these things but there is one particular place where I find that a correction has not been made.
I have some knowledge of the printing business and I was surprised to find that the superviser of composition gets $2,640 while the superviser of press work gets $2,400. There is no question that the latter is a much more highly skilled man and requires greater technical knowledge than the former. That remains as it was before. I shall refer to another point and then I will drop this side of it. I find that the maximum salary for translators still remains at $1,680. That is about the salary a man gets for driving a street car in the city and it does not seem to be at all adequate. With such things as these in the classification, I think it requires examination page by page and clause by clause. If a committee is going to undertake that, as I think it ought to, it has a pretty big job on its hands.
I have been wondering by what authority the commission spent $100,000 on this classification. Was there any vote of this House or any Order in Council providing for that amount to [DOT] be spent, or did they spend it on their own responsibility? I have been endeavouring to ascertain, but I cannot find any specific authority having been given for such a large expenditure.
I am among those who entirely disagree with the employment of experts of the character who have been engaged on this work, and the proof that something better might have been done lies right before us in the

new classification. Their finished work was submitted to the members of the Civil Service, and it was submitted unofficially to the general public through the columns of the daily papers in the city of Ottawa. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it has been submitted practically to everybody in the country except the members of this House. The representatives of the people are the only ones who have not yet been consulted, or been advised in any way, as to what was being done. So far it has not been found worth while to get their opinion, and I think for that reason we should go into this matter very thoroughly.
The minister thinks it is a small position to take that we should not go outside Canada to engage experts for this work. I would agree with him that if no person could be found in Canada to do the work then we should go where competent experts could be found-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is what I said.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: But I entirely disagree with the idea that competent persons are not to be found in the Dominion of Canada. Furthermore, I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that more competent men than the Chicago experts could have been found in our own civil service. The fact that those experts have been compelled in the last analysis, by the faults of their own work, to submit that work to members of our own service sustains my position, I think, absolutely.
I have just another point or two to touch upon, and as the Bill is to go to committee and we will have opportunity there, I hope, to discuss the measure in detail, I will not at present occupy the time of the House at very great length. I was glad to hear the minister say that he, on behalf of the Government, is prepared, if it is the wish of the.majority of the members of this House, to add a soldier to the membership of this commission. The minister has pointed out that the returned soldiers have been well taken care of by the commission up to the present time. That may be the case; I do not know as to that. I think they have been well taken care of perhaps from the point of numbers, but as to the character of the appointments they have received, I am not so clear. But after this classification has been adopted and the whole thing is in operation, I have very strong convictions that the interests of the returned men require the appointment of a soldier on the commission with respect to matters of promotion-to see that in various other

ways these men will have some person to whom they can appeal and who will be sympathetic in his treatment of them. For it must be remembered that there will be as many promotions as there will be appointments. Every time a new man enters the service the chances are that some person has died or left the public employ, or that new branches are being established, and so promotions are going on continually. If the interests of our returned men are to be conserved in that regard I think it is absolutely necessary that a returned soldier should be a member of the .Commission, and I am very glad to get the conditional promise of the minister that that appointment will be made.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Just at that point-what would the hon. member think of the appointment of a woman to the Commission? There are many women in the Civil Service and for that reason would not a woman be entitled to a seat on the Civil Service Commission?
JVlr. HOCKEN:	I have a very high regard for all women, but 1 do not think I am prepared at this time to say that a woman should be appointed to the Commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend
realize the number of women that are employed in the Civil Service throughout Canada?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, I realize that, but 1 do not think their interests are likely to suffer at the hands of a capable commission composed entirely of men. As the minister has told us, the duties of the Commission are very onerous and very exacting. I doubt very much whether a woman would have the necessary strength or endurance to enable her to carry out the work efficiently. As a matter of fact, I have learned that even those men who now compose the Commission have been very seriously overtaxed in the performance of their duties. We have been told by the minister that their work is of an extraordinary difficult and exacting character. I doubt very much, therefore, whether a woman would be able to carry on that work efficiently for any considerable length of time, and, moreover, I do not think the interests of the women in the service would be prejudicially affected in the slightest degree by their being in the hands of the men who now compose the Commission.


Francis Henry Keefer: Does the hon. gentleman think that labour should have a representative on the Commission?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If another representative in addition to the soldiers is to be appointed on the Commission, I think he should be some man who should represent the service. If the membership of the Commission is to be increased by two, I think that some man of long experience,
5 p.m. taken from the Civil Service, would be more valuable than any other who might be chosen, as the interests of the service are being dealt with all the time. But I am content, Sir, now to argue for the appointment of a soldier. If the membership of the Commission is to be enlarged beyond that, then my position would be that a representative of the civil servants ought to be chosen.


John Hampden Burnham: Does not the hon. gentleman think that the women should be represented on the Commission?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I have just told the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) that I am not agreeable to the appointment of a woman.
I do not think the interests of the women now in the service are going to be prejudiced by having the Civil Service Commission composed entirely of men.
There is another point to which I desire to invite the consideration of the House. When the Bill to amend the Civil Service Aft was first introduced, although no mention of it was made to-day, I understood the Prime Minister to say that in the working out of the measure it will probably be found necessary to appoint assistant secretaries who would be located at convenient points in the different provinces and who would be more immediately in touch with appointments for the outside service than it is possible for any member of the Commission sitting in Ottawa to be. I think that is something that ought to be done. In my view assistant secretaries for the various provinces, or for groups of provinces, ought to be appointed. It might be necessary to appoint one in t(he Maritime Provinces, one for Ontario, one for Quebec, and perhaps two for the West; but I think that in many appointments which have to be made it is not simply the technical qualifications that are the chief consideration, but often the character of t(he man and his personality will count for more than any technical examination to which he could be subjected. For that reason I believe that in the present Bill we ought to make provision for the employment of assistant secretaries, to be located in the different provinces, to advise the Commission with regard to appointments to the ouitside service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to interrupt him, I may [DOT]say that I had that in consideration, but it is not necessary to provide for it in the Bill. The Commission now has power to [DOT]appoint assistant secretaries and I believe it is its intenton to do so.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I would b.e quite satisfied with that. Of course I am not arguing the case in detail or stating exactly all my [DOT]reasons or objections. I do not believe in the principle of tihe thing at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not believe in the outside service being in the hands of the Civil Service Commission.


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I take this ground, Sir, [DOT]that the first thing to be done is to see that no man is -appointed to tihe service who is not needed, and that no man shall be appointed who is not qualified. If you only put into the service men who are needed and see that they are qualified, you accomplish all that any civil service commission in the world can give you. After that, much as I would like to escape any responsibility of tihe kind, I submit that the best man to make a recommendation for [DOT]an appointment to the outside service, for the position of postmaster, customs collector, or any office of the kind, is the man who represents the constituency in Parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I say that, Mr. Speaker, for the same reason that I mentioned a moment ago-that the character of the man is a vital consideration in his appointment I could take you to places in Ontario -and find men who could be successful in a competitive examination over any other candidates who might come up, but whose character is such that they are absolutely unfit for positions in the public service. Yet such men could go round their own communities and secure for submission to the Civil Sendee Cbmmisisdon all the recommendations for character that they might desire or ask. Every man here knows how easy it is to get a recommendation of that kind for a public office. But if such a man came under the scrutiny of the member for the constituency, his character would be the thing that would stand out above everything else, and he would have no more Chance of getting a recommendation than he would if he were a convicted criminal

m jail. That is the reason why I am opposed to the principle of the Bill, and I say so frankly.


Edmond Proulx: Would the hon. member have the same privilege accorded to members of the Opposition in the matter of recommendations for appointment as would he accorded to members supporting the Government?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Why, surely.


Mr. BELAND:: You deserve to be Prime Minister.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That principle is inherent in my impartial attitude of mind. I think that I 'have said enough to indicate my attitude on this question and to let the House know what I am likely to do if I happen, through any fortunate circumstance, to be a member of the special committee, if one is appointed, or when the Bill comes finally before the House for its approval or otherwise.


Charles Sheard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a remark or two with reference to this Bill and the classification which has been tabled, although at this stage I shall not do so at any great length.
I 'have in the past advocated the principle underlying the appointment and operation of the Civil Service Commission, and I have done so honestly with a view to our getting rid of patronage. I have to the utmost of my effort supported the commission and I am still strongly of the opinion that 'the principle aimed at is a good one. The principle aimed at is largely to abolish patronage, particularly the improper exercise of, patronage; and to the suggestion that such a thing is desirable I am sure that every one in -this Dominion who is interested in good, clean, honest Government will say ''Amen."
I wish to express also, with all the emphasis at my command, my desire to support the principle of merit in promotion. If we were to incorporate in the enactment respecting the Civil Service Commission a provision laying down the general principles applicable to promotion by merit and then compel the commission to adhere to those principles, we would do far more, in my judgment, than we shall do by trying to settle every minor detail; for it is absolutely impossible to do that with any measure of justice. All the difficulty, all the objection, so far as I can see, in connection with the whole work of the Civil Service Commission rests in the

fact that they have attempted what it is humanly impossible to do, that is, to effect a uniform standardization of various activities of emplyoment and energy in the whole field of civil service labour. For any body of men to address themselves to the task of standardizing, with equity and justice and with an honest regard for the principle of proper remuneration, sixteen hundred different activities, embracing all classes, men and women, various professional labours and other kinds of work, is but to court absolute failure at the start. They have, I say, attempted too much. I wish to refer to one or two instances in the new classification which have just come under my notice.
If you turn to page 798 you will see, under Rank 1, that " Physician " receives a maximum salary of $125 a month, whereas "Junior Law Clerk" receives $140, and "Senior Prison Guard" $140. That demonstrates at once the absurdity of any such classification when it makes any attempt to professional standardization.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: " Physician " in that case would be probably one employed in a penitentiary, not as a convict, hut as a professional gentleman attending the convicts.


Charles Sheard: If he does it at that salary, he could hardly do justice to the prisoners; I should be sorry for the men who would come under his medical care, whether they were prisoners or not. However, I do not wish to be hypercritical in this matter. I sympathize with the idea of progressing slowly towards the Utopian object which the Government have set before them in this attempt. And to some extent also I sympathize with the member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) in his advocacy of a limitation of the application of standardization in this case until we make somewhat equitable the standardizations which are already in working order.
By way of opposing the application of this effort to such a broad field, let me give you an illustration. The Government are building in Toronto a new custom house, which is to cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of one to two millions of dollars. It is such a building that any Minister of Public Works would be justified in taking prid? in its construction and character. Even the local member who was supporting the Government at the time of the erection of the building might be excused if he pointed to it with pride as the

work of an honest and earnest Government. The plans have to be approved by the Government; the contracts have to be let under the direction of the Minister of Public Works, but when itr comes to seeing that the contracts are properly carried out and the requirements of the specifications lived up to, I think I am correct in saying that the clerk of works or the officer who performs this duty is placed in that position by the Civil Service Commission; the Minister of Public Works has nothing whatever to say about it. Any one who raises a question or finds fault with the manner in which the contract is being carried out is told that the matter comes absolutely under the control and direction of the Civil Service Commission. I make that statement after a consultation which I had last year with the then Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Carvell), on the occasion of my putting some questions to him with regard to this matter. He said to me then: " Well, that is now altogether under the Civil Service Commission." If such be the case-and I believe it is-the House will agree with me that it is an extension of the work of the Civil Service Commission and of the modus operandi of the whole Utopian scheme which goes far beyond what either the public or Parliament or the country ever intended. I think, therefore, that the whole matter should receive not adverse criticism, but careful, sympathetic consideration on the' part of a special committee of the House which will be large enough and broad enough to deal with all the questions that may be raised.
One word more and I will take my seat. I am strongly in sympathy with the idea that a woman should be placed upon the Civil iService Commission. We have much to thank the women for in connection with the administration of labour and in all spheres. I want to say this-and I say it without fear of successful contradiction, and I speak now as a scientific man and a physiologist-that a deliberate wrong, an injustice, will arouse the unquenchable ire of a woman and her energies in which she will persevere to the end, far more easily, more quickly and better than it will a man. If I am going to ask for plain, honest justice I will appeal with the utmost confidence to the natural tendencies, instincts and integrities of the woman. For that reason, I think, when employment is concerned, when we have a large number of female employees in the service of the Dominion, we secure to them at least a measure of justice in having
a woman on the Civil Service Commission. There are in the service of the Dominion enough female employees to demand that.
I wish, moreover, to emphasize the necessity and justice of having a soldier representative on the Civil 'Service Commission.
1 do not'think, when all the questions come up relating to the employment and promotions of soldiers, the difficulties under which they labour regarding promotions and the questions in reference to faults that may be raised in employment, we can do to the returned man the full measure of justice which we in this House desire to do unless we have on that commission some one who is fully in sympathy with the returned man. These are only a few 'thoughts that come to me en passant.
We should, moreover, have in this Bill a clause providing within broad lines how examiners are to be employed. We find that almost anybody can be chosen to be examiners. A question came up in the House regarding certain gentlemen who were appointed examiners, and I do not think it was fully brought out that the examiners had the qualifications to examine. Where it is necessary for the Civil Service Commission to refer a question in dispute to examiners, there should be imported into this Bill some instructions which will, in a broad measure, define what qualifications the examiners must necessarily have. I hope that the whole Bill will be referred to a large and representative committee of this House, and that it will receive very careful study and consideration before the classification as it is brought down is adopted.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words regarding this Bill, and, first, I should like to mention something regarding representation of returned soldiers upon the Civil Service Commission. In the last day or two there have been made in the press statements quoting some speaker at a public gathering as stating that the Dominion war veterans were not favourable to the representation of the war veterans upon the Civil Service Commission. In justice to the Dominion war veterans, I wish to state that back in May 1918, nearly a year and a half ago, I was waited upon in this House and was asked by a representative of the War Veterans' Association of the Dominion of Canada to support the appointment upon the Civil Service Commission of a Great War Veteran representing the soldiers, or, at least, the representation of the Great

War Veterans upon that commission. I took the matter up in the House on May 17, 1918, and on page 2133 of Hansard of that date may be seen my remarks advocating the appointment upon the Civil iService Commission of a returned soldier. At that time, the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) rather gave me to understand that this would be favourably considered. Again, on May 28,1919, just a year after the other, as shown on page 3013 of Hansard, I reminded the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. K. Maclean) who is bringing forward this Bill, of my remarks of the previous year and asked him if the question was going to be dealt with, and he, also without promise, rather gave me to understand that a returned soldier would be put on the commission. I mention this because it is only just to the representatives of the war veterans in this city, who have, to my mind, been maligned very atrociously at times, that it should be known publicly that they asked a representative of this House to support the matter of representation for the veterans on the Civil Service Commission.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They made direct representation to the Government some time ago.
Mr. MANION I am glad to have the minister corroborate that; it brings out the point more strongly. I do not, therefore, think that statements that are absolute falsehoods should be made with regard to men who, in my opinion, are taking a high-minded stand, as the representatives in this city of the Dominion of Canada War Veterans, on all subjects referring to the veterans of the war, and they should not be maligned. I wish to make that statement in justice to them, and I am glad the minister supports me in it. I wish to close that part of my remarks by saying that I am personally and absolutely convinced that the hon. members for Toronto South (Mr. Sheard) and Toronto West (Mr. Hocken) are correct in supporting the idea of a returned soldier's being on the commission.
Mr. LEiMIEUX: What about a woman?


Robert James Manion: I have nothing to say
about that. I would, perhaps, say with the hon. member for Toronto South that I would certainly have no objection to a woman's being upon the commission, but, of course, every class cannot be represented on the commission. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer turned to the hon. member for Toronto West (Mr. Hocken) and asked him: " Wha.t about labour?"'

Nobody has a greater respect for the labouring and working classes than I have, but I do not think it so necessary that other classes be represented upon the Civil Service Commission as returned soldiers who number some half a million in this country and to whom we have made a promise that we would give them a preference in appointments to all Civil Service positions. 1 wish to put myself on record for the third time in this House as being favourable to the representation on the Civil Service Commission of the returned soldiers.
I agree with the hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Sheard) that there are in this classification many inequalities or unfairnesses with which a committee will have to deal. I jotted down on this programme a few that came to my mind to show that these inequalities should be dealt with very seriously by the committee which is appointed to deal with this Bill. As regards physicians, the minister drew our attention to the fact that a physician would probably be living in a penitentiary or other institution. Nevertheless, a physician is marked down on page 798 at $125 per month, and the senior prison guard, as shown on page 816, gets from $115 to $140.


Mr. DAVIS:: May I call the attention of the hon. gentleman to page 540 where the duties of a physician are dealt with, and he will see that the salary is just for part time.


Robert James Manion: I see. I shall go on with a couple of other cases. The Supervisor of Char Service in the Government buildings who, from the description in the book is the man who supervises the women who clean up the rooms, sweep and dust, and so forth, is to receive a salary of from $1,680 to $2,160, while a junior translator (p. 800) who has to speak two languages and have a high school education I believe, gets from $75 to $100 a month. An oiler for various machines gets from $85 to $100. A teacher in an Indian school (p. 797) gets the magnificent salary of $55 to $90 a month; that is, the minimum and maximum is less than that of the oiler by $30 and $10 respectively. I give these instances simply to show the tendency in our country to minimize the importance of educational requirements. I think the committee which is appointed to deal with this matter should take up this question. I believe that those who are required to have a high school or university education should be given some consideration. Otherwise, we are simply belittling the value of education, and we certainly should not do that.

I wish to put myself on record as being strongly in favour of the principle of this Bill. The classification is far from perfect. The minister admits that, and everybody knows it, but at the same time I think the attempt is very well worthy of the support of the House, in order that we may have some regularity and system in the handling of the Civil Service. Everybody who has only a smattering of knowledge of the Civil Service knows what a great number of irregularities there are. One man will be getting $600 and another man as high as $1,800 for doing exactly the same kind of work. That lack of system is attempted to be corrected ultimately by this Bill, and I believe the principle is sound. I am also in favour of the principle of abolishing patronage as we knew it in the past-, except that, in making certain appointments, if anybody in a district has to be consulted, I think the proper person to be consulted is the member of Parliament. Where no such consultation is necessary I think examination by an impartial commission is the fairest and most honest method of making appointments. I repeat, however, that where somebody must be consulted the proper person to consult is the member for the district, whether he be a supporter of the Opposition or the Government.
Last year there was a great deal of dissatisfaction among the civil servants I happened to come across over the classification, and one of the reasons why I should like to see the Bill given a fair support this year, is because I have yet to hear any civil servants saying they do not wish it to go through. There may be many, but I have not happened to meet them. On the other hand, I have received a .number of telegrams and letters from various Civil Service organizations asking me to support the Bill, and I have received no communications to the contrary; so apparently the classification is satisfactory to the Civil Service. I think the principle of the Bill should be supported, especially when we have the minister's assurance that any case of injustice which may be found to exist after the Bill passes may "be' corrected upon proper representations to. the Civil Service Commission.
Mr. .T. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):	I
should like to place myself on record again, as I did when the matter first came up, as being opposed to the principle of this Bill in so far as it applies to the Outside Service. I think it has been amply demonstrated that the Civil Service Commission
have more than they can attend to now in connection with the Inside Service. So far as the Outside Service is concerned, if an appointment is to be made in the county of Frontenac, for instance, it seems to me absolutely ridiculous that three or four men sitting in the city of Ottawa should ask the advice of any person in that county except the member who was elected by the people to represent that county, and who will be held responsible for the person appointed. But that is absolutely the situation to-day, and under this Bill. I say here and now, as I said on a former occasion, that I am absolutely opposed to the principle of the Bill so far as the Outside Service is concerned, because I think it is illogical, unfair, and absolutely unreasonable. When this matter was first brought up these gentlemen who were brought here from Chicago to classify the service were referred to as the experts from Chicago, but their title has been changed, and by no less a person than the minister who has introduced this Bill. At the last session of Parliament he changed their title to the "so-called experts" from Chicago, and in any criticisms I have to make I shall refer to them as the "so-called experts," because I think the minister was well advised in so referring to them, instead of calling them experts. I think that a committee of men could have been chosen by the deputy ministers of the various departments, who would have given a more reasonable and a more just classification than the so-called experts -who have been working on it for several months.
That the Civil Service Commission has more work than they can attempt to attend to, there can be no doubt. For instance, one department of this Government which is more responsible than any other for raising the revenue of the country is the Customs Department. Yet that department is without a deputy head at the present time, and has been without one for some months.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is not the
Commission's fault. They do not appoint deputy ministers.


Mr. EDWARDS:: That is right. Then it is the fault of the Government, and it should be rectified at the earliest possible moment. Let me give another case where the Commission may or may not be at fault. The largest penal institution in the Dominion of Canada is that situated at Portsmouth. The position of warden of that institution has been vacant for some time. The position of physician to that institution is also vacant,

and has been for a short time. Why are these positions not filled? Would I be right in blaming the Commission if they are not filled? I do not think perhaps I would, because I understand that the Commission never advertises a vacancy until a requisition has been received from the head of the department asking that applications be called for, and I do not know whether that requisition has been made on the Commission. I do know, however, that the positions are vacant and have been for some time.
In regard to the personnel of the Commission, I entirely disagree with those who say that there should be on the Commission a representative of the Civil Service. It 'has been suggested that some one in the Civil Service should be appointed a Civil Service Commissioner.
From what branch, would he be taken? ho matter from what branch of the Civ'] Service 'he might come he would be an expert in his particular line and would be no better than any one else so far as effective representation of the other branches are concerned.
However, in regard to the appointment of a returned soldier as a member of the commission, I think there are very strong reasons why such a step should be taken. In the first place, it has been very properly laid down by the Government as one of the principles in the making of appointments that preference shall be given to returned soldiers, and thousands of them have already been appointed, while thousands of others will be appointed as vacancies occur. So that the soldiers are entitled to representation on the commission. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am gliad that this matter is being handed over to a special committee, because I believe that there are very many inequalities and injustices whidh call for rectification. A cursory glance at the report which I have convinces me of this fact, and I have no doubt that a special committee could make such recommendations as would tend to secure a satisfactory readjustment. I think we would be making a very grave mistake if we decided to rush this Bill through in any haphazard manner. The civil servants occupy important positions in the administoation of the affairs of the country, and it behooves us to give very careful attention to this matter. By placing it in the hands of a special committee, members may have ample opportunity to go thoroughly into the whole question between now and next session of Bar-

lianment, which will afford us plenty of time to pass definitely upon it.


Mr. H. M. MOWAT (Parkdale):: When the Bill was introduced in 1918 I was one of the strongest supporters of the minister who brought it in on that occasion and who is now introducing this Bill in amendment, and I have seen no reason whatever for changing my opinion expressed at that time. In fact, I think that the change from the old system to that which is now in operation is one of the most important improvements that have been made by this Parliament. A measure of Civil Service reform was promised in the election platform set out by the Prime Minister, a platform which we supported on this side of the House; and although that reform did not constitute the principal issue in the election of 1917 it formed a very considerable ground for discussion at the different political meetings that were then held. And the approval with which the discussion was received, and the opinions expressed regarding this policy, showed that the country was quite prepared for the change. That thjy approve of the change that has been made is, I think, undoubted. But it is evident from the remarks of several hon. members that the old idea that a member of Parliament should take a hand in local appointments is not by any means dead. Some hon. members have grown up in an atmosphere fraught with this idea and have therefore come to regard it as a privilege or prerogative to have some participation in the making of appointments, and to some extent they have been looked up to by their people in the filling of vacancies to the public service. This, however, seems to me to be a principle which should not influence us here.. It is of pre-eminent importance to give the public a good Civil Service, and I venture to say that in a very few years a Civil Service appointed by merit as well as personality will so discredit the old system of patronage that members who yet have a liking for it will infallibly see that they were wrong. Now, in order to have a good Civil Service it is necessary that you should have educated and self-respecting civ,i.l servants who are under no particular obligation to members of Parliament or to politicians, so that they may be entirely unhampered by fear and may be able to devote their full time and energy to the service of the public. Eventually there will grow up in Canada, as in Great Britain and the United 'States, a very much improved Civil Service. We must get into the Civil Service ladies and

gentlemen who will be content and free to devote their time to their public duties, having no irrelevant matters to worry them, such as anxiety to please politicians. I have been told by a civil servant since this Bill came in that they now consider themselves free from bondage under this system. I think that was the expression that was used. If that is so, is it not highly probable that the civil servants, imbued with this spirit, will undertake their duties with increased vigour and interest and give ithe best of their lives to the service of the public? I think the object of the Bill is to obtain a good Civil Service, and in principle I support it and adhere to the opinions I expressed when the matter was first introduced. I think that, if it is given a fair chance, in a very few years we shall see that no mistake was made when this important change was effected.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I desire to say a word or two, not upon the principle of the Bill, nor directly in relation to any of its clauses, because, when the Bill comes before the Committee of the Whole House, as it is bound to come sometime or other, I hope to be able to make inquiries of the Government regarding certain of its sections. However, I want to place myself on record as being opposed to a reference of the Bill to a special committee. The time has come when some action must be taken with reference to the Civil Service. The civil servants throughout the country were led by the Government to believe that immediate and urgent action would be taken by them. We are now informed that the opinion of the Government is that it would be preferable to refer the Bill to a special committee. But it is well known that we are now in the dying days of the present session, and the labours of the special committee would cease concurrently with the conclusion of the session, with the result that the Bill would of necessity fall. I think that the better way-and I suggested to the minister-would be to refer the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House in order that we might dispose of it one way or the other.


Peter McGibbon: In making a few observations upon the Bill, I may say in the first place that I have never had the opportunity to exercise patronage in my riding and probably never shall. But I have made a fairly exhaustive investigation in different parts of the country and I must say that the conclusion has forced itself upon me that this Bill is not wanted by either the members of the House
or the country at large. I think we may as well be honest about the matter, because hon. members

if you can believe their opinions as expressed in the corridors and in the lobbies-are absolutely opposed to the measure, while my experience and that of others, as it has been expressed to me, shows that a member cannot divest himself of responsibility for what occurs in his riding. When you tell them that the Civil Service Commission does it, they will not believe you and they ask you point blank: ''What good are you any way?" I think we might as well be honest about it. Every member in this House knows that what I am saying is true. There is no use in trying to camouflage it any more. I think the principle of handing the patronage of this whole Dominion over to three men who are responsible to nobody is- wrong. It is not getting away from patronage; it is only transferring it from a responsible head to an irresponsible one. I have an open mind on this question. I have not taken part in any further discussion. But this is the impression that I have got from members of the House and from talking with people in different parts of the country that I have visited. I, like my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), think that this is too big a question to start in upon now. I have looked over the classification somewhat and I find that there are undoubtedly glaring inequalities in it. I do not think this Parliament is capable of rectifying them in the ten days or two weeks that it is likely to be in session.
The question has been brought up again to-night, as it was before, about having a soldier on the Commission. On two former occasions in this House, in. May, 1918, and also in 1919, I brought this question up and it was brought up by others. We were practically promised on both of these occasions -in one case by the Prime Minister-that this appointment to the Commission would be made. I am not saying that things, would be any better, but I am saying that the presence of a returned soldier on that Commission would be in the interest of the country, because it would allay dissatisfaction. The soldiers would feel that they had some one to whom they could appeal and we could tell them, when they came to us with their complaints, that they might see Mr. So-and So. We could say to them: "There is a member of your own organization on that Commission and we believe that he is anxious to look after your interests and will do so." I believe it is in the interest of peace in this country and that it is in the

interest of the Government. I have investigated these things, I have discussed the question with members of this House, I have discussed it with people in my own constituency, I have discussed it with judges in the country, and the impression I have gained is that the country does not want this method of making appointments to the Civil Service. The people want their member to be responsible for what goes on in his district and they want to hold him responsible for it. I do not know how you are going to run political parties-and we might as well be honest about it-if you are going to take away from the member every privilege he has except that of standing up in this House and speaking and voting. The member ought to have some say in the running of this country and in appointments in his own constituency. We cannot divest ourselves of responsibility, because the people will either not believe us or else they will tell us that we are absolutely no use and they had better get somebody else to represent them.


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (West Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is perhaps a little late in the day for me to express the view which I am -about to place before the House concerning the principle of divesting ministers and members of their responsibility and placing it upon an irresponsible commission. I was always opposed to the Civil Service Commission and much more so since the authority of the Commission has been extended to the outside service as well as the inside service. I think if is wrong in principle and I am sure it is undesirable in practice.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was not my hon. friend a member of the Government when this principle was adopted?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am not discussing that now. I admit that it is a little late but I feel it to be my duty to express the conviction which I hold upon this question. I s.ay that I have always been- opposed to the principle of* divesting ministers and members of their responsibility for appointments to the Civil Service' and placing it upon men who are irresponsible. It is wrong in my opinion ,in theory and it is unsatisfactory in practice. It is contrary to the first principle of responsible government. The Government is -supposed to be responsible for these appointments. The members are regarded as being responsible for appointments and ought to be in my judgment, in order that the people whom

they represent, through them, may have something to say -about the matter.
- In practice, has there been any improvement in the character of the Civil Service since the Civil Service Act of 1908 was enacted? Who are the best men we have in the Civil Service to-day? I am -speaking now of the in-side service. Are they men who were appointed under the old system? Almost every one of them. I undertake to say that there has been no improvement, since the Civil Service Act of 1908 w'as passed, in the character or efficiency of the Inside Civil Service and that amongst the best men that we have in -that service are the men who were -appointed under the old system where the Government was responsible to Parliament -and the members were responsible to their -people. Under that system the -people had some protection.
Take -a concrete -case. An important vacancy occurs in- your constituency. You are looking forward to the next election. You know that the press has its eye upon you, you know that the public has its eye upon you and you know that the great majority of the electors in your constituency are not looking for public positions but that they are demanding that there shall be in -the public service men of ability, of efficiency, of character and that you dare not recommend to the Government the appointment of a scallawag to that position because [DOT] you know that the general public would not support you in the next election.
To-d-ay, under the present system, while the member has nothing to say about it, while the minister has nothing to say about it, the appointments- are not, to put it mildly, more satisfactory than they were under the old system. Whose recommendation is accepted now? What is the -modus oper

an-di? The Civil Service Commission advertises a certain position and -applicants are notified that they are required to sen-d in the names of three references. These names -are sent in- -and the Civil -Service Commission writes to each of the three men named an-d they are guided by their report. Now get down to practice. Suppose a position of some importance were advertised and you desired it, and knew that you would have to send in the names of three men and that they would be communicated with by the Civil Service Commission, whose names would you send in? Would you apply to independent men or would you try to find three friends of your own-friends politically, or by reason of church, or other affiliation? You would

probably try to find out from each of them what kind of report he would make. "Will you report favourably on me?" You might ask, " Well, I have known you for several years, John; I am afraid I could not report very favourably on you." "All right," you say to yourself, " I will not send your name in. I will find some fellow who will probably report favourably on my application;" and the Civil Service Commission in its innocence and simplicity, are controlled to a very large exent by what these three or four men who are given as references say about it. Why those of us who have had any experience in life would not give a brass nickel for a bushel of recommendations or testimonials sent in by friends. If you will pardon me one moment I would like to give you a little personal experience. I was in a position for seven years where I might have done something for some of my relatives or some of my friends, as many others have done. During the whole of that seven years I never recommended a relative of mine to a position in the public service, although I had lots of them. I said: "You cannot get any help from me, there will be no nepotism so far as I am concerned." I never recommended a relative for a position in the Civil Service during the seven years, and no such one has ever been appointed to either my department or any other. Further than that, I made it a principle when I had some influence in that direction, never to recommend a man for an important position who applied for it-speaking generally. There are exceptions, I realize, but speaking generally the man who is looking for a position in the public service declares by that very act his inability to work his way in the open fields of competition; and, during my time I never recommended a man to a position of any importance who asked for it. Let me illustrate: The best office, perhaps, in my constituency, became vacant owing to the death of the previous holder, and you can imagine that I had a great many applications for that position. The war was on at the time. Several of the -applicants were men of military age, several of them had sons of military age, but there was not one of them, or a son of any of them, proposing to fight for his country. I said, of course to myself, " I will not recommend one of you." I looked around the constituency. I said: " There is a man who is well qualified for this position. He has only two children in the world, and they are both fighting in France.
If he will accept this position I will recommend him. I wrote to the man
in question and he accepted the position and has filled it in a manner perfectly satisfactory to everybody. Afterwards I got twenty-four letters from as many Conservatives, some of them being men who had applied for the position themselves, saying: " That is the best appointment you ever made." I got eight letters from leading Liberals in the city of a similar character. When the next election came around, of those who wanted the position, some voted for my opponent, some would not vote at all, and some voted for me. I think at least five Liberals in my town voted for me, by reason of that appointment, for every Conservative I lost. Mr. Speaker, you can trust the plain people of this country


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: -and if you have in your mind the public interest in making these appointments, as you always should have, the public will support you. You are responsible to the public, the public feel that they are making these appointments through their representative, and I see in the new system no improvement on the old. It is wrong in theory, unsatisfactory in practice, and has been no -more satisfactory than the old system. Can any one of you point to a man occupying a position to which he was appointed under the old system who is a scalawag?-a postmaster anywhere in this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, a collector of customs, or a collector of inland revenue? You cannot point to one. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, and I want to repeat now-it is a little la^te for me to speak about this matter, although it has long been my desire, I have always been opposed to it, and I am opposed to it now. The present system is not working any more satisfactorily than the old system, and I think it will work out less satisfactorily as the years go by, because the Civil Service Commission cannot, in a big country like this, know personally anything about the applicants for positions in the service. If a janitor is required for the post office in Vancouver ana he is to be appointed by the Civil -Service Commission in Ottawa, who is going to advise them about the character of this man? wno ought to advise them, who is interested in advising them, who protects the public at Vancouver in making the recommendation? ihe member; and when you get a man-a member of Parliament, a minister, or anybody else-in a position where he cannont benefit



himself without benefiting the public, the public is pretty safe.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when the Bill respecting the Civil Service was before the House at the last session of Parliament I expressed myself in favour of keeping the Civil Service out of politics, and I have not since had any occasion to change my opinion in that regard. I do not agree with those who have said that the putting of the outside Civil Service under an independent commission is wrong in principle; I believe that it is right in principle, although it may be weak in some of its details. But I do not think we have any good reason to complain if the Act has not got down to as smooth a working basis in one year as we might have hoped it would. It is like every other innovation; it will take a little time to get it working smoothly. I believe that if the Civil Service Commission is given a reasonable chance it will improve the Civil Service and relieve politics of a good deal of the odium that has attached to it in times past.
My personal experience has not been that of those who know of no case where a man who has been appointed through political agencies to a position in the public service has not been fitted for the position. As a matter of fact, my experience has been the very reverse. I can recall the names of a considerable number of men who were appointed not because they could give efficient service in any sense of the word but purely because of the service that they could give at or near election day.
It has been stated that the country has been almost universally opposed to the placing of the Outside Service under the Civil Service Commission. A member of Parliament might use that argument at a ward association meeting, but I question very much whether many members of this House would go into Massey Hall, Toronto, and make that assertion, or would make it at all before the public generally. If I have understood anything of the political situation in this country, there was, prior to the last general election-indeed, there has been for the past ten or fifteen years-a definite demand on the part of the public that patronage should be taken out of politics. I believe that in this Bill we have an honest and sincere effort to accomplish
TMr CrofherB.]
that end, and for that reason I am going to support it.
I wish, however, to be frank. In the short time that I have had an opportunity of glancing over this book that has been placed in our hands I have discovered some anomalies which will ultimately require to be corrected. However, I do not want to see this measure passed over to another session of Parliament, whether in the hands of a special committee or otherwise, because I know of a large number of men in the Outside Service who are subjected	to injustice	on	account of
their	waiting for this reclassification to be put into effect. I shall refer to only one class, the railway mail clerks. I believe I am within the mark when I say that increases which in the ordinary course should have been made to these men twelve months ago are still pending, awaiting the putting into effect of this classification. In my judgment it would be preferable to put the re-classification into force at once and then, if necessary, amend at a future session the anomalies to which hon. members have referred. If this is done, those who are justly entitled to increases which will come to them under this re-classification will get them. I believe that the country will back the Government up in putting this legislation into force.


John Hampden Burnham: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a rule of order that when a member expresses an opinion decidedly against a measure under consideration, he shall not be put upon the committee appointed to consider that measure. All those members, if I am right, who are expressing a hostile opinion to this Bill are therefore excluded from the committee, and the consequence is that the committee, being composed of men who have expressed a favourable opinion, will necessarily bring in a favourable report.
Putting the Outside Service under the Civil Service Commission means a vast expense to the country. A few illustrations will show what I mean. A member told me this afternoon of the case of a postmistress, located 130 miles north of Kingston, in the backwoods, and receiving $80 a year, who [DOT] resigned. It was necessary for the post office inspector to go to that locality and make inquiries. Had he been permitted to do so, he could have inquired of the member for the constituency and had the whole question decided for next^to nothing. But he went to the locality and. back to Kingston; then he went to the locality again and back again to Kingston. Three or four

times he had to make that journey, with the result that the expense ran up to hundreds of dollars. In my own constituency a postmastership in the back country-a trifling affair, but a very great convenience to tourists and others who visit that district in the summer time-became the subject of inquiry in the same way. The inspector kept racing back and forth, whereas if he had inquired of me he could have dealt with the whole situation in a few minutes.
If the member is not fit to make a suggestion about a matter of this kind, why, put the member out. The principle of a member representing his constituency and being asked various things in connect ion-with it for the benefit of that constituency is perfectly sound. That there are some members who are unfit to give an opinion, may be possible. Well then, bring in a Bill to prohibit those members from having anything to say about such matters-or leave it to the people, who may be trusted to rectify the matter in very short order.


Mr. LEGER:: The member is responsible to the people.


John Hampden Burnham: The member is responsible to the people; the people have elected him on that understanding; and for the central authorities in Ottawa or anywhere else to go sneaking round and making inquiries from all sorts of irresponsible persons in the constituency is disgusting, it is insulting, and it cannot work. It cannot last and it won't last; no such principle as that can possibly continue in existence very long. No self-respecting member, no man who has any respect for himself at all, would put up with it. I quite understand why it is that there is such seething discontent in the House; members are beginning to realize what they did when they put the mark of the beast upon themselves.
To exclude women from this commission is an absurdity. Women comprise at least half of the electorate of the country; women are in the Civil Service. It naturally follows that they should have representation on the commission. The soldiers and labour may be left to take care of themselves; they are well able to do it, and they certainly will do it. But I make the plea for the poor member that he be represented on the commission. The poor outcast-do let him, Mr. Speaker, be represented on the commission, because if he is not fit to be consulted in such a trifling matter as this, why should he presume to give an opinion upon the business of the country? It is
49J
an absurdity. We are here-what?	A
gathering of men declared morally unfit to do the business of the country-not only to do the business of the country, but to do the most trifling things connected with the various constituencies that we represent. Certainly this is a matter that ought to be looked into and the principle recognized that the people of this country, including members of Parliament, are respectable people unless they are shown to be otherwise.


Mr. THOMAS FOSTER (York East):: Mir. Speaker, the more we discuss this Bill, the more unpopular it seems to become. It is not necessary for me to make comparisons as to the various salaries in the classification; but there seem to be great inequalities, and however often we revise it,, it will never be satis factory. Experts or specialists were brought in from tlhe United States to classify the various employees of' the Government. After that classification; was completed, there was a good deal of criticism, and it was thought that a further revision might be undertaken by a commission of Canadian experts or Canadians who had had experience in the Civil Service. But, notwithstanding their expert opinions and revisions, the classification is still unsatisfactory, and it is now suggested by the minister that we refer it to a special committee for further revision. It will then come back to the House, and the natural result will be, of course, that it will be still further revised. If we could cut out many of those things to which we object, by the time we got through revising, there would be nothing left but the outside covers.
During the latter part of 1917, when the classification of the Civil Service was a plank in the platform of the Unionist party, it had many supporters. I thought myself that it might be a good thing, and during the first session in 1918 I stated that I thought it was worth while to give the matter a trial. But I was rather suspicious that it would not be a success and would not prove to be satisfactory to the public generally, and I 'believe it has worked out in that way. People who at that time felt that this was a move in the direction of reform have changed their minds. It will be noticed that under this new condition of things the reform party or association or the Conservative Association or any other association that calls for gatherings cannot attract a corporal's guard at any of them. Formerly if the Reform Association or the Conservative Association or any other simi-

lar body sent out a notice of a meeting, hundreds, sometimes thousands, would respond. Why is there that change in the response? Under the old conditions, the selection made upon the recommendation of a representative of the people, who was a responsible person, almost invariably proved successful ; but the strong feeling now is that something has been inaugurated for the benefit of the people but it has proved to be a failure from many standpoints, and the new condition of things has grown unpopular, and those who receive notice to attend a party meeting say: It is not worth while to respond to this notice and attend the meeting. The feeling would express itself about in this way:	Under the old conditions I, or some one of my friends might be an applicant some time for a position in the Government. They looked forward to that and they were anxious; they were ambitious; they attended; they enthused. That is not the condition to-day. They stay away; there is nothing to look forward to except to get out and work hard. While it may appear that this is a good thing to have out of politics, I venture to say that if you divide the members of this House outside on this measure, the majority would condemn it and would go out of existence; but as it has been introduced by the Government, some members would be slow to express a candid opinion. Many have already expressed their candid opinions and they have not been in favour of this Bill. Under the system of examinations, a position may be advertised to be filled by competitive examination, and many young men may apply who have no special qualifications, who have no special ambitions, who are not so energetic, but wfio can pass an examination. There is another young man who, perhaps, cannot go successfully pass an examination, but who, if selected by a representative, might prove to be far the better man; he would be more industrious, more energetic and more anxious to make a name for himself as against the young man who has always been a drone and who would be one upon the Government if selected by the Government as passing the necessary examination and given a position. We might venture to say that in many cases he would not prove a success, but when he is once placed in that position, it will take a'good deal of strenuous work and energy to displace him. Therefore, even under present conditions, I do not think we get the best results, that is to to say, the best men for the positions.
[Mr. T. Foster.!
It has been suggested-and I think the minister is disposed to accept the suggestion-that the commission should be enlarged. It has been suggested that a returned soldier, or a woman or a labour representative, should be placed upon the commission. I am very strongly in favour of placing upon the commission a returned soldier with the proper qualifications. As to the women, their interest should be well looked after, and I believe if we had a fair expression of opinion of the women themselves, they would prefer to have their interests left in the hands of the men rather than have a woman represent them on the commission. But since there are two members to be selected, a labouring man might be selected as one of the commissioners. We are giving a great deal of attention to the labouring interests; we are trying to create harmony between labour and the industrial world, and this is an opportunity, where labour is all labour. This is not a manufacturing, commercial industry that we are considering to-day; it is labour from " A " to " Z." The employees all report to their positions at a certain hour and retire at a certain hour, and they give their best services. It is said there are some fifty or sixty thousand of these employees, and it is only fair to say that those fifty or sixty thousand who are labouring every day for their living might reasonably be represented by a labour representative. Therefore, the minister in giving this matter his further consideration,. should consider, with the question of appointing a soldier representative, that of appointing a labour representative on the commission. This Bill is a very important one, and it has been suggested that it should be referred to a special commitee for further consideration. Perhaps that is the best thing we can do, but I think it might be as well before sending it to a committee to have a division just to find out w.hat the feeling of the House is on the Bill. I venture to prophesy, from the murmurings I have heard among members for many months now, that this measure is so unpopular that a vote would .mean the end of the Bill. The Outside Service, if they had an opportunity to express themselves, would be found to fee entirely against coming under the Civil Service Commission, and there are many thousands in the Outside Service. There are hundreds of cases where injustice has been, done in this classification, and if we went on with it I am sure that very few members of the Civil Service and very few hon. members would be satisfied when we had finished revising it. A great many members, appar-

ently, are reluctant 'to give their candid opinion of this Bill on 'the floor of the House, but if they would only get up and express themselves freely I am sure it would be found that the Bill had very few supporters here. From my knowledge and experience I think the classification is unsatisfactory and unpopular, and if we revised and revised it, it would still be unsatisfactory. I think it would be well to withdraw the Bill and let at stand over for another session. In the meantime we should have an opportunity to study the latest classification.


Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth):: I fear that I shall be in that class just referred to by my hon, friend from East York (Mr. Foster)-one of the very few supporters of the Bill in this House-because what I have to say to-might will be, comparatively speaking, in favour of the pill. I am not aware that the question before us for consideration in this Bill is the wisdom or otherwise of the abolition of patronage and the putting of the Civil Service entirely under the control of the Civil Service Commission. If this Bill were defeated on a vote, as prophesied by imy hon. friend from East York, it would not mean the return of patronage to him or to any other member. This is a step further in the direction than was taken by this Government when the Outside Service was placed under the Civil Service Commission. No great step like that, which was a revolution in the Civil Service, could be expected to be thoroughly successful within a year or *two; we could not expect it to be entirely relieved from criticism within that time. When Great Britain took a similar step, criticism continued for at least fifty years, and it is only within the last ten or fifteen years that the British Civil Service Commission has been largely relieved from criticism. In Great Britain the Commission passed through the very same stage that our Civil Service Commission is passing through now. The United States Civil Service has been under a Commission for ten or twelve years. That Commission also has passed through the very same stage that our Commission is going through now. We must expect the Commission to be criticised for a number of years longer until the people of Canada and their representatives in this House become accustomed to the changed conditions.
I do not think that the conditions which arose and existed under the old system of patronage have very much to commend them. The chief evils that exist in the
Civil Service to-day are the evils that developed and continued to exist under the old system. What are some of these evils in the Civil Service to-day? Last session we had a special committee appointed to investigate the working of the Civil Service, and I would commend to the reading of every hon. member of this House who has not already read it the evidence taken before that committee. While the evidence was taken hurriedly, and there was not time to go into the matter fully, many things were revealed that should be known to every member of this House and to the people of this country. One evil that we found to exist, and which ought to be remedied, was the vast amount of time lost through civil servants being absent from duty. Civil servants are allowed, in addition to the statutory holidays , three weeks' holidays every year; but we yet found in some of the departments an amazing amount of time lost through civil servants being absent from duty over and above their regular and statutory holidays. In the Department of Agriculture, for instance, the average number of days absent over and above regular and statutory holidays was 14.4; Immigration and Colonization, 14.2; Interior, 20.9; Militia and Defence, 12:6; Post Office, 20.8; Railways and Canals, 15.4; Trade and Commerce, 13.9, and so on. In the year 1918 the days absent from duty on the part of civil servants in Ottawa made an aggregate of 94,633, which is equal to 315 working years. Resolve that into dollars and cents, and what do we find? The average salary of civil servants is 8800, so it means that about $250,000 a year was lost owing to civil servants being absent from duty over and above their regular and statutory holidays.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Were these conditions due to the method of appointment?


Michael Steele: That was the condition
that existed under the old methods of appointment.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Have those conditions changed?


Michael Steele: They ought to be changed, and that is one of the reasons. I intend to support this Bill. These conditions have existed for many years, and it is time they were changed. The first step taken to change them was to place the Civil Service under the Civil Service Commission. Further steps will have to be taken by the Commission, and I am sorry they are not taking them a little more rapidly; but we know that they have been overloaded with work ever since

their appointment, and they have been asked to undertake a task which no>
three men should be expected to undertake and accomplish in such a short time.
We also found that the Civil Service was overmanned, and in order to relieve the service from this overmanning and to improve conditions generally, the first step to be taken is the passing of this Bill and the adoption of this classification, which will strengthen the hands of 'the Commission in carrying out the reorganization of the service.
I regret that we are expected to get through with the matter as quickly as the minister evidently anticipates. If I were the minister I would not allow myself to be influenced to too great an extent (by the clamour of some of the civil servants for a hurried passage of this Bill. The matter is one of great importance. It is a business matter that deserves very mature consideration, and any action taken by this Parliament in connection with it should he well considered. The responsibility rests not with the civil servants but with this Parliament for putting into effective operation a system which will improve present conditions and remove the imperfections of the Civil Service as it exists. So that when we are asked to shoulder this responsibility I think it is our duty to see that the work is well done in order to avoid as far as possible any criticism in the future. If the Bill does not pass and become law this session, I trust it will when next parliament meets. But I do think that before it is passed this classification should be gone into thoroughly by a special committee, whether it requires a week, or a month, or even six months; however long it may take to deal with it let us see that the whole subject is considered in all its phases; let us make sure that the work is properly done before we ask Parliament to give its approval to it.
I desire to call attention to another matter which, so far has not been mentioned in the discussion and which, I think, may appropriately be considered at this moment. One thing that is indispensable to a satisfactory condition of affairs is a scheme of superannuation. The committee found in its investigations last year that there were a great many-I can hardly say how many, but there were at least from one hundred to four hundred-employees in the Civil Service who, owing to age or physical disability were incapable of giving the best service which the remuneration they received entitled the country to expect. It

is difficult to dispose of these civil servants by merely dismissing them and turning them out on a cold and uncharitable world, but they could be dealt with, to the advantage of both themselves and the country at large, by a proper scheme of superannuation, and I had hoped that when the Government introduced this Bill they would announce their intention of adopting some scheme that would relieve the Civil Service of its older and disabled members to permit of the promotion of younger men, at the same time removing from the service many of younger years who are physically incapacitated for hard work.
I trust that this Bill will receive due consideration, and that it will be referred to a special committee which will give adequate time to a thorough investigation of the matter; and when that committee reports to the House I sincerely hope that hon. members will see that it is to the advantage not only of the Civil Service- which after all is a secondary consideration -but to the whole of Canada to pass the Bill, adopt the classification and continue in operation a system of filling positions in the Civil Service without reference to the old practice of patronage.


Thomas Foster: I just want to ask the hon. member one question. He says /that under the old conditions the departments were overmanned. Under the new conditions have things changed, and are the departments over-manned, under-manned or properly manned? I ask the question because only a short time ago, I think, the hon. member himself said that there were hundreds of employees in the various departments who should not be there.


Michael Steele: The old system has been in operation for fifty years, during which time no improvement has been effected in regard to over-manning. Surely it is now time to try a new system, and if in much less time than that it does not result in an improvement the removal of the commission should be considered.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac):	I
desire to ask the minister for some light on this important subject. He introduced a Bill this afternoon and practically said to the House:	"Here it is; you may kick it
out if you want to." I should like to know from him and the Government if it is the intention to see the Bill through this session? I understand that it is not the ordinary course to take to introduce a Bill

and then suggest to the House that if it wants a committee it may have it. I have a very distinct recollection of a Bill coming before this House at the last session and when we asked to have it go to a committee, one having already been provided-I refer to the Railway Committee-the Government informed us that it was not customary to submit Government Bills to committees. Now if this Bill is anything it is a pledge of the party-what party I am not prepared to say-on the other side. We were told this afternoon by the minister who introduced the Bill that this measure was to implement the pledge of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) made previous to the last election.


Jacques Bureau: And made during the
election.


Frank S. Cahill: Yes, made during the
election and used as one of the campaign cries to gain popularity for the Government. This afternoon the minister said there was some opposition to the Bill from the Liberal party by reason of the fact that when appointments were made the appointees were probably not Liberals. He said that the same thing applied to the other party. But Mr. Speaker he did not tell us what he meant by "the other party". About two years ago we had a Conservative party and until yesterday, as far as we know, we had the Unionist party. There was a caucus this morning and now we have "the other" party, and I presume that is what the minister meant. I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, to find a number of the staunch Tories, the old line Conservatives who are supposed to be backers of the leader of the Government, rising in this House and one after another repudiating their leader, affirming that they do not believe in the policy or platform on which he stood at the last election. We were told no later than this afternoon, by the minister that this was one of the planks of the Unionist party, or the Conservative party, and apparently he is not very anxious that it should be carried out because I understand that if this Bill is submitted to a committee the life of the committee will cease at the end of this session.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend
has no right to make that statement.


Frank S. Cahill: If T have not, I trust the Speaker will call me to order.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is not a question of order but of fact, and I say that the hon. gentleman has no right to make the statement he has made.


Frank S. Cahill: The hon. member this
afternoon, if I gathered his remarks correctly, virtually said:	"Here is the Bill,
do what you like with it." He introduced the Bill, it received its second reading and was moved into committee, when the minister put on the brakes, so to speak, reversed his gears and went back a couple of miles, starting all over again. He practically said: "Here is the Bill; Do you want it? There is nothing very important about it. We can pass it, but the session is drawing to a close, and we are all anxious that it should close at an early date". If I understood the minister correctly that is the purport of what he said,-that the Bill might be passed or might be submitted to a committee. Now, if he wants to submit it to a committee, I desire to ask him-and that is my reason for rising-will he see that Parliament sits until the committee makes its report and this Bill is carried into law, or does he mean to submit it to a committee merely to have it shelved? I think the House is entitled to an answer.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: No answer.


George Boyce: I have just a word or two to say, Mr. Speaker. This Bill has been so ably discussed in all its phases that there is, I fear, hardly anything left for me to say, except to remark in passing on the great applause which I received.
It is nothing new, Sir, for them to applaud most of these things, especially when they have reference to elections. They are beginning to get over the very great defeat they suffered. It took them two years in sackcloth and ashes to recover from it, and I am not surprised that now they are getting into a more .pleasant mood.
We have been told that this Commission ought to be improved a little. I quite agree with those who suggest that there ought to be a soldier on the Commission. I heard some hon. gentlemen advocating very strongly that there ought to be a woman on it, but upon inquiry I find that those who support that suggestion so strongly are bachelors. If they think so much of the ladies they should have taken advantage of their opportunities and each of them should have arranged to secure for himself a partner to accompany him on the journey through life.
However, there is one part of the Civil Service which has not received the consideration that it is entitled to. That is the rural mail service, including the country mail carriers and postmasters. I said a few words in regard to this in the course of the

last two sessions. While I do not take the ground mat the member should have everything to say in regard to appointments, I do say that he should he consulted in regard to certain appointments in the county. I do not think there is any one better qualified to give advice as to the appointment of a postmaster in a county than the member representing that county. He is to a certain extent held responsible for these appoint-*onents, and justly so. I have heard different parties ask: "What have we a member for; is it not to do our work?" Yet we have no right to interfere in any shape or form. I trust something will be done in regard to the remuneration of the rural mail carriers. I went on several occasions to the Postmaster General, but he told us he could not do anything until the law was changed. I hope that this House, in justice to these men, will see that they get a fair remuneration for the work they do. Take a country postmaster; many of them only get $50 or $75 a year. Men are paid less than $1,000 a year for carrying the mails sixty or seventy miles. Those men, considering what it costs them to keep their teams, and the time they give to the service, are not being fairly [ aid. Some provision to improve the position of these members of the public service should be incorporated in this Bill.
Whether the Bill is disposed of now or left over until next session, I do not think matters very much. It cannot be gone into in an intelligent or satisfactory manner this session, and I do not think there would be much harm done by leaving it over until next session. But, if you do leave it over, there is one thing that I would urge very strongly upon the House and the Government, and that is to give the rural districts a fair show with regard to whatever patronage there may be, because I believe that by so doing you will be promoting the welfare of the country.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of taking the Public Service of this country absolutely out of politics, and mainly and in the first place for this reason: I have had a rather long connection with recommendations from the political point of view. My experience has taught me that if a person goes into the Civil Service he ought to have recognition of his merit, if he shows merit, and I believe that a commission of this kind, guided as it must be more or less by the experience of the different departments, will recognize merit and give it promotion. That is a principle which should be recognized more

than anything else in connection with this new Bill. The most satisfactory appointment that has been made in the city of Toronto since this new Act came into force was the promotion of the deputy postmaster to the postmastership. If you ask the citizens of Toronto, irrespective of party, you will find that they endorse the principle of the recognition of merit as exemplified by the promotion of the deputy postmaster, an officer of long experience, to the position of postmaster of Toronto. I want to see the same rule adopted in regard to the customs and every other department. I believe that throughout the whole service there should be a recognition of merit in the way of promotion when it is deserved.
But, I have another reason for favouring the recognition of this principle. I believe in the nationalization of railways and we have heard a good deal about it in this country. We have turned our railways over to a board of directors. I might prefer that there should really be a board of experts to run our railways, but I should have no hope whatever for the public ownership of railways if the operation of railways was to be made a political consideration. The great thing in the administration of publicly owned railways is that a man's merit will be recognized and he will be promoted irrespective of politics. The one thing that is creditable to the whole railway administration of America and of the Old Country is that they have recognized merit; the man at the top of every railway administration in this country has risen from the ranks. That is a great principle, and if we propose to undertake the administration of 20,000 miles of railway, politics must be eliminated to get the best results.
I wish to refer to what the hon. member for West Elgin, the ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) said in regard to responsible government and his assertion that if you carry on the administration of the public service by a commission you do not have responsible government. I deny that. The greatest example of responsible government in the world to-day is in the Mother Country where they have de-politiealized their civil service. They have promotions there. The men who make the promotions are held responsible, and the public men of Great Britain, I. think, are glad that they do not know of such a thing as being responsible to their constituents for the administration of the civil service. The United States is coming to it. It takes a long time, as an hon. gentleman has already said, to bring these things about.

There have been mistakes made in connection with our public service. The departments have been overloaded. Perhaps they are more or less overloaded now; but certainly to my mind the path leading to better things is in the direction in which we are now moving.
When we are talking about the public service there is one thing that I want to say; I referred to it the other day. We have to change our way of constructing administration buildings. We cannot have any more of these gothic buildings with the small rooms; we must not neglect to do what modern administration of business affairs suggests to us.
If you want to have a most efficient public service you have got to change your buildings, you have got to get the new kind of administration 'buildings. You have got to have large buildings, with lots of light, with big rooms where you have your departments under heads who are in the very rooms. It is an absurd thing to run up big administration buildings and cut them into small rooms, and then expect to get a chance to recognize ability in those employed. You want large rooms, you want lots of light, and every member of the service there ought to be under the eye of the chief. Even the dhief ought to be under the public eye more or less. They do not divide up modern administration buildings now into small offices with two or three clerks in a room; large open buildings with large flats are constructed. You can go into any modern administration building 'and see the opportunity that is given for recognition of ability. Under such conditions those who give good service can be given consideration. We have got to get that business principle in the administration of the business affairs of this country.
Having had experience in exercising patronage-and while I did exercise a good deal of it in connection with the administration of public affairs in Toronto, I turned it over in every case to committees of the party, and took their recommendation-but after my experience I have to say that I am glad to get rid of it. It may be different with other members, and it may be more or less identified with party considerations. I do not dispute the position of those members, but I do hope we are gradually growing out of it, and that we will get a better system. Lots of faults and mistakes will be made; but if there is responsibility on us as public men, there is also responsibility on public officials, and when they do not do right we still have
the responsibility to us in Parliament, more or less, and we can hold everybody responsible just as well under the new conditions as we did under the old. I believe the public opinion of this country, on the whole, is in favour of the recognition of this principle of taking the public service out of politics, and, with that making the underlying principle of the administration of the departments the recognition and promotion of merit, and using it now as a means for recognizing the returned soldier. Nobody can do it better than the commission appointed for that purpose who will be held responsible for what they do.


John Hampden Burnham: Supposing the Civil Service Commission makes an appointment in a riding that is entirely unsatisfactory to the people, who is held responsible for that?


William Findlay Maclean: Well, the Civil Service Commision in a way. But supposing a mistake is made, how many mistakes have been made by men who are responsible? You have got to settle this question, as in all political questions, by the ballot-that will settle whether the public is in favour of the proposal or against it. Now the opinion of the people of this country, and they declared so in the last election, is that they were in favour of taking the public service of this country out of politics. And the Liberal party is committed to it-I believe they introduced this principle. A lot of us gave pledges-I know 9 p.m. I did-in regard to taking the public service out of politics, and I am prepared to go back to my riding, if I have to go back there on any occasion, and to justify this one thing, of giving that pledge. I have seen how well it has worked out, and while all has not been satisfactory in every direction the movement is in the direction of redeeming the pledge we gave, and in the direction of the benefit of the public service. Now just one other point.


Peter Robert McGibbon: Would the honourable member tell us how many members of this House he thinks are in favour of that policy?


William Findlay Maclean: political adjunct of both political parties. I think there has been some improvement, not as much as I would like to have seen, perhaps, but I believe there has been an improvement in the administration of that railway, and the young men of the Maritime Provinces now can go into the railway on merit, and they can rise to the highest position in the administration of the publio railways of this country. They did not have that opportunity, I think, in the past, and this is my final argument: in view of the fact that we are going into the nationalization of our railways, if we break down the civil service and politicalize it, what is going to happen to the national railways and to the national telegraphs if they come within the domain of politics?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: You have had a good many years experience under the old system, did you ever recommend a man for a public office who was not clearly well qualified to discharge its duties?


William Findlay Maclean: I thank God, I
did not, and I do not think many bad recommendations have been the case, but the onus is on my honourable friend to give specific instances where incompetents and scalawags, according to the expression he used this afternoon, have been appointed


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The honourable gentleman is only proving my case as he admits he does not know of any.


William Findlay Maclean: That is not the point. The hon. member said this afternoon that the danger lay in the recommendation and that under the old system scalawags were not appointed. I will not go into that but it is incumbent upon him to say, when he used that argument, that under the new system scalawags are getting into the public service. I do not agree with him in that respect but I will leave the matter to the judgment of the House. Now, coming 'bock to the consideration of the Bill, I did not quite understand from the minister when he introduced the measure this afternoon that he was "abandoning the baby" and leaving it to the charge of the House. I think it is a Government proposal and they are following on the lines of their committments. They have introduced the Bill, they have had some experience of it, and are trying to improve it; and .in that we have the responsibility now just as much as in the past. The responsibility for the due administration of the law is on this House and the members of it and the people who sent us here, and with that interpretation of responsible gov-

eminent I will resume my seat, merely saying further that I am in favour of the passing of this Bill and of giving it a fair trial. It may be imperfect, it is imperfect, it has the mistakes of some years against it, but on the whole it can be improved. The Commissioners, I hope, will improve the Bill, and even if this enormous volume, this re-classification-which I do not propose to read-is not right, it can gradually be made right. That is what the Commissioners are for, and we will have to leave it to them. It may be necessary at a subsequent session to revise the whole thing and to go into it very fully; but let us try this proposal before we condemn it. Let us give it a fair trial, and if we find it wrong, then repeal it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The point which the hon. gentleman has just made with regard to the railway administration is one which was in my own mind and which I had intended bringing to the attention of the House. I cannot conceive of anything more disastrous that could happen to the state-owned railways, or to any successful administration, than to allow the patronage system to enter into the appointments.
In connection with the administration of our national railways a board has been appointed with powers independent of the Government or Parliament, and I am satisfied that a degree of efficiency is being attained in that administration which would not otherwise have been possible. To look back upon the appalling inefficiency that existed in connection with the administration of the Intercolonial railway during a period of thirty or forty years is surely enough to cause hon. members to look with disfavour upon a continuance of the old system.
For thirty or forty years the appointment of a Collector of Customs at Winnipeg was one of political patronage. While I do not wish to impugn the integrity or reasonable efficiency of many of those who have held that position, I am satisfied that they do not equal in any way the efficiency of the recent appointee. For the first time in the history of Winnipeg the Collector of Customs of that city has been appointed by the Civil Service Commission, the appointment having been made by the promotion of Mr. Allan, one of the most efficient officials of the Customs Department in Winnipeg, who has served in that department for some thirty or forty years. Now, that could not have happened under the old patronage system. The great drawback about the old

system was that appointments and promotions were usually the result of political pull. When the better positions, as well as many of the minor offices, are, as was the case under the old system, filled by means of political patronage and on the recommendation of members, civil servants ard deprived of any incentive to continue their work or to do their very best. Under the old system they knew that it did not make any difference how efficient they were; unless they had political pull they would not receive promotion. Under the present system that is all changed.
I recall, as a resident of the West for many years, that in the early days, before the provinces there were organized, the West was made a stamping ground for political heelers and men who had rendered service to one political party or the other.
I recall one instance-I shall not mention the name of the gentleman concerned, but the appointment was made by Sir John A. Macdonald; it must have been forty years ago; I remember the man very well.


Jacques Bureau: Oh no, you were not born forty years ago.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Now, Jacques, I
will have to ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove you. This man received an appointment in the Indian Department, and he got so gloriously drunk on receipt of the notice conveying the news of his appointment that he wired Sir John A. Macdonald as follows:
Sir John Macdonald,
Ottawa.
Send on your damned old Indians.
And very properly he was dismissed instanter by telegram by the then Prime Minister.


Jacques Bureau: What code was that?


Robert Lorne Richardson: One hon. member suggests that under the present system the Prime Minister could not do that. That is quite correct. I am perfectly satisfied that the Civil Service Commission would not think of appointing any man who was not qualified for such an office. If they did follow any practice of that kind, Parliament or the Government have their remedy; they can change the personnel of the board whenever they choose to do so.


John Hampden Burnham: Does the hon. gentleman consider that the members, upon whose character or judgment, or whatever he likes to call it, he is now casting aspersion, are nevertheless fit to go on the Civil Service Commission?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I am casting no aspersion upon the character of the members of the commission. I say that if they made appointments of men not qualified for the positions to which they were assigned, the Government and Parliament have their remedy; they can change the personnel of the commission. I am not saying that, generally speaking, members of Parliament would not make reasonably proper recommendations. But I believe it would be a retrograde step to return to the old system of patronage. The commission idea has proved most satisfactory in the Old Land, to which we are accustomed to look for precedents. I am satisfied that if we continue this new system, eliminate patronage and cause appointments to be made on a higher plane, the result will redound to the credit of the Canadian people.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind hon. members that it is absolutely against parliamentary usage and parliamentary rules to refer to members of the House by their family names, much less by their given names. Members should always be referred to as "the hon. member" with the name of his riding. This rule is necessary to preserve the decorum of Parliament, and I hope that it will in future be faithfully observed.


Francis N. McCrea: Mr. Speaker, a committee was appointed at the last session to investigate and report upon conditions in the Civil Service. I was a member of that committee and the member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) was chairman. That hon. gentleman hak explained quite fully the findings of the committee as far as they went, but whether it was because of lack of time or because of lack of attention to the business in hand, we did not complete our investigation. So far as we went, however, we found very great need of improvement, very great need of some method of remedying the existing conditions. I do not think I need repeat what the member for South Perth has said with regard to the work of that committee. It is possible that the Government have not had time fully to study and deal with this matter, and that may be the reason why, as I understand, the minister who introduced the Bill (Hon. A. K. Maclean) said that the House might deal with it as the House saw fit.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I must correct the hon. member. I made no such remark.
iMr. McCREA: I was not in the House, hut I understood that was the statement. I do not think that the Government would be well advised if it would take the necessary time to give this matter full consideration and appoint a commission to deal with it. I do not think they can make the condition any worse than it is, and I am sure they can improve it very materially.
As the member for South Perth has said, and as everybody knows, civil servants have three weeks holidays besides all the other legal holidays which occur throughout the year. In addition to that, the committee found that in practically every department whenever civil servants felt disposed to have a day off they reported sick and not fit for duty-and their time went on just the same. One of the causes of unrest in this country to-day in the farming communities and among labourers generally is the fact that civil servants are being fairly well paid, with very short hours and little work. I am not complaining about the pay. I would not even object to increasing the pay of civil servants, but I would want them to increase the work which they do to the extent of about a hundred per cent. I would want them to double the labour, and I would give them a small increase in wages. If the Civil Service were reduced by about fifty per cent and reasonable work exacted from them, they would not even then be overworked. That would be in the interest of the country and of everybody, in the interest of allaying the unrest that is now rampant throughout this country. The ordinary hours of labour for the Civil Service are, I understand, in summer 51 hours and in winter 6i hours. If they were giving every one of those hours to diligent and attentive labour, the condition would be better than it is; but if you go into any department, you will find it is a place of visiting-come in late; go out early; do practically as they like. This Government would be well advised and would act very wisely if they would take the necessary time to study out a plan and then appoint a commission of the best men they could get to try this out and see what the Civil Service would be under a commission that would look after it properly.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker,-


Georges Henri Boivin: The minister rises to address the House. I must advise honourable members that he is exercising his right to close the debate. If any other hon. member desires to speak, he should do so now.


Edmond Proulx: I should like to ask a question. Some years ago a report was made by Sir George Murray, who came from England and who was employed by the Government to make a report on the Civil Service. Has his report been considered by the commission in the classification?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: possibly make a pretence at a classification of the Civil Service after the scheme now before Parliament within a decade or two, and if you gave them even a greater period of time I doubt if they have had the experience in that class of work to prepare a classification which they would care to submit to Parliament for approval.
Several hon. gentlemen have said that members of Parliament have suffered an indignity through the power of recommendation for appointment to the Public Service being taken away from them, and that this power should be restored. Now, I do not think the House can say that I was not frank with them this afternoon, because I did say that the legislation of 1918 was revolutionary, but in the right direction, that it was in pursuance of the pledge of the Prime Minister, -and that I believed it had the moral support of the Canadian electorate. I said further that I believed it would in the future meet with the approval of all classes. I am personally glad to have been associated with this work, 'and I hope to see this legislation a permanent thing in the political life of this country. I am not, however, surprised that there is opposition to the Bill. I can understand the feelings and the hearts of members of Parliament who may feel that a great factor in political organization has been taken from them. I think, however, they can overcome these difficulties to their own advantage and to the advantage of the country. I shall touch on that later. The point I wish to make now is that this Parliament in 1918 solemnly and deliberately placed the power of appointment to office in the hands of an independent commission, and this Parliament without a single protest voted for the classification of the public service. The Government, in obedience to the direction of hon. gentlemen, have had the same prepared through the commission, and it is now presented to Parliament for approval.
I do not accept the proposition myself- and I want to be generous to the men who think differently from me-that it is part of the duties of a member of Parliament to recommend to office. The hon. member for West Toronto suggested the restoration of this power to the hon. members, and my hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx), who was a little more credulous than I thought he would be, accepted the statement of the hon. member for West Toronto that the Opposition members would participate in the power of recommendation. He seemed to be quite pleased with the

answer the hon. member for West Toronto gave, and apparently accepted his statement as one likely to work out in practice. Now, there is no doubt in the world that if the power of recommending appointment to public office is restored and the [DOT]old practice is continued, that power will rest with the members supporting the ministry. It would be absurd to expect anything else, and the man who did so would be demonstrating conclusively bis incapacity and unfitness for a seat in Parliament- and quite properly so, for if the proposition is sound, that power should only rest with members supporting the ministry.
The hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) objected very strongly that the power of appointing a postmaster in some place in his constituency, where tourists resort for a few days in the month of August was taken from him. I am sorry the hon. gentleman is not in the House, because I should like to say to him, whom I know to be a distinguished member of Parliament, a man of intellect and vision, who conceives and studies ideals and endeavours to put them into practice in this House, that I should be surprised if he seeks the support of his constituents upon the ground that he desires to fulfil the duties of nominating persons to small country post offices. I am sure the hon. gentleman is qualified for much nobler and more important national work than that while he is a member of this Parliament, and I hope he will not rate himself so low in the future.
I think there are two other important reasons why it is desirable that the poiwer of nomination, once resting in members of Parliament, should foe placed in an independent commission at the present time. The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) referred to the policy which this country, rightly or wrongly, is embarking on of state ownership and operation of railways. It is a serious policy for any country to embark upon, and one which has given me a great deal of anxiety as to its outcome. I say that you cannot have government ownership and operation of railways in this country and at the same time have the Civil Service appointed other than by an independent commission, such as the Civil Service Commission. It is utterly impossible to- conceive of appointments to the Civil Service by members of Parliament, and appointments to a state-owned and state-controlled railway system

by a railway board or any other management.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it the intention to apply this classification to the railroads?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was just going to remark that railway employees do not come under the operation of this Act. I do not know of any way in which that could be done practically. I say that the effect of making appointments to the Civil Service by an independent commission has made it possible for the Canadian National Railway Board to operate the .'National Railway System and select their own employees free from political interference, and I make this statement that if you take from the Civil Service Commission the powers they now possess under the statute you will immediately have a reversion to .political appointments upon our national railway system.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. gentleman says, " no," but I have had experience in that connection in the Maritime Provinces where we had Government ownership and operation of railways, and it would be impossible for any hon. gentleman, no^ excepting myself, if he had the power of nominating persons to public office, not to intrude himself and his influence, if he had any, upon the management of the Canadian state-owned railways. The Canadian National Railways to-day have 42,162 employees, and the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk have 30,185 altogether 72,346, and upon that ground alone I say to you candidly that it became absolutely necessary that the power of appointment to public office should be placed in the hands of an independent body. Otherwise appointments to the state owned railway system would be largely political, and that would mean the bankruptcy of the roads.
There is another reason why I think that hon. gentlemen should be glad to be rid of this power of recommendation. Under the statute returned soldiers have preferential treatment in appointment to office, and it is a fact that at the present time practically every appointment goes to a returned man. In the circumstances I cannot conceive of any hon. member wanting to distinguish between the merits of rival applicants to public office when they all come from the same class. What would be the tendency? If I had the recommending power-and I venture to say that this assertion will be applicable to all others-I would desire
to support a soldier who I thought was politically friendly to me to-day or might be to-morrow if I were continuing in public life-a soldier who would support my colleagues and my Government. But the soldier would not submit to that, because it .would be an unfair proposition to say to a soldier who chanced to be a political opponent of mine that he was not entitled to public office and was not to have an opportunity to such appointment. And the result would be that members of Parliament in the end would refuse to exercise the recommending power if they had it; and if they did exercise it they would do it partially, which would be unsatisfactory to the soldier. So that I think it would produce a condition of social and political disorder which would not be acceptable to any one. Some one has said that it is jiot democratic to have appointments to public office made by an irresponsible commission. Well, I do venture the assertion that if there is anything democratic in the world it is the very system which we are discussing to-night, because it is designed, and on the whole I think it works out that way, to give an opportunity to every one; and democracy, if it means anything at all, means an equal opportunity for all. Where appointments to public office are in the hands of the Government in power they naturally go to the friends of that party. Experience indicates that. So that, after all, that practice is not very democratic, because an opportunity comes only to those who happen to be friends of the ministry. I venture to make the prophecy that a few years will demonstrate the fact that the Civil Service Act of 1918 was an expression of wisdom on the part of hon. gentlemen who upheld the principle of the measure. As I said this afternoon, it will have some effects upon our political life. It will give greater prominence to real issues. A great many of the shibboleths of party which we heard a great deal about in the past during elections have gone, and, I trust, forever. Issues and men will count for something in the future politics of this country, and nothing that happened before 1914 will count for anything. Considering the great economic burden now resting upon this country, and the necessity for the business affairs of Canada to be administered in a real business way as far as possible, I think it was important that the principle of the Civil Service Act should have been adopted. I trust it will be continued, and I have no doubt that in the course of a few years it will have the approval of the leaders

of all political parties then prevailing in this country, and that there will be no desire on the part of any to revert to the conditions which prevailed prior to 1918.


Mr. T. J. STEWART:: I should like to know-if the minister will permit me to ask him the question-why Hamilton was put in grade 5 along with Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, London, Regina, St. John, Saskatoon and Victoria, while Ottawa is put in the grade with Vancouver, although Hamilton has a larger population than Ottawa?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am sorry if any affront was given to the citizens of Hamilton by that classification, but it would be impossible for me to give my hon. friend the principle upon which the distinction was made. In the grading of post offices population was not the only factor. Volume of business, the amount of mail distributed from certain cities and several other factors were considered. However, it is a matter which I am sure can be explained -to my hon. friend, and if the city of Hamilton deserves better company than it has been accorded the error will no doubt be rectified.
Motion .agreed to and Bill read the second time.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That Bill No. IS, An Act to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, be referred to a Special Committee, composed of twenty-five members and to be named hereafter, for the consideration thereof, with (power to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath and to report from time to time, and that Rule 11 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Debate on the proposed motion of Mr. McKenzie for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee to investigate the alleged manipulation of soldier votes in the general election of 1917, resumed from Wednesday, October 1.
Jacques Bureau: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock yesterday I had put on Hansard a certain number of names of soldiers whose votes had been "switched", to use an expression that has been used since the commencement of the debate. I stated

at that time that I did not want to put any more names on Hansard but I desired to make the statement that I had hundreds of the names of soldiers whose votes were not polled in the constituencies where they resided and where they ought to have been polled. I also yesterday cited a circular that was sent out by Lieut.-Col. Machin to show that there was a general organization-I might say a general conspiracy-which was carried on with the knowledge of the Government to try and influence such voters. I stated also that Lieut.-Col. Machin was the man who was charged with the carrying out, I might say, of the Military Service Act. We were assured in 1917, when the Military Service Act was before the House, that it would be administered with equal justice to all. During the debate, when the other day the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) put up his so called defence, he stated that he was not the sponsor of the Bill but that the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) was. I would like to give to the House a few-I will not say the assertions-but promises made by the Minister of Justice that this Act should be properly administered. If you take Hansard of the 20th August 1917, page 4688, you will'find that the Minister of Justice said:
The principle of the Bill is that our soldiers should toe afforded an opportunity to vote at the coming election and that adequate provision should be made to enable them to register their vote, precautions, however, being taken to ensure the regularity, fairness and genuineness of that vote.
That was one of the guarantees that was given to us by the sponsor of the Bill as to its provisions and as to how they were to be put in force. In 'view of the suggestion made by the then member for St. John, N. B. the Hon Mr. Pugsley, that under the provisions of the Bill there was a possibility of grave fraud being carried on and that therefore the Bill should be administered by an impartial tribunal the Minister of Justice said, page 4742:
I do not think I am making a profession of any superior virtue, or being particularly unctuous, when I say I desire to work out the measure on as fair a principle as it can be worked out on, but while I desire to do that, I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that, with regard to this election, and to the law which should govern the election, this Government should abdicate the functions which belong to it, and which have belonged to the Governments of Canada so long as there has been an election law. We must be responsible for this law.

I gather from that, that Parliament was responsible for the law, but it was suggested or stated by those who took part in the debate that the Government was responsible for the administration of the law. In whatever manner the law is administered, they have to take the responsibility. In this case I charge that this law was wrongly administered. I charge farther that, from the facts which I have brought forward and putting the circumstances together, the law was wilfully wrongly administered and we are asking for this committee to show exactly that the statement I make now that the law was wilfully wrongly administered for party purpose is true.
If you want any further professions of faith on the part of the Minister of Justice you will find that on the same date, August 21, page 4708. he says:
May I point out that the number of votes that will be covered by this provision with regard to men who have not previously resided in Canada will not be very considerable?
Fifty thousand of them have been thrown out. Thousands in addition to those of the voters whose names I cited yesterday were switched and put into counties where the. men did not reside. The measure was passed for the purpose of providing for a number of votes which would not be very considerable. I cite these facts to show that this system could not have gone on unless there had been a general organization to carry it on and there could not be a general organization without the Government being aware of its existence. As I stated yesterday the Minister of the Interior said that if there was an organization that was carrying on the switching of votes throughout this country he was willing to take the responsibility and he had nothing to repudiate.
On the same page of Hansard the Minister of Justice said:
If you take the men who could not define their constituencies and all the men who never resided in Canada and crowd them all into the places in which they were enrolled, you would in regard to many constituencies take these constituencies boldly out of the hands of the people actually resident in them and transfer the control of them to these men who gathered there accidentally merely for the purpose of voting.
I admit that the Minister of Justice was right. If we had determined that the soldiers should vote in the places where they were enrolled it would have been unfair and it would have defeated the will of the residents of the county where the vote was taking place. But in this case it is not only at certain points of enrolment
that this was done but it was spread all over the Dominion of Canada wherever the 'Government were in doubt about a constituency because they were taking not only those men who did not reside in Canada or who could not define the constituencies wherein they had lived, but also the men who actually knew where they came from and instructed them to apply their votes in one constituency or another. The examples I cited in Cumberland, Nova Scotia and the few names I read into Hansard were designed to show that we had the infoimation-number, name, place of residence, where he was born, where he enrolled, in what county he voted, and where he swore he was living for the purpose of voting.
At page 4720 my hon. friend again says:
Are we going to hive all the votes in the places where the soldiers happened to have enlisted? Is that fair to the constituencies where the largest enrolment took place?
I am with him and the reproach that I make to the Government is that when the measure was before the House they explained exactly what they wanted to guard against. They explained that they wanted the soldier to vote-we all agreed with that-and that they wanted the soldier to be master of his vote and not to be coerced to vote in one place instead of another.
On page 4722 of the same Hansard, on the same day, the Minister of Justice said:
The only man who is to have the chance to indicate where he desires to vote is the man who neither knows the name of the electoral constituency nor is in a position to name a place or places in which he resided, or from the naming of which the constituency can be ascertained... There is no ground to apprehend
difficulty in so far as regards a man who knows where he lives-whether he knows the name of the constituency or not, that man will vote in the constituency in which he lives.
I will not quote any more of these statements. The intention of those who were the sponsors-to use the term of the Minister of the Interior-for this legislation are very clear; the idea was to give the man a vote where he lived, and to give the man who had no residence in Canada a vote somewhere but where to be indicated by the man himself. There was no contemplation of any "vote at large," there was no contemplation of any "allotment," to any particular constituency under the Act by any one whomsoever, and the words "at large" and "allotment" in the telegram show exactly, and constitute evidence per ;e, that there was an organization and that there was an army going across the seas and all over America allotting votes and dis-



tributing them to meet the purposes of the parties interested. And who were they? Surely it was not the Opposition who wanted the Union Government to be elected3 The parties interested were the Union Government and those uho were organized by them, under them, and for them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the feeling that was general in the country, and I said at the time that this feeling was sufficient to justify the Government-no, not justify the Government but force the Government-to grant the committee of investigation which we are now seeking. Allow me to read a letter which was received from a sergeant-major, and what he has to say ahout this matter. Among other things he says:
Well, I see by last week's paper that the overseas elections were the subject of a controversy in the House of Commons the other day-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman is not in order in reading a document from an outside party having reference to proceedings in the House.


Jacques Bureau: I cannot read anything coming from outside the House?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not which makes coih-ment on the proceedings in the House.


Jacques Bureau: I thought, Mr. Speaker, without taking exception to your ruling, that I had a right to Tead an article from a newspaper having reference to the proceedings in this House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have given my ruling. The hon. gentleman is not in order in reading a newspaper or a letter commenting on, or having reference to, any proceedings in the House.


Jacques Bureau: Then I will read a letter having reference to and commenting upon events overseas that were taking place at this election. Here is what the writer says:
From my own experience, first as an agent at the polls and later as a special returning officer, counting and allocating the votes, I have no hesitation in saying that it was the biggest travesty on the franchise of a supposedly free people and the most barefaced steal ever perpetrated in the name of the sacred ballot.
Now then, Mr. Speaker, Ithat has reference not SO' much-


An hon. MEMBER:: No comment.


Jacques Bureau: I have no comment to make because this comes from a soldier who was thei;e and saw what was going on. He was a sergeant-major.I will not give his name but he will come before the committee, if you will grant one, and he will tell

about this dirty work that he is speaking of and some more.


William Antrobus Griesbach: At what poll and in what country was he acting in the capacities mentioned?


Mr. TOBIN:: Give us the committee.


Jacques Bureau: He was ia special returning officer counting and allocating votes, he does not say where. He was not a civil special returning officer because there was no allocation of the civil votes
10 p.m. that were counted by the regular returning officer. That was only done-I hope so, although it may have been done elsewhere-in the case of soldiers. If my hon. friend wants to crossexamine me now, I will give him a chance to cross-examine the man himself if he will vote to grant the committee for which we are asking. Here is another statement. Mr. Speaker, one that was made publicly by Doctor (Major) Cryus McMillan, Professor of McGill university, Montreal. Speaking publicly in Prince Edward Island he said:
Shortly after he was sworn in he received a letter from General Embury asking him to inform the soldiers that if the Government was sustained they would get three months' furlough. Major McMillan also says that he and other deputies were instructed to hurry up the polling, and then to make a return of the number polled, with a list of names and addresses of those not polled, and that they were to be voted (personated) at the base.
At the base, How could they be voted there? They could be personated. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that does not constitute a conspiracy to switch votes I want to get all the best authorities in this country to give me a definition of conspiracy, for I do not understand the word. Let me give another example and I quote further from the statement made by Major Cyrus McMillan. He also said:
Many English and Americans did not wish to vote in Canada, and were voted or personated in this way.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that Major McMillan intends to write his experiences having to do with elections overseas, and to publish them in a pamphlet for the edification of the public of Canada and show how much and howr hearty was the support of the Union Government at the last election1.
I have another letter here from Lieut. A. C. Campion, who was a poll clerk at Carlisle in Scotland, but -I will only read a part of it. I want to establish my case showing conspiracy and that we are en-

titled to this committee. Lieut. Campion says:
We were advised by wire from London ot constituencies where the election would be close and would have the voter vote in that riding. A voter was supposed to be able to vote in any riding he chose if he weren't quite sure where he voted before at the previous election
Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that the intent, or is that the wording of the law, and are those the instructions that were sent to London to be given to the presiding or to the deputy presiding officers? I read last night, and I produced a letter of Mr. Purney, who was giving his opinion and saying that those who did not answer questions 5, 6, and 7 ought to be counted as voters. This was reversed afterwards but reversed and the Government were satisfied they had done enough switching, stealing and personating to win the election without the 50,000 votes. This lieutenant further says:
A voter was supposed to be able to vote in any riding he chose if he weren't quite sure where he voted before at the previous election. So this afforded, an opportunity to switch the votes to any riding and if the voter were not quite sure of the candidate he wished to vote for the name of one of the close ridings before mentioned was suggested to him.
Was suggested to him! He did not suggest where he wanted to vote, but it was suggested to him. By whom?
By the officer in charge and the voter, as a rule, marked his ballot so that the officer could see that he voted for his man.
I do not want to go on further. I have got statements like those I have quoted by the stack, and I do not want to encumber Hansard because I have enough confidence in the judgment and honour of the House to believe it will grant the committee believing as I do that I have made out a good case.
In the earlier part of my remarks I alluded to the tragical gesture of the Minister of the Interior when he demanded the production of this telegram and asserted that the time to produce it was "now-now." I do not see that this telegram has to be produced, and I say this for two reasons. Your warrant does not issue on the evidence as adduced to convict ia man; you make out a prima facie case by swearing that you have reason to believe that the man is guilty. But let us talk about the telegram. The Minister of the Interior says:
The message might have been sent; it might have been sent by me; it is a message which might have been sent by any honest man.
501	'
Well, here I pause. Where is the honest man who, in the ordinary course of business, sends an honest message for an honest purpose to another honest man and uses a code cipher? And on what occasion would such a message be sent if the cipher was not in the possession of and agreed upon between the sender and the receiver?


William Antrobus Griesbach: Did the hon. member ever receive a cipher telegram? If he ever did, was either the sender or the receiver a dishonest man?


Jacques Bureau: I have received cipher telegrams the purpose of which was to shorten the wording of the message and reduce -the amount to be paid to the telegraph company. It is for this purpose that codes are employed in sending cablegrams; it is for this purpose that codes are adopted for the ordering of parts from automobile factories. It is agreed between the sender and the receiver that a certain word means a certain part, and orders can be sent without the use of lengthy messages. But in ordinary business like this, why should you use the cipher? Because you did not want it to be known to the people through whose hands the matter was passing. If this was an honest transaction, why should you hide it from the telegraph operators or from those who might hear it on the wire? It is not a matter of business about which you do not wish your neighbour to learn; it is not a price you are quoting which you do not wish your neighbour to know. You are asking that a certain provision of the law be put into force. Well, every man is supposed to know the law; why should you use a cipher? The words "at large" and "allotment" are the two crimes perpetrated by this telegram-then there is "amphibio-logioal" and certain other words that would scare an army of soldiers. But would that cipher telegram be sent if at the other end they could not decipher it? That in itself is evidence that he who sent it and he who received it knew the cipher and had an agreement between themselves as to how it should be used.
I do not see that the production of the telegram would better conditions any. The Minister of the Interior said:
But if a man, however vaguely or obliquely-
"Obliquely"-that is fine; it is just like the Minister of the Interior. In fact, his
answer is itself rather oblique .(reading) :
-alleges wrong-doing, surely the onus is on him to produce the facts; surely it is on him to establish the truth of his allegations; surely it


Edmund William Tobin: Shame.


Jacques Bureau: After having read the said statement and knowing that the above declaration has the same effect as one taken under oath, I have signed.
(Signed) Dona Darcy.
Witness,
E. B. Bastien,
198th Canadian Infantry Battalion.
Here is another affidavit in proof of the same statement:
I, the undersigned, No. 2245525, Pte. Audy, make the following statement:
While a private with the 43rd Forestry Battalion at Sunningdale the Adjutant of the same battalion called me in his office and said to me

"Audy, are you going to vote for the Germans or for the Government?" To that question, I answered, "Sir, I am going to vote for Laurier." The saidi Adjutant then said: "If you do vote for Laurier, you will immediately be transferred to an English infantry battalion; you lsnow that you are afraid of an infantry battalion by the fact that you cannot drill." I answered: "Sir, you can send me anywhere you like, but I am going to vote for Laurier just the same...," you can put me in the clink if you care to do so, but you cannot change my vote and I am going to vote for Laurier." Then the Adjutant sent me back to my hut. After a few minutes, Sergeant Lalende came to see me and addressed me in this way: "Audy, do not make a fool of yourself; vote for the Government, andi everything will be all right and you will stay with us." I answered "You can do and they can do what they like, but I am going to vote for Laurier." Sergeant Lalende then took me to the Adjutant's office and this last gentleman told me: "You know that there is nothing like a secret vote here" (pointing out the reserve space marked No. 2 on the ballot). The adjutant giving me an order, I was forced to vote and I did vote for the Government. After that, the said Adjutant told me, " Now, Audy, get ready, for you are already transferred to the 156th Battalion, where I am now."
I do not know whether the 156th was in the trenches, whether it was a fighting unit, or what it was. My hon. friend is in a better position to know. Anyway the man was transferred, and I do not suppose he was getting a promotion after having repeatedly stated he was going to vote for Laurier no matter what happened. It goes on:
The same intimidation was given to many soldiers for getting their votes for the Government and some of them Were transferred to some infantry battalion.
After explanation made to me of the said declaration and knowing that the said declaration has the same effect as one taken under oath, I have signed.
(Signed) Joseph Audy.
Witness,
E. B. Bastien,
I56th Canadian Infantry Battalion.
If that is not coercion I do not know *what it is. If I put a pistol at your head [DOT]to make you sign a deed, and anybody has the gall or the consummate nerve to say that your signature was the free act of a man who wanted to sign that deed, he is welcome to his views because he does not belong to my gang. I think I have made a case, and I do not want to detain the House any longer, but before I resume my seat let me quote a paragraph from a newspaper which has supported Union Government very strongly, the Toronto Star. In its issue of September 27, 1919, it has this paragraph:
Representative Institutions on Trial.
When representative institutions are under fire-when it is said that they are of little value to working people, and that direct action [Mr. Bureau.!
should 'be substituted for political action-it is of the utmost importance that ministers and members of Parliament should uphold the dignity and independence of Parliament and the most scrupulous fairness in elections. It is of course right that a charge of fraud or unfairness should not be taken as equivalent to proof.
We are willing to take our chances if we cannot prove what we say. We are not asking for a verdict, but for the constitution of a tribunal which will pronounce a verdict upon the evidence adduced. It goes on:
But it should be treated in a manner which shows that the House attaches importance to freedom and fairness in elections, as if it set a high value upon free institutions.
There is no force in the plea that neither party is free from the reproach of abusing its power by practices which defeat the will of the people. The offences of the past were punished or ought to have been punished. They are to serve for warning, not for example or excuse. Especially is it necessary that our representative institutions should be above reproach today, when they are upon trial and subjected to attack as useless and undemocratic.
I close with these few remarks. To-day there is a condition of unrest in the country. This condition of unrest is due to the fact that the people of this country have no longer respect either for Parliament or the Government. They have not respect for Parliament, because Parliament has been unable to maintain and hold its own privileges. They have been taken away from Parliament time and again by the Government. They have no respect for the Government because the Governtnent is under a cloud, with accusations and suspicions of their conduct coming from every quarter, not only in the matter of elections, but in the matter of patronage, in the matter of the expenditure of public moneys. It is to these things the unrest is due, and I say it is high time that we, the members of the House of Commons, following the examples of the nations which I have cited, get up and tell the people "We are willing that you should scrutinize our conduct. We are willing to .appoint men who will listen to every one of you. Every man that has a grievance let him come forward and submit it. Those who are guilty will be punished, and those who are innocent will be so proclaimed, and those who have accused falsely will bear the odium of having 'persecuted men who were innocent." It is not a question with us of making political capital. We do not care for that; we do not require it, because this Government is defeated already in the opinion of the people. I see smiles on faces of hon. gentlemen opposite who will

never smile again in this House after an election, because these men will never come back. We are asking for this inquiry because we want to show people that if the men who have been covering themselves with the mantle of the war are not sincere, we are; that if they are not democratic, we are. We stand for liberty and free institutions, for the free expression of the will of the people at the polls, the same as for the free expression of the thought of hon. members in this Parliament. We do not believe in curtailing the rights and the privileges of any one in this country, and I for one say that for the honour of this House and the honour of this country, the committee asked for by my leader ought to be granted. Not only have we made a prima facie case, but we have adduced here evidence sufficient to convict those who have been guilty of the facts charged. We have brought forward facts sufficient to connect at least one member of the Government with the organization. He pleads guilty. He is a self-confessed member of that organization, and he ought no longer to sit in the Government if the facts which we allege are proven true, and if his connection with this organization is as stated by my honourable leader. For these reasons I shall support the motion.
Brigadier-General W. A. GRIESBAOH (West Edmonton):' Mr. Speaker, I should like to say at the outset that I know nothing about the conditions which prevailed in Canada, in England, or in France, outside of the Canadian corps, during the last election. But within the Canadian corps I do know the facts, and I feel it my duty to lay them before the House, inasmuch as there were 100,000 men included in the corps and nianv gallant officers whose reputation has been aspersed by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. I shall confine my observations to only one aspect of the uis-cussion, I refer to the statement made by the leader of the Opposition that officers from the rank of general downwards threatened men under their command that if they did not support the Government they would be sent to the front line. Now, I was a candidate myself in the last election, and I was also a general commanding a brigade. In passing, I may say that a good deal of interest was taken in the election, purely from the point of view of the question of conscription and the securing of the reinforcements that were so urgently needed. I did not see anybody, I did not meet anybody, I did not hear of anybody throughout
the whole of the Canadian corps who had any intention of voting against conscription and in favour of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House.
And when out of that one hundred thousand men it was discovered at the close of the polls that some two or three dozen had voted for the Opposition every one was somewhat surprised and wondered where those votes had come from. I was a candidate but I did not canvass any one. I did not ask any man for his vote, nor did I issue any orders. I said nothing to any soldier calculated to influence his vote, but on one occasion when I went down to my old regiment for the purpose of presenting some decorations that had been won, in the course of a conversation concerning the military situation and training that was then being undertaken for operations that were in prospect I was asked, as the men were all present, to express an opinion in regard to a piece of propaganda which was in circulation at the time to the effect that if the men of the Canadian corps would vote against the Government and defeat conscription, then the corps, for lack of reinforcements, would be taken out of the firing line and set to work on lines of communication. I need scarcely say that there was not very much doubt in the mind of any man there as to where that propaganda had originated. As I say, I was asked for an expression of opinion concerning the matter, and I was also asked to state whether or not I thought that the brother of a man who had volunteered who was at home supporting a family could be conscripted. Upon these two points I gave my opinion, and that was the only occasion on which I had anything to say in connection with the election.
Now the charge is made by the leader of the Opposition that Canadian officers, from generals down, threatened their men with transference to the front line if they did not support the Government. Well, Sir, the front line is not such a fearful place after all, and it has no particular terrors for the soldier. Thousands of men lived more or * less cheerfully in the front line and many of them died there willingly. So that there is no particular dread for the soldier in connection with the front line, and the only officer who would dream of making use of such a threat is a man who would himself be impressed by the threat,- in other words, a man who is himself a coward. And the threat, to be at all effective, would have to be addressed to men who were cowards. It could not otherwise be advantageously used, and I desire to say

to the leader of the Opposition that the number of officers who were cowards in the Canadian corps were mighty limited-the same remark being absolutely true of the men. The statement is therefore an insult to the officers and men of the Canadian corps. It is one which is based upon a conception of cowardice and could only be used by cowards. It could only influence cowards, and I make bold to say that it can now be repeated only by cowards on behalf of cofcvards.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I rise to a point of
order. Is the hon. member directing a charge of cowardice to me as a member of the House?


Brigadier General GRIESBACH:: If the
cap fits the hon. member he can wear it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Jacques Bureau: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Just now I read affidavits regarding threats that had been made. Does the hon. member mean to say that the reading of those affidavits constitutes cowardice? '
Brigadier General GRIESBAC'H:	I am
speaking of the Canadian corps in France. The affidavits which the hon. gentleman read pertain to facts that occurred in England, and to a soldier the statements contained in those affidavits are so absurd that I do not believe them, even if they are affidavits.


Jacques Bureau: That is not an answer to my question. That is not the statement that was made by the hon. member, who makes the charge that the persons making use of those affidavits in the House are guilty of cowardice.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Jacques Bureau: That is what I want to knaw.	*


Georges Henri Boivin: Has the hon. member (General Griesbach) anything to say upon the point of order?


Brigadier General GRIESBAOH:: I have developed an argument in which I say that no officer, unless he is a coward, would dream of using a threat of that sort. I have said further that no person would use such a threat to a soldier unless in the belief that the soldier was a coward. The whole argument is a cowardly one and can be used only by those who countenance cowardice and who believe that men could be influenced by the threat that is suggested.

I say, it is a coward's argument and can be used only by cowards.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Jacques Bureau: I rise to a point of order and ask the hon. member to take that back.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Jacques Bureau: He will do so if he is a gentleman and soldier as I think he is.


Georges Henri Boivin: I can only
say that if the remark was addressed to any hon. member of this House, it certainly is not parliamentary and the hon. member should withdraw it.


Jacques Bureau: Abuse is not argument.


Brigadier General GRIESBACH:: The
remark I understand may not properly be addressed to any member of the House and of necessity I withdraw it in so far as it applies to any gentleman sitting here. Of course, this is not the first time we have beard of this. Another gentleman who officially represented hon. members on the other side and who is not a member of the House has made use of the same statement in the public press of the country and I direct my observation to him. The leader of the Opposition was not in France. He was not in the Canadian corps, and consequently the statement he has made is one which has been communicated to him by some one else. Now, with regard to that statement, let me say that it reflects upon the honour and credit of Canadian officers and soldiers. That statement which my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) has repeated and which was communicated to him by some unknown person is a deliberate, a calculated, a malicious, and a damnable lie.


Mr. BALDWIN:: I want to ask the hon. member a question. Is it not a fact that the soldiers cast for you from ten to seventeen hundred votes which Mr. O'Connor disallowed because the voters had votes in other constituencies than yours?


Brigadier General GRIESBACH:: I have no knowledge of that. At all events, I could not control the votes, even if that statement is correct.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Let me ask you another question. How many polls in West Edmonton had ballot boxes containing anywhere from one to three hundred ballots short?


Brigadier General GRIESBAOH:: I was
in France at the time and consequently 1 do not know what happened.


Mr. DUFF:: I understood the hon. member to say that he knew all about the whole Canadian corps and how they had voted,- both officers and men.


Brigadier General GRIESBACH:: No.


George Brecken Nicholson: I desire to say just a few words with regard to the resolution that is now before the House.
In doing so I wish at the outset to say that the resolution, and the debate that has taken place, have at least served one purpose. They have shown clearly the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite will never forgive the Canadian soldiers for the part they took in the election in December, 1917. In my judgment there are two reasons for this. The first is that it was the Canadian soldiers, and the things for which the Canadian soldiers stood, that made the issue that proved so disastrous to the reactionary elements in the political life of this country in 1917. It was the knowledge of the situation facing our boys in France, it was the realization of the situation with which our Allies were confronted, and it was the plea sent home by our boys "For God's sake send us reinforcements before the Sine breaks", that caused the right-thinking people of this country to stiffen their backs and to determine, let the consequences be what they would and the circumstances be what they might that Canada was going to back these boys at the front to the extent of the last man and the last dollar. When you add to that the fact that these men in France, and the men in England who were preparing to go to France, presumed to mark their ballots for candidates whom they Icnew would support any effort necessary to furnish them with the reinforcements they so urgently required, you can readily understand, Sir, why it is that the hon. gentlemen are prepared to pour their anathemas on the heads of the Canadian soldiers.


Jacques Bureau: I deny that statement. I never poured any anathemas on the heads of our Canadian soldiers. I said they were the best boys in the world. The anathema is on the Government and I do not want the hon. gentleman to impute any motives or to put into our mouths words that we did not utter.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am not
imputing motives and if the hon. gentleman will possess his soul in patience for a
few minutes I think I will be able to demonstrate to this House that hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) have poured anathemas on the heads of Canadian soldiers who presumed to mark their ballots in 1917.


Jacques Bureau: I say that is a false statement and ought to be withdrawn. The only people accused are the Government. We never said anything against the soldiers; on the contrary we have praised them.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker-
M. BUREAU: I rise to a point of order. The bon. gentleman has no right to put into my mouth, since I am included with the others, words which I never uttered.


George Brecken Nicholson: I never put
any words into the mouth of the hon. member for Three Rivers.


Jacques Bureau: You put-anathemas.


George Brecken Nicholson: It is not necessary for me to put any words in the mouth of the hon. member for Three Rivers. If my sense of hearing has been good I think he has been able to utter sufficient words of his own to demonstrate clearly the position that he occupies in regard to this question. If he will possess his soul in patience for a few minutes I think I will satisfy even him that the statement I have made is correct. There were some of us in this country, who thought, perhaps due to lack of our ability to explore the depths to which hon. gentlemen will go in their effoits to stigmatize the motives of those with whom they do not agree, that after the fiasco we witnessed in this House in 1918 we would hear no more of this question. But when we realized that the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) himself had ' taken to his bosom, and become the personal champion of, the political buccaneer who prepared the brief upon which this case is based we were forced to ask the question:	"vindictiveness, where are thy
limitations?" What, after all, is the burden of this resolution?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I rise to a point of
order. I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but I desire to tell him and this House, that no man living or dead prepared one line of the brief with regard to anything I said in this House but myself.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, at the moment, I am not going to be

diverted even by the leader of the Opposition. I will come to that a little later on and the House can judge for itself from the words that the hon. gentleman used in presenting this resolution whether he prepared the brief himself or not. What is the burden of the so-called charges that have been made in this resolution and the burden of the statements that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite in supporting it? It is true the leadei of the Opposition would undertake to have us believe that he is endeavouring to build up an argument, to support a contention, that the Government were guilty of some pernicious act in connection with the election of 1917. I for one, do not believe that even the leader of the Opposition is sufficiently simple minded to expect the members of the House of Commons to believe that that was what was behind his resolution. It is true the leader of the Opposition, and those who supported him, have undertaken to establish what they call a conspiracy. I am not a lawyer, the hon. member for Three Rivers and the hon. leader of the Opposition I understand are, but my judgment at the moment is that you cannot enter into a conspiracy unless there are two parties to that conspiracy. The Government cannot conspire (with itself; there must Ibe another party to the conspiracy. What are the allegations that the alleged conspiracy involves?-a system Iby which the votes of the soldiers were going to be switched in England and in France by a process of perjury, personation and intimidation!. In order that that might be accomplished who would they conspire with? The only persons that were involved were the Government and the soldiers in France and England. If there was a conspiracy, as alleged, who was the second party to that conspiracy? Was it not the soldiers in France or the soldiers in England, and are they not the imen wim have 'been charged throughout the whole of this debate with having committed all the crimes within the political calendar, such as perjury, personation and intimidation? I wonder if the hon. member for Three Rivers will rise in his place now and say that he has not charged that the soldiers who cast their 'ballots in France, in England, in Scotland-


Joseph Archambault: In St. Johns.


Mr. POWER:: In Quebec.


George Brecken Nicholson: -I will come to that in a little while-did not commit these crimes?


Jacques Bureau: Do you want me to answer? I charge, in .answer to the question of the .hon. member, that there was a conspiracy between the Government and certain heads who had the administration of the Military Service Act to despoil the soldier of his vote.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman-and I will quote extracts from his own statements in a few moments-read to us name after name of the men who he charged with having committed perjury-


Jacques Bureau: I said, Sir, they were the victims of this conspiracy and as a result they had to do that or else be ill-treated by their superior officers.


George Brecken Nicholson: If you will turn, Mr. Speaker, to page 770 of Hansard, October 1, 1919, you will find that the hon. gentleman filled almost the whole of one page with the names of men who he told this House swore to having been residents in a part of the country that he claimed they were .not residents of.


Jacques Bureau: Under the threat of the officer who was presiding, Mr. Purney.


George Brecken Nicholson: There is no word of that in print.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


George Brecken Nicholson: Does the hon. gentleman want to add to the allegation that he has already made against the Canadian soldiers the charge that they were so ignorant and so puerile that 50,000 or 100,000 of them would walk up to a desk, take a Bible in their hand, and commit perjury because some one stood over them and told them that they had to do it?


Jacques Bureau: Does the hon. gentleman want me to answer the question ? They were never sworn, but they were entered in the ballot as having sworn, and the officer -Captain Burke, a brother-in-law of Mr. Speaker-did it. There is the guilty party to the conspiracy.


George Brecken Nicholson: The hon. member may squirm as he chooses.


Jacques Bureau: I may do what?


George Brecken Nicholson: The hon. member may squirm as he chooses.


Jacques Bureau: You are doing the
squirming.


George Brecken Nicholson: Am I?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


George Brecken Nicholson: I readily understand that hon. gentlemen opposite have misapprehended the position they were getting into the whole course of this debate.


Jacques Bureau: I do not want to be
guided by you; do not worry.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Jacques Bureau: Get another argument.


George Brecken Nicholson: I will read what the hon. gentleman said:
Mr. Bureau:	I have pages of this. This is
as far as SpringhiU is concerned. Let us see how votes were polled in Amherst. These are some of the names that are given: No. 4*57723, J. H. Skinner, swore that he resided in Amherst. On looking up the records of the Militia Department, we find that Mr. Skinner is a resident of (Montreal, Que. No. 406212, Sgt. Wiseman, swore that he resided in Amherst. We find that his residence is in Brantford, hut that he enlisted at Hamilton, Ont. No. 736956, A. Russell, swore that he resided in Amherst.
Is there anything in that, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that somebody by the name of Burke was committing this perjury? In each of these cases the hon. gentleman states that the soldier swore he resided in these places, while he goes on to say that the statement made by the soldier is incorrect and that he did not reside there.


Jacques Bureau: That is indicated on the ballot and those ballots were irregular, as has been sworn.


George Brecken Nicholson: If the hon. member
will be patient, I want to be perfectly fair with him.


Jacques Bureau: You cannot be.


George Brecken Nicholson: I want to be at least as fair as the hon. gentleman himself.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must ask
hon. members not to interrupt the speaker without his consent and then only to ask a question. In doing so, they must rise and address the Chair.


Jacques Bureau: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


George Brecken Nicholson: I can readily understand the fact that the hon. gentleman, reading this information, would be under the impression that there was something in connection with these statements that might lead to the conclusion that these men had committed perjury. But if he had been associated with voluntary recruiting in this country, if he had been living in a part of Canada where voluntary recruiting was taking place, he would have found that it was a perfectly natural consequence of
the system under which 400,000 Canadians were enrolled in the overseas forces that men might, and in the majority of cases naturally did, enlist at points that were not their residence. I can give the hon. member some concrete cases. The town in which I live furnished more than 300 men for the overseas forces, and only 57 of them enlisted in that town. The reason for it was that it was not established as a recruiting station until the second year of the war. The balance of them enlisted in Sudbury, North Bay, Ottawa, Montreal, Kingston, Toronto, Niagara Falls, Valcar-tier, and any other point where recruiting was taking place. They were shown on the records of the Militia Department as having enlisted at the point of enlistment, when they came forward to cast their ballots.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that on the attestation paper the place of birth or the domicile of the man in question is given?


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, I am aware of all that, but the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), in his remarks to the House yesterday, said that in the record of the Militia Department it will be shown that these men enlisted at different points in Canada. I repeat that the town where a man enlisted is no evidence whatever of where his residence was.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No*, but his residence is given on the attestation papers; he swore to it.


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, I know. The hon. member for Three Rivers and hon gentlemen opposite have stated he swoie and swore what was false.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I say he swore tto his attestation paper.


George Brecken Nicholson: Let me repeat it again: The reason why hon. gentlemen opposite find so much difficulty in understanding the fact that soldiers gave their
11 p.m. place of original residence as some other point than the place where they enlisted is because they are entirely out of touch with the system und.er which men were secured as volunteers for the Canadian overseas forces.


Jacques Bureau: Tut, tut!


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


George Brecken Nicholson: I recognize the fact that it is my privilege to extend my sympathy to the hon. gentleman for being in such a 'position. He is the object of the

sympathy of every man who had anything to do in raising that volunteer army. But, notwithstanding the fact that he is the object of that sympathy, I, .as one of those who had something to do with the raising of that volunteer army and know something of the men who went over there, am not going to sit silent and hear these men traduced in the manner in which they have been traduced here. I do not want to detain the House but I want to read something else from the speech of the hon. gentleman. Speaking yesterday afternoon, and in a voice that quivered with emotion, he read to the House this statement-and it is of such a character that I ask your pardon, Mt. Speaker, for repeating it, I believe in the face of what we have been listening to during this debate it is worth While:
The most unspeakable of all crimes is tc violate the sanctity of the grave and to lay profane hands upon the dead.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear.


Mr. NICHOLSON (Reading):: When there is an earthquake, a fire, or a civil disturbance, with loss of life in some great city, the order first to be given and most readily obeyed is to shoot down without mercy the ghoul found looting the bodies of the dead.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am glad that some hon. gentlemen appreciate that; it is an evidence to me of a soul-awakening, and I trust that when I get through with this quotation and what it will lead up to, hon. members opposite will realize a little more fully just the position that they have been taking with regard to 'this whole matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


George Brecken Nicholson: Don't get excited; the question will come soon enough, (reading):
But the ghoul who merely takes a few pennies from the body of a stranger lying dead upon the street is a petty offender in comparison with the vampire who breaks into the sacred tomb of the honoured dead and seeks to filch from the departed his good name and reputation.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Three Rivers read that. statement in order to fasten on the hon. member from Red Deer the charge of having misquoted the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It is not necessary for me to defend the member for Red Deer; he is perfectly capable of taking oare of himself, and I have no doubt that in due time he will give answer to the allegation
[Mr. Nicholson.!
which the hon. member for Three Rivers has made.
I repeated what the hon. member for Three Rivers said in order that I might, if I could, bring him to a realization of the position in which he and the members surrounding him are placed in connection with this whole debate. Mr. Speaker, this country of ours has hosts of honoured dead. We may trace our history back three hundred years, and in all the pages of that history we find records of men whom we are privileged to honour. But in the whole of that host of honoured dead there is no element that will command the veneration and pride of this country throughout succeeding generations in the same degree as will that host of honoured dead who lie to-night in the fields of France and Flanders. What do hon. gentlemen opposite think of the ghouls who open up the graves in France and Flanders in order to take from these men, who stood facing the Hun, and holding the line in order that this country might remain free that the member for Three Rivers might have the privilege of speaking in a free parliament, the reputation that went with them from this country as respectable and honoured citizens?
What is the charge? It is simply this: That tens of thousands of Canadian soldiers who are to-night sleeping in France, in the performance of the last civil act that it was their privilege to perform, committed perjury, personation and all kinds of political crimes, some of them utterly unspeakable. And what did honourable gentlemen opposite add to that charge? I do not hear quite so much cheering from honourable members opposite just at the moment. Let me repeat that I trust that their cheers of a few moments ago give evidence of a soul-awakening that will make them realize something of what the awfulness of this war has meant.


An hon. MEMBER:: Get some cheers from your own side.


George Brecken Nicholson: I quote again from the remarks of the honourable member for Three Rivers:
it was not to establish the position of the hon. member for Red Deer in this House that he made that quotation. The quotation was made, whatever his protestations may have been, for the purpose of hurting the feelings of the men who sit on your left, Mr. Speaker.
The feelings of honourable members on the other side are very tender. I wonder if they realize what the feelings of the thousands of Canadian fathers and mothers, wives and sisters, must be when they hear

the charge hurled back and forth in this House, bandied about by men outside the House whom honourable gentlemen opposite themselves would not believe on their oaths, that the last civil act that these soldiers were privileged to perform was an act of perjury or personation?
I wish to refer to something that was said by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) as reported on page 565 of Hansard, September 24 last. I quote:
Their own commanders and officers and every one under their thumb and control, officers who were preaching to these men only the Sunday before the election in such term's as these: " Gentlemen, we do not want 99 per cent of your votes; we want 100 per cent " ? That was the exhortation of generals, colonels, and others from the top to the bottom.. . The soldiers were told if they would not vote as told 'by their officers they would be immediately sent to the trenches, where likely they would be killed.
The member for Erontenac (Mr. Edwards) drew attention to that and asked the leader of the Opposition to define clearly what he meant, because, like every other decent man in this House, the member for Frontenac was loth to believe that any man could be found anywhere who would make a charge of that character against the soldiers who were fighting our battles overseas. Whom did thd hon. member mean by the "generals, colonels, majors, captains and lieutenants?" One of the generals is sitting in this House. One of the colonels has the privilege of occupying a seat in this House. Did he mean either of these? Did he name any one? No; he simply made a blanket accusation that every general, every colonel, every officer in the Canadian forces gave his men to understand that if they did not vote as he desired he would send them to the front line trenches, where they would be shot. We have from time to time heard many startling accusations against people in this country with regard to what took place at the time of an election, but it remained for hon. gentlemen opposed to assert that there was any man in this country so low that he would say to another: You will either vote as I tell you to vote, or I will have you shot. What is the meaning of that? It simply means that the officers were going to send to the front line trenches men to be shot who otherwise would not have had to go to the front line trenches at all. It means that or it does not mean anything.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what are these charges based on? The leader of the Opposition says that he has a telegram. Whether it is a bogus telegram or a stolen telegram-a document secured from some one-he is not willing to produce it or tell the House who obtained it. We have had the privilege of reading from Hansard statements that were made in this House in 1918 on this same subject, and we have the right to assume that this case was built up in the same way as the case presented then by the member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) was built up. What did he base that on? The unsupported statements of the most completely discredited political blackleg that ever disgraced the politics of this country. Let me repeat it again-a man that the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) himself would not believe on his oath. That is the basis for this whole charge. If I said to you, Sir, that this whole case from beginning to end was a fabrication of miserable falsehoods, I have not the slightest doubt that you would declare that I was out of order. If I said that the whole case from beginning to end was a miserable, contemptible slander, I believe again that you would declare that I was out of order.
Mr. CANNON; Say it.	,


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I leave the matter to you and I say to this House that with my limited knowledge and understanding of parliamentary language, I cannot find words with which to express the unutterable contempt that decent men must feel for the spineless class of cowards who would slander by a blanket application of slander, shielded as they are by a privileged position-


Georges Henri Boivin: OrdeT.


George Brecken Nicholson: -a class of men not one of whom they dare name.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I must ask the hon. member to withdraw those remarks. The moment he applies them to a class of men shielded by the position which they occupy, it is evident that he is referring to hon. members of this House, and the remarks are absolutely unparliamentary.


George Brecken Nicholson: I readily bow to your ruling. As I stated a few moments ago, my command of parliamentary language is not sufficient, and I question whether there is in this House a man who can command language sufficient to express-let me repeat it again-the unutterable contempt that decent men must feel for this whole performance. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) speaking in this House a few days ago said that men

never rose very high by endeavouring to pull other people down. I say that if public life is ever going to become what it should be, it will not he by hon. members going down into the slime and filth-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Brecken Nicholson: in which
W. T. R. Preston chooses to wallow in order that they may possibly get out from those depths a little dirt with which to blacken their political opponents.


Mr. LUCIEN CANNON (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great attention to the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Nicholson), and I will pay the hon. member the compliment of saying that my remarks in answer to his speech will be very brief. During the war the Germans introduced into warfare several new methods. They sank ships carrying women and children; they sent out poison gas; but to the horror of the civilized world, in the dying days of the war, the Germans placed lines of women and children that they had taken from French cities, in front of their army, so as to keep the Allied armies from firing upon themselves. The method adopted by the Germans in the field has been adopted by the Government and by the hon. member for Algoma East in this debate. When we call upon the members of this Government and of this House to answer to the country and to the people of Canada for their conduct and behaviour during 1917, they place before themselves the noble army of Canadian boys, and they say: If you fire on us, you fire on them.
At this late hour, I do not wish to detain the House very long; but on this side of the House we have a very high admiration for our Canadian army, and our admiration may be better founded than the admiration that is boasted of on the other side, because we have more disinterestedness; we are not always talking about the soldiers; we are not always talking about the boys at the front. We want to be judged on our own merits, and we have never called on the boys who were at the front to win any battle for us in this Parliament. As regards the hon. member for Algoma East, I have heard him several times in this House viciously attacking the members from the province of Quebec, and particularly attacking myself.


George Brecken Nicholson: I rise to say to the hon. member that he never heard the

hon. member for Algoma East attacking the members in debate, and I challenge him to cite a case.


Lucien Cannon: I can only say in answer to the hon. member that then his vices are unconscious, unfortunately so. I have heard the hon. member attack the province of Quebec, attack the members from Quebec.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The
hon. member should accept the denial made by the hon. member for Algoma East and not repeat the statement.


Lucien Cannon: I bow to your decision. 1 had said that the hon. member had attacked my province viciously. The hon. member says that he has not attacked it viciously. I substitute for the word "viciously" the word "bitterly", and I say that as far as we are concerned!-


George Brecken Nicholson: I say to the hon. member that I never attacked his province, nor any person in his province in any shape, manner, or form, bitterly or viciously, and if he can cite a case where I did, all right.


Lucien Cannon: I can only say to the hon. member for Algoma East that if his remarks made to-night are not an attack on my province and on the members from my province, the hon. gentleman does not generally know what he is saying when he gets up in the House to talk. English is not my mother tongue; my mother tongue is French, but I know enough English grammar, and I have read and learned enough English to understand from the hon. member that he was attacking this side of the House when he spoke a minute ago, and when he did speak, he attacked us viciously and bitterly. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Griesbach) addressed this House. I have nothing to say as regards the military record of that hon. member. I admired his career at the front; I followed his promotions at the front, and I think every member of this House is proud of the military record of that hon. member.
But if the hon. member for Edmonton is a noble soldier whom everybody in this .House admires, he still may not be a good parliamentarian. He knows everything about the military art. Whenever he made an attack it was made in accordance with the hest rules of warfare, but I have some advice to give to my hon, friend: Let him learn the rules of parliamentary warfare as well as those of actual warfare. If he had known those rules I do not think he would have taken any part in this debate.

He is a gentleman who was elected over the Hon. Frank Oliver, although the civilian voie gave Hon. Frank Oliver a majority of over 800. The hon. member's election was contested. Fraud was alleged. There were seventy-three different charges of fraud against the hon. member, and I think that in a debate of this kind the noble and gallant member for Edmonton .should have remained silent.	,
I said that I did not wish to address this House very long. But 1 want to say a word with regard to the campaign waged by a newspaper, called The Montreal Gazette. The Montreal Gazette is a paper printed and published in the city of Montreal. It represents the Tory ideas in their most advanced form. The Montreal Gazette, like any other newspaper, has a right to combat for and defend any principles it chooses to advocate, but I say that The Montreal Gazette and any representative of The Montreal Gazette in the press gallery of this House has no right to insult the members of the House. I do not care who writes for The Montreal Gazette nor who represents The Montreal Gazette, but a principle which the journalists in Ottawa as anywhere else should never forget is that when they are admitted to hear and report the debates of this House they owe some respect to the members of the House. The Montreal Gazette says that in this debate the Liberal party is only bringing on a discussion which is a slur on the soldiers. We are not making any slurs on the soldiers, but we say that if the Government of Canada, or the officers of the Canadian army in France, forced the soldiers to vote in a way they should not have voted, the Government of Canada and the superior officers of the Canadian army should be brought before an investigating committee and every fact ought to be known.
The Montreal Gazette says that the Liberal party in this debate is trying to air old grievances. These are not old grievances. As far as the members for the province of Quebec are concerned, we are not afraid of the stand we took during the war. The stand we took during the war was the stand that we considered Canadian. We might have been wrong, but we were sincere, and I think that is more than lots of other people can say. The Montreal Gazette says that we are bringing on a debate which is nothing but petty politics.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Cannon: The gentleman who writes these articles and the members of this House who say "Hear, hear when I mention petty
politics seem to be ignorant of the history of the constitution of England. They seem to forget that at the basis of this very .question we are discussing there is the great and eternal question of the freedom of the people.
I have heard members on the other side of the House on several occasions ask: "Why should the member for Dorchester discuss matters of this kind? He only had six military votes in his county." Mr. Speaker, the time has come for me to make a brief explanation as far as my county is concerned. In 1914 when war broke out, who represented the county of Dorchester in this House? Was.it your humble servant, Mr. Speaker? No. It was Hon. Mr. Sevigny, who was then Deputy Speaker, or Speaker, of the House of Commons. He was the man responsible to the Government of Canada and to the people of Canada for the conduct and behaviour of his people. I was then member for the Local House. I had nothing to do with enrollment or enlisting as far as federal laws or federal politics was concerned. Not only did Mr. Sevigny, the colleague of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), not do anything in 1914, but when the Minister of Militia of that day, Sir Sam Hughes, wanted to mobilize the 92nd Battalion, which is the battalion of Dorchester, Mr. Sevigny interfered and told him not to do it, because it would hurt his political chances. The war went on, and the situation became more and more serious. What did the then member for Dorchester do? We have in the House to-night the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), who were colleagues of the Hon. Mr. Sevigny at that time, and I defy them or any member of this House to say that the then hon. member for Dorchester in 1914, 1915, 1916 or 1917 ever held a single recruiting meeting in the constituency of Dorchester which he represented. But it is against me that the reproaches are made; it is against me they direct their attacks. As I have already said, I was then member for the Local House, and whenever the Premier of my province, Sir Lomer Gouin, proposed anything to promote the cause of the Allies I always gave him my vote, because I believed in the sacredness of our cause. Then, in 1917, Mr. Sevigny, on account of his patriotic efforts which I have just related, was chosen by the Prime Minister of this country to be a minister in the Borden Government. A byelection took place, and I resigned my seat in the Local House to run against Mr. Sevigny. Why? Because I thought that his

past history precluded him from properly representing the people of Dorchester, and from advising His Majesty the King in the troublesome times we were passing through. I resigned my mandate and said to the people of Dorchester that a Nationalist should not 'be chosen. I ran against Mr. Sevigny, and the Government directed all their efforts towards my defeat. The sum of $100,000 was spent. Never in the history of Canada was such a fraudulent election carried on. I was beaten, but when I went down to defeat I could say that my honour was still safe, because I had done nothing that I could reproach myself with. Mr. Speaker-and I call the attention of the ministers to this fact-in those days Iron. Mr. Sevigny 'proclaimed on every hustings in Dorchester that never would there be conscription, because he had the Prime Minister's word for what he was saying. The colleague of hon. Mr. Sevigny at that time, a man who ran in two constituencies in Quebec and was defeated, hon. Mr. Blondin, who was rescued from disaster by a benevolent Government that sent him to the Senate, said in the parish of Ste. Rose in the presence of npy hon. friend from Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou):	"Never
will we have conscription. But if we should have conscription why worry about it? The American border is close by; you will go to the United States and escape the law." Mr. Speaker, in this debate, when we ask that the honour of Canada and the honour of Parliament be safeguarded, I hear men like the hon. member from Algo-ma (Mr. Nicholson) make the charge: "You are not patriotic." Well, my answer is-and it is an answer given long ago- "Very often patriotism is hut the last refuge of a scoundrel."
I do not wish to detain the House at any great length, but-


Edmund William Tobin: Go on.


Lucien Cannon: -I cannot allow this debate to close without replying in a few words to the speeches delivered on the other side of the House, and especially the speech of my hon. friend from Fronte-nac (Mr. Edwards). The hon. member for Frontenac answers the attack against the Government-


An hon. MEMBER:: This is a love feast.


Ernest Lapointe: North and South.


Lucien Cannon: He replies to the attack
upon the Guvernment by the old tu quoque.


Mr. MORPHY:: Translate.


Lucien Cannon: For the translation I
shall refer the hon. gentleman to Cicero who said, "Contumelia non est argumen-tum." To my hon. friend from Frontenac, I say:	Don't mention political scandals
in this House, because if you want to refer to political scandals in connection with the Liberal party you must go back twenty-five years ago, whereas on this side, if we care to mention scandals, we have only to turn to pages of recent history and ask the hon. member for Frontenac to read, for his edification, the trial of Roblin, Caldwell, Montagu and others in the Winnipeg criminal courts. Before leaving my hon. friend from Frontenac I wish to	tell him	this:	When I first
arrived in this House I was told that the hon. gentleman was a very good fighter, and he is; and I like good fighters. But this year I notice that he loses some of his punch, some of his pep; and while I was listening-


Ernest Lapointe: The lure of the
Senate.


Lucien Cannon: -I said to myself, " He is training for the Senate."
Another hon. gentleman who spoke on the Government side is my friend the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who is not here.


Jacques Bureau: Where is he?


Lucien Cannon: The member for Trois
Rivieres had a few things to say about the member	for Red Deer (Mr.	M.
Clark) and I shall not add very much to what he said. But I will say this-and that gentleman can read it in Hansard-that when he gets up in this House and gives us his lessons in English history, I challenge him to show me, in justification of such conduct as that which we are now discussing, one line, one word, one syllable that can be found in any of the speeches of those at whose knees he is supposed to have learned his politics- Bright, Cobden, Gladstone, all those great Liberal statesmen. It is a great thing to say, " I represent Liberalism:	I know
what Liberal principles are, and I enunciate those principles for you to follow." It is easy enough for the hon. doctor to get up in this House and change the roles and become schoolmaster, hut I will refer him to a French author whose name was Mol-iere, and who said many years ago: " Medecin, gueris toi toi-meme"-Doctor, cure thyself.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the last member to whom I shall refer, the last but not the least, is the Minister of the Interior

(Mr. Meighen). I say candidly, Mr. Speaker, that I admire that hon. minister. My hon. friend from Three Rivers does not seem to have as high a degree of admiration for him as I have, but I do admire his talent and his eloquence, and I admire his legal knowledge. But I will tell him one thing, and that is that this Parliament is a serious court of justice, and.if he wishes his talent to be admired in the future he must come before this House with serious arguments worthy of his own capacity. The hon. minister said: " Tt may be right, it may be wrong. It may be anything at all." He uttered the watchword, " Patriotism," and wrapping himself in the Union Jack he turned to his supporters and said: " Cheer! cheer! I represent Great Britain and the British Empire." Mr. Speaker, the speech of the minister may be summed up in a few words. According to him, the end justifies the means. Would that hon. gentleman or any other member of this House say that rape was excusable because it was a process to motherhood? Mr. Speaker, I can say to this House that the minister has no right to talk about patriotism after the conduct of the Government during the last election. I have seen soldiers who came back from the other side. An hon. member on the other side said that we had no soldiers in Quebec. Well, I have seen-soldiers from my constituency, I have seen soldiers from Quebec, and there were soldiers from my own family, and I know what took place on the other side. Official canvassers appointed by this Government went to the soldiers overseas and told them to vote in favour of the Union Government so that they might be enabled to go back home. Is that patriotism? Patriotic motives.
Mr. Speaker, very often in this country we hear of profiteers, and the greatest war profiteers that we have are the members of the Government.
If it had not been for the war they would not have been in office. Since the armistice they have only remained in office on account of the war. I am not surprised that we have not yet ratified the treaty with Bulgaria. This Government is in no hurry to terminate a state o>f war, it is its only safeguard and protection, its only means of remaining in power.
When we say anything, 'these hon. gentlemen cover the heap of iniquity with the Union Jack and say, "We are at war; be careful; do not say anything; the British Empire is in danger; we are saving the Empire; do not interfere with our work".
The people are getting sick and tired of seeing you gentlemen saving the British Empire. New doctors will have to he called in.
The question before the House may be summed up as follows: The action of the Minister of the Interior is either legal or illegal. If it is legal why should the Government object to an investigation; why should -the Government refuse an investigation to enable the Opposition to prove something that is lawiful and legal? If it is illegal, not only is an investigation useful, but it is necessary. I do not wish 'to go into the details of this case. You have heard the facts .as they have been brought before the House. We have a prima facie case of fraudulent conspiracy. An investigation should be granted. Moreover, if we have this investigation, if it is shown that, according to law, as the minister contended, he had the right .to send the telegram he sent, it is high time that the law should be changed. If he had no right to send that telegram, it is high time the minister should be punished.
I will finish these few remarks but I will ask these hon. gentlemen on the other side to remember the day when in this country we fought for the freedom and the liberty of the ballot. The last principle to be conquered was that of the freedom and the secrecy of the ballot. That principle has come to the people of this country as a result of the effort of the Liberal party. If there is .anything essential to the constitution of the Canadian people it is the independence of Parliament from interference by the executive. Go back to the history of England, to the time when Sir Robert Walpole was premier, to the time of the placemen, when the executive used to choose the representatives of the people; go back to the time of the Duke of Newcastle; .go to the time of the Georges when the executive used to choose the members of Parliament. England in those days was suffering because of a lack of parliamentary freedom. But her institutions have been improved. To-day her executive does not tamper with the choice of the people's representatives. At this last election the Government of Canada did interfere, and if we have an investigation, if the facts are brought forward, if a report is made, the new electoral law that will be brought in will be an electoral law of such a nature that two elementary principles will be safeguarded-the freedom of the ballot and the independence of Parliament.



Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to enter upon a lengthy discussion of the matter before the House but I desire to draw attention- to the terms of the resolution submitted by the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Me-Kenzie). After reciting the telegram alleged to have been sent by the hon, -the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) the resolution proceeds:	.
-and, whereas, the said telegram indicates the existence of a widespread system' of manipulation of votes, under the direction and with the approval of ministers of the Crown, for the purpose of defeating the will of the Canadian people as expressed at the polls, and
Whereas, such scheme of manipulation involves not only the honour of the ministers concerned, but the constitutional rights of the people.
And that therefore this committee should be granted.
I desire, Mr. Speaker, to draw the attention of the House to the terms and basis of the resolution. The basis upon which a parliamentary committee is asked is that the telegram discloses a scheme for the manipulation of votes and involves the honour of the ministers concerned.. There is no question that the resolution directly challenges the honour of the Prime Minister who is said to have received the telegram, -and of the Minister Of the Interior who is said to have sent it. That is the basis of the resolution -before the House-. There is a well understood and thoroughly constitutional practice, .as was pointed out by the Minister of the Interior, when any hon. member desires to impugn the honour of another member of the House, and particularly of a minister of the 'Crown. If the 'leader of the Opposition had, upon his responsibility as a member of the House, made a charge impugning the honour of a member of the Government, he would be entitled, as a matter of course, to a committee of investigation. The hon. member has not done that but has based his charge upon this telegram.
It has been suggested .that if the -law permits such a telegram, such a law should no longer continue in existence. The law under which the vote was taken was the Military Voters Act. It was passed by this House in the year 1917. It was the law for taking the votes of soldiers overseas -and in 'Canada in the General Election of 1917. That law is no longer in operation. It has -ceased to be effective. It no longer

affects any election that may be held. If the desire is to secure a change in the law, that cannot be accomplished by this motion for the Jaw has ceased to be effective.
Hon. members may challenge the law; they may say that the provision of the law whereby men who had no settled residence in Canada were given the vote should not have been -adopted. That was a debatable question. That question was debated in this House in 1917 and the House decided that these men should have a vote. Therefore, under this law, these men became entitled to vote. We cannot now pass under review that legislation. It was there for better or for worse. We must take it as it stood. Then the only question that arises now is whether that law was honestly administered in so far as 'the ministers of the Crown were -concerned, and that is the question raised by this motion.
The question is whether the Prime Minister and the Minister -of the Interior acted honestly and in pursuance of the law of the land, in any action they took or were guilty of some fraudulent conspiracy, as the hon. member has said, to defeat the wiLl of the people by acting contrary to the law.
. I was not in the House in 1917 when the law was passed. I did follow the discussion in the House and gathered something of the meaning of that legislation; and I want to say that in respect of no Act that passed this Parliament in recent times has there been more widespread misunderstanding than in respect to this particular piece of legislation. I know it because of the enquiries I received from candidates contesting constituencies in the province of Ontario and from men representing both sides of the House. The opinion appeared to be widespread that there was some power somewhere in the Government to allot ballots to particular constituencies, and I received communications from different candidates, from some members of the House even, asking me to see either that ballots were allotted in favour of certain candidates, or that ballots were not allotted against some other candidate. I had to reply, and was glad to reply, that the law made no provision for any such thing, that there was no right to allot ballots to any candidate in any constituency but the voter himself must determine the constituency in which he desired to vote. There was no right of -selection unless he had no previous residence in Canada; if there was no previous residence in Canada, then he had the right

to select his constituency. There were some ten or twelve thousand voters, it was said- I do not know how many there were-who had this right of selection. There is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that so far as those ten or twelve thousand voters were concerned, men on both sides would seek to persuade them to place their ballots in the constituencies where they thought they would do the most good.


An hon. MEMBER:: Or harm.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Or harm, as my hon.
friend says. That was the legislation. There is not an hon. member in this House who will not say that that was the way that law would be worked out, and the only way it could be worked out.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many of them wrote overseas to get an allotment?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There may have been
several who wrote overseas to get an allotment. But let us look at the matter frankly. What was the situation? Ten or twelve thousand men entitled to vote, not having previously resided in Canada, not knowing any particular constituency, desired to place their vote in favour of either the Government or the Opposition-in fact the great majority of the soldiers who did have a domicile in a particular constituency, did not vote for a particular candidate; the record shows they voted for the Government or the Opposition, as the case may be. Then, so far as those ten or twelve thousand voters were concerned, the position of the Government or the Opposition would be this: to communicate with these soldiers and induce them by legitimate and proper means to give their votes in the constituencies where it was thought they would be most effective for the Government or the Opposition, as the case might be-for whichever side they chose to vote. Now that was the situation. Then this telegram is produced. The Minister of the Interior has made his own statement about it and he has told the House, that, while he has no recollection of sending it, if he did send it that is what the telegram meant.
12 midnight. It meant that they desired that in case of the voters wlm were entitled to place their votes wherever they liked they should ask them to place the votes in the constituency mentioned according to numbers indicated.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is perfectly clear that that was the law and they were entitled to do so. You may not agree with the law,
51*
some members of the House did not agree with it, but that was the law.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Does the Minister assert that seriously?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I assert absolutely that the soldiers who had had no previous domicile in Canada and were British subjects were entitled under the law to vote in any constituency which they might choose.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Without answering the
three questions?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, I did not say without answering the three questions. I said their right was to place their vote in any constituency they might choose. Of course they must vote in accordance with the terms of the law, or their ballot would be rejected, as thousands of ballots were rejected because the voters had not done so.


Frank S. Cahill: What was meant by ther words in the telegram: " Springfield, no matter what our allotment may be. " How does that comply with the law?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not know what was meant-
Some hon. A1EMBERS: Oh, oh.


Newton Wesley Rowell: But I can very easily-


An hon. MEMBER:: Only one thing.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -I can very easily suggest what might be meant by it. If there were ten or twelve thousand voters at large, and the Government hoped to get about ninety per cent of these votes, as they did over ninety per cent of all soldiers' votes, then they might endeaver to see that a certain number of those soldiers voted in Manitoba. That might be what is referred to. That might be a very natural explanation-I do not know whether it was the explanation or not.


Frank S. Cahill: What about Springfield?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: With this promiscuous voting going on over two continents, of this very class of soldiers that the minister speaks of, by what means, scheme or device could three hundred, or one thousand votes be put in any particular county?
Air. ROW'ELL: They could not be placed in any particular county. All that could be done would be to indicate to whoever might be the Government representatives, scrutineers in any particular district, that they would like two hundred or three hundred of these voters to place their vote, when they voted, in a particular constituency. When

you come to canvass a man the point is this: Instead of canvassing him to vote for John Brown you canvassed him to vote for the Government in a particular constituency. You canvassed five hundred to vote in constituency A, you canvassed five hundred to vote in constituency B, and you canvassed three or four hundred to vote in constituency C, and if the men wanted to vote for the Government, or wanted to vote for the Opposition then they would seek to place their vote in the constituency in which they were advised it would likely do the most good. Now that, it seems to me, is the situation, and you have there a full explanation of the whole telegram.


William Duff: Does the hon. member know the telegram was dated November 3 and the vote was more than half over at that time?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am told it was not half over at that time.


William Duff: When did they start?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not know.


William Duff: You ought to know.


Newton Wesley Rowell: So long as there were votes not polled that would apply to any such votes. In addition to what I have stated, I know this1: It was the desire of the Prime , Minister that that vote overseas should toe as fairly and legally-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -and honestly taken as a vote could be taken, and in order to secure that result the Prime Minister named Mr. Orde, K.C., of this city, ns the chief Government scrutineer in Canada. There is not a more honourable, straightforward citizen in Ottawa than Mr. Orde. Then he named Lieut.-Col. Thompson, of this city, as the chief Government scrutineer in England. Lieut.-Col. Thompson is an ex-Liberal member of this House, and a man who enjoys the confidence and esteem of men on both sides of the House. No member on either side will impugn the honour or integrity of Col. Thompson. The chief Government scrutineer in France was, I believe, Major Thomas Gibson, of Toronto, an officer serving overseas, a man of equally high standing in his profession, who enjoyed the confidence and esteem of men of tooth parties. The Government appointed the best men they could secure in order to ensure that this vote should be honestly taken and correctly counted in accordance with the provisions of the law. That irregularities did occur I [Mr. Rowell. 1
do not question. The fact that thousands of votes were thrown out shows that irregularities dicf occur. The fact that they were thrown out shows- that the vote was honestly *counted and that no ballots were counted excepting the ballots that were legally and properly cast.
As my hon. friend knows, both sides had scrutineers. The Act so provided. The law was so framed that both sides should have the opportunity of naming their own scrutineers and thus securing a fair vote and an accurate count of the vote. That is the general situation as I understand it relating to the taking of the vote.
As I said in opening, in this motion my hon. friend has impugned the honour of two ministers of the Grown on the basis of a telegram which is not proved and which is capable of a perfectly innocent and honourable explanation in accordance with the terms of the law. I repeat that the Prime Minister has no record of the receipt of the telegram. The Prime Minister is not in the House to answer for himself. The Prime Minister is not in the (House because during five years of war he has been giving of his ability and of his energy disinterestedly in the service of his country. If hon. gentlemen opposite will forget for the time being their party feeling and party prejudice I believe that not one of them will get up and -say that he believes that the Prime Minister deliberately and dishonestly sought to manipulate the soldiers' votes in the last election. If -any hon. member did say so, the people would not believe him. We may differ and we do differ on public questions; we may differ and do differ on great matters of public policy. But surely men should be big enough and broad-minded enough to respect the character of public men who are devoting themselves unselfishly to the public service. In view of the statement of the Minister of the Interior with reference to this telegram, the leader of the Opposition would do credit to himself and to the House if he would accept that statement and withdraw his motion. I am sure that without any hesitation, without any reservation, with a clear conscience, believing that they are only doing what is just and right, hon. gentlemen on this side will to-night vote down a resolution which impugns the honour of the Prime Minister of Canada,.
What I have said of the Prime Minister's desire to have an honest and legal vote is, I believe, equally true of the Minister of the Interior. He was a strong party man. He takes strong grounds on public ques-

tions. We may differ from him; you may differ from him; I may differ from him sometimes. But I am 'Confident that no lion, member believes that the Minister of the Interior would deliberately join in a conspiracy to defeat the will of the people by switching ballots or manipulating votes. Members of this House, in the same spirit and in the same feeling, will vote down this resolution so far as it concerns the Minister of the Interior.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Did the Minister of the Interior not say that it was all right and perfectly legal, if I may remark?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Well, iis (that not a good answer to the allegation made?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Does the minister persist then, in saying that whilst the men-.because the minister was arguing that the men had the right to place their votes- that whilst the men had that right, their superior officers also had that right and that the Government could collude with those officers?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I did not say that the Government had the right to do it; nobody had any right except the men themselves to place their votes.	-


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Exactly.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Minister of the Interior has told you that is what the telegram means, -and that is what it refers to.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Oh, the telegram is here.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is here, and the statement of the Minister of the Interior is here too.
It is unfortunately the case-every man who is in public life recognizes it-that in the heat of a political contest men do things which they would not do in their own business, which they would not do for themselves. It has been the habit to attempt to justify these things.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Newton Wesley Rowell: On both sides. Well, to excuse, then.


An hon. MEMBER:: You should not excuse.	_


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am not excusing; I am simply stating what every hon. member knows. One thing that has prevented some men from entering public life is the conditions which exist and have existed in this country in connection with elections.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It has put 'a great many out of public life


Newton Wesley Rowell: It should be the desire of hon. members on both sides of the House to put a stop to that sort of thing. There is absolutely no* excuse for ballot manipulation, for ballot stuffing, for ballot switching, for political corruption of any kind. If any military officer told his men that unless they voted for this Government or voted for somebody that he named they would be sent into the front line trenches, that military officer should be prosecuted to the full limit of the law, and if responsible members will make a charge against any military officer, so far as I am -concerned I will use all the influence I have to see that that man is prosecuted. Any man who -seeks to defeat the will of the people, to violate the law, to thwart the will of the people as expressed in the ballot, deserves to be punished to the full limit of the law.


William Daum Euler: Does the minister realize
that the action of the Government in inducing these soldiers to place their votes in certain -constituencies had as its only possible object the defeat of the will of the people in those particular constituencies?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not recognize
that, because it must be obvious to my hon. friend that the only reason why votes were -given, whether it was right or wrong to do i-t, to soldiers who had no domicile in Canada, and the reason why those soldiers were permitted to place their votes in any constituencies they liked, was to enable those soldiers to vote for the Government or the Opposition in -such constituencies as would do the one or the other the most good.


William Daum Euler: Would it not of necessity defeat the will of the bona fide residents of any particular constituency?


Newton Wesley Rowell: All I have to say,
Mr. Speaker, is that that was the law. I will admit that arguments could be advanced against that law. There were also arguments in its favour. It was argued in its favour that the men who enlisted in the army of Canada and offered their lives for the defence of Canada should be entitled to vote and have a voice in selecting the Government which was to administer the country's affairs. But whether we take one view or the other, that was the law, and the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Interior, or any member of the Government, in carrying out that law, so long as they did it honestly and fairly, are not open to any censure or criticism at the


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is the Minister of the Interior going away for a rest too?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to keep the House for more than a very few moments. What my colleague, the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) has just said sums up very fairly and clearly the real position with regard to the motion before the House. We have travelled, with the aid of the magnificent imaginative powers of hon. gentlemen on the other side, a very great distance away from this telegram, and we have had flights of eloquence and denunciations of practices of all kinds and a most admirable quotation describing the sanctity of the ballot box. Hon. gentlemen in this House have evidently been roused up to a very high pitch of indignation by a number of things that we have been told about in the course of this debate that have been made to rest, in some instances, on anonymous letters, or letters of gentlemen who did not like their names to be given, and in one or two instances upon the affidavits of particular soldiers who seemed to think, if they had the grave

complaint that their affidavits set forth, that, instead1 of going to those in authority over the military officers who are charged with having done this wrong of threatening the soldier if he did not vote in a particular way, instead of going to the superior officers of those men, who have it in their hands to do them justice, it was a wiser and more effective way to hand those letters in to hon." members of the Opposition who have also apparently thought that the wiser way to have those wrongs rectified was to keep those letters in their pockets until they could use them in support of a motion directed not against the people who threatened the soldier, not against the people who perpetrated the wrong that is alleged to have been perpetrated, but until they could use them in support of a motion in itself based upon the flimsiest of grounds and one directed against the honour of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) of this country and against the honour of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen). Hon. gentleman who have [DOT] been able to connect these isolated cases, to which they have referred as the basis for their eloquent indignation, with anything that is contained in the telegram, have proved themselves certainly masters in the field of imaginative deduction. What have they done and what has this motion given them? It has after all, roused, in this House a feeling which does not make for that concord between the people's representatives which ought to exist at the present time and be an example to those people themselves that we might hope that they would follow, as we certainly ought to appeal to them to follow it. Surely the present time is no moment for the opening up of old sores in a manner whiefi can have no effect but one, that is to say, to rouse what there may be of latent feeling of animosity in the breasts of any or all of us, arising out of incidents of the last election. Surely this is a time for us to be ocupying ourselves with those things that may bring us together in co-operation in the building up of this country; and surely the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) should not have expected this House to be in a disposition of mind to waste its time in acrimonious discussion about what happened in the recent election.
Mr. Speaker, let me not be misunderstood. I am not standing here deprecating any practical method that might be taken to bring to justice any man who was guilty of any offence in connection with the carrying on of the election, whether that man be soldier or civilian. But there are ways

of enforcing the law, and there are ways of using unfortunate incidents, that may be discovered to have happened in. the course of a general election that took place upon two continents, for the sole purpose of rousing political passion and making an appeal to the people oi this country for the purpose of discrediting men who, as has been so eloquently pointed out by the President of the Council, have, for the last four or five years, but especially for the last two years, given, without hesitation, unstintingly of the very best that is in them in the service of the country. And we are asked to do that on what? On an inference, on an interpretation of a telegram. I am not going to deal with that phase of the thing. The President of the Council has, i think, sufficiently pointed out how this telegram is perfectly susceptible of a perfectly innocent interpretation. Hon. gentlemen said:	Rut it was on the 30th of
November and voting had been going on long before that. True, voting had been begun, but voting went on until the 17th of December, and surely there were thousands, and thousands, and thousands, of votes amongst the soldiers on the other side and on this to be polled when the intimation was made that the sender of the telegram would like, that, in the requesting and direction of voters anxious to know where they should vote, one thousand should be asked to cast their votes in the province of Manitoba. We have had some discussions of different standards of ethics. For my part, I entirely fail to see what reproach would have been made to the leader of the Opposition if he found himself in face of soldiers entitled by law to vote at the place that they selected, either they asking him for advice or he not waiting	to	be	asked	for advice
because he, in the patriotic conviction that the interests of this country demand the return to power of the .party of which he is a distinguished member-face to face with those electors entitled to select a place of voting-had felt that it was his patriotic duty to advise them to cast that vote in the place where it would be most effective to produce what he believed to be the patr riotic purpose of having returned to power the party in which he had confidence.
Certainly I would not reproach him if he acted so, and certainly-I do not know whether I am going to condemn myself in the eyes of hon. gentlemen on the other side- I would have had no qualms of conscience in giving that advice. Surely if we go into public life and engage in an electoral contest earnestly convinced-and I believe with
regard to this side of the House and the other that as a rule the men who do present themselves to do as a rule with the honest conviction that the party whose flag they are carrying is the party whose election will be most beneficial to the country-I have always believed .that the man who undertook that task owed not merely to his party but to his country the exertion of every honest effort of which he was capable to assure the triumph of the party which in his belief would best serve his country. Unless it can be shown to me that there is something dishonourable in saying to a man to whom the law of this country gave the right to select a constituency in which he could vote, unless it can be shown that there is something dishonourable on the part of one who honestly believes that the success of the party to which he belongs is essential to the good of the country, and that it is a dishonourable thing for the man so placed to give advice which will lead to that vote being used in such a manner as to produce the largest effect of which it is capable in bringing about that result which the adviser believes to be the best result for his country, then I wish to say for myself that an honourable man taking up that telegram and reading it will not see anything evil in it. It takes an ingenuity-and there has been more ingenuity than ingenuousness bestowed upon the interpretation of this telegram-it takes an ingenuity of which I confess I am incapable to read that telegram as necessarily implying anything dishonourable, and if there had been no other circumstances than that the telegram in itself was at least susceptible of an innocent interpretation that in itself should have been conclusive to any man who knows the man to whom it was addressed and the man whose signature it bore, that that was the proper interpretation to attach to it.
Something has been said about the law, and I have been spoken of as sponsor for that law. I have no desire to deny that I put that law through the House, and I have no apologies to make for it. If ever the Parliament of Canada did a thing that under the circumstances was a rightful thing to do, it was when it passed that Act that secured to the men whom we thought good enough to fight for Canada the recognition that they were good enough to vote in Canada. In the face of such criticism as has been addressed to that law, I am quite prepared to say that I happen to be the man who conducted that Bill through the House,

and if it were to do over I would do it again with the same confidence that I was doing the right thing which inspired me when I did it in the past. Let me add that, though at the outset when that Bill was introduced there was a good deal of questioning and carping criticism, 'before we were done with it the Bill went through this House practically unanimously. It went through with the common consent that every possible effort should be made to secure the vote to the soldiers. We were all equally agreed, too, and none shared in that opinion more heartily and more honestly than myself, that the vote should be surrounded by every safeguard which it was possible to attach to it under the circumstances under which it had to be taken.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: The War-time Elections Act went through under the closure.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not discussing that Act, but the Military Voters' Act, and I think if the hon. member will carry his memory back he will recall that in the last stages of that Bill there was practically unanimity. I want to pay a tribute to hon. gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House with regard to that Bill. When I introduced the Bill I told the House that I looked for unanimity on the principle that the soldier should have his vote, and we got that unanimity. I told the House further that I recognized the very great difficulties attached to surrounding that vote with proper safeguards, and I appealed to both sides of the House for suggestions. Valuable suggestions came from the other side of the House and were adopted, and the Bill left this House with the operation to be carried on under it surrounded by the best safeguards that the best minds in the House at that time could suggest. We all recognized that there were dangers-, and that you could not secure the same absolute control and supervision -that you could secure in an election carried on under normal conditions. But I think we all agreed at that day that that if the cost of giving the soldier the vote he was entitled to was the taking of the risk of irregularities, we would all willingly take them. We did take them, and there were irregularities; nobody disputes that; we have had instances. The hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) about a year and a half ago entertained us with an enumeration of irregularities, and he has come back to the charge in this debate. All these irregularities have been dealt with, but- he comes back and tells us now that he does not agree with the com-
[llr. Doherty. ]
missioner who heard the evidence upon the charges that lie saw fit to make; he does not agree with him as to what constitutes perjury, and whether -those men were guilty or not. To dispose of that subject right off, in the first place it has no connection with this motion. In the second place, -the hon. gentleman is full of indignation. For eighteen months he has nursed his wrath to keep it warm. And what was he wrathy about? He said that he not only knew, but that he had in his hands the evidence, that certain soldiers and officers in St. Johns were guilty of perjury and that the commissioner who heard the evidence had not done justice and had come to a wrong conclusion. His heart filled with just indignation in the face of those criminal offences going unpunished. With the courts of his province open to him to lay his charge of perjury and subornation of perjury; with all his confidence that the honourable judge who sat as commissioner was wrong, and with his absolute conviction that a series of crimes had been committed, he just sat by for eighteen months, and now comes into this House which can afford him no remedy. If these men were guilty there was a place where he could easily obtain a remedy, and that was in the courts of the country. To pass from that, however. I say there were irregularities. Under the law they were possible and we knew it. But there were many causes which contributed to those irregularities, and one of those causes was the persistent misrepresentation of the Act that was indulged in throughout the country by people speaking in the name of the party which the hon. gentleman leads. Why, in my own constituency and throughout the constituencies adjoining as well as throughout the province, so far as I came in contact with it, I encountered an honest, earnest and sincere belief that under the law every soldier had a right to vote where he liked; and wherever I came across that belief I inquired:	" Where did you get that impression?" and was told in reply "Every Liberal candidate and every Liberal leader is thundering accusations against you as the author of that law. You are being accused of having enacted the nefarious law allowing every soldier to vote where he liked." Leaders of this kind persuaded the people and persuaded the soldiers that they had an absolute right to vote where they chose. They so persuaded them because they thought that in such misrepresentation of the law they found an effective arm of attack against myself and others who were responsible for the law. Well, the

argument has proved a boomerang in the sense that it very widely or largely created that belief on the part of the soldiers. I cannot of my own knowledge speak of conditions on the other side, but some instances were given of representations made there. But I do know what the conditions were upon this side, and to-day,' having created and fostered that belief, those opposite ask us to establish a drag-net commission to go out and see what we can find out-how many soldiers we can find who were deceived in that way, and what soldiers we might possibly find who intentionally violated the law. In so far as the result of the election is concerned, as it was pointed out time and again, no useful purpose can be served by a sweeping investigation of the kind suggested. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) read us affidavits-and I cannot help asking myself why it is that neither before military or civil authorities did those people who suffered that awful injustice have recourse, as was their right. Among the superior officers of that adjutant referred to, I have not the slightest doubt, it would have been easy to find one who would have meted out the justice that man deserved; but so far as we see, no endeavour was made in this direction. On the very face of it evidence produced in such a way certainly does not commend its sincerity to those to whom it is presented. But as I have said, and as the President of the Privy Council has said, if there are cases of that kind let them be dealt with as individual cases. Let the names of the culprits be given and there will be co-operation to the end that they may be punished; but let them not be used for the purpose of seeking to rouse indignation in this House and among the public generally against the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior who are sought to be connected with it by nothing but a series of imaginative constructions of possible combinations of circumstances. To do that, I submit, is unjust and unfair. Denunciations of violators of the ballot boxes have no application to the members of this Government or the members of the House, who find it their duty to do justice to the two ministers, against whom in my judgment and, I am satisfied, in the judgment of the majority of the members, absolutely no case has been made justifying an inquiry. They ask for an inquiry directed against the Prime Minister of the country and the member for Three Rivers stands up and says: "I have made out a prima facie case because there was an adjutant in France who told a soldier -that if he did not vote a certain way he would be sent to the front line or the trenches."	On	that	statement ofa soldier	the	hon.	member	says
he has made out a prima facie case that the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior were engaged in a nefarious conspiracy to interfere with the liberty of the soldier. Can inconsequence go further?


Joseph Archambault: I should like to know if the hon. member, as Minister of Justice, is ready to approve the instructions which were given in Knouts and Lashings, the paper published at St. Johns barracks-[DOT]


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have never had the
privilege-
Mr. ARCHAMBAULTand which I have read in this House and may read again.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT; I shall read it if the minister will allow me. It reads:
You will find instructions as to voting.
Ask yourselves these questions: Wili your vote he needed in the constituency from which you come? Will your, vote marked for the Government be a means of putting in a candidate in a constituency where your vote is needed? Do not waste your vote. Have your mind made up before you enter the polling booth. Do not hesitate to place your vote for the Government in a constituency where it will count.
I should like to know if my hon. friend as Minister of Justice approves of these instructions?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Neither as Minister of Justice nor in any other capacity can I possibly approve of those instructions, but all I have to say about it is that there is outstanding evidence of the successful efforts to deceive the public, including the man who wrote that, into the belief that I made a law to let the soldier vote wherever he liked. So far as the district down there is concerned the entire trouble is that gentlemen supporting the party which the hon. member supports launched a boomerang which came back and struck themselves.


Joseph Archambault: Is the hon. minister aware that this paper-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Joseph Archambault: -was sent to the Minister of Militia when published?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, I am not aware of the fact. And now, Mr. Speaker, I feel that, probably quite unnecessarily, I have detained the House too long in this debate;
I felt that it was my duty to say what I

have said in face of such gratuitous imputations as have been cast upon the honour of a colleague in whom I have the most implicit confidence, and in face-if I may be permitted the expression-in my eyes at least, of the grotesque, the absolutely grotesque, effort to connect that telegram, susceptible of a perfectly innocent interpretation; with every rumour, with every statement, with every letter, anonymous or otherwise, that can be scraped up in regard to the recent elections, and then to say: "We have a prima facie case against the honour of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of the Interior." In face of that grotesque attempt I felt I would not be doing what was just or fair to the distinguished Prime Minister of this country and to my trusted colleague, the Minister of the Interior, if I contented myself with giving a silent vote.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: 
An hon. MEMBER:: A sermon?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Yes, I was going to add I have almost listened to a sermon, as I heard the echo if it. I have particularly read everything that has appeared in print about the President of the Privy Council and, Sir, far be it from me to want to pass judgment upon any member of this House; I want to be in a position of being able to say that the President of the Privy Council means what he says when he makes a statement. Speaking in the province of Ontario on December 17th, 1918, in explanation of another speech which he had made during the election, I find this passage which appealed to me:
These magnificent results-
Referring to the results upon the battlefield.
-will have a decisive effect upon the whole course of our history. They were made possible not only by the courage and patriotism of our army in Prance, but also by the courage and patriotism of the people at home who put country before personal or party considerations in the hour of our country's need.
Did the President of the Privy Council put patriotism before personal interest, or love of country before party interests, when he said to-night, speaking with the reputation which he has in his native province, "the soldiers had a right to allot their votes"? Why, every child in this country knows that by this time. But he did not say-mark well-that the officers had the right to allot the soldiers' votes. No, he was too guarded about that. The soldiers had the right to vote but the charge is that the officers allotted certain votes which were not regularly put into the ballot boxes; and the Pre-
1 a.m. sident of the Privy Council who uttered the words that one must put country above party, and above personal considerations, stands up and approves of that conduct because, forsooth, he has confidence in his leader.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to detain the House, nor was it my intention to take part in this debate. But, Six, when I heard those utterances to-night-and I hope that I am not more honest than the hon. gentleman is, I trust that I am as honest-I hope that he has never stooped to anything disloyal in elections. I certainly, Sir, have been brought up in a county where we did not know-to the best of my knowledge I say it,-where we did not know, since the days of Confederation, of political dishonesty and corruption. That county has been represented by Liberal and by Conservative, and, Sir, to-night speaking with my fullest responsibility as a member of this House, and speaking in the name of the county that I represent, and in my own personal name,

I want to say as emphatically as I can, if that is the code of morals of the President of the Privy Council, if his morals are such that he can palliate, and 'endorse such action, then, Sir, so far as I am concerned, I want to place it upon record that I am opposed to all such methods, and if I were voting I would vote with the leader of the Opposition.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker- *


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the
leader of the Opposition rises to speak it is my duty to inform hon. members that he is about to exercise his right to close the debate; therefore if any other hon. gentleman desires to speak he must do so now.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this subject has been very ably debated from both sides of the House, and I need make but a few observations in closing.
It has been said repeatedly by hon. gentlemen on the front benches opposite that I had sinister and unworthy motives in bringing this question before the House; that this, thing is absolutely all right. In other words, the Government say they passed a law, knowing what they were passing; that they appointed officers under that law who would enable them to put the votes of the soldiers into any county they pleased and bring about any result they desired. That is the position they have taken. They scout the idea of any one taking exception to that position.
The Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Doherty) says: I have passed a law knowing that I was giving votes to soldiers who had no stake in this country; I also passed a law enabling the officers, of my department and of the Government to place these votes just where they pleased, absolutely regardless of what the will or the wish of the voters might be-because the voters were not to have any will or wish; they were to be subject to the will and wish and direction and control of the Government and the officers of the Government. That is the position of the Minister of Justice, and he gets particularly warm because in construing the same law and in construing the duty of an officer of the law as high up as the Minister of Justice I take sharp issue with him and say that if he passed such a law he did something that he had no business to do; that if he puts such- a construction on it he did something that was absolutely wrong and unconstitutional, and that if he authorized officers to carry out such a law, he did

something that was absolutely in violation of any principle of justice.


Arthur Meighen: As the Minister of
Justice was out when the reference was made by the leader of the Opposition to his speech, I think it is only fair to s>ay that the account the hon. gentleman made of his remarks was absolutely garbled and wrong.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Gentlemen in the criminal box usually hold their tongues.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the "order"
about? That was a mere figure of speech; I am sure the minister will not mind.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does any hon. gentleman wish to state a point of order?


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I rise to a point of
order. Referring to the Minister of the Interior, the leader of the Opposition said that gentlemen in the criminal box should hold their tongues. That is a base insinuation and should be withdrawn.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is not a base insinuation; it is a figure of speech. I say that the man who is charged should let the thing alone and let the Minister of Justice answer for himself, that is all.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Take your medicine.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is all I meant.


Avard Longley Davidson: Mr. Speaker-


Georges Henri Boivin: If the hon.
gentleman insists on his point 01 order, I may say that I had taken it for granted that the Leader of the Opposition had sufficiently explained the remark by saying that it was merely a figure of speech and intimating that he did not intend that the words should have their exact meaning. I should judge that the withdrawal is sufficient to satisfy hon. members.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is nothing to
withdraw; there was nothing intended. But I do say that the Government passed this law by a majority in this House, and the instrument for carrying it out, the Wartime Elections Act, they forced through the House under closure. The one would be no good without the other. There is no use in saying that there was practically a consent to the Military Voters' Act on the part of the members of the House when the instrument which carried it out and

without which it would 'be absolutely useless was forced, through the House by closure. As far as gentlemen on this House are concerned, as far as Liberals are conr cemed, away hack in the early days they realized what a miserable piece of execution this instrument was and they did everything they could to keep it from becoming the law or at least from becoming effective.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the hon. member mean to say that he himself and the numerous members sitting behind him did not throughout the debate on that Bill insist that they were as favourable to the soldiers having votes as hon. gentlemen on this side of the House were?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As far as I am concerned, upon his Bill of 1915, which was the first one, and his Bill of 1917-


Charles Joseph Doherty: Which was this one.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -which was this Bill, I differed largely with my party. For myself, I was against it all the time, absolutely against it, and my speeches will show that. I got the majority of the votes of the soldiers in my county who had the privilege of voting-a large majority. But overseas, where there were more than seven or eight hundred voters for my county, I got the magnificent number of thirty-five votes, because the votes of the soldiers there were switched and manipulated by this machine. Their fathers, their mothers, sisters and brothers and the soldiers at home were voting for me; do you mean to say that the boy who was away and whose mother and father were writing him and telling him to vote for McKenzie, would not vote for me if he could? Of course he would, but he could not; so that out of from seven hundred to a thousand votes I got only thirty-five-and that was by some mistake; it was not intended that I should get even that number. That indicates what sort of machine was doing the work.
The difference between the Government and myself is this: I say that no individual or aggregation of individuals, I care not who they are if they be anything short of angels, should have any power or right 'to interfere with the rights and privileges of the people. I say that no honest machinery is capable of being contrived by which the Prime Minister or any other minister, when votes were being taken on two continents separated by thousands of miles, could honestly pick out three hundred votes here, three hundred there, a thousand somewhere else, and place them
here and there all over the country as they wanted them. There is only one way of doing it, and that is the way it was done. These votes were falsely marked; they were put in one pile and then they were divided as you would divide a hundred bags of oats. Hon. gentlemen get quite hot under the collar about this thing; I never saw so much heat in the Minister of Justice since he came to this House as I saw in him to-night-because, forsooth, gentlemen differ with him on the construction of a statute. We are all wrong, it would seem, because we take a different view of that law. I say to the minister, I say to every honest man in Canada, and I will say to the people of Canada when the opportunity presents itself, that 'the implementing of that telegram-which hon. gentlemen opposite admit was sent; which they admit is correct; which was sent in code in a most dark and mysterious way from one minister to another-was absolutely incapable of performance in an honest way.
There is not a member of the Government, not a man sitting in this House who can more readily get out of an -awkward situation than the President of the Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell). Knowing his ingenuity and willing that he and his friends should have the benefit of the answer to it, I put a question to him.
Just after he had sent this telegram saying that three hundred should go to Selkirk, and so many to another place, and so many to Macdonald-aye, Macdonald, the pious, God-fearing man from Macdonald-they were going there-I asked the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell): With this voting going on throughout two continents promiscuously, how could you devise machinery by which you could place so many of them here and so -many of them there? Once in his life the acrobat from-I do not know where he is from-was non-plussed and could not tell. Nor any other man in creation could tell; it cannot be told. There is only one way of doing this: Those ballots were got together; they were marked just as they pleased; then a group of some kind of officials

I do not know who they were- got around them and divided them as they would divide a hundred bushels of -potatoes or twenty bushels of oats, of something like th-at. That is the way in which the thing was done. The story is quite easily told, and it is quite easily understood. If that sort of thing is all right, then I am all wrong. All I can say is that the people of Canada, in the innocence of their hearts, did not think that- that was the purpose of

the War-time Elections Act, nor of the Military Voters' Act. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) says that when he put the law through-and he is proud of it; he will do it to-morrow again-he knew it was capable of that thing and he knew the thing would happen.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I want to deny emphatically that I said anything of the kind.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We shall leave it to Hansard to-morrow what can be gathered from the speech of the Minister of Justice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think I am entitled to protest against an hon. gentleman's making a statement that I said something which I never said and then refraining from withdrawing it and merely saying that he will leave it to Hansard. I deny absolutely that I made that statement, and I demand that the hon. member retract it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I shall not retract any thing of the kind.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member must certainly accept the denial.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I cannot do anything else. There is no need to 'be so pernickety about it. That is all I will do.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What shall I withdraw?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Withdraw the answer.


Mr. TRAHAN:: He will correct the proofs to-morrow.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) said1 that we lay on our oars for a year and a half without bringing forward any charges of this kind. The Minister of Justice remembers well that the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) in this House about a year and a half ago produced scores of affidavits sworn to by soldiers, and the oath of one soldier is sacred; I suppose, the oath of any soldier is sacred. These soldiers in their affidavits duly sworn to stated that they were tampered with in many ways; that they were not allowed to vote as they wanted; that they were threatened, and all the rest of it. That was laid before the Minister of Justice and the Government very emphatically in this House, and that is all we could do. The Minister of Justice at that time refused to do anything in regard to that charge. Does it then lie in the mouth of the Minister of Justice tonight to come back to us and say that we are too late; that we have slept on our rights, and that we have no business to

revive these things to-day? We revived them a year and a half ago and now we are reviving them again; but it is enough for the minister to say: You laid an investigation a year and a half ago; I refused to accept it; now you are reviving it again; I will consider it out of date because you are too late I would not take it at any time, but now you should not do anything about it and you are only reviving old spleen. I would be afraid that the tremendous heat which was indulged in on the other side of the House might spread across to myself, were I not determined that not one word would escape me that would in any way reflect upon the Prime Minister or the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen). I laid my case before the House on the day that I moved my motion, and I leave it to the House to say if I touched the hem of their garments in the slightest way. I kept strictly and absolutely to the facts of the case, saying nothing personal whatever. In reply or in response to that, I have the thanks for my care from the Minister of the Interior who said that I was the lineal descendant of the miserable thief that stole the telegram. That is who I am. That is a miserable Fletcherism of something that took place more than half a century ago in the House of Commons of England. It is not new; ft is not fresh, and it did not touch me at all If the statement were original with the minister, I might have thought it clever; but when he had to go (back to nearly a hundred years ago in the English House of Commons to find out something that was said about a very distinguished English statesman-and I should be proud to be put in his class because the reference was to Disraeli, the statement being made by the distinguished Irishman, O'Connell- the statement was not new; it was so stale and flat that I paid no attention to it. As to the question whether we should let these things drop and pay no more attention to them, I simply say as I have said before that we have brought them up before; that we have: pressed them as hard as we could upon the oaths of members of the service on the other side-I do not know whether they were officers or not; they were at all events private soldiers-and the Minister of Justice refused to comply with our request. We are pressing him again and he now comes badk and the whole Government comes back and says: There is nothing wrong; this telegram is all right, and the minister had a perfect right to send it and the Prime Minister of this country had a

right to he a conduit, a chute with a great many holes or arms in that chute by which means , votes were to be " chuted " here and " chuted " there, and shot to the other place. That was the 'kind of octopus the Prime Minister was going to be, and telegrams were coming 'from all parts of the country, while he was continually turning this crank " chuting " votes throughout the country. That is the position in which the Prime Minister was put. I am not at all surprised that he is tired and sick and wants to go away for a rest.
The matter would not be so very serious if these were only what is called " votes at large," that is, men in Canada who had no domicile here, who never lived in Canada. If those were the only tmen inr terfered with or whose votes were to be corralled, or " allotted " is the word, as is pointed out in this telegram, it would not be so serious. But the Minister of Justice and other members of the Government will see the facility with which mills were erected throughout the country making this sort of a vote. All that had to be done was to get a soldier to leave unanswered two or three questions and immediately that man became a soldier at large-he could go anywhere.
At Chambly and Vercheres 400 or 450 men were made to say that they did not know where they should vote. Imagine, men who swore before the commissioner that they were bom and had lived all their lives in Toronto, Ottawa, 'Montreal, or other towns and cities in the two great central provinces, swearing, in order to vote, that they did not know where they lived. The commissioner said there was no harm in it, but that is what they did. The Minister of Justice says it is all right, and the commissioner found it all right for a man who had lived in the city of Toronto and enlisted there as a soldier to go down to St. Johns in the province of Quebec and swear he did not know where he resided in order that he could vote in that constituency. The commissioner says that is all right, and the Minister of Justice and the whole Government back up the commissioner and say " Certainly, that is all right." That was all that was necessary in order to make as many votes at large as you please. There may have been ten thousand or only a few thousand, but you could multiply it up to 100,000 or 200,000 simply by the process of getting the men to answer in that way. That is what I object to.
We have no knowledge-I do not think the Government has any knowledge-how
this voting was done. Take the county of Provencher, for instance, some votes were required for that constituency. Would it not be a proper thing for the people of Canada to know how the soldiers voted whose votes were transferred to that constituency, and so put this trouble to rest forever? What machinery was used to put the votes there, and how did they get there? If the Government can show that everything was all right let us have the actual facts. But they take the contrary course. They say it was all right to do it any way at all since the votes were put where they would do the most good. It has already been said that the good or the bad in connection with an election depends upon party, that if the Liberal party is running everything that would assist them is a good thing, if the Tories are running everything that would assist them is a good thing. Is it proper that either party should have the deciding of what is the right thing, and then be given power under an Act of Parliament to take votes and apply them to that thing which they decide is the right thing?
I said on the day that I introduced my motion that the marking of the ballot Is a judicial act which one should do for himself. If he cannot do it for himself, he should not do it at all. It is an abuse of the privilege of the franchise for a man to vote who does not know anything about the matter at issue. If he does not know enough to decide for himself he certainly should not be allowed to exercise the franchise. We differ entirely on this. I say that what was done is capable of being absolutely wrong. The Government says it is capable of being absolutely right. The people of this country must decide for themselves with their own votes the destiny of their country. Honourable gentlemen opposite say that in the stress and storm of war they can do what they please. Imagine, Sir, a man setting fire to another man's barn and when called to account for it saying, "Oh, well, he was a slacker, he and his boys. They sent nobody to the war. I and my boys went to the war, so it's all right to set fire to his barn." That would be miserable logic, but it is just as bad to say that anything wrong can be done in connection with an election provided the intention is the sustaining of the Government that it is believed would be the most favourable to the prosecution of the war.
It is unnecessary for me to elaborate the consequences of corruption in elections. If the Government can keep themselves in power by switching votes, the corruption

will go through the whole fabric of the country. If Governments are a corrupting power what about the administration of justice, what about our judges and our magistrates? What about everything that goes to the safety of life and property in a country unless you have purity in elections, purity in the deciding of them, purity at every stage? That is the only thing in connection with this matter that I am standing up for.
A great deal of fault has been found with me because I did not have the telegram. Here is the original draft of the telegram.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to send it to me that I may see it?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have no hesitation.
I do not know whose writing it is. It is the original draft. The code is there with it.


Arthur Meighen: The telegram is not in my writing, is not signed by me, the initials are not mine,-were never made by me. Not a word of it was written by me.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Minister in his
speech the other day said that if the Committee sent out the telegram he is not going to go back on them. He accepts it. Whether he wrote it or not it came from his office and he is the father of it.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
has endeavoured to build a case here on the supposition that I sent the telegram. I did not send it. I never saw it. It is not in my writing. The initials were not made by me. It never came to my attention, and the hon gentleman if he does not know that, might have known it, and I think has known it all along.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: All I have to say is
this. I care not whether the hon. gentleman wrote it or not. It has been admitted by his advocates here.


Arthur Meighen: It has never been admitted, and the hon. gentleman knows it has never been admitted. The contents of the telegram are all right, hut I did not send it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We will see what the Minister himself said.


Arthur Meighen: It is all very clear
now.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister said in
his speech the other night that he might have sent it.


Arthur Meighen: Read what I said. I
should also call attention to the fact that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.
Mr. SPEAKER. Order. The hon .member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) has the floor unless he chooses to yield it to the hon. member.


Arthur Meighen: I ask the hon. gentleman to yield me the floor. He has produced now what is a forgery.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was asked to read what the hon. member said. It is to be found at page 565 of Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: Read what I said.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Minister said:
He read and re-read whatever he could find around him, but he never uttered a sentence to indicate, much less to prove, that there was the slightest semblance of dishonour or impropriety in anything alleged about myself in this motion. The hon. gentleman. knows that there was not, and I will tell him why.
He says I refused to charge anything dishonourable against him in regard to the telegram. In other words, he says it was perfectly all right. Further on he says, on the same page:
He says that I admitted writing the telegram. X admitted no such thing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, Hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: (reading).
I said immediately I heard of the message what I say now-I have no recollection of the telegram whatever. The message might have been sent; it might have been sent by me; it is a message which might have been sent by any honest man.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, Hear.


Arthur Meighen: Read on.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Later on he says:
The matters regarding which the wire appears to have been sent, while quite proper, were matters that necessarily could not have been attended to by the Prime Minister.
They were matters that were quite proper and the wire "appears to have been sent"; but the Prime Minister himself could not attend to them. Later on the minister says:'
If that telegram were produced and if there is anything wrong with it, it would he a prima facie case if my signature is there.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. McKENZIE (reading)
Still more this telegram, were it actually produced to the world, would he no .prima facie ease at all for the reason there is nothing wrong with it whatever.
There is nothing whatever wrong with it, says the minister.


Arthur Meighen: Except-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Arthur Meighen: Except for the theft-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: And, in view of the fact that my signature does not even purport to be there, I now add, except for the forgery.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon, gentleman said it was all right. It is the thing they were doing, and it could not be an accident.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No. no.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: They are proud of it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister says
further:
If it was sent by the organization, then I have no desire to repudiate the message-none whatsoever.
He does not repudiate it at all, and if he did not send it himself he had an organization that was looking after these things and that had the authority to send it. The organization also had the right to charge the message to his committee.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Arthur Meighen: It is all right for hon. members to say "order, order."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: But what is the hon. gentleman's evidence that I sent it?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: At page 5S7 it would appear that the Minister of the Interior inquired of the Prime Minister: Did you get my telegram?


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentlemen permit me a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Charles Sheard: Let us have fair play.


Walter Davy Cowan: They don't know anything about that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Minister of the Interior asks the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria if he may ask a question. It remains for the member who has the floor to say whether, or not, he may.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have this in mind
now and I may as well read it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit me


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have the floor.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I cannot understand
why some hon. gentlemen are so wrathy about this thing. Before the Minister of the Interior came in we had ministers tumbling over one another's heads in their anxiety to say, " This is all right."


Arthur Meighen: Why didn't you produce the telegram


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the hon. member who has the floor permits the interruption the minister may proceed to ask his question.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: At page 567 the minister says:
The Prime Minister never received the message. He has had made a most careful and thorough search and he says that it never was received.
If it never existed of course it could never have been received. But why the inquiry? Why does the Minister go to the office of the Prime Minister and ask him: "Did you get my telegram?" if. no such telegram was sent. Now, I went through the minister's speech and there was not a great deal in it. These are the main things which he said, and I did not intend to refer to them, but he is in the House tonight himself.


Arthur Meighen: You won't allow me to speak.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Minister of the
Interior says it is all right, the Minister of Justice says it is all right, and other gentlemen on that side, particularly those of legal ability, are all unanimous in the opinion that the telegram is all right.-There is nothing in it with which to find fault.


George Brecken Nicholson: Except its forgery.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Now it seems that it was quite right and proper that hon. members should work their friends up into a passion of fury about this thing, why?-to vote it down; that is all. I say, as I have said before, that to my mind it is an absolutely undue interference with the will of the people and is something that should not have occurred. And when the people of the country have an opportunity of passing judgment in regard to it they will do so in a very different temper from that which is evident to-night.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question now?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Cowards.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must ask hon. members to bear in mind the rule, which is very explicit, that when the Speaker rises, the hon. member who has the floor must take his seat. I understand that the member for Cape Breton North refuses to answer the questions of the minister.
Clark (Bruce), Cooper,
Cowan,
Cronyn,
Crothers,
Crowe,
Cruise,
Currie,
Davidson,
Davis,
Edwards,
Finley,
Foster (York), Fraser,
Fulton,
Griesbach,
Hay,
Henders,
Keefer,
Knox,
La ng.
Doggie,
Nicholson (Algoma), Porter,
Redman,
Reid (Grenville),
Reid (Mackenzie), Richardson,
Rowell,
Sexsmith,
Sheard,
Simpson,
Spinney,
Stacey,
Steele,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lanark), Sutherland,
Thompson (Weyburn), Thompson (Yukon), Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Tweedie,
Wallace,
Whidden,
Some hon.	MEMBERS: He is afraid.	Long,	Wigmore,
		Mackie (Edmonton),	Wilson (Saskatoon).
Motion, Mr. McKenzie, negatived on the		Maclean (Halifax),	-79.
following division:		PAIRS.	
	YEAS.	(The list of pairs is	furnished by the Chief
	Messieurs	Whips.)	
Archamtoault,	Lapointe	Messieurs	Baldwin,	(Kamouraska),	Borden, Sir Robert,	Murphy,Boivin,	Lapointe (St. James),	Doherty,	Marcil (Bonaventure),Bourassa,	Leduc,	Green,	White (Alberta),Boyer,	Leger,	White, Sir Thomas,	McMaster,Brouillard,	Lesage,	Burrell,	Chisholm,Bureau,	McCoig,	Clarke (Wellington),	Truax,Cahill,	McGibbon	Armstrong,	Fortier,Cannon,	(Argenteuil),	Peck,	Denis,Cardin,	McKenzie,	Wright,	DuTremblay,Casgrain,	< Mareile (Bagot),	Blair,	Dafortune,Copp,	Mayrand,	Scott,	Power,d'Anjou,	' Michaud,	Hocken,	McCrea,DdchSne,	Papineau,	Lalor,	Devlin,Delisle,	Pardee,	Marshall,	B61and,Demers.	Parent,	Halladay,	FieldingDesaulniers,	Pelletier,	Boys,	Pedlow,Deslauriers,	Prevost,	Wilson (Wentworth),	Gladu,Duff,	Proulx,	Sifton,	Lemieux,Ethier,	Robb,	Tudhope,	Sinclair (AntigonishEuler,	Roes,	and Guysborough ),Fafard,	Savard,	Douglas (Strathcona),	Molloy,Fontaine,	Seguin,	Thompson (Hastings),	Vien,Fournier,	Sinclair	Guthrie,	Jacobs,Gauthier,	(Queens, P.E.I.),	Clark, M.,	Bavigueur,Gauvreau,	Tobin,	Buchanan,	Johnston,Gervals,	Trahan,	Ames, Sir Herbert,	Pacaud,Kay,	. Turgeon,	Kennedy,	Verville-56.	Mr. BELAND: I am paired with the hon.	LanctOt,	member for East Elgin (Mr. Marshall).	
Messieurs
Allan,	MacNutt,
Anderson,	McGibbon (Muslcoka),
Andrews,	McGregor,
Argue,	McIntosh,
Arthurs,	Mclsaac,
Ball,	McLean (Royal),
Blake,	McQuarrie,
Bolton,	Manion,
Bonnell,	Martin,
Bowman,	, Mewbum,
Boyce,	Middlebro,
Brien,	Morphy,
Calder,	Mowat,
Chaplin,	Munson,
Charters,	Myers,
Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I desire to inquire
whether the document which the leader of the Opposition produced to this House and laid upon the Table describing it to be the original of a telegram printed in the Order Paper and embodied in the motion, which has just been voted down; is now upon the table and in the possession of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If not it should be laid upon the Table. I desire to point out, Mr. "Mr. McKenzie.]

Speaker, that I -raise this question, not for the mere purpose of enforcing what I believe to be the rule, but because the matter involves a question of exceeding gravity. So far as regards the document which the hon. gentleman declares to be the original of what is embodied, what is printed in his motion-so far as there was opportunity to read that document, it bears upon its face that the words "Arthur Meighen" printed in the resolu-
2 a.m. tion, do not appear on the face of that document at all; and further,-if my information is correct, I did not have t-he opportunity of seeing it myself-it appears that the [DOT] insertion, the printed insertion within the motion of the address, of that telegram as being to "Sir Robert Borden, Ottawa, Ontario," does not appear upon this document produced now as the original. I am not affirming it as a fact, but I am informed by the gentlemen who had the opportunity of observing it that so far as they could observe neither the address to Sir Robert Borden nor the purported signature-if my information is correct the forged signature-in the printed motion, appear on the original document at all. This statement, if my information be correct, will make clear to you, Mr. Speaker, as well as to all members of this House, how very grave a matter is involved -nothing short of deliberate deception of this House-by a false printing of what is not a copy of what the hon. gentleman describes as the original document.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not quite understand, Mr. Speaker.	*


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As I understand it, the Minister of Justice raises the point of order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Well, that is debatcble, I presume.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was going to ask the
hon. gentleman if he is prepared to debate it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Certainly. This document. which I hold in my hand shows anybody what it is. I did not say that it was anything hut what it is-it is a photograph.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not a copy at all.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is a photograph. Now whether that photograph is true or not I produced this paper for what it was.


Charles Joseph Doherty: May I ask the hon. gentleman-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I said nothing, but I
produced this paper-
52*	-


Charles Joseph Doherty: May I ask-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Just a moment-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I say, Mr. Speaker, if I am not to be dealt fairly with in this House, I will have nothing at all to say.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not quite understand the hon. gentleman. Does he complain of not being dealt fairly with?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Ido.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In what respect?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Of interruptions from
the other side of the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Minister of Justice repeatedly endeavoured to ask a question, but when it was not permitted he sat down.
I cannot see that the hon. gentleman has anything to complain of under the circumstances.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not want to be misrepresented. The Minister of Justice and some other gentlemen opposite seem to think they have a monopoly of the honour of this House. I draw the line at that. I have been in this House longer than the Minister of Justice and I have yet to be called to task for any want of courtesy or any act of dishonour here-I am not aware of any. This document was put in my possession. It is a photograph, and I have never said it was anything else.


An hon. MEMBER:: You said it was an original.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The photograph is a
draft-that is, what was photographed was the draft of a telegram. At the top of it is the letter "B," which, when it is translated out, I take it, was an indication to the man who saw the code that it is "Borden."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: At the foot of it are the two letters, "A. M.," which I take to be "Arthur Meighen."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The draft that is
put in this form is afterwards put into a code-the figures and the letters- and the whole paraphernalia putting it into the code are here. It is decoded into the form of this telegram. It is addressed to Hon. Mr. Borden and a name is to it -I do not say it is signed "Arthur Meighen". That is the whole business. I did not put it on the Table.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understood that the hon. gentleman did put it on the Table.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not. I am sure that the Minister of the Interior will do me justice. He said: "Pass it over to me" or "Let me see it"-those were his words-and for the purpose of his seeing it I passed it over to the Clerk, not with any intention of putting it on, the Table; nothing could be further from imy mind. As the minister wanted to see it, I made it convenient for him to see it by passing it over to the Clerk, that is all.


An hon. MEMBER:: Lay it on the Table.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman,
when the Minister of the Interior asked for the document, did not have it delivered to the Minister of the Interior. He had the boy lay it on the Table.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The Minister is perfectly within his rights in rising to discuss the point of order and hon. members should do him the courtesy of allowing him to proceed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I personally saw it in the hands of the Assistant Clerk. Now, may I also point out that the hon. gentleman's present explanation shows, on his own statement, that the document as reproduced in the printed motions has been falsified. ..


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Minister of Justice is perfectly within his rights in rising to a point of order, but I do not think he is within his rights in making an argument comparing the document in question with what purported to be a copy of it and which was a subject of debate in this House.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Do hon. gentlemen
raise a point of order?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The leader of the Opposition pointed out what the telegram or document in his possession was; I do not understand that that gives the minister the right to base an argument on it and compare it with the document which was before the House previously.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not desire to make an argument; I only want to answer the statement which the hon. gentleman made as demonstrating that the document which he produced was similar to the printed one, and to point out that the document which he produced is, on its face, not similar to the printed one, in this regard:	The cipher message here
reads as follows: "Sir Robert L. Borden, Ottawa, Ont." That is the address, and it is signed! "Arthur Meighen". The hon. gentleman has just read us a cipher tele-. gram which shows that the "Sir Robert L. Borden" does not appear in the cipher-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Nothing but the letter-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must rule that, there being no subject matter before the House except the point of order, it is not proper for the hon. member to enter into any argument or discussion as to certain documents. He is of course, perfectly in order in discussing the point of order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: May I just say this: that in speaking to this point of order it is proper, it seems to me, that I should be allowed to show what is the importance to this House of having the possession of this document?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Why don't you grant the committeee, then?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Honourable gentlemen ask me to appoint a committee, when they dare not-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I must direct the attention of the House to the fact that the

point of order is simply this: Whether the documents which were read by the leader of the .Opposition were placed upon the table of the House, and if so, whether they are in the custody of the House. That is the whole question; it matters not what may be in these documents.


Frank S. Cahill: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I am keeping order, hon. gentlemen must hear in mind, as best I can, and if they will obey the rules and take their seats when the Speaker rises, there will be no difficulty in keeping order. "


Ernest Lapointe: If the Acting Prime Minister sets the example, it will be all right.


Frank S. Cahill: I rise to a point of order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. We are already discussing a point of order and the Minister of Justice has the floor for the purpose of discussing it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was submitting when I was interrupted-I may have been out or order in replying to the interruption- that the point which I am raising in claiming that a document exhibited to this House, even if it actually did not get upon the Table-a document exhibited to this House in support of a motion made is -


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Am I out of order?


An hon. MEMBER:: No speech; it is a point of order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to keep within the rules; if any hon. gentleman wishes to raise a point of order it is his privilege to do so.


Ernest Lapointe: Will the minister permit me?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certainly.


Ernest Lapointe: The minister has been ruled out of order by the Speaker for arguing the very same thing that he is now proceeding to argue. I submit that his only recourse is to appeal from the ruling of the Chair.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When the Speaker tells me that I am out of order in what I am now saying, I shall certainly bow to his ruling.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the ruling? We want the ruling of the Chair.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Chair has given its ruling that the Minister of Justice is permitted to continue his remarks upon the point of order. If he deviates from that I shall certainly endeavour to bring him back to the question.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was submitting for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, this contention: That a document produced and exhibited to this Parliament, in support of the motion made by the leader of the Opposition, and in support of his argument, properly becomes the property of this House.
That contention is stronger still when, as a matter of fact, the document did pass into the hands of the Clerk of the House. What was in the mind of the hon. gentleman in handing it over, of course, I am not in a position to say, but the fact is that the document did reach the possession of the Clerk of the House. I submit, under those circumstances!, that document becomes the property of this House, and as showing the interest of this House to insist upon its right to the possession of that document, L point out that that document established: that the printed motion as put upon the Order Paper-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As showing the importance to this House of insisting on the right which I claim for it, I point out that the document in question is one which establishes that in the motion-


Some hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I do not think it is a point of order whether the document in question is of importance or not. It is purely a question whether any document, letter or paper referred to under similar circumstances ought to be produced.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I, of course, bow to your ruling on that subject. I felt that as there was so much protest against my speaking at all, it was a proper thing that you should know the reason why this document establishing the deception of this House should be produced to the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before you rule, Mr. Speaker, I think I should say one word. The Minister of Justice seems to say that I put on my notice of motion things that are not in the document. That is not so. Every single word in my notice of motion is here.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Put it on the Table.


Arthur Meighen: The words are not in the# document at all.


Jacques Bureau: The Minister of Justice says that this^document has been deposited with the Clerk and as such is the property of the House and should be left with the Clerk. The leader of the Opposition, answers '"No." The Minister of the Interior asks to see the document.


Arthur Meighen: Why does the leader of .the Opposition answer " No?"


Jacques Bureau: Do you ask that?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I ask that. Why does he answer " No," and not lay the document on the Table?


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.
Mr. BURI'AU: I am talking to the point, of order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The point I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) is this, that it is not permissible to use the personal prenoun in addressing hon. members of the House.


Jacques Bureau: I ought to have said tne Minister of the Interior. Your ruling is perfectly right, and I bow to it.


Mr EDWARDS:: You have done a lot ot bowing to-night.	.


Jacques Bureau: Some hon. members
speak within their lips and smile; I want to hear what they say, and enjoy the fun. The leader of the Opposition denies that he deposited the document on the table of the House. He says that he handed it to the Minister of the Interior upon his request to look at it. There is a rule of the House which says that when a member gives his word about a certain thing, his word must be accepted. Therefore, if the leader of the Opposition says that he did not deposit the document on the table of the House, the point is very simple. If the Minister of Justice desires to get further information about this document, let him give us a committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jacques Bureau: I want to suggest on the point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member for Al-goma East (Mr. G. B. Nicholson) told me to hold my soul in patience just now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. gentleman will confine his remarks to the point of order.


Jacques Bureau: I have almost finished. If you have to abide by the rules of the House and accept the word of a member, the thing is very simple. The leader of the Opposition says: I have not put the document on the Table, therefore, it remains my property.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Speaker,-	[DOT]


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the hon. gentleman rise to speak on the point of order?


Peter McGibbon: I want to remark that in my opinion that document having been quoted from in this House becomes the property of this House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The point of order raised by the Minister of Justice is as to whether the document read by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria is in the custody of the House, If this document were laid upon the Table, there would be no question that it would become the property of the House and in the custody of the clerk. The mere physical placing of a document on the Table does not constitute the laying upon the Table within the rule, and I therefore, feel it is necessary to take the statement of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) that he did not lay the document on the Table. If a public document is quoted from by a minister of the Crown, it must, upon request, be laid upon the Table; but a private member is in a different position, and under the rules is not compelled to produce a document which he uses during the course of his speech. I, therefore, rule that the document has not been laid upon the Table of the House, and that it is not necessary for the hon. member to do so.


CIVIL SERVICE RECLASSIFICATION.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I move:
That the Select Committee to which Bill No. 18, An Act to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, is to he referred in conformity with the resolution passed' by the House on October 2nd instant consist of the following members:

Boys, Cahill, Chabot, Copp, Cowan, Duff, Davis, Davidson, Ethier, Euler, Harrison, Manion, Mackie (Edmonton), Mowat, Maclean (Halifax), Murphy, McCrea, Ross, Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.), Stewart (Hamilton), Sheard, Steele, Stacey, Turgeon, Wigmore.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must direct the attention of the House to the fact that this

motion can be entertained only by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Hon. Mr.-Doherty the House ajourned at 2.35 a.m., Friday.
Friday, October 3, 191S.
[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. W. F. Kay (Missis-quoi) the first report of the special committee appointed to consider the matter of the erection of a memorial to the late Lieutenant-Colonel Baker, M.P., was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 23, to confirm two orders of the Governor General in Council respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system.
Some hon. (MEMBERS: Explain.
John Dowsley Reid: This is merely a Bill to correct a clerical error that was made in the Act that passed through this House during last session with reference to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. In that Act, the elevator system at Port Arthur was called the Grand Trunk Pacific Elevator Company, whereas it should have been called the Grand Trunk Pacific Terminal Elevator Company. We merely wish to correct the clerical error that was made by omitting the word " Terminal " in that Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean, the House reverted to the Order "Motions."
Hon. A. K. Maclean submitted the first report of the Special Committee appointed to consider Bill No. 18 to amend the Civil Service Act, as follows:
The Special Committee appointed to consider Bill No. 18, an Act to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, beg leave to present the following as their first report:-
Your Committee recommend:
1.	That their quorum toe reduced to seven memtoers.
2.	That they be authorized to have their proceedings and sudh evidence as taiay toe taken by them printed from day to day for the use of the memtoers, and that rule 74 be suspended in reference thereto.
3.	That your Committee be given leave to sit while the House is in session.
All which is respectfully submitted.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I move that the first report of the special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 18, be concurred in.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion can, of course, be entertained only by leave of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and report concurred in.

Right Hon.   S@: That on and after Monday next Government Notices of Motions and Government Orders shall have precedence on Mondays and Wednesdays, until the end of the Session, over all other business except Questions and Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I should like to bring to the notice of the leader of the Government (Sir George Foster) that the Order Paper shows a large body of private business. There are now on the Order Paper twenty-three notices of motions. I have looked through them, as no doubt the leader of the Government has done, and they are, I suppose, all regarded as important by the persons who put them on the Order Paper. While this private business appears large, the docket of Government business would strike one as being light. The minister should, I think, leave us Monday and Wednesday the two private members' days of next week, and we might make good progress on this private business. Otherwise it would appear that it would go over altogether. I trust the minister will concur in my request.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend is not quite correct in that. The motion reads:
That on and after Monday next Government Notices of Motions and Government Orders shall have precedence on Mondays and Wednesdays, until the end of the Session, over all other business except Questions and Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers.
Therefore, the notices of motion to' which my hon. friend refers, will have their due place just the same as before. They will come up and they will be moved.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That refers only to notices of motion for the production of papers; that is where there is no discussion at all.


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But the twenty-three motions to which I refer are outside of that class.


George Eulas Foster: There is also this consideration to be taken into account, that this evening we shall have one opportunity of going through those. Next week we shall have an opportunity to take up those that are for the production of papers and that are germane to the session in this respect that they give members information which they might be able to use between this and next session and for the next session. This session of Parliament was called, not for private business, but for one special purpose, and it has been confined largely to that, and I think the general sense of the House has been that it should be confined to that. The Peace Treaty has been disposed of, and the legislation necessary in order to carry out Canada's part with reference to that has also been in part disposed of. Those comprise the important business for which we were brought together; we were not brought together for the purpose of private business. I should hope it is the unanimous wish of the House that the session should end as quickly as possible, and there is no reason why we should not end our work next week. I think both the House itself and the country will rather be glad if that takes place.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister, who is an old parliamentarian, will remember, if he casts his eye back upon the history of motions of this kind, that they were never brought on the first day that notice was given; that there was always some leeway.
I have never known a session when the day set in the original motion was taken by the Government. There has always been some extension of time. The leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition usually arranged the matter in the House in the presence of us all, and I am pressing from the time-honoured custom of not taking Monday on such short notice.


George Eulas Foster: We must also
take into consideration, that we have never yet had a session called for the purpose for which this session was called. I may also say that with fair progress on the small number of Government measures before the House tl think there will be ample opportunism George Foster.]
ity next week, after disposing of the Government measures, to take up all the more important private business, provided the debates are not too long. Although Government business will have precedence, that does not mean we shall have enough Government business to shut off entirely private business, nor is that the intention. I think my hon. friend and his friends will have quite sufficient time for that, unless it is their wish to prolong the session for another week, and I do not think we want to do that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


George Eulas Foster: I would therefore ask my hon. friend to let the motion pass and trust the Government to deal gently and considerately with him in the matter of private legislation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: After such a promise, I will do almost anything.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Would it be possible for the minister to amend his motion to provide for Wednesday night sittings. That might enable us to get home sooner.


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: We can do that if it is necessary, later. I will put a motion on the Order Paper to that effect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: In yesterday's Votes and Proceedings I observe my name as one of the members of the special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 18, to amend the Civil Service Act. As my name was inserted without my knowledge ot authority I desire it to be withdrawn.


William Findlay Maclean: The usual practice was followed in this case of asking the leader of the Opposition to name the usual proportion of members of the Opposition to the committee.


Charles Murphy: I merely wish to say that I was not spoken to, so I ask that my name be withdrawn.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think my hon. friend had better serve on. the committee, notwithstanding that.


Charles Murphy: No.


Frank S. Cahill: My name is also down as one of the members of that committee. As it was placed there without my knowledge or consent, and in view of the fact that the minister in charge of the Bill would not give an answer to my question yesterday, I ask that my name be withdrawn.



BOARD OF COMMERCE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ,1. ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres): I would ask the Minister of Justice how he reconciles the appointment of Mr. James Murdock as the third member of the Board of Commerce with his reiterated promise that a French-speaking gentleman would get this position. At one sitting of this House in particular I was promised that the necessity for a thorough understanding of the French language by the Board had been given consideration and provided for.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This question should have been placed on the Order Paper, because the matter is not urgent. The appointment has been made, and the horn, member merely desires information which cannot vary the situation with respect to the Board of Commerce. I would ask that notice be given.


Joseph Archambault: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think we might get some valuable information from the minister on this point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member can get the information on Monday by putting his question on the Order Paper.


Joseph Archambault: I would ask the Minister of Justice if it is the intention of the Government to appoint a French-speaking gentleman to the Board of Commerce.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The actual membership of the Board of Commerce has been completed by the appointment of Mr. Murdock. I may add that a French-speaking gentleman, Lieutenant-Colonel Lafleche, thoroughly qualified in * every respect, has been appointed to be the chief examiner and advisory expert to the Commission. I am sure the hon. member will recognize his competency, and the very many reasons which justify that appointment. I am satisfied that with the organization of the board so completed the hon. member will realize that the statement of mine to which he has just referred has
been fully implemented. The hon. gentleman is mistaken in saying I had made a promise that a French-speaking gentleman would be appointed to the board. If lie will re-read what I said he will find that what I said was that when the organization was complete it would be found that the necessity of providing within that organization for the perfect understanding of the French language had been considered and provided for. Provision has been made in the way I have mentioned.


Joseph Archambault: May I ask what is the salary of Lieutenant-Colonel Lafleche?


Charles Joseph Doherty: His salary is $5,000 per annum.



MILITIA ACT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Mewburn (Minister of Militia and Defence), Bill No. 19, to amend the Militia Act, was read the second time, considered in Committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell (President of the Privy Council), Bill No. 22, to .amend the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Aot, was read the second time, and the House wen-t into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On Section 1-Name changed.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It might be well for the President of the Council to explain this Bill. As I understand it, I believe it amalgamates the two forces.


Newton Wesley Rowell: As I intimated on the first reading, the Bill provides for the amalgamation of the Dominion Police with the Northwest Mounted Police. The continuing force will be the Mounted Police, and provision is made in this Bill whereby the Dominion Police may enlist in the Mounted Police, notwithstanding their age, and become entitled to the benefits of Mounted Policemen under the terms of the Bill. That will give to the Dominion Police the benefit of the pension provisions now available for members of the Mounted Police. Up to the present time there has been no pension fund for the Domin.on Police. Some of the mem-for the Dominion Police. Some of the mem-reacned the age at which, under the terms of the Act relating to the Mounted Police, they would be entitled to retire from the force and draw pension. It was considered that it would not be right to provide that,

upon joining the Mounted Police, they should have the right to immediately retire and draw pension, and it is therefore provided that they must serve for five years in the new force before they shall become entitled to retire voluntarily and receive pension. ilf a member of the Dominion Police were retired for grounds which, under the Mounted Police Act, would entitle a man to pension, he would then become entitled to it under the new Act. The Bill substantially improves the existing status of the Dominion Police and provides one Federal police force for the whole Dominion. The Bill further amends the clause of the Act which fixes the headquarters of the police force in the Western Provinces, and authorizes the Governor in Council to determine where the headquarters shall be. When the Bill goes into operation there is no doubt that the headquarters will be established at Ottawa and the force will be administered from this city. I think that this fairly outlines the purpose of the Bill.


Mr. THOMPSON (Yukon):: Will the uniform of the amalgamated force be that of the Dominion Police or of the Northwest Mounted Police, or will a new uniform be provided?
Mr. BOWEL-L: The general uniform will be that of the Mounted Police; 'there will be no Change in that respect. Probably it will not be necessary or desirable that the uniform of that section of the police which is in charge of the Government Buildings in Ottawa should be changed from what it is at present. That particular matter has not been considered, but the present general uniform of the Mounted Police will be continued.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This matter is a very important one and should be thoroughly understood by the Canadian people. In the days prior to the organization of the entire northwest into separate provinces it was commonly understood just what the service of the Northwest Mounted Police was. That service was unquestionably a very valuable one, and members of the Northwest Mounted Police as a body have won fame for themselves as a result of the excellent service they have rendered the country. But when the great Northwest Territory was divided into distinct provinces- Manitoba long ago, and more recently Saskatchewan and Alberta-taking up practically all the country over which the Northwest Mounted Police held sway, then of course these areas came under the control of the provincial governments which were

responsible for the enforcement of law and order within their own bounds. I do not see why the province of Alberta, for instance, or British Columbia, or any province west of tlhe Great Lakes has a right to a force of mounted police any more than Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec or Ontario. The same responsibility rests upon every governmental machinery for the maintenance of Jaw and order within the limits of the province. If I remember correctly, an arrangement wa.s made a few years ago by which the provincial governments in the West contributed some money towards the pay of these forces. I do not know whether that policy is still in practice; at any rate, I have heard nothing about it for some time. I am quite familiar, at least from hearsay, with the work and establishment of the Northwest Mounted Police, but I do not profess to be equally conversant with the Dominion Police Force, which appears to be a distinct body discharging separate functions. Now the two bodies are -to be amalgamated. -We have received -no explanation from the -minister as -to what the services of the new body thus formed will be, and it is desirable that -certain questions should be -answered. For instance, do they belong to any particular -province or territory; -and what will their functions be? Again, what is their jurisdiction and what law of Parliament -are they supposed to enforce? These are very important questions, and we would expect that, with the amalgamation of the two existing forces, a smaller number of -men would accomplish the duties ait present discharged by -them respectively, with some resultant economy. I should think fewer men would suffice, with fewer departmental heads, than in the pas-t. How -many men does the minister intend to have in the new force; wh-at is the nature of the organization; what officers *are to be put in -charge of -these different bodies; where are the forces to be located; -and what -service generally are they rendering and -will they render to the people of Canada? Further, what is the necessity for them? I submit that when a province takes upon itself responsibilities -as such it necessarily -assumes also the responsibility for maintaining all the 'm-a-chin-e-ry that is requisite for the general administration of justice -and the proper observance of order and good government. Why should we have a body somewhat analogous to an armed force in aid of civil- authority when there is no trouble or disturbance of any kind? There -are no wild men in the

West so far as we can see, and it seems to me that it is .a very expensive luxury for the Canadian people 'to maintain these forces unless tlhere is an imperative necessity for them.
The different provinces of Canada should assume the responsibility of looking after their own affairs. If there are any outbreaks in sight in the West, of course, that should be provided for, hut as far as I know, no indication is present of any trouble of that kind. It seems to me that there is some argument in favour of effecting economy by cutting down these forces or disposing of them altogether and letting the provinces look after their own affairs. The minister should explain what is to become of the various officials whom we had in connection with these two establishments. It is to be hoped that we are not going to carry on under one head all the officialdom that we have had under two departments. At this time when it is so keenly felt that we should save not only every dollar but every five cents that we can in order to keep within out national income and follow the principles of proper economic government, we should economize in every possible way. I trust that the minister will explain the exact position with- regard to these forces.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is correct in saying that some few years ago agreements existed between the Federal Government and the Governments of the three prairie provinces under which the Mounted Police performed certain police duties in those provinces and in return the provinces paid a cash contribution to the Dominion Government. During the war those agreements were'Terminated, because it was considered that in view of the duties which devolved upon the police from a federal standpoint, their whole time would be required for these purposes during the war period. The most important branches of their work related to aliens and alien communities in Western Canada, the policing of the international boundary, and the general safeguarding of our interests in time of war. The agreements, as I have said, came to an end and there is now no written agreement in existence between the Federal Government and the Government of any of the provinces in reference to this work. Each province is responsible for the maintenance of law and order and for the administration of the criminal law within its own jurisdiction.
Much of the information my hon. friend has asked for to-day was given in the House
last session when I submitted an amendment to the then existing Mounted Police Act. That Act enlarged the jurisdiction of the Mounted Police, extending it throughout the whole Dominion. The amendment which is before the committee to-day does not enlarge the jurisdiction of the force; that is covered by the legislation which existed prior to last session and amendment of last session to which I have referred. The duties of the Mounted Police comprise the performance of such services as they may be called upon to render in relation to the enforcement of federal laws which affect the federal revenue, questions relating to customs, the international boundary, inland revenue, Indian settlements in Western Canada, and the post office-some very important work has been done by the Mounted Police in connection with trouble . that has arisen through robberies of the mails. They give attention also to certain work in connection with the Government system of railways. In addition the Mounted Police constitutes a reserve force which the provinces may call upon any time to assist in the maintenance of law and order. The Government considers it to be a matter of some importance that there should exist in this country at this time such a reserve force; and we are satisfied that that is the feeling of the people. This Bill does not increase the strength of the force; authority to increase the strength was given last session, The present authorized strength of the Mounted' Police is 2,500; the actual strength is somewhere between 1,600 and 1,700. The permanent Dominion Police make up a force of something less than 200, so that even when the Dominion Police, if they all choose to do so, enlist in the Mounted Police under the provisions of this Bill, the total strength will still be less than the present authorized strength of the Mounted Police.
I believe that there will be a reduction of expense in administration by reason of the amalgamation of the two forces. The iormer chief commissioner of Dominion Police, Sir Percy Sherwood, has resigned; the position has not been filled and it will not lie necessary to fill it. Under the new legislation the combined forces will be un-Jer the direction of the commissioner. The present Comptroller of Mounted Police will, under the new Act, be made financial comptroller and so long as the present incumbent holds that office he will receive the salary and hold the rank of deputy minister, as at present. That is the same provision as was made last year in con-

nection with the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, who was transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce to take charge of the Trade Marks and Copyright branch.


John Howard Sinclair: What are the duties of the financial comptroller?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The words themselves give an indication of what the duties will he-questions of pay, the purchase of supplies, equipment, accounts. In fact, the financial side of the administration will come under the financial comptroller.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thought there was to be a purchasing commission some day?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, but there must be a man in the department to look after the accounting side. '


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend said there would be an officer who would purchase.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If I used that language, I did so inadvertently; I meant an officer who would look after the purchasing. There must be in each department an officer who is charged with the responsibility of recommending what should be purchased in that department. With a force of 1,500 to 2,500 men, the question of supplies to be purchased and of the general financial management of so substantial a force will require the care and1 attention of a responsible officer. That, generally, describes the duties which would pertain to the office of the financial comptroller.


Alfred Thompson: Did I understand the President of the Privy Council to say that the present comptroller would continue in office as financial comptroller, with the status of a deputy minister.


Newton Wesley Rowell: He will be re-appointed; at present he is comptroller. This Bill provides for the office of financial comptroller, and he will be appointed, under this measure, to that office with the rank and status of a deputy minister. That is the intention.


Mr.   OOWAN@: The statement was made by the President of the Privy Council a few minutes ago that after all these arrangements had been completed, the probabilities were that the headquarters of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police would be removed to' the city of Ottawa. This is of very direct interest to me because I happen to live in the city of Regina which has, for probably thirty-five or forty years, been the headquarters of this magnificent force, 
and I would like to know what is meant by the statement. Does the minister mean that the administrative officers will be moved to this city, or is he going to bring to Ottawa the whole of what has been heretofore regarded as the headquarters of that body? I might say that we expended out there probably a million dollars in providing barracks, training grounds, etc., and there are about two hundred acres of land in the city of Regina which the force has had the use of for that time without taxes, and everything has been done to assist it. I fancy that what is contemplated is the removal to Ottawa of the purely administrative officers, is that not so?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Mr.   OOWAN@: That is entirely satisfactory to me. I would like to say a word or two further while I am on my feet, if the President of the Privy Council will pardon me. The leader of the Opposition made reference to the Mounted Police, and suggested that probably there was no necessity for it in Western Canada any longer. Let me say that I think there is such necessity and that it probably will continue for at least twenty-five years to come. I do not think the entire cost of discharging duties that would be, and have been, discharged by the Mounted Police, should yet be thrown upon the provinces. Let the leader of the Opposition understand, as I think he must, that the Dominion Government has thrown into the province of Saskatchewan alone in the past ten years probably 250,000 foreigners, none of whom before they came here knew anything about the Government of Canada or the conditions under which they -vyould live in this country. These men do not know Canadian law and they have to be taught it. They have been thrown largely into colonies where they do not come into contact with Englishspeaking people at all. They will, I believe, in time make the very best citizens. Their sons and daughters will also be good citizens, but the whole of them must be properly trained, and trained in a way to respect [Canadian law. I know of nobody in Canada or elsewhere that can discharge that duty as efficiently as can the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. The force, in fact, has already done so. These foreigners do not fear the Mounted Police at all, they respect them, and that is why the police have been as successful as they have. Now, as I have lived for some thirty odd years in the city where the headquarters of this fine body is located, I have naturally

taken a great deal of interest in it, and I for one, like everybody else I think in Western Canada, was very much displeased when the movement was started to disband this very excellent force. However, the decision was given to re-establish the police, and we have been watching them very carefully this last year to see what the result would be. I wish to state as emphatically as I can, that I am exceedingly pleased with the progress that has been made in getting this force into its old condition. The type of men in the force in the olden days was of the very best.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Walter Davy Cowan: The police were an intelligent lot of men, they were of good social standing in every way. Men of splendid physique, and they were just the kind of men that were wanted. Latterly some hundreds of new men have been taken on the force, and I for one have been in a position where I could see the type of recruits that were being enrolled. By reason of the increase in salaries which was made last session, and further by the good judgment of Commissioner Perry, we have today in the force at the headquarters in Regina a body of men as fine as we ever had, and I am satisfied that in the course of another year the force will be back to its old-time condition and will once more enjoy its former prestige. That is the reason-because of the necessities of the situation and because the Federal Government should not thrust upon the provinces the cost of maintaining law and order and educating a foreign people for which the Dominion authorities are responsible-I think this body should be continued and in the manner suggested; but I do hope that the Government will not think of moving the headquarters of the force from the city of Regina at the present time-I think that would be a great mistake.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Just in answer to my hon. friend's question. (He is quite icorrect in his understanding of the situation. We will move the administrative officers who will direct the operations of the force. I have no doubt that all the buildings and equipment now at Regina will be required for the force stationed there, and will continue in use substantially as at present.


Walter Davy Cowan: All right.


Alfred Thompson: As I recall it, the present Comptroller of the Northwest Mounted Police was appointed
by commission. Now I understand he will be reappointed as Financial Comptroller, and I would therefore ask as to whether in his new position this officer will be reappointed by commission.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Bill as drawn probably does not require the issue of a commission. However, there is no intention of derogating from the status of the present Comptroller, and if it is necessary to provide that "by commission" should be added, I have no objection to inserting these words in the Bill. I intended to ask the Law Clerk about the 'point later, and if necessary that addition can be made.


Alfred Thompson: I am in the judgment of the minister, I merely wished to draw the point to his attention. I am tremendously interested in the splendid body of men known as the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, because I have been associated with them for about twenty years on the frontier. I have seen them carry on their duties in policing a vast territory approximating 200,000 square miles in extent find sparsely populated', and I think it is difficult for men living here to appreciate what the traditions, of the Royal Northwest Mounted Policemen are to that vast territory north and west of the lakes. The uniform of the members of this force has been a terror 'to evil-doers and would-be evildoers in the West from the boundary line to the Arctic ocean. The mere appearance of a yellow-striped constable in a mining camp, where there are men who would be likely to cause trouble if there was no restraining force in the vicinity, is sufficient, so wonderful is the tradition of this force throughout that vast territory. I am glad to know that the uniform of the force is to be retained, because it means a very great deal to people who live in that northwestern country. I think it is a good idea to amalgamate this force with the Dominion Police. As to the retention of the uniform of the Dominion Police in the Capital, or even in the East, where the Dominion Police are better known and the Mounted Police are not as well known, that may be a right thing to do, but I am not in a position to judge or to criticise the proceeding.
Some hon. member referred to the cost of administering this Force. I have no illusions in regard to it at all. It is going to cost more, for the simple reason that the force under the amended Act will be a larger force than we have ever had. As I recall it, the Royal Northwest Mounted Police never numbered more than 1,000 or

1,200 men during tthe last fifteen or twenty years. The Act, as I understand it, provides for an establishment of something like 2,500 men. I do not regret that; on the contrary, I welcome it, for it opens up another career for some of our young men who desire to participate in that form of national work.
It might be of interest to the committee, Mr. Chairman, for me to state the difference between the policing of the Yukon Territory of 200,000 square miles, with comparatively few people, and the policing of the District of Alaska with an area of 600,000 square miles. I do not suppose that at the present moment we have in. the Yukon Territory fifty Northwest Mounted Policemen, and at times that number is decreased perhaps to twenty-five and even less. I .have not the figures to present to you, Mr. Chairman, but I believe I am well within the mark when. I state that the United States Government to-day have in the District of Alaska between. 1,500 and 2,000 men-not ,as policemen, but as soldiers in military posts through that vast territory in the North which is under the Stars and Stripes. The Governmental authorities of Alaska admit that our system of policing, administering and governing a frontier country is very much superior to that in. vogue in. Alaska. I am satisfied myself that it is very much less expensive to police the Yukon. Territory per square mile or per capita of population than it is costing the Government of the United States at the present time with their system in, Alaska. They have from time to time studied our system, and efforts have been made to get the United States Government to create for their territories an establishment similar to our Northwest Mounted Police, but up to the present time they have not been successful. We have had many encomiums from men. who are prominent in the Republic to the South when they compare the two systems in the Yukon and in Alaska.
One word touching the cost of this proposed Force. As I say, I have no illusions in regard to it. This larger force is going to cost a lot of money, hut the expenditure will be worth while. We will have a mobile force spread across the country within easy striking distance of the various centres where unrest may from time to time occur. And, I assure you, Mr. Chairman, when the new force is properly organized we need fear very little trouble from prospective law-breakers. It will cost several million dollars more than it is costing now to keep this augmented

force equipped, provisioned and trained.
I am not quite sure how my
4 p.m. hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Major-General Mewburn) conducts his department, but I have in mind that the financial side of the Militia Department is under a separate head from the military side, and I would suggest to my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) the advisability of placing the financial part of this organization under a financial head. I take it that the President of the Privy Council will make Commissioner Perry head of the amalgamated body. And let me say here, Sir, that I have great pleasure in offering a tribute to that gallant officer for the excellent work he has done for the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Force. I know of no better man, and I know many officers of the force, who will uphold the traditions of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police with greater honesty, integrity and efficiency than the present Commissioner, Colonel Perry. However, he will have his hands full with what might be called the purely police or military part of the organization, and as a matter of administration I would suggest that it might be worth while to make the financial head independent of the military head, as I notice that this Bill provides for placing all matters under the control of the Commissioner. The Minister of Militia perhaps might inform us as to the custom in his department.
Major-General MEWBURN: The Deputy Minister of Militia, like the deputy minister of any other department, is directly under the minister and responsible to him.


Alfred Thompson: That is not exactly the point I raised. I know that the deputy minister is responsible to the minister.
Major-General MEWBURN: The deputy minister has charge of the civil and financial side of the department.


Alfred Thompson: That is the point I am making. I am not quite clear as to the line of responsibility here. Do both these gentlemen, the Commissioner and the Financial Comptroller, both have the status of deputy ministers? Of course, they are each responsible to the minister.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. Chairman, in answer to my hon. friend, I would say that the Bill as drawn provides that the Commissioner is to be the head of the force and responsible for its administration. The Bill provides for the appointment of a

Financial Comptroller, and so long as the present Comptroller shall occupy the post he will have the rank and status of a deputy minister. The duties of the Financial Comptroller will, under the' terms of the Bill, be defined by the Governor in Council. I do not think it is desirable to set them out in the Bill, for the reason that the view of the Government is that when the piesent Comptroller shall cease to hold this office it may be found possible to dispense with the title and add the duties to those performed by the commissioner.
I do not say that that can be done, but it is our present view that it may be done, and therefore the question of definition of the duties under the Bill should be made by the Governor in Council.


John Howard Sinclair: Do I understand that this Bill provides for the appointment of a new officer to be known as the Financial Comptroller?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have a comptroller now, but under the Bill he will be known as the Financial Comptroller, and instead of the duties of the comptroller being as extensive as they are now they will be limited to financial matters,.


John Howard Sinclair: It looks to me as if the office might be abolished altogether, because there appears to be very little for a financial comptroller to do, according to the description given by the' minister. The financial management of the Mounted Police Force is a very small matter, there being only 2,200 men to be paid, and a clerk in the department could do it just as well as a financial comptroller. Therefore, I see no reason why we should pay the salary of a deputy minister for the performance of services that seem to be so simple. I would like to impress upon the minister the necessity of economy in connection with this department, and I think this is one way in which he can economize. I do not think he has at all made out a case for the appointment of this financial comptroller. We all know that in the Yukon and in the North west Territories we require a Mounted Police force; in fact, it is indispensable, and, of course, on both sides of the House we agree that that force will have to be maintained.
It is not clear, however, that they should be used for domestic work in the provinces. I do not think a very good case has been made out for that by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan), or by the minister who has charge of the Bill. The minister tells us that the members of the force are now devoting themselves to looking after
infractions of the customs, inland revenue and post office law's. Why should we have that force engaged in that work in the Western Provinces when that is not necessary in the Eastern Provinces? As regards infractions of the customs laws, the seacoast is the place where there is the most danger, where there are the greatest facilities for smuggling and other breaches of the customs laws. If the ordinary customs officers are able to maintain the customs laws on the eastern and western coasts of this country, I do not see any good reason why we should spend large sums of money in assisting customs officers in the three Prairie Provinces. It will be necessary for the minister ito make out a stronger case than he has made on that score. My idea would be to reduce the staff of the Northwest Mounted Police to the capacity that would be necessary to * police the Northwest Territories and the Yukon and to let the three Prairie Provinces look after their own affairs.


Francis Henry Keefer: Mr. Speaker, coming from a riding which is not of the Northwest Provinces but of that portion of the old province of Ontario called New Ontario, I wish 'to point out that there is something more in having this force well up to strength than merely in order to administer the laws of which he speaks. If you take -a point somewhat isolated, say four or five hundred miles away from any place where 'there is a laige number of trained men, of any force at places, for instance >at the head of the lakes, like Fort William, where the Government have wisely seen fit to establish a headquarters, the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) cannot realize the feeling of confidence existing there now since those men have been established at that point. Prior to that a very large proportion of our population was from the different parts of Europe, strange to our ways and to our language, and in times of excitement the situation amongst those of us who lived there was considered very critical as we did not know at what minute these people might flare up. I have seen riots;
I have seen times when we had to bring the militia from Winnipeg there in order to carry on the transportation, not only of the domestic business, but of the business of the whole of Canada. You have there three transcontinental railways; you have there elevators with a capacity of 53,000,000 bushels; the whole of the Northwest business is dependent upon what takes place there, and it is not


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry
to find the able-bodied representative for Port Arthur so frightened of foreigners.

Down in the province from which I come we have thousands and hundreds of thousands of all classes and descriptions of men from all parts of the world, not only by land but by sea. We live at seaport towns where we get all classes of people in the world. If you go into any small town in Nova Scotia with a population of ten, fifteen or twenty thousand, you will find two boys in bluecoats going along the streets, the same two men doing night and day duty without the slightest trouble, and everybody sleeping soundly when sleep time comes, nobody afraid.


Francis Henry Keefer: What about strikes?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In times of strikes we never require outside help. Our own men take care of the situation. The sight of a Royal Northwest Mounted policeman would be a curiosity in our province. Nobudy would think of asking for their help. Of course, we are all slow to part with any luxuries we may enjoy, and the Northwest Mounted Police are undoubtedly a luxury to the western people. No province wili undertake to provide its own police so long as it can pass the burden on to the Dominion Government, and so long as the President of the Privy Council continue? to pay for policing the West the Provincial Governments there will be perfectly happy to let him do it, and in the meantime will not appoint a force of their own. They will not organize, form districts, appoint councillors and get a proper grasp on the situation themselves. Naturally they say "Why should we concern ourselves about that? We can use our money in another way. Ottawa is looking after this matter and paying the taxes." I do not doubt that it would be regarded as most extraordinary if the city of Sydney, or Halifax, or St. John should ask this Parliament to tax the people of the West for policing any of those cities. My good friends from the West would not stand for it for a moment. They would say, and quite properly, "Let those cities and the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island anti New Brunswick do their own policing in their own way. We are not called upon to furnish money for policing their cities." Now the West has very much larger cities than we have in the East. The magnificent cities of Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and others put to shame our little establishments down by the sea. Why should not these great cities with all their wealth and influence and civilization and society. do their own policing? I think it is extraordinary that
people from the other provinces should be called upon to put their hands in their pockets to pay for policing the West, and it will continue so long as this Government sits back and pays the bills, and does not stir up the provincial authorities to look after their own affairs. The Mounted Police do nothing that cannot be done locally by the provincial authorities, if they would only get down to it. My hon. friend (Mr. Keefer) tells us that in this great magnificent province of Ontario with all its wealth and population, educational facilities, and potential resources, the people of his district had to send for mounted policemen to keep order in a corner of the province around Port Arthur. Ii I had not heard him say so, I could not have believed that any corner of this great province would come to the Dominion Government for police to maintain-order and good government within the province. It is a discovery that I never expected to make, and I would advise my good friend at once to insist upon the sleepers at Queen's Park waking up and providing proper police protection for the province to which he belongs, and let the resit of Canada look after themselrves.
It is all very well to talk generalities, but I want to say that >1 am making these observations seriously and with the earnest desire to see a proper administration of law and the maitenance of good order and adequate police protection in every nook and corner of this great country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the best way to accomplish that is to throw the responsibility for the administration of these matters upon the local Governments. My good friend from the Yukon, who in his early days had the benefit of all we could give to a youth in the great province of Nova iScotia, knows that in that province we never had occasion for protection- of this kind, and I am surprised that he got accustomed to such protection in the far West. I should' like to see the foreigner in the good province of Nova Scotia who would try to boss around our Irish and French and Scotch people down there. He would find out where he was pretty quick. We have full control. We never give way to any foreigners. The foreigner has to make his conduct conform to our laws, and in no province in the East do we look for the protection of mounted police. I repeat, that as long as the minister continues to keep up this huge machinery and pays the bills for the local Governments and cities and towns of the West, so long will he find them coming back to him and



their representatives in Parliament saying what a magnificent man the minister is. what magnificent officers he has appointed, how well lie is treating the West, and what magnificent results 'they are getting. It costs them nothing to say that, and when [DOT]this Government- pays the bill the taxpayer in, the West is relieved of his legitimate obligation of maintaining law and order there. If the foreigner does not behave himself properly, let the local authorities police the district and make the foreigner pay for the policing. That would soon bring him to his senses, when he found he had to pay for any disorders he created. It is said that if you want to touch a Scotchman on a tender spot, touch him on the sporran, but I know of no better way of bringing men to their senses as a rule than by touching their pockets, and giving them to understand that if they do not obey the law they must take the consequences and pay the penalty. The minister knows that in 1906, immediately the two new provinces in the West were organized, there was a change in the old conditions. The new Governments formed in the West realized that a new era had dawned and that they had taken upon themselves provincial responsibilities, and those responsibilities they had to discharge. The burden which the Dominion Government had carried for a great many years was shifted to other shoulders. Now, some twelve or fourteen years afterwards, I cannot understand why we should be going back to those old responsibilities. We should have advanced, and conditions should be very much 'better than they were in 1906, when these two new provinces were formed. 1 hope that the minister, who loves economy, or at least professes to do so, will carefully consider what I am saying, for I was never more serious about anything in my life than I am in this statement, that while I desire to see order maintained in Canada and progress made in every province, I think that the responsibilities which the Constitution casts upon every provincial government should be left to that government to be discharged, and that we should perform our own duties that devolve upon us. The member for Antigonish and Guysborough has pointed out that we have a very expensive machinery in connection with this matter. Now, I can understand that when two departments are amalgamated the minister may have some difficulty in disposing of officials, but in such circumstances those officials should be subsidized, or some*other satisfactory course should he 
taken in order to have matters conducted in a businesslike way. It is exceedingly unbusinesslike to put half a dozen governmental families into one house and maintain them under their old heads and with their former wages. What is the good of such amalgamation? Every business amalgamation that occurs in the country is made with a view to economy. If two banks are amalgamated you do not find two presidents and two managers. The sole purpose of the amalgamation is a greater expedition in business and an improvement in the matter of economy, and if we are going to put these two departments together I trust we shall follow the same principle. Why should this force not be under the control of some existing department that has the proper machinery at hand ? The Militia Department have to deal with thousands of men outside. I do not know that they have any financial agents or officers outside of the department, but the entire business, at least in normal times, is managed from the department. This police force might very well be placed under the. control of the Department of Immigration and Colonization. That department is in touch with the West and knows the conditions that exist there. It is not a busy department by any possibility, for, as far as we can see, it has had nothing to do for the last three or four years. Indeed, if I were asked to mention anything that has been done by that department I should be entirely at a loss to do so. Why not therefore give it something to do? Put the force under their control and wipe out all the unnecessary machinery that we have been maintaining merely for the control of one or two thousand men working in the West. I am confident that this department would not he overworked if the force we.re put under it's control. At any rate, the Northwest Mounted Police must not exist for more than a few years, because the time is coming when every province will have to take care of itself as regards the enforcemnt of law and order. Let no one imagine for a moment that I have anything but the highest praise for the Northwest Mounted Police. But no matter how good they are, when the day arrives that their services 'are no longer required by the Carfhdian people they must go. They must be provided for if necessary. At all events, they will have the profession and do something else, and there is plenty for them to do in this great country. These are my views on this subject, and I am particularly of the opinion

that the provincial governments and their officials must do their own work and shoulder their full responsibility as prov-' inces. The sooner we appreciate the importance of that principle the better.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: My hop. friend has drawn a touching picture of the peacefulness and somnolence of the villages in Nova Scotia, and of the two constables who have nothing to do in North Sydney, I suppose. He has also shown us generally how the affairs of the province are looked after and how capably they are attended to by the village Dogberries of that district. The hon. member, however, must bear in imind that we sometimes get different accounts of Nova Scotia, and especially of Cape Breton, that indicate that the province is not always free from the industrial troubles and riots which have afflicted other parts of the country. My hon. friend as a lawyer will know that a leading case in connection with the calling out of the militia for the suppression of trouble arose in the particular corner of the province from which he comes, and it bears directly upon this question; for by such an act as this we may avoid any riot in that very peaceful corner oif Nova Scotia. There it was necessary to call out the militia to suppress the trouble. A Highland regiment, the number of which I have forgotten'-any hon. friend from Guysborough no doubts knows it-was called out, which was a very improper thing to do. The militia is not for the purpose of interfering in labour troubles, and everyone will agree with this statement. Interference of this kind only gives the militia a bad name amongst the people against whom they are called out, but if there is no police force there is nothing to do but to call out the militia. The case in question arose from the fact that my hon. friend's townsmen or neighbours requested the militia to suppress a riot and the regiment was constrained to go to the courts in order to collect their pay for the very strenuous work they performed. Now, the Northwest Mounted Police have found a place deep down in the hearts of the people of this country. For years and- years we have known how, by their system of stern, yet benevolent, justice they have been able to exercise a widespread authority and influence over the great territory that has hitherto been our ward. I hope that in time the provinces there will come into all the natural resources that are theirs and may then be able to finance matters of this sort. As my hon. friend from Yukon has said, the Northwest Mounted Police, by reason of 531
the wholesome fear which they have inspired in the rough and rude men of the West, have effected such a perfect state of discipline and such a respect for authority that one man can fearlessly enter a camp of desperadoes or refractory Indians-at any rate if he is afraid he admirably conceals his fear-and quell any trouble that exists, and arrest the most desperate man in the crowd. The moment these men see the uniform they realize that it is useless to resist the authority of the police. When a murder occurs among the Esquimaux on the Arctic ocean two or three men go out, and, taking their lives in their hands, bring the offenders to justice. Even if it takes a year to attain that end, the people in those regions know that the Northwest Mounted Police will stick with dogged tenacity to their purpose until crime is expiated, and we hope to see such implicit respect for law and order prevail throughout the country. Now, I do not agree that there will be any extra expense as a result of the amalgamation of the forces. The very reverse will be the effect, for we shall be able to abolish the position of the Commissioner of Dominion Police, now filled by Sir Percy Sherwood at a salary of $6,000 as deputy minister, and we shall have one commissioner at the head of both forces. The work will be co-ordinated and the result must necessarily be a great improvement and economy. We must have an administrative department to conduct tne business end of the force, and the present controller apparently is to be made financial controller. So that we are bound to have economy instead of extra expense. Altogether, therefore, I think the minister deserves the support and commendation of the House when he introduces a measure like this to perpetuate the efficient work of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police in regard to which so much excellent sentiment exists.
Mr. \\ HIDDEN: I should like to say just a word in favour of this clause and this Bill. I do not think it can be very easily shown that the Bill favours a sectional luxury; I rather think that it favours a national necessity. If I did not believe that the enactment of this legislation would be in the national interest I would not be as much interested in it as I am or as ready to support the Bill.
The question is not simply what the Northwest Mounted Police has dona for Western Canada as such; it is what that body of men has done for the whole of Canada, even though it has operated very largely in one part of the country. The sooner we get away from the sectional idea

of the benefits to be received from such organizations as this the truer our view will be. I am not inclined to disbelieve the possibility of an occasional Northwest Mounted policeman having been of great value if he could have been procured in that part of Nova Scotia from which it was my privilege to come, a good many years ago; I am not so sure but that an occasional Scotchman and Irishman needed to be brought into line, especially on election nights. But be that as it may, the fact remains that the newer parts of Canada are only beginning to be developed. There are the northern portions of the four western provinces; there is the new section of Ontario itself. Indeed, I should not be surprised if sufficient foreigners came into the good old Maritime Provinces to make the presence of a few red-coats welcome down there some time in the future. As for extravagance in continuing the Comptroller in his present office, I do not think there is an argument there at all. The President of the Council has given us ample assurance that such further adjustments will be made from time to time as are fair and reasonable and in the interests of this merged or combined force-a force to be known not as the "Royal Northwest Mounted Police" but as the "Royal Canadian Mounted Police." This Bill is worthy of our largest sympathy and our complete support.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I am not quite clear *on the question of jurisdiction. Suppose a mail robbery occurs in Ontario; would it he in order for the Mounted Police to take Initial action in that case or would their jurisdiction be in the way of supplementing the work of the provincial police-


Newton Wesley Rowell: The primary responsibility for the enforcement of criminal law rests upon the governments of the various provinces, and in the case of any violation of the criminal law it is the duty of the province to see that the violator is prosecuted under the provisions of the Criminal Code. In such a case as that which my hon. friend mentions it would be quite competent, however, for the Federal Government, which is particularly interested in such a matter as that of the robbery of the post office or the mails, to put its own police on that case with a view to following up and capturing the criminal. That has actually happened in certain cases in Western Canada. The most cordial relations exist, I believe, between the heads of the Mounted Police and the Attorneys General

of the different provinces. I have made it perfectly clear to the Attorneys General of the provinces that this Government does not intend to relieve them from their prim- -ary obligation to maintain law and order in their own provinces. This force will give their attention, to the enforcement of the various federal laws to which I have referred and which affect the revenues of the Federal Government.
I want to make it quite clear that the Mounted Police will perform also the very important function throughout Canada of being a reserve force available when called upon by the Government of any province to assist in the maintenance of law >and order. In every country a certain force must be maintained for the preservation of law and order. If we had not the Mounted Police, we would have to have a larger permanent military force in Canada. The existence of such a body as this will render it unnecessary to maintain as large a permanent military force as otherwise would be required for the maintenance of law and order and of constitutional authority.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is aware that we have doubled the militia force?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have not doubled it yet.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We passed legislation to that effect.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Authority has been
granted to do that, but it has not been acted upon as yet. The point I am making, however, is not with reference to the strength which is authorized; it is with reference to the actual force that should be maintained. I think it is wiser to have that reserve in the form of police force rather than in the form of a larger military force than we need otherwise maintain. It will tend to the preservation of law and order and it will be less likely to give offence and create irritation if the force available for maintaining law is a police rather than a military force. May I illustrate that point by mentioning the unfortunate strike that took place in Winnipeg last summer and the situation which resulted therefrom? It was no part of the duties of the Mounted Police to interfere in any way with the progress of that strike or take sides with either employers or employees.
The Mounted Police took no action until the mayor of the city and the Attorney General of the province stated that they were no longer able to maintain law and order, and requested the assistance of the

Mounted Police. The fact that the Mounted Police were there -at. that -time and did take prompt -and effective -action when called upon to assist in the preservation of law and order when disturbances occurred undoubtedly prevented v-ery serious bloodshed, and the possible loss of life and property on a serious scale. They re-es-tabli-shed law -and order in the course of a day or two after the trouble broke out. So that in -addition to the peculiar federal purposes which have been mentioned this force will be a reserve available at the call of the provinces to assist in the maintenance of law and order in case there is necessity for. their so doing. Such is the reputation of the Mounted Police; such is the regard in which they are held wherever they are known, that the very fact of their presence in a given locality prevents many an outbreak which might otherwise occur. The value of the services rendered by the Mounted Police, therefore, rests not only upon fheir active assistance if called upon in case of a disturbance, but also upon the fact that their being available for the preservation of law. and order constitutes an important safeguard against -serious disturbances.
I agree with the leader of the Opposition, that we should not relieve the provinces of their -primary responsibility for the administration of the criminal law and the maintenance of law and order in their own provinces. There is no intention to relieve them from the responsibility-this force is merely complementary to theirs and is maintained in the interests of the whole Dominion.


Jean-Joseph Denis: What is the actual strength of the force?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The present strength is between sixteen and seventeen hundred.


Jean-Joseph Denis: May I ask also the number of men that are stationed in each province at the present time?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The principal divisions
at the present time are the Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia divisions. What is called the Manitoba section of the force includes the detachment at Fort William as well as the forces in Winnipeg, Brandon, and Portage la Prairie. Winnipeg is the headquarters for the administration of the Manitoba division but the reserve squadron-that is a squadron available in the case of need-is stationed at Brandon, Manitoba. Regina is the prin

 cipal headquarters of the force in the province of -Saskatchewan and the main body
of the -police of that division is stationed there, but there are detachments in certain other important centres of the province. In Saskatchewan also an important force is maintained at Prince Albert and from that post an important section of the Northwest Territories is administered. In the province of Alberta there is the northern section with headquarters at Edmonton and the southern force with headquarters at Lethbridge, a substantial number being maintained at Macleod where we have suitable barrack accommodation for them. In the province of British -Columbia the main force is stationed at Vancouver but we have limited forces in Victoria and at certain points in the interior. Vancouver will be the headquarters for the force in that province.


John Archibald Campbell: To be perfectly clear on the point I raised a minute ago. Take for illustration an ordinary robbery, do I understand from the minister that it is primarily in order for the provincial police to look after the matter, but that the Mounted Police may take action of their own volition if they wish, without being called upon by the provincial force?


Newton Wesley Rowell: A-s I understand my hon. friend's question, it is this: Would the Mounted Police take action without being called upon by the provincial authorities to do so? Is that my hon. 'friend's, question?


John Archibald Campbell: I asked, would they
have the authority to do so?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They would have the
authority, in fact the right, to do so, -as I understand the law and the powers given them under this Act, but whether they would do so or not is a question of policy, and the general policy is n-o-t to intervene except at the request of the province.


John Archibald Campbell: That is the point I
wanted cleared up.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it the intention of the Government to station any of the Mounted Police in the eastern provinces?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The distribution of the
force when the amalgamation is completed has not been decided upon-. When the amalgamation is completed then the question will be taken up for consideration. I cannot say at the present time that there will be any portion of the force stationed in the East, and yet it is quite within the powers given by the Act of last session, and by this Bill to place a limited number of the force there if it was considered in the public interest

to do so. Of course there are certain Dominion Police in the East at the present time who will now become Mounted Police, and to that extent the force will be represented.


John Howard Sinclair: This Bill provides for the appointment of two chief officers, a Commissioner and a Financial 'Comptroller. I understand that the salary of a deputy minister is $6,000 and that the Financial Comptroller is to receive that amount. Will the minister state what salary it is proposed to give the commissioner?


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. Before the
minister answers the question I must draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that we are not proceeding regularly this afternoon. Clause 1 has not yet been adopted and this question is entirely pertinent and relevant to clause 2. We shall never make any progress unless the clauses are debated as they are taken up.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Wliat is the purpose of clause 1?


Georges Henri Boivin: Clause 1 simply declares that the name of the force shall be changed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-appointment of Commissioner and Financial Comptroller.
John Howard Sinclair: Perhaps I can
get an answer to my question now


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Commissioner oi
Police now draws a salary of $4,000 as provided by the Act and the usual allowances granted to an officer of the Mounted Police. It is contemplated that that amount will be increased, in view of the increased responsibilities imposed upon the Commissioner. My present view is the Government will recommend an increase of $1,000, making his salary $5,000 instead of $4,000, plus the allowances which an officer receives. The Government will either do that, or fix a stated amount which will include all allowances.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The practice or procedure by which the militia are called out in aid of the civil authonties is well established under the Militia Act. Will the Minister explain rwhat machinery is provided under his Act by which the civil authorities can call out this body of police to their aid if they should require it. A soldier who used his .gun or bayonet in quelling a riot without the authority of the mayor of the municipality or of the local authorities, would be acting unlawfully, but if he has [Mr. Rowell. 1
such authority from the authorities he is protected in anything he may do. Supposing that in the city uf Winnipeg or the city of Toronto, it is found necessary to call out this body that we are now creating in aid of the civil authorities, what is the legitimate way of going about it so that these men would have authority and would be protected in whatever they might do?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The policy which has been adopted, and which I think has been found to work satisfactorily, is that we require a request from the Attorney General of the province before the Mounted Police are allowed to intervene in support of law and order. Of course, we do not require such a request in connection with the enforcement of certain Dominion laws in which the Dominion Government is particularly interested. It is not statutory, it is the result of a common understanding between the Dominion authorities and the Attorneys General of the different provinces.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the province incur any liability upon making such a request?


Newton Wesley Rowell: This House has to vote the appropriations for the maintenance of the Mounted Police, and we have not asked the provinces to make any contribution under those conditions.


John Howard Sinclair: As the minister is aware, the municipality where a disturbance takes place is liable to bear the expense of policing by the military. The proposal now is, as I understand it, to allow the municipal authorities a choice between the Mounted Police and the military. It appears to me that the minister's idea is that sometimes the military might be called out, and at other times the Mounted Police, to assist in quelling disturbances. I would like to know if the chief magistrate of a municipality has that choice? There is no doubt as to the practice in regard to the military. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) has referred to that. When a request is made by the chief magistrate of the place where a disturbance is taking place it is the duty of the military to assist. I would like to have some explanation on that point. .


Newton Wesley Rowell: The situation is not quite as my hon. friend has suggested. As he has pointed out, the conditions under which the military interfere are well understood and laid down in the statute, and there is no proposal to interfere with that practice. As the law stands, the mayor of any muni-
>
cipality, under the conditions prescribed in the Act, inay ask for the assistance of the local inilitia in maintaining law and order. Where that assistance is given it necessarily means a more or less substantial expenditure of public money to provide for the maintenance of the militia while they are under arms. But the Mounted Police are in regular service all the time. It does not cost any more for them to assist in the maintenance of law and order, as, for instance, in the Winnipeg riots, than it costs the country to maintain them in barracks ready to be called out. In other words, the calling out of the police in a case like that did not add appreciably to the financial burden of the country. Therefore, so far the Government has not asked any province to make a contribution in a case that called for the assistance of the Mounted Police. We have not recognized the right of the head of a municipality to call for the assistance of the Mounted Police. We have always insisted that that assist-
5 p.m. ance would be given only upon the request of the Attorney General. We think in that way we are more likely to maintain that cordial co-operation which is so important in the administration of law and the maintenance of order throughout the provinces.
I will illustrate the situation by an actual incident. Some time last spring, as I recall it, we received a request from a certain point in British Columbia, stating that a strike was on, riots were occurring, and neither life nor property were secure, and asking that the Mounted Police be sent in. This reply was immediately sent: " Have you requested the Provincial Government to assist in maintaining law and order? If the Provincial Government require our assistance, and wire that they wish the Mounted Police to be sent in, then the Mounted Police will be sent in; but they will not be sent in unless the Provincial Government requests it." That has been the policy pursued up to date, and so far as I ain aware that is the policy which would be pursued in future.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister did not, perhaps, appreciate my point; at all events he did not answer iit. Supposing a mounted policeman comes into the city of Winnipeg, and in doing what he thinks is necessary to restore order he kills a man, and is charged with murder, wdiat is his protection? That is my point. If he were a soldier brought in by the mayor of Winnipeg under the Act he was practically the same as if at war, and if he killed a man in the discharge of
his duty his answer would be: He was called out under the Militia Act and acting in the discharge of his duties. That is the protection of the militia man. But here comes the mounted policeman, and in the discharge of his duties at the request of the mayor he happens accidentally or necessarily to kill a man, and he is charged with murder, what is his defence? I submit that it is noit a defence for him to say that the head of the Mounted Police Force told Him to come at the request of the mayor; there must be some statutory authority.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I overlooked the point my hon. friend has mentioned. He is quite correct in saying there should be some authority justifying such action. That authority is found in the Mounted Police Act itself. I turn ;to the amendment of the Act passed last session, which is now known as Chapter 69, 9-10 George V, and I find the duties and powers of the police are there set out, and in the respect to which I am now referring I do not think they differ materially from the law as it stood before the amendment. It is subsection (3) of section 12:
Every member of the force shall be a constable in every part of Canada for the purpose of carrying out the criminal and other laws of Canada, and in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory for carrying out any laws and ordinances in force therein.
Then section 18:
It shall be the duty of members of the force subject to the orders of the Commissioner,-
(a) to perform all duties which now are or hereafter shall be assigned to constables in relation to the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime, and of offences against the laws and ordinances in force in any province or territory or territories in which they may be employed, and the criminal and other laws of Canada, and the apprehension of criminals and offenders, and others who may be lawfully taken into custody.
The powers are practically identical with those of the Dominion Police under the Act governing the Dominion Police. They have the full powers of constables throughout Canada for the purpose of apprehending criminals and preserving law and order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If my hon. friend was presiding in a criminal court he would have to direct the jury that there was not sufficient authority there for any mounted policeman to shoot down a rioter.


Newton Wesley Rowell: He has the same authority as the Dominion Police now have. It has always been recognized that the Dominion Police have authority to apprehend

criminals in carrying out their duties under the law relating to the Dominion Police.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: Shall I report the Bill?


Newton Wesley Rowell: As there is another amendment which I wish to suggest and as it is not in quite proper form, I should like to leave the Bill in committee and bring up the amendment later on. I, therefore, move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	How much Canadian wheat of this year's growth has the Wheat Board, or its agent in London, sold to the British authorities?
2.	How many grades of wheat, and how many bushels of each gra'de have been sold?
3.	At what price has the wheat been sold, grade by grade, on the basis of "in store" Fort William?
4.	At what price has the wheat been sold, grade by grade, on the basis of f.o.b. Montreal?
5.	Has the Wheat Board sold wheat to any other government or party outside Canada? If so, what quantities, grades, and at what prices?
6.	How much, if any, Canadian wheat was sold by the Government prior to the appointment of the Wheat Board, and at what price?


George Eulas Foster: 
RATE OF EXCHANGE.
[Stage Direction]
#Mr. LEMIEUX:
1.	Is the Government aware that at the present rate of exchange, the franc is worth to-day about 11| cents, whereas the customs valuation still remains, as in normal times at 19.3 cents, or over 60 per cent in excess of the actual value of the franc?
2.	Is the Government aware that'under such circumstances, importers of French goods are thus called upon to pay 60 per cent more duty on their importations from France than in normal times?
3.	If so, what steps will the Government take to remove the heavy handicap which now exists against the importation of French goods, thereby adding so materially to their cost and to the burden already borne by the consumer?
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Stand.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend ask the Minister of Finance if he can prepare an answer to this question for the next sitting?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The question
should really have been answered before, and I do not understand why the answer has not been sent to me.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Importers in Montreal
are very anxious to have the Government consider this matter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Minister of Finance promised to have the question answered yesterday, and I promise my hon. friend I will get it on Saturday.


NOTICES OF MOTION.
George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend would think it better, we might run through these notices of motion and get rid of any which -were not debatable so that the information required might be given.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As I have personal
knowledge o-f but very few of these motions, 1 am afraid I cannot be of any assistance to the leader of the Government.


MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION.
Rodolphe Lemieux: [DOT]
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and Mr. Tibbitts, in reference to the finances of the Harbour Commission of Montreal, and also a copy of said Mr. Tibbitts' report to the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries in connection therewith.

He said: The object of this motion is to implement another motion which I made some days ago, asking for a return concerning the new wharfing rates in the harbour of Montreal. The return was duly made to the Hbuse, and I had a glance over it but the most important document in that return is missing, that is, the correspondence exchanged between the department and Mr. Tibbits, the expert appointed by the Government in the matter. I should like the minister to give instructions to have that correspondence added to the return which has already been made.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What does my hon. friend mean by "the finances of the Harbour Commission"? Their earnings and expenditures are, I suppose, matters of public record. I am asking only for information, so that the correct correspondence may be brought down.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There was a special
correspondence exchanged between the department and Mr. Tibbitts in regard to expenditure within the Harbour Commission.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is that ordinary expenditure or capital expenditure for this year?


Rodolphe Lemieux: General expenditure.
Mr. Tibbitts was appointed specially for that purpose. I am told the correspondence is not very long, and it is based on his report that the wharfing rates were made here.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 16, respecting the North Empire Fire Insurance Company-Mr. Blake-Mr. Boivin in the Chair
On section 1-Certain shares of capital stock declared to be valid:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this a new company?


Mr. BLAKE:: No, it has been doing business for years, but an alteration in the charter is desired to satisfy an Old Country company that is taking the business over.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Has the old company a Dominion charter?


Matthew Robert Blake: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The insurance business in Canada is usually looked after by the Finance Department, and I see several financial authorities in the House. I do not profess to know myself whether this Bill is in compliance with the general insurance law.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bill was submitted to the Superintendent of Insurance, and has his approval as it stands.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
On the motion of Sir George Foster th^ House adjourned at 5.17 p.m.
Monday, October 6, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 24, to amend the Criminal Code.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Explain.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose of the
amendment is simply to correct an error that crept into the dispositions which prohibit the carrying of firearms. There are two dispositions, one of general application, which prohibits the carrying of such firearms as are susceptible of being concealed on the person, and the second applicable only to aliens, which was intended to make a prohibition of the carrying of firearms generally without the proper license. In the second section as it stands in the Code the words " as above described " were introduced which produced the result of limiting the disposition to the class of firearms the carrying of which was generally prohibitive. The purpose of this amendment is simply to strike those words out so that with regard to firearms generally the prohibition will apply to aliens, who will be required to have a license to carry any kind of firearms. At present the general law requires a license only for the carrying of such firearms as are susceptible of being concealed on the person.


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

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

Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Is the Government aware that at the present rate of exchange, the franc is worth to-Uay about 113 cents, whereas the customs valuation still remains, as in normal times at 19-3 cents, or over 60 per cent in excess of the actual value of the franc?
2.	Is the Government aware that under such circumstances, importers of French goods are thus called upon to pay 6-0 per cent more duty on their importations from France than in normal times?
3.	If so, what steps will the Government take to remove the heavy handicap which now exists against the importation of French goods, thereby adding so materially to their cost and to the burden already borne by the consumer?


William Findlay Maclean: 
ST. LAWRENCE RIVER PROTECTION WORKS.
Mr. DESAULNIERS:: 1.	Did the Government erect any protection
works, during the past few years, on the shores of the St. Lawrence River in the following parishes:	VerchSres, Varennes, Boucherville,
Contrecoeur, Ile-Saint-Ignace, and St. Barthfi-lemi?
2.	If so, in what year, what was their nature, and what did they cost?


Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) (c): Boucherville, 1914-15, $1,280.25,
1915-	16, $1,966.89, $3,247.14; Contrecoeur, 191415, $2,029.55; St. Barthelemi, 1915-16, $999.75,
1916-	17, $668.40, $1,668.15; St. Ignace de'
Loyola, 1915-16, $736.78,	1916-17, $1,332.87,
1917-	18, $660.51, $2,730.16; Varennes, 1914-15, $1,755.39, 1915-16, $1,805.32, 1917-18, $1,232.81, $4,793.52; Vercheres, Nil.
(b). Boucherville, earth embankment and wall; Contrecoetir, earth embankment; St. Barthelemi, material supplied by Department, work done by municipality; St. Ignace de Loyola, earth filling; Varennes, earth embankment.


NOTRE-DAME-DES-SEPT-DOULEURS
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Were there any tenders received for the construction of a wharf at Notre-Dame-des-Sept-Douleurs, Isle-Verte, Que. ?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	What are the names of each tenderer and amount of each tender?
4.	Who was the successful tenderer?
5.	Does the department intend to immediately proceed with the work, so that the citizens of Isle-Verte may be in a position to use the wharf next spring in shipping sea products?


Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	5.
3.	Messrs. N. Let-ourneau and J. A. Fortier, $4,347.85; Messrs. T. Beaumont and <T. R. Boulanger, $4,722.90; Mr. T. J. Coulom'be, $4,872.82; Messrs. Jos. Gosselin, Ltd., $5,690.85; Messrs. P. Fraser and G. Michaud, $7,255.99.
4.	Answered by above.
5.	Yes.

DREDGING OF GRAHAM'S RIVER, P.E.I. Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):
1.	Has a petition been received by the Department of Public Works from the residents of Park Corner and Sea View, Prince Edward Island, asking: the department to dredge out Graham's River suitable for a boat harbour?
2.	If so, what action does the department purpose taking in this regard?


Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 
NURSES' WAR SERVICE GRATUITY.
Peter McGibbon: Is it the intention of the Government to pay the same war gratuity to the Canadian Graduate Nurses who served overseas with the Imperial Forces as is being paid to those serving with the Canadian Units?


Hon. Mr. MEWBURN:: Under the present Order in Council authorizing War Service Gratuity, Canadian Graduate Nurses who served overseas with the Imperial Forces only are not entitled thereto.
McCarthy property, sored.


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Did the Government acquire the McCarthy property, at St. Joseph de Sorel, on which is erected the Government plant?
2.	If so, what price has been paid or fixed?


Hon. Mr. MEWBURN:: 1.	Expropriation proceedings were taken by the department and judgment was obtained, but the estate appealed and the matter is now before the Supreme Court.
2.	Price fixed, $64,258.52, plus costs.


SERVICE IN FRANCE AND IN CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
On the question (Mr. Lanctot):
On 1st October, 1919, Mr. T. A. Cox, of the Militia Department, made a statement before the Parliamentary Committee inquiring into the question of a further gratuity to Canadian soldiers, to the effect that out of the 590,572 men enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, 172,520 saw service in Canada only:
1.	Is the statement correct
2.	Where were those men stationed?
o.	To what regiments did they belong?
4.	How many of this number were recruited in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, respectively?
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have to point out that it is a well-established rule of the House that no reference may be made in debate to the proceedings before a committee when that committee's report has not been presented to the House. In other words, in such a case the House is not officially seized of the information. That being so, I have very grave doubts whether it is competent to submit this question, inasmuch as the information given to the committee is not available for the benefit of the House and will not be until the committee's report is made. I have had this question directed to my attention only a few moments ago, and I have therefore not been able to inquire into the matter exhaustively, but as at present advised I have very grave doubts whether this question could be put. In the . meantime it can stand until questions are called again.
Question stands.	[DOT]
SEALS USED AT PEACE TREATY SIGNING. Mr. DESLAURIERS:
1.	What kind of seal did the Hon. Mr. Doherty and the Hon. Mr. Sifton use at the signing of the Peace Treaty at Versailles in behalf of Canada?
2.	What did it signify?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	The seals used by all the signers were personal and had no official significance. That used by Mr. Doherty bore the arms of an old family of the province of Quebec, with the motto, " Fais bien et laisse dire."
2.	It was used as being significant of the spirit in which the people of Canada expect and have a right to expect their public men to act and which animated Canada's representatives at the Peace Conference.


WEDNESDAY NIGHT SITTINGS.
George Eulas Foster: That, on Wednesday, the 8th October, and on all subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the session, the House shall meet at Three o'clock, p.m., and that the sittings on such days shall in every respect be under the same rules provided for other days.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
THE KING AND QUEEN OF BELGIUM. On the Orders of the Day:
Henri Sévérin Béland: In view of certain press reports which are incomplete and in certain cases contradictory, may I ask the Government whether an invitation has been extended to Their Majesties the King and Queen of Belgium to be the guests o.f Canada and to visit particularly the Capital?


George Eulas Foster: The
Prime Minister himself has that matter in hand, and I will have information for the House a little later on.


PEIVILEGE-STATEMENT BY SIE SAM HUGHES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel Hughes: I have before me a copy of the Toronto Daily Star of October 1, which contains some statements concerning myself to which I desire to refer. It says:
He comes forward as an offended military genius whose advice was not taken by General Currie, as it was not taken by Lord Kitchener -and many others. His advice appears to have been at the universal disposal, yet was not used.
Never in my lifetime have I offered advice to General Currie. I have offered suggestions tp Lord Kitchener and to the British War Office. With your permission, Sir, I will refute the statements here, and I -am sure the Toronto Star will be the first to regret its mistake.
Leaving out anything in regard to the South African war and colonial assistance in European wars, I should like to say that I made suggestions to the British Government in regard to straight rifle shooting and rifle shooting wa.s encouraged in Britain and in Canada -for years before the war. We were fortunate in having the "Old Contemptibles," or the "Old Eeliables" as we choose to call them as well as the Canadian soldiers thoroughly up in rifle shooting when the war broke out.
In 1912 .and 1913, I had proposed the sys-tern of trenches near the border, and on- the night war broke out, I proposed 'that system practically on the order of the Prime Minister of the Dominion. The matter came up when war was declared, and the Prime Minister asked me what the chances were.
I told him that if the plans as laid down which I happened to know were followed out our men would during the first three months get the most severe trimming men ever got. He asked me if anything could be done to prevent that, and I said that it could be stopped by the1 use of trench positions. He urged me to send a cablegram to Lord Kitchener and Lord French, and that I did, and to-day the trench system is credited all along the front to your humble servant.
In March, 1918, when the retreat was going on from St. Quentin, I took the liberty of drawing Lloyd George's attention to the matter, and while I am not saying that this was done on my suggestion alone, at all events Lloyd George adopted that suggestion, and the trench system with untrained soldiers was utilized to withstand the onrush of the Germans. fSlr Georgo Foster.]
In the cablegram which I sent in 1914, I proposed trench diggers which we had been using for some time here, and they were adopted by the British Government in 1915.
I. may point out that I recommended the shield-shovel in- 1914, but it was not adopted by General Alderson or the British War Office, but it was used by some Canadian officers and men and was very effective in saving many a life, and if generally adopted would have saved thousands and thousands of lives on parapet work at night. They were the fore-runners of the steel plates used by all the Allies. The British Government, as well as France, Eussia and Italy, adopted thorn.
Armoured machine gun motor batteries were adapted by us in 1914, and they were used with some effect in 1918. The system of hidden machine gun positions in rear of trenches I recommended in 1914, and after the battle of St. Julien- I took the liberty of cabling Lord Kitchener to know why they were not ready for that fight and received his answer; but after that the system of hidden machine gun positions was adopted by the British service.
I might point out that I also recommended the use of palmite powder in 1914, a very high explosive and very safe to handle. We used it here in Canada in making experiments with it until the supply was used up, and it proved very effective.
I recommended the use for the first time of cotton hose filled with explosive for destroying iparapets and wire entanglements, and I also recommended iron pipe filled with explosive, both of these to be used for the destruction of wire entanglements. They were used with great effect until the tanks came in when, of course, the tanks supplanted everything else. The methods of throwing hose and pipe so filled were suggested by us.
In 1914 I devised a trench mortar and handed it over to the British Government, and tens of thousands of them were used all along the line; in fact I believe about a hundred thousand of them were used.
I also recommended a direct-fire gun in October, 1914; I had one prepared, and in 1916 both the British and the French adopted it- I have letters from the British Minister of Munitions and General Joffre adopting the suggestion. The guns they used were somewhat heavier than the one I suggested, but they turned them out and they did splendid service until the tanks came in when they were carried on the tanks.
As regards the convalescent hospital system, the system we established in 1915 was

adopted three or four months later by the British War Office and by the Allies also.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am inclined to think
the hon. member is making what is in effect a reply to a charge or a statement contained in the Toronto Star. It is quite competent for the hon. member to make a denial and to explain his position, but I hope he will not pursue the course of making what is in effect a reply to certain statements.


Samuel Hughes: I thought it was
competent for me, not merely to give a bald denial, but to show what I did. I may say, with all frankness, that I do not purpose letting any person rob me of any credit due to me. I have not urged this before the country; I would not urge it now had it not been pointed out that it was claimed that none of my suggestions were carried out by the British Government, when the fact of the matter is that every one of them has been carried out. The transport and supply system which I recommended in 1915 and the fish rations system which I recommended to the British Government were also adopted by the British War Office. The direct system of recruiting which we adopted in 1915 was later on adopted by Lord Derby as far as the British municipal systems would permit. The utilization of commercial institutions as well as arsenals for the manufacture of shells was first adopted by your humble servant, and every Government in the world followed suit.
The refining of copper and zinc and the manufacture of T.N.T. and gun cotton were first introduced into Canada during the war. The use in war of the leading commercial, business and scientific men as honorary officers was first introduced during the war by your humble servant, and I need not say what splendid results have been achieved in Canada and all other countries which followed suit. The Forestry 'Corps was established under the direction of General Alexander McDougal, and the British Government is still retaining his services in the old land to straighten matters up. The Railway Corps was established under the direction of General Jack 'Stewart, and the British Government took over the whole system.
The dental corps was established in defiance of all military rules and against the wishes of the British War Office but they accepted it and nothing could have done more to promote the comfort and efficiency of our men at the front than the work which this dental corps did. The disinfecting and
cleansing . service, through the medium of creolin, etc., was also taken care of.
Our plan for brigades, divisions and corps were adopted by the British. Our sysiteSh of administering the medical corps, with reference to the business end of it, was adopted by the British Government in 1915. We also instituted reforms in our Pay Cbrps. With regard to the aeroplane and zeppelin service, I pointed out to the British authorities the need; and some days ago showed what Colonel Grant Morden had done. In 1914 Mr. Fessenden showed me his plan for detecting submarines and locating artillery by photographing sound waves. I sent him to England and it was his invention that proved so useful in locating artillery and submarines. The University of Toronto, at my request, took up the matter of tetanus toxin. I understand that it was from the University of Toronto, the work being taken up at the instance of your humble servant, and it being recommended by me to the British War Office, that large supplies of tetanus toxin were procured and utilized greatly to the advantage of the men.
After the first gas attack in the battle of St. Julien I was waited upon by Mr. Le-Sueur of Ottawa. I had him submit a report with regard to certain methods of using gases and I have the data to show that the British Government appreciated his report very highly.
May I 'point out that I did intrude, much to the dissatisfaction of some gentlemen, in seeking to save the lives of our Canadian boys in the Ypres salient? I recommended in 1915 that the line should be straightened out; I also recommended in 1916 that the line should be straightened out; and in 1918 it was straightened out, much to the advantage of the defensive forces. I recommended in 1915 and also in 1916 that in place of having the blanket attacks that were being made they should go in for narrow and deep penetration. If you read General Ludendorff's report on the succesful British attacks in 1918 you will see that it was by the system of narrow and deep penetration that the Allies were able to smash the German lines.
I had the honour of discovering Max Aitken and although it took me three months to get him recognized by the Canadian Government, no man, according to General Ludendorff, did more to win the war.
In 1914-15 I recommended the system adopted in connection with the Canadian national loans. I had the honour of point-

ing out that we should make these loans from the Canadian people, using the money that we had in reserve in Canada, obtaining it, not at high rates of interest and not making the income exempt from taxation. I would not have taken up the time of the House


An hon. MEMBER:: Go on.


Samuel Hughes: I could go on talking for an hour-but in justice to myself, the Toronto Star and the Minister of Propaganda in this Government, who evidently inspires the Toronto Star


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Samuel Hughes: I think it well to place these facts before the House.


Ernest Lapointe: Who is the Minister of Propaganda?


Samuel Hughes: Guess. There is just one other item in the paper in which it is hinted that an inquiry should be made into the conduct of the Department of Militia and Defence during the early part of the war. Let me say that no one more than I -no one as much as I-will welcome an inquiry into the conduct of the Militia Department not only during the period when I was minister but in the period subsequent to that. And not only into the Militia Department, but into the operations of the Munitions Board and every other department of the Government I welcome an inquiry by this House more than does any other man in the Dominion of Canada. '


ILLNESS OF PRESIDENT WILSON.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Canadian nation, as well as this House, is very much interested in the condition of the great statesman who presides over the destinies of the United States'-President Wilson. I would like to ask the hon. acting leader of the Government (Sir George Foster) if they have any definite information as to how he is and to whether his condition is improving?


Right Hon.   S@: In reference to the question that, has been asked by my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie), I coipcide with his view thait we have an especial and lively interest in the condition of the President's health, looking at the matter from the point of view of the long and eminent service which he rendered in connection with the Peace Conference during its work in Paris,
[Sir Sam Hughes.)
and as the head of a great and friendly sister nation. He had undertaken an extended and laborious tour in his own country for the purpose of explaining the provisions of the Treaty. We were all sorry to learn of his temporary breakdown, but we are glad to know now that his condition is improving. Whilst the Government has nothing definite as to the exact symptoms and prospects, I am glad to be able to say that the [DOT] report is mat his condition indicates improvement,


PROCLAMATION OF PEACE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Ernest Lapointe: May I ask the hon. Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) if he can give the House any information as to the probable date at which the proclamation will be issued *stating that this country is no longer at war with Germany or any other country. For all purposes of law and otherwise the country is still deemed to be at war and it is very important to the citizens oi Canada to know when this condition will cease.


George Eulas Foster: I am sorry 1 cannot meet the definite demand which has been made by my hon. friend (Mr. E. Lapointe). There are certain conditions in Europe which preclude one from saying when peace treaties shall have been made with all the former enemy powers. I suppose we are not' in a position where we can say that we are entirely out from the contingencies and consequences of the war under the treaties which have been made with the enemy powers. But my hon. friend will be able to follow the course of events in the newspapers and he will probably have the information pretty nearly as soon as I. I think that neither of us will get it during this present session.


CANADA GRAIN ACT.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce) Bill No. 17 to amend the Canada Grain Act was read a second time and the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1 : Operation of provisions respecting the disposal of surplus grain. Postponed until after crop year ending 31st August, 1919.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I explained the purpose of this amendment when introducing the resolution on which the Bill is founded. At the last session of Parliament

a Bill was enacted, being chapter 40 of the statutes of that year, and 'section 3 of that Act provided that in the month of August in each year stock should be taken of the quantity of each grade of grain in the terminal elevators, and when the total surplus was found to be in excess of one-quarter of one per cent of the gross amount, the grain received in those elevators during the crop year, in excess of that surplus should be sold annually by the Board of Grain Commissioners and the proceeds thereof applied to the purposes of the board. It was clearly the intention of Parliament that that amendment to the Act should not apply to the cereal year ending August 31, 1919, only to the present and future cereal years. I am sure this was the understanding of Parliament and of those who were interested in the proposed Bill, the measure being in my charge during its passage through the House.
Mr. McKENZIE r Do I understand the minister to say that the Act has not yet come into effect?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Act is in effect and as it now stands empowers the board to take any surplus of grain in excess of one-quarter of one per cent of the surplus of the last cereal year which ended on August 31, 1919, in so far as the elevators are concerned.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When did the Act go into force?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: On the 7th of July, 1919, and1 it was the intention that this provision should only apply to the surplus grain in the terminal elevator beginning with the cereal year 1919-20, that is beginning September 1.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The provision is only to take effect on the 1st September, 1919?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And the effect of the amendment is to make that clear?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Purely that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
CONTINUANCE OP POWERS, DUTIES! AND RIGHTS-ALLIED PURCHASES OP WHEAT.
On motion of Sir George E. Foster, Bill No. 20 to continue in force the powers of the Board of Grain Supervisors of Canada, so
that it may conclude its business, and to continue in force a guarantee given by the Governor in Council with respect to the 1918 wheat crop was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-Guarantee respecting grain crop, 1918, ratified and continued:
James Alexander Robb: Is the minister in a position to make a statement as to the working of the grain crop of 1918? I understand there was a credit given to some foreign nations, including the Mother Country, for the purchase of wheat. Can the minister tell us if this has been repaid, and if not what amount of it is still outstanding, and what amount of wheat of the 1918 crop is still unsold?


George Eulas Foster: I am not able to say just as to what amount of wheat is undelivered, but I think I am correct, in stating that all the wheat of which delivery has been taken has been sold by the Board of Grain SSupervisors. Whether that, he the case, or not, I have no definite statement with reference to it. As explained when the resolution was passed, the operations of the board, so far as receiving wheat under their powers, ended on the 15th of August, and these powers are continued for the purpose of settling up odds and ends of the business, getting in the accounts, and making such deliveries as remain to be delivered. My understanding is that the whole of the surplus taken by the Board of Grain Supervisors was disposed of to the allied powers; I do not think any of that was sold under credits which have been granted, to which my hon. friend refers. Those credits being used, in so far as the purchase of wheat was concerned, to the proportion which was allowable for that purpose, would be of the 1919 crop, the present year's crop. I think I ought also to correct probably a misconception of mine and a statement to the House which might be misunderstood-in fact was misunderstood, I think. I had a preliminary report from the Board of Grain Supervisors with reference to receipts and expenditures, and just from the figures that were given, I think I made the statement that there 'was a surplus of receipts over expenditures, the larger proportion of which had gone to the diminution of the price paid by the Allies for the grain which had been purchased; but. the accounts scarcely bear that out. I stated to the House, as well, that the Government would not be called upon for any guarantee. That statement remains good; but un-

til the whole of the accounts are adjusted it is impossible to say what surplus there will be and how it will be distributed. We will have that information at the next session of the House when the affairs of the Board of Grain Supervisors shall have been ultimately settled. Some of these are matters of negotiation and adjustment-they are not all finished.
Mr MeKENZIE:	Is the minister sure
there will be a surplus on the right side?


George Eulas Foster: I am assured
there will be a substantial surplus.


James Alexander Robb: There is another matter the minister might clear up for the information of the country. It has been widely stated that in Great Britain at the time the British Government guaranteed the ninepenny loaf the price of wheat was fixed at $1.80 cents a bushel. We guaranteed a price considerably over that to the Canadian grower. Does the purchaser in Great Britain pay us the cost of the wheat to the Government, .that is, the price guaranteed by the Government, plus interest, storage and transportation charges, or do we make certain allowances to Great Britain on its purchases?


George Eulas Foster: The regulations approved by the Board of Grain. Supervisors provided for carrying charges, as my hon. friend will notice, if he has read the various orders which were issued. So that in the guaranteed price the carrying charges were provided for, and there is no loss to the Board of Grain. Supervisors with reference to those items. The British Government sells the wheat to the British miller [DOT]at a price which guarantees the ninepenny loaf, and bears whatever the cost may be in that regard. Of course, my hon. friend knows that for a whole year or more the British taxpayer has been subsidizing the bread production in Great Britain in order to keep down the price of bread to the ninepenny rate, which has involved .a heavy cost. But that cost is borne entirely by the British people through the British Government; it does not fall upon the producer on this side of the water.
Mr. J. H. .SINCLAIR: Mr. Chairman, I think this would be the proper place to get some information from the minister in regard to a paragraph which .appears in. the Auditor General's Report, Volume 1, page 24. An Order in Council seems to have been passed on.. the 12th of October, 1917, empowering the Grain Board to collect from millers, exporters., etc., a fee not to exceed

four cents a bushel, so as to create a fund for the purpose of defraying the cost of carrying wheat in store or for any other purpose .which the Board might deem expedient. Up to July 31, 1918, the Board had collected for this fund the large sum of $5,987,883.28 including ($43,122.92 bank interest. Then the Auditor General proceeds to say that the Board declined to pay this money into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, claiming that they had a right to deal with it without any parliamentary control. The letter of the Auditor General from which I have extracted this information does not appear to have been, answered, and I would like to know from the minister how that matter was dealt with and if the Consolidated Revenue Fund did get possession of that large sum of money.


George Eulas Foster: No. The Consolidated Revenue Fund could not by any possibility get possession of that large sum of money which my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) has mentioned, amounting to five million dollars odd. The fund referred to had to carry the whole cost and charges of the grain-interest, insurance and everything else -and was to a great extent disbursed for those purposes. It was not something which came in as a perquisite to the Board of Grain Supervisors; it was, as my hon. friend will see if he will read the orders of the board, a fund constituted for the purpose of meeting the expenses of carrying the grain from the point of production until it was taken charge of by the Allies. It would be impossible, of course, for that money to be put into the Consolidated Revenue Fund as something belonging to the Dominion itself. As I have stated, until all the accounts are adjusted and paid we shall not know exactly how the matter stands and just how much the surplus will be.


John Howard Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, the reason why I ask the question is that the Auditor-General takes the ground that this money does belong to the Consolidated Revenue Fund; but from the minister's explanation I understand the Government has taken the opposite ground and has sustained the position of the Board of Grain Supervisors.


George Eulas Foster: I have not seen the correspondence and do not know whether there has been a reply made or not. I will make inquiries and inform my hon. friend in reference to it.


Samuel Hughes: Are any commissions paid by the Trade Mission handling our commodities on the other side? For in-

stance, on the Roumanian and Greek business?	'	i


George Eulas Foster: What does my hon. friend mean by commissions?


Samuel Hughes: Any commissions paid by the Trade Mission or by any one concerned therewith. In short, I may as well state what I understand, that considerable commissions were paid to agents in connection with the Roumanian business. Of course, as is well known, the Roumanian Government is not paying us cash; this Government is advancing the money on the security of Roumanian bonds and so on, which are worth sixty to seventy cents on the dollar in the open market. T understand that commissions have been paid to agents for securing this trade, and I would like to know what are the facts.


Sir GEORGE FOOTER:: " I think it has been already explained to the House, at least, questions have been answered which carry the information, that the Canadian Trade Mission in London and the branch here in Canada in connection with it are empowered by an Order in Council to take a percentage on the contracts which are entered into in London, which percentage is paid by those who hold the contracts in this country, and that percentage goes to form a fund which bears the expenses of the Trade Mission in London and the Trade Commission here in carrying on their operations. That fund is subject to audit, and if there is a surplus after all the operations are through, it will remain in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. But no commissions are paid either by the Trade Mission in London or by the Trade Commission in Canada. Both are simply agencies through which what is required by European Governments or buyers is brought to the attention of those in Canada who supply those requirements.


Samuel Hughes: Who fixes the prices, for instance, of the commodities that go to the Roumanian Government?


George Eulas Foster: The price of
wheat, for instance, is to be at the current market rates. As it was an impossibility to foretell what the deliveries of wheat would be worth from month to month through the year, the price had to be put upon an indeterminate basis, and therefore arranged that the Roumanian Government should pay the current market rates from time to time. As regards other contracts-


Samuel Hughes: Building paper, for instance?


George Eulas Foster: The specifications of anything that is required by the Roumanian Government are given, and the Trade Mission bring those to the attention of the manufacturers or producers in Canada who work along those lines. The matter is then one of adjustment between the purchasing party on the other side and the selling party on this side; the price is agreed upon and the contract signed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Some phrases in the last line of section 2 require some explanation. As I understand it, we are guaranteeing the man who sells ithe wheat against any loss by reason of the failure of the foreign Government or the British Government to complete the bargain, take delivery and pay for the goods. Have there been any cases of failure to purchase or to complete the contract? Are there any claims outstanding as against foreign governments? The last time we were discussing this Bill the minister told the committee that we had had no losses; he tells us to-day that, perhaps, he was a little premature in making that assertion.


George Eulas Foster: No, not as to
losses; my statement still holds good so far as that is concerned. The Board of Grain Supervisors fixed the price of wheat and sold the surplus on that fixed price. The buying power last year was really the Wheat Commission in London, which bought through the Wheat Export Company here. There was no trouble in connection with failure to take delivery; in fact, the surplus of last year was not so large as to equal the quantity -which was needed by the commission. So that the general statement holds good that the guarantee which was given by the Government will not involve Canada in any loss. The other statement, I think, is also correct, that, without committing oneself to the amount, there will be a surplus when the operations are all completed.


John Howard Sinclair: The Auditor General's Report shows that the Wheat Export Company got- $2,500,900 by way of proceeds from these operations last year. What is the Wheat Export Company? Who are its members?


George Eulas Foster: Mr. James
Stewart was the head of the Wheat Export Company. This company was the medium which bought for the Allies the wheat which the Board of Grain Supervisors, on behalf of Canada, produced for purchase. They



were the agents, or buyers, of the Wheat Commission-that is, the representatives of the three Allied powers for whom this wheat was bought and to whom it was distributed.


John Archibald Maharg: At the last session an amendment was made to the Grain Act providing for the appointment of an appeal board. That board has not yet been appointed, yet in no year in the history of the West has there been greater need for such a board as there is this year. Have any steps been taken looking to the appointment of that board, and if not, what is contemplated?


George Eulas Foster: The legislation was to go into operation on. proclamation of the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council,- having in view the expense which would be entailed in the establishment and employment of a board of appeal who should give their whole time to the duties involved in the opera-
4 p.m. tions of such a board, and having regard to the small number of appeals that were actually made during preceding years and the small number of these which were adjudged against the primary decision, came to the conclusion that the matter might well stand over for another year and be a little more closely examined into before the legislation should be brought into effect.


John Archibald Maharg: I do not think that the excuse of the expense involved should be made in this case. The Grain business has always carried itself; it has been no charge on the country in any way. If i.t should be any charge on the country, the fault would be that of the administration. It was amply demonstrated during the discussion at the last session that the fact' that there were very few appeals was not a proper criterion to go upon. The cumbersome nature of the board that has had to deal with these things practically prohibited any appeals being made; the board was so constituted that it was almost impossible to get it together. The considerations which the minister has mentioned should not, I think, carry weight; -in the interests of grain producers and the grain trade that board should be appointed very shortly.


James Alexander Robb: We on this side will surely approve the attitude now taken by the minister in recognizing the need for economy. The very opinion the minister has just expressed was voiced from this side of the House when the legislation was going through last session, when it was pointed
TSir George Foster.!
out that appeals were comparatively few. I am glad to know the minister has taken the sensible view, and that one department at least of the Government is working along lines of economy.


John Archibald Maharg: I quite understand that there were some objections to this Board from certain quarters, but the producers of grain, who are the people interested, are prepared to foot whatever bills are necessary in connection with it. If a sufficient charge is levied the board can carry itself, and it will be self-supporting in every respect so far as the general public is concerned.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I believe the trouble is that a certain decision had to be reached by the Government before this board was established and it was possibly a very embarrassing one for the Government to make. There was the very strongest pull for this new Court of Appeal to he established in Winnipeg, and equally strong pull for its establishment at the head of the lakes, and strong supporters of the Government were in favour of one or the other proposal. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was not here at the time. Certainly he would not bother his head looking up the discussion, but these rival claims were put forward very strongly on the floor of Parliament. In this difficult situation the Government possibly decided to drift along and make no decision, on the pretext of economy, which would appeal to the people at this particular time. Perhaps it would be a very proper expenditure to have this court constituted, if the people of the West desire it, and especially this year when there is so much wheat that is not up to standard. I presume that the appeals are from the decision of the first set of men who examine the grain. I do not profess to be an expert in this matter, but I understand there has been a great deal of complaint about the decisions of those who have the last say as to the grade in which the grain should fall, and the grain growers are anxious to have a final court of appeal. That was the argument made last winter. If the toll taken from the grain growers themselves is sufficient to pay for the expenses, there is not the same justification for the Government depriving them of this court of appeal. I trust it was not because the Government did not care to decide upon the venue of this court, and that the minister, if this court is not going to cost the Government anything, will let the people have the benefit of it, and decide as he

may deem proper whether it shall be established at Winnipeg or at the head of.the lakes.	.
Sir GBORG'E FOSTER: I think amongst the growers the view is favourably entertained that there should be a court of appeal. The Government does not minimize the value of the opinion of the West, which is not, of course, unanimous, nor has it declared that such legislation shall not be brought into effect. It was considered better, however, after pretty careful study, to give the matter a little more consideration and let it stand over for the present at least. With reference to my hon. friend's political idea, how often we interpret others by what we would do ourselves in a similar position! I can see as plainly as possible that my hon. friend would grasp at such a shrewd way of getting out of a political difficulty, and therefore he imputed it to myself. I can assure him that that was not a deciding factor in the least degree. I was perfectly prepared to give a decision if the time came, as to where this board of appeal should have had its locus in quo. It was the idea of economy, and of prudence in making expenditures, which led to the decision of the Government. Due consideration wall be given to the matter, and next session we will have a chance to talk it over again.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Whereas on the 16th of March, A.D., 1914, this Honourable House passed the following Resolution which was accepted by the Government,-
" Mr. McKenzie moved that in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada into the non-railway sections of the Maritime Provinces within reasonable range of the said railway." See pages 1736, 1737, 1738, 1739 and 1740 of Hansard for the said year, A.D., 1914.
Be it therefore resolved that, in the opinion of this House, the proposals of the said Resolution of the 16th of March, A.D., 1914, should be carried forward to completion at the earliest possible date.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, at this stage of
this short session, I do not purpose saying very much about this resolution moved as it is. During my long experience in this House, although I repeatedly brought to the
54J
attention of the House the matter of the extension of railways in the Maritime Provinces, this was the first time that a resolution along the lines that I had been suggesting from year t-o year was accepted by the Government. On the 16th of March, ,1914, the House accepted the proposition that the day had then arrived for the extension of the Intercolonial railway of Canada into the non-railway sections of the Maritime Provinces within reasonable range of that railway. In August of the same year war broke out, and since then all our resources and energies have been devoted to the prosecution of the war. During those war years I did not say anything about the railway at all, as I thought it was only fair and reasonable to allow the Government to centralize and converge all their energies on the one great question. Sometimes the leader of the Government and others ascribe to us motives and notions which must be political all the time and say that we are all the time talking for political advantage. I can put forward as some proof of the absence of such motives my entire silence during those years upon this very vital question to me. I suppose if I had wanted to make political capital from year to year, I could have continued bringing this question up, hut I said nothing about the matter while the war was on and while our energies and thoughts and every faculty which we could bring to bear towards advancing the cause only, were engaged in the prosecution of the war. Now that the war is over and we are back again to peace and harmony and re-establishment, and doing everything we can towards the advancement of the country, I think it is proper and right for me to advance this question and once more to ask the Government to give attention to the development of railways in that part of the country from which I come and which has hitherto been largely neglected.
Tt is true 'that wre have in the Island of Cape Breton one line of railway, an extension of the Intercolonial across the Strait of Canso, connection having been made between Port Mulgrave and Port Hawkesbury by a good ferry boat. That road extends across the island down to .the city of Sydney, a distance of about ninety miles. Any person acquainted with the geography of the island of Cape Breton will readily understand that no one railway can possibly- satisfy or give proper accommodation to that island, for the reason that that large and important island is divided into two sections by the Bras d'Or lakes. That

is a large arm of the sea running right through the island from the mouth of the Big Bras d'Or on the Atlantic to the St. Peter's canal, where in the old days and before the canal there was a narrow neck of probably half a mile or three-quarters of a mile in width, which has since been cut by the canal. Taking the Bras d'Or lakes with the extension of the canal out to St. Peter's bay, the island of Cape Breton is practically two islands. Therefore, this Government railway which we now have can give accommodation only to one side, and we have accommodation for which we are very thankful largely on the south side of the Bras d'Or lakes, that is, as far as some parts of the Bras d'Or lakes are concerned. The leader of the Government (Sir George Foster) has been through the island of Cape Breton and possibly he has a fair idea of how the road runs; but to the people who have never visited the island and who do not know the manner in which the Bras d'Or lakes cut up the island, it is impossible to explain the insufficiesncy of one line . of railway to accommodate this large section of country, a section of country which has tremendous mineral wealth, coal in inexhaustible quantities, iron and steel, also great possibilities in lumber and still greater possibilities in fisheries. For that reason we think we should have a further development of the railways in the island of Cape Breton. In the fisheries of Nova Scotia and particularly of the northern end of the province, which includes the island of Cape Breton, there is the greatest'opportunity for the development of wealth that we have to-day in any part , of Canada. It is not too much to say that while something like $8,000,000 or possibly $9,000,000 worth of fish was taken out of the water of Nova Scotia last year, we are just touching the industry, just picking up pebbles on the seashore, as one might say, as compared with what can be done. If we had a railway extension along the sea-coast where those fishing villages are, where millions of tons of fish are to be had for the mere taking of them, we would then be in a position to cater to that trade and to get this fish commodity to the market in a marketable shape. In my riding of Victoria and North Cape Breton, not to mention the rest of the -island, there must be, following the sinuosities of the shore, something like 200 miles of magnificent seacoast fisheries, and it is sad to relate that in those 200 miles there is not one-half mile of railway. The only way in- which people can get their fish to market will be by battling with the storms along 
that stormy coast in the summer time, and in the winter time, although there is splendid fishing during that season of the year, there is no means of communication at all. My proposition is that the Government should at once, for the benefit not only of Cape Breton, hut of the whole country, extend a line of railway right along both sides of the island of Cape Breton touching those fishing villages -and fishing centres, and in that .way putting a great wealth and a great food product, the best in. the world, within easy reach of the Canadian people. It is only to-day, Sir, that an American .gentleman came to this city asking for certain information from the Customs Department and other departments of the Government in connection with a fish factory or purchasing establishment to be put in operation in the riding from which I come, and that gentleman informs me that his people intend to invest some $50,000,000 dn the development of fisheries in that part of the country. In that way, Americans, if not ourselves, are beginning to realize the great importance of getting in touch with the fisheries of that part of the province of Nova Scotia.
During the years 1909, 1910, 1911 and 1912 the now Prime Minister, who was in Opposition until 1911, myself, the hon. member for Guystoorough (Mr. 'Sinclair), who is here, the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Chisholm) and the former member for Richmond, N.S., were working vigorously together for the purpose of carrying forward some railway improvements in the province of Nova Scotia. The Hon. Mr. Borden, who was the senior member for Halifax, was appealing strongly for a road from Dartmouth to Dean Settlement, a distance of about 90 miles. I was looking for a connection between my own riding of Victoria and the main line, having had then in mind a short link of about 22 miles. My hon. friend from Guysborough was looking for a railway system connecting his county with the main line and the members for Richmond and Inverness were looking for the developments necessary to bring their own counties into touch with the great arteries of commerce.
All of that was provided for and a start was made in the early part of 1911. But fortunately, or unfortunately, there was a change of Government. The line of differentiation was drawn very sharply between what was the Liberal road and what was the Conservative road. The Dean Settlement road, which was in the county of the Prime Minister, was built, but the roads in my county and in the counties of the other

gentlemen whom I have mentioned were dropped and nothing was done for (them. Anybody who knows Nova Scotia will know that no part of the county of Halifax needed a road as badly as the county of Victoria.
I have often brought to the notice of the Prime Minister that ft was not fair partnership or quite sportsmanlike on his part, that, in view of the fact that we were all helping to build these roads and standing by him when he was in Opposition, when fortune came his way and he had an opportunity to build our roads as well as his own, he dropped ours and went on with his own. He always promised us that he would do better and that he would help along these projects. Unfortunately he is not here now,' but he has often heard the story before and if he were here to-day and listened to this complaint-and, if you please, accusation- it would not be the first time that he had heard it put forward.
However, be that as it 'may, the Dean Settlement railway is built and it is in operation. I am not at all sorry because the people of that section of the country have the advantage, and it does not have to be built a second time. I would like to be assured that the Government would make provision for the extension of the road in the county of Victoria and through the various large fishing centres in the county to the extreme north where it is necessary to have this work done. I am sure that the right hon, the acting leader of the Government will appreciate a situation such as we have in the county of Victoria. The northern settlements of Victoria would be about 150 years old, if not older. Some of the very earliest settlements in (Canada were to be found here being made up of a splendid, strong, sturdy class of people, fishermen and farmers along that coast. They have always contributed their share to the building up of this country in money and in other ways. But up to this time, while roads are being extended to the Pacific coast and in all directions, while the benefits of civilization, advancement and progress are coming to every other part of the country, these people are left out in the cold with no railway facilities at all. I do not think I am asking too much when I ask the Government to now carry forward the idea which they, accepted some five years ago. They then agreed that this work was necessary and I am now putting forward the proposition that the idea which was accepted in March 1914 should be re-affirmed and that the request made at that time should be
implemented by the building of these roads.
I shall not elaborate this question very much farther because it does not require any elaboration. It is absolutely necessary that these roads should be built and the only possible excuse would be the inability of the Government because of some financial reasons which have nothing to do with the work. I trust, however, that this project will be found to be so deserving, worthy and practicable that there will be no hesitation on the part of the Government in proceeding with the work.


John Howard Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I desire to support the proposition of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie). He very properly asks Parliament to carry out the resolution that it passed in 1914:	This is the
resolution :
That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada into the non-railway sections of the Maritime Provinces within reasonable range of the said railway.
The resolution itself is perfectly plain and it can only have one meaning. The carrying out of this resolution was interrupted, as my hon. friend has said, on account of the war. But the war is now over and the time has come when the Government can fairly be asked to deal with this question. Taking the province of Nova Scotia alone, there are, properly speaking, only two nonrailway counties in it. I refer to the counties of Victoria and Guysborough. I submit that the claims of these two counties are stronger than the claims of any other section in Canada for railway extension. We are not asking for any favours from the Government; we are simply asking for fair play.
Speaking for the county of Guysborough, let me point out that the people of that county have been contributing to the building of railways in other parts of Canada for the last fifty years. Along the line of the projected branch line from Sunnybrae: in the county of Pictou to Mulgrave in the county of Guysborough, there are 40,000 people who would be accommodated by the building of the line. It is known that this country has spent on railway construction since Confederation over $400,000,000 without including the expenditure in connection with the Canadian Northern Railway. When you have a population of 40,000 and estimate the whole population of Canada at about
8,000,000 it will be seen that if these people paid their full share which they certainly did it would be about $2,000,000 contributed

to the building of railways in other parts of Canada.
If you make an estimate of the liability incurred in connection with the Canadian Northern system, you will find it would amount to another $400,000,000, so that by giving railway extension to my constituency the Government would simply be paying back a part of the money we have already contributed towards extending railways in other parts of Canada.
I would also point out that this proposal can be defended on its merits. It would be a good investment for the Dominion to build that branch line into my constituency. There are great resources to be developed in that part of the country-agricultural, mining, timber and fishery resources. The leader of the Opposition stated a moment ago that there are great possibilities connected with the fishing industry on the eastern coast of Canada. That statement is quite true, but the fishing industry on that coast has never had a fair chance owing to the lack of the necessary transportation facilities. You cannot carry on a successful fresh fish business without quick means of transportation, and we have never had these means of transportation in Eastern Canada so as to give our fishermen a fair chance to develop this important industry. Wherever these facilities have been granted the results have justified any expenditures that have been made. A good many years ago the Government granted a small subsidy to connect the town of Canso with the Intercolonial railway at Mulgrave by a steamboat service, the distance being about twenty-seven miles. A boat was placed on that route and that was the first opportunity that the fishermen of that vicinity had of putting their fresh fish on the Canadian market. The business began to grow, and I venture to say that for the expenditure that has been made there is no business development in Canada that shows better results than the shipment of fresh fish from the ports of Canso and Mulgrave since those facilities were granted. I have a statement here which I wish to place on Hansard so that the Government may have an opportunity of studying this matter and understanding what a splendid investment this would be if they should decide to embark in it. After the facility referred to was given to the fishermen on that coast, as I have already said, the business began to grow, and it has grown year by year giving the following results.


George Eulas Foster: You are speaking of the Canso branch, are you not?
Mr. .1	. H. SINCLAIR: I	am speaking of
the fish shipped from Mulgrave, being		
taken there by the boats	that were subsidized	by the Government to carry fish	to that	point so that it	could be transported	to points in Canada. The figures	I wish	to give are as follows:-	Tons of fish	Railway expressYear.	shipped.	charges paid.1895	790	$ 4,805.001896	900	6,460.001S97	997	9,596.001898	1,415	11,312.851899	1,353	14,493.001900	1,450	16,500.001901	1,900	19,760.001902	1,80-0	18,720.001903	1,600	16,840.001904	1,700	17,680.001905	2,201	2)3,032.001906	3,154	29,063.001907	3,156	27,417.701908	3,370	31,644.001909	2,371	26.6S5.551910	3,431	36,022.581911	4,110	45,179.001912	4,238	45,730.691913	5,314	60,442.001914	4,510	48,708.001915	6,419	72,371.771916	7,116	90,434.001917	11,831	111,483.17
Showing a steady growth in this trade from the time the boat was put on in 1895. You will notice that in 1895 the Intercolonial freight receipts on these shipments of fish amounted to only $4,805, while in the year 1917 they reached a total of $111 483.17. I have not at hand the figures for the year 1918 or for the part of the present year that ig past, but I am informed that the growth during this period is fully up to that of 1917. Now this business has been handicapped by the fact that the railway is 27 miles away from the point of shipment. Canso is situated at one of the best fishing points on the coast. It juts out into the Atlantic, very near the fishing banks, and there is no part of the coast of Eastern Canada where the fishing industry can be better developed than at the town of Canso; and if the railway could be extended to that point I submit there would be a very large development in that business. If the fish dealers of Canso were able to place their fresh fish on board iced cars at Canso and ship same to western points in Canada, or to the United States, in good condition, without transhipping it by boat at Mulgrave or other points, it would be an immense advantage. It would tend toward developing that trade and building it up into one of

the great industries of Eastern Canada. This fact was recognized by the late Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) has told the House how it was dealt with.
For a good many years- the building of branch lines by the Intercolonial Railway was -not favoured by either political party. But in 1910 the House -adopted the policy that in future the Intercolonial Railway, instead of depending on small companies to build their branch lines, would undertake the work themselves, and immediately following that decision the late Government decided to build -three branch lines in the province of Nova Scotia; one in the county of Guysbo-rough, connecting Guysborough and other points along that coast with the Intercolonial at Sunny Brae; another in the county of Halifax terminating not on the coast, but in a country district called "Dean's Settlement" and connecting with the Intercolonial Railway at Dartmouth in the county of Halifax; the third projected branch line was in the constituency represented by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. Provision was made for the building of those branch lines, one million dollars being voted for the construction of the branch line in the county of Halifax, another million dollars for the building of the branch in my constituency, the Government also purchased from the Nova Scotia Steel Company a short line of railway from Fer-rona to Sunny Brae at- -a cost of $100,000. That branch was to form part of the Guysborough line and is now owned and operated by the Intercolonial Railway, but the road was never extended. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has stated the facts. The late Government did not take into account whether a constituency was represented by -a Liberal or by a Conservative, they viewed the matter in a broad non-partisan spirit as effecting eastern Nova Scotia generally, and they found that in order to provide railway accommodation for the population there it was necessary to build the three branch lines I have mentioned. When the present Government came into power they struck from the estimates the money provided for building the branch line in Victoria, and they cancelled the contract that had been made for building the branch line in the county of Guysborough and struck the million dollars from the estimates. They retained the contract for the branch line in the county of Halifax and went on with its construction. The line has since been completed and I believe it is a prosperous branch of the Intercolonial. I am informed that it
is developing a large traffic in that prosperous district in the' eastern portion of Halifax county. But the counties of Guysborough and Victoria have had to wait for -their much needed railway development, for no other reason than the fact that they exercised their right of sending members of the Opposition to this Parliament. Now, that is not a very credit-able action on the part of the Government, and I think it is time they wiped out the reproach, for it is a reproach, that such a condition of things should prevail in this country.
I am quite aware that the Government are not able to spend as much money now as formerly on account of the financial condition of the country. But at the last session of Parliament a large sum of money was voted for railway extension, and it will be remembered that the late Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) made this statement during the session which closed last July:
We propose to spend $10,00-0,00-0 or $12,000,000 this year,-that is 1919-on branch lines in Canada, and every mile is west of the Great Lakes.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no good reason for that discrimination. Why should our railway extensions all be west of the Great Lakes? The province of Nova Scotia has a population about the same as that of the province of Saskatchewan, and surely the claims of the people of Nova Scotia for railway accommodation are just as strong as are the claims of the people of Western Canada. I can see no argument at all why they should not be. Indeed, I think that I could build up an argument to show that the claims of Nova Scotia are stronger, because it is a much older settlement, and its people have borne the burdens of this country for a longer period than have the people of the Western Provinces. 1 have already pointed out that they contributed their resources for the last fifty years towards the general development of the Dominion and the construction of railways in the other provinces. Therefore, there can be no reason why a preference should be given to Western over Eastern Canada in the matter of building branch lines of railway. The ancestors of the population of the county that I have the honour to represent came there at the time of the American Revolution, about one hundred and fifty years ago. As I said before, I do not object to the development of Western Canada, but f submit that the -people of	Eastern

Canada have an equal right to the building of branch lines. How, then, can we .justify ourselves in voting $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 during the current year to build railways in Western Canada without voting one dollar for the same purpose in Eastern Canada?
In regard to the financial embarrassment of the Government, it will be noticed that the Government have been spending money right and left for several years past and they continue to do so. If the Government was sincerely practising economy, the case would be very- different and we would be more inclined to excuse them for not taking this step at the present time; but when we find such items in the public accounts as I am about to enumerate, we have to abandon the idea that this railway development is refused on the grounds of economy. For example, $10,000,000 was paid to MacKenzie and Mann when we did not owe them ten cents. That is one very large item, and it would be sufficient to 'build quite a number of small branch lines. On Canadian Registration the Government spent $646,000-an expenditure that in my view was absolutely useless to the people of Canada. On the Department of Public Information last year the Government expended $81,414 in order to publish a small newspaper that is really of no use to anybody and could be very well dispensed with.


George Eulas Foster: It has been dispensed with.


John Howard Sinclair: I am glad to 'hear it. I pointed out last session that we were spending $10 an hour on that useless newspaper; and if ojur criticism on this side of the House has had the effect of stopping that wasteful expenditure, I am very much pleased to know it. Now, in the face of these extravagances, and many others that I could mention, it is difficult to convince the people of my constituency that the Government have no money wherewith to build these branch lines. We have been very patient in regard to this railway development in the county of Guysborough-the patience of Job was nothing compared with the patience we have exercised in regard to this matter.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a reasonable man; I ask him, in all fairness, whether I have not made out a case for some action on the part of the Government in regard to this matter? The minister was a member of the Government which struck from the Estimates a few years ago the million dollars which was voted to complete
[Mr. J, H. Sinclair.!
this branch line in Guysborough, and in that way he is responsible. He was a member of the Government which cancelled the contract that was made for the building of that branch line. The time has come when fair play should be done to my constituency in this matter. We have had promises that when the war was over this item would be restored to the Estimates and 5 p.m. the work would go on. Now the war is over; the Government has commenced the construction of branch lines in other parts of Canada, and they should now implement their promise in regard to the extension of railways in my constituency. I do not wish to press the matter too strongly to-day, but I trust that the minister will, bring this matter before his colleagues and that the promise given by the Minister of Railways when this item was struck from the Estimates will now be carried out.


Auguste Théophile Léger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words in approval of what has been said with reference to the necessity for the extension of the Intercolonial railway in non-railway sections of the Maritime Provinces. In doing so, I speak generally for the province of New Brunswick, and more particularly for that section of the country from which I come.
In 1913, if I remember rightly, a charter was granted by this Parliament for the construction of a railway from Buctouehe, in the county of Kent, to a point in the county of Northumberland, a distance of between fifty-five and sixty miles. The line was surveyed in 1914, but on account of the war nothing more was done. A year or so ago the Government purchased 'the Moncton and Buctouehe railway, which is now part of the Canadian National Railway system. The extension now desired would be from Buc-touche to Chatham or to some other point in Northumberland which would make a satisfactory terminus.
Last winter the municipal council of the county of Kent adopted a resolution asking the Government to take this matter into consideration. The resolution is as follows:
Whereas, the Moncton and Northumberland Strait Railway Company was duly incorporated by an Act of the General Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick in the year 1910, and by the Statutes of Canada in the year 1913, for the purpose of building: a line of railway from Buctouehe in the county of Kent, the terminal of the Moncton and Buctouehe Railway, to a point at or near Loggieville, in the county of Northumberland, N.B.
And, whereas, a survey of the proposed line was duly made in the year 1913, which survey

is now available for reference, and proves it to be an expensivel undertaking, and showing seven miles of road already graded;
And whereas, the Canadian Government has taken over the Moncton and Buctouche Railway, of which the proposed line was to be an extension ;
And, whereas, this proposed line of railway passes through the most thickly populated and richest part of Kent and Northumberland counties, now altogether without railway service, which sections are rich in agricultural, lumber, and Ashing possibilities;
And, whereas, lack of the necessary shipping facilities greatly retard the growth and development of a large portion of these counties;
And, whereas, the question of Anding employment for many of our returned soldiers needs to be solved by the Government;
And, whereas, the building of this railway would give immediate employment to a large number and at the same time open much unused agricultural land for settlement purposes, also be the means of developing our unlimited Ashing facilities along the shores ;
And, whereas, the county of Kent has now cheap electric power available from their Hydro-Electric Light and Power Plant, and the building of this railway would be sure to develop industries of various kinds that are impossible at present owing to lack of railway facilities:
Be it therefore resolved, that this Municipal Council of the Municipality of Kent County, now in annual session assembled, do memorialize the Government of Canada and pray that action may be taken immediately towards the building of this line of railway from Buctouche aforesaid to a point at or near Loggieville in the County of Northumberland, N.B., at the earliest possible time, believing as we do, that such line of railway is in the best interests of the country at large, and especially in the interests of the city of Moncton, county of Kent and county of Northumberland, and thereby serve large sections of country' that have been without railway connection for many years. This service is due these people and the country needs the railway for industrial development. And that a copy of said resolution be forwarded to the Dominion Government, the Boards of Trade at Moncton and Chatham, and to the members of Parliament for the counties of Westmorland, Northumberland, and Kent respectively.
Copies of this resolution have been sent to the Minister of Railways (Hon. J. D. Reid) and to the President of the Canadian National Railway Board, Mr. Hanna. I bring this matter before the House for the purpose of asking the Government to take steps along the lines suggested in this resolution and to have this extension made as soon as possible.
This line would go through many parishes in Kent and Northumberland. Although the route does not always follow the shore, it is nowhere very far from it. If this line was built it would accommodate the whole of the county of Kent from Moncton to Chatham; I therefore urge that the matter be taken into consideration.


George Green Foster: Mr. Speaker, I do not think
that we had better adopt this motion. My hon. friends have brought the matter to the attention of the House and have probably accomplished their object by inviting the attention of the House to the former resolution-which, of course, must now be viewed somewhat in the iight of the altered circumstances.
For myself, I am not in a position to make an answer, and if the presentation which has been made by my hon. friends is considered by them sufficient to draw the attention of the Government to the matter, we might let it go in that way, but if they would like an expression of opinion from the Minister of Railways, who is not here to-day, I would propose the adjournment of the debate, and the subject could come up again and the Minister of Railways reply, as is his proper function. There will be no difficulty in having the matter up for discussion once more. Our friends on the otheT side seem disinclined to do much work; they have seemingly felt the influence of the general world holiday spirit which is abroad. We have now gone two or three times through the whole programme ot motions, and this is the only one which has been laboured. I shall be glad to defer to the wishes of my hon, friend as to the course we shall adopt in this ease. Either I will make.a motion to adjourn the debate, so that the Minister of Railways may reply on another occasion, dr if my hon. friends think they have sufficiently attained their object by bringing the matter to the attention of the Government we might let the motion drop.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The leader of the Government talks reasonably about this matter. At the same time I observed a playful smile coming over his countenance as he was speaking, I want to assure him that this is not a laughing matter toy any means, but a most serious one. In 1914 when this resolution was accepted by the Government we thought they meant business.
Mr. DEPUTY .SPEAKER: Do I understand the hon. member is closing the debate?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No. I am going to agree to the minister's suggestion that the debate be adjourned, with the hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter when the Minister of Railways is present. Whether we get that opportunity or not, I trust that the .ministers who are present will give serious consideration to the matter I have brought before the House.


George Eulas Foster: I was not smiling at the railway situation; quite the opposite. What made me smile was the pleasant countenance of my hon. friend from Chateau-guay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb). It was that which inspired the expression on my countenance which has aroused the wrath of my hon. friend.
On the motion of Sir George Foster the debate was adjourned.


DOMINION CANNERS, LIMITED, CONTRACTS.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: For a copy of all contracts made or entered into between the Government of Canada or any department thereof or any person or persons acting for or on behalf of the Government or any department thereof and the Dominion Can-ners. Limited, of Hamilton and Simcoe, Ontario, at any time since the 1st of August, A.D., 1914, and the 1st of August, A.D., 1919, and of all reports, letters, correspondence and all other documents in the possession or under the control of the Government, relating to or having any bearing upon any dealings, negotiations, contracts or business transactions of any kind whatsoever between the Government as aforesaid and the Dominion Canners, Limited, or any person or persons acting on behalf of said company, and especially, copies of reports made to the Government or any department thereof, by The Milton Hersey Company, Limited, Montreal, R. R. McColl, Esq., Government Inspector, Simcoe, Ontario, and H. H. Holland, Government Supervising Inspector, in reference to or having any bearing upon contracts, dealings and transactions between the Government as aforesaid and the Dominion Canners, Limited, during the period hereinbefore mentioned, and also of all reports made to the Government as aforesaid by any commission or commissions or any person or persons whatsoever appointed or authorized by the Government to inquire into and report upon the dealings, transactions and contracts between the Government and the Dominion Canners, Limited, or any person or persons acting on their behalf during the period from the 1st of August, A.D., 1914, to the 1st of August, 1919.
He said: I should have liked to make this notion when there was a larger attendance of members present, but as we are so near the end of the session, as I understand, and practically all the remaining days are to be Government days, members on this side of the House cannot very well select the time to make a motion.
The motion itself sets forth the correspondence, contracts, and other documents for which we are asking, and I shall state very briefly my reasons for making this motion. I am not taking any grave responsibility in connection with the facts that are placed in my hands regarding this matter.
I understand, however, that the manufac-

ture of war materials by the Dominion Canners, Limited, is not a new subject to the Government, but that irregularities and difficulties with that company have already once or twice been brought to the notice of the Government. I am informed by a friend of the company that a commission has been appointed to inquire into the dealings between the Dominion Canners, Limited, and the Government, which commission has not yet reported. I did not know anything about that.until informed of it after I had put the notice on the Order Paper. The facts which have been brought to my notice, and which I think will be disclosed in the papers that I hope will be brought down, are to the effect that bad material has been manufactured by the Dominion Canners, Limited, and sent to our soldiers at the front. I am informed that what the company sold to the Government as pork and beans was but a part of what they undertook to supply, that there were beans in the cans, but no pork, that when there should have been good beans and good pork very often there was no pork and only bad beans-rotten, defective beans, and rotten, defective cans- that instead of containing pork and beans alone a very large percentage of stones were from time to time found in the cans. Of course, there were not supposed to be any stones at all, but by a close calculation of the number of stones found in the cans that were examined it was found that something like seven or eight carloads of stones were shipped to the boys at the front as pork and beans. There is evidence that thefts were committed on the Customs Department, and I am informed that an attempt was made to patch up the trouble by the payment of a large amount of money to the Customs Department. These alleged irregularities, and, as I may call them, thefts are alleged to have been brought about by the importation of large quantites of pork with the supposed intention of using it in the manufacture of pork and beans, on which pork when it went out of the country there was to be a drawback under the regulations. It is alleged that large quantities of that pork were not used in the cans, but for other purposes, and that the Government paid drawback to the company in large amounts upon pork which was used in Canada, and was therefore not entitled to drawback. I understand that an investigation was instituted by the Customs Department and that four men were sent some time last February to Simcoe and Hamilton, that they made an investigation and discovered these irregularities, and I am told by a friend of the

company that a very substantial amount of money was paid back to the Department to make good these irregularities or in other words, if I am properly informed, this fraud and theft upon the Government, and I am informed that nothing further was done than to receive amount of moneys and to hush the thing up. That is not sufficient, and conduct of that kind should not escape without the widest possible proofs and with the punishment of parties who would attempt to have any complicity or participation in conduct of that kind. It has been shown by the inspectors that irregularities of this character were going on from time to time, not so much by the importation of pork which was not properly used, as the inspectors did not seem to have anything to do with that particular phase of the trouble, but there is in the possession of the Government a report made by four officials last February, as I understand, showing those irregularities as regards the customs. I have in my hand a letter signed by the Milton Hersey Company, Ltd., who were officials of the Government for the examination of goods produced not only by this company but by other companies as well. This letter, which is addressed to the Dominion Canners, Ltd., Hamilton, Ontario, reads:
Dear Sirs:-In reference to a sample of pork and beans taken at random by our Inspector at your Simcoe plant on 27th ult., we have analysed this sample for moisture, etc., and find the can contained six pebbles. There is something seriously wrong with the method employed at this factory for picking out defective beans, pebbles, etc., on the packing belt.
We would suggest that it is probably because the belt is overloaded, and these pebbles being heavier than the beans would naturally settle to the bottom of the load on the belt.
To remedy this trouble, we would respectfully suggest that some other method be devised to do away with the trouble, as it is a very serious matter.
We would be glad to hear from1 you as to what means you are taking in this connection.
Yours very truly,
Milton Hersey Co., Ltd.,
(Sgd.) J. G. Ross,
Chief Supervising Inspector.
This is another letter addressed by the same company of examiners, the Milton Hersey Company, to one of the inspectors of the Government, Mr. R. R. McColl, who was, as I understand, with the Dominion Canners at Simcoe as an examiner for the Government:
Dear Sir:-We are enclosing here two small pebbles. In the last tin of pork and beans from you there were five such pebbles. The
others we are sending to the Dominion Canners direct to call their attention to the same.
If you need more help to watch the inspection more closely, and to see that they are canning beans instead of gravel, please advise Mr. A. C. Neilson, 394 Sunnyside Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, so that he can give you an assistant. Yours truly,
Milton Hersey Company, Ltd., (Sgd.) J. G. Ross,
Chief Supervising Inspector.
That is a second letter, and only one of many letters that were sent complaining about the packing of gravel, as this concern says, instead of beans. It was contended that this factory was in a filthy, dirty condition and not fit to be used as a place where human food' was being put up. There is a further report to Mr. R. R. McColl from Mr. A. ~H. Holland, supervising inspector. I take it-and I think I am right-that Mr. McColl and -Mr. Holland were both Government officials inspecting the product of this factory. Mr. Holland evidently made an investigation for himself as to the condition of the place, and he writes this letter to Mr. McColl:
Dear Sir,

With reference to the inspection yesterday at the factory of the Dominion Can-ners, Simcoe, we have brought the following points to your attention.
1.	Zinc soaking tanks with a coating of slime on the interior lining. These to be cleansed in your presence.
2.	Soaking barrels in a sour condition. These to be replaced or given a thorough scalding of hot water.
3.	Deposits of slime on the floor and decaying material between the floors at points where the floors have given way.
4.	Packing belt sour. This belt must be cleaned with hot water, and should he attended to nightly.
5.	Condition of the floor in the blanching room and also the lower floors, as a result of the drippings from the soaking floor. These floors to be thoroughly scalded nightly with a view to do away with the sourness.
6.	Pork to be removed from tbe corner where water is dripping on it and be placed on paper on the floor in some dry position.
Kindly let me hear from you in this respect. We understand Mr. Innes is in town to-day and will see the War Office. We have already reported to them with reference to this plant.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) A. H. Holland,
Supervising Inspector.
This investigation of the supervising inspector was brought about by reports made to him and to others in regard to the conditions of this factory. One of the awful conditions was that the sewer from this factory, which sewer was connected with all the water-closets in the factory , was blocked, and that liquid material from that sewer came back into the lower stories of the building, flooding the material that was

being used for canning. When that flood subsided it is reported-and I have sworn statements in regard to the matter-that the material, pork and the stuff that was under this water was shovelled up and put through the process of being canned and was then sent to our boys at the front. If there is an investigation into this matter and if those papers are brought down, I am sure that those things will be shown. Not only was the material shorhweighted, no pork where there should be pork, no beans where there should be beans, but everything was done in an improper and unfit way, and our boys had to put up with that material and to eat stones and the contents of poisoned cans when they should have been getting proper food. I have here affidavits to this effect from many people. I do not purpose taking up the time of the House in reading them, but I purpose making a reference to them so that the Government and hon. gentlemen of this House will know that I am not manufacturing this story; that I have it on the declarations of men who are better known to some hon. gentlemen in this House than they are to myself. There is a very lengthy statement here by a Mr. Thomas Puzey, who was in the employ of this factory, I believe, at Simcoe. He tells a horrifying story about the condition of that establishment and about the shortage of pork.
Sir SiAM HUGHES: Shortage of what?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Pork. A can that was supposed to contain pork and beans did not contain pork at all. There are declarations here made by men and women who were working in the factory to the effect that they could not put the pork into these cans because they were passing too rapidly on the belt, that they had no time and that it could not possibly he done. Where this condition would occur you would have no pork at all. It was subsequently discovered that pork was not being put into the cans that were being handled in this way. Cans coming out of the factory would contain a certain weight of pork if they were put up honestly. The weight of pork was checked up and it was discovered that it was not sufficient to supply the number of cans which were turned out. In that way the Government and the people were paying for hundreds of tons of pork which they never received and large profits were being made in ,gn improper manner.


Samuel Hughes: What is the date
of the manufacture?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it went back
as far as 1915 and up to within a short time of the end of the war. There was a contract for 86,000,000 pound tins. I am not informed exactly as to when they finished the contract but it was during the years 1917 and
1918-I think 1916, and possibly as far back as 1915. A report of the facts has been made to the Government. I am informed that a report containing these matters has been in the hands of the President of the Council (Mr. 'Rowell). Reports have been made to hon. members supporting the Government coming from that section of the country complaining about these conditions but nothing has been done. I do not mind telling you that I am informed that this is a source of trouble among the friends of the Government, that the man who at last came to me with the information is a friend of the Government, and that he had exhausted every means of getting some friend of the Government to bring this matter to the notice of the country. But having failed he came to me with these sworn statements and I regard it as my duty to bring the matter to the notice of the Government. It is said that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been improperly extracted or obtained from the Government in this way.


Samuel Hughes: Is there any evidence that the people who were evidently parties to this fraud, reported it at the time, or drew any one's attention to it?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have letters of the
inspectors who were reporting as to the defective way in which these beans were put up and one inspector writes to the subordinate inspector asking him to see that they put beans and not garbage into the tins. That letter was written away back in 1916. I am further informed-and I believe it is true-that the Department of Customs bad a complaint that they were being robbed, that they were paying a drawback on pork which had no right to have a drawback. They sent four inspectors to see about it and I am informed that in view of these irregularities moneys were paid to get over this difficulty, that the company was allowed to go on and that no further notice was taken of the matter.
I stated that there were declarations upon oath from these men. Thomas Puzey, who was an employee and who made a declaration under oath; and T. P. Pope complained about his business; W. Gurr of Simcoe makes a sworn declaration or a declaration before a commissioner. There are also declarations by H. R. Henderson, A.

G. Pendergast, Ada Pendergast, Mamie Plummer, Thomas H. Plummer, Harry Mansfield, C. Tucker, William H. Trern-bley, John Fraser, Mary A. Collver, Lila Stegmeier, Harry E. Watson, George W. Post, J. George Wood, Thomas Gurr, Jack Eade, Jonathan Peteh, J. Petch and then there is some correspondence. These are sworn statements, or declarations under the provisions of the Act. These are living witnesses who will be available to the Government when the correspondence is brought down if they think it proper to inquire into this matter. This man R. E. McColl, who is a well-known gentleman in Simcoe, says that he found it impossible to prevent them from using this filth and dirt that was lying around the place; that at night they would gather that up notwithstanding all his vigilance. He claims that they would take the rubbish, that even material from the sewer basins would be gathered up, put into boxes and put through the machinery again for the purpose of being canned for the use of our boys. I presume there are many gentlemen in this House who know Mr. McColl. I do not know him. He comes from the county of Simcoe. He had been appointed inspector which is some evidence that he. was a man of some standing. This is one of his letters addressed to the Milton Hersey Company of Montreal:
Simcoe,., Ont., April 28, 1917. .Milton Hersey Co., Ltd.,
Montreal.	'
Dear Sirs :-Regarding the letter from Dominion Canners and the carelessness of the inspector, Mr. R. L. Xnnes, the General Manager, Dominion Canners from the head office Hamilton was here yesterday and I took the topic up with him, and he will he back on Monday 30th after having investigated the matter and who wrote the same-
I do not quite understand that.
I invite the closest investigation as regards my work. As to the inspection of the beans, Mr. Neilson and I have used every civil means to have the same adjusted and they yet fail to comply. I will relate last night's episode.
At 8.30 p.m. I forbade them using anything which was on the floor and it was shovelled into boxes and set by the door apparently to be removed from the premises this morning.
At 6.40 this morning I found the same on the top floor ready to be poured from the spouts into the machines.
You can readily see that my hours mean from before 7 a.m. until 9.3 0 p.m.
I cannot see it in any other way, and I know that the letter you claimed to have received is too true, as regards getting past the inspector.
Now, gentlemen, how far are you prepared to
back me in this, as I intend to fight this to a finish; but not after May 15th at the present salary.
Yours truly,
R. R. McColl, Inspector.
Now there is evidence from the inspector that this business was going on of boiling up, canning, and sending away stuff which certainly should not have been sent as human food to any person, much less to the boys at the front. It will be found that there are declarations here, sworn to by returned soldiers, testifying as* to the quality of the commodity which they received from 'Canada with the label of 'this company on it. I do not wish for one moment to say anything in this connection bd^ond just what is necessary in order to bring the matter to the notice of the Government, so that not only shall the correspondence ]pe brought down, but that the fullest investigation shall take place into tlhe ease. I am told, Sir, that material evidence, which should have been investigated, has been laid by some officers of the Government with the Attorney General of the province of Ontario, but that nothing has been done. I am told that even the English Government, or its officials, have reported to our Department of Justice complaining about these matters, and that the latter passed the matter on to the department of the Attorney General at Toronto, but still nothing has been done. Now it is not at all too late to take action-it is too late, in a way, in 'the case of those who have been eating this poisonous stuff. Many of them, I am told, were sick; some of them came home with broken teeth, owing to their teeth fastening themselves upon these stones. That cannot be remedied, but surely we have not yet reached a day in Canada when we are going to allow criminals to escape because, forsooth, they managed to evade the eye and the arm of justice at the very moment when they should have been held up. It is quite possible that the evidence was not available, and I am not saying whether it is available yet or not, hut I have read out the names of about a dozen people or so, wtho are living in this province, and who have made declarations before the proper officers that they can prove the enormity that has been practised upon the public and upon our soldiers in connection with this establishment. I trust, therefore, Sir, that not only will these papers be brought down, but that the facts, or any facts that the Government think they could obtain in this connection, will be fully gone into and the proper party punished, whoever that party may be.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman, I think has been misinformed as to the existence of a contract between the Canadian Government and the parties to whom he has referred. I have no knowledge of the existence of any such contract with the Canadian Government. If there be any contract between the parties and the Canadian Government, and any correspondence relating thereto, we will be glad to bring it down. I do understand, however, that there was a contract with the British Government and that with regard to that contract there were certain complaints made as to the manner of its fulfilment, that the British Government made very considerablS inquiry, and that counsel retained on their behalf pursued the matter further. Those counsel were retained through, the Department of Justice at the request of the British Government.


Samuel Hughes: Was the contract
made through the Imperial Munitions Board or direct with the British Government?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall make inquiry and ascertain, but any knowledge that came to me of the existence of the contract came from the British Government who requested that counsel should be retained to act for them in connection with the differences that arose and the complaints which they had to make with regard to the manner of the fulfilment of the contract. I may say that though I do not claim to have been made aware of the nature of the complaint, I did learn of what appeared to be the substantial complaint, and in connection with this I heard nothing of such statement as there being stones in the pork. Unless my memory is entirely at fault, and I certainly think the fact would have impressed itself on my mind had there been such; I heard of no complaint of the kind. The principal differences were, if my memory serves me, as to the quantity furnished. I know that was one of the complaints, but I have no recollection of a complaint that there were stones in the pork. However, as I have said, if there be any contract, or anything in the nature of a contract with the Canadian Government, or any correspondence relating to the matter at all that will be proper to bring down, it will be brought down.


Samuel Hughes: Would it not be
competent for this Government to bring down the contract between the British Gov-

eminent and Canadian citizens in which the Imperial Munitions Board was concerned, more especially as the Government went out of its way on a former occasion to bring in an American contract with the British Government and there was no opposition whatever to it? I do not see any reason whatever why there should not be inquiry made into the doings of the imperial Munitions Board with regard to any Canadian contract.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In answer to the hon. gentleman's question, let me say that if it was a matter of bringing down a contract, or contracts, with the British Government, it would be necessary for us to obtain the consent of that Government to do so, and in the second place it ought to be in connection with some matter into which this Parliament was entitled to enter and examine.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. leader of the Opposition desires to take advantage of his right to reply. As this will close the debate, any other hon. member who wishes to speak must do so now.


Samuel Francis Glass: I would like to ask whether the Department of Trade and Commerce have received any complaints from the British Government concerning these matters alleged by the leader of the Opposition.


George Eulas Foster: The department over which I preside has received no representations at all with reference to this# matter so far as I have followed the statements made by the leader of the Opposition.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 25 respecting Patents of Invention.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Explain, please.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose of the Bill is to afford a remedy for persons holding patents of inventions who by reason of war conditions may have been prevented from fulfilling the requirements of the Patent Act. By this Bill it is intended to confer power upon the minister in appropriate cases and where the facts are established to revive a patent when the failure to comply with the statutory requirements was attributable to war circumstances. Provision is made in such instances for the protection of persons who while the patent had lapsed may have begun the manufacture or sale of the patented article. I may say that in the Treaty of Peace provisions are made for such a revival in regard to the rights of nationals of ours in Germany or of German nationals in this country where patents have lapsed under similar conditions. The purpose of this legislation is to give a like remedy in cases of patents held by people in this country where the lapse has been attributable to war conditions, but with re-[DOT] gard to which there arises no question as between our nationals and enemy nationals, and therefore, those eases would not be
governed by the Peace Treaty nor would they be susceptible of being dealt with by any order or regulation made under the Act providing for the carrying out of its provisions.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Lion. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) Bill No. 15 to amend the Dominion Lands Act was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
At six o'clock, Committee took recess.
After Recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 1-right of making entry restricted to persons on active service in military forces of Canada of His Majesty or His Allies, or of any British Dominion or colony.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister explain this Bill?


Arthur Meighen: These amendments are necessitated by the conclusion of peace, or by the anticipated early conclusion of peace in a legal sense. The first, second and third sections are the law to-day, but they are the law by virtue of Orders in Council passed under the War Measures Act. The Bill merely makes permanent that legislation. The three sections contain nothing of startling consequence. They merely provide that when land is thrown open for homestead entry, one day's priority shall be given to returned soldiers.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the meaning of "one day's priority"?


Arthur Meighen: When lands are thrown open for entry, advertisement is given that such and such lands will, on such and such a day, be open for homestead entry. Then the Dominion Lands Act applies and the first eligible entrant to reach the counter -or rather to gain admittance-at the hour on which the entry takes effect, gets the entry. Now, this first section provides that the first day upon which lands are thrown open for entry shall be reserved for returned soldiers as defined by the Soldier Settlement Act. The Orders in Council defined "returned soldier" rather differently -more briefly and more roughly. Now that we are putting it into permanent form, the

definition of the term "settler" in the Soldier Settlement Act is .adopted and any man or any woman who comes within that definition may apply on the first day. Then if no one gets entry on that first day all others come in the second day and the first eligible applicant gets the entry. That is the effect of the first clause.
The second clause provides that the ordinary rule compelling any man who has an entry to go into possession of his homestead within six months-extendable to twelve months at the option of the minister -'Shall not .apply. Many entries are secured by men, while on active service, by proxy and otherwise, and it would be unfair to compel these men to go into possession within six months. Similarly, many returned men are not able, by reason of disablement or otherwise, to go into possession within six months. Under the Orders in Council, certain latitude has been allowed all along as respects such men, and this makes permanent this latitude.
Mr. MoMASTEE:	Is there any limited
time within which they must go into possession?


Arthur Meighen: Not on the part of returned men, as yet. On the part of others, the minister may extend the six months' period that the Act allows to a total of twelve months, but not beyond that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: While everybody is perfectly in sympathy with the idea of giving the returned man a preferential position, should there not be some limitation as to time in respect of his obligation to enter into possession? It seems to me that it might retard the development of the country to allow these homesteads to be granted, and perhaps not to be occupied for several years.


Arthur Meighen: It would be wise if it were practical, but when one considers the case of the disabled man one immediately conies to the conclusion that a time cannot be fixed. He may be disabled for a year, a year and a half, even for a longer period, and however desirable it may be to get the land into occupation, it is unjust to him to cancel his entry because he has not gone into possession within the six months. So that a discretion has been allowed in this respect, and I have known of no complaint of abuse of that discretion. I have known of no complaint reaching the department of any soldier being retained too long in the right of entry before actually exercising his right of possession.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 3-requirement of erection of house not necessary if residence acquired by service.
Arthur Meighen: That covers the case
of a man whose residence duties have been performed by 'Virtue of his service overseas. If his residence duties are so performed it is easily seen that there is no use in requiring him to put up a house. This makes permanent that amendment to Dominion Lands Act.


Mr. MAH  AEG@: This does not contemplate giving the soldier who had not made his entry prior to enlistment credit for the time he served?


Arthur Meighen: No.


John Archibald Maharg: Does the minister not think some provision should be made in that regard? Large .numbers of men who did not exactly know the position enlisted prior to making entry for their land; others knew that in order to get credit for residence duties, entry had to be made prior to enlistment, so they deferred their enlistment until they had first made their entry. The former donned the khaki and had probably gone overseas while the other men were looking for their homesteads. In all fairness to those men who took up their homesteads after enlistment but prior to going overseas, the privileges accorded under this section should be extended to them.


Arthur Meighen: I admit that a plausible case can be made for my hon. friend's contention. It has been urged upon me very strongly and upon the department-indeed, it was urged upon the House last session, particularly by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. L. Thomson)

that that concession should be made. It is true that what is at first sight a very strong case can be made in favour of the argument that at least the same rights should be given to the man who felt that the first duty was enlistment and the second that of making entry as are given to the man who took the reverse procedure-made the entry first and enlisted next. But a review of the whole * situation will convince any one-at least, any one charged with responsibility-that such a concession would now be not only wholly untenable, but wholly dangerous- indeed, what is worse, wholly wrong. The question first came up when the concession was given to actual bona fide homesteaders who had their entry that their service* should count as residence. It was then urged that the same should be done for

those who enlisted and afterwards entered. But it appeared at once that if that principle were established and announced, virtually every one who enlisted would make entry, because he would know that his enlistment would count as residence, and in all probability by the time he got through his service he would have performed all the duties on the homestead except those that he could hire to be performed, and he would just "be in'* the difference between the value of the homestead and the cost of the hiring. Consequently, to have acceded to the suggestion would have meant virtually the blanketing of our available homestead lands in Canada by men who for the most part did not intend to homestead at all, who merely saw a chance to make that equity out of a homestead quarter-section. It would be unreasonable to argue that thousands-yes, possibly hundreds of thousands-would not have done that, because it would be plainly in their interest to do it, and in doing it they would be put to very little, if any, inconvenience. So when that contingency confronted the minister of the day-it was before my occupancy of this position-on the advice of the officers of the department he decided that it could not be done for the reason that instead of resulting in bona fide soldier homesteaders it would result in blanketing the land against bona fide homesteaders and in favour of the men who merely wanted a certain cash equity out of it. When that decision was arrived at, rightly or wrongly,- in my judgment rightly-it had, of course, to be announced, and all in the army and out of it who communicated with the department were so informed, to the number of many thousands. They were told: "You, having enlisted, are in the army, and are not a homesteader at all. There is no use your making an entry if you count on your army service as residence, because that will not be done." Similarly, press notices went out, and those thousands of men were thus informed officially, necessarily informed officially, rightly informed officially, that it was no use for them on that expectation making a homestead entry.
Now we come to the situation as it confronts us this session, and indeed as it confronted us last session. We are asked to recede from that position and to say: "It is true we notified the whole army it would not do you any good, We were afraid if we did -not do that our lands would be blanketed. We told you that, but we really did not mean it, and we will count your entries." WThat would these men have said
who got the notices sent out in answer to their query, and who did not make entry in consequence? Their complaints would be lodged, yes by the tens of thousands. And what would be our answer? We could have no answer at all. So while a very plausible and apparently a very strong case can be made, a consideration of all the circumstances in the history of this matter convinces us, I think, that to make the concession now would be unreasonable, dangerous, and indeed, wrong.


John Archibald Maharg: About what time were those notices issued?


Arthur Meighen: It would be at the time the concession to the bona fide 'homesteader was actually made, about December, 1915.


John Archibald Maharg: Then all who enlisted subsequent to that could have made homestead entry and qualified, could they not?


Arthur Meighen: No. They could make homestead entry after enlisting but not have the residence counted.


John Archibald Maharg: But there would be nothing after December, 1915, to prevent a man entering for a homestead previous to enlisting? So all these men could have made entry before enlisting if they saw fit?


Arthur Meighen: That is true.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-application to court by alien entrant for decision that he is qualified and fit to receive letters patent:
John Howard Sinclair: Does this mean that if the judge of the Supreme Court of the province has given a decision in favour of the applicant getting his patent, the case must then go beore the Secretary of State for approval before the patent is issued?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that is the effect of it. I might explain to the committee something about this clause, because it is an important one. It is an attempt to solve a really difficult problem. A substantial portion of our western, homesteads are held by men who are of alien enemy birth, and who at present, indeed, are technically alien enemies; and in reality many of them are pretty much alien enemies, too. These men obtained their entries while the law was in a certain state. They obtained their entries when under the law they were required to put in the three years term of residence, six months in each year, to do improvements, to take out their naturalization papers, after which they would be entitled to a patent. Those coming in be-



fore the passing of the Naturalization Act of 1914 were allowed to take out naturalization papers after three years; subsequently that was amended to five years, but the difference between the three and the five-year period is not very material to this explanation. The point is that they came, made their entries, and gained their rights as to the homestead land; they made, as it were, a contract with the country under a certain state of law. Then the war intervened, and following the war a new Naturalization Act was passed last session by which an alien enemy could not secure naturalization for a period of ten years subsequent to .the war. That is provided by ' sub-subclause (b) of subclause 4 of clause 8 of the Naturalization Act of this year. So these men find themselves in this position: they made entry for their land when the law required certain duties of them, one factor of those duties being the obtaining of naturalization before the patent was issued. Then by reason of the war the new Naturalization Act intervened precluding them from taking out naturalization for ten years, and of course during the war most of the judges held that they had not power to grant naturalization. They had power under the old Act, and under the Act of 1914 the Secretary of State had the power, but my information is that that power was not exercised by him during the war. The plight, therefore, in which these men found themselves can be easily understood. It is argued in respect of many that no concession should be made, that numbers of them so conducted themselves as to merit no consideration on the part of the country. There may be something in that contention as applied to some, but as applied to a very great many it cannot be argued that any such state of affairs exists. Then the difficulty that confronted us was this, to endeavour to establish some system whereby those not undeserving could be considered in applications for patents, and whereby those against whom a sound complaint should be made should not be considered. This is an attempt to effect that end. It is an attempt to enable Superior Court judges to decide just as they decide whether a man is entitled to naturalization,-and if a -judge certifies that but for this sub-subclause (b) a certain applicant would be entitled to naturalization, that is to say, entitled on all grounds save only that he has not been ten years here, as provided by that sub-subelause, then he -may issue a certificate accordingly, and that certificate 
enables the Secretary of State to dispose of the case.
The hon. member for An-tigonish and Guys-borough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) says: Should not that certificate be final?-why should a discretion thereafter rest with the Secretary of State? That is easily answered. The Naturalization Act of 1914 and the Act of 1918, both framed in unison with the -British Act and similar Acts in all the other, dominions, leave the prerogative of naturalization in the Secretary of State. The old principle of the judicial prerogative was withdrawn both in this country and throughout the Empire, and the Secretary of State was vested with the powers and unrestrained discretion as to naturalization. Consequently, in this Bill that principle must be carried forward. The final discretion must rest with him, but barring exceptional reasons that might -appear or be represented to him, he naturally would be guided by the certificate issued by the Superior Court judge. Therefore, provision i-s made in this section to enable the deserving alien enemy who is forbidden to naturalize, none the less to make his application for patent and, if found fit, to procure his patent, notwithstanding his lack of naturalization ; and at the same time it [DOT] provides that, if for any reason an applicant has so conducted himself as to show that he is not likely to be a good British subject in this country, he cannot, -merely because he has put in the time, come and demand a patent to his homestead. All -that I can say for this is that it seemed the best and fairest machinery that was devisable. I did not think it right that men should be kept for years out of their patents if they were ready to become naturalized. Many of them are not naturalized; many of them will not even apply for naturalization; but if they were ready to apply and to become naturalized, and there was no reason why they -should not, but for the sub-Subclause, then it did not seem fair that they should be kept out of their patent for all those years. While it would be possible to leave them in possession and still to withhold the patent, yet the withholding of the patent itself is a very serious impediment to the progress of a man as a settler and farmer, and an impediment that, unless there were special -reasons to the contrary, did not seem to me to be justified.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The only thing that strikes me is the discretion that is given to the Secretary of State under subclause (8) of clause 4, which subclause reads:

The Secretary of State of Canada may thereupon, in his absolute discretion, issue a certificate in form K that the said alien entrant is or is not qualified to receive a patent, and shall send the same to the Minister of the Interior.
I have not been able to follow up the procedure which is to take place before the judge, but I take it that the Department of the Interior or the Government will be represented at each hearing that will take place before a judge and will see that the facts are fully brought out. I must take it for granted that the judge who will hear the evidence will be perfectly fair as regards the facts and law, and that he will, to the best of his judgment, give a decision on the law and the facts, particularly the facts relative to the conduct of the applicant. Supposing that the judge gives to John Brown a certificate that he is entitled to get his patent. I find no material at all that is submitted to the Secretary of State except the certificate of the judge, and it is somewhat extraordinary that absolute power is left with the Secretary of State to reverse -the finding of that court. I do not know whether he can reverse it both ways or not. If the judge refuses to grant the application, I suppose that is the end of the matter. But should the judge give the certificate, it is somewhat strange that the overruling power should be in a man who has no opportunity of hearing the facts at all. Certainly there must be something upon which that discretion can be exercised. It certainly cannot be the whim or the caprice of the Secretary of State, or something that he may have heard about the man, or something not substantially proven. I would like some explanation from the minister as to what facts besides the certificate of the judge are to go before the Secretary of State on which he is to exercise his discretion. The minister, of course, knows very well what is meant by judicial discretion. Judicial discretion must be exercised according to law. There is no free right given to a judge to use discretion. There are lots of places where a judge can use his discretion about decisions, and costs, and cases, and all that sort of thing, but there must always be underlying the discretion a good legal reason. When discretion is to be exercised here, there must he some legal basis for the exercise of that very important discretion, and I should not like to place (too much power in any minister or any governmental official to overrule the findings of a court.


Arthur Meighen: The papers that will come before the Secretary of State are referred to in subclause (7) of clause 4, the clause under consideration. Subclause (6), however, first provides that;
The applicant shall produce to the court such evidence that he is qualified and fit to be granted his patent under this Act as the court may require, and shall also personally appear before the court for examination.
And so forth. Then subclause 7 says:
Upon the decision of the court being given a certified copy of such decision shall be submitted by the Clerk of the Court to the Department of the Secretary of State of Canada, together with the application and such other papers, documents and reports as may be required by any regulations made hereunder.
That is to say, any regulation made hereunder -as to what is necessary to be submitted must be complied with by the clerk o'f the court before whom the case is tried. Necessarily, all evidence then submitted to the judge would be part of the further-submission to the Secretary of State, and any reports on any special matter that-might be covered by the regulations would also have to come to the Secretary of State, That answers one portion of the hon. gentleman's question as to what would be the material before the Secretary of State. Then there might be further material. Very frequently, in the past at all events, these naturalization certificates have been granted rather formally and, I fear, sometimes hastily, -and subsequently to the granting of them material comes to light which might have seriously affected the grant in the first place. Provision might easily be made for -that to come to the Secretary of State, or, indeed, it might come without any provision at all. It is quite true that section 4 leaves the absolute discretiolf in the Secretary of State as.to the granting of a certificate of right. I pointed out when I was on my feet before that that is essential because that is the principle not only of our Naturalization Act, but of the British Act, the Australian Act and the New Zealand Act. All of them are founded, from the lower strata to the top, on the very same provisions. In the Act itself, if the hon. gentleman will look at the following clauses, he will find that subolause (3) of clause 2 of the Naturalization Act passed just last session reads:
The grant of a certificate of naturalization to any such alien shall be in the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State of Canada, and he may, with or without assigning any reason, give or withhold the certificate as he thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from his decision.
That subclause merely follows the Act of 1914, and, may I repeat, the -corresponding

Act passed in the Mother Country and the other British Dominions of the Empire. A reference to section 4 brings out the following reading:
The Secretary of State of Canada may in his absolute discretion, in such cases as he thinks fit, grant a special certificate of naturalization to any person with respect to whose nationality as a British subject a doubt exists.
And so on. The final prerogative, unrestrained, rests with the Secretary of State in the main Act. It would be perfectly impossible to argue that if the final prerogative should rest with him as to the naturalization of people generally it ought not to rest with him as to the naturalization of alien enemy homesteaders'. We would be departing from what is, I think, a fundamental principle of the whole naturalization law of Canada if the Act should provide otherwise than it does.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Before this clause goes through I would like to ask the minister if the application of this Act will prevent the transfer of property to aliens on purchase?
I know of many aliens who have lived in this country for sixty or seventy years who have not become naturalized. Can they purchase farm lands and' obtain a proper transfer and title from private individuals if this Bill become law?


Arthur Meighen: No; the Bill which is under consideration now has no effect whatever on the law as to aliens holding title to land. Aliens always could hold title to land in Canada, but they could not get what we call our free homestead patent until they became naturalized.
Bill reported.


HEAD OF EAST BAY-CHRISTMAS ISLAND MAIL SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
The House returned to the Order for " Notices of Motion ":
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: For a copy of all correspondence between the Post Office Department and the postmistress at the Head of East Bay, Cape Breton County, Nova Scotia, in regard to the mail service between the Head of East Bay and Christmas Island, and also of all other letters, petitions and correspondence received by the Post Office Department relative to this matter, since the 1st of January, A.D., 1915, to date.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of very wide importance but it is very important locally to a certain section of the people of the county of Cape Breton. There is a mail route about forty miles long between Christmas Island and the Head of 
East Bay. Christmas Island is one of the railway stations on the Intercolonial Railway about two miles from the Grand Narrows. From there the mails go to the shores of East Bay and then along East Bay about thirty miles to the head of the bay, going one day and coming the next. The Head of East Bay is within twelve miles of Sydney. The mails used to go out from Sydney every second morning and connect with the service at the head of East Bay. The mail carrier started from the Head of East Bay on his way back distributing the mail at each post office between the Head of East Bay and Christmas Island. That is what happened on one day. On the next day the mail carrier would start with his mail from Christmas Island and distribute the mail all the way up to East Bay. The result was that the people over that forty or forty-five miles were getting a daily mail service, one originating in Sydney and the other at Christmas Island.	^
Some time ago-possibly over a year ago -the postmistress at the Head of East Bay refused to distribute this mail; that is refused to distribute the mail that was coming out from Sydney for the offices along the route which I have just mentioned, stating that she was not getting enough money and would not do the work for the amount that she was receiving. This long route extending over forty-five miles was cut down from a daily mail to three mails a week simply because this woman said she was not getting enough money and would not do the work.
I have been in correspondence with the department, with the officials both in my own province and here, for a little over a year now trying to get this matter put right. Still it goes on in the same way, the department refusing to give this woman the money she wants and this woman refusing to do the work until she is paid the money. I am sorry that the Postmaster General is not represented here. We usually find the hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) looking after his affairs in the House. But, we have here the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) who is representing the Government. I wish to appeal to him and to say that it seems to be a most extraordinary condition of things that any person filling a position such as this in a country district would be permitted for a moment to block the operation of the administration in this way. If this woman will not do the work, surely there are other people who will. I can understand that in the settlement in

which she lives nobody would care to say that he would take the office which she holds but if she were removed from office for refusing to do her duty, I do not think there would be any trouble in getting other people to take the office rather than to see the business of the country interfered with.
Now this does not require any further explanation except that spme five or six hundred families, perhaps more, who had been receiving six mails a week, I suppose for the last thirty years, have been during two years or so cut down to three mails a week, not because of any policy determined on by the Government or by the department, but simply because this postmistress, who used to distribute the mails coming out of the city of Sydney, says she will not do this work. Therefore, this body of people along a route of forty or forty-five miles, and having nine or ten post offices, must put up with three mails a week instead of six. I appeal to the Government that such a thing should not be tolerated and that if this woman, Mrs. McNeill, will not do the work, somebody else should be appointed to carry it on. It is my duty to press this matter strongly and insist upon this postmistress either doing her work or getting out; she must certainly do one or the other. I am not particular whether she gets out or not, but if she will only do the work I would certainly prefer to see her stay. The post office has been at her house for a very long time, and so far as I know there never was any trouble with the performance of her work until she took this notion in her head that she was not sufficiently paid. The department tell me they cannot pay her any more than they pay other people and that there must be uniformity in the salaries paid to keepers of post offices. That is all right, I have no concern about that; but what I am concerned about is that the people of my county should receive proper treatment and get the mail service they have been accustomed to for the last thirty or thirty-five'years. I, therefore, move this resolution so as to lay the whole matter, before the Government, and I hope that the condition of things described will not be tolerated, or permitted to last, very much longer.


Arthur Meighen: I am feo much impressed with the speech of my hon. friend that I have decided to recommend to the House that the motion be passed. I feel all the more keenly with respect to the matter because I think that in my own county there are cases similar to the one he has
described, to the numlber of three or four. It is not, however, the perversity of woman that is the trouble in Portage la Prairie- I presume that circumstance is peculiar to the Scotch constituency of my hon. friend. The difficulty out our way is that we cannot get anybody to deliver the mails as often as the people want. I find the whole community demanding in tones of thunder, if they can reach me, that the mail shall be delivered, but not one person is ready to deliver them. I presume the circumstances are very much the same in the county of Cape Breton. Whether any postmaster can be found or not is something that will be better known to 'the Postmaster General than to myself. I will draw the attention of my colleague to the motion.


John Archibald Maharg: As the minister has
opened up the question somewhat by referring to cases in 'has own constituency, I might refer him to similar cases in my constituency, but the reason there for the non-delivery of mails is entirely different. The reason is because this Government will not pay the courier sufficient to meet expenses apart altogether from leaving anything to live on.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Meighen, the House adjourned at 8.50 p.m.
Tuesday, October 7, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) ; Subject to the consent of the House I would ask to be allowed to introduce two Bills which are on the Votes and Proceedings of to-day, but which have not reached the Order Paper. This is merely in order to expedite the business of the House.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: These Bills can be introduced at this stage only by unanimous consent.
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No, 26, to amend the Canada Temperance Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We are entitled to the same treatment as if this were in order. The minister will probably explain the Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certainly. The purpose of this Bill is to extend the provisions of the Canada Temperance Act so as to make it possible that, if upon a plebiscite vote of the electors of an entire pro-

vince, [DOT]which plebiscite would be taken upon a petition based on a resolution of the Legislative Assembly, the majority of the electors declare that they desire that the importation of liquor into that province or the manufacture of liquor in that province, or both, should be absolutely prohibited, then under the provisions of this Bill such manufacture, or such importation, or both, would be prohibited by a proclamation which would be issued in accordance with the proceeding provided for in the Canada Temperance Act. This is in effect extending the principle of the Canada Temperance Act so as to enable the majority of the electors of a province to create a situation under which the manufacture of liquor in that province or the importation of liquor into that province would become absolutely prohibited.


John Hampden Burnham: Does that mean that if the Ontario Government, for example, has not requested, we are going to decide merely on the referendum?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There will be no referendum except upon a petition based upon a resolution of the legislature of the province concerned. The machinery would be set in motion at the request of the legislature of the province.


William Findlay Maclean: Would that ipSo facto come into force in the case of the Ontario Temperance Act, now the law in Ontario?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. As I understand it, the present law in force in Ontario does not deal with the question of the importation or manufacture of liquor.


William Findlay Maclean: But does not the Ontario Temperance Act cover that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It does not cover the questions of importation into a province or manufacture in a province. The provinces take the position that they cannot deal with those questions. Without discussing that point, I may say that this would be a method whereby, in virtue of Dominion legislation becoming operative by the vote of the electors of a province, importation into that province or manufacture in it would be prohibited.


William Findlay Maclean: Then Ontario would have to have a special referendum in regard to this question in order to avail itself of this Bill ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Upon a petition this [DOT]Government would hold a referendum in
-	4*
pMr. Doherty.]
the area of the province on whose behalf the petition was made.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL:: Does the
minister provide for this coming into effect on a majority of the total votes cast, or on a majority of the voters on the list?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a provision ol the Canada Temperance Act which, I think, provides simply for a majority.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister oi Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 27, to amend an Act in aid of provincial legislation prohibiting the sale or use of intoxicating liquors.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion also requires unanimous consent.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not object, subject to an explanation being given by the minister as if this procedure were in order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Act in aid of provincial prohibitory legislation by making its provisions, which now extend only to the importation of liquor into a province to be used in violation of the laws of that province, to the manufacture within the province of liquor to be used in violation of the laws of that province. That is one provision. The other provision that is made by it re-introduces into the Act a clause which was contained in the Bill as it was passed by the House of Commons, but which the Senate rejected. This clause is accompanied by a modification which we hope may make it acceptable. The clause in question provides that a violator of the provisions of the Act may be tried for the offence either in the province into which the liquor was sent, which we may call the prohibition province, or in the province in which the offence was actually committed. The Senate on two occasions rejected that clause.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: They did well.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is proposed now to re-enact it with this proviso that it shall be operative only upon a fiat of the Attorney General of the prohibition province asking that the accused be brought into that province for trial.


William Findlay Maclean: Would it be necessary for the people of Ontario first to pass a law, or to have a referendum on the question, before this Act would become operative?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In connection with this last Bill there is no question of a referendum at all. This Bill is already in operation as regards importation and it is only to mate it applicable as regards manufacture, and that limited to cases of manufacture of liquor to be used in violation of the Provincial law.


William Findlay Maclean: Would it leave
them the right to manufacture for export?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Bill by itself would prevent the manufacture of liquor to be used in violation of the law of the province but the purpose for which the other Bill, amending the Canada Temperance Act is introduced, is to make possible the absolute prohibition of the manufacture.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: (Louder.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was endeavouring to
explain in answer to the hon. gentleman's question that this particular Bill which we are now speaking of requires no referendum	or	expression of	opinion	onthe	part	of	the electors of	the-province.	It	merely	extends	to
the manufacture of liquor in a province the present prohibition against importation into the province; in both instances the prohibition extending simply to the importation or manufacture of liquor to be used in violation of the law of the province.
The other B'ill is introduced for the purpose of making it possible for a province to have absolute prohibition either of importation or manufacture or both, but in order that it should have either, the people of that province, by plebiscite upon these particular questions, must have voted in favour of the prohibition of one or the other -the manufacture or the importation-or of both, if they so desire.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
the McArthur railroad, alberta.
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: Is the press report true that it is the intention of this Government to take over the McArthur railroad now in operation in the province of Alberta?


John Dowsley Reid: No arrangements have been made to take over the road the hon. gentleman mentions.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Charles Doherty (Minister of Justice), Bill No. 24, to amend the Criminal Code, was read the second time and the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Lucien Cannon: Has this. Bill been printed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, printed and distributed in both languages.


Lucien Cannon: It does not show on the order paper.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, but it is the fact.
On section 1-aliens not to have ifirearms or weapons without a permit:


Samuel William Jacobs: Why is 'this Act restricted merely to aliens? Does the Minister of Justice not think that a pistol in the hands of a British subject will do as much harm as in the hands of an alien? What is 'the particular reason why aliens should be selected in order to have this law imposed upon them?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I might say that as regards Ipistols, or any weapon susceptible of being concealed on the person, there is no distinction between the law as applicable to a British subject or as applicable to an alien, nor does this provision make one. At the last session of (Parliament a provision intended to make this distinction between British subjects and aliens was enacted, namely, that the prohibition of carrying weapons without a license in the case of British subjects was limited to weapons of a nature which could be concealed upon the person. But the intention of that legislation was to make, with regard to aliens, a general disposition requiring a license for the carrying of any firearms. In enacting that legislation, the clause as it is now proposed in this Bjll was passed, but it contained the words-I have not the statute before me; they brought me the wrong volume, but I have sent for the right statute-if I remember right, " as before described," or -similar words, which produced the effect of limiting the prohibition upon them of carrying firearms without a license to precisely the same class of weapons as was referred to in the prohibition upon people generally-that is to say, limited the application of the clause to the carrying of weapons susceptible of being concealed on the person. That was not the intention of Parliament, as I understand it; there would be no object in repeating a special provision about aliens if you

left them precisely in the same position as British subjects. This amendment simply drops those words limiting the application of the provision to the carrying of weapons that may be concealed upon the person, and makes it applicable to the weapons mentioned in the clause without regard to whether they are susceptible of being concealed on the person or not.


Samuel William Jacobs: When this question was raised at the last session I declared my opposition to it, and I am still of the same opinion. I think it is wrong in principle that we should have one law for the alien and another law for the British subject; it is against all principles of British law. We know that under the old Roman system, in the days of the republic and later of the empire, they had one law for the alien and another law for their own citizens, but I thought we had developed a little since that time. It appears, however, that the Government does not seem to be of that view, and we are now going back to the days of the Antonines and Caligula.


John Archibald Maharg: I must voice my objection to any such law as this being placed on the statute book-I can see no necessity fox it at all. Such a provision may have been necessary during war time-I am doubtful if it was, but there may have been excuse for it-but I can see absolutely no excuse for it at the present time. We have probably as large an alien population in Saskatchewan as in any other province in Canada, and I see no reason for .any such provision. If these people are not fit subjects for this country then we ought to get rid of them altogether. If they are fit persons to live here then they should be treated the same us anybody else-if they are not fit persons, do not admit them to the country at all.


Mr.   P ED DOW@: I most heartily endorse the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. In the riding which I have the honour to represent there are a large number of aliens-men who came out to this country forty, fifty and sixty years ago as infants, and who have been since they reached the age of twenty-one voting and exercising every function of a Canadian citizen during all the intervening years. These people have become possessed of farms throughout the riding, and they have all the necessary equipment of home life possessed by citizens of British origin. Now these people will be interfered with in the exercise of 'their rights to a very large extent, and it is absolutely unfair to those

of them who have been brought up in this country from infancy, who have been educated in our schools, and some even in our colleges, 'agricultural and other colleges, that they be denied the right 'they have been led to believe they were justly entitled to. I beg, Mr. Chairman, to register as strenuous objection to the passage of this measure as it is possible for me to do. Such a law would be all right if it were intended to be applied to criminals and that class of people who are segregated in the cities and large centres; but to make it apply at this present time, in the manner in which it is proposed- to be 'applied, will cause a great deal of hardship and a great tffeal of inconvenience to and arouse a great deal of dissatisfaction among a class of people who >are just as good British subjects as any hon. gentlemen in this Chamber.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Might I point out to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pedlow) that if the people to whom he refers are just as good Brit'sh subjects as anybody else they cannot possibly be aliens, and there is no more to be said. Might I further point out that the class of people to whom I believe he intends to refer to have the simplest possible remedy in their own hands. If they have lived in this country for years, as he says, and exercised the franchise and a variety of other privileges, it is absolutely open to -them to cease to be aliens at any moment they choose-


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Allow me to finish my phrase-at any moment they choose.


Samuel William Jacobs: After the expiration of ten years.


Charles Joseph Doherty: At all events so soon as peace shall have been proclaimed, and any suspension of the granting of naturalization resulting from the war shall have disappeared. So that class of people are under an exceedingly temporary disability in any event. Now let me point out, in answer to both the hon. member for Renfrew -and the hon, member for Maple Creek that this is not an absolute prohibition upon these people, but having weapons, the law only requires of them that they should show all these good qualities which are ascribed to them by being willing to ask the proper authority for a permit. Then every man that possesses these good qualities will have no difficulty -about getting one. Now as to the reference of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Jacobs) about going back to the days of Caligula and the rest, might I just suggest this: that when people come into this

country and establish themselves here one of two things is true-either they have been in the country long enough to obtain naturalization, and then they will not come under this Act, or they have not been here long enough to obtain naturalization. Then I put it to the hon. gentleman if it is being quite as bad as Caligula to say, with regard to people who have newly come into the country and who have not as yet given those guarantees of residence and so forth which we consider necessary to make them citizens: before you go around carrying firearms you will get a permit from the proper authority who will make inquiry as to whether you are a suitable person to be entrusted with such permit- or not. Undoubtedly I think the records of our criminal courts would show that crimes of violence are disproportionately frequent .among newly-arrived aliens. It is no reflection upon all aliens to say that. But there the fact stands, and these crimes of violence result from the greater readiness with which certain classes of aliens resort to the use of weapons than do our own people.
Now, the purpose of this legislation is simply to afford protection against those evils, and the " awful thing " that it imposes upon every respectable alien desirous of carrying a fire-arm is that he should go to a proper authority and ask for a permit. We im,pose absolutely the same obligation upon all. our subjects as regards weapons that may be concealed upon the person, and the slight distinction we make, for the reasons that I have pointed out, is simply that in the one instance we extend the obligation to the carrying of fire-arms of the description mentioned generally. I think that with a little reflection the hon. gentleman will see that while it may be important to consider the feelings of the alien, it is a matter of the-very first importance to do everything in our power to protect our communities against crimes of violence perpetrated by means of these weapons; and in many instances we are doing a good service to the alien himself, or to any other person concerned, in depriving him of the carrying of the weapon that he may be too ready to use, with very grave consequences not only to those who may be his victims, but to himself.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I appreciate very much the lengthy explanation made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), but it fails to cover the point raised by me, perhaps because he is not acquainted with all the facts, or perhaps because I have not made
myself thoroughly understood in regard to the subject. He has referred to the days of Caligula. I once read of a student who had not been .very industrious in preparing for his examination, and in reply to the question:	"Who was Caligula? State
briefly what you know about him;" he wrote, being absolutely ignorant of Caligula's personality: "The less said about this man the better."


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman had better address that to his neighbour (Mr. Jacobs).


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: It seems to me that the less said about certain Bills initiated by the Government recently, more particularly those applying to aliens, the better. But to get back to the subject. I received just this morning from one_of my constituents a letter from which I wish to read the following extract, and it will illustrate the point I desire to make:
In the autumn of 1902 Mr. Lawson, barrister, etc., of Eganville went around the back townships making out naturalization papers, but it appears they never came before the judge, or were otherwise shelved somewhere.
This refers to a man who has lived in the country sixty years, and explains why he was never properly naturalized; and that may apply to hundreds, perhaps thousands of residents, not in South Renfrew but in the county. Naturalization is one of the first requisites to obtain consideration before a judge; in the absence of a naturalization paper it would be impossible to obtain such consideration. This man could not obtain naturalization for ten years, notwithstanding the fact that he has lived in this country so many years.


Charles Joseph Doherty: May I correct the hon. gentleman so he may not continue under a misunderstanding? It is not essential to have naturalization papers to get this permit. If a man were naturalized he would not be an alien any longer, and therefore he would not come under this provision at all. *


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The Minister of Justice
does not quite understand me, Mr. Chairman. This man fully understood that he was naturalized. The naturalization process was engineered by some politician a quarter of a century or more ago-long before I had any connection with the political life of the constituency I represent; but this man, believing he was naturalized, was not naturalized; in fact, there is no record of his naturalization anywhere. A
874	[DOT]

man of that type will not be granted a license although he may apply for one.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose of this
Bill is, among other things, to permit men of that class to get permits to carry these weapons. What is forbidden is the carrying of firearms without a permit; that is all. Any man who can satisfy the proper authority that he ought to have a permit, whether he is an alien or otherwise, will be entitled to carry firearms.


William Daum Euler: I would like to refer to a
statement made by the Minister of Justice in connection with this Bill. He stated that those who were referred to by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) if they can show that they have been good citizens for many years, can obtain permission to carry firearms by applying for naturalization, and then, having become naturalized citizens, they will be the same as all other citizens and this provision will not apply to them. That is the point to which I wish to take exception. If it were only possible for people who are to-day technically aliens to apply to this Government and to obtain naturalization papers, I would raise no particular objection. But I would like to refer to the amendment to the Naturalization Act which was piloted through the House last session by the Solicitor-General (Mr. Guthrie). At that time I protested against the clause which made it necessary for men of alien enemy birth to reside in Canada for another ten years before tfhey could obtain naturaliza-tibn. I do not desire to>
burden the House again with the whole story, but I did refer at that time particularly to certain people of alien enemy birth residing in the riding which I represent and -also in other ridings. These mien had lived there as the (member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) stated, for ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty and even sixty years, and many of them were under the impression that their fathers had become naturalized British subjects, but could not prove it, and who, although they have lived in Canada for that period of years and have always conducted themselves as good British subjects and carried out their duties as citizens, having in many instances been elected to act as magistrates and mayors .and councillors, find themselves in the position of being unable to procure naturalization under the amendment to the Naturalization Act of last session. I protested against that, and I pointed to the fact that in the session of 1917 the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden)
[Mr. Pedlow. 1
stated he would make provision, and he did (make provision later on by Order in Council, whereby these peotple, old residents in Canada-I am not speaking of newcomers- could obtain naturalization by making their application to a judge, (who would report to the Secretary of State, after which, if the reports were satisfactory, certificates were to be issued. In the riding of North Waterloo, some ninety-three petitions of that kind were handed in because of the Order in Council promised by the Prime Minister himself. Those ninety-three applications were approved by the judge, they were sent to the Secretary of State, but the naturalization papers were never issued.


Samuel William Jacobs: An oversight.


William Daum Euler: It was not an oversight,
Mr. Chairman-but I shall not go over all that again. These people have not received their naturalization papers. No one in this House or outside of it can produce one particle of evidence to show that these people are not, to all intents and purposes, British subjects. But they are not technically so, and the Act of last session made it impossible for men who have been here for so many years, to receive their naturalization papers unless they live here another ten years. I made a plea that if these men were all right in every respect, the time during which they had already lived in Canada should be credited to them so far as the ten year period was concerned. The Prime Minister said that it could not be done, because it was the desire of the House to pass a Naturalization Act that would enable the naturalization certificates to be recognized all over the Empire. He also admitted, as did the President of the Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell) that the condition of which I complained worked an injustice on many good people living in this country. The Prime Minister further promised that he would make application to the British Government to have that state of affairs remedied so that these people could obtain their naturalization papers without having to live here another ten years. The point I wish to make is this:	the Minister of
Justice says that all an alien who has conducted himself properly, has to do to escape the provisions of this Act is to present himself for naturalization. But that is not the case with these particular people; they have to live here another ten years before they can get their naturalization papers, and that is an injustice. So far as my own riding is concerned, we have there-unfortunately for them, and I think, unfortunately for the community at large-three or four hundred

people, perhaps more, who come under that description. I am not referring to people who came from: Germany within [DOT] the last ten or fifteen years; I refer to old residents who have all along considered themselves Canadians and who ought to be made Canadians by the issuance to them of naturalization papers.
Mr. McGIBiBO'N (Muskoka):	What was
the attitude of these people towards Canada during the last war?


William Daum Euler: I will answer that by saying that some of the men to whom naturalization was refused had sons fighting for Canada in that very war.


Peter McGibbon: How did the majority of them vote?


Samuel William Jacobs: They voted right. .


William Daum Euler: It was a secret ballot, and moreover they were not allowed to vote at all. I wish to ask whether any members of the Government .are able to give any information on the question whether justice is going to be done to these people. I might say further to the minister that the Government need not worry very much about the alien in this country. I do not think that, having regard to the very stringent regulations that have been made, very many aliens desire to come to Canada. Not only that; as I come down in the train from Western Ontario I see every Sunday night hundreds of aliens leaving this country because they think it is no longer a free country. The action now contemplated is quite in harmony with the spirit of oppression which has prevailed in connection with the Government of this country during the last three or four years. I make no plea on behalf of any one who is not absolutely entitled to Canadian naturalization, but I do object to the laying of further disabilities on good Oanadian people who are virtually British subjects. I say that it is an injustice and I desire to protest against it.


John Howard Sinclair: I am opposed to this measure and I wish to register my objection; the legislation proposed is not only unnecessary; it is vicious. The minister has told us that provision is already made for the case of carrying concealed weapons, yet he is now attempting to provide for the case of an alien who carries a gun on his shoulder. Men do not go abroad in that way to commit an offence. It is difficult to understand the attitude of the Government in regard to the alien. The Government profess to be in favour of the League of Nations;
brilliant pictures have been set before us during this session with regard to the great results that are to follow from the institution of this League. We are to have " Peace on earth, good will toward men," but we are busy week after week placing laws on our statute-book that are annoying and objectionable to our colleagues in the League of Nations. I find it difficult to understand why the Government are so anxious to encumber the statute-book with unnecessary legislation of this kind. Many people from the United States come into Nova Scotia to have a day's shooting in the woods; it will be necessary for them, if I understand this Bill aright, to obtain a license before they may carry a gun in 'any part of this, country for the purpose of shooting a partridge or having a little sport in the woods. I repeat that this legislation is absolutely unnecessary, and dt is my view that the Bill should not obtain the consent of the House.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I understand that under the existing laws, persons going into Nova Scotia, as my hon. friend suggested, for the purpose of shooting, have to. get a license.


John Howard Sinclair: But if this Bill
passes they will have to get two licenses.


John Wesley Edwards: From whom are permits to carry firearms or have them in possession to be obtained? Are they in sufficient numbers. to cause no inconvenience to persons who set about to obtain such permits?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not before me the statute which prescribes the persons from whom the permits1 are to be obtained, but I have a very clear recollection that when we passed the original provision we endeavoured to meet every possible need and to obviate any inconvenience in the obtaining of permits. With regard to what the member for Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) has said, if he had as much to do with seeing the regrettable consequences from the promiscuous possession of firearms as we necessarily have to do in dealing with the different criminal cases which, under the guise of applications for clemency, come before us, I think he would realize that even some slight inconvenience to a gentleman who came across the border should hardly weigh in the balance when we are considering the importance of trying to exercise efficient control over the indiscriminate carrying of arms of this description. The hon. gentleman intimates that people who go abroad with guns on their shoulders are

not dangerous. If he had to weigh t/he pros and cons of exercising clemency in favour of people who have committed murder with guns which they carried over their shoulders when they were not shooting them, off, he would realize, perhaps, that there are more important things at issue than the difficulty which he apprehends. This legislation is not directed against aliens of any particular class. It is not directed against the alien enemy in particular. If it does happen that persons who are aliens or of alien enemy origin suffer what appears to them an injustice-and I am prepared to admit there appears to be very hard cases- in consequence of the legislation of last session, I do not think we can gain anything by trying to carry on a discussion as to the wisdom or justice of legislation which Parliament enacted last session upon a subject different from this.
I am sure that any promise which the hon. member states the Prime Minister made with regard to endeavouring to bring about a situation where that injustice might be remedied or mitigated, will be carried out. But so far as this particular legislation is concerned it is not directed against enemy aliens in particular. I have already indicated the motives that inspired it. In talking about aliens and the unfortunate prevalence of crimes of violence among certain classes of them, it is only just to say that I had not in mind, and the facts would not have justified me in having in mind any particular aliens of enemy origin. I think that perhaps among aliens of some other races we would find a greater readiness to resort to the use of firearms. The hon. gentleman will understand that I do not want to specify, or make invidious distinctions between different races. I only want to say to him, as he seems to be so *specially interested, and naturally so, by reason of the population of his county, in the hardship imposed upon that particular class that I was not seeking to make any reflections upon that class in particular, but the fact remains, and the records of our criminal courts show it, that among the alien population we get a much larger proportion of crimes of violence than we do among our own population.


Hon. Mr. GUTHEIE (Solicitor General):: I should like to mention that there has been a fairly widespread demand for this legislation, throughout the province of Ontario at least. I know that petitions have come to me from practically all the larger places in Western Ontario asking this Par-

liament to pass legislation absolutely to prohibit the use or possession of such weapons by aliens- not to permit the carrying of these weapons oniy under license, but absolutely to prohibit. I can recall resolutions from the following Boards of Trade and City Councils in Western Ontario : Windsor, Chatham, Welland, Hamilton, Brantford, Stratford, Port Arthur, Fort William, Kingston, Belleville, and Guei.ph. I do not remember any from east of Kingston, but certainly the western portion of the province has made rather a pronounced request upon this subject. Let me give an instance of the conditions which exist in my own home town. At the assizes held in the month of May last, presided over by Sir William Mulock, Chief Justice of one of the courts of Ontario, there were on the opening day of the court confined in the Guelph jail fourteen criminals, thirteen of whom were aliens. The chief justice, addressing the grand jury, specifically referred to the proportion of aliens, a great many of whom were charged with crimes of violence, two being mfirder. Two men, both aliens, have been condemned to death in Guelph, and in both cases the instrument of the crime was a shotgun. An altercation of some kind had taken place, and the man ran into his house for a shotgun, and shot his victim. I could enumerate a fairly large number of such cases in Western Ontario during the past five or six years. The vast majority of these crimes have been *committed by aliens, and it is for that reason there has been this pronounced demand from the cities of Western Ontario. I do not know how it is in other portions of the Dominion, but in my humble judgment the law is a very wise one and will oause no injury to any one.


William Daum Euler: I should like to ask the Acting Secretary of State a question in regard to the matter I spoke of before, and that is whether any action has been taken with regard to the naturalization of the people * to whom I have referred, and to whom it wa-s admitted to me that naturalization should be granted. At the last, session I made a special request privately of the Prime Minister that at least those men whose applications had been properly approved by the judge should be granted naturalization, leaving the other cases over for the future pending action, by the British Government. Has anything been dona with regard to that?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know whether this is in order, but I may say that I am

not aware of any such action having been taken. I have been Acting Secretary of State only for the past ten days, and action might have been taken without my having any knowledge of it.


Samuel William Jacobs: Would the Minister of Justice be good enough to tell the Committee from what legislation this proposed section is borrowed? Is there similar legislation in England or Ireland, for instance?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I can assure the hon member it was not borrowed from Ireland.
I am not aware whether there is similar legislation in England, but if they have similar conditions in England I have sufficient confidence in their wisdom to believe that they have provided similar legislation.


Samuel William Jacobs: What- would the minister regard as similar conditions? Surely he -does not pretend that we have more aliens in this country than they have in the United Kingdom. In 'the city of London alone there are probably more aliens than in the whole of Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I aim not aware of the comparative number of aliens in the two countries. I have exposed the reasons why I think this legislation is good legislation for this country. If it should be demonstrated to me that either wisely or
4 p.im. unwisely the legislative authorities in Great Britain have not thought it to be good legislation for their country, I would not look upon that as a reason why I should not provide what seems to me to be a highly necessary legislation for our own' country under existing conditions.


Samuel William Jacobs: I 'beg to move to amend clause 1 by striking out the words " being an alien " in the first line of paragraph (dl).


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the minister be able to give us 'the whole section so that we may have a proper comprehension of what the law is as amended?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The original section is to be found in the Statutes of 1913, and at the last session that original provision was amended by adding a provision intended to produce the effect of this one. There are 'two reasons why we want to amend it, the reason I have already given and also because the description of weapons that were prohibited was not as extensive as in the present provision which covers any offensive weapon.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Before we decide upon the question under consideration, I would like to call the attention of the Government once more to the position of the

case to which I have already referred. If this Bill passes as presented to the House, these men who, as I have already staled, have lived in the country for forty, fifty or sixty years, who believe themselves to be in every respect British subjects, who have no doubt in their homes the usual equipment for hunting, fishing and other amusements, will be up against this propostion, that agents of the Government are going around the country informing upon them because they have weapons in their homes without a license. It requires some time for these men to obtain a license. It may take weeks or months, and in the meantime the arms will' be in their homes, and they will be subject to all kinds of annoyance from that class of individuals whom one meets in every community, I do not care whether they are " bootleggers," or as the hon. member for Park-dale modified the term, men who carry razors in their boots; they are all in the same class of undesirable citizens. I do not see any reason why the amendment should not be adopted by this House. If those of British origin do not carry weapons, then they will not be under any restrictions in regard to the matter. Let this apply to all citizens equally. If those of British origin and those of Canadian birth are immune, then they have nothing to complain of, and we should let the law apply to all people, and then they will all come under the same law. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. member for
Renfrew South (Mr. Pedlow) wants a law that will apply to all citizens of the country, including even those who belong to that highly respectable society known as the Society of Friends, sometimes called the Quakers. But there was a time when the hon. gentleman did not hold quite so comprehensive a view, when he thought and voiced the opinion that there were in this country certain people who should not come under all' the laws and should not assume all the responsibilities of citizens of Canada, but should be excused from certain responsibilities and activities in defending this Dominion because of their certain pecu-lar religious beliefs. It is exceedingly surprising that a gentleman of the quiet, peaceful demeanour of the hon. member for Renfrew South should be assuming such a warlike attitude in this matter. I am very, much surprised that he should have taken that attitude, for of all men in the House of Commons, he is the one man who should be trying to prevent every citizen in this

country from having in his possession anything in the nature of firearms more dangerous than a popgun. But here we find him .advocating in this House that, no matter who the man. is who comes into this country, no matter how short a time a man has been in this country, he may load up with knives, pistols, shotguns and all that sort of thing, and be. ready to go on the warpath, I suppose, whenever he feels so inclined. That is a very fine attitude for the hon. member for Renfrew South.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I object.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. member for-


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Henri Boivin: I understand the hon. member is rising to a point of order.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) hass with his usual definiteness of language, and with bis usual forceful character, put into the mouth of the hon. member for Renfrew South words he did not utter, and on his bearing in the House, an interpretation that is not justified.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must say that is not exactly a point of order.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. member for Renfrew South surprised me a moment ago by supporting the amendment and by evidently desiring to see people armed with defensive and dangerous weapons. I was surprised and I gave the reason for my surprise, namely, that I had always regarded the hon. gentleman as one of a peculiarly, peaceful, gentle and loving disposition. But not only has he surprised me by advocating the use of firearms by foreigners who come into this country but he has assumed a very belligerent attitude in his own person. In fact when he arose in that hostile manner a moment ago, I got down behind the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell), feeling that I would be safe, fearful lest the quiet-appearing gentleman might have some of these firearms in his possession and might take a shot at me with something more dangerous than his tongue. There is not an hon. gentleman opposite, not even the philosopher from-


An hon. MEMBER:: Brome.


John Wesley Edwards: Not the philosopher from Brome, the one who is alongside of him, the philosopher from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). There is not an hon. gentleman, not even the philosopher from

Brome (Mr. McMaster), nor the philosopher who has moved the amendment (Mr. Jacobs), who would take any exception to the legislation which has been on the Statute Book for years requiring a foreigner coming into this country to reside here for a matter of three years as the law used to be before he could take out his naturalization papers. If hon. gentlemen want to be perfectly consistent, they ought to argue that a foreigner, as soon as he lands on Canadian soil, should be regarded as a Canadian citizen and not be required to live here for three years before being permitted to take out his naturalization papers. What was the purpose of putting that three-year provision in the Act? 'Hon. gentlemen opposite agreed to that and 'said that it was a proper provision. Was that showing a perfect trust and confidence in an alien as soon as he came into this country, or did it not indicate on the part of this Parliament that they thought it was a proper safeguard to take, that these people coming from foreign lands into Canada should live here for a time and get into the ways of this country before they were recognized as citizens and given full citizenship? These gentlemen who argue that you should not treat these foreigners or aliens in a different manner from that in which we treat the native-born Canadian or British subject are inconsistent. If they want to be consistent and argue along that line in regard to having weapons in their possession, they should go the whole distance and remove any restriction as regards length of residence before their citizenship is acknowledged.
What is asked in this Bill? Simply that an alien coming into this country, or an alien living in this country who has not already taken out his citizenship, and who wishes to have in -his -possession firearms or other wea-pons, shall go a short di-stance to some person in his own locality -and ask for a permit to carry a weapon. He is not -asked to come to this Government, to travel a long distance, but he goes to some person who knows him very well indeed, and that person knows whether he -i-s a proper kind of -a man to give a permit to. I-t is a proper safeguard. I-t is -an intimation to the alien that, for a -certain length of time or until he acquires his- citizenship, he is not to be treated in exactly the same way a-s a British subject who is fulfilling all the responsibilities of citizenship. I -commend very -strongly the Bill; I think it is -a move in the righ-t direction. Many crimes have been committed in this country when men were
in a passion. They got in the way of carrying guns- and in a fit o-f passion they used them. It is no -argument at all to tell us that American citizens who aTe coming to this country will come under this provision. Very properly they should come under it. There -have been very many crimes committed on the other side of the line just for lack of some such law -as tih-i-s. Men in the heat of passion have committed crimes which they regretted -all their lives. This is a vety proper provision and it should receive the unanimous support of the House.
The amendment of Mr. Jacobs was negatived on the following vote:	Yeas, 34;
nays, 55.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	Perha-ps the -minister
can now give us the -consecutive connection between the law as it exists no-w and this amendment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The clause will read this way -with this section added to it:
Every one is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding $10-0 and costs or to imprisonment for three months, or to hoth fine and costs and imprisonment, who-(a) not having a permit in Form 76, has upon his person a pistol, sheath knife, bowieknife, dagger, stiletto, metal knuckles, skull cracker or other offensive weapon that may he concealed upon the person or any air gun or any -device or contrivance for muffling or stopping the sound of the report of any firearm, elsewhere than in his own dwelling-house, shop, warehouse, counting-house or premises; or-
There are provisions in regard to the sale of weapons and then:
11 (41) being an alien, has in his possession any pistol, rifle, shot-gun, revolver, firearm or offensive weapon without having a permit therefor, which permit may -be issued in the same manner, by the same persons and as near as may -be in the same form as in the case of the other permits referred to in this section; or-"


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Might this not lead to
some confusion on account of the words " being an alien A person who is not an alien, and who has in his possession a firearm may fall un-der section 118 or he -may fall under section 121. There has been confusion before the courts in connectibn with sections 118 and 121. I might read section 121.
Every one who has upon his person a pistol or air-gun, with intent therewith unlawfully to do injury to any other person, is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction before two justices, to a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars and not less than fifty dollars, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, with or without hard labour.

Four or five young men going out armed. They may have had no intention of committing any offence but an offence is committed and they fall subject to section 118., involving a lesser term of imprisonment or fine, instead of falling subject to 121 which provides for a greater fine.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the point is well taken.
Mr. McKENZIE.: I wish to call the attention of the minister to the effect of this legislation. This is an innovation and provision should be made to prevent an abuse of the law. I am not finding fault with the Minister of Justice for enacting the law but it is capable of abuse. It has been disclosed to us here to-day that there are alien people who have lived in Canada for sixty years, perhaps longer, who are peaceful and law-abiding. One of these men perhaps has a gun in his house. Perhaps it has been there for a great many years. It is not used very much but perhaps it is used once in a while for sport. This law makes thatpeaoe-loving citizen subject to be penalized and prosecuted in the courts. He has no unlawful intent whatever but he just has a gun in his possession. He never intended to do anything hurtful, he is not a dangerous citizen; nevertheless, this law which we are passing to-day leaves him open to be penalized before the court and to be subjected to a fine or imprisonment or both. In a case of this kind should there not be some restriction as to the opportunity for prosecution?
I think if a permit were required from the Minister of Justice, or from the Attorney General of the province, before such prosecution should foe instituted, it would give some safeguard. I would then feel satisfied that no person would foe prosecuted unless there was some real justification for it. If some such restriction as I have mentioned were to be required wherever these proceedings were to foe instituted in any of our courts I would then feel that possibly no great injustice would result.
Mr. DOHERTY': I can appreciate the desire to avoid this law being applied in a way to give rise to abuses, or to unnecessary hardship, but I might point out that in effect we have a great many dispositions of the law which people may innocently so to speak, or ignorantly at all events, offend against and foe liable under the law to punishment. But I think that in any case such as the leader of the Opposition suggests, in the first place you have this protection-that the magistrates., having all the

circumstances before them, would give consideration to those circumstances in the infliction of the penalty. In the second place, there is the further protection: I think I might undertake to guarantee that in cases with circumstances such as indicated, either my hon. friend the Solicitor General or myself would be very ready to recommend the remission of the penalty. I can understand that there are conceivable cases where a man might he arrested under such circumstances; but I may say this-as showing how slight after all the danger is-that we have in force under the War Measures Act an- Order in Council practically to the same effect. From my personal knowledge-at all events from my official knowledge-I am aware that in the enforcement of that law the police officers who are charged with carrying it out gave warning; they did not jump upon a farmer who happens to have a firearm in his house and arrest him the first time they came across him. In such a case they invariably pointed out to him the nature of .the offence and I think in most cases the man got his permit and that was the whole of it. Yet it is a law that is susceptible, perhaps, of abuse. On the other hand, it is a law which the persons who will be employed in enforcing will have no interest in making operate harshly, and I think we may safely leave the matter without providing a special safeguard. Take a law that is applicable to all of us, the law against carrying concealed weapons. It is quite easy to suppose that any one of us might quite innocently, and for a perfectly innocent purpose, on some particular occasion have a weapon in our possession. Of course if that were so we would be liable to be prosecuted and to be punished; but I fancy that the courts charged with the application of the law would take into consideration the circumstances in measuring any penalty that ought to be imposed. I may say this too, that leaving the matter without any special restriction it has been found to be of very great advantage in dealing with criminal classes. With regard to the .provision of general disposition, I think also it would be found that the application of this disposition, in tlhe large number of cases, would foe with regard to people who for some other reason have rendered themselves liable to having their premises looked into. While I appreciate the fact thatlthere may be some occasional cases of the kind the hon. gentleman refers to, still it hardly seems to me to be so probable as to necessitate our making some specific disposition for protection in such cases. It would be

very difficult indeed, I think, or at least would be very cumbersome, if a police officer discovering an offender in the case of an offence of this kind had to hold his hand until communication could be had with the Attorney General of the province or with the Attorney General of Canada. I think it might oiperate to defeat the law in many instances. On the whole I do not think there is more reason to anticipate the danger of abuse of this law than in the case of innumerable other laws that stand upon the statute book and which people may ignorantly or innocently offend against.


Mr. CRERAR:: I was not in the Chamber during the early part of the discussion and therefore I would like to ask what the machinery is hy which permits are to be issued. Who are to issue, the permits and are they to be good only for a specific time? If so, for how long?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provision about the issuing of permits- is to be found in the Criminal Code-. It provides:
Upon sufficient cause being shown, any officer of the Royal North West Mounted Police, or Commissioner of Dominion Police, or Superin- ' tendent of Provincial Police, or stipendiary, or district magistrate or police magistrate, or acting police magistrate, or sheriff, or chief constable, of any city, incorporated town, or district municipality, may grant any applicant therefor, as to whose discretion and good character he is satisfied, a permit in Form 76 for such period not exceeding twelve months as he deems'fit.
That is the provision for the obtaining and for the duration of the permit.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That would- mean- that a fresh permit would he required at the expiration of the twelve months?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, the man would require to obtain a fresh permit at the end of the twelve months, as every one would require to do if he wanted to carry a weapon that was -susceptible of being concealed. We thought we had made ample provision so as to render it easy to find an- officer who would grant the permit; and that after all, as compared with the evils resulting from the possession of these arms, it was a trifling inconvenience even if a man had to go once a year and get his permit renewed.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: One other question: an ordinary justice of the peace is not qualified to issue the -permit?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, but the chief constable of any city, or any incorporated town or -district municipality may grant it.
I think at the time the section was passed we endeavoured to enumerate a sufficient number of authorities so that it would be possible anywhere throughout the country with comparative ease to obtain- this permit. Of course I can- understand that in- sparsely settled districts there- may be greater difficulty in obtaining the permit than- in more populous districts. It was not at the time thought wise to authorize every justice of the peace to do it because, to speak frankly- I am speaking now of the province I kno-w best-even in the older provinces justices of the peace are almost as- numerous as king's counsel, and I do not know that it is always a certificate of discretion- that a man should happen to be named a justice of the peace. It was therefore deemed better to limit the power to the -officers that were mentioned in- the -statute, it being thought at the same time that that would practically meet the requirements of almost all, if not all, the communities of the Dominion.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: While I am in sympathy with the general purpose of this amendment, I might point out that there are districts in Western Canada where it will impose very considerable hardship on some of the people who come to this country. Take for instance, American citizens who -come to Canada to take up land and make their -homes

they are individually liable to the provisions o-f this section. Now there are many districts in the West where such a person would be required to travel probably fifteen, twenty or thirty miles to secure a permit to have in his possession a shot-gun to shoot prairie chickens or gophers.
It does -seem to me that that is rather a severe application of the principle, and I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that it might be worth while to consider some amendment, either by extending the scope of the previous amendment so that a justice of the peace would have authority to issue these permits o-r -by making some other provision to meet the cases that I know exist.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 

a man "would not be able at least once a year to conveniently get in contact "with a Mounted Police	officer-because	any
Mounted Police officer may issue a permit -or a member of the Provincial Police force. Of course, I would not compare my knowledge of the West with that of my hon. friend, but I should think such places must be comparatively rare and will be- ' come still more so. However, I will be glad to consult with him as to whether we could designate some officer or officers to be added to that list and so make it more easy to obtain a permit.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In that regard, Mr. Chairman, it must be remembered that every district has a justice of the peace, and it seems to me that such an officer should be just as well qualified to issue these permits, as, for instance, a police constable.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do the old provisions of this subsection (dl) enable a magistrate to give a permit to carry a rifle or a shot-gun?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. The provision in this subsection is that the permit required may be issued in the same manner and by the same persons and as near as may be in the same form as in the case of the other permits referred to in this section. This subsection will become part of section 118.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the section name the things for which the permit can be given?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. As regards the
form, the hon. gentleman will notice that it is to be " as near as may be in the same form." The section provides that a man shall not carry these particular weapons " without having a permit therefor." That is, a permit for the particular kind of weapons that are mentioned here, and the form of permit being as near as may be in conformity with the form for other weapons, I would be under the impression that it would specify the weapon which the man desired to be authorized to carry. I was just looking for the form


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It was not the form I had in mind. I take it that the old section specifies the arms for which a permit can be granted, and if that section does not cover the arms mentioned here, then it is certainly not susceptible to any extension; it will be strictly construed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I correctly grasp the effect of this particular section, it requires a permit for one or the other of the different

weapons mentioned. " A permit therefor;" that is a permit for some one of these weapons. Without going back to the other sections, this section itself would require, for instance, if I were an alien and wanted to have a rifle, that I should have a permit for a rifle. And it is said with regard to the form in which that permit is to be issued that it shall be " as near as may be in the same form as in the case of other permits." If the other permits deal with other weapons, and I require under this a permit for a rifle, I would think that that is sufficient to prescribe that the weapon must be specified in the form. Then I turn to the form and I find this:
Permission is hereby given so and so to carry-
And then there is a blank, in regard to which it is said:
(Insert character of weapon).
I think that form will find its application to this present section, and that whoever issued a permit would insert in it the particular weapon which comes under this section and which the party applying for the permit desires to carry.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not wish the
Minister of Justice to suppose I am raising a point which is not well founded. The form' is nothing. It must comply with the statutory provision, or at least if the form is different from the provision it must give way as there must not be anything in the form wider than the statute. I wanted to know if the statute upon which that form is based provides for the granting of a permit for carrying a rifle. If it does not, when I come before a magistrate for a permit to carry a rifle, he refers to the Act- and although I am not familiar with it I take it that it enumerates certain weapons for which a permit can be given. If he does not find a rifle or a shotgun enumerated, he would say, "I have not authority to give you a .permit for a rifle or shotgun, because the statute does not specify it."


Charles Joseph Doherty: When this Bill is passed this particular section which "we -are now discussing will be added to and become part of the original statute, and the section will then provide for permits for carrying rifles, and under this particular section, which will then form part of that statute, we have the provision 'that "a permit therefor," that is, for carrying any of these weapons, may be issued toy all the .persons who are men-

tioned in the section of -which this will become a subsection.


Joseph Archambault: Mr. Chairman, does not the hon. minister believe that the term "offensive weapon" should be more clearly defined? Many objects which are not by their nature offensive weapons may become so under certain circumstances.
Mr. McM AS'TER: A razor.
Mr. MeKENZIB: An axe.


Joseph Archambault: Or a knife, or the electrical battery of the hon., member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat).


Charles Joseph Doherty: It might be very difficult to undertake to give an absolutely comprehensive definition of what is an offensive weapon. After all, the words have an ordinary everyday conversational meaning, and I do think we can trust the courts to determine whether under the particular circumstances of a case a certain weapon can be properly described as an offensive weapon. I am not certain whether in the Criminal Oode as it stands there is any definition of an offensive weapon, although the term "offensive weapon" is not finding its W'ay into the Criminal Code for the first time under this section, for the other sections of the Act deal adequately with offensive weapons without a special definition of the term. In any event, "offensive weapons".is defined in subsection 24 of the interpretation clause.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Take the case of a
man from the United States who is travel, ling through Canada en route to Newfoundland and who is carrying with him firearms for the purposes of his sport in Newfoundland; would this law apply in such a case? It would be rather a hardship if such a person was a criminal during the time that he was passing through Canada simply because he had firearms in his possession.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that the law
would, strictly speaking, apply to persons of that class. As I pointed out in answer to the member for Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) while some gentlemen travelling through this country may possibly-(although I do not think it at all probable- be disturbed by some policeman because they are carrying weapons of this kind, still, I do not think that the inconvenience that they may be subjected to compares at all in gravity with the importance of our having the general protection. It is very often the fellow who comes in from another country carrying arms who is the most
56J
dangerous man to deal with. We have to count somewhat on this law being carried out, as other laws are carried out and enforced, with common sense; and I doubt whether any officer would be so officious as, upon an explanation of circumstances of that kind, to insist upon making an arrest. In any case, if inconvenience followed, I think we would be quite able to remedy it. As I say, it is probable thaMf you take the letter of the law a man under the circumstances related by my hon. friend might find himself an offender. On the other hand, how are you going to undertake to protect everybody who for one reason or another may be in his intentions just as innocent as that gentleman who came across the border? If you undertake to do that, it will be very difficult indeed to make a law that will be effective. For example, under th6 general law against carrying concealed weapons, any citizen of Canada is liable to be stopped by a policeman on the street and searched to see whether he has concealed weapons or not. That is liable to happen to any of us; still, it never happens. I do not think, therefore, that we have reason to apprehend as a serious actual danger that*any very grave consequences will follow on the fact that under the letter of the law what is suggested might happen. If it did happen in a few cases, I do think that our own protection is more important than the convenience of these visitors.


Mr. HAY:: The ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) summed up my views in the very few words that he uttered in respect to this question. We in the back benches are in unfortunate position of being unable to hear much of what is said by ministers in the front seats.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: We will move them back presently.	.


Thomas Hay: But it would seem that some provision should be made under which aliens living in districts far remote from cities and towns should be enabled to procure a permit from a justice of the peace or even the clerk of the municipality to carry firearms or have them in their possession. It is most necessary- that these men should have shotguns in their possession in order to protect their property at certain seasons of the year and it would be unfortunate if we passed any legislation here that would make it difficult for them to do that. We should give due consideration to .this matter, because it is one of importance, particularly to the people of the western

country. We have many citizens in our part of the country who have been living there for a great number of years but who have neglected to take out naturalization papers. Under this proposed legislation some overzealous representative of the law might prosecute men who would be guiltless of any offence against the law so far as their knowledge was concerned. The representations made by the leader of the Opposition ai*S quite applicable under the circumstances, as are those made by the ex-Minister of Agriculture. I ask the minister to consider the matter carefully before doing anything to work a hardship on these men.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should be glad to
consider it. May I point this out in connection with what my hon. friend has said: he suggests that the clerk of the municipality would be a proper person to issue permits. But under the law as it stands, permits may he obtained from the chief constable of the municipality, who, my hon. friend will admit, is quite as accessible as the clerk of the municipality.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.	*

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir George Foster (for the Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 15, to amend the Dominion Lands Act, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Sir GEORGE FOSTER (for the Minister of Railways and Canals), moved the second reading of Bill No. 23, to amend an Act to confirm two Orders of the Governor General in Council respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Explain.


George Eulas Foster: This Bill is simply to provide for the insertion of the word " Terminal " which was left out in the Act sought to be amended, so that the name will appear, as was intended, as Grand Trunk Pacific Terminal Elevator Company, Limited.


[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

clerical error in Order in Council as printed in Act corrected:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is not often we have an opportunity of making any inquiries about this railroad.


George Eulas Foster: The Minister of Railways is not here this afternoon. He has some very important work to perform, and I took charge of this Bill for him. If my hon. friend desires to ask any questions, we might report the Bill and he could put his questions on the third reading.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I should like to put on Hansard what I was going to say, so that the minister will be prepared to answer me on the third reading. I should like a statement from the minister of the different steps that were taken by him either as Minister of Railways or as receiver for this road since it passed into the possession of the Government. I am sure the House would like to know what moneys have been advanced by this Government for betterments or other purposes, what have been the earnings of the road, and generally how the Government stands in regard to the undertaking. Are we losing money, or holding our own? Is it the intention of the Government to bring this receivership to an end, or what is their policy in connection with it?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
PENSIONS AND COMPASSIONATE .	, ALLOWANCES.
On motion of Hon. N. W. Rowell (President of the Privy Council) the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide in the proposed Act to amend the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Act (Bill 22), now before the House, that section 51 of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Act, Chapter 91 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, as enacted by section 13 of Chapter 69 of the Statutes of 1919, be amended so as to provide that the Governor in Council may as to him seems fit grant a pension to the widow and a compassionate allowance to each of the children of any officer who having completed ten years' service, was at the time of his death on full pay or who having completed ten years' service was at the time of his death in receipt of a pension; and that section 21 of said Chapter 91 toe amended so as to increase the salary of the Commissioner of Police to .$5,000.
James Alexander Robb: What is the present salary of the commissioner?


Newton Wesley Rowell: $4,000. The increase is due to the increased responsibilities which

will be put upon the commissioner who will now be head! of the amalgamated force, and be responsible for its administration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I cannot see any more reason why a pension of this kind should be paid in the case of a mounted policeman after ten years' service than in the case of any other servant of the Government engaged in any other occupation. The life of a mounted policeman is a very pleasant one, as I understand it. It is an outside life, with no particular danger, consisting largely of going round the ooun-5 p.m. try on horseback, or by rail, or in any other way thought proper for the discharge of his duties. Compare that life with a conductor or a brake-man on the railroad. A brakeman's life is very much harder than that of a policeman, and no matter how long he stays with the road, whether as brakeman or conductor, he gets no pension unless he contributes to some benefit or insurance fund. I mention the brakeman just as one instance. The same is true of civil servants. Some may say that they have a particularly good time and have nothing >to do. I do not agree. Civil servants are doing very useful work, and a great many of them are very capable men. We could not get along without them, although we might get along with considerable fewer than we have, and I can see no good reason why at the end of ten years' service a pension should be granted to the widow of a mounted policeman and her children for the rest of their lives, and not given in the case of other employees of tihe Government.
Perhaps the minister will explain why he singles out a policeman and makes him the ward of the Government in this very satisfactory and kindly way over other servants who are similarly employed.
Mr. ROWEtLL: This Bill does not introduce any new principle. The law has been, I should imagine, ever since the Mounted Police was established, that a pension should be provided for the members of the force after they had served a certain definite period, on a scale which bears a direct relation to the years of service. It is based on the number of years they serve, and the amount of the pension varies according to the length of service. I quite concede that a strong argument may be made for some kind of a pension system for the Civil Service as a whole, but we are dealing now with a pension system which has been established for decades, and the object of this is to correct what appears to be an anomaly in the existing law. As the law now stands, if the
officer has completed ten years of service and retires or is retired under the special conditions mentioned in the Act a very limited pension may be given to him, and in case of his death, if he is in receipt of a pension, the widow and children may be allowed by the Governor in Council a pension not to exceed one-half of what the pensioner was drawing. This is not a pension as of right; it is a pension to meet cases of need. There are cases where under those conditions the Governor in Council would grant a small pension to the widow and children. While that is the law in case the man had retired after ten years and was drawing a pension, yet the law appears to be that if he dies after ten years' service and at the time of his death was still in the service drawing full pay, there is no power to provide any pension for the widow and children. The object of the amendment is [DOT]to put the widow ana children of a Mounted Policeman who has served more than ten years and who is still in service at the time of his death in the same position as the widow and children of a Mounted Policeman who had served ten years and then retired and who was in receipt of a pension at the time of his death. In other words, we could not see why the widow and children of the man who had served ten years and who died in the service should be left in a less advantageous position than the widow and children of a man who had retired after having served just the same length of time, but was on pension at the date of his death.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They could not be the widow and children of a man who was still in the service.


Newton Wesley Rowell: To put it more accurately, a man who was in the service at the time of his death. This question has arisen on an actual case that has just come 'to our attention. A very efficient officer who had served over ten years has died, leaving a widow and three small children penniless. If he had been retired a year ago on account of ill health-and-he had been in ill health for some 'time-and had been in receipt of a pension, we could, under the existing law -have given his wife and children a pension to a very limited amount; but he was not retired; he died in the service. Therefore, as the law stands, we cannot make any provision for the widow and children, and this is- simply to empower the Governor in Council to make the same provision for the widow and children of a man who dies in the service after ten years of service as we can do in the case of the man

who has already retired and was in receipt of a pension.


John Wesley Edwards: Supposing a policeman who had not necessarily been ten years in the service was killed in the discharge of his duty. Is any provision made by the law for his widow and other dependents by way of pension, gratuity, bonus or anything of that kind.?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I regret to say I cannot
answer that offhand. I do not recall that there is any provision and yet there may be in such a case. My recollection is that he must serve ten years 'before he becomes entitled to a pension.
Resolution concurred in.
On motion of Hon, Mr. Rowell, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered in connection with Bill No. 22, which is now in Committee of the Whole House.
ROYAL NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE * ACT AMENDMENT.
House again in Committee on Bill No. 22, to amend the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Act-Hon. Mr. Rowell-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.


Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was last before the Committee, all the clauses of the said Bill had been adopted. The title had been allowed to stand for further amendments.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I now wish to amend clause 2 of the Bill in accordance with the resolution which has been referred to the Committee.
I move:
That the following subelause be added to clause 2 of the Bill:
(5) Section 21 of the said Act as enacted by *chapter 47 of the statutes of 1913, is amended by striking out " $4,000 " in the ninth line thereof, and substituting therefor " $5,000."
That is the clause that fixes the salary of the commissioner.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who is the commissioner?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Commissioner Perry. He has been commissioner for over twenty-five years.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I move:
That the following subelause he inserted in Clause 2 of the Bill:-
" (6) Section 51 of the said Act as enacted by chapter 69 of the statutes of 1919, is
['Mr. Rowell.]
amended by substituting the word " ten " for the word "twenty" in the fourth line thereof..
That is to carry out the other amendment embodied in the resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: There is one other verbal amendment in subclause 1 of clause 2 if I might ask the Committee to return to that.
I move to amend subclause 1 of clause 2 by inserting the words "by commission" after the word "appoint" in the sixteenth line of the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the minister
tell us what the expense of this force is, including officers and men? What is the annual charge upon the exchequer for maintaining this force?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I regret I am not able
to give my hon. friend exact information. My recollection is that on the basis of a force of 1,200 men, which was our authorized strength prior to the amendment of last Session, the expenditure was in the neighbourhood of $2,000,000. Provision was made for an increase of the force to 2,500 men. If the force is increased to the authorized strength the cost will be approximately double that amount. I can secure the figures for my hon. friend but I am sorry I do not have them before me.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would be very glad if the minister would take some opportunity of putting on record the details as to what this force costs including all incidental expenses.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I shall be very glad to
do so.
Bill reported.


PATENTS OF INVENTION.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Charles J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) Bill No. 25, respecting patents of invention, was read a second time and the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair..
On section 1,-minister to have power to extend time in certain cases for doing any act, etc., under Patent Act.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We are quite familiar with cases of this kind where parties from time to time claim that a patent has lapsed because of some unforeseen circumstance. They used to come before Parliament and apply for special leave to renew the patent. We have had many applications of that kind. Private Bills were in-

troduced for the purpose. The parties interested had an opportunity to be heard before the Committee on Private (Bills. One circumstance may arise in connection with a patent that parties have begun to produce the article which is supposed to be covered by the patent. They have invested a large amount of money for the purpose of manufacturing the article and they have got fully under way in the business. I find no provision here that all the parties who may be interested in a patent must be called before the minister and fully heard. I think we should provide for a case of that kind so that if a man who has allowed his rights, or his application, to lapse comes back for restoration, any person who may be involved in the production of the article covered by the patent shall be heard because he certainly would have an interest as well as the man who is claiming the patent rights.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman will lefer to section 3 he will see that the situation is contemplated and that provision is made for it. Section 3 deals precisely with the case that my hon. friend has in mind. For failure to do something a patent has lapsed. Some one else goes into the business and starts to manufacture. No doubt the rights or interests of that party who, when he started out was doing that which was perfectly lawful, must be taken into consideration. Provision is made that:
In any case .... where a patent has become void .... and during the period when such patent was void any person has commenced lawfully to manufacture, use or sell the invention covered by such patent, the patentee or proprietor of the patent shall not he entitled to any claim, action or demand in respect of such manufacture or sale, or the use of the article so manufactured or sold; and moreover the minister upon hearing the parties and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case may impose such terms and conditions (including if he so deems advisaMe, permission to continue such manufacture, use or sale), to which his order shall be subject, as the minister may deem, reasonably necessary for the protection of persons who have commenced lawfully to manufacture, use or sell the Invention covered by the patent.
That provision was intended to meet the case which the hon. gentleman has in view and it seems to me that unless something more satisfactory can be suggested it is sufficient.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The only thing that I wish to bring to the notice of the minister particularly is the question of notice. It is quite possible that the application may be placed before the minister, or before
the deputy minister, when the facts on one *side would be presented and a perfunctory notice, or attempt at notice, given. I would suggest to the minister, however, that provision should be made so that it would be clearly proven to the satisfaction of the minister that all parties interested were notified of the hearing. Sometimes provision is made for gazetting such notice but that is no notice to the ordinary man. Only *about one-twentieth of one per cent of the Canadian people read the Canada Gazette, and if notice by publication is to be necessary at all it should be in some newspaper where the interested parties reside and where it would most naturally come to their attention. Or else provision should be made for such other regulation as the minister might deem necessary in order to make it certain that the parties concerned would have proper and sufficient notice that such a hearing was to take place.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I fancy that the minister, in the exercise of his powers, inasmuch as he is required to hear the parties, would see the propriety of notice being given. I think we can trust any minister administering an Act of this kind to see that sufficient notice is given. It is difficult to prescribe just the kind of notice that would be suitable to' each case but I would be glad to make this suggestion: That after the word "parties" in the eighteenth line the words be added "after such notice as he may deem requisite and sufficient."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-proviso respecting rights under Treaty of Peace:
Andrew Ross McMaster: I notice in the section the words "British Empire" and I wish to suggest to the minister how wise it would be to employ the words "*associated British *commonwealths" or some such phrase instead of "British Empire." No later than the day before yesterday I had an example of how dangerous it is to continue the employment of these, words. I had the privilege of talking with an old friend, who for many years has been employed in religious work in India, and he said that the feelings of educated East Indians were very much aroused through our prohibition of Asiatic emigration even from India. In discussing the matter with him I asked whether this feeling of soreness was directed merely against Canada, or whether it was not also directed against the British Government.

He expressed to me .the idea that it was also directed against the British Govern* ment because the very words "British Empire" connoted the idea that Canada was in a position of inferiority to Great Britain, and that legislation by us, and for which we are in fact solely responsible, was, through the mere nomenclature of our organization, considered to be legislation for which the people of Great Britain and Ireland were responsible. Now that we have, by our signing of the Peace Treaty, declared ourselves to the rest of the world as being a sovereign nation, or a nation reaching out to sovereignty, I ask the minister is it not a mistake to continue the employment of words which connote an entirely different idea.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I doubt if it rests with us to change the name even though we may be of opinion that the relations of the nations, the group of nations, that constitute what is designated as the British Empire, have grown to be such that perhaps the word " Empire " is not a suitable designation. I think there is a good deal to be said for that proposition; hut though we may entertain that view, still the British Empire is the name toy w'hich this group of nations is known, and I hardly think that we could take upon ourselves, of our own authority, to change that name. The whole question which the hon. gentleman raises might in this connection be avoided, and perhaps it would have been a more logical thing to have done, by not singling out the British Empire at all. Inasmuch as the provision speaks of " the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers, on the one part, and Germany on the other." If we used the language "any other power with which the said Allied or Associated Powers are or have been at war " then we would not raise the question at all. I do not attach great importance to the point myself, but I think it will make the phrase more correct as we describe the Treaty with Germany as being a treaty between the Allied and Associated Powers on the one part and Germany on the other, and the war as having been between the Allied and Associated Powers on the one part, and Germany on the other. Such being the case, it would be more correct, as it occurs to me now, to take that phrasing which would avoid the question which the hon. gentleman raises. Therefore I beg leave to move:
To amend clause 4 by striking out the words " British Empire is " in the thirty-seventh line on page 2 of the Bill, and replacing the said

words by the following, " said Allied and Associated Powers are," and by replacing the word "has" in the same line by the word "have."


William Findlay Maclean: It seems to me that the member for Brome (Mr. McMas-ter) proposes to make some change in the statute which affects our standing as a Dominion, associated with the British Empire, and I do not agree with.him at all in that direction until there has been a full discussion of the question in this House, and I hope I will be present at 'that discussion. I would not at all agree with him that we are to define in such a roundabout way our future in connection with the Empire even in an Act of Parliament of this kind.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have not defined it at all.


William Findlay Maclean: I have no objection to the minister's suggestion; but the hon. gentleman (Mr. McMaster) is framing a constitution for this country in a roundabout way, and I hope, subsequently there will be a full discussion of the whole proposition.


John Allister Currie: I would like to ask the minister what effect this legislation will have on German patents. Unfortunately I was not here at the beginning of his address.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The real purpose of this legislation is to make provision for questions that may arise between our own nationals. With regal'd to German patents, that is to say, either to patents issued in Germany and held by our nationals, or patents issued by us and held by German nationals, what will happen to them is governed by the Treaty of Peace, and that is the reason why we have inserted a clause here that nothing in this Act is to affect anybody's rights as provided for in the Treaty.
Mr. CURRIE; But that does not answer the question I was going to ask the minister. During the war a number of German patents were taken out in this country and machines were built after the designs of those patents. Under this law will the Germans he able to come in and claim a royalty on all such machines operated during the war? I know of two or three German machines that had to be built here.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This amendment does
not affect that case at all. The rights of parties in the case the hon. gentleman (Mr. Currie) refers to would be governed and determined by the conditions of the Treaty, and not by this Act.


John Allister Currie: For instance, there is a
German patent for the separation of minerals, such as silver and gold, by means of oil. That patent right was obtained in Canada by a German group, and they also secured the patent in the United States. They then transferred the Canadian rights to the United States, and throughout the whole war those people were threatening suits and doing everything they possibly could to prevent the production of silver and gold in the Canadian north country. Now, what effect will this Bill have on their position when the case comes before the courts on the question of their right to royalties on the patent? It is a serious matter involving millions of dollars.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Bill will have absolutely no effect whatever. The question is with regard to the rights to patents in this country held by German nationals on the one hand, or to patents in Germany held by our nationals on the other hand, and this very clause is inserted 'because those rights are governed by the Treaty stipulations. On a suitable occasion I would be very glad to give the hon. gentleman what I understand to be the effect of the Treaty with regard to those rights. But to make my hon. friend's mind perfectly at ease, I may say that those questions are not governed by this Act, and that is what section four says; they are governed by the stipulations of the Treaty. Although I have not the text of the Treaty before me, I think I would be safe in saying for his information that if he will refer to it he will find that although under the terms of that Treaty patent rights are or may be revived, any such revival is to be subject to such provisions as we, any of the Allied or Associated Powers, may deem fit to make for the protection of people who while the German patents .were in abeyance have acquired interests with regard to them. I think he will find that the Treaty amply provides for the protection of our nationals in cases of til at kind.


John Allister Currie: Glancing through this
Bill, it seems to me that it is really intended for the revival of German patents. The officials of the Government may issue a patent to a man or may renew a latent patent. For instance, in the case of a German patent which existed before the war and lapsed here during the war,, a German can come along, and although we may have been using the machines covered by that patent, he can say, " Well, owing to the war I was unable to renew this patent. I want it renewed now." Thereupon the
minister must cause an inquiry to be made, and if the Treaty permits it he may renew that German's patent without regard to any rights that may have accrued to Canadians in the meantime. I believe it is a great mistake tying up our patent and copyright law to these foreign countries, and for that reason I would like to know if it is the intention of the minister to bring in a revision of the whole Bill next session. There are lots of things in our Patent Act that require attention.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There may be; I have not given it consideration. But may I point this out, that if the hon. gentleman will read the first section of this Bill he will find that it is intended principally for any distinguished soldier like himself who because he was absent at the war may have failed to comply with some requirements and as time went by he forfeited his patent lights. Now, we want power to remedy that state of things.


John Allister Currie: That does not apply to
Germany.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As regards the Germans, we have made it very clear that the Treaty settles their rights, and therefore we say that this Act will have no application to any rights that are governed by the Treaty. The hon. gentleman need have no apprehension on that point.


John Allister Currie: All right, if the hon.
minister says so.


Lucien Cannon: What is the meaning in the thirty-eighth line " at war with regard to industrial property"?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There ought to be a comma after the word " war." I move that section 4 be amended by inserting a comma after the words "at war" on line 38.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Georges Henri Boivin: When shall the Bill be read the third time?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If consented to, I should be glad to have the Bill read the third time now, and I so move.


Georges Henri Boivin: This motion, of course, can be accepted only with the unanimous consent of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
[Stage Direction]
After Recess,
The House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
On th.e motion of Hon. Hugh Guthrie (for the Minister of Agriculture) the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the 'Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide,-
1.	That the manufacture in Canada and importation into Canada of oleomargarine be permitted until the thirty-first day of August, 1920 ; and the offering for sale, the sale and the having in possession for sale of oleomargarine be permitted until the first day of March, 1921.
2.	That no person shall import oleomargarine into Canada or shall manufacture oleomargarine in Canada without having first obtained a license to do so, and such license may be cancelled for the violation of any of the provisions of the proposed legislation or regulations made in pursuance thereof.
3.	That oleomargarine imported into Canada under the provisions of the proposed legislation he imported free of customs duty.
4.	That no person shall sell, offer for sale, or have in his possession for sale any oleomargarine, unless the packages containing it are marked or labelled as prescribed.
5.	That the Governor in Council may make regulations as to the importation, manufacture, inspection and sale of oleomargarine, the Issue of licenses, the seizure and confiscation of apparatus and materials used in the manufacture of oleomargarine in contravention of the provisions of the proposed legislation, and for the efficient enforcement and operation of the proposed Act; and further that penalties may he imposed for violation of the Act.
Hugh Guthrie: This resolution proposes to extend the Orders in Council which have been in force since July, 191V, in regard to the manufacture, importation and sale of oleomargarine. The Orders in Council as originally passed were perhaps a little indefinite as to the length of time during which they should remain in effect. The first Order in Council was passed on October 23, 1917, and provided that it should have effect for the period during which the then abnormal condition should continue, the conclusion of such period to be determined by the Minister of Agriculture with the approval of the Governor in Council, and it was 'passed as a war measure only. This Order in Council was supplemented by a subsequent one passed on July 18, 1918, rescinding the first Order in Council. The chief difference between, the two is that the regulations- attached to them differ rather materially, the regulations passed in connection with the second Order in Council being the more stringent. The Order in Council of July 18, 1918, has not yet expired, but as it was passed under the War Measures Act it might he said that it might

expire almost any time now, and it has therefore 'been deemed proper to introduce this resolution to continue the Order in Council in effect until the 31st of August next. Importation and manufacture therefore, are permitted until 31st August next, which is' about ten months, and provision is made for the sale for a further period until March 21. 1921. The regulations, I assume, as set out in the resolution are in general terms about the same as the regulations now in force.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the objection to
making this legislation permanent, rather than extending it from time to time by Order in Council?


Hugh Guthrie: There are two opinions
upon that question. The matter was pretty thoroughly debated in the House during the session of 1918, and the House was by no means of one opinion. Many men consider that oleomargarine is not a proper article of food. Others take the ground that its permanent adoption in this country would be a serious blow to the dairying interests of Canada. There is a great deal to be said in favour of each of these views. Personally, I see no very great objection to making the policy permanent. However, the Government has not- gone that far, and until the matter has been more fully discussed and things become more normal all the Government seeks to do by this resolution is to extend the present Orders in Council. I have no doubt the time will come, and in the near future, when the Government or the House will have to determine upon a policy in regard to oleomargarine.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is where our
much-vaunted Department of Health could come into play and tell us whether oleomargarine is fit to be used for human food, whether it is wholesome or otherwise. I see my good friend from South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) here, who is quite an authority on matters of this kind, and who took a very prominent and eloquent part in promoting the Department of Health. Possibly he will give us some side lights, if not head light, on this question. If a Health Department is required at all, and there is- no doubt that it is, I think this is a ease where the Minister of Health or an officer of the Health Department could be of service to the Government and the country. I should like to know whether oleomargarine is a wholesome food. Perhaps the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) can tell us its ingredients. I will be perfectly honest and tell my hon. friend that

I do not know them myself. I tried to eat oleomargarine once, and I would not try it a second time. I do not know that I would have tried it once if I had known what it really was. It certainly did not agree with me at all, but that is neither here nor there. If oleomargarine is nutritious, and a suitable and proper food for the men, women and children of this country to use, if it nourishes the body properly, and is obtainable cheaper than butter, its use should be encouraged; but if it is not a wholesome food and does not nourish the body properly it is too dear at any price.
I think that before laymen like myself should give their sanction to its adoption as a food, we should have some reliable information from some department of the Government as to the value and safety of introducing this commodity into the country. This is not a new question at all, although oleomargarine to myself is new. I do not know that it is very much used in the part of the country from which I come, but it may be. I trust the Solicitor General will satisfy the House, that, so far as he knows, oleomargarine is a proper commodity to be introduced as a food.


Charles Sheard: As the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) has been gracious enough to make some reference to myself I think, I may say that I did intend to say a word or two on this subject. At the outset let me say that among the fats there are three basic or neutral fats, olein, margarine and stearin. Their essential difference is the difference in the temperature at which they remain fluid. Olein is a fluid at ordinary temperatures. Stearin is solid at all ordinary temperatures. Margarine is betwixt and between; thus, it would be fluid on a hot summer's day, and solid at an outside temperature such as we have had to-day. The purity of these fats determines absolutely whether they are deleterious or otherwise. The very moment a fat begins to decompose-it makes absolutely no difference whether it is olein, stearin or margarine, certain acids are produced, most of which are poisonous, and all of which are strongly odorous. The quantity of acids produced by decomposition is practically the same in the case of all fats. Therefore, as to whether or not oleomargarine, which, as its name indicates, is a mixture of the food fat olein and the semi-food fat margarine, is deleterious as a food product depends upon the condition of purity and of freshness at the time they were made into oleomargarine. Thus you can get almost as poisonous results
from butter made in a creamery from a Jersey herd as you can from oleomargarine; but the fact remains that in making oleomargarine you can collect various qualities and varieties of fats which you would not be able to do in handling the butter fat only. Butter is butter fat out of the milk, and therefore it is limited to one variety of fat; whereas, olein may be oil from many sources, it may be vegetable oil or it may be animal oil; and so with margarine, it may be fats obtained from a series of animals; and the mixture of these two fats constitutes oleomargarine. I think that clarifies to some extent the question whether oleomargarine is deleterious or noxious as a food product. It depends very largely upon who prepares it, how it is prepared and how long and in what condition it has been kept. It is, therefore, for the Government to provide conditions under which its preparation and supervision will ensure to the public the purest form of fat admixture, so that it will contain no decomposing elements from fat.
But there is another feature and, to my mind, a very important one which should be presented. If oleomargarine can so closely resemble butter that the ordinary consumer cannot tell the difference, and if the price would necessarily, probably, be one-half the price of ordinary creamery butter, and if oleomargarine serves all the purposes both as to food and other conditions which butter serves, I can see very urgent reason and justification for oleomargarine being made a proper article of commerce. Why we should, as consumers, pay tremendous prices for creamery butter in order to keep up the reputation and record of a dairy herd is something that I cannot understand. Therefore, I would urge the Government to favour and to foster the manufacture and development of oleomargarine in Canada under proper supervision for the very purpose of bringing down the price of butter, as it will do, because it ''will be a substitute for butter. Those who want to pay the price of butter may do so; they will pay for all the care, the record, the housing of a dairy herd, for example, and that is a very expensive proposition, and it will all be embraced in the original manufacturing cost of creamery butter from that source. There is this point about the matter, however, that there is in oleomargarine a proneness to decomposition which probably is wider in its field of operation and more extensive in its results than is the case with butter but that can be very easily and readily controlled.

Those are 'the facts .as far as I know them, and sufficient, I think, to clear up the point as to the value or otherwise of oleomargarine as an article of diet.
I am well aware that the agricultural interests of the country are generally opposed to the use and sale of oleomargarine, because it is, as I said, a substitute for butter, and they feel that whatever provides a. substitute in a sense competes with dairy interests. That is true, but the substitution of an article of food which ordinarily will serve the purpose of butter and which only under extreme circumstances can be distinguished from butter is, I think, an economic argument for the sale and production of oleomargarine, (which argument- ought to weigh with those who are legislating for the common good. I have every desire to assist the dairy interests in 'this country as far. as they can possibly be assisted, but if that entails the purchase of a costly product where a cheaper product can be substituted, I question if that is good economics for this country to follow.


George Boyce: The hon. member for
Toronto South (Mr. Sheard) has told us that the farmers, the dairymen, are very strongly opposed to margarine. I differ from him on that, because we do not think it is going to hurt us in the least, the reason being that the food qualities contained in this margarine are so low that it will not affect the butter trade at all. I have no hesitation in saying that if you keep this margarine for, say a week, you will have to have a very strong constitution if you are able to touch it at all. On the other hand you can keep good butter for s,ix months if you so desire. But if margarine is something that the public wants, by all means let them have it, and no doubt they will soon tire of this newly-found food substitute.	There is no use
in talking about margarine taking the place of good butter, because in that ease it would have to be made of ingredients that would be almost as valuable as butter. As we all know, it is made of many substances, and, as has been well proved, not one of them is good for human consumption. I think we have enough of diseases and troubles without courting, I might say, any more. It is all very well for doctors to advocate something that is not good for the public health because that is only bringing grist to their mill, and there is no doubt our worthy friend from Toronto South has an eye to business just as well as farmers, or any other body of men. If you wish to
	.	,	|	.
use this margarine, which, if you knew the ingredients of which it was made, is not fit for human consumption, the dairymen and the farmers are not going to say " no " to you, but we are going to produce an article that will in the very near future convince you that we are looking only to your benefit. Just play shy of those men who endeavour to tell you that margarine is a good heaitny substitute for butter. Doctors, I suppose, all around, will tell you this, as I have said before, but we good, honest dairymen, say what we are saying about it, not for our own good, but for the well-being of the country at large. There is no doubt that there is not by twenty per cent as much margarine made to-day as there was two years ago, and the longer it is used the less there will be made, and before very long there will be none at all made in this Dominion of Canada.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I should like to give the House a summary as my memory serves me on the oleomargarine question. Thirty years ago there was probably no question that caused such a great fight throughout the United States, especially the agricultural states, as that of legalizing the manufacture of oleomargarine in that country.
Practically all the New England States with the exception of Rhode Island and Connecticut were against it. At that time butter of the finest quality was selling throughout the United States for about 15 cents a pound. It had to be splendid butter at that. Much of it was being sold as low as ten and twelve cents a pound. After several strenuous years of fighting, the law was adopted by which oleomargarine could be manufactured and sold in the United States. The law provided that any one selling oleomargarine had to pay a tax of $60. From the day it was manufactured and put on the market in the United States dairy and creamery butter advanced in price gradually, never declining for one moment because oleomargarine was on the market. The price increased and it was always from two to five cents higher than the price oi Canadian butter.
I do not wish to go into the question of the wholesomeness of oleomargarine but I know that the -manufacture of oleomargarine was a good thing for the dairying interests. They purchased the separated milk from the farmers and creameries, and churned it and they bought a certain percentage of butter which was mixed in the manufacture of oleomargarine. As time went on they improved and perfected the process until no expert could tell the difference in taste

and flavour except when the oleomargarine was put in comparison with the very best butter. Taking into consideration diseased cattle, impure milk and carelessness of milkers, I believe that oleomargarine will compare favourably with a great deal of the butter that is turned out throughout the United States.
As regards Canada I would not do or favour anything in this House that would work agaiinst the interests of the farmers. But how has it worked out here? Since oleomargarine has been on the market in Canada dairy butter has gradually risen until it nets the farmer at the present time close to 60 cents a pound. I know that the farmers were unanimously against the adoption of the proposal to admit of the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine and that petitions against it were circulated throughout the eastern townships in which I live during the year prior to the permission being given. It is my impression that if we allow oleomargarine to be sold we will be doing the greatest good to the greatest number of people, and I do not believe personally that it will be against the interest of the farmer. However, I will not commit myself against the will or interests of the farmers on this question.


Samuel Francis Glass: I presume that there have been some representations made to the Government expressing a desire that the permission to sell oleomargarine be extended for a further period. I realize that there are many interests to be considered and that the Government has in its wisdom seen fit to throw around this permission such protection as it deems necessary to at least see that people are supplied with what they would consider to be a pure and staple food. Notwithstanding the steps that may be taken in this direction, it has a disturbing influence on the farming community. I do not think it wise at a time like this to introduce measures that have a tendency to upset the minds of the agricultural community. The production of dairy products in this country unfortunately is shrinking rather than increasing. There seems to be a distinct reaction throughout the country, largely due to the unsettled state of the markets and the lack of assurance of fair prices for his products that would give to the farmer adequate remuneration for his* effort in the industry. This has possibly been -more marked in regard to cheese, also a dairy product, but with regard to butter it has likewise been in evidence. A large quantity of butter has been- produced, we admit-possibly an increasing quantity-but
our export market has increased and the export market sets the value for the product of our own country. The opinion has been expressed that the manipulation of butter by the cold storage companies, in with, holding it from the market, is the cause alone of the unusually high price, but I am very strongly of the opinion that this theory is entirely wrong and that the cause of the prevailing high price is the export demand.
I was not in when the minister introduced the Bill and I did not hear upon what grounds he based its introduction but I think it is unfortunate that we have from term to term of Parliament these disquieting measures and matters being constantly brought up. I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie), who has proposed this legislation, has come to the conclusion that the first day of March, 1921, will be the final limit of time and whether this will be the last time the country will be disturbed by legislation on this matter. I am not disposed to view with favour this constant meddling that creates so much disturbance amongst the agricultural community. I think that we should devote our attention to the encouragement of the producer and the farmer in the effort to increase the supply of butter, so that we may have a pure article in abundance in our own country and at the same time have a large amount for export. If we do so we will be considering the best interests of our country from the standpoint of supplying our people with a pure food and of increasing the standard of our butter in the markets of the world, thus building up a reputation that in the years to -come will stand us in good stead.
I do not know, as I say, just what arguments have been presented for a continuance of the privileges- permitted under the motion; nevertheless I think it is dangerous and undesirable to be constantly tinkering and dealing with this matter. I think the needs of the great agricultural community might more properly be considered in the best interests of the country than the small amount that might be saved to the consumer by the admission of oleomargarine to -Canada, because I think the consumer throughout the country is earning a wage that enables 'him to ipay the higher price for that useful article of food, butter. I think it is unfortunate that even in the family of the poor man it should be necessary to substitute oleomargarine for that more wholesome food, butter. I trust, Sir, that whatever may happen to this resolution to-night, this will be the last we will

hear of any effort to continue the sale of such a product in this country.
Mr. MeOOIG: Mr. Chairman, before you declare the resolution carried, I might add something to what has already been said by the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat in the way of warning the Government about taking action on matters of this kind without giving such matters thorough consideration. The Solicitor General stated that there were two opinions held in regard to this question. Having regard to a pamphlet which has been printed and circulated by the Ontario Government among the farmers in my constituency, at this particular time, when an election is in progress, there undoubtedly are two opinions on many of the questions pertaining to agriculture and affecting the consumer upon which action by the Federal Government has been taken in recent years. In the pamphlet to which I have just made reference, the Ontario Government begs not to be held responsible for certain Federal issues, among which they enumerate tariff embargoes, military service, fixing the price of wheat and cheese, and so on. Now these are matters which the Federal Government should give some consideration to, more especially when the Conservative Government of Ontario wishes to be freed from responsibility for the action taken in regard thereto and are pleading with the people of the province not to vote against them on account of what the Ottawa Government have done. This leads to the thought that any action by this Government on the subject of oleomargarine should also be given very serious consideration. The consuming population in Ontario are anxious to get butter and food generally as cheaply as they possibly can, and the Government should do everything they can to lessen the spread in price between what the producer receives and what the consumer pays, and do their utmost to enable the people in the cities to obtain cheap food stuffs. At the same time they should see to it that the producers of butter, who have to compete with oleomargarine, receive a fair price for t'heir product. I merely draw the attention of the Government to these facts because it shows the feeling which exists throughout Ontario at this time and which the Provincial Government recognize when they want to be relieved of responsibility or blame which is being saddled upon the shoulders of the Conservative party in the province.


Donald Sutherland: I regret that I was not in the House when this motion was in-
	.
troduced, and I am therefore somewhat handicapped by reason of not having heard the arguments advanced in favour of extending the time for the importation of oleomargarine into Canada and its manufacture here. I would like to remind the House that all the dairymen's associations throughout the country have, I believe, protested against such action. No very serious objection was taken to the admission into Canada of this substitute for butter when it was first authorized, I think in April, 1918, by reason of the fact that we were at war and that there was a very great demand from overseas for butter. I then pointed out what I considered to be unfair and unjust features of the measure, namely, that it permitted the manufacturers of oleomargarine to incorporate butter to any extent they saw fit into these oleo oils and other things which constitute margarine. In this connection the evidence given by the general manager of one of the largest concerns manufacturing oleomargarine in Canada, given here a few weeks ago before a special committee, was somewhat significant, when he pointed out that they were purchasing all the June make of butter they could get for the reason that it was so highly coloured and added a colouring to the oleomargarine, and that if the people really imagined they were eating butter and had something of the exact colour of butter, it would make the article much more palatable to them. I think the committee will agree that it is hardly just to try to reach the consumer unfairly, and to take advantage of the merits of an important food product that has been manufactured in this country for many years-a product in regard to which the manufacturers have spent many millions of dollars in providing plant and equipment and the stock and stabling necessary for carrying on dairying throughout this country. Let hon. gentlemen read the Dairy Act and they will find it contains the strictest provisions in regard to the manufacture of butter and dairy produce in any of the factories of Canada, and that there is no possibility of these products being adulterated, heavy penalties being prescribed for any violation of the law in that respect. It is a common thing to find that people are being fined for what might be considered very slight infringement of the provisions of the Act regarding the manufacture of dairy produce. Yet we permit to be brought into and manufactured in this country something that is being placed in the market, not on its merits, remember-if it were

so placed no one would take any exception -but as a deceptive counterfeit that the manufacturers are endeavouring to place before the people as a substitute for this wholesome article of food which is surrounded with such stringent restrictions.
I ask the committee if they consider it is fair that one body of manufacturers in this country should be singled out and restricted, as the farmers and dairymen are, by the Dairy Act, and other manufacturers permitted to purchase pure butter, or any grade of butter they see fit. Not only that, but churning it in milk in order to take the flavour of the milk, so as to make it palatable to the people, and then incorporate it into this grease and place it on the market? It is well known that there is no substitute for butter as a wholesome article of food. Butter is the most wholesome article of food that there is to be found to-day and nothing that the ingenuity of science and skill can devise -can take its place.
Then I ask why by the legislation passed a little more than a year ago we permit the manufacturers of oleomargarine to purchase millions of pounds of butter and incorporate it in this grease, then churn it in milk, and put the resulting product up in prints exactly the size of butter and enclose it in wrappers identical with those used for wrapping butter, except that they are forced by law to state on those wrappers that the product is oleomargarine. But when the wrapper is taken off, owing to the colour imparted to the oleomargarine by the methods I have just stated, the people are deceived and do not know exactly what they are eating, although it is against the law not only in the United States but in this country to so colour this grease that it is indistinguishable from butter. In many a boarding house and restaurant throughout the country to-day I venture to state one is very often given oleomargarine instead of butter. It is true that a card must be displayed somewhere indicating that oleomargarine is being sold. I contend, Sir, that at this particular juncture when it is necessary to increase the production of our food supplies that this is not the time to extend the period for the importation and manufacture of this article. Margarine is sold at a much lower price in the Old Country, but here the manufacturers contend that they cannot sell it unless there is an admixture of from 20 to 35 per cent of pure butter. It is evident that this was not the idea in the minds of hon. members when they put the legislation through permitting the importation and
manufacture of oleomargarine. It was boosted as an article that could compete successfully with any other similar article placed on the market, that it -was being manufactured from wholesome oils of various kinds, and that it was a common article of food in the Old Country. But the high price of oleomargarine has been severely criticised, and it has been felt that the Food Board should have controlled the price as well as it did the price of some other food commodities. We have not noticed that the Board of Commerce has been very active in this regard. It will be found that the price of foodstuffs for stock is higher to-day than it probably ever was before, and yet in face of those conditions it is proposed to extend the time for the importation and manufacture of this counterfeit article, which its manufacturers are not able to sell on its merits, but only when treated in the way I have described.
I am sorry I did not know that this Bill was coming up to-day, Mr. Chairman, or I would have had some data to give to the House in regard to oleomargarine. I remember a sworn statement made by the manager of one of the packing houses in regard to this article before a committee of this House a short time ago when he admitted that without the oleomargarine being coloured by the admixture of butter it would be practically unsaleable because of the fact that people would realize they were not eating butter. I have pointed out before that it is somewhat significant that during the last year and a half so many of these Bills that have proved such a handicap to agriculture have been permitted to pass this House. I pointed that out particularly with regard to foodstuffs. I have at the present time a Bill before the House which is designed to regulate the millers of this country in regard to the manner in which they have been adulterating bran *and shorts, two of the most important feeding stuffs for the production of dairy produce, and I am not too sanguine yet as to whether that measure will become law. As I say, it is rather significant that all these measures should have been introduced while we had a certain member of the Government charged with the duty of looking after the Department of Agriculture.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I object to the extension being made in this form. If we are going to permit margarine to come into this country and be manufactured here, and if that is the desire of hon. members, I have no objection, provided you do not permit its manufacturers to incorporate in their product a staple ar-

tide of food surrounded with such stringent regulations as is the manufacture of butter, in order that oleomargarine may be given an appearance indistinguishable from butter. Too many restrictions have been imposed on the producers of butter to permit a substitute of this kind to come in unchecked under the guise of an Act of Parliament to enable its manufacture to deceive the people. If we are going to have stringent regulations with, regard to one class, then I say, Mr. Chairman, that we should have just as stringent regulations with regard to all other classes in the community; .and I say further, Sir, that when our dairymen object as strenuously as they have objected to this legislation, their voice is entitled to some consideration at the hands of this Committee and of this House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: While we are on this subject, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the attention of the minister in charge of this Bill to complaints that come from the public very often not only about the impurities of oleomargarine, but the impurities of butter itself, not perhaps impurities in the first instance, but it is said that butter is put through certain processes in the stores after it has left the hands of the dairymen and is worked up in such a way that a far greater percentage of water is in the butter than it should naturally contain, and in that way -merchants who are handling butter are guilty of selling something to the consumer that is not really what it is represented to be. I do not. know which department of the Government should look after this, hut it is certainly something that should receive proper attention. I merely mention this matter so that steps may be taken to insure that when a man buys a pound of butter

which undoubtedly is expensive enough-he is get, ting the real article, and that no one should be permitted to fool him by mixing something which in effect debases the commodity.
As for the manufacture of oleomargarine, I presume that we have. Canadian factories now manufacturing this article. The only thing that I would suggest to the minister is that, if manufactured at all, oleomargarine should be manufactured under the most stringent system of inspection so that the very best article of its class will be produced. Presumably the manufactured article that is imported is subject to inspection of some kind, but I suppose in any event if it is not the sort of article that it should toe people will not buy it. I would like to see some system of inspec-
FMr Sutherland. 1
tion of the imported article as well as of the article produced in Canada, so as to provide, as far as possible, a wholesome food for the people.


Samuel Francis Glass: What would be the effect in law .if a hotel man who had "butter" on his bill of fare served margarine instead? A year or two ago when the campaign was on for greater production, I stayed over Sunday at a little town not very far from here. "Butter" was on the bill of fare and I asked for butter, but was served with margarine. I told the waitress that I wanted butter. She said, "That is butter, sir." I said, "I beg your pardon; it is not butter. You tell the proprietor of this hotel that I have asked far butter and that I want it; if he attempts to serve me a substitute of this kind I shall have him prosecuted." The proprietor evidently thought that I Was serious about the matter, so he served me with butter. If we throw around the manufacture of 'butter all the safeguards and stringent regulations 'to which my hon. friend has referred, it is important that we protect the consumer by providing that the ho'telman or restaurant keeper shall1 not have the right to serve his guests with margarine when those 'guests ask for butter. Such action on the part of any one who keeps a public eating place is certainly fraudulent, dishonest and unfair.


Hugh Guthrie: : The regulations in regard to the importation and sale of oleomargarine are far more stringent than those with regard to the importation and sale of butter; it is necessary, I think, that that should be the case. Regulation 16 covers such a case as that mentioned by my hon. friend. It reads :	.	.
In all hotels, restaurants and public eating places where oleomargarine is served there shall be prominently displayed in some conspicuous place a placard containing the words : "oleomargarine served here," in capital block letters, not less than one and one-half inches long.
So plain that he who runs may read. Then section 23 provides as follows for any violation of that regulation:
Any .person violating any of the provisions of these regulations shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor exceeding five hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both fine and imprisonment.
*So that in the case referred to by my hon. friend, if the innkeeper or restaurant keeper did not have such a sign displayed in a conspicuous place on his premises, an information might have been laid against

him and 'he could have been severely punished.


Samuel Francis Glass: Could he not be required to display the notice on the table?


Hugh Guthrie: The language is "in some conspicuous place." The words have a well known legal effect; that language is used in many of our penal enactments.
In reply to the leader of the Opposition. I 'may say that there are pretty stringent regulations in regard to the sale of butter. These are contained for the most part in section 6 of the Dairy Industry Act, which provides as follows:
No person shall import into Canada, or offer, sell or have in his possession for sale :_ '
(a)	any butter containing over sixteen per centum of water; or
(b)	any process or renovated butter, or butter to which milk or cream has -been added.
2.	No person shall manufacture any butter containing over sixteen per centum' of water.
3.	No person shall sell, offer or have in his possession for sale:-
(a)	any butter moulded or cut into prints, -blocks, squares or pats, unless such prints, blocks, squares or pats are of the full net weight of one-quarter pound, one-half pound, one pound or two pounds at the time they are moulded or cut. Nothing in this paragraph shall -be held to apply to butter in rolls or lumps, of indiscriminate weight, as sold by farmers; or
(b)	any butter packed in tins or other packages alleged to contain any definite weight of butter unless such package contains the full net weight of butter as alleged exclusive of the weight of the package and of any paper, brine or other filling.
Severe penalties are provided for any infringement of the requirements of section
6.
1 am not an expert on oleomargarine. But I have been told by those who know something about the matter, that since the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine was permitted in Canada there has been no great increase in the consumption of the product; in fact within the past six to ten months there has rather been a notable decrease in the consumption. On the other hand, I am informed that there has been an increase in respect of butter and that butter has maintained, if not actually increased, its price since the Order in Council was passed permitting the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine. From this it is to be inferred that the entrance into this market of oleomargarine and its manufacture in Canada have not to any appreciable extent injured buttermaking as an industry. I agree with the member for Uarleton (Mr. Boyce) in his remarks on that subject. Prior to the passing of the Order in Council, people who
could not procure butter had to go without it or use drippings as a substitute. These people are now the present consumers of oleomargarine, the cost of which, I believe, is about half the cost of butter. If these people were deprived of their opportunity to purchase oleomargarine it is doubtful whether they would be able to purchase butter at present prices. It is for the benefit of that class of the people that the extension of this order is now asked. Personally I do not think that it will adversely affect the dairy industry. The extension is only for a limited time-eleven months for importation and fourteen months for sale. I think that is a rather reasonable proposal and I trust that the committee will accept it.


Frank S. Cahill: How much oleomargarine has been imported into Canada and how much has been manufactured in Canada since the Order in Council was passed?


Hugh Guthrie: This matter was handed to me only during the course of the afternoon; I tried to get those figures for this evening, but was unable to do so. I will have them before the House on the second reading of the Bill.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, I
do not think that any one will take exception to the importation of oleomargarine into Canada under present conditions, provided there is no attempt to incorporate butter into this article in order to deceive the people.
I think that that is obviously unfair to those who are engaged in the manufacture of butter. In the regulations regarding the -manufacture of oleomargarine - it is provided that no person other than a manufacturer of oleomargarine shall mix oleomargarine with butter. As the matter stands, you are simply destroying a very important industry in this country; there is no getting away from that fact. You may say that more butter is being manufactured to-day than some years ago, but do not forget that butter has been commanding a very high price during the war, a price it will not command later on when prices generally will reach a lower level than at present. You may also argue that oleomargarine is permitted to enter the country and to be manufactured only for a short time, but 'at the end of that time you will find it will be very much more difficult -to cut off the manufacturing of it than ft would be now, because then the manufacturers will be pointing to the capital they have invested in their plants



for turning out this product. I think it would .be well before we pass this resolution to understand thoroughly the nature of the Bill permitting the manufacture of oleomargarine in this country. I doubt whether very many members of this House realize the very wide powers that were granted when the measure was put through enabling this adulteration to take place. Personally I have not the slightest objection to oleomargarine being imported and manufactured in this country on its merits, but I do object to millions of pounds of good butter being incorporated with it often a total loss, for oleomargarine will not keep in cold storage. That has been amply demonstrated. It has to be quiekly consumed 'because of the milk that is incorporated in it in ordeT to deceive the palates of the people. I think we .should also be informed how many millions of pounds of butter have been used in the manufacture of oleomargarine in this country since the legislation was passed a little over a year ago. We should also know how much of this oleomargarine has been destroyed as unfit for food as a result of attempting to carry it in cold storage. The conservation of food is a very important matter, and I therefore think we should have information on this point before we pass the resolution.
I mentioned before that only the manufacturers of oleomargarine were permitted to adulterate, and I said, why not allow the dairymen to do the same. I do not think, however, that such a proposal would meet with the approval of the dairymen of this country, because on account of the extreme care that has been exercised in order to standardize our butter and improve its quality, it has obtained a place for itself in the markets of the world that is invaluable. The province of Quebec, I believe, is the largest producer of butteT in the Dominion, and their butter has a very high reputation, which I do not think.it would be well to jeopardize.
I again say that we should be furnished with further information before we pass this resolution, particularly with regard to the quantity of butter that is being incorporated into this article of food. Why cannot oleomargarine be sold on its merits in this country as in other countries, if it is the superior article of food that some people would have us believe? You can purchase oleomargarine in the Old Country for about half the price you have to pay in Canada, largely because the people of this country, having been accustomed to a wholesome article of food, will not consume oleomar-

gadine, unless they are deceived as they have been deceived by incorporating butter, by churning it in milk, and by putting it up in identically the same pound prints as butter is sold in. Why should it be permissible to put this stuff up and sell it in that way? The object is quite apparent.
The Solicitor General says that the card must be displayed in some conspicuous place in restaurants and eating houses where oleomargarine is used. Quite true, but you have to search diligently'for these cards, and youwill then find them in letters one and a half inches in length in a large dining room perhaps fifty or one hundred feet in length. That is not displaying the card conspicuously. In other cases you may find it on a shelf partially concealed by some article of furniture. It may be that the people are complying with the law in that respect. I should like to know how many fines have been imposed during the past year for the violation of this law. Possibly it is enforced somewhat in the same manner as the Act dealing with the adulteration of bran and shorts, through which adulterations thousands of animals have been poisoned and, so far as I can learn, in not a single instance has any one been prosecuted for violating the law in that respect. Some hon. members may think this a small matter to take so much interest in, but it is a very important matter when we consider how essential increased production is in order that we may overcome the difficulties confronting this country to-day. Now you are not increasing production (by permitting this stuff to foe brought in and butter to be incorporated with it, because you are taking away from the people a good wholesome article of food and mixing it up with this oleomargarine, and it is a question whether the people receive any benefit as a result. I repeat, we should have some information as to the quantity of oleomargarine that has been manufactured" in this country, the firms who have been manufacturing it, and the quantity of butter each of them have used in the manufacture of oleomargarine, before we put this motion through.
Motion agreed to; yeas 22, nays 15.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. GUTHRIE moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 28, to permit the temporary importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the secorfd reading of Bill No. 5, respecting the Police:
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move that Order No. 5, second reading of Bill No. 5, an Act respecting the Police, be struck from the Order Paper. The reason is that the effect of the operation of a Bill introduced by the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) and passed by the House will be to make unnecessary the present legislation, the matter being susceptible of being dealt with by regulations under the Northwest Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to and Bill withdrawn.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
[Stage Direction]
Resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of Mr. McKenzie,-Whereas on the 16th of March, A.D., 1914, this Honourable House passed the following Resolution which was accepted by the Government,-
" Mr. McKenzie moved that in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada into the non-railway sections of the Maritime Provinces within reasonable range of the said railway." See pages 1736, 1737, 1738, 1739 and 1740 of Hansard for the said year, A.D., 1914.
Be it therefore resolved that, in the opinion of this House, the proposals of the said Resolution of the 16th of March, A.D., 1914, should be carried forward to completion at the earliest possible date.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I spoke to the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) about this matter to-day, and it seems he will not be here. As I should like him to be present when we are dealing with this matter, I should prefer that the Order stand.
Order stands.



QUESTIONS.

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

[Stage Direction]
On the question (Mr. Lanctot):
On 1st October, 1919, Mr. T. A. Cox, of the Militia Department, made a statement before the Parliamentary Committee inquiring into the question of a further gratuity to Canadian soldiers, to the effect that out of the 590,572 men enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, 172,520 saw service in Canada only:
1.	Is the statement correct?
2.	Where were those men stationed?
3.	To what regiments did they belong?
4.	How many of this number were recruited in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunsm	j >*' hi i
wick, Prince Edward Island, [Manitoba, Saskatchewan, .Alberta and British Columbia, respectively?
Georges Henri Boivin: This is the
question which was referred to by Mr. Speaker the other day when questions were called, and it must be dropped as not being in order.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member for Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Lanctot) drew my attention to the fact that he got the information as to who took part in the great war, not from the committee now in session, but from the publication issued by the Department of Public Information, which publication I hold in my hand. For that reason, he feels the question is in order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As this question deals;
with a matter which is at present under consideration by a committee of the House, it is not competent for the House to deal with it, the committee not having reported. If the hon. member desires the information regardless of the fact of its having been disclosed before the committee, he may revise his question on the Order Paper omitting reference to the committee. In the meantime, the question must be dropped.
Question dropped.
KENT COUNTY, N.:B., TELEPHONE POLES.


Mr. LEGER:: 1.	Were tenders called for by the Government in the years 1918 or 1919 for the purchasing of telephone poles for the line of telephones between Point Sapin and Kouchibouguac Beach, Kent County, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, was there any notice calling -uf tenders posted in Kent County?
3.	If not, where were the notices posted?
4.	Was the'lowest tender accepted?
5.	What is the name of the contractor?
Hon, Mr. SIFTON:
1.	Yes.
2,	3, 4 and 5. A poster inviting tenders for a supply of cedar poles 25 feet long and not less than 5 inches across the top, to the number of 640 more or less, distributed along the roadway was issued on- 15th February, 1918, to the telephone agents along the line, Chatham to Point Sapin, and was circulated in the neighbourhood generally and resulted in an offer from Mr. D. Lewis, of Escuminac, 25th February, at $3.10 per pole and from Mr. P. A. Robichaud, of Point Sapin, 26th February, at $2 per pole. These offers were however crossed by the issuing, in March, 1918, of a newspaper advertisement inviting tenders and requiring a 5 per cent security deposit. The only tender received in- response was one from

Mr. L. J. Loggie, of Chatham, at $2.50 per pole; this price was considered too high and inquiries were made along the route of the line for poles distributed at the price of $2 each, and in October, 1918, Mr. J. A. Manzerolle, of Lower Sapin, was arranged with at that price. Later on however Mr. Manzerolle, in November, 1918, withdrew his offer, whereupon a similar offer was made by Mr. L. J. Loggie and accepted. The poles were in due course accepted along the route at the price of $2 per pole to the total number of 514, the distance covered measuring 16 miles.


MILITARY DOCTORS.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What are -the names, military ranks, overseas service, dates of appointment and rates of pay and allowances of the doctors connected with Soldiers' Civil Re-estahlishment at Kingston?
2.	What are the duties of the doctors alluded to in the first question, and how many returned soldiers have they had to deal with in an official way during each of the last six months?
3.	What are the names and rate of pay and military rank of the doctors connected with Ongwanada and Mowat Memorial Hospital?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Stand.


John Wesley Edwards: Might I ask the Government when I may expect an answer to my question which has been on the Order Paper since the 17th of September, and which should have been answered in a few days?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall bring the question to the attention of the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, -by whom it is to he answered. It is possible that it has escaped his attention- for the reason- that he is not in this House.
Question- stands.
On the -motion- of Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 9.25 p.m.
Wednesday, October 8, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Solicitor General) presented the report of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, as follows:
Your committee to whom was referred for consideration Bill No. 9, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act and to provide that

-polling days at elections shall be public holidays, have agreed to report the same with amendments.

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

Mr. KAY:: 1.	Is the -position of Superintendent of Forests Products Laboratories, Montreal, vacant? If so, how long has it been vacant?
2.	Was the position advertised by the Civil Service Commission? If so, how many replies were received, and how many were from returned soldiers?
3.	Has an appointment been made to this position? If not, is it the intention of the Government to fill it?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes. Since May 1, 1919.
2.	Yes. Fifteen. Four from returned soldiers.
3.	One (ff the applicants has been offered -the position.


GOVERNMENT -CONTROL OF OCEAN STEAMERS.
Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: 1.	What action, if any, has this Government
taken with a view to carrying out the recommendations, as set forth in the final report of the Royal Commission on the Natural Resources, Trade and Legislation of certain portions of His Majesty's Dominions, as presented to both Houses of the -British Parliament by command of His Majesty, in March, 1917, showing that it is not desirable that the operations of the steamship companies carrying passengers and freight between the Dominion of Canada and the United Kingdom should remain longer without some measure of Government supervision?	.
2.	Does this Government intend to take immediate steps to assist the Imperial Government in bringing about Government control of the ocean carriers doing business (or, from time to time, doing business) -between ports in the United Kingdom and ports in the Dominion of Canada?
3.	Has the Canadian Government called the Imperial Government's attention to the fact that serious discrimination in freight rates is being practised against products carried from the Dominion of Canada by British shipping interests as compared with similar products carried from other countries?
Sir GEORGE E. FOSTER:
1.	The report of the Royal Commission referred to has been presented to the British Government and the recommendation referred to is now under consideration of that Government, and with others will probably form the subject matter of consideration at the next Imperial Conference.
2.	The Canadian Government will cooperate with the Imperial Government and the other Overseas Dominions in consider-

ing the question of the supervision and control of ocean tonnage between the different parts of the British Dominions.
3.	The Dominion Government has called the Imperial Government's attention to certain alleged discriminations and injustice in connection with the supervision by the British Ministry of Shipping in the employment of vessels under charter by Canadian shipping interests.


GOVERNMENT TERMINAL ELEVATOR AT VANCOUVER, B.C.
Mr. REID:: 1.	In what year was the Government Terminal Grain Elevator built at Vancouver, B.C.?
2.	Was it built by contract or day labour, or on a percentage basis?
3.	If it was built by contract, who were the contractors?
4.	What was the total cost of the same when ready for operation?
5.	What is the total storage capacity in bushels?
6.	What was the cost of the per bushel capacity ?
7.	If built by day labour or on a percentage basis, who were the superintendents?
8.	What amount of grain passed through the said terminal during the first year of operation, and in each succeeding year until the present time?
9.	What are the total earnings per year, from the first year of operation up to date?
10.	What is the total number of employees?
11.	What was the gross overage per year from the start of operation until present date?
12.	What was the market value of above overages ?
13.	How much wheat and other grain passed through the said terminal en route to European markets via Panama Canal?
14.	How did the moisture content of the wheat when landed in Liverpool after passing through Panama Canal compare with moisture test made before being loaded from elevator in British Columbia?
15.	What was the estimated cost per bushel of transporting wheat from Vancouver via Panama Canal to Liverpool?
Sir GEORGE E. FOSTER:
1.	Construction commenced in 1915. Power first laid on 10th May, 1916.
2.	By contract.
3.	Barnett McQueen Co., Ltd., Fort William, Ont.
4.	Total cost of Construction at commencement of operation, including machinery and equipment, $760,671.39.
5.	1,500,000 bushels.

6. 50711/iooo cents per bushel.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
Charles Arthur Gauvreau: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, plans, specifications etc., in connection with a request of Fraser & Co., of Cabano, Que., for aid or subsidies for the construction of a lock or dam on Touladi River, which flows into Lake Temiseouata, Que.


John Howard Sinclair: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, memorials or other papers or documents received by the Right Honourable the Prime Minister or any member of the Government during the year 1919 relating to the appointment of a Lieutenant-Governor for Prince Edward Island and the replies thereto.


INQUIRY FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ARlQHAMBAULT:	Mr. Speaker, I
wish t make a humble request of the Government. When I put questions on the Order Paper or make motions for the production of papers I do so because I deem them to be important. On September 15,
[Stage Direction]
an order was made for a return regarding the trips of ministers to Europe during the war but the papers have not been tabled as yet. On September 18 an Order was made for the production of papers regarding the Siberian expedition, and on the 29th a motion was passed for a return with reference to Ste. Anne de Bellevue hospital. As the session is so far advanced I would like to know if it is intended to produce these papers 'before Parliament prorogues?
Arthur Meighen: Papers
ordered by the House are always prepared by the officers of the department immediately following the passage of the motion calling for their production. I heard the hon. gentleman refer to a motion for papers concerning the Siberian expedition, which was passed on the 18th September. I would not think it at all probable that the papers in question could be secured for a while yet. However, I know nothing specific about that motion. As to the one passed on the 29th September, of course only a few days have since elapsed, but I have no doubt the preparation of the papers is attended with the greatest expedition.


Joseph Archambault: As to the Order for papers concerning the trips of ministers to Europe, it was sought to learn how many trips were made by the ministers and what their expenses were. That should be pretty easy information to obtain.


Arthur Meighen: I remember the question being put and I know of the answer to the question going from my own department. As the question did not again appear on the Order Paper, I presumed it had been answered. Possibly, though, the information was incorporated in the return in response to the motion that was passed. I know of no reason why it should be delayed.


Joseph Archambault: There was an Order for a return of the papers in the matter.


DISPOSITION OF EASTERN GALICIA.
Samuel Hughes: I have received a cablegram sent by Roman Kramer, of Winnipeg, on behalf of the Galicians, of whom there are upwards of four millions in Eastern Galicia, intimating that the fact was to be made public yesterday by President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George that that territory, three-quarters of the population of which is made up of Ukranian people, contrary to the general understanding, was being handed over to Poland instead of to Ukrania. This is a matter which the Gcv-

eminent has had before it on several occasions and I desire to ask what are the facts of the case and if there is any satisfactory and sufficient reason why seventy-five per cent of the population, numbering four or five millions of people, should be handed over to be governed by the Poles?


George Eulas Foster: I am afraid one ear was listening to something else while this question was being asked, but if I apprehend the nature of the interrogation, it is this-


Samuel Hughes: I did not catch the minister's first remark.


George Eulas Foster: It is not very
vital so it is not necessary to repeat it.


Samuel Hughes: The members of the Government are here to answer the questions of the people's representatives.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. On the Orders
of the Day it is for the Government to answer or not, as they choose.


George Eulas Foster: To make it perfectly clear I said that at the time the question was being iput by, my hon. friend in rather indistinct tones, that one of my ears was trying to catch something else, and I did not succeed in gathering the full purport of his question. However, if I understand it aright, the hon. gentleman wants to know whether the Government has any reasons to give why a certain number of people are allocated by the executive of the Peace Conference, or by the Peace Conference, to one country rather than to another. My hon. friend will realize that that is a pretty difficult question for the Canadian Government or myself to answer-


Samuel Hughes: It is a matter that has been before the Government for a long time.


George Eulas Foster: -but if he will entrust the telegram to me I will have an answer ready for to-morrow. Whether it will be satisfactory or not, I do not know.


Samuel Hughes: If I may be permitted to make myself clear-this is a matter which has been before the Government for a long time, and before the hon. gentleman returned from Europe Mr. Lloyd George intimated in a cablegram to your humble servant as well as to the Prime Minister of Canada that the matter was being looked after and that these people would in all probability be allocated to Ukrania instead of Poland.


George Eulas Foster: Then I suppose we will have to ask Mr. Lloyd George why this has not -been done-


Samuel Hughes: It is a matter for the Canadian Government to look after-
Sir GEORGE FOSTER-and the reasons w\jy it Was not done. I am afraid the Government of Canada could not give an affirmative or a negative answer.


Samuel Hughes: Then we will have to get after the Government with a sharp stick.


ITALIAN OCCUPATION OF FIUME.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel William Jacobs: The Associated Press has published a statement to the effect that a report is current that the Italian Government has asked the Allied Powers to send an Allied force, exclusive of Italians, to drive D'Annunzio out of Fiume. I would like to know whether the Government has any information to give the House on this matter.


George Eulas Foster: The Government has no information to lay on the Table. The Government is not a prime actor in the matter at all.


DISPOSITION OF HUDSON BAY RAILWAY EQUIPMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
John Archibald Campbell: I would like to ask when I may expect an answer to question No. 11 on the Order Paper with respect to the disposition of ties and steel and railway equipment taken from the Hudson Bay Railway during the years 1917 and 1918.


George Eulas Foster: I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Railways.


TREATMENT OF CANADIAN SOLDIERS IN WANDSWORTH JAIL.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert James Manion: I would like to call the attention of the Government, and particularly that of the Minister of Militia, to a report which appeared in the Toronto Star Weekly of October 4th and put a question in reference to it. The article deals with the treatment of Canadian soldiers in Wandsworth jail, England, and if the report is true that treatment has been most
barbarous. I would ask the Minister of Militia if he has a statement to make in reference to that article?
Major-General MEWBURN: Before putting thiis question the hon. gentleman was good enough -to show me the article in the Toronto Star Weekly to which he has alluded. I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but I have made inquiries, -and from the information I could obtain in the absence of the Overseas Minister, Wandsworth jail, prior to the war, was a civil institution, but was subsequently taken over by the Imperial military authorities and used as a military detention barracks, at all events up to the end of 1917- 1 am not sure whether it has been since used for the purpose or not. Some Canadian military prisoners, who were convicted of offences and sentenced to undergo detention for more than fourteen days, were sent to Wandsworth detention camp, but as far as I have been able to ascertain there is no evidence of any brutal treatment being meted out to them. I am informed that a Canadian officer was, in 1916, detailed on Canadian guard to assist the Government at the detention barracks, and, as my hon. friend who is a medical officer in the Canadian army medical corps must be aware, no prisoner was allowed to undergo punishment without a medical certificate that he was fit to undergo the punishment imposed. I can understand that discipline in the detention barracks was probably fairly severe, but the article in question, which was an entirely anonymous report from supposed soldiers, did: not give any names, and as far -as 1 can ascertain no brutal treatment was meted out to any Canadian soldier.


Robert James Manion: Might I ask another question in regard to that? Is it the intention of the Government to permit men to continue making (slanderous statements of -this kind-because if -the minister's statement is correct this is a slanderous statement- without forcing them to come forward with their proof or are they to be stopped from making such statements?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 23 to amend an Act to confirm two orders of the Governor General in Council respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific System.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When this Bill was before the House a few days ago I requested that certain information might be given to the House in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. The leader of the Government (Sir George Foster) replied that the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) would give the information, and to facilitate matters I then put on Hansard certain questions to which I required answers; but as far as I know no answers have been given. I would like the minister to allow this Bill to stand until he is put in a position to furnish that information.


George Eulas Foster: I will either do that, or I will undertake that the Minister . of Railways will answer the questions of my hon. friend just the same as if the Bill still stood. If he will accept my undertaking, that would give us another Bill for the Senate to operate on.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Newton W. Rowell (President of the Privy Council) Bill No. 22 to amend the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Act was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Discussion as to adjournment of the House.
George Eulas Foster: Before we proceed further, Mr. Speaker, a question has been asked by the Whips on both sides as to whether or not we shall sit on Thanksgiving Day, and I would like to take the sense of the House on the question. As far as I am concerned I am entirely within the wishes of the House. As Thanksgiving Day comes directly after Sunday, it may be that hon. members generally would wish to enjoy the day otherwise than in a session of work; but if the House is of the opinion that it would rather go on with its sessional duties, as far as I am concerned,
I am quite willing to attend. I would like to hear the views of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No sittings.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to find this Government and its supporters anxious for a Thanksgiving Day.
It is only a few days ago that legislation looking towards a permanent Thanksgiving

Day received the six months' hoist from hon. gentlemen opposite. I may say to t.he leader of the Government (Sir George Foster) that last Friday I insistently urged upon him to give us a few private members' days. He then told me that time was short, that we would be finishing the session this week, and that unless we wanted another week he could not grant my request. Now it appears that he has changed his mind and is adding another cubit to our time in the House. However, he and his friends run the House and can suit their own convenience. I think it is well that we should enjoy Thanksgiving Day, and as long as we declare a holiday it is only proper that we should observe it ourselves. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, I think we are agreeable to observe Monday as Thanksgiving Day.


Samuel Hughes: Of course, the Government is setting a swift pace, but will it not be possible to get through the business. of the House by Saturday? A great many Liberal Conservatives-and there are a few of us living yet-would like to help m the provincial elections.


George Eulas Foster: We have not yet given up the idea of getting through this week, and Government business will be pushed with that end in view; but should Committee work keep us from getting away this week I thought it would be well to ask the opinion of the House with reference to Thanksgiving Day. If by working on Saturday we can get through this week,
I am quite sure that all hon. members would be quite willing that that should be done-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: -and the Government will keep that in mind. Its business will be pressed just as rapidly as possible.
Mr. W. 1. MACLEAN: Mr. Speaker, in regard to that proposition, could the leader of the House say now whether we are to have any railway legislation this session?


George Eulas Foster: The Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) is out of the House at the present time. I will call his attention to that question and we will have a statement made probably to-morrow.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I would like to point out that so far as sitting on Monday is concerned, it is all very well for hon. members from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec to have a holiday-


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I am from Quebec.
I am against a holiday on Monday; I want to sit.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Such a holiday
would no doubt be very convenient to a large number of hon. members from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, as they can get home over the week-end; but we who are from the West cannot take advantage of the holiday and are waiting for the business of the House to finish so that we may return home.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Pedlow.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would be discourteous if I failed to respond to an invitation from the Speaker to say something on this question. If I might retort by saying "I told you so." Only a few days ago a Bill on this subject was debated at length, and if my views had been adopted this difficulty would not have arisen, for we would have had Thanksgiving Day and Armistice Day observed on the same day. But, Sir, if you wish my private opinion on the matter, I think now that the House has decided to observe Thanksgiving Day on Monday, the 13th of October, we should set a good example to the country and observe the days and dates and events that we ourselves order.


George Eulas Foster: Probably we had better bring this discussion to a conclusion with this understanding: That we will try to get through this week even by taking Saturday if it is necessary to do so; but if we cannot get through this week we will make a pronouncement a little later as to whether the holiday will be observed by work or by leisure.
I may say that I have followed my hon. friend (Mr. Pedlow) as rapidly and as uniformly as I possibly could in respect of his thanksgiving proposition, but he wobbled so frequently that he ended by leaving me in the lurch. I voted for his Bill and he voted against it.


MILITARY TRAINING.
[Stage Direction]
On the notice of motion Mr. Mowat being called:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is a duty of every citizen in a democratic country to be ready to defend it, and that it is desirable as soon as may be to save the expense of a standing army and to substitute for it the training of all young men physically fit, and a reserve force of those already trained ; that such training be done for such periods and seasons as will not substantially interfere with industrial life, and that no pay be given other than for personal comfort allowances.
Herbert Macdonald Mowat: Mr. Speaker, the subject matt-er of this motion has come before the commission of which General Sir William Otter is chairman. I think it advisable, therefore, to ask leave to withdraw the motion until we get an announcement from that commission.
Motion withdrawn.


UNIONIST PROGRAMME- PROTECTION.
John Hampden Burnham: Whereas the Ottawa Morning Journal contains the following programme pf the Unionist policy given out after caucus, viz.:-
The Programme.
No statement, either official or unofficial, has been given out as to what this programme contains, but, from reliable sources, it is learned that the following are its cardinal principles:
" (1) Imperial.-The maintenance of British connection upon the basis of equal partnership with the Mother Country within the Empire. The question of Empire relationship to be taken up at the Imperial Conference which is expected to meet early next year, and the autonomy of the Dominion and the supremacy of its Parliament on all questions, including that of war, to be safeguarded.
(2)	Economic.-Revision of the tariff on a scientific basis and upon the principle that customs duties shall be levied with due regard for the interests of the consumer. Maintenance of direct taxation but not upon a scale so severe as to place Canada in a disadvantageous position in industrial competition with the United States.
(3)	Trade.-Extension of foreign trade by encouragement of ocean and railway transportation and by the development of inland waterways and of harbour and shipping facilities.
(4)	Labour.-Labour legislation based upon the principles incorporated into the Labour clauses of the Peace Treaty.
(5)	Defence.-A standing army of sufficient size only to meet domestic requirements. In future wars of the Mother Country, Canada to be consulted as an essential preliminary to aid being expected.
The Prime Minister put these proposals before the caucus for consideration between now and the next session of the House. When the next session is called members and senators are expected to meet in another caucus and discuss and consider the propositions as desirable planks in the platform of a proposed new party."
And, whereas, in the above reported pronouncement of policy and in the official announcement by the Prime Minister, not one word concerning protection or protective tariff appears and no mention of the same is made; therefore, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Leader of the Government should know that a proper degree of protection is necessary to the progressive and well-balanced development of Canada and that no policy ignoring the protective principle in a Canadian tariff will be acceptable or for the general benefit of Canada.


George Eulas Foster: Lost.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Hampden Burnham: Carried.
Motion negatived on division.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of Mr. McKenzie,-Whereas on the 16th of March, A.D., 1914, this Honourable House passed the following Resolution which was accepted by the Government,-
" Mr. McKenzie moved that in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada into the non-railway sections of the Maritime Provinces within reasonable range of the said railway" See pages 1736, 1737, 1738, 1739 and 1740 of Hansard for the said year, A.D., 1914.
Be it therefore resolved that, in the opinion of this House, the proposals of the said Resolution of the 16th of March, A.D., 1914, should be carried forward to completion at the earliest possible date.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am still hoping that the Minister of Railways (Hon. J. D. Reid) will be here some time some day; therefore I ask that this motion stand.
Motion stands.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

George Eulas Foster: I move that the House do now adjourn. In making that motion I wish to direct the attention of the leader of the Opposition to the fact that his plea for reservation of days for private members to get their resolutions and motions through, whilst founded upon the best of intentions, does not seem to have had much response from that side of the House or from members generally. Since that plea was made, opportunity has been given six times for all or any of these resolutions and motions to be brought up. There has not, however, seemed to be any great disposition to take advantage of that opportunity, from which I gather that these resolutions and motions are not considered of sufficient importance to justify the time of the House being taken up to any considerable extent in their consideration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When I made that
plea I myself had three notices of motion on the Order Paper, and I did not know when I would have an opportunity of dealing with them. Since then, in order to show the leader of the- Government my determination to get through with my own mo-

tions, I dealt with the whole three and made three speeches with regard to them in one afternoon.	-


George Eulas Foster: That is a remarkable feat for my honourable friend.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have been very industrious, therefore, and the matter can go high or low so far as I am personally concerned; the House can )>e closed at any minute, for I am through. But there are as many motions coming from Conservatives or Government members as there are motions coming from members on this side. I took it for granted that everybody who put a notice on the Order Paper meant business; otherwise the motions would have no right to be there, and I thought opportunity should be given to deal with these motions. However, if hon. members opposite do not want to deal with their notices of motion, why it is no fault of mine.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 3.41 p.m.
Thursday, October 9, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN presented the report of the Special Committee to which was referred Bill No. 18, to amend the Civil Service Act, as follows:
Your Committee have had under consideration the said Bill and agreed to report the same with amendments.
In respect to the classification, your Committee approve of the principle hut recommend that the compensation provisions do not come into effect until the beginning of the next fiscal year. And that in the meantime the Civil Service Commission do further consider the same, affording ample opportunity to all members of the Civil Service to be heard thereon. In the opinion of your Committee, this work should be completed by 1st March, 1920, and then presented to the Governor in Council for approval.

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

Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	How many cargo vessels are at present in the employ of The Canadian Government Mercantile Marine (Ltd.)?
2.	What are their names and D. W. tonnage?
3.	What was their initial cost?
4.	How much insurance is carried on the hulls?

>5. How much of the said insurance is carried in (a) Canadian Companies; (b) British Companies; (c) American Companies; (d) Foreign Companies?
Hon. Mr. REID;
1.	Eleven.
2.	Voyageur, 4,575 d.w.t.; Pioneer, 8,408 d.w.t.; Warrior, 3,995 d.w.t.; Ranger, 8,382 d.w.t.; Volunteer, 4,530 d.w.t.; Recruit, 3,964 d.w.t.; Seigneur, 8,100 d.w.t.; Trader, 3,400 d.w.t.; Sailor, 3,400 d.w.t.; Trooper, 4,300 d.w.t; Signaller, 3,750 d.w.t.
3.	Seigneur, $1,522,800; Trader, $684,905; Sailor, $688,185; Voyageur, $947,025; Pioneer, $1,513,440; Warrior, $818,975; Ranger, $1,575,816; Recruit, $812,620; Volunteer, $890,100; Signaller, $768,750; Trooper, $933,110.
4.	$9,115,907.
5.	(a) $139,091; (b) $6,348,691; (c) $2,628,125; (d) nil.


MEDICAL, DOCTORS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE AT KINGSTON.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. EDWARDS;
1.	What are the names, military ranks, overseas service, dates of appointment and rates of pay and allowances of the doctors connected with Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment at Kingston?
2.	What are the duties of the doctors alluded to in the first question, and how many returned soldiers have they had to deal with in an official way during each of the last six months?
3.	What are the names and rate of pay and military rank of the doctors connected with Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment at Kings.
Hugh Guthrie: Return showing names, ex-military ranks, overseas service, date of appointment, rates of pay and allowances, and duties of the doctors connected with the D.S.C.R., at Kingston.
Name.	Ex- Military Rank.	Overseas Service.	Date of Appointment to Staff of D.S.C.R.	Yearly Rate of Salary paid by D.S.C.R.	Duties.Major.... Captain . Captain . Private..	6- 8-18-	S 4,500	Unit Medical Director.Dr. K. C. W. Dean	22- 8-18	3,600	Asst. Unit Medical Director.Dr. R. W. Clark	1-10-18	3,500	President of Medical Board.Dr. J. A. MacGregor-	France and Egypt	1- 2-19	3,000	Member of Medical Board.Private..	Franee and Egypt	14- 4-19	3,000	Member of Medical Board.Dr. W. F. Jackson	Captain .	England	25- 6-19	3,000	Medical Clinic and Assistant Member of Medical Board, Orthopaedic Appliances.Dr. C. H. Elliott	Captain .	Canada	8- 1-19	3,000	Medical Clinic and Administrative, Electro-hydrotheraphyDr. S. E. L. Thompson.	Major...	France	1- 7-19.	3,000	Medical Clinic and Genitourinary.Dr. E. Ryan	Captain .	England	1- 6-19 (Parttime)	2,400	Neurological Specialist and treatment of neurological cases.Dr. J. C. Connell	Colonel..	Canada	1- 3-19 (Parttime)	2,400	Eye, ear, nose and throat specialist treatment of specialist's cases.Captain . Captain .	9- 9-17	4,200	Medical Superintendent.Dr. W. MacKay	Canada	14- 9-17	2,400 and subsistence.	Assistant Medical Associate.Dr. C. B. Waite	Captain .	France	4- 6-19	2,400 and subsistence.	Assistant Medical Associate.
Return showing number of returned soldiers dealt with in an official way by the doctors connected with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment at Kingston during each of the last six months: During the month of Miareh, 1919, 111 admissions, 88 discharges, 60 vocational students were treated, approximately, as outpatients, class 2; 259 were approximately dealt with by this office.
During the month of April, 1919, 175 admissions, 129 discharges, 50 vocational students were treated, approximtely, as out-patients, class 2; 354 were approximately dealt with by this office, as out-patients, class 2.
During the month of May, 1919, 95 admissions, 85 discharges, 60 vocational students were treated, approximately, as outpatients, class 2; 240 were approximately dealt with hy this office.
During the month of June, 1919, 104 admissions, 98 discharges, 43 vocational students were treated, approximately, as outpatients, class 2; 245 were approximately dealt with by this office.
During the month of July, 1919, 98 admissions, 95 discharges, 60 vocational students were treated, approximately, as outpatients, class 2; 253 were approximately dealt with by this office.
During the month of August, 1919, 93 admissions, 113 discharges, 50 out-patients, vocational students, were treated, approximately; 256 were approximately dealt with by this office.
In addition to the above figures, many out-patient treatments are given at the clinics as follows:

Total number of treatments to out-patients Class 11, in "C" Unit for the month of June, 1919.. .. 4,244 Ditto for the month of July, 1919.. 4,272 Ditto for the month of August, 1919 4,256
Making a total for the three months
of	12,772
These figures do not include certain cases of minor treatments by outside representatives.
Sydenham Military Hospital, Kingston (Formerly Ongwanda Hospital.)
The following are the names and military rank of the doctors connected with this hospital:
Connell, W. T., Lieut.-Colonel; Mundell, D. E., Lieut.-Colonel; Quigley, J. P., Major; Armstrong, L. N., Captain; Assel-stine, S. M., Captain; Gibson, W., Captain; O'Connor, F. X., Captain; Tucker, R. J., Captain; MacDonald, J. O., Captain; Stewart, G. R., Lieutenant.
These officers all receive the pay and allowances of their rank, with the exception of Lieut.-Colonel Mundell, who has been employed as a part-time officer only since June 1st, and as such, received the pay of his rank, plus field allowance for the days actually employed.
Names and rate of pay and ex-military rank of doctors connected with the Sir Oliver Mowat Memorial Sanatorium, Kingston.
Dr. B. H. Hopkins, Captain, $4,200; Dr. W. MacKay Captain, $2,400; Dr. C. B. Waite, Captain, $2,400.


FINANCES OF CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY.
Mr. ROBB:: 1.	What were the gross earnings of the Canadian National Railway from January 1, fo August 1, 1919?
2.	What were the net earnings for the same period?
3.	What is the total interest paying debt of the Canadian National Railway?
4.	What is the amount of interest on debt of said railway annually payable?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	$50,730,974.94.
2.	$9,041,464.62. (Deficit.)
3.	$460,225,148.93.
4.	$19,073,387.08.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	How many ties were taken from the Hudson Bay railway, for use elsewhere, during the years 1917 and 1918?
2.	What disposal was made of these ties?
3.	How much steel and railway equipment' was taken from the Hudson Bay railway, for

use elsewhere, during the years 1917, 1918 and the present year?
4.	What disposal was made of this steel and railway equipment?
5.	Was any of it sent to France?
6.	Has any work been done on the Hudson Bay railway this year in the way of ballasting or betterment of the road in any way? If so, to what extent?
7.	In May last contracts were let for ties to be delivered on the Hudson Bay railway. Are these ties to be used for the completion of this railway?
8.	The steel on the Hudson Bay railway having been laid in 1916 as far as Mile 332, and the dump or grade having previous to that time been constructed to Hudson Bay at Mile 424, when does the Government propose to have this road completed to the Bay by the laying of 92 miles of steel from Mile 322 to Mile 424?
9.	Why was this work not done this year?
10.	Early in 1918 it was reported that
the Government	had purchased in the
United States a large quantity of steel rails which were originally intended for shipment to the Russian Government, and that a considerable quantity of these rails had been shipped to Vancouver and that it was the intention to use certain of these rails for completion of the Hudson Bay railway. Was any purchase of this nature made? If so, what quantities of steel rails were purchased and what disposal was made of them?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Approximately 425,000 ties were turned over to the Canadian National railways.
2.	These were for use on the Canadian National Railway lines in Western Canada.
3.	Eight hundred and twenty-five gross tons rails and part of J. D. McArthur's equipment.
4.	The rails were purchased by Grand Trunk Pacific railway and the McArthur equipment purchased by the Canadian National railways.
5.	No.
6.	A small amount of ballasting only.
7.	The ties were for renewals on the Hudson Bay railway.
8.	Just as soon as the financial condition of the country will permit.
9.	Owing to the building of branch lines in the West, which it was considered were urgently required.
10.	The Government purchased 35,999.3 gross tons rails in the United States, which were rolled for shipment to the Russian Government, and these rails were used for branch lines and betterments to existing railways throughout Canada, owing to Canadian rails not being obtainable due to the rail mills of Canada being utilized for the production of munition steel.


FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OF CANADA.
Mr. ROBB:: 1.	What are the amounts which go to make up the difference between $2,907,669,041.50 and $1,670,263.52, stated to be the gross debt and

net debt of Canada respectively as stated in answer to question given in Hansard September 25, 1919?
2.	What are the amounts of bonded debt due by Canada payable respectively in Canada, United States and Great Britain, on August 31, 1919?
3.	What is the amount of interest payable per year on the indebtedness referred to in question two?
4.	What is the total amount of the indebtedness of the Canadian National Railway Company on which interest was payable on August 1, 1919?
5.	What is the amount of interest payable annually on the indebtedness referred to in question four?
6.	What is the amount of floating indebtedness for which the loan of $300,000,000 is now being asked for?
7.	What are the purposes for which said loan of three hundred million are to be devoted in settlement of?
8.	Is the indebtedness of the Canadian National Railway Company included in the statement of gross debt given in answer to question on September 25, 1919?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Investments:
Sinking funds	$	18,667,513 13Other investments	
343,662,592	52Province accounts	
2,296,327	90
Miscellaneous and banking
accounts	
872,776,916	43Total assets	$1,237,403,349	98
2.
Canada	$1,513,516,567 76
London	 362,703,312 40
New York	 135,873,000 00
3.	Estimates 1919-20 provide for interest on public debt $102,767,625.94.
4 and 5 relate to the Department of Railways and Canals.
6.	$265,000,000.
7.	Payment of floating indebtedness as above and to meet expenditures to be made in connection with demobilization (including the authorized war service gratuity to our soldiers, land settlemeent loans, and other purposes connected with their re-establishment into civil life), for capital outlay upon shipbuilding, and other national undertakings forming part of Canada's industrial reconstruction programme, and for the establishment of any necessary credits for the purchase of grain, foodstuffs, timber, and other products, and will be spent wholly in Canada.
8.	No.


NIGHT OPERATOR AT LEMIEUX.
Mr. TRAHAN:: 1.	Has the position of night operator at Lemieux (iNieolet), on the Intercolonial Railway, been abolished?
2.	If so, why?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	To reduce expenses.


ALLEGED BOOTS PASSPORTS IN MONTREAL,.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is the Government aware that whilst the Military Service Act was in force before the armistice, one thousand bogus passports were issued by the Russian Consul General in Montreal, (Mr. Likatsehiff, to foreigners, even to alien enemies?
2.	Is it true that Captain Carter, Inspector of alien enemies in Montreal and representing Sir Percy Sherwood of the Dominion Police, being aware of this situation, decided to carry on an investigation and to arrest said Consul, but was prevented to do so by the Government?
3.	If so, for what reason?
4.	Did the American authorities make representations to the Government regarding said bogus passports being issued for the United States ?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4. Answered by No. 1.


TELEPHONE POLES, KENT COUNTY, N.B.
Mr. LEGER:: 1.	Were tenders called for by the Government in the years 1918 or 1919 for the purchasing of telephone poles for the line of telephones between Point Sapin and Kouchibouguac Beach, Kent county, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, was there any notice calling for tenders posted in Kent county?
3.	If not, where were the notices posted?
4.	Was the lowest tender accepted?
5.	What is the'name of the contractor?


Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	Yes.
2,	3, 4, 5. A .poster inviting tenders for a supply of cedar poles 25 feet long and not less than 5 inches across the top, to the number of 640 more or less, distributed along the roadway was issued on 15th February, 1918, to the telephone agents along the line, Chatham to Point Sapin, and was circulated in the neighbourhood generally and resulted in an offer from Mr. D. Lewis, of Escuminac, 25th February, at $3.10 per pole, and from Mr. P. A. Robichaud, of Point Sapin, 26th February, at $2 per pole. These offers were however crossed by the issuing, in March, 1918, of a newspaper advertisement inviting tenders and requiring a 5 per cent security deposit. The only tender 'received in response was one from Mr. L. J. Loggie, of Chatham, at $2.50 per pole; this price was considered too high and inquiries were made along the route of the line for poles distributed at the price of $2 each, and in October, 1918, Mr. J. A. Man-zerelle, of Lower Sapin, was arranged with at that price. Later on, however, Mr. Man-zerelle, in November, 1918, withdrew his

offer, whereupon a similar offer was made by Mr. L. J. Loggie and accepted. The poles were in due course accepted along the route at the price of $2 per pole to the total number of 514, the distance covered measuring 16 .miles.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like to inquire if the leader of the Government is able to give us definite information to-day as to when we may expect prorogation, and further, if any definite conclusion has been reached as to whether the House will sit on Monday (Thanksgiving Day) or not?


George Green Foster: On making inquiry I think it is absolutely impossible for us to do our duty and get through business this wedk. Mr. Calder's Committee, which is a very important one as hon. gentlemen know, will not be able to report as soon as expected, and the membership of the House desires to be present when that report is submitted. I do not think it is possible therefore to anticipate getting away this week. That being the case, I think probably we had better intermit Thanksgiving Day for the business of the House and devote our hearts and our minds seriously to thanksgiving for the many mercies that are vouchsafed to us, particularly in comparison with other countries and other peoples. With regard to other legislation I am not in a position to make an announcement to-day. In reference to this I might extend the advice to both sides that the Whips and members should conjointly arrange to be present and have as large an attendance as possible for the important legislation which is coming up in the later days of the session. I think our duty is not to slight legislation for the sake of getting away a few days earlier than we otherwise [DOT]might be able to do. The session has not been a long one, and I should invite the Whips on both sides to make arrangements to have during next week as full an attendance of members as possible.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is the leader of the Government intimating that further legislation is coming down?


George Eulas Foster: I have no announcement to make in reference to that, but an announcement will be made probably to-morrow as to what, if any, legislation will yet be brought down.



PRIVILEGE-STATEMENT BY MR. D. D.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I
wish to refer to what may be regarded as a question of privilege. In the Halifax Chronicle of October 4, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) is reported under Parliamentary Proceedings to have stated as follows:
Mr. Mowat of Toronto rather scored off the Opposition Leader when he recalled that in his own peaceful bailiwick the militia had h>
he called out a few weeks ago to stop riots, and Canada had to come to the Courts to collect for the expenditure on the same.
If the hon. member for Parkdale is correctly reported, I must say that there is not a scintilla of truth in that statement, nor the slightest foundation for it. There were no riots in Nova Scotia, no militia were called out, and no expense of this kind were incurred or attempted to be collected. When the hon. member spoke the other day he made reference to something that took place thirty-six years ago, but he is reported as having referred to an event of three weeks ago. I do not wish to have any stain like that on my province, and therefore I deem it to be my duty to set the matter right.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD.

[Stage Direction]
Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21 respecting the Canadian Wheat Board.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I dislike making extended remarks on the motion for the second reading of this Bill, but some statements I made in the House on the resolution seem to have been misunderstood, and I therefore think it necessary to take up a few moments of the time of the House in answering some of the questions which have been put by way of criticism and comment. The President of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange took a newspaper report of my speech and considered that if it was true I misrepresented the situation, insofar as the farmers' market was concerned in the West, both absolutely and comparatively, as taken in relation with the farmers' market in the United States. Generally in the criticisms a number of questions have been asked, which I think are quite in order, and I desire to make a reply to them before we go into Committee of the Whole.
In the first place, the question is put as to why the exchange market was opened up in Winnipeg, and why it was afterwards closed. A great many opinions have been

expressed as to the reasons for both steps. I am free to say that if the Government had had the same information before the market was opened up as it had shortly afterwards, probably the market would not have been opened up at all; but we all depend for our sources of information on agencies, and we have to take from them what information we get from time to time, and in these confused and abnormal conditions information sometimes develops quite rapidly and changes the point of view of the seeker for enlightenment on the general question. As far as I am myself concerned, as the head of the Department of Trade and CoTnmerce, and as far as the Government is concerned, there is no doubt that we were not at all anxious to undertake any controlled system of the marketing of wheat this year. We had experience of the controlled system of marketing during the two preceding years when the war was on, and when I think by general consent, even though some felt that their business and their privileges were largely curtailed by the fact of Government control and operation, it was conceded that nothing else was possible during those times. When the Armistice was declared and peace came in sight the natural desire, both of the Government and of the grain trade, reverted again with all its force that the shackles should be taken off and control should not be exercised, and I was of the opinion, as was the Government, that quite probably very great freedom, if not complete freedom, might be given to the Grain Trade, so that it could resume its normal and accustomed channels for carrying on its various operations. A delegation was sent by the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, which visited London while I was there, and I was in communication with that delegation. The opinion of that delegation was entirely in favour of the open market, of resuming the former methods of carrying on the grain business in this country and for export purposes.
John Archibald Maharg: Is the minister referring to the delegation that I accompanied ?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


John Archibald Maharg: Well, I wish to disassociate myself entirely from that view. I was not agreeable to the opening up of the grain market at any time.


George Eulas Foster: Possibly I have confused the delegations. There were two, were there?


John Archibald Maharg: Probably the minister might separate them by saying there was-a delegation from the Grain Exchange.


George Eulas Foster: I am speaking ot the delegation from the Grain Exchange. Whether my hon. friend was on that or not, I do not remember; I do not suppose he was. As he now says he was not, I will confine myself to the delegation from the Grain Exchange which was in favour of the open market for the current crop. I may say that the grain trade in Great Britain and also the Royal Wheat Commission were favourable to that idea if it could possibly be carried out. Then I say in reference to the criticism that the Government were desirous on their own part that control should have place rather than the normal methods of carrying on the business.
It certainly is no't a thing which a Government wishes to undertake; it is a thing which primarily belongs to those who are experienced in the business and understand it from a practical point of view. However, as matters1 progressed, it became more and more evident that if there were an open market and normal methods were reverted to, there would- be slight prospect of a speedy sale for the farmers' wheat-if, indeed, it would be possible in the lapse of time to market the wheat at all by the old methods. This condition arose from several considerations. In the first place, there was a lack of speedy decision amongst the purchasing powers of the Allies-, and several considerations contributed to that lack of speedy decision. Two or three of these are the following: Until the crops attained a certain state of maturity it was impossible to estimate what would be the requirements of the European countries, measured by what quantities these countries could produce for their own needs. Until the crops had progressed to a certain stage towards maturity no one could make a fair estimate of what amount would be contributed by the production of the European countries themselves towards their own possible.consumption. On the other hand-, it was impossible to estimate. accurately what would toe the surplus of wheat in the producing and exporting countries until a certain stage of maturity had been reached. Consequently, the British Government, the Wheat Commission, the Allies themselves, did not go into the market; they -held off on account of the two very important considerations which I have mentioned before making cdn-

tracts or entering into arrangements for the supplying of their needs.
There was also the consideration of finance, rvhich I spoke of the other day. It was impossible for them to gather up a sufficient amount of cash with which to buy for their needs. Credits were necessary and those credits had to be arranged as between Governments. The question of the wherewithal to pay and the credits to be made where cash payments were impossible-as they would be in the majority of cases-was, therefore, a third and very important consideration in coming to a conclusion in the matter. All these considerations had the direct effect of keeping out of contracts and actual engagements those European countries which would ultimately require more or less, the quantity to be determined later.
The impression being entertained that it was possible to carry on the business of fbe grain trade in Canada and for export by a reversion to the old methods, permission was given for the opening of the exchange and it was opened. Subsequent information led the Government, after careful consideration, to the conclusion that it was impossible satisfactorily to market the grain crop of the farmers of Canada on the old open system. Practically without exception, the European countries, as they did last year, make their purchases of grain and the necessary arrangements in connection therewith under Government control. There are no open exchanges in Europe where prices are fixed. There was and is no organized system of individual or corporate buying, owing to the conditions (to which I have already referred. The Government, therefore, came to the conclusion that we would have to revert to control; that Government supervision would have to be exercised and that Government facilities for moving the crop would have to be made available. The grain exchange was open for a short time; then it was closed at the request of the Government. Hon. members connected with the grain trade are quite familiar with what took place ait that time. There was a speculative rise in the price of grain. I do not know how far that advance went, but it was continuous and it was considerable, and the Government felt that thpse speculative advances -and the conditions under which they were brought about produced an unhealthy situation as well for the farmer who wished to market his grain as in respect- of the possible buying sources in -the Old Country. If one looks into the transactions during -that time in the Exchange,
[Sir George Foster.!
he will find that the number and amount of actual sales were very small indeed. The price went up and that gave the farmer the idea that that -was an indication of the price at which he could sell his product. We did not think that it was an indication of the price, and if it was not an indication of the real price that the farmer could get, the running up of prices -by speculative operations was not in the interests of- the farmer; it tended to create erroneous impressions on the part of the farmer as to w-hat he would ultimately get and to bring about discontent when those anticipations were disappointed.
Again, suppose that the market had been kept open and that speculative prices had gone up to |2.50, $2.75 or $3 a bushel, what would have been the effect upon .possible buyers in Europe? The quotations of exchange would have been taken as the price to be paid by parties on the other side for Canadian wheat. These buying parties, therefore, would say: We cannot undertake to buy from Canada at $2.50, $2.75, $3 a bushel-indeed, at any price that -was indicated -by the Exchange-because we can get it much cheaper elsewhere.
It would consequently have thrown them off from any pursuit of the Canadian market at all. Therefore, it would have a doubly bad effect, first, on the- farmer at home, raising in his mind the idea by means of a speculative quotation that he should get higher prees for his wheat than he possibly could, and, secondly, in the throwing off of those who were seeking wheat supplies 'because of the high quotations which were made on the exchange itself. Ilf there is a farmer who says.: The Government did me an injury because when wheat went up on the exchange, the exchange was closed and I was precluded from selling my wheat at that price; again I revert to my statement that if he had attempted to sell his wheat, and if all the farmers had attempted to sell their wheat at the speculative price quoted on the exchange during those weeks, they would have been able to sell no proportion of their wheat at all. Those were simply speculative prices. The farmer says, and the critics of the Government plan say: You closed the market and the farmer now is down to the initial price of $2.15, with the prospect of getting what he can out of the surplus of the marketing of his crop; but on the other side of the line the United States farmer is getting $2.50, $2.60, $2.75, $2.80, $2.90, $3 a bushel for his wheat, and I can give you the market quotations at Minneapolis and at other points where those

prices are being paid. And the farmer says: Why should the Canadian farmer not get an equal price as his product is of an equal or of a better quality than the wheat produced on the United States side of the line? The answer to that is this, that the market on the other side of the line is not open to the farmers of Canada. Whether you had an open exchange or an open market or not, the United States market is closed to the seller of Canadian wheat and to the seller of Canadian flour. Consequently, whatever methods you had of marketing in Canada, the farmer who produces wheat in Canada cannot, under the circumstances of to-day, market his wheat in the United States, and, therefore, he cannot share in the same rate as the United 'States farmer gets. I think that is clear 'enough, and I leave that statement as to that part of the matter at that.
It was stated that my remarks led to the conclusion that the Canadian farmer got $2.15 as an initial payment at the station to which he brought his wheat. I do not think the members of the House understood me in that way, and I do not think those who are conversant, with the grain trade and with the system we have been pursuing for the last three years misunderstood me. But if any one. did understand the matter in that way, my statement in regard to that is this, that I was speaking of the wheat business on the basic price which had been settled by the Canadian Wheat Board and of the basic price which had been settled by the United States Government on the other side of the line; that all of us, I supposed knew if that basic price were paid at a certain point, there would be a variation in the price paid on that basis at every point distant more or less from the basic point, and that you would have to take freight and charges between the station point and the basic point in calculating what the farmer would get. It was never my intention, as it was foreign to the information which I possess, to state that $2.15 was received by the western farmer at every station to which he brought his grain. (So much with reference to that.
I have been criticised also-and maybe there is ground for the criticism-for leading up to the impression that in the United States the farmer got no more than the $2.26 which was fixed by the United States Government as what they would pay the farmer, that price being based, I think, on the Chicago price. Well, maybe my remarks were not sufficiently guarded to avoid an impression of that kind, but you cannot have everything in your mind at the same
time. I was pursuing the argument as to what the Government had fixed and what the aspect of the farmer was towards the Government's fixed price. To make the explanation which would at once carry the whole of the truth, I may say that $2.26 is both the maximum and the minimum price fixed and paid by the United States Government for export wheat, and it was with reference to export market that I was speaking at that time; that the United 'States will pay no more and, we suppose, will pay no less, and that every bushel of wheat, whether it be in the form of wheat or of wheat flour, that goes out of the United States for export to European countries, goes out on the basis of that fixed price of $2.26. But there is in the United States domestic market a freedom of millers to compete one with another above the fixed price of $2.26. They
may	not	pay	less:	, but they maypay	as much	more	as they choose,and	that	accounts	for the fact thatyou	have	in	the	United States at
various market points, without the competition of the millers for special grades under special circumstances, wheat going up to as high a price as $2.75, $2.90 and $3.00. But if that be the case in the United States, as I stated before, it is impossible . for the Canadian farmer to benefit by that condition in the United States, no matter under what system, free or controlled, the grain trade was carried on in our country. iSo, though this is not pleasing to the farmer, at the same time, it is not the fault of the Government, it is owing to conditions fixed by the United States Government, which has fixed a price for its surplus and for its wheat, and which will not allow importations of wheat or of flour into that country to interfere with the very heavy responsibility that it took, and with the marketing of its surplus at, if possible, nothing below the price that is paid for it to the United States farmer. Some might argue that if you had the open system in Canada and gave the millers the right to compete one with another, you would have a similar condition of things in this country, and that the farmer would get a higher price for his wheat through the competition of the millers. That may seem to be so, but to my mind it is not and cannot possibly be so owing to the different conditions. Supposing that the millers had the right of competition in an open market and that they did so compete, the inevitable consequence would be that, if they paid more than the fixed price which obtains, the consuming population of Canada would have to pay that much more for their



flour. In the United States, if you take the quotations of flour, you will find that they run from $1.25 to $2.00 per barrel higher than quotations for similar brands in the Dominion of Canada. That is, if for any special reasons the millers pay $3 for their wheat, they must work out the profit to themselves on the brands of flour that they make from that wheat, and that causes a higher price for flour to the whole of the consumers of the country. That would take place provided that competition amongst the millers in Canada did bring about the result of the farmers getting higher prices for the wheat that they sold to the millers. But there is in Canada another condition which is a very important and serious one, namely, that to-day there is very little market; indeed, I might say that at certain times there is absolutely Ino market for (wheat flour (from Canada. I explained that the other day. Your Italian, your Greek, your Frenchman, your United Kingdom man-all of these people want wheat because they want the offal and secondary products from that wheat, and they are the ones to say what and, if possible, to get what they want. Before the war, if I am not mistaken, the wheat flour export of this country was some three to four millions of barrels. During the war it ran up to eight, nine or ten million barrels. To-day, under the conditions I have just mentioned, if is difficult to get an order for wheat flour for export from Canada at all and the Canada Wheat Board are putting forth some of their best and shrewdest efforts in order to mingle certain of the orders for flour along with orders for wheat as well so- as to provide some export market for the Canadian millers and help them' in that direction. But if, in the open market, the millers were left to find a market for themselves in European countries for flour, it would be very difficult indeed for them to do- so. Consequently, they would not be anxious to buy more wheat from the Canadian farmer than was necessary for their own home consumption. They would tread very warily before they would pay competitive prices in order to store up an amount of flour for export a market for which they had a very poor prospect of getting. Therefore, they would march slowly, and they would buy from the farmer from day to day, week to week, or month to month, what was necessary to provide for the home consumption demand which would be small.
If you sum up the trend of these observations the situation sizes itself up in this

[DOT]way: Here is your Canadian farmer with his wheat threshed out in September and October. He wants an immediate market for that wheat. He wants as large a price as possible and he wants cash payment for his wheat. Under the conditions which existed there was no source from which this cash might be expected. I was at the centre of. operations there for several months and I never could get the buying authorities, or the prospective buying authorities, in European countries to make any decision as 'to when they would be in the market or as to the price they would be willing to offer. Therefore, you have this situation, that unless somebody came to the front and supplied a method by which the cash was ready for the immediate purchase of the grain, and the immediate payment to the farmer, you would have a condition of things which would be very detrimental to the farmers themselves.
Their crop wais garnered, their sales would be few and far between, comparatively, and the cash they demanded would be difficult to find. In that 'position you would have no work for your railways for, unless the grain starts to go out promptly upon its being ready for sale, the railways lose -their best opportunity for carrying. That was [DOT]another item which led up to the conclusion reached by the Government. As it is the Government steps in and cash for the immediate purchase of the wheat is provided for. The banks take on the payments, the purchases1 -are made promptly and they are paid for in cash. Up to the present moment, I think I am justified in saying that at least 50 per cent of the total surplus of the Canadian farmers has already been sold and to that extent the money is provided in so far as it is required for prompt and speedy payment when the farmer sells his grain. I am satisfied that with no organized buying with credits, under the conditions that existed and with all these things government controlled on the other side of the water, which in the main they were, it would have been impossible to have had speedy and cash transactions in the wheat of the Canadian farmer under any other system than that which has been provided by the Government.
There was a lot of misconception-I am not going to call it by a harsher name-I might say that it was misrepresentation-of the Government's position in reference to this matter. In the first place it was stated, and held to with the most wonderful tenacity that I ever experienced in this country,

that the Government had fixed a price of ?1.75 and that that was all they were going to pay or that was going to he allowed to be paid to the Canadian farmer. That all existed in the fertile, and not inocuous, imagination of some people who wanted that argument in order to use it to the detriment of somebody or of some Government. That is the only remark that I am going to make in regard to the matter. Neither by myself, by any member of the Government or by the Government as a whole, was there any decision or supposition or suggestion as to the fixing of a price of SI.75. Yet that has been made to do duty against the system which has been brought in by the Government, and to this day it is held more or less firmly by quite too many of the people of this country.
Then again, when the price was fixed, it was not a price fixed by the Government itself. It was a. price which was fixed as the initial payment by the Canadian Wheat Board. I want to correct the misrepresentations which are abroad in reference to the relations between the Government and the old Board of Supervisors of last year and the preceding year and the present Canada Wheat Board. When the Government placed in the hands of the Board of Grain Supervisors in 1917 and 1918 the management of the marketing of the grain of Canada it left it with these gentlemen and it did not interfere with what they did. In the same way in relation to the Canada Wheat Board, the Government tried to get the best representative men that it could, and having got that board it leaves the matter in their bands and it does not interfere with what they do.
If representations are made to the Government, they will be submitted to the Canada Wheat Board, by whom they will be considered. The millers, the producers, the consumers and the varied interests are all represented on that board, and I do not) think that its capacity or calibre has been adversely criticised with any success; nor indeed has it been largely criticised in any event. The board having once been appointed, comprised of practical men, the Government leaves them unhampered to do the work that has been entrusted to them and for the performance of which they are empowered. Now, the board took the situation into retrospective consideration, and they decided that the initial payment should be $2.15. But, as a matter of fact, this had to be approved by council, and council did approve of it immediately, as the 584
recommendation of the board's mature consideration. In regard to the criticism that is made against that action, I think it is well that I should say something. The general trend of criticism is to this effect:
" You have your $2.15, which is all you will get." I may mention just what the scheme is. The Board of Wheat Commissioners shall market the whole crop at the best possible advantage, shall pay the costs, and return shall be made, upon the basis of the quantity which each producer has sold, of any amount in excess of the $2.15 paid initially. The general trend of the criticism, as I say, is to induce the farmers to believe that they will get the $2.15, or the proportional amount wherever they have their grain, and no more. The contention is: " It will all be squandered and nothing will be left." There are participation certificates that every purchaser gets which entitle him to his proportionate return from the pool-his return proportionate to the quantity of grain that is sold. These certificates are negotiable and the farmer may sell them; and the whole force of such criticism, wherever it originates, tends to confirm in the farmer's mind the idea that he has all that he will get. Probably he lends a too-willing ear to the broker or the buyer who says to him: "You have your participation certificate for which you will never get much; but I am prepared to pay you a certain sum for it and will take my chances of loss." Now, it is but human nature that if that impression is forced upon	the	farmer, that	he	is	notlikely to get anything more, he will take	what	is offered to	him	by	the
broker or dealer and consequently part with his certificate. I would advise farmers to hold their participation certificates. Taking my view from the amount of grain that has already been marketed and the prospects for marketing all the rest of it, I would urge upon the farmer the importance of retaining the certificate and would counsel him not to part with it for a song. It will be a substantial advantage to him. No one can tell exactly how much the advantage will be, but looking at the matter in the light of present experience, the advantage will be considerable. I merely mention this as a sort of caution or warning in this respect; for undoubtedly I do not think that any man is doing the most good to the farmer in disseminating the idea that he is not going to derive any greater advantage than the initial payment of $2.15. I think I have met quite a large number of the objections that have been raised, and it is not my in-

tention to multiply words unnecessarily in connection with this matter. But I think I should touch upon the United States system. There is competition in the United States over the $2.26 fixed basic price for domestic purposes. The millers may buy and pay more; the bakers may also buy and pay more; but if either miller or baker buys and pays more than $2.26 for whatever surplus of wheat or flour he finds on hand he has to go to the United Grain Corporation to dispose of it and will be paid for that surplus on the basis of the fixed price of $2.26 and not upon the basis of the price that he has paid to the farmer in his competition with other millers or bakers. So that it is fair to say that everything which is exported of wheat and wheat products out of the United States goes on the export basis of $2.26 as the maximum price which is to be paid. There are other sources for European countries in the obtaining of grain than Canada. Australia is opened up by better conditions and its trade has a very large surplus. The Argentine is also open and at rates which are far lower than those quoted from the United States or from Canada. Neutral and allied countries can therefore turn to these sources, and it seems to be fairly settled, as a result of this condition, that the United States is ready to sell to any European customer who desires to buy, provided cash or credits are forthcoming at $2.26, or probably a shade under that price. My opinion is that the farmer in Canada, for the export grain which goes out of the country either in the shape of wheat or of flour, will get a larger price than that fox what he has to market. Consequently, looked at in that light, and taking into consideration the advantages of quick market, steady market, and cash market, it seems to me-and I believe it will so prove -that it will be ultimately concluded that the system adopted by the Government after very careful consideration has saved the situation in Canada so far as the disposal of its grain is concerned. The question is asked: why did you turn down the grain trade; why did you shut them off from participation in the work? Well, it is unfair to say that the grain trade has been precluded from their usual work. Under this present system to-day, after all the criticisms that have been made as to what the Wheat Board would do in the way of machinery, what are the facts of the case? Your street buyer is at work as usual; your track buyer is at work as usual; your elevator buyer is also at his customary work; the elevator storage system is doing pre-f9ir George Foster.]
cisely what it did before or would do under an open system, and is doing it in exactly the same way. The commission man is also getting his commission and in buying and selling. The broker gets his brokerage, -probably not as much as he wants or would like to have, but he is getting it the same as before. The insurance man is getting insurance contracts as he previously did, and the banker is making his advancements as of yore. Every particle of machinery in the grain trade is functioning to-day just as it did before or would do under an open and unrestrained market, with the exception of this fact, that under the present system speculative prices and profits are absolutely shut out and the farmer receives the actual return for his grain, minus the actual expenses of carrying on the marketing of the grain.
Now speculators or grain traders' profits are legitimate things because these men take risks and if they take risks they must pay themselves by the price that they get compared with- the price that they pay. Therefore, it is their interest to pay the lowest possible price for what they buy and to get the highest possible market price for what they sell, and they make out of that margin their expenses and their profits, and sometimes those profits are very substantial. Expenses go on the same as before and not to a greater extent if to as great an extent; but profits are absolutely shut out to the trader and consequently the return, is by that much the greater and should be the more satisfactory to the farmer himself.
But the question is asked: Is this to be a permanent system? My answer to that is an- emphatic no. It is not a system that the Government coveted to have. A tremendous amount of difficulty, of criticism, and of bad feeling is inevitably aroused when a government takes hold of a thing of this kind and carries it through. No government courts a proceeding of that kind; and it was only the force of circumstances, and their conviction that nothing else could be done to save the situation well, that induced the Government to take the system of supervision and control this year. It is not the intention to make it permanent. We believe that this year is the last year during which the same system of government control will be carried out in the same way. Whatever the country, [DOT] through its legislature, may determine to do with the nationalization of the wheat or the grain business hereafter, is a different matter but I have answered the question

whether this is to he a permanent system or not. I apologize to the House for taking up so much time-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


George Eulas Foster: -hut I felt it was necessary to make some of these points in order that adverse criticism, which is not well-founded, should not be allowed to prejudice either the farmer or any one else. I cannot think of any other points to deal with, but as we go through with the Bill in committee I shall he glad to answer any questions that may be asked.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have had a repetition to-day of what was heard in this House in the latter part of 1910 and in 1911- that is a very eloquent and clever speech as a substitute for satisfactory trade conditions. We had in the years 1910 and 1911 the prospects of a 'magnificent trade between Canada and the United States. A population of less than eight millions of people then had the opportunity of exchanging freely with one hundred millions of people the products which the people of Canada could produce in abundance. The opportunity was at our door, it was obtainable, it was within our reach. I remember well the speeches on that occasion of the hon. gentleman who to-day leads the Government, and who, at that time, headed the forces of the Tory party in the movement to break down those relations that were being built up and which really did exist between the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada. He and his party succeeded in making the people of Canada believe that it was a bad thing to have freedom of trade between our country and the great country to the south of us. He made the people of Canada believe that if we had wheat or cattle to sell to the United States it was a mistake to send it immediately across the border to the neighbouring republic; that it was a greater advantage for us to use our railroads, and the ships that might be available, and send that freight out of the country and across the Atlantic. That was the system of trade which the hon. gentleman and his party thought was a good thing for Canada in preference to trade with the United States. It was not very long after the hon. gentleman and his party came into power when they made it their boast that they had acquired, or obtained, for the people of the Canadian West this freedom of trade-that they had obtained in a better way, as they said, the reciprocity which was so much coveted by the Canadian people and that it
was a fixture for them; they had found it in a better way. To-day, Sir, we are told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the doors of the United States are closed against any trading in any way. The doors are closed against our wheat and our flour, there is no foreign market for these products of ours, and we are in the position, according to the minister, where we must find money ourselves-put our hands down in our pockets and find the money-and send it over to a trading commission in England who will buy our own flour with with our own money. That is the substitute, Sir, that is the alternative, which is brought about in this country by the policy or hon. gentlemen opposite, led by the Minister of Trade and Commerce from 1911 up to the present, on that question of trade. It is for the Canadian people-


George Eulas Foster: Would the hon. gentleman state whether or not he is opposed to the giving or extension of credits to buying countries, who are not able at the present time to pay cash, in order to help our export trade and consequently employment in Canada itself? Is he opposed to that principle?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We are not dealing
with that question to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman is making an argument upon it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I hear the exclamations of hon. gentlemen opposite. They are watching with interest and care for the slightest consolation they may receive from the gentlemen on the treasury benches who lead them, and lead them they know not where. I say to the right hon. gentleman, who at present leads the Government, that I am in favour of an honest, straightforward and wholesome trade for this country, and that I am opposed to his asking me, or asking the ordinary man in Canada, to find money and to send that money to Europe to buy the goods of this country in order to keep up war prices for the ordinary consuming people of this Dominion. I give the complete answer to the hon. gentleman that I am not in favour of artificial trade of that kind. I am in favour of selling our goods to the people of the United States who have themoney to buy those goods and who are willing to send the money here; but the hon. gentleman and his party have 'brought about a condition, have brought about such relations with the hundred millions of people on the other side of the line, that we cannot trade with

them, which puts us in a position that we must find our own money and with our own money trade with ourselves without anything coming in in return for it-the goods going out bought with Canadian money, and nothing coming in in return except old bonds which we cannot sell, that we might get from Koumania, Poland, and other places. If my hon. friend is anxious to put up good Canadian money-which we must borrow and which we must go down on our knees to obtain from the United States-and then put that up against very *doubtful Roumanian, Polish and other foreign bonds in return for our goods or if that is his system of trade I am against it absolutely and entirely.
I hope, Sir, that my 'answer to the hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster) is satisfactory 'and that it will not -be a laughing matter for lion, gentlemen opposite who think that a clever question was thrown across the floor by their leader. I do not so regard it; there is nothing clever about it. We have a very clever speech, and very poor trade. This country, Sir, is looking for good trade, and is very indifferent about speeches. That is the situation which confronts us (to-day.
For many years, Sir, it was difficult to get the American people to talk trade with us. Since 1872 great statesmen like the late Sir John Macdonald, Sir Charles Tup-per and Sir Wilfrid Laurier and others have made unsuccessful attempts to establish, proper trade relations with our neighbours to the south. At last, in 1910-11, it was the good fortune of our hon. friend Mr. Fielding, associated with the Hon. Mr. Paterson, to get the ear of the American people to establish proper, efficient and satisfactory trade relations with them. That opportunity was put at the door of the Canadian people. Ruit 'hon. gentlemen opposite thought they could play upon the prejudices of our people, so they told them: Why are you going to turn round the railroads that we have built? Are you going to destroy our trade across the continent? Are you going to shove everything we have down south and be a mere adjunct to the United States? Under which flag are- you going to be, under the British flag, or are you going to sell yourselves and your loyalty for trade with the United States? That appeal had its effect, and that nonsense, Mr. Speaker, carried the day against the very best interests of the (people of this country. That, Sir, 'has been bearing its results, until today the (Minister of Trade and Commerce- no less a person; it is not the Minister of

Labour, it is not the Minister of Customs, it is not any other minister who may not know about the trade relations of this country with the United States or with any other country who had made the speech which we have 'listened to this afternoon but it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whose business it is to know these things, and yet he comes down to us, Sir, with the poorest, kind of a story that could possibly be presented to any country or to any Parliament. He tells us that we cannot trade with the people of the United States-that we have plenty of wheat but we cannot sell it. I have a telegram in my hand which I received from a man in the province of Saskatchewan-[DOT]


John Wesley Edwards: Is it signed?


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, it is signed-and it is not in cypher either.
'Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is in perfectly plain English.


John Wesley Edwards: It is not forged?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is in perfectly plain English. This man says:
We can get $3.01-or 86 cents added to $2.15 *-we could get that for our wheat if we were allowed to sell it across the (border. There is a great deal going across, but only by truck loads.
That is the difference to-day, Mr. Speaker. The farmers of the West (by reason of the short-sighted policy, which, of course, brought hon. gentlemen opposite into power, are placed in this trade condition, that although they could get $3.01, or about $3 a bushel for their wheat if there were proper trade relations between the two countries, they are bound down to this $2.15-and they may or may not get the whole of that amount. If I understand the right hon. gentleman, they do not get that price at once, and the chances are they may not get it at all, depending on how wheat will sell.
That shortsighted policy, Sir, a policy which was not in the 'best interests of the farmers or of any other class in Canada, was foisted upon the Canadian people in 1911 by representations from hon. gentlemen opposite which were not borne out by the fadts, but which representations were well coloured in speeches such as the one made to-day by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government. To me, Sir, having heard such speeches during the election of 1911, and knowing the result of that

election and having to some extent suffered in consequence, it is some satisfaction to stand here to-day and to see hon. gentlemen obliged on the floor of this House to acknowledge that they were wrong when they advised the people to refuse to trade with the Americans, to decline the offer of reciprocity-that they were wrong from start to finish, and that they must now go to the people and tell them that instead oi getting money from the United States and elsewhere for the goods they have to sell, they must sell those goods through a trade mission beyond the seas, and take bonds in exchange-in short finance the purchase.


George Eulas Foster: Will my hon. friend allow me another question? I do not want to interrupt him unless he is perfectly willing.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Certainly.


George Eulas Foster: I want to ask my hon. friend this question, and I think it is necessary for the proper understanding of the subject matter of this debate. He has read a telegram, the purport of which is quite evident. When the tariffs of the two countries provide for the free passage of wheat and the products of wheat between Canada and the United States, why is it that the Canadian farmer under that tariff arrangement cannot take his wheat in and get his $3.01 the same as the United States farmer? My hon. friend understands my question. What he was arguing for, so far as wheat and the products of wheat are concerned is what has actually been the tariff -condition during the last year or more. Now, what I want to ask my hon. *friend is this: Why is it, that being the tariff condition, that the Canadian farmer cannot put his wheat into that market and get the price that the United States farmer does? Will my hon. friend say now exactly what is the reason?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Let me say to my right hon. friend that it is very difficult for an ordinary private member of the House as I am to follow the twists and turns and changes of this Government. They have bungled everything from start to finish. They have switched off from themselves to boards and commissions and private parties everything that they could do themselves. When the minister and his deputy and the men around him who are responsible to this House should have this matter in hand and be able to give us the information first hand, they switch it off to a commission, absolutely independent, and that commission has made regulations
which rendered it impossible to send wheat out of this country, and has brought about the absurd conditions which exist to-day.
I suppose I shall be called to task if I again go back to ancient history and quote Scripture. But I may be permitted to say that the attitude of the right hon. gentleman reminds me of the answer given by him that aforetime was blind: "One thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see."
Arrangements had been made for good trade relations between Canada and the United States; these arrangements were ready to be taken advantage of, but hon. gentlemen opposite destroyed them and we have not those trade relations to-day. No amount of ingenuity; no amount of questioning; no amount of turning around and putting it this, that or the other way, can alter the fact that we had an opportunity of bringing about good trade relations, permanent and lasting, but that that opportunity was destroyed by hon. gentlemen, who are responsible for the unsatisfactory conditions which exist to-day. How that condition came about the right hon. gentleman knows very much better than I do. This Government is responsible to the people; it is suposed to bring about proper trade conditions and to be far-sighted enough to see what is best for the country. Hon. gentlemen who comprise the Government are supposed to have something in their minds more comprehensive, more conducive to the production of dollars and cents within the country, than the mere desire to keep themselves in power absolutely regardless of the trade and development of the country. Representations were made by hon. gentlemen in 1911 as I have intimated, and the fruit of their success is now before us; the chickens have come home to roost. Instead of bringing money to those whom they represent, hon. members from the West have to sit back and take the speech of my right hon. friend, which I suppose they will send to the constituents in place of wheat and wheat prices. If any of our good friends from the West go back to their ridings and say to the farmers: I have in one hand $3 a bushel for your wheat and I have in the other hand the speech of the Right Hon. Sir George Foster, Minister of Trade and Commerce; which will you have? Every one of those farmers will say: Give me the $3 for my wheat and keep the speech for yourself. When the Liberal party were in power they put forth every effort in a proper way to make a good bargain for

the country so far as trade is. concerned- particularly for the people of the West- a bargain which would have brought about development of the country and happiness and prosperity in every line of trade and commerce in the West as well as in every part of Canada. But the people have chosen to put their trust in hon. gentlemen opposite, and the result is the condition which we have to-day. It is to be hoped that the day is not far distant when the hon. gentleman will submit themselves and their conduct and their administration to the people, and that a change will take place which will once more put us on the road to happiness and prosperity.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, if sucb a change did take place as that which the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) so hopefully looks forward to, what would the people get? Suppose a change did take place; suppose this Government was put out of office and the party so imperfectly lead by the hon. gentleman at the present time was returned to power, would the people get the benefit of that beautiful policy which was announced in 1911? The hon. member says that that was a splendid, a magnificent policy, perfect in every detail, requiring no changes; and that a curse has fallen like a blanket upon the people of Canada because they did not adopt that policy in 1911.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. EDWARDS " Hear, hear?"


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: "Hear, hear" again.
Hon. gentlemen opposite, from the leader of the Opposition as well as those immediately behind him, are saying "hear, hear" from the depths of most profound ignorance.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Wesley Edwards: From the depths of most profound ignorance, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: And from the depths
of-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The expression may not be very desirable, but I do not understand that it reflects upon hon. gentlemen. I rather take it that the hon. member who has the floor is intimating that hon. gentlemen opposite are mistaken.


John Wesley Edwards: and, from the depths
not only of an ignorance profound, but

of an ignorance so profound that they do not know their own policy. They are profoundly ignorant, I say, with regard to their own policy, because the leader of the Opposition, when he spoke a few minutes ago about their policy of 1911 being the correct and proper policy for this country, entirely lost sight of the fact that the very party of which he is temporary leader, and of which he sought to be the permanent leader, in their convention at Ottawa a couple of months ago repudiated that policy in 1911 and asserted that it was not right for this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Wesley Edwards: Isn't that true?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Wesley Edwards: It is absolutely true, and I will prove it in a few minutes. In the policy of 1911 the Liberal party went on record as advocating free trade between the two countries in natural products, but affirmed that in their opinion no changes should be made in the tariff on manufactured articles. In that policy, which, according to the leader of the Opposition, was so perfect, they proposed no changes in the duties on manufactured articles except a slight change in the duty on agricultural	implements-a	change which
brought the duty down to less than the present duty on agricultural implements. That was the only change they favoured. Is that in accordance with the platform which they laid down at their convention in Ottawa in the month of August last? No, Mr. Speaker; they wanted to appeal to the residents of cities and towns. They had become aware of the fact-it had at last filtered into the grey matter of their systems -that the farmers refused in 1911 to be put up against the competition of the world in what they had to produce and sell and at the same time to be obliged to pay duty on the articles that they had to buy in order to work their land. The farmers said: " If you are going to oblige us to compete with the United States, with Argentina, with all the countries on the face of the earth, in what we produce and have to sell, we ask you to carry the proposal a step further and remove the duties on the things that we have to buy." The farmers were absolutely dissatisfied; and that has at last got into the brains of hon. gentlemen opposite. At their convention in August last, they said: Our policy in 1911 was wrong, unfair and unjust.


Willis Keith Baldwin: If the hon. member l\as at hand the platform of the National Liberal Convention, will he kindly refer to the Fielding resolution?


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman
knew before he put the question, that I had not the platform in my hand; I have nothing in my hand, not even notes. He knew, therefore, that it was safe to ask the question.
The hon. gentleman, if he has any regard for the truth-and I am sure he has-will not undertake to say, nor will any other hon. gentleman, undertake to say that the platform of 1911, boasted of by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), is the same as the platform laid down at the recent Liberal convention held in this city in the month of August. The platform lad down in 1911 was- a platform which distinctly told the manufacturers of this4 country: We will not interfere with you. And that platform did not interfere with the manufacturers1 in any particular except in the one that I mentioned, namely, agricultural implements, and then only to a very slight extent. They said to the people of Canada: You can go on under the curse and burden of protection which the Liberal party had been cursing from Dan to Beer-shaba, speaking politically, ever since there was'such a thing as a Liberal party. Talk about twistings and turnings ! The leader of the Opposition cannot follow this Government in its twistings and turnings' The leader of the Opposition in regard to twistings could hide behind a corkscrew. Twistings and turnings! The Liberal party has had as many fiscal policies in this country as there are Liberal representatives sitting behind their leader. Every man has had-a policy of his own.
The leader of the Opposition waxed indignant this afternoon over the situation created in this country because the reciprocity pact of 1911 was not' adopted, because we did not open our doors and let things pass freely between this country and the United States. Did he want to open the doors as regards coal? Has he ever wanted to open the doors as regards coal? Why, as regards coal and steel and those products which happen to pertain to his particular part of the country, the leader of the Opposition would erect a tariff as high as Hainan's gallows; you could not make it too high to suit that hon. gentleman when it touches his particular part of the country. As regards manufactured articles, one of the gentlemen who went down to Washington to negotiate this treaty was mighty particular that his special industry should not be
touched. He sat on the biscuit box, and he said: Take the tariff off what the farmer has to sell, but you must not interfere with the duty on biscuits; and so it was all along the line. The chief whip of the Liberal party (Mr. Robb) is not exactly an out-and-out free trader when his industry is touched, as I suppose hon gentlemen have frequently noticed, and the same may be said of all hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House.


An hon. MEMBER:: Paper.


John Wesley Edwards: That would apply to
another hon. gentleman who sits over there, and who is very particular when it comes to that sort of thing. Twistings and turnings ! It seems so utterly ridiculous for the leader of the Opposition to make such statements, just because his memory is getting weak in his old days and he forgets past history even though the matter dates back only a few months. It is just a couple of months since the Liberals held a convention in the city of Ottawa, just a couple of months since they said:	It is our firm
belief that you ought to reduce the duty oil cloth and to cut down the duty on boots and shoes and other articles of all kinds; it is true that is not what we said in 1911, but a new light has broken upon us since then; this is the policy which we throw to you now; just a new one, that is all, something different from our policy of 1911, just as 1911 was different from 1896 and so on throughout the political history of this country. Every election that has occurred in the Dominion of Canada from Confederation down to the present time has demonstrated this: that as regards the fiscal policy of this country, hon. gentlemen opposite are absolutely as innocent as babes,; they appear to know nothing at all about economic conditions; they appear to be absolutely unable to sense economic things and to get to the roots of them. Every time they have appealed to the people of the Dominion of Canada on a fiscal policy they have been licked, and yet they say: This Government, by waving the flag or something of that sort, has caught the people;


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: It might be better for
hon. gentlemen opposite if they waved the flag a little more, although the flag might not be in very good hands if it were in the hands of some of them. I do not know why they should be throwing this up as a reproach. If we on this side of the House have in the past seen fit to announce that

we believe in one flag, is that such a terrible thing? Do not hon. gentlemen opposite believe in that? If they do, then what is the point against us on this side? If they believe as we believe in one flag for this country, why do they not wave the flag also? If hon. gentlemen opposite could appeal to the people and make the people feel and believe that they were just as earnest for the protection of that flag as we were, we would not have anything over them in that regard.
As regards this other question, to pass away from the small things to which I have referred as indicating the personalities of hon. gentlemen opposite, and particularly the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) who, in his argument on this matter, is the campaign leader, the " pork and beans" member of this House and repfe-sentative of the people-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I think the hon. member is exceeding the hounds of Parliamentary language. If he desires to refer to an hon. member, he knows how to do so.


Francis N. McCrea: Give him a little rope and he will hang himself.


John Wesley Edwards: If I hang myself, it will not be with a " paper " cord, I will tell my hon. friend (Mr. McCrea) that. As regards trade matters, my hon, friend has hanged himself a good many times, for he has preached free trade on every article until his particular pocket had been touched, and then, he has been a very strong protectionist. I might have been more explicit; but since I have referred to " pork and beans ", I will come back to that. It is not such a very great way from wheat to pork and beans after all. I do not suppose, in view of the absolutely ridiculous statement made by the leader of the Opposition as regards the way in which this country had treated its soldiers overseas in shipping them rotten pork and beans, we should be surprised at anything the hon. gentleman says in this House.


Frank S. Cahill: That is not the subject under discussion,


John Wesley Edwards: That is what I meant when I referred to him as the " pork and beans " representative of this House. Perhaps I was not just as select in my reference as I should have been, and I apologize.


Frank S. Cahill: You are improving.


John Wesley Edwards: As regards this matter of wheat and the fixing of the price of wheat, if I remember correctly

and I think

I do-wheat was made free by this Government as passing between Canada and the United States, and I am not aware that this Government is responsible for any change in those conditions. If any change arose in those conditions which were brought about by this Government enabling Canadian farmers to ship their wheat into the United States and American farmers to ship their wheat into Canada, it was brought about, not by this Government, as was insinuated by the leader of the Opposition, but by the action of the United States itself. That is the situation as I understand it, but I want to add in regard to this matter of wheat, another word which I think is pertinent to this discussion.
I think action should be taken in this country looking towards the greater manufacturing of the wheat of Canada into flour, looking towards the exportation of Canadian flour rather than to the exportation of Canadian wheat. I think the Government should bestir itself and try to have wheat exported from Canada, not as wheat, but as flour.
I suggested some time ago in this House that I thought the Government would be justified in providing transportation and carrying flour made from Canadian wheat, to be shipped from Canadian ports, absolutely free across the ocean to Liverpool. I want to repeat that suggestion here today in all seriousness. I do so for several reasons. I believe they will be justified in adopting a policy of that kind, because, in the first place, it would have a tendency to divert the Western Canadian crop to Canadian railways. Much of it now goes over American railways and is shipped from American ports. The more of it that can be sent over Canadian railways the more we will be helping to solve the railway problem of this country, providing freight for our railways and work for our railway men and elevator men. Secondly, I believe they would be justified in encouraging wheat to be ground in Canadian mills, because that would be an encouragement to the milling industry. Thirdly, I believe they would be amply justified because if it was ground in Canada and exported in the shape of flour we would have the bran and shorts in this country which we stand very much in need of especially in the older Eastern Provinces. From the standpoint of the assistance which will be given in building up our railway lines, affording traffic to our railways and giving employment to Canadian railway men, helping our milling industry and more particularly because it would give the farmers, and especially the dairymen of Ontario, Quebec and the Mari-

time Provinces, in large quantities and at low prices, the bran and shorts which they stand so much in need of in tiheir business,
I believe this or any government would be justified in taking steps to bring about the change I suggest; that is to provide transportation which would encourage the milling of wheat in Canada and by transporting Canadian flour from Canadian ports free across the ocean to Liverpool. These are things which I think are of more importance to the people and to the interests of this country than is a consideration of why the Liberal party did not succeed in the election of 1911.
Mr. J. A. RiOBB (Qhateauguay-Hunting-don): Mr. Speaker, the debate has taken on a somewhat wide range. I do not purpose .following my hon. friend from Frontenae (Mr. Edwards') through his discussion of the duty on coal and steel when we have before us a Bill which deals primarily and only with wheat. But inasmuch as the hon. member has made a reference to certain resolutions passed at the Liberal Convention held in this city in the month of August, will the House have patience with me while I put on Hansard a resolution which was adopted at that convention? I hold in my hand a copy of the resolution on reciprocity adopted at that convention. It is as follows:
That the Reciprocity Agreement negotiated with the United States by the Liberal Government of Canada in 1911 was a measure which realized the hopes that had been entertained and efforts made for better trade relations between Canada and the neighbouring republic by the statesmen of both political parties in the Dominion from the beginning of the Dominion's history.
That the Agreemeftt was fair and just to both countries and well calculated to promote the good relations so desirable;
That the action of the Conservative party under the leadership of Mr. now Sir Robert Borden in opposing and defeating the Agreement was a sacrifice of the best interests of Canada for distinctly partisan ends.
That the insincerity of the movement of the Conservative leaders on that question has been abundantly evidenced by the fact that after coming into office they proceeded to make some of the very tariff changes a denunciation of which was their chief ground in the elections of 1911.
That the action of the Conservative leaders in preventing the consummation of so excellent an arrangement between the two countries deserves and should still receive, whenever the opportunity occurs, the severe condemnation of the Canadian people.
That the Reciprocity Agreement was approved in 1911 .by the Congress of the United States and the law giving such approval still remains on the American Statute book.
That if the proposal lately made in the Congress to repeal the said law he carried out the
people of Canada will have cause to complain, since the Americans have kept the law unimpaired for the long term of eight years during which Canada has made no move to avail herself of its provisions.
That while, for these reasons, this Convention can take no exception to the proposal so made at Washington, we as Liberals again place on record our appreciation of the object of the said Agreement and our faith in the principles of friendly international relations underlying it, and we express our earnest hope that in both countries such principles will he upheld, and that a favourable moment may come when there will be a renewed manifestation by the two Governments of a desire to make some similar arrangement.
That was the resolution adopted at the Liberal convention.


John Wesley Edwards: I would like to .ask my hon. friend a question in regard to the duties on manufactured articles. Was not the lowering of duties on manufactured articles referred to in that platform?


James Alexander Robb: As I said at the opening, the question before the House this afternoon is the question of wheat and I do not propose to be dragged into a discussion of coal, steel, or other subjects of that kind. But at some other time, or at any time, we upon this side will be prepared to discuss with hon. gentlemen opposite our attitude on the tariff as compared with the programme-the wobbling programme-of this Government which has, in fact, no programme to-day in the face of eight by-elections throughout this country.


John Wesley Edwards: I stated that the attitude of the party, of which my hon. friend is a member, in 1911 in regard to manufactured articles, was not the same as the attitude laid down in the platform in August last. Was I right or wrong in making that statement?


James Alexander Robb: In 1911 my hon. friend argued that the policy of the Liberal party was the destruction of the trade and commerce of this country. After listening this afternoon to the eloquent speech of my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce and Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster), and then subsequently listening to the speech of my hon. leader (Mr. McKenzie), I looked across the floor to see which of the western representatives upon the other side was going to give us a repetition of the speeches we heard in this House for very many years in defence of western ideals as regards the price of wheat. Those of us who have sat in this House for some years can well remember the eloquent speeches delivered by representatives of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta,

when they were urging on the Government of the day a policy of larger and widei markets with the United States. We can recall how eloquently they argued respecting the difference in prices. They told us what was the difference in the total price of a carload of wheat or barley in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta as compared with the price prevailing in Minneapolis. To-day we have an admission from the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) that there is a considerable difference in price, ranging from 40c. to 60c. a bushel, representing from four hundred to six hundred dollars on a car of a thousand bftshels of wheat; and I have perforce to ask myself now, looking across the floor of the House, where are the men who formerly advocated in this House the ideals of Western Canada? Mr. Speaker, the conclusion very obviously is that they have either taken to the woods, or are sitting in this Chamber in the condition of a certain meek and submissive creature: "As a sheep before her shearers is dumib, so he openeth not his mouth."
The Acting Prime Minister has said that wheat cannot be got into the United States. Wheat is higher in the United States to-day than in Canada, and you cannot export it into that country, and he asks the reason why. Well, I have the answer for him in an official document issued by this Government. In the first place, I have the Government's Order in Council of the 18th of August, 1919. In that Order in Council the Canadian Wheat Board is created and is given certain powers, one of which, under letter M," has for its object the prohibition of the export out of Canada or the importation into Canada of any wheat or wheat products otherwise than in accordance with the regulations and orders of the board. Now, the board were not very long in taking advantage of the powers conferred upon them, because regulation No. 36-an order from the Canadian Wheat Board, acting under the authority given them by the Order in Council says that no wheat or wheat products, shall be exported out of Canada or imported into Canada without a license or permit of the board. That is why wheat is not permitted to go into the United States to-day; but it is not a new policy on the part of this Government. The questions is asked: Why all this discussion to-day upon the question of wheat? Have we not had free wheat in this country? Did the Conservative party not give free wheat, which was the keystone of the arch of reciprocity? Yes, they did, by Order in Council on the 16th of April, 1917, 
after the western farmer had sold his crop, which was then in the hands of the millers and grain dealers. We have the evidence of honourable gentlemen who were then members of this House as to why that Order in Council was passed. There is the statement of a then member of the House representing Saskatchewan-and his remarks may be found in Hansard-that the then Solicitor General had made a trip through the West. There were prospects of an early general election, and his friends in the West had told him: "You must grant reciprocity in wheat. You must conform to the regulations of the United States tariff so that we may have free wheat and get our wheat into the United States. Otherwise, you will not be able to elect one supporter west of the Lakes." That is not my statement. It is the statement of a gentleman who was then a member of this House and is now a member of the Senate, created a senator by this Government. This Order in Council was therefore passed on the 16th of April 1917, and the general elections did take place. The Union Government was created, the Union Government party having captured the organization of both parties. I repeat, Sir, that the Union Government party had captured the organization of both parties throughout Canada, and the position of the Government was consequently fairly safe. The wheat issue was no longer a very grave one in the West, and the Government thought they might very well step in and uphold the policy they preached in 1911 and repeatedly championed in this House when resolutions demanding free wheat were introduced by representatives of the West. And so, on the 4th of December, 1917, another Order in Council was passed practically nullifying that of seven and a half months previously. That other Order in Council prohibited the export or import of wheat, so that from that day until this there has been no reciprocity in wheat between Canada and the United States. That is exactly the situation in regard to wheat, and western members may assemble in private caucus and adopt all the resolutions they like, but the fact remains that this Government, which has prevented the free movement of wheat between Canada and the United States, is in power to-day, sustained in that power by the representatives of the western provinces. Now, if the western provinces are sincere in their desire for free interchange of wheat, they can obtain that interchange by adhering to the ideals which they have enunciated and advocated repeatedly as the ideals of Western Canada.

I shall leave that phase of the subject.' I do not purpose to labour the point any further. I think that the country will admit, and indeed the Acting Prime Minister has admitted to-day, that there is no reciprocity in wheat between Canada and the United States. The minister has also admitted that wheat is higher in the United States than in * Canada, and I leave the question between him and his western supporters to settle. But there is another question in connection with this Bill that affects us in Eastern Canada very materially. I was obliged to leave the Chamber for awhile and I am not sure whether the minister made reference . to the tax of 15 cents.
iSir GEORGE FOSTER: I left those details for the Committee.


James Alexander Robb: Well, I shall still make my statement. Under the regulations of the Wheat Board all millers-not only merchant millers, but grist millers-are licensed, and the miller is made the tax collector for the Government. That is to say, any miller licensed is notified by the Canadian Wheat Board that he must collect 15 cents upon every bushel of wheat brought to him by a farmer, whether or not the farmer grows barely sufficient wheat to suffice his family, without any commercial intentions; and unless he does this his license will be cancelled. The Acting Prime Minister will not contradict that statement. Now,, what does this mean? It means that this Government, who are supposed to advocate a reduction in the cost of living and who have preached greater economy and greater production, organizing campaigns to urge the farmers to grow sufficient food for their own families with a little extra for export, are imposing upon the people a tax of from 68 to 75 cents a barrel on flour. This is exactly the position of affairs, and the Government will have to revise their arguments in defence of the Wheat Board if they intend to convince the people of Eastern Canada, who are attempting to feed their families by growing wheat on their own farms, that this is an economical administration.
Perhaps the minister will be able to make a statement that will be satisfactory to the country and we await that statement with interest. I know that the minister will say that this fifteen cents is the profit for the handling of the crop and that later the balance left in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board will be handed out to the farmers. Let us see how that is going to work out. Take a farmer who, perhaps,
, grows twenty, thirty, or fifty bushels of wheat for the use of his own family. At the
end of probably two years

because there has been no statement made yet of the handling of the 1917-18 crop, so we cannot anticipate that the 1919-20 crop will be handled any quicker-at the end of two years the millers will have to hunt up all these farmers throughout the country to give them, maybe, seventy-five cents, a dollar, or a dollar and a half, which will be at the utmost the extent of their share of the participation certificates. That is putting a generous estimate upon it, a more generous estimate than is entertained in Western Canada, because I am told by reputable western grain men that you can buy whole rafts of these participation certificates in Winnipeg to-day at two cents per bushel. That is the estimate the western farmer has with respect to the value of the participation certificate; and I hope tnat when the minister goes into detail on this subject he will be able to clear up the situation and remove some of the restrictions put upon the trade of Eastern Canada. As regards Western Canada and the price of wheat, I can only repeat, in closing, that those of us who have sat in this House for so many years and heard the eloquent appeals for larger and wider markets for the products-of the farms of the West are compelled today to believe that Western Canada has been abandoned by its. own friends.
Hon. J. D. REI'D: I would not have risen to speak on this question had it not been for the statements made by the leader of the Opposition and the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat with reference to the situation at the present time as between Canada and the United States in regard to the importation and exportation of wheat. I do not intend going back to the history of the political fight that took place in Canada in 1911 further than to say this: At that time the reciprocity agreement was proposed between the United States Government and that of the Dominion and the issue between the two parties in Canada was this: The then Opposition took the ground that if we allowed the importation of wheat and wheat products from the United States free of duty, it would interfere with the manufacturing of wheat in Canada. The wheat would probably be taken to the country to the south and the American millers would get the advantage of manufacturing there, while the American farmers would profit by the use of wheat products for fattening their cattle. Furthermore, United States wheat and wheat products would enter this country and injure our own Canadian mar-

kets. The result of the election at that time was that the people of Canada expressed the belief that the agreement as proposed by the then Government was not in the interests of this country, and accordingly the Conservative Government came into office. Now the two honourable gentlemen in question have declared that that Government had done nothing to accomplish the free interchange of wheat and wheat products between Canada and the United States. For the life of me I cannot understand the ground for that statement or why it should be said that is the law at the present time. I believe the two hon. gentlemen in question are thoroughly familiar with the provisions of the present Canadian law in force against the United States. The hon. member (Mr. Eobb) waves a paper which he holds in his hand and says that is the law. I will come to that in a few minutes. The hon. gentleman knows there was a law on the statute books of the United States whereby wheat, wheat flour, and semolina, should be admitted from Canada into that country free of duty provided we adopted a similar law here. The honourable gentleman, as well as the leader of the Opposition, knows that and both gentlemen are also aware that this Government passed a law for the free admission into Canada of wheat, wheat flour and semolina from the United States. That law was ,put into force on April 17, 1917, and is in force to-day, and the farmers of this country have had the advantage of it. In view of that fact I am unable to see why these two hon. gentlemen should make such statements as they have made here today.
Now as to the Order in Council prohibiting the exportation of wheat products to the United States. This Government gave power to a board to prohibit the exportation from or the importation into this country of the several products referred to, without a license. That is given as the reason why exportation of these products to the United States cannot now take place. Now the hon. gentleman (Mr. Eobb) must know more than he is suggesting. He must be aware that the United States Government enacted a law prohibiting importations into that country of wheat or wheat products, and that is the reason why-Canadian farmers cannot now export those products to the neighbouring republic. If the hon. gentleman was sincere why did he not give that explanation. I want to say to him that if that law was not in force in the United States a similar law would

not be in 'operation in Canada. First of all, the United States enacted that wheat, wheat flour, and semolina should be allowed into that country free of duty provided Canada would pass a similar law. When we did so the United States Government annulled the existing law and passed another statute prohibiting such importations without a license, and they will not even grant a license. Do hon. gentlemen opposite think that is a fair or right course to pursue?
With a barrier like that erected against us, nothwithstanding the fact that their tariff allows free importation, are we to sit still and let the United States take * all the products that our farmers require for feed and exclude our wheat? In passing, I may say that the reason the United States Government give for passing that law is that they guaranteed to their own people a very high price for wheat, and consequently they made up their minds that they would not allow wheat from any other country to enter the United States until they had made their own people use all their domestic wheat.


James Alexander Robb: I have quoted authority for an Order in Council passed by this Government on the 4th December, 1917, and another passed on 4th September, 1919, whereby this Government placed an embargo on the exportation of wheat to, or the importation of wheat from, the United States. Will the hon. member quote his authority from Washington?


John Dowsley Reid: I can get the information, but as the matter has come up quite unexpectedly this afternoon, it is impossible for me to furnish it to my hon. friend at once. But I want to ask him if he will say he never heard of any order issued by the American Government whereby they prohibited importation without license?


James Alexander Robb: We have had a statement from my right hon. friend, the acting Prime Minister, this afternoon that there is a small quantity of wheat going into the United States, and that wheat is from forty to sixty cents a bushel higher in the United States than in Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member on his honour as a gentleman if he ever heard of an order of that kind being issued by the United States Government. I take it for granted that if he does not answer he has heard something of such an order.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be discourteous to my hon. friend. I read in to-day's papers that the millers of Minneapolis are threatening to shut down unless restrictions against Canadian wheat are removed.


John Dowsley Reid: Then the hon. member admits that he has heard of it to-day. That law has been in force quite a long time. Might I ask him through you, Mr. Speaker, if he ever heard of an order of that kind until he read it in the newspapers to-day?


James Alexander Robb: I have a letter in this file from the Canada Food Board telling our millers that they could not export flour into the United States in quantities over twenty-five barrels. I have never had any communication from Washington in that regard.


John Dowsley Reid: I take it that the hon. member has not heard of it until to-day. But I feel, Mr. Speaker, that he has not given me a direct answer, for this reason: He states that he has had no communication from Washington. That does not answer my question at all, and I leave it just there, because I feel that any miller in Canada-I am not referring to the hon. member particularly-knows all the laws in so far as the importation and exportation of wheat is concerned. Therefore the position the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) and the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) are taking to-day is embodied in a ispeech that can be sent broadcast throughout the West to the effect that the whole trouble has arisen because this Government passed an Order in Council prohibiting the export of wheat, and that that is the reason why there is a difference of 86 cents per bushel. I want to tell the hon. member that the United States tariff allows wheat, wheat flour and semolina to enter without restriction, provided Canada makes a similar provision, that a reciprocal law has been placed on the Statute Books of Canada, and that if the United States will remove the order they issued that those articles of food shall not be imported without license, then the farmers of Western Canada can get that difference in price.


James Alexander Robb: No, because your Order in Council still exists.


John Dowsley Reid: There is not a farmer in the West or in any other part of Canada who can prove that that Order in Council interfered to the extent the hon. member has stated. I could name quite a number of other oases where the United States
Government have enacted laws, and when the time came for them to be put into effect the Government would take some means of nullifying their operation. Let us see just exactly what position the Government is in at the present time with reference to wheat and wheat products. In the West the farmers want to send their wheat across to the United States, for they want the difference in price, and I do not blame them at all; but I repeat again that it is the fault of the United States Government that that market is not available to them. All our farmers want us to keep our bran and shorts here, because they cannot possibly raise pork at the price they are getting for it if they allow those by-products of wheat to go into the United States. What are we to do? Are we to allow the United States Government to prevent any bran or shorts coming into this country? Are we to sit still and say to the United States Government: "You have issued an order preventing the byproducts from your wheat or from any wheat that we send over coming in here; but we think we should allow our byproducts to enter the United States for the benefit of your farmers." Talk about reciprocity in wheat, wheat flour and the other products of wheat! The hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, probably understands this matter better than any other member, and understanding it as well as he does, there is not any other member can go before a meeting and, if I may use the word, so completely confuse the issue that no one would understand really what it means. Therefore I believe that in putting this matter before the House to-day the hon. member has done so more particularly for the purpose of placing his views before the farmers of Western Canada in order to confuse the issue and lead them to impute to this Government the whole blame for the condition of things against which they complain.
. Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate in this debate for a short time before a decision on the resolution is reached. Unquestionably the discussion has taken a very wide range; it has launched out into the consideration of a question which was a live issue in this country nine or ten years ago. To me as a Westerner, and as a man who believed profoundly in reciprocity with the United States, and believes in it yet, the discussion has been decidedly interesting. My recollection, however, of the discussion of reciprocity in 1911 as it took place in East-

ern Canada, is that it had not very much to do with the merits of the question-I mean to say that the election was not fought on the real merits of the question. In the province of Quebec the election was fought upon issues that were as foreign to reciprocity-well, as the Mikado of Japan is to a Laplander; on issues that when the political history of this country comes to be written, will stand revealed as probably the most sordid that ever were placed before the Canadian people. In Ontario the question was not debated to any great extent; my recollection is that extraneous issues were introduced and that the judgment of the people was not at all upon the question of reciprocity. I maintain, Sir, that Western Canada to-day is in favour of reciprocity; I believe that Canada from one end of the country to the other is in favour of it, and that this would be amply demonstrated if a dispassionate verdict could be obtained from the people.
I have always been amazed-and I take this opportunity of discussing the question a little bit, since the debate has taken such a wide range-I have been amazed that the benefits of reciprocity did not appeal to the people of Ontario and Quebec more than they did. The fact that they did not appeal to them is due, as I say, to the fact that the question itself was not discussed. Two-thirds of the population of the United States lies east of a line drawn north and south through Chicago; the greater part of the population east of that line is in the New England States and in New York and Pennsylvania. Adjoining the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, therefore, we have this dense population, and here in these provinces we can produce the finest quality of butter, cheese, milk, lambs, hogs, hay- everything, in fact, that a great consuming population requires in order to maintain itself.
Mr. P. iMcGIBBON (Muskoka):	If this
subject was not discussed on its merits in Ontario or Quebec, was it so discussed in Manitoba?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The question was discussed in Manitoba.


Peter McGibbon: And what was the result?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
George Eulas Foster: The 21st, I
think.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The 21st of July. There
was very little trading in wheat upon the exchange, practically none; the trading was within very narrow limits, and yet the price of wheat went up in the short space of eight or ten days from $2.24, if my memory serves me correctly, to $2.42. What induced the market to go up? It was the result of speculative influences operating upon it. Let us bear in mind that our Canadian millers have to regulate the price of their flour upon the price they pay for wheat, and if a Canadian miller were protecting sales of flour by buying wheat on the open market, as was the legitimate custom in the past, at $2.42, he would have to raise the price of his flour correspondingly. But what would have happened, supposing the market had remained open? The price would probably have gone to $3 per bushel; and after the grain started to move, and when our private exporters in Canada found themselves up against the difficulty of selling wheat abroad, what would have happened? The price would have dropped in just as short a period of time from $3 to probably less than $2 per bushel, and you would have had a universal cry in this country, not only from farmers, but from consumers, that permission was given to speculators to come in and rig the market, and a state of disorganization would have resulted that could have been avoided only by the course the Government took.
I was rather curious why the control was asked for the period of eighteen months, and I was gratified to hear the statement from the Minister of Trade and Commerce that it was not the policy of the Government to continue this control. I take it that this period of eighteen months is asked for in order that the board may have ample time to clean up all their transactions for the present year.


George Eulas Foster: That is it. It does not anticipate nor is it meant to provide that they shall carry on active operations of control of the market for eighteen months, but it is to provide that if after the season is over, there are odds and ends which have to be fixed up, they may have that period of time in which to fix them up.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The explanation of the Minister of Trade and .Commerce quite satisfies me in that respect, and it will probably be necessary to have that length of time.
One other word. It is, of course, unknown what surplus the wheat board will have when its business is completed; but as I said a moment ago, I have complete confidence in the integrity and honour of the executive and, indeed, of the whole board. I am satisfied of this, that they will sell the Canadian wheat crop at the very highest price that can be secured in the markets of the world; that there will be careful administration of the business, and that if there is any surplus to distribute after their operations are over, every producer of wheat who holds a participation certificate, will get his share of it. The hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) referred to the fact that participation certificates were to-day being traded in at two cents per bushel, and he cited this as evidence that probably the farmers had not a great deal of confidence as to what share of surplus they would get in the final distribution. I have no doubt that.his statement is true, but I think such farmers are following a rather short-sighted course in disposing of their certificates. Of course, if a man is in a position where he requires ready money and he has participation certificates covering several thousand bushels of wheat and he can realize two or three cents a bushel upon those certificates, naturally the temptation is strong to do so; but my view, from what I know of the situation, is that the final distribution will give the Canadian farmer considerably more than two cents per bushel. These matters of control are all difficult and inevitable in a period of war, and they are inevitable for a period after such a war as we have passed through, owing to the disturbance of trade that exists throughout the world. But I hope, and I am sure we all hope that within a period of another year at any rate these restrictions may be removed, and that as time goes on the visible evidences of the aftermath of the war will disappear and we shall get back to normal conditions once more.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Was the hon. gentleman in favour of the fixation of the price of wheat in December, 1918 on the same basis as was fixed by the United States, namely, $2.26?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have no hesitation in answering that question. I was not in 
favour of a fixed .price for wheat, nor of a fixed price for wheat eiqual to that of the United States, because I thought there was the .possibility that the Canadian treasury might be called upon to make up to the farmers of Canada a very considerable difference, and I did not think the Canadian treasury should be called upon to do that. That is why I was opposed to the fixing of a price equal to that in the United 'States. But the Canadian Wheat Board, with the information that is before them, knowing the crops that have been produced in the wheat producing countries this year, knowing the quantity of wheat that will be required in Europe, have been able to determine pretty accurately to what degree the available wheat will go around. Consequently, they fixed their advance price at $2.15, because that is all it is in reality, upon a conclusion reached after an examination of all the facts, that afforded to them reasonable satisfaction that the Government would not be called upon to put up anything to implement the $2.15 per bushel price. Therefore, I think they acted with good judgment and in the best interests of the country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time. The House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-powers of Canadian Wheat Board continued for eighteen months:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister was to give us an explanation of thi-s provision.


George Eulas Foster: I will tell the Committee exactly my position in reference to the fifteen cents. I will premise what I have to say by the observation that on the Canadian Wheat Board there are three millers-Mr. W. T. Black, of the Ogilvie eastern mills; Mr. William T. Matheson, of Winnipeg, and Mr. Watts, of the Ontario Millers' Association.
Mr. MAHAiRG: Mr. Watts'is the agent for the Ontario millers.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, he represents the Ontario millers and particularly the small millers. So that there are three practical, able and experienced millers, and they have made these regulations as. being the best under all the circumstances to conserve the object and purpose and to carry out the plans of the Canadian Wheat Board. The millers are looked upon as licensees from the board, and they are required to pay in fifteen cents for every bushel that they buy. That goes to the Wheat Board

and goes into the fund for the participating tickets. These men then give a participation ticket to every person from whom they buy and the person who sells to them and from whom they buy holds that participation ticket. At the end he gets his proportion of the sale. I asked for a memorandum explaining that matter. I do not have it amongst my papers, but I will undertake to say that the Bill will not get its third reading until I have their explanation before me. I had expected to have it by now. If I were a practical miller I might know more about it, but I am not anid I have to get my information from others. It is not the purpose of the board to be over particular with the smaller millers, but they do exact this from all of the larger millers. I do not know that the millers of the eastern provinces or of the province of Quebec are being particularly disturbed with regard to the matter.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If this tax, and the board itself, are found necessary as a piece of machinery to carry on the grain trade of the West, where grain is such a substantial commodity of commerce, I have no criticism to make, I take it for granted that what was necessary was done, but what I do object to is that in the eastern provinces, such as Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, where grain is not a commercial article at all, where it is not sold or bought to any perceptible degree,* the system here proposed will apply. Thousands of farmers have a little grain of their own which they bring to the mill to be ground and which they carry back home in the shape of flour. Under this regulation they are met at the mill door with a fifteen cent tax on every bushel they bring in, they have to pay that and it means in money a tax of 75 cents a barrel on their flour. I take it that it never was the intention to apply the tax to men of that kind. The board is not for the purpose of doing anything of that kind. This whole machinery was never intended to apply to the small concerns which I have just mentioned, which are not commercial entities but which are dealing with small farmers who have wheat of their own and which they grind for their own purposes. The thing is so clear in the mind of the minister that I am sure I need not say anything more but I would ask that the necessary remedy be applied so that these farmers will not have to pay this tax. If that is brought about my purpose is accomplished.
59i


George Eulas Foster: I have communicated with the chairman of our board in reference to this particular grievance which my hon. friend has voiced. There has already been a modification. I am assured that the regulation had to be general in order to prevent abuses, but that it is not the intention to make it burdensome in the case of gristing. In that -case, however, wherever a farmer is so treated in taking his grist to the mill, the process is that -the miller who is the buyer, buys the wheat and returns the -grist. The seller, the man who brings the wheat to be ground, gets -a participation ticket and will get a refund at the -end of the transaction.


James Alexander Robb: That is quite correct but the minister must see that he has introduced; through this b-o-ard conditions that will' prove most detrimental to small grist mills-throughout Canada, not only in Quebec and in the- Maritime Provinces but in Ontario as well. I know that very -strong representations h-ave been made to Mr. Watts as representing small millers of Ontario. These regulations are going to throw the business of the country into the hands of large mills. The small miller is going to quit. He will not bother with all these details. He will not take the trouble of going through this process with his customers; he will quit that sort of work. I hope the minister will follow it up and see that a remedy is provided. There is one other point. I noticed in th-e speech made before the Winnipeg Exchange by Dr. Magi 11, the secretary of the Exchange, who was sent to England, he -states that Mr. Lloyd Harris, chairman of the Canadian Trade Mission, said that it was his duty to sell Canadian wheat to England and neutral countries. Further he said that a cable had been sent by Sir Robert Borden to the Hon. Arthur Sifton telling him among other things to sell 50,000,000 to
75,000,000 bushels of our wheat. I would like to inquire from the minister what quantity of this year's crop has been sold and, I was going ,to s-ay, at what price? Perhaps it would not be fair to -ask the price but there could not be -any objection to the minister making a -statement as to the quantity of our wheat that had already been sold.


George Eulas Foster: I am glad my hon. friend has mentioned that because I noticed -a criticism -spread widely and [DOT]broadly, not in the form of an insinuation even, but in the form of -an absolute assertion, that the Government was gambling in wheat, that, gambling in wheat it had

made its sales, that when the Winnipeg Exchange was opened the price went down, that the Government feared that it would be met with these gambler losses and that therefore it shut up the Winnipeg Exchange.
Now, what 'are called reputable papers have made that statement, and in one there is the broad headlines:	"The Crucifixion
of the Farmer." The question is therefore opportune because it allows me to nail that criticism.	.


James Alexander Robb: The minister had the papers under control at that time.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think so. Those are very late papers. The Government was intensely anxious to get market for this year's crop for the farmer. When Mr. Harris went over there as chairman of the Trade Mission he went with the idea of securing as large an export market as he could for products Canadian, and endeavoured to obtain markets for wheat as well as other products. That was particularly within his line. He was perfectly justified in doing it and was encouraged, and the contract with the Greek Government for the sale to them of about tewlve million bushels of wheat throughout the year was one which was engineered and brought, about by the Canadian Trade Mission under Mr. Harris. That is all the wheat that was sold previous to the sales made by the Canadian Wheat Board. When we were over there, and later when Mr. -Sifton went over the second time, they were in communication all the time with members of the British Government and with the wheat commission to find out if possible what proportion of our surplus Great Britain and the Allies would take. That was a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Unfortunately, we were not able, for the reasons I mentioned this afternoon, to -get any definite offer, either as to the quantity they would take or the price they would foe prepared to pay. Then came the decision of the Government, under the circumstances, to put the matter in the hands of the Wheat Board, and since it has been in their hands they have had the sole arrangements and work of trying to find an export market for our wheat. They have co-operated through and with Mr. Harris, but it is the Wheat Board as constituted here that is doing the selling. No member of the Government, and no friends of any member of the Government, so far as I know, ever undertook to gamble in wheat on the basis of the criticism which has been circulated in the West.


Donald Sutherland: Under the provisions of the Order in Council of July 31, 1919, enabling - the commission to fix the price and profit on wheat and by-products, have prices been fixed with regard to the by-products known -as -bran -and shorts? If so, what are the prices and what is the spread between the two?


George Eulas Foster: The Wheat Board have acted upon that authority and have fixed the price to the miller. They have also fixed the price of the prodiu-ots of the mill. I cannot give the figures but I can obtain them from my hon. friend.


Mr. McRENZIE:: Can the minister give me an answer to the question that is put in this tele-gram I have in my hand? I need not read it. A certain farmer in Saskatchewan wants me to ask the minister what will re-ally -be -the ultimate price of wheat to the farmer. 1 do not mean the $2.15. After distribution -and so forth what -are the prospects -as to the ultimate price?


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend will see that -it is impossible to answer that question. The surplus will be somewhere about one -hundred million bushels. Of that surplus fifty iper cent is already disposed of. It is not wise that those prices should be made public. Half of it is yet to be sold -and that sale -may continue fo-r -two, three, five or six months, and it is therefore impossible to tell what the ultimate aggregate will be of prices received. Then the matter of expenses is an indefinite thing, although it is being carefully watched by the -board. If I were a farmer and were not in a position that compelled me to take two cents now instead of twenty cents later, I would no-t sell my participation certificate for -any two cents.


Mr. MYERS :: W-as there -any difference in the condition of the world's wheat markets w-hen the grain exchange was -permitted to resume open trade and when it was closed after about two weeks' operations?


George Eulas Foster: There was, in this Tespect, that -there w-as both -a desire and a prospect that dealing -in wheat might be -put upon the old basis or something approaching the old basis. But it developed in -the latter part of the consideration of the question that with the lack of cash -and the necessity for credits, it would be impossible to carry out our business on the open plan-, When that information came to the Government it was -thoroughly considered, and it was decided that it would

be better to work the Winnipeg Exchange to a close.
Bill reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



MANUFACTURE AND IMPORTATION OF OLEOMARGARINE.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. DOHERTY moved the second reading of Bill No. 28 to permit the temporary importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada.
Frank S. Cahill: Explain.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, if it is not the intention of the minister to speak on the matter I would like to offer a few remarks rather than permit the resolution to pass without any discussion. When the Bill for this purpose was first introduced and passed about a year and a half ago as a war measure I understood that it would end with the war. Now it is proposed to extend its operation for another year and certain of its provisions until the year 1921. I doubt if the importance of this measure has as yet dawned on some members of the House. The cost of living is certainly a very troublesome question with many people, and anything that would tend to reduce that cost would naturally be welcomed. I doubt, however, whether this Bill tends to accomplish anything in that direction. On the contrary I think it is encouraging a practice in this country that should not be encouraged, something that is not honest and straight and above board. It is an endeavour to injure-I will not say destroy, because it cannot be destroyed-an old-established industry in this country, one that is founded upon a substance that nothing else can take the place of. I am satisfied that in the course of time that fact will dawn upon the people of this Dominion, indeed I believe it has already done so, because a few years ago you could buy the very best dairy or creamery butter for 30 and 35 cents per pound whereas I presume to-day it will command about 55 cents. The increase in the price of butter has not been at all comparable with the increase in the price of other food commodities and other necessaries of life. Oleomargarine has been sold, and I believe is still being sold, for about 34 and 35 cents a pound, or nearly double the price at which it has been sold for in Great Britain. Many people laboured
under the impression that with the admission of what is called a substitute for butter-but it is not at all a substitute for butter-the cost would be made so low that it would be purchased in tremendous quantities. When the resolution upon which this Bill is founded was before the House on Tuesday night, I asked for some information regarding the amount of butter that had been used by the manufacturers of oleomargarine in Canada for the purpose of incorporating into oleomargarine and rendering the stuff palatable so that they would be enabled to dispose of it. So far I have not received any information on the subject from the Government-whether they have that information or not I do not know. I am also unable to find out from them the number of manufacturers who are engaged in the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada, although I think we ought to have this information before proceeding with the present Bill. On that ground I took exception to the measure the other night, before dividing the Committee on it, but I was unable to obtain the desired information. I must say I am a little surprised that the second reading of this Bill should be proceeded with without the information in question being presented to the House.


Frank S. Cahill: It was promised by the Government.


Donald Sutherland: I do not know whether the Government promised to give that information or not, but it is quite apparent there is a strong desire on the part of many members for it. As a matter of fact, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 800,000 pounds of butter was used by one of the manufacturers of oleomargarine in Canada last year, and that is too great a quantity of butter to be wasted in trying to make palatable a commodity which is not at all acceptable to the people without the butter it contains. Where has the agitation for the use of oleomargarine arisen? I believe it originated in this very city. Resolutions on the subject have been passed by some of the women's organizations in Ottawa. Some of the prominent ladies of Ottawa have identified themselves with the movement, and their plea is that the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada should be permitted in the interest of poor people and so that the children of that class may have this nourishing food. Let me remind the ladies who were instrumental in forcing this matter upon the attention ot the Government that the children who have grown up in Canada and have made a world-

wide reputation for themselves during the war, which they did in competition with the men oi all the other nations of the world, did not grow up on oleomargarine; they were nurtured on and nourished by the pure unadulterated butter that was consumed in their homes. If hon. gentlemen would take the trouble to follow the investigations of those who have made a study and analysis of oleomargarine, and have thoroughly tested it, as many of the medical experts have, they would find it is not a substitute for butter, and that were it not for the quantity of butter incorporated into it good reason exists for doubt whether the commodity should be allowed to reach young and growing children at all. Doctor E. B. MacCallum, of Johns Hopkins University, has made a thorough investigation into oleomargarine and the results of that inquiry were published in many of the medical and scientific magazines of the country some time ago. Dr. MaoCallum, author of a notable contribution to the animal study of America, points out the effect that oleomargarine has on children and on others to whom it has been given.
He also makes a comparison between skim milk and whole milk, and emphasizes the fact that butter fat is the natural food not only for children but for the young of all animals, and that there is no substitute for it. He mentions that in the rural districts near Copenhagen, where children had been fed exclusively on a diet of separator skim mil'k, a certain eye trouble manifested itself, but that it promptly disappeared on the children being given whole milk, the disease being essentially the result of fat starvation. I am not going to discuss that feature, but I wish to call the attention of the House to the opinion given by another Canadian-born in Western Ontario-who has attained a very high position in the United States and who has been closely identified with the dairying industry there since his youth. I refer to Dr. G. L. McKay. He says:
Milk fat differs from other fats from the fact that it contains certain life-giving substances that are essential for promoting the growth of the young. The all-wise Creator has placed this substance in the milk fat of all animals. The same substance, we are told .by .prominent physiologists, is found in the leaves of some plants.
He quotes, certain, prominent medical authorities as follows:
Dr. Halliburton, the celebrated Condon writer on foods, has recently completed an important investigation of the numerous 'butter substitutes on the British market particularly with reference to the fat soluble growth factor. He found

by feeding experiments on animals that what he calls the " accessory growth substance," which is present in milk fat in great abundance, is absent from the majority of oils of vegetable origin. Nut-butter and lard substitutes are also destitute of growth substances. Dr. Halliburton states that the results of his investigations show the importance of butter as an essential pair of the diet of a nation at war. In his opinion, war imposes different standards of diet on people. In the case of children he thinks that the growth substance of fat must be supplied, and the way to accomplish this is to provide an abundance of fresh milk.
Dr. Harvey Wiley stated in a recent issue of Good Housekeeping:
As far as I am concerned, I should never gi/e my children nut margarine, oleoma rgarine, or any other margarine, as a substitute for butter. Butter contains a vital principle necessary to the growth of children which none of its substitutes possess. I should never give children nor grown persons in my family food products containing a preservative such as benzoate of soda.
These are the views of recognized medical authorities throughout .the world. Dr. MaeKay .points to the fact that nations at war demand butter rather than a substitute of this kind. And it is apparent that our soldiers when they demonstrated to the whole world what Canadians could do as fighting men, were giving the greatest possible recommendation to good, pure, wholesome butter,-a fact that should not escape the attention of hon. members to-night when it is proposed to continue a measure which apparently was drafted by those who were anxious to manufacture oleomargarine rather than by those interested in providing a real food substitute.
I may be reminded of the restrictions that have been provided to insure the purity of this compound. But do not let us forget that the men who are engaged in the manufacture of margarine admit that they cannot produce it without the incorporation of from 20 to 35 per cent of butter or milk. We had evidence before a Committee of this House last session from the manager of the Harris Abattoir company, which I believe last year manufactured about 8,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine, regarding the composition of the margarine that is manufactured in Canada. He stated that 55 per cent is oleo oil, 15 per cent is creamery butter, 15 per cent is cotton seed oil, and there is a certain percentage of neutral lard, which percentage he was unable to give. He also stated: :
This is all mixed in a mixer and reduced to a liquid and mulsifled in milk and takes on 15 per cent of the milk.
This is rather a remarkable process. The cotton seed oil and the other fats are

churned in milk to make the product palatable so that it can be disposed of. But in addition to that he said, in answer to a question which I put to him:
It is necessary to purchase this highly coloured June butter-
As hon. members are aware, the spring grass imparts a high colour to the butter manufactured at that season of the year. The witness added that this butter is purchased in immense quantities in order to give a suitable colour to this grease and so make it saleable. I put to him this question:
Is it not a fact? You realize that if it was sold without any colouring it would be unsaleable?
He replied:
It would not be so palatable, it would be like eating lard.
The largest manufacturer of oleomargarine in this country states emphatically that were it not for the deceptive colouring of the oleomargarine, even with the butter in it, to eat it is something like eating lard. This article is being sold at forty and forty-one cents a pound, according to his sworn evidence before the Committee.
This gentleman also gives some evidence with regard to the quantity of butter they were buying to be mixed with this cottonseed oil and the other ingredients. He states:
March 31st, or on the last Thursday, we always end our charges, the last Thursday in March. They are divided into dairy and creamery: dairy 1&5,0>00 pounds; creamery, 3,6'59,000 pounds. The average cost of dairy was 37.36 and the average cost of creamery was 45 cents per pound.
That is the price that was being paid by these manufacturers of oleomargarine at that time for butter to be manufactured into oleomargarine. Yet you will find people saying: Why is butter such ah unreasonable price. He states further:
But we have to buy a certain quantity in any event. Of course, we want that June butter for the oleomargarine because it is a butter witli a little colour and we need it for the oleomargarine. You know we are not allowed to put any colouring matter into the margarine, so we have to use this June butter.
I think it is well that the House should know what is going on in connection with the manufacture of margarine in Canada.
There is a wrong impression abroad with regard to the prices being obtained for milk or milk products. I have here a statement by the secretary-treasurer of one of the oldest cheese factories in Canada, established fifty years ago. I believe that the first cheese factory in Canada was established at this point, a small village called Salford. He says that the highest price producers received for imilk for the manufacture of cheese in fifty years was in 1918- $1.90 per hundred pounds. Nearly all the cheese factories in that district have now been closed up, I might say, as a result of the price of cheese having been fixed and kept down lower than other dairy produce. I have pointed out that the buttermaking branch of the dairy industry may meet with the same fate unless something is done to encourage rather than hamper and discourage those who have been endeavouring to carry on. In view of the professions that we have heard from hon. members, particularly from this side of the House, with regard to the necessity of a protective tariff in this country, I think it is a most remarkable thing that we should not only eliminate protection in respect of a certain commodity, but that we should encourage the importation into and manufacture in Canada of a deceptive counterfeit in order to destroy an old-established industry. It is little to be wondered at that many of those who are engaged in that business to-day feel that if they are to be singled out in this way; if that is the attitude of the people of Canada with regard to the business they are interested in; if they are not to receive the same treatment or the same consideration as that which is accorded to other manufacturers, then they are prepared to set their good judgment aside so far as tariff arrangements are concerned and take chances with the rest of the world.
I would like to know whether the National Dairy Council has been consulted in regard to this matter or whether they have made any protests against the continuance of this measure. This is a body which represents the dairy interests of Canada, and I believe it has an executive here in Ottawa. I mention this because I believe that the chief pressure that was brought to bear in regard to this legislation originated with certain women's organizations in Ottawa. I have remarked before, and I still believe, that there is no place in Canada where you can so quickly get out of touch with the true sentiment of the people of Canada as you can right here in Ottawa. I am firmly convinced that that is a fact. I believe that the large majority of people who live in this city are not actuated by the same objects or motives in life and have not the same incentive to exercise their own initia-

all others not so engaged. The fixing of the price of cheese closed up many cheese factories in Ontario. The oleomargarine legislation of the last session of Parliament, the Daylight Saving Bill, the fixing of an eight-hour day for labour over which the Government has control, have all seriously affected dairymen. Dairy help is not to be had in the face of a generil day's labour of from 12 to 14 hours. Such acts are hardly consistent with the policy advocated of greater production and must inevitably result in lessening the dairy output. It is not surprising that the Canadian farmer is beginning to advocate Free Trade when the actual producers of wealth in Canada are singled out and restrictions placed on them in this way. If this is to continue I can foresee very interesting times ahead for some .people. While the war was on, the privileged classes were not called upon to deny themselves ice cream, however great the need was at the front for dairy products. I do not think there is another productive and necessary industry in Canada which has been quite so difficult to carry on during the past four years as that of dairy farming. There are few indeed where the returns have been less, considering the labour involved where the same hours constitute a day as a basis of comparison. It may be said that such regulations were necessary in order to secure butter for export to Great Britain for the soldiers. This result could have been arrived at just as easily by fixing a price on a par with that prevailing elsewhere and would have been an incentive to greater production. Such general handicaps on an essential industry may well cause one to ask one's self if the very thing our soldiers are fighting abroad to destroy is not in evidence at home.
It is with deep regret that I feel called upon to pen these lines and only a keen sense, to me at least, of the doubtful wisdom of this tampering influence, causes me to do so.
Tours sincerely,
D. Sutherland.
I can foresee what the result of all these restrictions is going to be. It is going to lessen the output of what ought to be one cf the most profitable, substantial and beneficial industries of this country. ,We had before the House this afternoon a measure in regard to disposing of the Canadian wheat crop. You can produce wheat and dispose of it in that manner but a time will arrive when your land will fail to produce and you will have to turn in some other direction. There is no other branch of the agricultural industry that will enable you to carry on and maintain the fertility of your soil so well as stock farming of which dairying is one of the most important branches. It is true that you may obtain cheap lands that are rich and fertile, and you may for a time, exploit the richness that has been stored up there for centuries, but the time will quickly arrive when you will have to adopt different methods.
The effect of allowing oleomargarine to come into this country, or to be manufactured, is to discourage, discredit and de-
TMr. Sutherland.!
stroy this industry. I remarked the other night that I would take no exception whatever to the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine provided it is confined to the ingredients which are supposed to be put into it and they do not use the dairy products of this country in their manufacture of this material. Do not-as was done by the Order in Council which was first passed on the recommmendation of the Food Board -permit them to incorporate butter in it, nor to incorporate milk to the extent of 15 per cent of their output in order to make it palatable, it is well known that there has been much oleomargarine that has become unfit for food and had to be destroyed as it will not keep in cold storage or elsewhere by reason of the fact that it contains matter introduced with a view to deceiving the consumer which does not mature.
I would like to call attention to the regulations which were passed and which will doubtless be referred to. Precautions have been taken to make it appear that only wholesome food was contained in oleomargarine, and clause after clause was adopted with that object in view. Subsection 10 of the regulations provides:
Oleomargarine shall not be manufactured In Canada in any premises of or connected with a butter factory.
Why should it not be permitted to be manufactured on any premises connected with a butter factory? If you permit the manufacture'rs of oleomargarine to mixbutter and incorporate it with oleomargarine, surely it is just as fair to show the same consideration to the one as the other? It provides further that no preservative except salt shall be used for oleomargarine without the written permission of the Canada Food .Board, and no person other than a. manufacturer of oleomargarine shall mix oleomargarine and butter. We are granting exclusive rights to a close corporation to acquire butter by millions of pounds or in as large quantities as they like and mix it with another substance in order to produce an article of food which they can palm off on the public yet deny this privilege to the dairymen. Reference was made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) the other night to the regulation providing that in restaurants where this butter substitute is used this fact shall be declared on a card prominently displayed and in letters of not less than an inch and a half in length. Well, some day when hon. members have a little time at their disposal they can go into some of these restaurants, and occasionally they will find a card stuck up in a place where it would fail to attract very much

attention unless one were looking for it, because letters of an inch and a half in length are not apt to strike the eye very readily in a large restaurant or dining room, and one card is all that it is necessary to display.
Now, this is not the only country that has to contend with this question. In France they prohibit the artificial coloration of oleomargarine and do not permit its sale in stores that sell butter. Yet we permit it to be put up in packages of exactly the same size as those containing the best dairy butter. Its wrappers are precisely the same, with the exception that the word " oleomargarine " is printed on the wrappers. The boxes in which this product is put up are identical in size with those used for butter, and you will find further that oleomargarine is being quoted in the newspapers in the same column in which the prices of butter appear. I do not think that this should be permitted. Oleomargarine should not be considered as a dairy product at all. If it has any merit then it should be sold on its merits and should not be disposed of in the way I have described. In Germany the mixing of butter with oleomargarine is not allowed, and the sellers are not permitted to put it up in butter shapes. It is apparent that an endeavour has been made, not only in this country but elsewhere, to get it on the market under the guise of butter and with a similar trademark. I think the Government would be well advised to revise the regulations so as to prevent the incorporating of butter into margarine. The manufacturers of this substance should not be permitted to churn it in milk and should not be in a position to deceive the people by putting it on the market in the manner contemplated in this legislation. The present law in Canada gives them too much latitude. If the Government see fit to amend the regulations so as to prohibit the incorporation of butter and milk into this commodity I will have nothing further to say on the subject, nor do I think that the dairymen of the country will raise any objections in connection with it. But so long as this legislation remains in its present form, you may rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that there will be strong objection and efforts will be put forth to obtain some redress for what at the present time can only be considered as a rank injustice to people who are deserving of better treatment and who are engaged in- a legitimate business.


John Howard Sinclair: The petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:
That due to conditions existing by the war, and the desire for the furnishing to the Allied peoples of larger quantities of Canadian butter than was formerly exported, there was admitted freely into the Dominion of Canada, as a .war measure only, a substitute for butter commonly known as Oleomargarine:
And whereas we, the undersigned, believe that Oleomargarine is an inferior product to butter, and is a poor imitation thereof, and is deficient in growth producing substances (particularly in the case of the young), and is not as nourishing to the human body as butter:
Whereas we believe that the continued use of the same would be injurious to the health of the people of this country;
And whereas it is highly essential for the welfare of Canada that a large dairy industry should be made possible in the Dominion;
And whereas we believe that the substitution of oleomargarine for butter will seriously interfere with the development of the dairy industry ;
And whereas tremendous difficulties have arisen in attempting to enforce the pure food laws in the regulation of the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in countries where this is now permitted, and great expense is being continually incurred in connection with it;
And whereas the dairy industry, properly safeguarded, will be a valuable factor in the reabsorption in civil life of a large number of returned soldiers,
We, your humble petitioners, being residents of the federal district of Antigonish and Guys-borough hereby petition that a strong representation should be made by you at the next session of the Dominion Parliament to the Government to pass legislative measures prohibiting the further importation, sale and manufacture of oleomargarine in or into the Dominion of Canada.
This petition is signed by about fifty inhabitants of that constituency, and other similar petitions have been presented to the Government. If the statements contained in this petition are true, and I do not think they will be contradicted, this Bill should not obtain the assent of the House. We have Boards of Health in Canada, and the question has been raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) as to whether this is a wholesome food to be given to our people or not, but so far as we are informed in this discussion, no attention has been given to this matter by our Boards of Health. We also have a Department of Public Health and a staff of officers attached thereto. They should have dealt with this question, and some report should have been made to Parliament as to their attitude on that important phase of it. Investigations have taken place in the United States and I understand they have resulted in the views that have been presented to the committee to-night by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland). The question of the health of the youth of the country is one of very great importance;
TMr. Sinclair. 1
it is far more important in my view than the financial side of the matter. The raising of a vigorous race of young Canadians is more important to us than the money we should have to pay to the industry that is producing butter. Some one has said: " You canot maintain an A-l empire on a C-3 population." If the use of oleomargarine among the young of the country is going to produce a poorer race of men and women, it is important that the Government should prohibit its consumption. I am not much acquainted with the article myself; I believe it has the appearance of butter of course but is not butter. There was an ingenious Connecticut Yankee once who made a lot of money by manufacturing wooden nutmegs. He thought that if he could produce an article that looked like a nutmeg and sell it cheaply the people would buy it and he would make money. He did succeed for a while in his purpose, but the people soon discovered the fraud. Now the sale of oleomargarine is not altogether as bad as that, but in my opinion it is in the same class. We are endeavouring to produce something that looks like but is not butter-it is an article inferior to it-and we are doing so for the purpose of depressing the price of the real commodity in the market. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland) during the discussion the other night referred to the fact that the use of colouring is prohibited under regulation of the Government-that the manufacturers of oleomargarine are not allowed to use colouring so as to make the article resemble butter. He also pointed out, however, that the Government have permitted the manufacturers of oleomargarine to purchase highly-coloured butter and to use it in the manufacture of their product; it served the same purpose for them and helped to produce an article which is a good imitation of butter and which can be fraudulently placed on the market and sold ito the consumer for butter.
Now, Sir, I submit, the dairy industry of Canada is a very important one, and that we should not tamper with it in any particular. There should be a thorough investigation before any step like this is attempted to make the use of oleomargarine permanent in the country. The people accepted the Act as a war measure, but the war has now been over for nearly a year, and the fact that the privilege granted during wartime is now being renewed conveys- the impression that -the Government intend to make oleomargarine an article of permanent manufacture and sale in this country.

I object especially to the indirect method of dealing with this question. I say that if the price of butter is too high we ought to deal with the matter fairly and that we should ask our Board of Commerce to investigate the price and regulate it and not endeavour to depress that price by placing upon the market an article that is acknowledged to be inferior. This measure is put forward as being in the interests of the working man. My hon. friend who introduced the Bill told us that there were people in Canada who could not afford to pay for butter at the present price and that those people were to be allowed to purchase oleomargarine. That may be true, but at the Isame time it may not be a good policy 'to adopt. It may be a better policy to raise the wages of the working man so that he and his family could have the benefit of proper food instead of providing that this cheap article should be placed on their table.
I have a suspicion, Mr. Speaker, that some of the big interests are behind this question, that Swift and Company, and some of the large meat packers, who are engaged in the production of tallow and other articles that enter into the manufacture of oleomargarine, have something to do with this question, and that they more than the Canadian consumer, are pressing it. I therefore wish to place on record my opposition to this measure and my support of the views of the hon. member for South Oxford.	'	!


John Wesley Edwards: It is very seldom that I have an opportunity to agree with anything said by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I have followed his remarks very closely and I thought for some time that I was going to be able to agree with him entirely. But before he concluded he had to get in his little dig about the big interests, rather a favourite line of argument with the hon. gentleman, something which I do not think is at all necessary to introduce into this discussion. The matter can be discussed on its .merits, and while I believe there are two sides to the question-entirely apart from the interest of those who are engaged in the manufacture of oleomargarine-I believe the Government will deal fairly with the subject in the light in which they see proper to deal with it. From my point of view I must express my concurrence with the remarks so earnestly uttered by the honourable member for South Oxford.
I think, Sir, that the time should not be extended for permitting the manufacture
and importation of margarine. I believe margarine was first made immediately following the Franco-Prussian war. There was then practically no butter to be had to meet the needs of the people of France, and this product was devised to supply the deficiency. In England, where hundreds of millions of pounds of this article have been used for many years, as also in France, the manufacture and use of margarine is hedged round by very drastic restrictions. In England, I believe, there is an absolute prohibition against the use of butter in the manufacture of oleomargarine without changing the name; if butter is incorporated the product is known as butter-ine. The United States Government have endeavoured to place restrictions about this article, but according to reports from that country they have failed. I placed on Hansard a session or two ago some figures- I regret to say I have not them at hand now -which were taken from the records of the United States, tending to show that out of hundreds of millions of .pounds of margarine used in the United States over 90 per cent was sold to the public as butter. In England and in France the Governments have also gone to great trouble in order to .prevent, as far as it was possible, the same thing occurring there. The action taken by those three governments, and also by the governments of other countries where margarine is used, is to my judgment a clear indication that they consider the article inferior to butter and something which should not be supplied to the consuming pupblic under any false pretences. The natural colour of margarine is white, and unless some artificial means is used to change the colour, of course it can always be distinguished from butter. In the United States the storekeepers will supply you with so many capsules of colouring matter according to the amount of margarine you have purchased, so that if you wish you may make it look like butter. That puts the purchaser in this position, that if he does not want his gues'ts to know they are eating margarine, he goes out into the kitchen, puts some colouring matter into the margarine until it resembles butter, and then his guests may not know that they are not eating butter.
I do not believe that this article is as good a food as butter. But the principal reasons why I object to. the further use of it in Canada are these: Our dairymen have gone to enormous expense in order to build up their dairy herds, and as a result Canadian cheese and butter have acquired a

reputation second to none in the markets of the world. I think, Sir, it is poor encouragement to those men, encouraged by the Dominion and Provincial Governments, to make that expenditure in order to procure the very best breeds of cattle and to improve their dairy herds in every respect, to force them to compete with this article called margarine. Moreover, in view of the fact that we have a tariff duty of four cents a pound on butter coming into this country, I think it is a breach of faith with our farmers and dairymen that this article should be allowed to enter free of duty and compete with their product. It is not fair play at all.
In regard to the statement made about the high price of butter, I firmly believe there is no article of food to-day that goes on any man's table, whether he is a rich or a poor man, which gives as much in food value for the money paid for it as does butter, and that the price paid by the consuming public to-day is not a high price when you consider its food value. I also believe that the price at which butter is sold is not an excessive price if the farmer or dairyman is to be encouraged to remain in business.
My hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) has said that certain restrictions have been placed upon the farmer in regard to what he produces and sells, which restrictions, to say the least, are not very encouraging to him to continue his farming or dairying operations. The action some time ago of " that man O'Connor " in fixing the price of milk-in undertaking to give a verdict before he had heard any evidence- was one knock at the farmer. This, it seems to me, is another knock. There is nothing that tends so much to keep up the fertility of the soil as dairying, and there is a large amount of money invested in the industry. We evidently have butter to>
spare, because we are exporting butter, and one of the reasons why we are forced to look overseas for a market is because of the introduction into this country of a substitute for that butter in the shape of margarine.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when this measure was first introduced it was regarded by the farmers as a war measure. Our farmers realized at the time that the introduction of margarine was not in their interest, but they accepted the situation loyally because they regarded the measure as one of the necessities imposed by war conditions. Now the war is over, at all events hostilities have ceased, and we are endeavouring to get Pack to normal.

There would be more justification for taking action with a view to reducing the price of many other articles which the people of this country have to buy than there is for permitting the continued manufacture in and importation of oleomargarine into this country, thereby lessening the profits of farmers and dairymen who are producing butter. Oleomargarine has been in use for many years in the United States and in other countries of the world. Of course, these countries are more densely populated than Canada and have a smaller rural or agricultural population than we have. But I believe that Canadian Governments were influenced by two considerations in the past in prohibiting up to a short time ago the manufacture or importation of oleomargarine. ' First, they evidently thought that margarine was not as wholesome a food as butter; second, they believed that it was incumbent upon the government of the country to give proper encouragement to the dairy interests with a view to their keeping more cattle and producing more milk. The importation and manufacture of margarine was permitted and accepted because the war was on. But the war is now over and in the interests of one of our greatest industries-an industry which has made wonderful progress in Canada, and an industry we are all proud of, the dairy industry-I do think that the time has arrived for prohibiting the further importation of this article, or its manufacture, in Canada.


Samuel William Jacobs: Suppose the price of butter became prohibitive to some people, would the hon. member then argue that oleomargarine should not be manufactured or imported into this country?


John Wesley Edwards: I do not know just what the hon. gentleman means by the price of butter becoming prohibitive. I suppose that meat at one cent a pound is prohibitive to a man who has not a cent, and the same may be said of butter at fifty or sixty cents a pound. An article of food or any other article becomes prohibitive only when the consumer has not the money with which to buy the article. I think there is no likelihood of butter becoming so scarce in Canada as not to meet the needs of the public at reasonable prices. Believing that the dairy industry should be encouraged and that dairymen should receive a price for their product which will encourage them to keep more cattle, I am opposed to the sale of oleomargarine in this country.


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, before I left for Ottawa to attend the session at the beginning of this year a number of farmers in my riding arranged an interview with me, which, of course, I was glad to give. They were engaged in dairy farming

I have done a little at it myself for eighteen years; sometimes a good deal; we milked twenty-six cows on our ranch one summer-and naturally, in a protectionist country, they thought, I suppose, that I would be friendly to what were, in a measure, my own interests. They laid their case before me, and I said: "Gentlemen, you have brought your pigs to the wrong market; I am a free trader." That is the fundamental reason for my giving a very hearty support to the measure which the Government has most sensibly introduced. There is only one thing wrong with the Bill, and that is the use of the word "temporary" in the title. I would make the importation, the manufacture and the sale of this product part of the expanding commerce of a great country, and I would make it go on just as long as anybody wanted to import it who is a Canadian and as long as anybody wanted to buy it and to eat it who is a Canadian. That is the fundamental ground upon which I support the measure.
Why, Mr. Speaker, if oleomargarine is brought into Canada, who brings it? A Canadian importer. And to whom does that importer sell it? To Canadian consumers. And yet we have hon. gentlemen in this House who would contend that this is a free country suggesting that we should prevent importers from importing and consumers from consuming. Personally, Sir, I have no sympathy with that point of view. Of course, I judge that hon. members knew that before I rose to speak. The fact of the matter is, you cannot have any real freedom under a protective tariff. We- beguile ourselves into thinking that we are free men; we are nothing of the sort. When one person, or ten persons, say to another person: "You must not spend your hardly-earned money to buy something which you want to buy," they unwarrantably interfere with the liberty of the subject. That is my fundamental objection to all protective tariffs. No one. who lives in a protective country, flatter himself and his country as he may, has yet come down to the fundamentals of freedom.
Mr. Speaker, a certain amount of fat is absolutely necessary for the proper sustenance of a healthy human being, and the nearer you get to the North Pole the more fat you need. I remember reading
in an authentic book of travel an account of the arrival of a whaler amongst the Eskimo. A little boy, as is the custom of youngsters when whalers go there, came to the side of the vessel. In these regions they not only use large quantities of fat, but they take enormous quantities at one time when they have the chance, and they store it. Nature teaches them, of course, that they need the fat and that they can store it; .and they eat it in proportions that would hurt the stomach even of the average Canadian-although the average Canadian has a pretty good, healthy .appetite about three times a day. Well, this little fellow came to the whaler; the men on board knew what he wanted, and they tried him out with some huge chunks of fat meat. With extraordinary rapidity the little fellow consumed the whole thing .and looked the happier for having done it-and then looked for more. They they tried him out with a few tallow candles that they did not need particularly, and the candles followed the chunks of fat meat. Finally they gave him a piece of soap; the soap went the same road, and the little fellow looked happiest after he had consumed the soa.p. Now, I recall that incident of travel-which is very well authenticated; it is told by Herbert Spencer in one of his books-to enforce my statement that a certain amount of fat is needed by the human being, and the more the farther north we are.
My second reason for supporting this Bill, in addition to the fundamental one with which I started out, is that although we are not so far north as the Eskimo, this is a pretty cold climate, and I should be very slow to put any obstacle in the way of our people getting a good, healthy appetite for fat, even if it is not always of the best variety. There has been some talk of consumption of oleomargarine reducing the quality of our population. I do not think it would reduce it to anything like the extent that doing without the fat altogether would.
When I listened to the hon. member for Oxford South (Mr. Sutherland) dilating on the terrible compositions that are sold as oleomargarine, I could not help having a little dread that if the consumption of material of such a nature became so great as he seemed to fear, we might produce youngsters of the kind that the TSskimo boy was. But after thinking the matter out, I consider that that is highly unlikely, although if there were anything in my hon. friend's further contention that the consumption of oleomargarine, horrible com-

pound as it is, is going to drive dairymen out of dairying and put down the whole butter and dairy industry in this country- and he went almost as far as that-then I must say that the natural conclusion is that the appetite of our people is already very considerably degraded in this matter. The stuff tastes like lard; yet my hon. friend says that Canadians are going to take to it ,so heartily that they are going to drive the dairy people out of business.


Donald Sutherland: I am sure the hon. gentleman would not like to do me an injustice. I think I made it quite clear that what I objected to was the incorporation, along with these other things that go to make up oleomargarine, of 30 per cent of milk and butter.


Michael Clark: I have no wish to misrepresent my hon. friend, but there is the fact that he gave a somewhat horrifying account of these compositions, and I jokingly expressed a fear as to the effect they might have on our people. I, of course, believe in a certain amount of oversight, not too much of it, by medical boards or any other hoards, over the food people use. Under ordinary freedom, however, people will protect themselves fairly well in civilized countries against adulteration. As a matter of fact, the oleomargarine that is sold in the old country has, I know, nothing approaching the qualities that have been represented by my hon. friend. I have a friend who was in the old country towards the end of the war for some weeks, and who was one of the better-to-do Canadians and staying with people of his own class in the old country. After he had been there -about ten days, he said: "Before I leave you, I want to congratulate you on the excellent quality of butter you are getting at this advanced period of the war." The lady of the house said: "We have not tasted butter in this house for eighteen months. What you are eating is oleomargarine." That could not have tasted like lard; I think the quality of the stuff could not have been so very bad. We all know that for weeks together the soldiers never saw butter in the trenches. The scarcity was so great that sometimes they ate large quantities of oleomargarine, and they did not seem to take any hurt; on the contrary, they canje back a pretty healthy looking -set of fellows.
The fact of the matter is that we are too selfish in this country; we look at everything from the point of view of classes, and we fail to take into consideration the case of the other fellow. I want to put in a

word for the town fellow, and I do it the more readily because I come from the country and can get all the butter I want. What is more, although I took up the business late in life, with the people I have, we make such good butter that we do not fear competition from oleomargarine. We have such a demand that we could sell ten times the quantity any day in the week -and any week in the year. That is the kind of Canadian we need, the man who produces such stuff that he does not fear competition. But what are the facts? The fact is that butter is very scarce in Canada, and there is a reason for that. It is not the fanciful reason that oleomargarine is driving people out of the dairy business. I know why dairying is becoming less in my part of the country. As soon as a man gets big enough in the farming and stock-raising business to keep enough cattle to live off his -steers, he cannot get his boys or his hired help to sit down and milk cows. That is the fact of the matter about Western- Canada. I-f a man gets big enough in the business to keep cattle so as to live off selling the beef, the boys, whether they are his own boys or hired help, rebel to -such an extent that they go out of that line of business into another which is probably better for the country -and better for themselves. They produce in a bigger way quantities of material which sell for larger prices. They make -more money and probably do more good to the industry of the country. But I repeat that butter is a scarce commodity in Canada, and the reason for that is what I have stated. We have a large country of very great resources; we have the greatest possible-facilities for young people, if they have the go in them, to get into bigger lines of business, and dairying, especially the milking, is -a very irksome game. I know, because I have done more or less of it for eighteen, years, and it is not a pleasant experience, with the thermometer at 90 degrees in the shade, to have a cow take her tail, not in the most -cleanly condition, and wipe it through both your eyes. As long as I can deal in steers, I am not going to do -any more of that than I can help. I sympathize with -the young fellows, and that is why so far as I -am concerned-and my experience is. that of scores of hundreds of men, my neighbours, all through the great cattle province of Alberta-we get out of dairying as soon as we can and produce cattle. Not only is butter scarce in this country, but as it is scarce, the price naturally is high, high at any rate compared with the price of oleomargarine. Butter being

hard to get and fat being needed in human food, and the price of oleomargarine being so much lower, I say that we men in Canada want to be just a little bigger, be prepared to stand on our own feet and let our butter fight its way by its quality, but give the town dweller a little reasonable freedom to get cheaper material if he wants to buy it as it has been introduced by Canadians for the purpose of sale.
Something was said about the big interests as the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) pointed out. Well, there are big interests in the farming and dairying business. There was a candidate on the opposite side to myself in Alberta at the last election who posed, by the way, as a great free trader for many years and who was generally a free trader; but in the first week of the active campaign of 1917 he talked exactly as the hon. member for Oxford South (Mr. Sutherland) and his supporters have done tonight, against the introduction of oleomargarine, until his opponent, whom I shall not name in this House, found out that this farmer and free trader had, fortunately for himself, made a large amount of money in real estate in Edmonton and had about $17,000, I think, invested in a dairy company in Edmonton. That little incident only shows how readily, even	a farmer	and afree	trader will fight	where	hisown interests are concerned. The successful candidate in that election naturally used this fact, and the moment he used it, it was so effective with the audiences that the farmer and free trader returned to his old faith so far as oleomargarine was concerned, because he stopped talking against oleomargarine there and then. There are interests and interests; there are interests behind the opposition to this Bill as well as possibly interests in favour of the other side of	the argument.	I want toclose	as I began by	saying that
we want to have a little reasonable consideration for other people; we want to have a little reasonable regard to the other fellow's point of view. There was a time when there were 70 or 80 percent of the people of Canada engaged in agriculture. Now there are only about 48 per cent so engaged. The majority of the people are town or urban dwellers, and I must say that so far from seeing anything to object to in the argument of those ladies -Lady Pope among the others-who were quoted by my hon. friend, I very much admire their point of view. Theirs is not a political point of view; it is not a party
point of view; it is the sympathetic attitude of women, moving in a plane of society where they can get butter, towards the poor who have to pinch and reckon about their weekly budget in the districts of our cities where they have a hard time to make ends meet and just manage to keep out of debt at the end of the year. It is a shame that we should have such conditions! in this country. With the multitude of our resources and less than two people to the square mile, everybody should be well off in Canada. Everybody should be well off and I trust that one of these days we shall have conditions under which they will be well off. That will not be; by restricting your commerce; it will not 'be by putting embargoes on all kinds of endeavour; it will not be by restricting importations, manufactures and sales'. Importations always mean exportations, manufactures and sales, and these are what we want to clear off our war debt and make us all wealthy. I am glad to have.this opportunity of supporting a really good Government measure and saying a word for the town dweller and a humble word for the substitute for butter which I understand is generally a very good one.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Speaker, I have very much pleasure in agreeing for once at least with the hon. member (Mr. M. 'Clark), who has just taken his seat. The hon. member for Red Deer is always interesting, logical and consistent. Whether we agree with him in his doctrine altogether we must agree with him on this question. I agree with him very heartily when he says that we should keep our hands off the poor man's living. We have just closed a very trying war and we are entering upon a period, in the fall of th'e year, when we expect a lot of unemployment and a great deal of hardship. I think that at this time it would be a great mistake if we did not extend to the poor man the privilege of buying a substitute for butter when he cannot afford the real article. I cannot conceive of any man buying a pound of the oleomargarine that is made in this country if he could afford to buy 'butter. I would like to have seen the Government go farther; I would like to have seen them importing into this country, if they could, the brand sold in England and which is far superior to the article sold in Canada. I myself went through a similar experience to the one referred to by the last speaker. I ate oleomargarine over there for four months before I knew the difference; I had looked upon it as one of the very choicest



brands of fresh butter. If we could get an article like that in this country for the poor man, who has to raise four or five of a family on about $2.50 or $3 a day with the present cost of living, we would do him a great service indeed.
In regard to the other branch of this argument which has been adduced by my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact, which was admitted by him, that since the introduction of oleomargarine into this country butter has not decreased, but increased, in price. As long as that condition of affairs exists I do not see any danger to the great dairying industry of this country, and I think that until the danger does appear on the horizon we should at least give the poor man a chance.	*
I must differ from my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) as to the nourishment that butter contains. I do not look upon butter as of any great value at all with reference to nourishment. Its principal use is in making bread palatable. The average person probably does not use more than an ounce of butter per day. That amount of fat could be very easily and quickly substituted if we were simply looking at the nutritive values or the heat producing properties of fat. But, as I said, I do not look upon butter as such. It is simply used upon bread to make that great staple article of our diet a little more palatable and possibly a little more digestible. I for one am very glad that the Government had the courage to extend this legislation and to give to people who are not able to buy the pure article of butter as a diet a chance to get a substitute. I would like to see a better substitute provided. I can see no reason personally why butter should not be incorporated with oleomargarine. There is a very serious and substantial objection to the reverse taking place. I do not think that butter should be adulterated by the addition of anything to it, but if you have a cheaper, more inferior article which is less in demand and if you can make it more palatable and nourishing and give it a certain amount of heat producing value for the poor man who cannot afford to get butter, I do not see why it should not be done.


George Boyce: Mr. Speaker, as one who is interested in the dairying industry I listened with great delight and pleasure to the address delivered by my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). He seemed to understand his sub-

ject very well and he gave us a good explanation in regard to the whole business. I was also pleased to hear the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), a doctor by profession, yet understanding the interests and welfare of the dairymen. I was again pleased to hear that eloquent orator from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) giving his views. Some of them were fairly good. We have heard a good deal in this House about that hon. gentleman being nearly always on the wrong side. But he was not altogether on the wrong side to-night except when he was telling you about milking twenty cows out in the cold and frost and the like of that. If he did that he must have kept a very poor dairy. In our part, the place where we milk the cows is just as warm as where you are now, and if it is not you need not attempt to keep a dairy.
I was very pleased, indeed, to hear the eloquent doctor from Muskoka (Mr. McGib-bon) giving expression to his views in regard to oleomargarine at the front.
I was surprised to learn that he was given oleomargarine at the front, because our best butter was commandeered and sent overseas in order that our men in the trenches should be supplied with a good, fresh article. What necessity, therefore, existed for oleomargarine? The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) told us of an incident in some part of the country where some one was given soap to eat. Well, I would sooner eat good, clean soap any day in preference to oleomargarine. Now, the question that is of greatest importance is this: Why should the dairymen and farmers of this country be placed at a disadvantage? What do we find in connection with any of our exhibitions? Take as an example the exhibition held in the city of Ottawa a month ago. There was a great pure food show in connection with that exhibition. But was oleomargarine to be found among any of the exhibits? Not at all. It would not be allowed inside the door, for the good reason that it is unfit for human food. I do not think that it is in the interests of any section of the country to discriminate against the farmers, and if you put hampering restrictions on the dairy industry you will certainly hurt the country to a great extent. Millions of dollars have been invested in pure bred stock, and millions in buildings erected for the housing of that stock-buildings that are a distinct credit to the country; and a very large amount of money has been expended in getting men to inspect our butter and milk in order to keep these products up to a high standard.

If we permit this spurious article to oust the genuine product we shall make a grave mistake and shall put a serious handicap upon the farmers of the country. Seventy per cent of the population formerly engaged in agriculture, whereas to-day, I believe, only thirty per cent are farmers; and it is of the utmost importance that this latter percentage shall not further decrease. We should give the farmers every possible encouragement, for as we are all aware, agriculture is the backbone of the country, and where there is not progressive agriculture you do not find success along other lines. If you want to ascertain the potentialities of a country, look at its industries. We have an important industry in agriculture and we should do everything within our power to develop it. I regret having spoken so long on this subject, but some curious things have been said and wrong views advanced in favour of this spurious article which has been largely exploited in the United States. I do not think we should spend our money on something that is undoubtedly deleterious. Would any man or woman think for a moment of giving a child this harmful product? I do not think so. The proper care of children demands the purest food, and this oleomargarine or any artificial food of a similar nature will not tend to robust health. Let our children have absolutely unadulterated butter. I hear hon. gentlemen on the other side talking about a reasonable rate in connection with butter, and I desire to say that butter is one of the most reasonably-priced articles on the market at the present time. In conclusion, I would ask hon. members this question: Would it not be better, if people cannot afford butter for a while, to do without it rather than to spend their money on something that will surely hurt them?


Mr. GUSTAVE BOYER (Vaudreuil) (translation) :: Mr. Speaker, two years ago, it was any privilege to lay on the Table a petition signed by 29,000 farmers of the province of Quebec, protesting against the importation, .sale and manufacture of oleomargarine in *this country. At the time, it was represented in this House that the importation of oleomargarine would be allowed only temporarily, to carry through the hard times of the war. Several agricultural associations in Ontario and Quebec agreed to withdraw their opposition, in views of the circumstances and the promise that was made at the time: That measure was to be in force for one year only. The time has now expir-60} 1
ed and the Government, instead of redeeming their pledge, are now trying to further extend the delay.
I do not concur in the views expressed by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) when lie insinuated, a few minutes ago that the farming community was actuated by selfish motives.
Why, for the last few years has the Dominion government, as well as the provincial, asked the farmers to speed up production, to put more land under cultivation, to raise more stock and to increase their output :n every way? To help the people of Europe. The farmers responded to that appeal frcm their leaders and the result was that all over the country of late years production increased by leaps and bounds. The position taken by the farmers to-day is altogether justified. They say: " You urged us to promote the dairying industry, to enlarge our dairy herds, to turn out more butter and more cheese. We complied with that request, and now that we have made the n -cessaiy preparations, you are allowing the s.i'e on our maket of a counterfeit article, which is being .sold in competition with that same product in the manufacture of whieft we have invested an enormous amount of labour, skill and capital".
Mr. Speaker, considerable capital is invested in the dairying industry of this country. Our dairy herds represent many millions of dollars. To feed that stock, extensive pastures are required in summer, and enormous quantities of feed and hay in winter. The value of that pasturage and of those feeding .stuffs is also very large. The production of butter and cheese represents a heavy investment on the part of those engaged in the business. The statement is sometimes made that butter is too high, that cheese is too dear. Butter is not selling too high; its price is in keeping with that of all other staple commodities. If the price of agricultural products is higher today, it is because the farmers are paying three times more for everything they have to buy.
We are called upon to fix the price of butter, the price of cheese, the price of all agricultural products, and yet no one suggests that the prices of manufactured articles *should be fixed. Why such discrimination? Why do you confine yourself to addressing the farmers and telling them: " You shall produce this and that commodity, but you shall not exact for it more than such and such price." We want you to increase your production, but we propose fixing the price at which you shall have to sell your goods."

Oleomargarine, strickly speaking is not unwholesome, and I am not prepared to deny its value as a food; I am free to admit that its consumption may be found beneficial in the household.
But the consumer should understand that when he buys a pound of butter, he is really buying a pound of butter, but when he buys a pound of margarine, oleomargarine or butterine or any other similar products, he never can tell what he is buying. To make a pound of butter, money and time are required, but in the manufacture of oleomargarine, which is mixed with various ingredients, adulteration enters to a large degree. Butter is selling now at the price it is worth, hut oleomargarine is selling for more than it is worth, .so .that the consuming public is cheated to that extent.
Farmers are appealed to and asked to increase their dairy output. I know whereof I speak, having devoted my attention to the dairy industries for several years past and I know what it costs to manufacture good butter and good cheese. We have had to conduct many a campaign, we have carried on a considerable propaganda, through the press, by means of lectures, meetings, conventions and in every possible way, in order to impress upon the minds of our farmers the benefit accruing to them from keeping on their farms more cattle and improving their dairy herds, because it has been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that without good stock, farming would be a failure. It took us four or five years to educate the farmer; we have impressed on his mind the importance of keeping the best breeds of cattle, keeping only select animals, from a well known breed and the best milk producers. In short, we have encouraged the farmer, we have induced him to tread that path, and now you are barring his progress, by putting hampering restrictions on the dairy industry, you are thwarting his hopes, his projects, in allowing those butter substitutes to be palmed off on the public. I cannot coincide in the opinion of the Government in introducing this measure. If you want to handicap the farmer, instead of giving him all the latitude required, you should make a clean breast of it.
The farmer has to pay abnormal prices for the feedstuffs which he has to buy for his stock, and for his fertilizers; the food bill of his family is growing, on account of the war having .pushed up food prices, and now you come and tell farmers "We are going to allow that butter substitute which is styled oleomargarine to enter into an unfair competition with your products.''

Not only have you allowed oleomargarine to be imported into the country, but the people who manufacture and sell this product have taken advantage of this in adulterating it by the addition of several ingredients, the result of which is that the consumer is being cheated. It has been ascertained that a mixture of butter and oleomargarine in equal proportion had been palmed off on the public as butter, so that the consumer was under the impression that he was buying butter at 60 cents or 55 cents a pound, when as a matter of fact he was only getting oleomargarine which could easily have been obtained retail on the market at from 25 to 30 cents a pound.
Margarine which is now selling on the market is waging an unjust war on butter in the matter of prices, because it is fetching just as high prices as butter, so that the consuming public who most should benefit from it are the least benefited, and here again the public is being cheated.
The Government, when they introduced this measure, two years ago, I believe, had undertaken to keep it under a strict control, and among several other regulations, it had been provided that no body could sell oleomargarine without obtaining a certificate from the Minister of Agriculture. Had those regulations been enforced, I might perhaps say that it would not have proved so injurious to the country; but when I bear in mind that, in the city of Montreal, scarcely two weeks ago, several thousand pounds of oleomargarine were seized which were being sold in the guise of butter, I wonder whether, under such circumstances, it would not he better for the consumer to pay a higher price for good butter than a little less for margarine or adulterated butter..
These are the grounds on which I oppose this measure and I intend to fight it. I will combat it on behalf of my electors, on behalf of the eight hundred agricultural societies and the 29,000 farmers of the province of Quebec who have protested, by way of petitions, against this measure being introduced. The Government then asked us to be forbearing. We have exercised forbearance. Now, the war is over, the world is making a fresh start in the various branches of industry; activity is renascent, and it is high time that the interests of the farmers should be taken into consideration and that they should not be the only class whose activities this House aims at controlling.


Samuel Francis Glass: To be consistent, I feel it incumbent upon me to take the position I took a couple of

nights ago when this matter was last before the House. We have had a very interesting statement from the hon. member for Red Deer as to the capacity of an Eskimo boy to consume certain impure fats, and he wound up by telling us that the final dose was a piece of soap. When the hon. gentleman was telling that story I was wishing he had followed it a little further and told us what effect the soap had on the boy. The hon. gentleman has pro-"claimed the principle of free trade, and because he is a free trader he thinks that is a reason why, even in the matter of foods of this character, we should consent to allow our market to be flooded with deleterious products in order that the principle he espouses may he maintained. Sir, I do not think the members of this House will altogether agree with him. When legislation on this subject was first introduced very strong expressions in opposition to it came from all parts of the country where dairying was carried on to any extent, and even amongst the consuming classes the call for it was not general. But, if I remember correctly, the outstanding reason given for the introduction of the measure at the time was the dire need of our soldiers at the front, and of Great Britain, for all the butter we could spare. As a result of that situation rationing went into force under the direction, of the Food Board, and we were restricted in the amount of butter we could consume. As a matter of fact a large quantity of butter, held in cold storage at that time, was withdrawn from the home market in order that the need of the men at the front might be supplied. I do not presume that at this stage, and at this hour of the night, I shall be able to add any new arguments to the very able presentation which has been made by my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) and others who have spoken on this subject. The hon. gentleman said, and I think rightly, that one of the very strong objections to permitting the use of oleomargarine in the country is the fact that we allow, without any restriction, a large quantity of pure butter to be mixed with it in order to make the camouflage as perfect as possible and to convince people that they are buying a really proper substitute for butter.
This is wrong because it draws into its manufacture a very large quantity of a pure food to be mingled with a spurious article in order that a lower price may be obtained from the consumer. He said that if regulations would prevent the use of butter to produce this spurious article
his objections to some extent would be overcome. One very great objection he urged, and which I believe has considerable merit, is the fact that the Act permits this oleomargarine to be put up in prints and wrapped in paper and put on the market to all appearances in the same form as butter. That I think is wrong. It seems to me that oleomargarine should be so stamped and wrapped that it cannot in any way pass for an imitation of butter.
When we were discussing this matter a few nights ago the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) in response to a query of mine, drew attention to the method of advertising in hotels and restaurants where margarine was used. A sign may be displayed in a prominent place in a hotel, in the vestibule, for instance, and yet it would not be prominent to the guests at the time. they were at their meals. I would require-hotel and restaurant keepers to advertise-on their bill of fare: "We serve margarine"' or "We serve 'butter or margarine," if they-serve butter as well. I think if their patrons had their choice they would almost invariably order butter. We have very stringent laws in order to maintain the purity of our foods, laws that are in the interests of our people, and it seems to me it ought to be made impossible to serve oleomargarine as a substitute for butter.
But the outstanding objection from my point of view, and it has been already expressed by other hon. gentlemen, is the-disturbing effect of attempted price control on the agricultural and dairy industry-of this country. I submit that if we spent as much energy in endeavouring to reduce-the price that the farmer has to pay for his stock-feed -as we have in trying to procure cheap food for the consuming public,, we would be serving a more useful purpose and one of more economic advantage to this country. An hon. gentleman has said that the price of butter, notwithstanding the use of margarine, has advanced to some-extent. I submit, Sir, that the price of butter has not advanced in proportion to its increased cost of production. Both butter -and cheese productions are declining, -and our dairying industry is at the present time in a state that should cause anxiety to this Government. I do not know -how it is to be prevented, but as a matter of fact, as I pointed out the other night, not only has the cost of production of milk increased by reason of the increased cost of feedstuffs, but to-day owing to the price that evaporating milk factories can afford to pay for milk being so -much higher-

than the cheesemaker or the butter man can afford to pay in order to compete at present prices, the milk is finding its . way to those factories, and the production of both cheese and butter is materially decreasing.
I can only say, Sir, that from all parts of my own district, which, like my hon. friend's constituency-we are from neighbouring counties-is very largely engaged in the dairying industry, I have received strong opposition to the continuance of this measure. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) is of the opinion that the Government might have gone further and made this a permanent arrangement; and I do think it was unfortunate that the Government has found it necessary to bring the subject so repeatedly before the House. It creates a disturbance in the dairying industry, and if it could be dealt with definitely so that farmers and dairymen would know where they were at, it might relieve some of the anxiety that is felt amongst them.
One hon. member referred to the small quantity of butter consumed by an individual each day. While butter is a very rich article of food, I submit that the amount that any individual or any family uses in a year is not such as to be a serious burden.
Mr. JACOBS; At 80 cents a pound?
Mr. GLASS; Even at 80 cents a pound, wages are high enough to justify the price for the proportion people use. This, Sir, seems to me very much like daylight saving. We are divided in this House to some extent into those who represent the consumers and the labouring class in the cities and those who represent the agricultural class and the producers in the country. We may talk as much as we like and have all the regulations that commissions may impose on the agricultural interests of this country, but, Sir, there is only one way by which the cost of food can become lower, and that is by increased production. That statement has been enunciated in this House time and again, and it has been publicly admitted by prominent statesmen of Great Britain. But, I submit that so far as butter is concerned, the tendency of the legislation now in question will be to restrict production rather than increase it. It is all very well to say that the price of butter has been well maintained, no doubt it has been; but notwithstanding that I say that the price of butter has not advanced in proportion to the cost of the feed which the dairymen has to buy for his stock. I do not think this legislation is in the interests of the country generally. I do not

think any large demand has come from the consuming public for its continuance, and I am going to move, seconded by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), this amendment:
That this Bill be not now read the second time, but this day six months.


Francis Henry Keefer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
say a few words in reply to the member for East Middlesex (Mr. Glass). The hon. member finds fault with the Government for bringing this subject up more than once. But this is the first time that the subject has been brought up in any way by the Government. What my hon. friend is thinking about, no doubt, is the debate which took place in 1918 when a motion was made by a private member respecting the matter, based upon the action of the Food Board in recommending the passing of an Order in Council permitting the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine. The object of that Order was not to send more butter to the troops overseas. The price of butter had risen to fifty cents or more a pound at that time and the people with smaller incomes were complaining that they were unable to purchase necessary substances containing fat. An Order was therefore passed permitting the manufacture and sale in Canada of oleomargarine, as well as its importation free of duty. If my hon. friend had seen some of the letters that came to the Food Board from people with large families and small incomes expressing their appreciation of the action of the board, I rather think that he would not, even with the price of butter as it is, endeavour to keep margarine out of this country. According to the Toronto Globe of to-day's date, the price of butter is 55 cents and of margarine 35 cents. I represent a constituency largely composed of working men and I consider it a hardship that the dairy interests should, by any such process as this, endeavour to prevent these poorer families from being able to buy what is not so much a substitute as it is a competitor of butter The amount of margarine that has been manufactured since this Order was passed is considerable. In my judgment the manu facture should not stop. Why is it that 'Canada, prior to the war and to the passing of that Order in Council, was the only country in the world, the only dairy country particularly, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of margarine." Denmark permits it; Holland, New Zealand, Australia, England, Germany, France and the United States permit it The navy uses

it, but hon. gentlemen say:	"No, it shall
not be manufactured or sold in this country." Why do they say that? I think that the dairy interests have been carefully watching this matter with a view to keeping its competitor out. The dairy interests would be perfectly justified in doing that, but I fail to see why the farmer should object to the manufacture within the country of margarine. The farmer sells the beef fats and the lard from the hog which are refined and used in the manufacture of margarine. If he cannot sell these products to that market he necessarily will have to sell them at a lower price. We have heard complaints about the farmer not being able to sell his hides outside the country; are the farmers going to ask in the same breath that they be not allowed to sell within the country the other products of the animal? It seems to be utterly illogical. I could understand that the dairy interests might not want to have margarine manufactured and sold in competition with their products, but I cannot understand why the farmer should oppose the manufacture of margarine; if he does so he interferes with his own pocket.


Donald Sutherland: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the farmer is not a dairyman?


Francis Henry Keefer: Certainly the farmer is a dairyman-that is, he sells his milk to the cheese and butter factories. If the producers do not require his milk for butter, he sells it for cheese, for condensed milk, to the co-operative factories, or anywhere else. But the demand for butter will never be interfered with by the importation, manufacture and sale of margarine except to the extent to which it is used by the poorer people who cannot afford to pay for butter. Are we going to compel these people to buy a more expensive article simply for the purpose of protecting the dairy interests? I do not think the House should be asked to do that. As I say, I fail to understand why, prior to the war, we were the only country in the world that prohibited the manufacture of this article. There must be some ulterior reason for it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. gentleman who ha.s moved the amendment (Mr. Glass), which, if passed, will destroy the Bill before the House, and those who support him have at least the merit of consistency in the position they are taking. I have gathered from the remarks of the hon. gentleman in this
Chamber and elsewhere that he believes in the principle of protection; that he believes in imposing customs tariffs on t'he implements and equipment that farmers, and particularly t)he dairy farmers, require in their industry. Consequently, in taking the position that the dairy farmer should be protected in the sale of his butter, my hon. friend is consistent. For the same reason I .am consistent in opposing the resolution that my hon. friend has moved. I believe in freedom. I believe that the farmers of this country, the dairy farmers and others, should be permitted to purchase the equipment they require for the carrying on of their industry in the cheapest possible market and that no restrictions should be thrown around the consumers in the purchase of the food they require to keep body -and soul together.
I do not share the apprehension which hon. members who are opposed to the Bill seem to entertain that this measure will work a serious hardship to the dairy industry. Our dairy industry has developed very well during the last ten or fifteen years, when we consider the development of the country; and it is only during that period that much attention has been given to it. Our cheese occupies a pre-eminent position in the markets of the world to-day, and I am eonvinced that our butter can occupy the same position. Denmark is perhaps the banner country of the world in the production of high quality butter. The Danish farmers have risen to that position and have maintained it in the face of all competition and notwithstanding the fact that oleomargarine is manufactured in and imported into Denmark. If the Danish farmer can do that, do my hon. friends contend that the Canadian farmer has less initiative, less ability or less skill in meeting similar competition? I venture to say that they will not.
If my hon. friends hope to build up an export business in butter from this country, our farmers will be compelled to build up that export business in the face of the competition of oleomargarine consumption in almost every country of the world. If they have to face this competition in Great Britain, France, United States and everywhere else where we sell our Canadian butter, surely they can stand the competition in our own home market.
I have this suggestion to offer in connection with this Bill. that it is highly important that proper provisions should be made and proper regulations framed to ensure that oleomargarine is sold

as oleomargarine and not as anything else. That is due to the public. I understand that in the regulations now governing the sale of this commodity every pound print of oleomargarine, when sold, has to be clearly and' unmistakably labelled " oleomargarine." One thing further. It is well known that oleomargarine, or whatever it may be called, is composed of several different elements. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the inspectors of the Government to see that only wholesome elements enter into the production of it; but when that is done, when the public are protected in this way, I am for the importation of oleomargarine into this country and the sale of it to the people of this country who want to use it. Let me say in conclusion, that I take that position in order to be consistent, in order that the people of this country, many of whom we know have a hard enough struggle with the present high cost of foodstuffs and the high cost of living generally, may be able to get a food that is admittedly wholesome at a cheaper price than they would probably have to pay were they restricted to the use of butter.
Amendment (Mr. Glass) negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Friday, October 10. 1919.
[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Sir GEORGE FOSTER (acting Prime Minister) moved':
That when this House adjourns on Friday the 3 0th instant it stands adjourned until Tuesday the 14th instant.
Motion agreed to.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That the recommendations contained in the second report of the special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 18, an Act to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order for Motions :
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, several requests have been received by the Department of External Affairs for copies of the correspondence which passed between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of Great Britain in reference to Canadian representation at the Peace Conference and also in reference to the signature of the Treaty on behalf of Canada andt its approval by the Canadian Parliament. In order to meet these requests, as the correspondence covers important matters relating to Canada's constitutional development, with the consent of the House, I beg to move:
That 2,000 copies of the correspondence and documents relative to the representation of Canada at the Peace Conference and to the ratification of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, this day laid upon the table of the House, be printed forthwith, and that the provisions of Rule 74 be waived.
Copies have been laid on the table of the House on different occasions and in order to have the return complete I am placing a complete copy of the correspondence on the Table. A suitable number will be printed in French.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if this is merely the correspondence that has already been brought down in reply to the request of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) or is there anything added to what was brought down on any previous occasion?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think there is only one additional document. The correspondence was brought down on two occasions. In addition there is a document setting out the basis upon which the Conference was organized and the representation of the different nations at the Conference. It was thought wise to include this as it shows the result of the representations made.


Samuel William Jacobs: What is the object of incurring this additional expense? Any person who wants a copy of this correspondence can always get it at the department, I suppose.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There are no copies in print, and as the correspondence relates to a very important phase of the constitu-

tional development) of Canada those desiring to secure copies, members of the press, jnen in our universities, public libraries *and other public or educational institutions, should be able to secure them. That is the object of having a limited number printed.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is not for election propaganda, I hope.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is it true that at the end of August last or at the beginning of September, all trains from Bancroft to Toronto, on the Canadian National Railways, were cancelled for one day because all the cars belonging to these trains were required and used for transporting crowds to Marmora, where a political picnic was organized by E. Gus Porter, M.P., Hastings, West Riding, in honour of Sir William Hearst and the Honourable T. W. McGarry?
2.	Is the Government aware that owing to this fact, Mr. R. H. Thompson, of Hybla, Ontario, was not able to reach a certain hospital in Toronto with his young daughter, who was ill and who died because she arrived at that hospital twenty-four hours too late?
3.	If so, does the Government intend to hold an immediate inquiry in this matter?


John Dowsley Reid: 1. No trains were cancelled for the purpose mentioned, but on account of shortage of equipment and motive power due to troop movement and harvest excursions and to accommodate extra traffic on the branch the time of train No. 60 was changed, due notice of which was given to the public affected thereby.
2.	No.
3.	No.


WINNIPEG GRAIN MARKET.
*Mr. JACOBS:: 1.	Were any representations made by the Canadian Bankers' Association or by any of the Canadian banks with regard to the closing of the grain market at Winnipeg, or with regard to making any arrangements for the sale of the wheat crop of Canada for the present year?
2.	If so, what banks and what representations or requests were made, and when?
3.	Were any representations made by the railway companies with regard to the closing of the grain market at Winnipeg, or with regard to making any arrangements for the sale of the wheat crop of Canada for the present year?
4.	If so, what railways and what representations or requests were made and when?
5.	Were any representations made by the flour mills with regard to the closing of the grain market at Winnipeg, or with regard to
making any arrangements for the sale of the wheat crop of Canada for the present year?
6.	If so, what flour mills and what representations or requests were made, and when?
7.	Were any representations made by the Canadian Council of Agriculture with regard to the closing of the grain market at Winnipeg or with regard to making any arrangements for the sale of the wheat crop of Canada for the present year?
8.	If so, what representations or requests were made, and when?
9.	Were any representations made by the Labour unions with regard to the closing of the grain market at Winnipeg, or with regard to making any arrangements for the sale of the wheat crop of Canada for the present year?
10.	If so, what representations or requests were made, and when?
11.	Did the Honourable Arthur Meighen, Minister of the Interior, in a public speech at Portage la Prairie, during the month of August, 1919, make any statement with regard to the matters referred to above? If. so, to what effect?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Representations were made in the latter half of July, 1919, on behalf of the Canadian banks generally, that without some effective governmental action, by way of price guarantee or otherwise, the wheat crop movement of 1919 could not be financed, by reason, of abnormal world conditions. Representations were made on behalf of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that unless effective arrangements were made for financing the crop, the necessary early movement of such crop would not be secured.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Representations were of the nature of those described in the answer to question No. 1.
4.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 3.
5.	No.
6.	No.
7.	A document, a copy of which is placed on the Table, was placed in the hands of the Government on 30th July, 1910, representing the views of the Canadian Council of Agriculture, on the subject in question, and as urging the adoption of a course on the part of the Government, substantially the same as that which actually was adopted.
8.	Answered by No. 7.
9.	No.
10.	No.
11.	Yes, the statement made by Mr. Meighen w.as to the effect set out above in the answers to questions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8.


CHAIRMAN CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD.
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Is Mr. James Stewart, who is the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, acting in

any capacity now and since his appointment as chairman of the Wheat Board for the British Government or for the Royal Commission on Cereals? If so, in what capacity is he acting1?
2.	Is Mr. Stewart now the agent for the British Government or for the Royal Commission on Cereals in the matter of buying Canadian flour for them and for the Allied Governments, and is Mr. Stewart acting for the Canadian Government as chairman of the Wheat Board in selling both Canadian wheat and Canadian flour to the British authorities and to the Allied Governments?
3.	Is Mr. Stewart a shareholder or an executive officer of any grain company, or elevator company, or companies, in Canada? If so, what are these companies?
4.	Are the companies in which Mr. Stewart is interested the same companies that were employed by the British authorities during the war, and were these companies paid by the Imperial authorities?
5.	Is British capital invested in any or all of these companies?
6.	Had Mr. Stewart any experience whatever in exporting Canadian grain prior to the war other than that of a clerk?
7.	Were there no Canadian firms owned and operated and financed by Canadians and experienced in the exporting of Canadian grain, that could have been employed by the Dominion Government to do this work?
8.	How many offices have been opened by the Wheat Board and how many employees have been engaged?


Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	The Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board is not acting, nor has he acted, for the British Government, or for the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies, since his appointment as Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The chairman is a shareholder and director of several elevator companies in Canada, such as the Federal Grain Company, State Elevator Company, Western Elevator Company, Union Grain Company, Stewart Grain Company, and so on, but for the past three years has taken no active part in the management of same.
4.	The chairman was, until the 1st of August, 1919, managing director of K. B. Stoddart & Company, which firm was employed by the British authorities to a certain extent during the war, but on his appointment to the chairmanship of the Canadian Wheat Board sold his interests in K. B. Stoddart & Company, and, furthermore, resigned from the presidency of the Wheat Export Company. Messrs. K. B. Stoddart & Company never accepted any remuneration or compensation from the Imperial authorities for their services, nor did the chairman personally receive any compensation whatsoever, his services having been given gratis during the period the Allied Govern-

ments used the services of K. B. Stoddart & Company; nor during his presidency of the Wheat Export Company. The companies in which the chairman is at present interested are not employed in any way by any government authorities.
5.	No inquiry has been made.
6.	Prior to the Allied Governments utilizing the services of K. B. Stoddart & Company this firm, of which the chairman was then the managing director, was one of the, if not the, largest grain firms in the Dominion.
7.	Under the circumstances the Government made choice of Mr. Stewart for this work.
8.	Offices have been opened at Winnipeg, Fort William, Montreal, Toronto and New York.


ALCOHOLIC CONTENT OP TANLAC.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is the Government aware of the fact that
the tonic called Tanlac, a kind of universal panacea, is, from an analysis, composed of the following ingredients:	Wine; glycerine, 1
drachm; gentian, traces; liquorice, traces; cascara; alcohol, 16.4 per cent?
2.	If so, does the Government intend to prohibit the sale of this patent medicine?
3.	If not, does the Department of Public Health or other departments intend to analyze it, in order to verify the above facts?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1. No information.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: My second question is not answered. I asked whether the Government is going to take action and I am [DOT] told the question is answered by the reply to No. 1.


George Eulas Foster: Then read the answer to No. 1.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Read No. 1! Why it merely isays "No information."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


COLONEL P. H. DEACON OP TORONTO.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Was Colonel P. H. Deacon, of Toronto, given any office of honour or emolument by, or through the medium of the President of the Privy Council after the latter entered the Government?
2.	If so, what was the office and what honour or emolument was attached to it?
3.	How much money has Colonel Deacon, or his firm, received from the Government since the President of the Privy Council took office?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Stand as an order for return.


RAILWAY TIBS AND FENCE POSTS.
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Were tenders called during the last year or so for the purchase of railway ties and fence posts to he used on the eastern division of the Canadian National Railway?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received, and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	From whom were such tenders received?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Inasmuch as the Railway 'Company has not yet contracted 'for its total requirements for this and next year, it would not be in the public interest to disclose the prices of tihe various tenders.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Answered by No. 2.


SIR HENRY DRAYTON AND THE KINGSTON CANDIDATURE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. FRANK S. C'AHILiL (Pontiac): I wish to ask the Government a question based on an item in the morning Citizen headed " Kingston will acclaim Sir Henry Drayton." The item is dated " Kingston, October 9," and goes on to say:
"There will be no contest in Kingston on October 27th to fill the vacancy in the Commons. Sir Henry Drayton will be W. F. Nickle's successor by acclamation. Ex-Mayor Hughes, Unionist, has decided to retire after hearing of benefits to Kingston through Sir Henry Drayton being the member.
I wish to ask if it is the intention to spend three and a half million dollars on the docks at Kingston, or if Mr. Hughes is to get a senatorship, or what is the benefit to accrue to Kingston by Sir Henry Drayton's elec, tion by acclamation.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Eulas Foster: With reference
to the question generally, as the authority cited seems to be the newspaper which has inserted the item; I would recommend my hon. friend to apply to thal newspaper for the grounds for making such a statement. As to the other two questions, it is altogether too large an order for the Government at the present time.


Frank S. Cahill: I do not want to take up too much time, but the item goes on to say:
Hon. Dr. Reid was here on Tuesday and the announcement was made that Sir Henry had accepted the invitation of the citizens of Kingston to be the candidate, and so on.
Therefore I presumed the Government knew of this.



PRIVILEGE-STATEMENT BY MR. M.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Michael Clark: With very great reluctance I have to detain the House one moment with regard to a matter of privilege. I was informed last evening that when I happened not to be in the House my accuracy had been impugned by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau). I have in my hand a copy of Hansard containing the speech in which that accuracy was impugned, and I propose to read to the House the passage in question.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) quoted the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier as having said: "Well, no great mistake could be made if the Grits should undertake to fight the enemy with the devil's fire."
The hon. gentleman followed the quotation by saying:
That cannot be found in the speech delivered on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne in 1906 by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
As a matter of fact it can and is to be found there. I cast no douibt upon my hon. friend's honesty in his excursions into Hansard, but those excursions were not extensive enough. There were two debates on the Address in the year 1906, and it is in the second debate in that year that those words are to ibe found just as I quoted them. They will be found on page 38 of the Hansard for 1906-7, but under the date of November 23, 1906. That was when the words were uttered. I apprehend that the month of November, 1906, was in the year 1906, so that my hon. friend was, as I say, a little impatient in his excursion into the records of Hansard and he was only one hundred per cent wrong. The hon. gentleman went On to say:
My leader asked the hon. member for Red Deer this question:
Mr. McKenzie: Would the hon. gentleman mind giving me the page of Hansard and the subject in connection with which Sir Wilfrid Laurier said he was no purist?
The hon. member for Red Deer replied:
It was in the debate on the Address in the year 1906. I have not the page, unfortunately.
Whether it is the fault of the accoustics of the Chamber or that advancing years are affecting my hearing, in perfect good faith- and I am sure the leader of the Opposition will accept my statement-I understood his query to relate to the only quotation to which II really referred in that portion of my remarks. I did not gather that he asked for another statement which I had referred

to and had not quoted. I quoted the one very carefully, having copied it froim Han. sard; the other came to me as a matter of common knowledge to members of Parliament who have sat in this House for many years. I ask my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) to accept in perfect good faith my statement that I understood him to be asking as to the previous quotation.



WAGES EARNED BY ENEMY ALIENS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel William Jacobs: I desire to ascertain if the Government has arrived at any decision with regard to the payment of wages earned by enemy aliens interned during the war and numbering about ten thousand. During the last session I was informed by the Government that these men were to receive twenty-five cents per day for their work, but it had not then been decided as to whether this sum would be set off against the cost of their upkeep or for other purposes. Inasmuch as many of these men are now being daily deported, it is important to know whether the money due will be paid.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman has put his question.


Samuel William Jacobs: Ilf you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a further question before I resume my seat, and that is as to whether the Government intends to set off the amount due to these people for upkeep -for board and lodging-or whether it is the intention to use it to pay the indebtedness due to Canadian nationals by enemy nationals.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to the question of what course has been taken as to the payment of the allowances that were made for work done, I am not in a position to answer the question at this moment, but I will make a note of it and furnish the hon. gentleman with the information later. As to the intention of paying the debts due by enemy nationals to Canadian nationals, there are provisions in the Treaty dealing with the manner in which such debts are to be arranged. Just how they would be dealt with depends upon the determination whether this country should adopt what is called the Enemy Debts Scheme, or should decline to avail itself of it. In any event I think whether by one method or another it is open to us to realize any indebtedness that may be owing by German nationals to our nationals; and it is likewise open to

us to utilize money so collected, including the result of the liquidation of the assets of German nationals in this country in payment of claims by our own nationals against those nationals. The particular method of doing that, as I have said, will depend on whether it be determined to adopt -the Enemy Debts Scheme as contained in the Treaty, or to proceed without adopting it.


Samuel William Jacobs: Do I understand that these men are being deported, and that -their money is being held back pending decision by the Government?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As regards details of
the payment of wages, as I have already told the hon. gentleman, I am not in a position to give definite information, but I will make inquiries and advise him.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY SCHEME.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the leader of the Government (Sir George Foster) that' on the 7th of this month when he was moving the second reading of Bill No. 23 I asked for certain information in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific, which he thought he would have for me when the third reading took place. When we came to the third reading he still did not have the information, but promised me that if the Bill was allowed to go through the information would be furnished. The information I ask for will be found in the first column of page 923 of Hansard. I hope the Minister of Railways can now give me -that information.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Speaker, the hon, leader of the House brought this matter to- my attention. The deputy minister prepared ,a memorandum and sent it to me yesterday to hand to the hon. leader of the Opposition, but I did not think the information was as full as it might be, and I therefore returned the memorandum to the deputy -minister to see if he could add anything further to it. I intended bringing the amended memorandum with me this afternoon-, but I overlooked it. I will either -send it to my hon. friend this evening, or hand it to him at the next meeting of the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If it is agreeable to the minister, I would prefer that he himself put the information on Hansard.


John Dowsley Reid: The only reason I suggested sending the memorandum this even-

ing was in order that the leader of the Opposition might have the information .at an early date. Of course, I cannot pat it on Hansard until Tuesday.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In that case I would like to have a copy of the memorandum, with the understanding that the minister will put the information on Hansard next Tuesday.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.



CANADIAN FISH IN ENGLAND.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Duff: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question, based on a short item in the Manchester Guardian (England), and with your permission I will read the extract before asking the question. It is headed, Free Fish from Canada, and is as follows:
While Mr. McCurdy is making great efforts particularly to reduce the price of fish, competition of a remarkable kind is being offered to the fish dealers in the east end. To-day a happy queue of women and children lined up outside of the Bast Bnd Church awaiting their turn to receive free of charge as much fish as they could comfortably bear away. It was a curious scene-women with large aprons-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I must ask the hon. member to put his question on the Order Paper in the ordinary course. There is no element of urgency in the subject matter to justify the hon. member bringing the question up on the Orders of the Day.


William Duff: I have received several telegrams from Nova Scotia requesting me to bring the matter to the notice of the Government.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member can bring the matter up by putting a question on the Order Paper in the ordinary course.


William Duff: Then I shall not be able to get an answer this session.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT, 1918 AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. MACLEAN, the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide in the proposed Act to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918 (Bill 18), now before the House, that the chairman of the commission shall be paid a salary of seven thousand dollars, and each of the other commissioners six thousand dollars; such salaries to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Samuel William Jacobs: Explain.


William Findlay Maclean: Bill No. 18, being the Bill amending the Civil Service Act, was,
as hon. gentlemen will remember, referred to the Special Committee, and one of the recommendations of that committee is to the effect that in respect of salary the members of the Civil Service Commission be placed in the position of deputy ministers, that is, that they receive $6,000 per year, with an extra allowance to the chairman. The amendment could not be pressed in the House without this resolution being first passed.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the
present salary?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: $5,000 to the commissioners and $6,000 to the chairman. This amendment would make the salaries $6,000 and $1,000 additional to the chairman.


Frank S. Cahill: We have already made provision for increasing (the number of Civil Service Commissioners; now we are increasing their salaries. The first notice on the Order Paper when we came here for this session was with respect to increasing the salaries of these commissioners. Would we lose these men if we did not increase their salaries? If not, what is the real object of this increase?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not say that we would lose the services of the commissioners if we dlid not increase their salaries. As these commissioners, under the .statute, have the same rank and status as deputy ministers, it was thought that as a matter of justice their salaries should correspond with those of the deputy ministers. Further, in view of the importance of the very extensive work which they have to do, it was thought by the Committee that it was only fair to give them the salaries mentioned in the resolution.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: How are these salaries determined? I raised the same question when the .salary of the chairman of the Board of Commerce was being determined by the House. We have a Commissioner of Taxation? What salary does he receive? If he is not paid as high a salary as that which is mentioned here, why not? His services are of a very important and very exacting nature. Is 'there any standard that governs the compensation for services rendered by commissioners and deputy ministers, or is each case determined on its own basis?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend's question is a very wide one; I could hardly undertake to answer it at this stage. It would more properly come up when we are

considering the Bill and the amendments thereto. The duties of the members of the Civil Service Commission are very important. They are obliged' to do a good deal of work-work -that is, .to some extent at least, of a disagreeable nature. I think it is very desirable that the members of the commission should be placed in an absolutely independent position, and that Parliament should now by statute fix the salaries at the amounts proposed.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In my judgment, the Commissioner of Taxation performs very important duties-the most important performed by any one in the employ of the Government. I understand that he is in receipt of a salary which is not anything like the amount named here in respect of the Civil Service Commissioners. I do not see why the Government should not deal with him as they are proposing to deal with these commissioners.


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not think that the hon. member's remarks are in order. The resolution under consideration provides increased salaries for the Civil Service Commissioners. The rule is quite clear that the discussion should be strictly relevant to the item or resolution under discussion, The hon. member would be in order in making a comparison, but he is not justified in asking at this stage for an increase in salary for any other employee in the public service.


Michael Clark: Mr; Chairman, I do- not want to be understood as deprecating in any way the services of these commissioners; as a matter of fact, I have no doubt that they are doing a meritorious work and doing it to the best of their ability. But I think we should have a very full statement of the grounds on which Parliament is being asked to increase these salaries. An increase of salaries is the most common parliamentary experience that we have had this year-I think I am well within the bounds of accuracy when I make that statement-and a reason frequently given has been the rise in the cost of living. But that reason does not carry me very far as a member of Parliament. It is notorious, for instance, that members of Parliament are paid much too small an indemnity, but there is no question of increasing the indemnity of members of Parliament because of the cost of living. Well, I do not object. I am not asking for that increase; I assume there is good reason for not proposing it, because the cost of living is bound to come down some time. In fact, the Government

are taking very elaborate steps to bring down the cost of living. They have appointed a Board of Commerce-incidentally spending $26,000 a year in salaries for that Board-to bring down the cost of living with a bludgeon. But while they appoint a Board of 'Commerce to bring down the cost of living with a bludgeon, they. at the same time come before Parliament and ask for an increase in the salaries of these gentlemen referred to in the resolution. I repeat that we should have a full statement o>f the grounds on which these increases are asked for. There has got to be an end to this sort of thing. Everybody who feels any responsibility in connection with the financial welfare of our country is preaching economy. A couple of days ago the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) told a committee which is sitting upstairs that the financial condition of Canada, while not critical, is serious. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I were a sick man and I was told that my condition was not critical, but serious, I should not feel that I would be much worse if it was critical. My mind would be just as serious as the adjective; "serious " would be serious enough for me. We all know that the financial position of the country is very serious, and in the face of that the Government ought to give the fullest reasons for doing so when they come forward with proposals to increase salaries, not only on this occasion, but day after day. I assure the Government that the returned soldier will be watching what is happening in matters of this kind. The committee which is dealing with the reestablishment of the soldier will report and Parliament will have to take some action. We are acting as though we had oceans of money to spend and no need to exercise any care about it whatsoever; we talk economy, but we practice extravagance. I want to appeal to my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean) in this matter. I have the utmost regard for him-I think he knows it-and I want to appeal to him especially, because, when we both sat on the Opposition benches a few years ago, I cannot remember one of the excellent speeches he made as Opposition financial critic in which he did not put this need for economy at the very forefront of his remarks. I should like to have the assurance from him that that need is still in the forefront of his mind and of the mind of the Government of which he is so able and distinguished a member. I would like to have the assurance that they are really giving this matter very serious consideration, because it is by far the most important

matter that ought to occupy the mind of the people of Canada to-day.


Peter McGibbon: I do not rise to object to this proposed increase; I do not think the salaries named are excessive in any way. But II desire to point out that a few months ago we passed a Pension Bill, under which three commissioners were appointed, and that the salaries of tHfese men, at least two of whom had seen honourable service at the front, were fixed at $5,000. I think that we should be consistent. I do not believe that the Civil Service Commissioners have any more important work to do or duties to fulfil than have the pension commissioners.
We should 'have some information as to that. Comparisons, it is said are odious; but still people will make them, and if we are going to give the members of the Civil Service Cbmmission increases in salaries and not do the .same with regard to the members of the Pensions Board, which has to deal with the pensions of the five hundred thousand boys who went overseas, we are inviting criticism which we shall undoubtedly get.


Mr. BEST:: The minister told us that he wanted to place these men in an independent position. Would he tell ns if they are not already in an independent position? I can readily see that, while we might feel like placing every civil servant in Canada to-day in an independent position, yet that would cost a very great sum of money, and I do not think the country is in a position to expend such a :sum. Last year we threw away from $100,000 to $150,000, which we were asked to shove through this House in the dying hours of the session and which was thrown into the waste basket, and now we have another appropriation which we are asked to put through, and I do not know whether it will go into the waste basket or not. We should be a little more careful of the people's money which we are handling here. 'If anybody should receive an increase in salary, it is those who are drawing low salaries and not those who are receiving high salaries. There are in the Dominion of Canada to-day, many men who are quite capable of taking these positions and who would be willing to take them at $5,000 or $6,000. I am not saying that I am in favour of this increase in salary, because I am not. We are in many cases at the present time paying salaries for positions that we could well do without. What are we going to tell the people of this country when we put the soldiers in positions inferior to those in which the salary is high?


Henry Arthur Mackie: Whilst dealing with the general principles enunciated by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) and the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best), I may say that it is a notorious fact that the Dominion of Canada is underpaying its principal .men, just as it is a public shame that the judges of the Dominion of Canada should be in receipt of the small salaries that, are being paid to them. The Civil Service Commissioners are filling one of the most important positions in the Dominion to-day. They are replacing the hon. member for Red Deer; they are replacing the hon. member for Dufferin. In that they are the dictators as to who should hold positions and who should not, they decide what we were individually deciding in the past, and the work that is incumbent upon them is greater in proportion than that of any other department or of the deputy head of any department in the public service. There is a difference between them and the deputy head to-day in that, the deputy head is receiving $6,000 or more, whereas these gentlemen who have to deal with the deputy heads are being paid less. Whilst we are indeed to practice economy, and whilst members of Parliament are willing to bear the difficulties of representing their constituencies for $2,500, it is not the duty of Parliament to see that the public service shall be underpaid. It is not economy, in my opinion, that you should seek to have men perform onerous duties at a less salary than that which they are able to earn, and I heartily support the motion as being one that is reasonable and just.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There will he no disposition on my part, and, I am sure, none on the part of any hon. gentleman to refuse acquiescence to the statement of the hon. member for Red Deer. I think it will be conceded by everybody that the Government must practice economy in every possible way and must avoid, if possible, all unnecessary additions to onr public expenditure. There can be no room for argument in respect of that matter. The whole purpose of the classification of the Civil .Service is twofold. First, it puts into the hands of the Civil Service Commission the matter of employment of the Government employees, numbering 60,000. By the statute, the Civil Service Commission has become; the employe ment agency of the Government; it has to do with promotion of the employees in the public service; the members of the Civil

Service Commission are, by the Bill which will be before us shortly, given power to classify the service, to amend the classifications which they may make, and, in fact, to establish schedules of compensation which shall be received by members of the public service. This, of course, is .subject to approval by the Governor in Council. When you place upon a body of men responsibilities and duties (not at all pleasant) of this character, they should at least be placed in the same position as a deputy minister.
The position of a member of the Civil Service (Commission is certainly one of the most disagreeable positions in the public service to-day. They must, of necessity, come into conflict even with the 'Government and members of Government; they are constantly in conflict with members of Parliament, and they are more or less the subject of criticism, a great deal of which is unfair, from the public generally. Under the statute, they have the rank of deputy minister. At the last session of Parliament, I think, deputy ministers were given a salary of $6,000, instead of $5,000. The proposal is to put the members of the Civil Service Commission in that position, and I think it is better that we do that now rather than that representations should come to the Government through members of Parliament or otherwise in respect of this matter, and personally, I should like to see it closed, and, I hope, once and for all. While I admit the necessity for the strictest economy, much stricter than we have perhaps shown in the recent past, being displayed in the future, still I think the proposal is not unreasonable.


Samuel William Jacobs: Are these officials subject to the income tax?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think so. I have no information to the contrary.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister says that under the regulations these gentlemen have the rank of a deputy minister. Who decides as to the rank?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know
that I could give any other meaning than quoting the words the hon. member used, namely, that the statute says that they had the rank of a deputy minister.


John Howard Sinclair: How can a common man get into that rank?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps when the classification is before us it would be a more suitable occasion to ask about the work of the commissioners, but I suppose when we

are raising the salary of an officer of the Government, that is a proper time to ascertain what service that person is giving to the country. I fully realize what the minister says, namely that a great responsibility devolves upon these men and that they have a great deal of work to do, but last session we had in this House \^;ry interesting discussions along the line of extra charges and the bringing in of other commissioners to do their work. I would expect the commissioners to make appointments themselves. When the Government or any department of Government wants, an officer, I would expect the duty of the 'Civil (Service Commission would be to select and appoint that officer and pass him over to the department. If they do that, they are doing their work, as I understand it; they are earning their money,. But there was placed before the House last session abundant evidence that, instead of doing this work themselves, they involved an expenditure running into thousands of dollars in bringing in other people to decide for them who the men should be that should be appointed.
1 do not think that is business-like. I think the commission should decide these things for themselves; otherwise, there is an entire misunderstanding of their duties. If a man is to be appointed to the Customs Department why should not the Civil Service Commission appoint him? Instead of that, we have special commissioners from the East and the West sitting down in solemn conclave, taking evidence, examining documents and credentials, and then reporting to the commission. The last touch, I think, is given to the appointment by the commission. That is the kind of evidence that was given to us last year, and frankly I do not understand that kind of business. When a judge of the Supreme Court hears the evidence he has to decide and file his decision. Whether that decision is right or wrong he has to take the responsibility; he cannot shift it to somebody else, ask them to take the evidence, and then subscribe his name to their decision. That would not be tolerated for one moment. I do not understand why the practice should continue, if it did exist in the past, of the commissioners switching the responsibility of making appointments to somebody else. It would not be proper at this stage to go into the question of the advisability of putting this power in the hands of the commission in the first place. I suppose it is a step in advance; it is said to be, but a great deal was said in the

House the other day against the step with very much of which I agreed. I think it is an absolute impossibility for the commission to make satisfactory appointments to the Civil Service all over the country. But that is apart from this matter. I should like to know upon what principle the commission shifts the responsibility of making a selection among applicants to outside agencies.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If the facts were actually as stated by the leader of the Opposition, his objection would have some foundation, but as a matter of fact, except in a few instances, the Civil Service Commission makes all the appointments. The commission does not call in any outside help in the case of an appointment to the Customs or Post Office Departments, but a board is sometimes appointed to advise the commission in the selection of an applicant for a technical position requiring technical knowledge. This practice exists in Great Britain and in the United States, and I' do not see how it can intelligently be avoided.
Suppose there are a hundred applicants for a position in the Geological Survey, all of whom have been trained in geology, I think it would be too much to expect the commission to have such a wide range of knowledge as would enable them to determine the most competent man among all those applicants. I am sure'the leader of the Opposition must have been misinformed if he imagines for one moment that the Civil Service Commission delegates to other people the authority given them by the statute to make appointments. It is only in a few rare cases such as I have indicated that outside help is called in. I trust with this explanation my hon. friend will not press that point further.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would remind the
minister of the discussion that took place in this House last session, led off by the hon. member for Frontenac and backed up by the hon. member for West Toronto, in which certain cases were specifically referred to and names given, I believe. The appointment was mentioned, for instance, of a man to do Government advertising in newspapers and periodicals. Surely a capable commission, with all the testimonials before them, could select a man for that purpose. If not, it is hopeless to trust them to do anything. In that case, however, they called to their assistance two newspaper men, whose names were given to the House,
the editor of the Ottawa Journal, and the then editor of The Toronto Times-two respectable men, but what special knowledge would they have of a stranger's special -qualifications for this work? Other similar cases were mentioned. Certainly no highly technical scientific knowledge was required for that position. Although it might be said that a man who. was going around the country picking out the best newspapers, the best Tory newspapers, of course, in which to advertise some business of the Government was scientific work from the party viewpoint, I doubt whether it could be considered scientific even from that point of view. I can understand the commission calling in outside help where the position requires real scientific knowledge, but the minister has not satisfied me that the position in question was of a scientific character. I insist that it was a selection that should have'been made by the commission themselves.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has said that the commission take the responsibility of appointing postmasters. That is not the experience I have. I got a return the other day which sets forth the way in which rural postmasters are appointed, and in that return there is correspondence to the effect that the Postmaster Gen-4 p.m. eral has the last say in the appointment of rural postmasters. I would think the Post Office Inspector would be the best man to make the appointment. It is impossible for the Civil Service Commission sitting at Ottawa to know who is the best man; they must take advice from somebody, and they do take advice from some outside source. It would be impossible for the commission to do anything else. They do not know the different applicants, but it has been the experience of most of us on this side of the House that it is friends of the Government who are appointed to these rural postmasterships. Why is it that they do not even occasionally happen to choose a Liberal for these positions? We are all satisfied that somebody gives advice, and in the nature of things that must be so. If the Post Office Inspector of the division was given the responsibility of appointing the rural postmasters, I think he would be the best man, if the Government or the commission would throw the responsibility on him and back him up in his appointments. The inspector knows the district better than anybody else, and can locate the post office in the proper place, but he does not make the appointment. He is appealed to and gives



some advice, but he has not the final say, and as long as that is the practice, outside influence will enter into the appointment. When the minister said that the Civil Service Commission alone were responsible for_ the appointment of officials to the Post Office Department, he evidently had not appreciated what was laid before the House a few days ago.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: Does my hon. friend mean to say that the Postmaster General in this particular case recommended that certain appointments be made?


John Howard Sinclair: I moved for the correspondence between the post office inspectors, the Government and the Civil Service Commission relating to the appointment of rural postmasters. There was general correspondence and instructions given to the post office inspectors throughout the Dominion, coming chiefly from the department-some from the Civil Service Commission, but largely from the department- and that correspondence plainly said that the last word was with the Postmaster General.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think I can very safely assure my hon. friend that no matter what is in the return that is not correct. The Postmaster General is never consulted about these matters and should not be consulted. I am sure the Civil Service Commission will not permit that. It is a fact that the Civil Service Commission does consult the post office inspectors with respect to appointments in the different provinces. The Civil Service Commission must obtain knowledge from some source or other because it is quite obvious that they could not make appointments to rural post offices without some information gathered from somewhere. Accordingly they are driven to what seems the soundest course, namely, getting the advice and assistance of the post office inspector. I know that advice is frequently given by the inspector of the province from which my hon. friend comes, because the matter has on several occasions 'been brought to my attention by reason of individual cases having been mentioned in the House. Otherwise I would have no knowledge of it. I have always failed to appreciate the soundness of the objection which the leader of the Opposition makes to the commission availing itself of expert assistance when positions relate to some complicated duties. For instance, it has happened that legal men have had to be appointed to the Civil Service. In such cases, when the appointment relates to the

service in Ottawa, a member of the Exchequer Court, a member of the county court and some practising barrister are usually called in. That would seem to be a sound and businesslike procedure. I do not understand how it can be questioned. The Civil Service Commission are not bound to accept the opinion which is expressed by this board, because it must, of course, in the end accept the responsibility for the appointment. All it does is to ask that the applicants, or a certain number of them who seem to be better qualified than the others, should present themselves to this board for a test. When that is completed the Board simply .advises the Commission as to which of the applicants in its judgment is the best qualified for the position. I do not think there can possibly be any objection to that course of procedure. I think it would be unfair to prevent the Civil Service Commission, from doing this. The services are always rendered gratuitously to the Commission. Nobody has been paid for services of this kind. The .leader of the Opposition refers to ia case which was discussed at the last session of Parliament involving the question of the employment of a publicity agent. He was not required for an advertising position, which is altogether different from publicity work. Advertising is a business by itself. Persons 'spending a great deal of money in advertising secure the services of experts because they have found that if they allowed everybody to write their advertisements they would be wasting money.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I have at the present time a case in point in my own riding and I think I can commend the action of the Civil Service Commission. There is a postmaster to be appointed in my riding. There are many applicants. I am told that the post office inspector at Quebec will go down there and see those who are making application. for the position. The best man will be chosen. I think that is a propeT way to do it and I can only say that it should be recommended for the future.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would ask the minister to correct me if I have not understood his position correctly. I understood him to state that it is the duty of .the Civil Service Commission to establish the schedules of pay. I think he is not quite correct in that. That has been their duty heretofore but my understanding of their duties in the future is that they will have more to do with applying the schedules already-provided by the classification experts after these schedules have been endorsed by the

House. In that case their duties should not be so exacting, or onerous in the future as they have been in the past.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The classification of the Civil Service is not a thing that can ever end. New positions are being created and the duties and responsibilities of such new positions must be standardized. New duties may be added to the present duties involving the fresh classification of duties and responsibilities which also affects the range of salaries. Generally speaking, my hon. friend (Mr. Pedlow) is right that when the classification in the main has been adopted that part of the work should be very much less onerous upon the commission.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to emphasize what I said before, that if we are going to have efficiency, development and experience in the commission, they must do things themselves. If they are going to waive aside anything that presents a difficulty to them and call in another commission under them to decide the point for them, they will lose great opportunities of development and of acquiring experience for themselves. We know that all of us possibly prefer to call in a doctor of ten or twelve years' experience in preference to a young man who has just gone through some university and who has only had a few months' experience. Both doctors may have gone through the same course at college, but one has had ar practical experience that the other has not had. Our commissioners are never going to get practical experience if they are going to switch the responsibility to some board. What we want is a commission which will get the experience and knowledge that come from doing things themselves. They may make a mistake, and they naturally will make mistakes. Human nature is disposed to get away from difficulties and switch them to somebody else. We want them to take the responsibility of doing disagreeable things. When we take positions we must learn that we must deal with these things, face them and try to do our duty even if they are disagreeable and irksome. I would say one word particularly in view of the fact that the chairman of the commission is here to-day. I wish him to have my views at first hand. I must say that I have always had the highest regard for him both in this House and outside of it.
I wish to say in his hearing that it is always a most marvellous thing to me that whenever they make any appointment in the part of the country I come from they invariably strike a Tory. Once in a while it might be an accident but when accidents occur they usually happen on both sides of the political fence, and right and left. If this is an accident it is a continuous accident in only one direction. I would have a great deal more regard for the commission and their friends if I found that sometimes they made a mistake and appointed a Liberal to a position. While they continue persistently selecting Tories I can only come to the conclusion that we have the same old Tory machine and the same old system of patronage, and that the commission is merely an instrument in the hands of the other patronage machines.
Resolution read the first and second time, concurred in, and referred to Committee of the Whole to be considered in connection with Bill No. 18.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT (1918) AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean, the House went Committee on Bill No. 18 to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, as reported by the Special Committee, with amendments, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 3-appointment of commissioners; salaries to be paid.
William Findlay Maclean: I wish to move
that 2 (a) be added as a new paragraph:
2 (a) Subsection 3 of section 3 of the said Act is amended by substituting the word " seven " for the word " six " in line three thereof, and the word " six ' for the word " five " in line four thereof.
This is the principle involved in the resolution we were just discussing and which has passed Committee of the Whole.
*Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-examinations and appointments.


Georges Henri Boivin: Clause 8 lias been
further amended by adding as a new paragraph (38 a) the following:
The provisions of this Act shall not apply to positions in connection with the Government railways or any railway owned and controlled by His Majesty, or to any position or any ship of His Majesty until the Governor in Council otherwise directs; and the Governor in Council shall have power to make this Act apply in whole pr in part to any of the said positions ; and in- any case where the commission decides it is not practicable to apply this Act to any position or positions, the commission, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may make such regulations as are deemed advisable, prescribing how such position or positions are to be dealt with.''


William Findlay Maclean: That is not really a new clause at all. Clause 38 of the Act

was repealed only in part. The proviso was not repealed but it was thought better to put it back in the amendment. There is no change whatever in the clause.


Frank S. Cahill: Is it the intention of the
Government to put railway employees under the Civil Service Act?


William Findlay Maclean: Not at present. We
discussed that on many occasions in the House, and I do not see how it would be possible to do it at the present time.
If we ever decide to place the railway employees under the Civil Service Commission, I fancy that it can only take place gradually, as it will require very elaborate machinery, there being many complications in the way. But at any rate I hope there will be no ground for complaint that the manning of the government railway service is affected by political influence. Certainly so far as the Government is concerned, there is no desire to allow political influence to be a factor.


John Howard Sinclair: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, there will be more political influence exercised through the commission than there would be if you allowed the managers of the road to make the necessary appointments. I have great faith in the man who has men under him being made responsible for their appointment and conduct. If we undertake to put the railway employees, fifty or sixty thousand of them, under the Civil Service Commission, we will be making a great mistake. I am firmly convinced that the proper policy is to give the district superintendent instructions tha-t the department will stand by him when he makes appointments, and that no one will be allowed to interfere. That is the way in which commercial enterprises are conducted, and that is the only way to run our railways. I am sorry to hear the minister suggest that the business might be brought to Ottawa and dealt with here.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, I did not intend to suggest the possibility of such ever being the case as far as my view is concerned. I think it is an absolute impossibility. I merely endeavoured to say, in answer to my hon. friend's question, that if that condition ever came about, it could only be after a considerable time and the establishment of very elaborate machinery >to carry it out. Personally, I do not see how it could be carried out. In fact, having said that, there is nothing further to add.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suppose the appointment of men on the railways has very little to do with what is under consideration now, but incidental reference is made to it here. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) is not in his seat, but I trust the leader of the Government (Sir George Foster) or the minister who has charge of this Bill, may tell us why on that important section of the Intercolonial railways east of the Straits of Canso the old patronage system is still in force. I received a letter from the Minister of Railways some time ago saying that that system was not in force, and I sent a copy of his letter to eveiy section foreman in my district. But I received a reply from them that they had never received any instructions to the contrary, and they paid no attention to the minister's letter to me. Their answer to any Liberal who says that this should not be the case because the Government has no patronage now is this: "We have had our instructions long ago to employ supporters of the Government, and supporters of the Government only, and we care not what is in the air, those are our instructions, and until we receive instructions to the contrary, we are going to stand by them." We have repeatr edly brought this condition of things to the notice of the minister, but, so far as I know, he has never instructed those under him to tell those foremen that any man who was willing to do an honest day's work was entitled to do that work on the Government railway regardless of his politics. When a man is willing to take a pick and shovel and work hard on the railway, his politics should not count. But sad to say that is the condition in that part of the country- an applicant for a job must be a supporter of the Government or he will be turned away. I respectfully wish to bring this condition of affairs to the notice of the Minister of Railwajrs so that he may take whatever steps may be deemed advisable to remedy, it, and let the foremen have a free hand to employ anyobdy they think capable regardless of what his politics may be.


Georges Henri Boivin: I did not interrupt the hon. member, but this discussion is. absolutely out of order in connection with the present clause. The rule is very clear, that the subject introduced must be absolutely relevant to the clause under discussion, and I do not see how the appointment of employees on the Intercolonial has anything to do with the Bill now before the Committee.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall toe glad to convey to the Minister of Railways the remarks of the leader of the Opposition. If the facts are as he states them to toe, his criticism is perhaps well founded. However, I did hope that such conditions did not prevail in the province of Nova Scotia; in fact, I have heard complimentary remarks from supporters of my hon. friend regarding the present method of securing railway employees in that province.
On section 9-classification confirmed.- Establishment of new classes and changes.


Alfred Thompson: I have a matter that I would like to bring to the attention of the minister under section 42. It is with regard to a particular case that I brought to the attention of the committee the other day of which my hon. -friend was chairman. In order that this committe may have a clear understanding of what I have in mind, I will cite the name of the civil servant to whom I desire to refer. Edward Ernest Prince, Commissioner of Fisheries, was appointed on October 1, 1892, and his appointment was made permanent on July 1, 1895. I am quoting from the Civil Service list of 1918. Professor Prince is well known to members of this House as a scientist of note who has on many occasions represented Canada abroad. He attended an international conference held in Italy a few years ago and has many times represented Canada as Commissioner of Fisheries, which title the Civil Service List gives him. He has represented Canada iri that capacity in connection with the settlement of fisheries disputes with the United States. A few years ago he was loaned by our Government to the Government of New Zealand to go to New Zealand and classify the fish of that country, a duty which he fulfilled with credit to himself and satisfaction to the New Zealanders. So far as I can discover, this gentleman's office has been eliminated in the Classification of the Civil Service which I hold in my hand. The only position mentioned here which would be at all analogous or nearly analogous to the position Professor Prince now occupies is that of " Fisheries Specialist." The Definition of Class reads:
To make scientific investigations and carry on research work relating to fish culture and marine biology.
Professor Prince is a biologist of great ability and of world-wide repute, so 1 take it that " Fisheries Specialist " provided for in this classification constitutes the definition of class under which Professor Prince
will come if this classification is adopted. As I have said, I have appeared before the special committee and brought this case before it. It is unfair, to say the least, to this gentleman, who has occupied for so long the prominent position of Commissioner of Fisheries, that the title of that position should be abolished during his incumbency of the office. I can quite understand that if he should resign the title " Fisheries Specialist '' might be adopted, but to delete from the present classification the title " Commissioner of Fisheries " which he has held so long and so creditably is, I submit, unjust. I am glad to note from the amendment submitted by the minister that the Civil Service Commission is to be given power to rectify such oversights as this; for I take it that it is an oversight. My request to the minister, and through him to the Civil Service Commission, is simply that the position of Commissioner of Fisheries be retained in this classification. I am not now asking, nor did I ask before the committee, that Professor Prince be given any higher salary now or in the future. I am asking-and I am in the judgment of the Committee when I ask it-that the present designation of the status of Professor Prince be retained.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am disposed to agree with my hon. friend that the title attaching to the position held by Professor Prince, namely, Commissioner of Fisheries, should not be changed, or that if it is changed he should not be called "Fisheries Specialist" when reference is made to him or to his position in departmental matters. I do not think that there is really any intention of so doing. In any case, I am impressed by the remarks made by my hon. friend and I shall be very glad to communicate my views on the subject to the department.
I move that in section 42 the words "rank or ranks" be substituted for the words "grade" or "grades" wherever they appear. That is the term used in the classification.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: May I ask the minister to leave in the word "grades" as well as the word "ranks"? There is a particular reason why that should be done. In the classification certain grades are referred to in certain classes; I am .thinking particularly of postmasters.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is, certain ranks.


William Garland McQuarrie: Well, there are grades too-Grade 1 to Grade 8. It is proposed, I understand-in fact, it was agreed in the

Committee-that Grade 3 should be divided into two grades.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Chairman, this matter was not put before me in time to enable me to give it consideration, and I therefore desire to withdraw the amendment. I do not want to confuse the Committee in the matter.
Amendment withdrawn.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I have received a number of communications with regard to this classification; I have no doubt that every member of the House has received similar communications. I want to place them before the minister in some way, but it will take some time to read them.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am likely to have copies of them, .anyway; so we can take them as read.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: All right; i will see the minister personally.


William Duff: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In justice to the commission I should say that the qualifications are established by the department and not by the commission. The commission carries out the examinations after the departments have established the qualifications. I should not like to go so far as my ho-n. friend and say that the best fishery officer is the man without education, but I can quite conceive it to be true that possibly the best fishery officer might be one who had very little educational qualifications but who had the experience. I am sure that is what my hon. friend meant. There is a great deal in his observation upon the point, and I wish he would communicate it to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


William Duff: I am afraid it would not do much good to communicate it to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. If the commission is not responsible for the necessary qualifications, of course, I shall apologize to the commission. But you are not going to get the best class of fishery overseers if they have to pass this^ examination, and the Department of Naval Affairs, or the Department of Fisheries:, or the commission, should take some stejis to eliminate these examinations if they expect to get the best fishery overseers for the Maritime Provinces or any other province, and .1 think I know what I am speaking about when I make that statement.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I must confess that I think these qualifications might, in some cases, be abandoned altogether.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to make a few observations, in regard to the question of classification and more particularly in reference to post office inspectors. In order to make the matter more direct, let me take up the question of the post office inspector in

Nova Scotia and the railway mail superintendent. I understand that, before this classification was made, the post office inspector was a superior officer to or of a higher rank -than the railway mail superintendent, and possibly under this classification the post office inspector takes second position to or a lower position than the railway mail superintendent. That is not, I am sure, acceptable to the post office inspector in Nova Scotia, who is an official of a very high order and a very capable man, and who will not take kindly to being disrated if that be the intention of this classification. I understand, further, that this classification would give the post office inspector a smaller salary than the salaries of some postmasters in Nova Scotia.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: ll do not think that could be so, at least, not in Nova Scotia. It might be smaller than the salaries of the postmasters at Montreal and Toronto.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
John Howard Sinclair: I wish to associate myself with the statement miade by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie)
in regard to the post office inspector for Nova Scotia. I have had something to do with public affairs in Nova Scotia for a quarter of a century, and I have known this gentleman through all his official career. He is a painstaking and capable official, and the very best that could be done for him would not be too much for the department to do. I was surprised to learn that the postmaster in -the city of Halifax gets a-higher salary than the post office inspector for Nova Scotia, if that be -the case. Those of us who live in Nova Scotia know that the postmaster in the city of Halifax has had no training at all in his profession; that he knew nothing about the business of postmaster until he was 1 put in that position a few years ago, and it is not necessary for him to give it very much personal attention. In some respects it is a very easy position to fill, whereas the post office inspector has a greater responsibility and his position is much more difficult to fill than that of postmaster in any post office in the province. I trust the minister will see -that this is rectified and that the post office inspector for Nova Scotia will have not only first rank in postal matters in that province, hut the highest salary.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The fixing of salaries of officers in -the public departments is difficult to determine with scientific accuracy. In fact, that is not possible, particularly when you endeavour to have them bear the same relation to other work that might correspond to that of the particular class in mind. Under the classification as it now stands, the maximum compensation for a post office inspector in Nova Scotia is $4,020, and for the postmaster in the city of Halifax $3,300, so the inspector is given the higher salary, which perhaps is as it -should be.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do not the commissions in the post office bring the postmaster's salary up higher?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It may be that the present postmaster at Halifax is in receipt of a salary of $4,000. Under the Act, that cannot be taken away from him. The lower rate will apply only to his successor in office. In the original classification there was a higher range for the post office inspectors, and that was very satisfactory to all the post office inspectors throughout the Dominion, hut a reduction has been made in the- amended classification in order to bring about the proper relationship between the salaries of

the different officials in the postal service, railway mail superintendents, post office inspectors, and so on. It is not an easy matter to measure correctly the relative degree of responsibility of the different positions and the compensations that should be attached to each. However, the matter has not been fully determined, but will be before the Civil Service Commissioners during the next few months. I am sure that this and all other matters will have their careful attention and the very best possible consideration.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I was glad to hear the minister say that the salaries of the post office inspectors had not yet been definitely settled, because it was not intended by section 9 of Bill 53, to which I had occasion to refer at another time, that the salaries of any officers should be reduced, but that they should continue to draw the salaries to which they are at present entitled. Speaking generally, I think we are somewhat blest in this country by having a good class of post office inspectors. I need not go as far as the province of Nova Scotia, although I have no doubt the post office inspectors there are of the same high class. Judging by the debate, both sides of the House seem to agree that any appointment in Nova Scotia is all right, and I have no doubt that no Scotchman could be appointed who would not fill the bill. Respecting other provinces, with which I am more familiar, it seems to me, and I commend this to the minister's attention and through him to the commission, that it would not be fair to interfere with the salary of the post office inspectors unless it be to give them the increase to which they are entitled in order that we may haye the most effective service possible.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: The condition mentioned
by my hon. friends from Nova Scotia is one that obtains throughout the Dominion. There is a good deal of heartburning over the disparity between the remuneration of the different officers at the present time. However, I do not see how that can always be avoided. For instance, there is a case in the Civil Service where a deputy minister gets considerably more than the minister himself, and yet I think the minister would be the last person to make an objection.
As the minister in charge of the Bill has pointed out, while the postmaster at Halifax is now in receipt of $4,090 a year, if he were to vacate his office his successor could not expect to get more than $3,300, whereas

an inspector, if this classification is adopted and adhered to, would receive in four years $4,020, so the disparity there would be done away with. But the whole question of classification and compensation has yet to be determined by the commission, and I imagine that the different classes of persons who think they are discriminated against either from lack of information by the experts and the commission, or by lack of appreciation of their real work, will be heard by the commission, and any seeming injustice that we may find in the classification before us be remedied.
With regard to post office inspectors, the compensation of assistant post office inspectors under the classification is not what I should like to see it, in view of what I know and what 1 think is common knowledge, that it is the assistant inspector with whom we come most in contact, and who has the really difficult and rough work of the office to do. Not only is he a sort of secret service man, but he must also be an auditor, because he has to audit the accounts of the postmasters. He has to be ready at all times to travel into remote corners of his district in the most rigorous weather to inspect post offices in respect of which complaints may have been made, while his senior, although quite as competent, no doubt remains comfortably in his office in the city. Under the classification the assistant post office inspector, who it seems to me should get at least $4,000, is only down for $2,700, but I have no doubt the assistant post inspectors will be able to force these views upon the commission between now and the 31st of March next, when the question of compensation will be determined. All these things have their remedy under section 42, under which the commission will have full powers to inquire into these matters.
There is another matter in connection with the Post Office Department, which seems to be the most interesting to hon. members, no doubt because they have most to do with it, and that is that the commission cannot well appoint rural or city postmasters without consultation and conference with the assistant post office inspectors and the post office inspector, and it seems to me that these officials could best work out the provisions of this Act, so far as that department is concerned, to make it acceptable to the people, and if not popular, at least to be received with some respect. They should, when a postmaster is to be appointed, consult with the prominent business men of the community, not with the men of one political side only, but with

all the prominent business men, so as to ensure that a postmaster would be appointed with a reputation for honesty, and who has the respect of the community generally. The making of these inquiries would entail considerably more work on the .post office inspectors. All these things I have no doubt, will be .considered by the commission in the interval.


John Howard Sinclair: This section provides for the keeping of a list of eligibles, and that those members of the service who have been laid off shall head the list. I have some doubt as to the wisdom of making a list of eligibles until the case arises to make the appointment. It will be time enough then to find the -best man. A man who formerly held a position in the Civil Service may not he the best man to appoint to-day. This subsection 2 is very bread. It makes no exception to the rule: An eligible who has formerly 'been in the Civil Service may be 70, 80, 90 or 100 years old; yet if he is at the head of the list we are bound to appoint him, as far as I understand it. The section provides that:
Whenever a vacancy in any position in the Civil Service is to he filled, the deputy head shall request the Commission to make an appointment. The Commission shall thereupon appoint the person whose name stands highest upon the eligible list.
The only qualification is that the person shall formerly have been employed in the service. The fact that an employee is nut. of the service now is pretty good evidence tf at he is not eligible for a new appointment. Why should we legislate that all those people who have been in the service and who have been allowed to separate themselves from the service for' some reason or other should take first rank in making new appointments? You are binding the Civil Service Commission down very solidly in that and it is inconsistent with the idea that we should get the best man for the job.
Mr. A. Iv. MACLEAN: That subsection 2 which places at the head of the eligible list those who have previously held permanent positions simply refers to those civil servants who, by reason of shortage of work in their departments or something of that nature, were laid aside. The Act provides that he must still be kept on the eligible list, but that does not always mean that he gets an appointment.


John Howard Sinclair: Their names are first on the list.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The idea is that if in any given department a certain number
of men who are competent and who are permanent employees of the department were laid aside simply by reason of diminished work in the department, or for some other cause not attributable to the employees themselves, they should get the first chance of getting back provided of course their qualification still remains. There is another clause in the Act which would preclude the employment of an octogenarian or anything like that. I think it would be unfair to Tefuse to consider the claims of a permanent employee who was temporarily laid aside.
On section 45-promotions:


William Garland McQuarrie: Just before you pass section 45 will it not be necessary to make a change there to cover the word "grades" which you inserted in section 42?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think I know what is in my hon. friend's mind but I do not really think there is much in his objection. I would like to have an opportunity of considering it, however. I will confer with my hon. friend and if there is any reason for the amendment which he suggests I will confer with the minister in charge of the Bill in the Senate.


William Garland McQuarrie: If you look at page 550 of the classification, you will see wihat I mean. There are different grades. To
be consistent the word "grades" should be put in here as well as "classes" but I am quite prepared to accept the minister's promise. *


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: How will the commission determine as to merit in reference in promotions in a department? Will they refer to the deputy head or the head of the department and get his certificate?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There will be a practical examination on the duties of the office.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In the Outside or Inside Service?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is no distinction between the Inside and the Outside Service. The Bill refers to what we have always known as the Inside Service but it will be applicable in a large degree to the Outside Service.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In the event of an official in the Outside Service resigning, will his assistant be promoted to his position?


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: Seniority and competency will both be considered. An official must he competent in all cases before

a promotion can be made. A person holding a position, before he can be promoted, must be considered competent and his competency can only be determined !by examination. In some cases it is very obvious that he is competent. If -an official has seniority along with competency he will get the promotion.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understand that if an official is competent and has the seniority, having been in an office for a longer number of years than other officers, he will get the appointment on examination?


Matthew Robert Blake: The provision that promotion shall be made on the recommendation of the deputy head seems "to conflict with the provision made for promotion by section 45.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Under the clause now before the committee, I would like to ask the minister what provision has been made by way of promotion for the large body of men who were employed in the Civil Service during the period of the war. When the war broke out a great many young civil servants were taken into the army either by the dr-alt or by voluntary enlistment. The result was that a large number of persons ranging all the way from 300 to 1,000, who were qualified for office work were employed in the several departments. These men were only temporary employees, but it does seem to me that there should be some provision under this Act whereby the services of these men migh| be retained. Surely a man who has occupied an office and done his work well for -a period of three or four years is better qualified to continue in that office than some stranger. Provision, I submit, should be made whereby the Civil Service Commission may appoint, on examination in the duties of the office, those men who gave four or five years of service at a time when the Government needed expert office men.
Now I cannot find any clause in this Bill which -continues the appointments which these men hold, and I think the Government ought to make some explanation in regard to their cases. Surely it is not intended to lay off a large body of men such as I have mentioned and fill their places by younger men who have had no office experience whatever. I would like to urge upon the minister having charge of this Bill -that clause 45 should be amended so that these men who are now in the service may be promoted and made permanent by passing an examination on office duties. My experience with the Civil Service is

*that the examination should be entirely of that nature. I cannot find any interpretation clause as to the meaning of the word "examination". That apparently is left to the discretion of the Civil Service Commis-rslon. I do not think it ought to be s-o left. I think the -examination and the form of examination -should be determined by this Committee. The old idea that a man had to pass an academic examination in order *to get a position .in -the Civil Service is obsolete, and has not been found to work -satisfactorily in the public interest-that is my experience. I submit there ought -to be -some clause added to -the Bill stating just what the nature of the examination is to be, especially, say, in the case of these employees who have been in the service for a number of years. First, the kind of examination and the nature of the required fitness should be determined, particularly in the case of the men who are referred to. Secondly I would urge that the large body of . clerks now employed, especially in the Militia Department, and who -have been so employed for three, four, or five years, -should be provided for and not turned out now simply because their -special work in -the department may be drawing 'to a close. A man who has been a clerk in any -department is qualified to be a clerk in another department, generally speaking. Of course a number of technical men are needed -sometimes; but take a man who- has done office work in the Assigned Pay or Records Branch of the Militia Department, he is an excellent clerk for the Customs Department or the Post Office Department; and it seems to me that -a gross injustice will be done to the class of men I speak of, in the city of Ottawa, numbering nearly eight hundred, who have been doing this work -during the period of the war, if they -are laid off without giving them an opportunity to quaify or to show their fitness for other positions in the public -service. They are entitled to special -consideration, in my judgment. A great many of them -are over the age limit for permanent employment, which as- I understand it, is still thirty-five years. I am not in favour of that age limit. I think there are many men well qualified to hold positions in the Civil Service who are over the age of thirty-five years and they ought to be given an opportunity to fill such positions. The large bulk of the class of men that I have been speaking of, namely, those who are temporarily employed in the Militia Department, are over that age, and I would like very much to see some provision made for their

continuance in the public service. I am strongly of the view that advertising for new men, as is done by the Civil Service Commission when a position falls vacant, when there are hundreds of qualified clerks . already in the service, is not a good system We are continually publishing advertisements for new clerks. I venture to say, Sir, that if you go into the public service here you will find many temporary clerks who are well able to fill such positions. Why should they be turned off and new men taken in? I never could understand that. It is not in the interests of the public service. Those interests would be best served by appointing the men who are already in the service and understand the nature of the work. I have had many heads of departments come to me and voice that opinion. They. say: " Why should we have to train John Brown to do this work when we have had William iSmith for three years? We are supposed to inform the Civil Service Commission that we need a new appointment when a vacancy occurs. Why should William Smith have to go when he is a temporary clerk, and has been doing the work for some time and is best qualified to do it "? It seems to me the Civil Service Commission should ascertain the qualification of the temporary clerks at the present time, and before they advertise for any new clerkships to be filled they should first see if they have not enough qualified men in the temporary ranks to fill these positions. If upon an examination of the duties of office these men should prove to be qualified, they should be. permanently appointed. Otherwise, you have an organization that is always being changed. No business can be run upon principles of that kind. If a man has been a junior clerk in business and can qualify for a isenior clerkship he gets the position; he is no.t asked to retire and somebody else brought in to go over the same ground again. It seems to me that this Bill is very crude in many of its details. I do not know whether it has been prepared by the Civil Service Commission or by the committee, or by both, but I do know from practical experience that a most efficient Civil Service can be gained in this city by keeping in the service men who already are there and who show their qualifications by their knowledge of their duties. I am strongly of the view that men who are temporarily employed should be ipso facto made permanent employees by being tried out in an examination in the duties of the office that they have filled without any further examination. I
repeat that I would like to see clause 45 amended in such a way that those temporary clerks who are now in the service may be promoted and made permanent upon qualifying in the duties of the office in which they are engaged.


William Garland McQuarrie: While under normal conditions I would be inclined to agree with a great deal of what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fripp) has said, I think, under the conditions prevailing at the present time such an arrangement as he suggests might work a hardship upon the men who have returned lately from the front. As far as I see it the soldiers who stayed overseas until the very last, and who perhaps were over' there for from four to five years, have got no chance at all to get positions at the present time-they are all filled. It is the duty of this country to see if something cannot be done to assist particularly men who have stayed at the front until the finish; but if the proposition of the hon. gentleman were followed these men could not possibly get any appointment.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I know of no better way of destroying the Civil Service and the public service, and inflicting a great wrong on the national interests, than by legislating temporary employees into the Civil Service. That matter was before the committee and they unanimously decided that we must adhere to the principle of appointment by examination. Under sub-section 2, section 10, of the Bill, power is given to the commission, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to make some temporaries permanent.
If we attempted to-day to legislate, as suggested, the temporary employees into the public service at Ottawa permanently, we would have to pay them accordingly whether their services were required or not.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Why should they not be if they are qualified?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A great number of temporary employees have been already relieved of service since the Armistice, and there will be many yet to go. Many became temporary employees while those whose places they filled were overseas, and if we adopted the hon. member's suggestion it would close the door to our returned soldiers.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Are you not now advertising for new men?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Only for special positions.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: No, for more than special positions.
Mr. A. K.. MACLEAN: The suggestion of my hon. friend would be destructive of the morale of the whole public service, and it would be distinctly against the national interest to go as far as he suggests.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I do not agree with my hon. friend when he says that my suggestion would close the door to the returned soldier.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: To a certain extent.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I submit it would have the very opposite effect, and that the returned soldier is being done a very great injustice under the present system. What is the use of appointing a returned soldier temporarily, and then at the end of a few months, after he has got settled, suddenly dispensing with his services? That practice does not build up a good service. I submit that the proper way to do so is to take a man in temporarily, and then, if he qualifies, make him a permanent employee. That is the only way to make him a. good public servant. If he knows he is to remain a temporary employee his work is perfunctory, and he does not pay attention to his duties other than to earn his salary. You cannot get the best service out of a temporary employee. You can only get the best service out of a man who knows that, by proving his worth for a probationary period, his merit will be recognized and he will be made a permanent employee.


Donald Sutherland: I fail to see the logic of the reasoning of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp). I have always understood that there are times when it is necessary to make appointments that can only be considered as temporary. Now that the outside service has been taken over by the Civil Service Commission, I do not see how it would be possible to carry it on in any other way than that which is proposed. For instance, at this time of the year a great many fruit inspectors are appointed, I think, for about three months.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: This only applies to the Inside Service.


Donald Sutherland: Well, if it applies only to the inside service, of course that makes some difference. But I would like to know something about the methods adopted by the commission in making these temporary and other appointments of a similar nature in the Outside Service. I think the minister intimated that it is obviously necessary for the commission to appoint some one to go out and get infor-

mation as to the qualifications of certain parties to be appointed. It appears that the only one who is barred from being consulted is the gentleman who is elected by the people as their representative, and who might possibly know something as to the . fitness of applicants, particularly for temporary appointments in the outside service. I would like to know what has been spent by the commission to secure this information in regard to appointments not only to the inside service, but also to the outside service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall endeavour to get the information for my hon. friend and let him know at a later date the amount of money that has been spent by the Civil Service Commission in getting information respecting the fitness of applicants for the Civil Service. I am advised by the commission that they have incurred no expense at all, but to make sure that I am perfectly accurate I shall make inquiries and let my hon. friend know the result.


Donald Sutherland: I have a distinct recollection that when the Bill went through Committee last year it contained a. provision which would bar any hon. member from daring to suggest to the commission . that certain parties might be qualified.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think that referred to ministers only. The clause was struck out.


Donald Sutherland: My impression was that it applied to members as well as to ministers. I remember discussion took place along that line, and the clause was struck out. I would hope, for the reputation of hon. members, that the Commission will not be debarred from consulting the local member in regard to some appoints ments of a temporary nature that might be necessary in his constituency. I fail to see any good reason why he should not be consulted in the matter.


John Howard Sinclair: While dealing with this question of expenditure, will the minister tell the Committee how much the classification cost? If the minister has the figures at hand I wish he would give them to the Committee.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have no figures before me at the moment, but I know the classification has not cost nearly so much as has been indicated by some portions of the press. I will let my hon. friend know on Tuesday. Some little time ago the expenditure was between $50,000 and $60,000,

but the whole of that was not incurred in connection with strictly classification work; it was partly incurred in the investigation of the Printing Bureau and for work done by some employees in connection with the bonus granted to the Civil Service.


John Howard Sinclair: I am referring to
the work done in connection with this printed book called the "Classification."


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: It seems to me that that is not expert work. The book looks like a dictionary-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Well, it is a dictionary.


John Howard Sinclair: -which an ordinarily intelligent man could make. The first item is "Able seamen," and it tells us that an able seaman is a man who will clean down the decks, keep the brass polished, sweep the dust away and obey the officers of the ship, and then it proceeds to state that his wages will be so many dollars a month. That description of an able seaman is not very accurate, and if a man confined himself to the duties mentioned there he would not be a very acceptable seaman. And the wages are not according to the mercantile scale, so that if the Government, which is now operating its own mercantile marine, intend to apply that first section to its own business, it will find it altogether inapplicable.
In the first place, you have to discharge your seamen, under the law, when you arrive at port, and must pay them off in the presence of a consul or other officer; then when you .start your next voyage you have to employ them over again or employ a new crew. It is impossible to communicate with the Civil Service Commission in order to do that; under the law, the captain is the only person who can do it. It appears to me that the man who made this particular classification did not understand what he was doing if he intended that it should apply to persons engaged in the public service. Will the minister point out what expert work has been done in connection with this classification? Any intelligent member of Parliament knows what duties a deputy minister has to perform or what work is required of an inspector of pbst offices or a clerk in any Government office. All that is found in this book is simply a description of what the employee is expected to do ; and I submit that in many cases the description is defective. On what principle can we justify
the expenditure of $50,000 for the purpose of turning out a dictionary like this, which is nothing more or less than a list of employees?


Peter McGibbon: We have had the rather amazing admission that practically no expense has been incurred in the gathering of information with respect to appointments to positions in. the outside service in a country three thousand miles long. As members of Parliament were not consulted and are not going to be consulted in such matters, may I -ask the minister how such information is procured? Are the appointments made without the obtaining of any information .at all? On the other hand, is the service being made less efficient by the utilization-.as I a.m informed by some deputy ministers-of the staffs of the departments to gather information for the Civil Service Commission? It seems to me that this commission is the supreme and crowning act of-I was going to say incompetence of this Government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Say it.


Peter Robert McGibbon: In a country covering a territory three thousand miles in extent you exclude from consultation in respect of appointments the member of Parliament, the only man who knows who is best qualified to fill positions in the Outside Service. Then the minister comes to this House and says that the necessary information is acquired without the expenditure of one cent. On what grounds of efficiency are we to suppose that these appointments are made? I think that an explanation is due to the Committee.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The particular
matter to which my hon. friend refers has been discussed so often that I had hoped it would not arise again. I did not mean to say-at least if I did say it I suppose I should not have done so-that no expense whatever was incurred in securing information in respect of appointments to certain positions in the public service. In regard to appointments to -post offices- I mean in the Outside Service-The Civil Service Commission utilize the post office inspectors in the various provinces who have means of securing .this information quite readily and without incurring any great expense. Possibly some of the officers of the Inspection Department happen to be travelling in a district where there is a vacancy, and while engaged in. that work they can secure the best local information possible. Appointments are made largely after advertisement. The applicant

sends in his application to the department, .giving references and stating his qualifications, and the commission adopt whatever means seem best to them to test the accuracy of the statements made in the application; in fact, they do anything they wish to do to make the best appointment from among the applicants. The very fact .that the Civil Service Commission have been making .appointments fox the last year and without any great amount of dissatisfaction, is, I think, proof of the fact that the work can be done in this way.
The member for Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) thinks that this classification, is a .very simple work and not worthy of the .cost entailed. I think my hon, friend's view is largely due to the fact that he has .not given any very close attention to the .matter. I do not doubt that his other duties prevented him from going into the matter in detail; indeed, if he did have ,the time to do it, I would advise him not to engage in that occupation. It is a very .easy matter to say that this work of classification is of no value and is a waste of public money. I pretend to know a little about it-perhaps not very much-and I do say that it is a splendid piece of work; .any one who knows anything about it will .say so. The members of the. Committee .heard the experts employed by .the commission, who did the major part of this work; and the Committee were unanimously of the opinion at the close of the proceedings that these experts were exceedingly competent men and that they had done a .splendid piece of work. I believe that one member of the Committee moved a resolution of thanks to the employees of .the Civil Service Commission for the great care and intelligence with which they carried out this work.
Now, thfe duties of an able seaman are defined here; they were never defined before-or if they had any definition it would probably be found in the committee room of some political party. Even if the definition is defective as set forth in this book, it is better than it was before. The compensations stated here are a valuable feature of the classification, because the incumbent of an office knows the range of his salary; he knows how he can attain the maximum; he knows that it will be of no use to write to members of Parliament or approach ministers and ask for special treatment in the annual Estimates submitted to Parliament. There will be that great advantage; it will do away with anomalies and discriminations in favour of certain persons

Jn the service who were treated differently from others because by one means or another they could get their names in the Estimates and thus secure an increase, whereas great numbers of others could not. The able seaman, to whom my hon. friend refers, will get the same rate of wage whether the Government steamship that he is in is on the Atlantic or on. the Pacific. The rate will be uniform, and before he goes into the service he knows what it will be. I quite apprehend that it would be difficult to fix the rate of wage in respect of those ships recently built by the Government which will be engaged in foreign service, because there you would frequently have to discharge your seamen at various ports and subsequently have to ship new men. In that case, of course, the commission should not make the appointments; I do not think the Act should apply to cases of that kind. I may add that men in the seaman service have been employed by the Public Works Department, the Railway Department, the Marine Department and the Naval Department, and there are instances where men who were performing exactly the same duties receive four different ranges of salary. This classification rids us of such anomalies and discriminations.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not think that the answer given to the member for Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) is definite or satisfactory. The amount of money that this classification has cost has not' been stated. By what authority have the Civil Service Commission spent this money. Was there a vote for it? Was there an Order in Council, or how did they proceed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The expenditure was incurred by the Civil Service Commission. I do not know that the commission ever conferred with the Government. They may have done so, but personally I am not sure. The Civil Service Act of 1918 directed that this work be done. The commission had the authority of Parliament to embark upon this work of classification and, therefore, for the expenditure the work entailed.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Is that the way in which we always spend public money? If a definite piece of work is ordered to be done by this Parliament, iis it not always the practice to set out an appropriation for that? Is this commission to be at liberty under clause 10 to employ these so-called experts at any time it likes? The clause reads:
The commission shall, after consultation with the several deputy heads, determine the places

of the positions now in the Civil 'Service in the classification established and confirmed-[DOT]
And so on. If the commissioners were at liberty to spend $50,000 or $60,000 in doing what they did, they might go on spending another $10,000 or $20,000 on this vrork.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am informed by the chairman of the commission that the commission did have t'he authority of the Government to proceed with this work.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: By Order in Council?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Can the minister produce that Order in Cbuncil?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I cannot produce it at the present. If there is such an Order in Council, I can produce it later.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is the point.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The chairman also informs me that authority for the expenditure was given by the Government and subsequently incorporated in the Estimates at the .last session of Parliament, when a lump sum was voted for this work.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is to say, a sum was put in for the Civil Service Commission?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, to pay for this.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Specifically to pay for the classification.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Was that in the Estimates of last session?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it was.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I could not find it. I will look it up.
Mr. J. H. 'SINCLAIR: I do not wish to worry the minister too much about this able seaman, but-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was using that only as an illustration. I would be quite satisfied if the hon. member would drop the able seaman and take up something else.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister informed the committee that this was the first time in the history of the country that the duties of an able seaman had been defined and he inferred that a great thing had been done because those duties had been defined. I want to tell the minister that this is absolute nonsense; that he might as well attempt to define the duties of a farm labourer,
and if he did he would have a very difficult task to perform. If an able seaman is asked to take a scuttle of coal out of the hold in order to warm up the captain's cabin he will turn up the book and tell you that that is not in the book and consequently that is not his job. That is the result of an attempt to define the duties of a seaman.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Those duties are not exhaustive; they are only an outline.


John Howard Sinclair: The work I am putting the seaman at now is not mentioned in the book, and that is only an example of scores of other things that an able seaman has to do every day. So when a man attempts to define the duties of a seaman he is attempting a task which he should not attempt at all. I presume my hon. friend will attempt to run his ships under the mercantile laws of the country. The ships will have to be run under the rules of the merchant marine, and in those rules the able seaman is employed for one voyage. He may be employed for the return trip, but when he arrives at the port, when his voyage is completed, it will 'be the duty of the captain to discharge him, to take him before an officer of the Board of Trade, or the shipmaster, or the British Consul and give him his discharge in the presence of that officer. Then as a rule he employs a new crew for his next voyage; he does not necessarily have to-have the same crew, and he employs them at the rate of wages that is current in that port.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think that is the practice.


John Howard Sinclair: If you went into the port of New York to-day, you would not get a single sailor at the highest rate of pay mentioned in the list, which I think is $60.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We have them now.


John Howard Sinclair: You cannot. You have not them at that rate.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, we have.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think so. I do not think anybody else has, because very much larger wages than that are being paid at the present time, and the rate goes up and down from week to week. An attempt to set down a permanent rate would be nonsense, and it would not work at all in connection with the business. These things are not done by rules of that kind. The captain will be under the necessity of conducting his business like any other mer-

cantile business, and there is no use in trying to tie him up to conditions which he cannot fulfil.


William Duff: There is a more serious side than that which the hon. member for Anti-gonish (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) has spoken about. The definition of an able seaman is not the definition of an able seaman at all; it is the definition of an ordinary seaman, and the gentleman who completed that classification in regard to able seaman did not know what he was writing when he put that in the book. As regards wages of crews, I understood the minister to say that every ship owned by the Government outside of foreign-going ships would have to pay that rate of wages to the men whether they were ships on the Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast or the Great Lakes. Let me give the minister a concrete case. When the S.S. Stanley, which is one of the Marine Department boats plying on the Nova Scotia coast looking after buoys and lighthouses, arrives at Halifax, the captain pays off his crew, and it is necessary for him to engage a new crew for the next voyage. Supposing an S.O.S. call should come from some ship in distress off the Magdalen islands or off Sable islands, that captain is compelled under the classification to apply to the Civil Service Commission at Ottawa for a crew. That is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard of in my life.	,


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Act provides for temporary employees, and the captain under those circumstances could engage a crew.


William Duff: These tare not temporary
employees. These are very important employees and probably permanent.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think if S.O.S. calls were being answered, the employees would be temporary.


William Duff: Not so far as the captain was concerned. Supposing the captain gets sick. Is the captain not a permanent employee? You would not class him as a tem-orary employee, and the minister would not put aboard that ship as captain a man who was not qualified. Supposing when the S.S. Stanley arrives at Halifax, the captain falls sick and has to go to the hospital, it is necessary for the Civil Service Commission at Ottawa to appoint a captain, and although they are gentlemen who are well qualified in certain respects, they know no more about appointing a captain to a ship than I know about running an aeroplane.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Very little is going to be achieved by a discussion of the details of this classification. It is not a perfect one, I admit. I do not concede that the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Duff) are correct, but I am not in a position to contradict him. He is a little more of a seaman than I am although I do not think he is vetry well informed as such. Perhaps he knows something more than I do about the matter, and I shall not venture into a contest with him. I do not purpose undertaking the task of advising this House as to the details of'the classification, and I consider it is a great waste of public time, if hon. gentlemen will permit me to say so, to be pointing out possible defects in the classification.


William Duff: Then, how are you going to rectify it?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This Parliament never undertook to go into the rates of compensation of 50,000 people in the employ of the Government to see whether their duties were or were not properly defined.
We are taking power under the Bill for the Civil Service Commission to amend the classification from time to time, and their recommendations will become effective when approved by the Governor in Council. If the duties of this able seaman, this new personality which my hon. friend (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) has introduced into the discussion, are limited by the definition and ought to be extended, that can be corrected at any time. The definition of duties is only illustrative in every case. I say frankly I do not propose to stand on the floor of the House and attempt to give information that would be at all reliable as to all these details. I do know this: I have heard features of the classification criticised in Parliament and outside of it and in the press, and upon looking into these individual cases I have reached the conclusion that I would take the judgment of the commission and its experts in respect of the qualifications generally before I would the judgment of the people outside, because there are many features in connection with the public service which the general public do not know and cannot possibly know without some investigation into the actual facts. I think the public interests are amply protected by giving the Civil Service Commission power to amend the classification from time to time, and I think we should let it go at that.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister solved the difficulty a few minutes ago by telling

us that the men could be appointed temporarily. Under the law, who makes these temporary appointments, in the case, for example, of a vacancy in the Government's shipping industry.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The departmental representative in the district. For instance, if a ship in the marine service to-day at the port of Halifax required a new captain and had no opportunity of getting a permanent officer for the ship, the man in charge of the marine department at Halifax would be instructed to get the very best man he could.


John Howard Sinclair: Can a captain make temporary appointments?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, the Act permits that.


John Howard Sinclair: What part of the Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is in the old Act, and on page 2 of this Bill.
On the motion of the Hon. Mr. MacLean the Committee rose, reported progress, and was granted leave to sit again this day.



THE GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY.

George Green Foster: When we reassemble at eight o'clock a statement will be made on behalf of the Government and papers will be laid before the House with reference to the proposed legislation regarding the Grand Trunk railway. This will be done in order that the information may appear in Hansard and be available to hon. members between this and the time of reassembling on Tuesday. The leader of the Opposition has been consulted by me and thoroughly agrees, and I am sure the whole Committee will be favourable to this being done.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the minister also be in a position to put on Hansard a copy of the Bill, if drafted ?


George Eulas Foster: I think that can be done.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SYSTEM.



STATEMENT BY HON. MR. MEIGHEN AS TO ACQUISITION OP THE SYSTEM BY GOVERNMENT-THE PROPOSED BIOL.

Arthur Meighen: Mr. tSpeaker, the House was 62
promised at six o'clock' a statement, to be made at the present hour, embodying in brief the result of the negotiations with the Grand Trunk Railway company, as to the acquirement of their system of railways by the Government. The reason for this statement being made now is that otherwise the notice of the resolution which must precede the Bill which is intended to enable the Government to conclude the arrangement cannot appear, owing to the intervening holidays, until next Tuesday. It was felt that in the meantime, as newspaper notice has been given and .as the House was informed that a Bill was intended, it were well that the House should be fully informed as to the fundamental provisions of the arrangement. What I shall say shall of course be in no sense argumentative but wholly explanatory.
The negotiations that have now been brought to fruition are by no means of recent origin. They date back to the month of February, 1918, when by reason of certain requests made of the Government on behalf of the Grand Trunk Railway company and by reason of other considerations, communication was commenced by cable; at all events, requests were made by cable as to the proposals or intentions of the Grand Trunk in regard to this matter.. I need not read the cables themselves for the reason that if my memory is correct they have already been produced .and are embalmed in Hansard; but further for the reason that they are embodied in the letter dated 11th July, 1918, addressed by myself to Sir Alfred Smithers, president of the Grand Trunk Railway company. This letter was written after thorough consideration and review on t'he part of the ministers then overseas, and after full conference with members of the Government at home. That the record may be properly based, I shall read that letter which is as follows:
llth July, 1918.
Dear Mr. Smithers,-Some time ago the Government of Canada was informed on hehalf of the Board of Directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company that this Company would not he able, without Government assistance, to meet certain maturities falling due on the 1st and 15th of the present month.
It was thought of advantage that representatives of the Government should, on the occasion of their visit to England to attend the Imperial War Conference, take the opportunity of conferring with yourself and your directorate on the general subject of Grand Trunk obligations and finance. Accordingly, the Hon. Mr. Calder and myself have had four conferences with you, at two of which you were accompanied by certain associates on the Board.
At the last conference you suggested that 1 should lay before you in writing the position



taken by the Government and, in as definite a form as possible, its concrete proposals.
It may be assumed that the difficulties in which the Company now finds itself arise from two main causes:	(1) the obligations into
which the Company entered in 1903 and 1904 with respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company; (2) War conditions as to operation and finance.
As to the latter cause it is not unfair to say that its incidence has fallen chiefly, if not wholly, in the years 1917 and 1918. On the contrary, the difficulties of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which are the direct outcome of its Grand Trunk Pacific obligations, are of much longer date. This latter company is ir* every sense subsidiary to, and its stock is wholly owned by, the Grand Trunk Company. To this subsidiary company the Government of Canada came, by way of assistance, as far back as 1909, with a loan of $10,000,000'. An other loan of $15,00*0,000 was made in 1913. A further loan of $6,000,000 was made in 1914 on a pledge of Bonds. Its securities were further guaranteed by legislation of that year to the extent of $16,000,000. In 1916 a loan of $8,000,000 was made. In 1917 a loan of $7,500,000 was authorized and advanced, and in the spring of this year a further loan of $7,500,000 was authorized by Parliament. Meantime, the ever-increasing interest obligations binding on the Grand Trunk Railway Company toward its subsidiary company were not paid by the Grand Trunk Railway, but were taken care of out of the proceeds of loans thus made by the Government of Canada. These obligations at the present time amount to very considerably over $5,000,000 per annum, and in January 1923 increase to over $7,000,000 per annum. In the same conjunction it must be remembered that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company has not assumed or attempted to discharge its rental obligations to the Government of Canada with respect to the National Transcontinental Railway, which obligations, while not formally assumed by the Government, have in practice been shouldered by the Dominion. This extra burden is a matter of very considerable magnitude.
I refer to the outstanding facts related in the preceding paragraph for the purpose of indicating what has through recent years been the attitude of the Canadian Government and people toward Grand Trunk enterprises.
It is at this point that the Canadian Government is invited to enter upon a still wider field of assistance by assuming liabilities in respect of Grand Trunk securities themselves. Through the course of the various steps recalled above, public opinion in our country has become more and more opposed to a continuance of the practice of assisting financially railways that were in private hands. Consequently, at the opening of our negotiations we stated to you that we did not believe that continued further assistance under present conditions could be justified.
In order, however, that there might be reasonable opportunity for negotiation, we recommended to the Minister of Finance that funds be provided to enable the company to meet maturities falling due in July. This has been and is being arranged.
Throughout the negotiations, and indeed prior thereto, it has been made clear to your company that the obligations of the Grand Trunk Company to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company could not be ignored, and that the Government could not undertake to assume the indebtedness of and to operate the Grand Trunk
l Mr. Meighen.)
Pacific and branch lines thereof, and to relieve the Grand Trunk of responsibility therefor, while the Grand Trunk Railway itself, as a subsidiary of which and indeed as an extension of which the Grand Trunk Pacific was built, remained in independent hands. Accordingly, in the month of February last, after careful consideration, and in pursuance of the recommendation of what is commonly known as the Drayton-Acworth Report, there were made to your company the following proposals:-
(1)	The Government to take over the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and branch lines and the Grand Trunk Railway Company ; to acquire all assets, and to assume all obligations of both companies.
(2)	The Government to make annual payment of $2,50*0,00*0 for the first three years, $3,000,000 for the succeeding five years, and $3,600,000 annually thereafter; such sums to be distributed by the Grand Trunk management, as they might determine, among holders of 4 per cent Guaranteed and other stocks.
It was intended that the taking over should be by rental over a long period of years, as might be agreed, with a provision for purchase.
Should such terms not be accepted, it was suggested that the amounts in question might be submitted to arbitration. These proposals met with no acceptance.
Our present conferences, extending over the past month, have resulted in little progress-the only practical step being, indeed, the assistance referred to above as advanced by the Government. As intimated above, such assistance cannot under present conditions be continued.
We are now prepared to abide by the proposals submitted to you in February last as to acquisition, or we are prepared on behalf of the Government to submit the entire question of remuneration to a Board of Arbitration on the following general terms:-
(1)	The Board to consist of three persons:
one to be appointed by the Grand Trunk Company, one by the Government of Canada, and the two so appointed to select a third, or, if they fail to agree, the third to be selected by a majority of the following: the Judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Chief Justice of the Province of Ontario.
(2)	The Board to have full power as to
the procuring and acceptance of evidence.
(3)	The award to be by way of annual
rental for a term of 999 years; the Board to have power to vary the rental for two or more periods of years. The Government to have the option of purchase on the basis of and during the teim of the final rental at the end of any year and on one year's notice at twenty-five times the annual final rental.
(4)	Conditions arising or that have arisen
out of the war not to be taken into account in determining the rental value.
Should the Company desire, the Guaranteed Stock may be treated as an obligation in the same way as the Company's Bonds.
I would be glad to be advised whether the above specific proposal is acceptable, or if not, whether the general terms of arbitration out-

lined above are satisfactory. Should either alternative be favourably received we may then enter upon discussion and negotiation as to further necessary details.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) Arthur Meighen. Alfred W .Smithers, Esq.,
Chairman of the Board of Directors,
Grand Trunk Railway Company,
9 New Broad Street, E.C.
That letter was followed 'by two communications merely intended to elucidate the letter itself, and1 then by a rather extended reply made by Sir Alfred Smithers, in which reply exception was taken to the ground stated by me as the initiation of the proposals in certain respects, and -in which reply neither offer theretofore submitted was accepted. Further proposals were made, but inasmuch as this- correspondence that I am referring to now, including, indeed, the letter that I have read, has been already (I speak from memory) placed upon Hansard by the Minister of Finance of -that day some time last session, and inasmuch further as it is by no means necessary to an understanding of the result of the negotiations now, I think I would meet the convenience of the House better if I omitted to read the intervening correspondence. The negotiations, with intermissions sometimes- long, were continued and were renewed more definitely and with specific object within- the last two months on the arrival in -this country of Sir Alfred Smithers, president of the Grand Trunk Railway. These led to a final understanding, as- between Sir Alfred Smithers, representing the Grand Trunk directorate, and the Government of Canada. This understanding rests for the time being on the part of the company with -Sir Alfred Smithers himself, his power being a recommendatory poweT only, and the part of the country with the Government itself, the Government, of course, having to submit the proposals to Parliament for ratification. That is the footing upon which the understanding at present rests-, but it is embodied specifically in a letter^ddressed to Sir Alfred Smithers yesterday by myself, which letter I shall now read:
Ottawa, October 9, 1919. Sir Alfred W. Smithers,
Chateau Laurier,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir Alfred Smithers

arbitrator whose seat has become vacant has been appointed.
Should either Sir Louis Davies or Sir Walter Cassels die or otherwise be unable to act, the other may act alone.
The Board of Arbitrators to have full power and authority in respect of the control of the arbitration and the proceedings thereof.
The award to be made by the arbitrators or a majority of them within nine months from the appointment of the arbitrators, or within such further time as the Governor in Council may approve. The unanimous award of the arbitrators shall be final, but should the award not be unanimous, an appeal therefrom shall lie to the Supreme Court of Canada and or to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if leave b >
granted by said committee upon any question of law if notice of appeal is given by either party within thirty days of the making of the award.
The Government shall cause the Grand Trunk to create and issue non-voting four per cent capital stock-herein called new guaranteed stock. The amount thereof shall be the amount of the value of the acquired stocks determined as above provided, less such deductions therefrom as are to be made under the terms of this letter. The Government shall guarantee to the holders of the new guaranteed stock that there shall be paid a dividend thereon at the rate of four per cent per annum, payable half-yearly, from the date of the appointment of the managing committee hereinafter mentioned.
The new guaranteed stock shall be distributed among the holders of the preference and common stocks in proportions which shall be determined by the arbitrators.
An agreement (hereinafter called the "Arbitration Agreement") to be executed between the parties, embodying the terms herein set forth and such other terms as may be considered necessary to carry the arbitration agreement into effect..
After the ratification by the shareholders of the Grand Trunk of the Arbitration Agreement, the Grand Trunk shall cause a Committee of Management of the Grand Trunk system to be formed, consisting of five persons, two to be appointed by the Grand Trunk, two by the Government, and the fifth by the four so appointed. The functions of the Managing Committee shall be to insure the operation of the Grand Trunk system (in so far as it is possible to do so) in harmony with the Canadian National railways, the two systems being treated, in the public interest, as nearly as possible as one system. No contract or agreement shall be made by the Grand Trunk, or any company comprised in the Grand Trunk system and controlled by the Grand Trunk, other than such as are necessary for the usual and ordinary business of the system except with the concurrence of the Managing Committee and the approval of the Governor in Council. The Managing Committee may. with the consent of the Governor in Council, borrow from the Government on Grand Trunk notes or other obligations or securities approved of by the Governor in Council for the carrying on of the operations or improvements of the Grand Trunk system. . Upon the acquired stocks of the Grand Trunk being vested in the Government the Managing 'Committee shall be discharged.
The books, minutes, reports, documents and other records, and all the railways and proper-
I'Mr. Meighen.]
ties of the companies comprised in the Grand Trunk system shall at all times be accessible and open to inspection, and examination by any person or persons named by the Minister of Railways and Canals of Canada, or by the Board of Arbitrators; and all proper aid and assistance shall, on request, be rendered to such person or persons by the officers and employees of the Grand Trunk and its allied companies, including the making and giving of extracts, copies and statements.
Legislation by the Parliament of Canada shall be promoted by the Government to authorize the making and carrying out of the necessary agreement embodying the arrangement resulting from these proposals and to render the same valid and effectual.
Upon the value of the acquired stocks being finally determined under the provisions of the Act, the new guaranteed stock shall be created and the dividends thereon guaranteed by the Government and such new guaranteed stock shall be issued to the holders of the acquired stocks in accordance with the Act,-and thereupon such acquired stocks shall be transferred to or vested in the Government.
Should any shares or part of the acquired stocks not be transferred to the Government the Governor in Council may declare such shares or part to be the property of the Minister of Finance in trust for His Majesty and the same shall thereupon become the property of His Majesty and the amount of new guaranteed stock to which the holders of such shares or part would be entitled shall be issued or delivered to such holders or their representatives upon delivery up of the shares of the acquired stock.
The new guaranteed stock shall be deemed and issued as fully paid and free from calls and other liability.	.
Upon the acquired stocks being vested in the Government or its nominees the offices of the directors or any of them of the Grand Trunk system shall at such date or dates as the Governor in Council may name become vacant and the Governor in Council may appoint others in lfeu thereof.
Should the Government, within three months after the making of the award, claim that there existed any liabilities of the Grand Trunk or of any company comprised in the Grand Trunk system which were not disclosed to the Board of Arbitrators prior to the making of their award, the Government may within such period of three months, apply to the Board of Arbitrators to amend their award, and the board may thereupon decide whether such liabilities existed and were disclosed to them, whether the amount o| their award would or would not have been affected thereby, and the amount of the deduction, if any, to be made in respect thereof; and may amend their award accordingly.
After the execution of the arbitration agreement and until the acquired stocks are vested in the Government the Grand Trunk shall refrain, without the approval of the Governor in Council from varying by by-law, agreement, or in any other manner whatsoever, the rights or liabilities appertaining in the capital stocks or securites of the Grand Trunk or of any company comprised in the Grand Trunk system, and from increasing, without such approval, except in so far as is necessary in the usual and ordinary conduct of the business of the system, or as may be concurred in by the managing committee, the obligations or liabili-

ties of the Grand Trunk or of any company comprised in the Grand Trunk system. The Grand Trunk shall also refrain, without such approval, from declaring any dividends on any of the capital stocks.
It must be understood that the new guaranteed stock, and' the present guaranteed stock may be called in by the Government or the company at par, at any time after thirty years from the date of appointment of the Managing Committee on six months' notice by advertisement to the holders thereof.
The Grand Trunk Superannuation Fund shall continue in existence and shall continue to be administered as at present and in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the same. The rules and regulations of the Grand Trunk pension system shall continue to be applicable to employees of the Grand Trunk system until a general pension scheme applicable to all employees of Canadian Government-owned or controlled railways shall be adopted and become effective. The rules and regulations of the Grand Trunk Insurance and Provident Society shall continue to be applicable unless and until the Government shall adopt and make effective a general insurance scheme applicable to all employees of Canadian Government-owned or controlled railways. In no case shall any acquired rights or vested interests in either the pension system or the Insurance and Provident Society be affected.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) Arthur Meighen.
To that letter I received to-day the following reply from Sir Alfred Smithers:
October 10, 1919.
Dear Mr. Meighen,

I have taken communication of your letter of the 9th instant, relative to the proposed acquisition by the Government of Canada of the control of the Grand Trunk Railway system, which correctly embodies our understanding on the subject.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) Alfred W. Smithers.
It will be observed that there is a change in the form of the subject matter to be submitted to the board of arbitrators as set out in the letter of October 9, which embodies the final understanding, from that set out in the letter of the 11th of Jjily, 1918. In the first letter the intention was that should the company agree to arbitration, the subject matter of the arbitration should be the rental value of all the property of the Grand Trunk system for a period of 999 years. The reason for the change is that a close examination of existing conditions of the Grand Trunk system, as a system, and of the various relationships between the component parts of the system, made it an impractical matter for the Grand Trunk to lease the system. In this connection I need only refer the House to the position in which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company now is, namely, in the hands of a receiver.
That fact alone will appeal at once to hon. gentlemen as an impediment. A still larger one, however, is the condition in which the American roads now are-the main roads, if not all, in the United States belonging to the system being actually operated not by the Grand Trunk but by the Government of the United States. I need go no farther to illustrate the infeasibility of a lease of the system. Consequently, what was sought to be obtained was some other method by which, in substance, the very ^same question could be submitted to arbitration and the result that was sought before obtained in a better way. The method devised, therefore, was to submit to arbitration the four stocks-the three preference stocks and the common stock-and to-pay the award, whatever it might be, if anyr by the issue of a new non-voting stock bearing interest at four per cent perpetually and made redeemable at the option of the Government, after thirty years at par. So that hon. members will see that while there is a change in the matter or the form of the subject-matter of submission, there is no variation in any material way from the original offer as to arbitration. In effect thfe result would be practically-indeed, identically-the same. Other respects in which there may be said to be variations are -wholly minor or immaterial. There is no respect, I believe, in which there is change to the disadvantage of the country. There is an omission-I should put it this way; The original letter of 11th July, 1918, contained a proposal, an offer to the company, that in the event of arbitration being accepted, we would agree that conditions arising out of the war should be eliminated from the consideration of the Board or Arbitration. As the war was over it was felt by the Government that that condition was not now a desirable or, indeed, a possible one. The company have agreed that that condition be eliminated.
Possibly I should refer to one fact more; there is in what I am to refer to no variation at all, but an explanation may make it clearer.
It will be noted that in the letter of 11th July, 1918, one of the elements of the proposal was that the Government should consider the guaranteed stock which bears interest at four per cent perpetually and which stands next to the debenture stock or bonds, as an obligation just in the same way as the debenture stock or bonds are an obligation. That is carried forward, in fact, that is part of the present proposals, accepted unquali-

fledly by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. It is part of the proposals because the Government undertakes to pay the interest on these guaranteed stocks in the same way as the interest on the debenture stock or bonds.
In no substantial respect at all therefore does the present agreement, if you may call it such in its embryonic state, differ from the alternative proposal as to arbitration contained in the letter written on behalf of the Government to the Grand Trunk Railway Company on July 11, 1918. Nor indeed, for that matter except so far as it is more detailed and more complete does it differ essentially from the original offer of arbitration made to the company as far back as February, 1918. Consequently, the result of negotiations may be summed up in a word: that the offer of arbitration that the Government thought was a fair and honourable offer has been accepted by the company, and subject to the assent of the shareholders on the one hand and Parliament on the other, that course will be implemented in law.
I have only one word to add. Hon. members will have noted that though the negotiations are of long standing

though,, indeed the very proposals now accepted were in substance and in every material respect made known to the House and the country more than a year ago-nevertheless there has been nothing in the way of concrete result, nothing in the way of consensus ad idem, as we call it, until this very day. The time since Sir Alfred Smithers has arrived, has been partly taken up in reaching a substantial agreement and partly in an examination of details, many of which were important and all of which-for they evolved from time to time often unexpectedly-required the utmost care. Until an agreement was arrived at on each of these details of principle it would have been unfair to intimate that a final adjustment and arrangement was even possible. Cbnse-quently it was not competent for the Government to say that it was in a position to announce legislation this session until this very day. Had this legislation not finally been found necessary it was hoped that we might have reached an early termination of the session. Now that it has, the desire of the Government is that the fullest, the lengthiest, if necessary, consideration be given in this very important matter by Parliament. Intimations-or, rather, unauthorized statements-have gone out, (whether called for or not) that there was an' inclination to hurry the matter through, or, as was expressed in one place, to " rail-
[Mr. Meighen.j
road " it through. Nothing is further from the intention of the Administration. This is one of the most important transactions that this country has ever had to consider, and now that it is before Parliament it is hoped that the most careful and most attentive consideration will be given to it and that every detail will be examined and discussed. All papers that we have or that we can secure will be laid before Parliament, and our only appeal is that there be no haste but that the deliberation be careful, thorough and exacting.
It was announced this afternoon that I would submit the contemplated Bill for publication in Hansard. I now do so:

provisions of the said agreement may toe made and passed with the effect specified in any such Order in Council.
12.	Upon the transfer to or vesting in the Government of the preference and common stock as herein provided for, the Government may, by Order in Council, provide for the discharge of the receivership of the Grand "Trunk Pacific Railway System and the termination and withdrawal of the proceedings in the Exchequer Court of Canada relating thereto.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT, 1918-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 18, to -amend The Civil Service Act, 1918-Hon. A. K. Maclean-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 11-acts and powers with respect to appointment of certain employees and inconsistent provisions of any Act repealed.
Georges Henri Boivin: There is no change in this clause.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister who has charge of the Bill told us this afternoon, in reply to the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) that nothing could be conceived that would be more destructive of the efficiency of the Civil Service than the all :wing oi temporary employees to become permanent without examination. I am not saying whether that is a sound doctrine to promulgate or not; but I wish to bring to the notice of the minister that he will have to settle some radical account with his neighbour, the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell). Last session we had before Parliament a Bill to create a permanent Purchasing Commission. There is at present a temporary Purchasing Commission; at least I presume it is still in existence; but we were told last June or July by the President of the Council that its term of existence was about to expire and that it was necessary to formulate a new organization. I asked the President of the Council at that time as to the number ol temporary civil servants employed in connection with the Purchasing Commission, and my recollection is that he told me that they had between two and three hundred. I asked the President of the Council what was- to become of them-were they to become permanent servants at once if the Bill creating the commission went through. His answer to me was that they would become permanent civil servants when the commission became permanent. That is an entire violation of the principle laid down by the minister (Mr. A. K. Maclean) this afternoon. Temporary civil servants who are in the employ of the Purchasing Commission are

#
on no higher plane than temporary civil servants in the Militia Department, or the Public Works, or any other department; and if the principle enunciated by the minister this afternoon is good, that is, that it is and would be destructive and disruptive of the Civil Service simply by a stroke of the pen to convert temporary civil servants into permanent civil servants without their going through the process of examination, What has he to say as to the policy of the Government as no doubt agreed upon in connection with the Bill, which received entire support from the Government and some substantial support from friends of the Government in the House? The principle established there and announced to us was that something was going to be done entirely contrary to. the views of the minister in charge of this measure. I hope the minister spoke with authority this afternoon, and that a proper system is to be established in connection with the Civil Service and that the same test by examination will be required of everyone who enters the Civil Service under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. I cannot understand that it will be fair, by reason of some emergency, such as war emergencies, that a large number of men and women should come into the service, , and then without any examination at all be legislated into positions of permanency. That would be getting over the terms of the Act in a way which is not at all desirable.
I am not going into the details of the classification. I rather follow the advice of the minister and steer clear of it, because he says it is absolutely hopeless. He tells us that he made a few dashes at it himself and backed away from it in utter hopelessness, leaving it entirely as it is and trusting to Providence and to time to find an understandable solution of it. Nevertheless, we are paying sixty or seventy thousand dollars for this book, and the minister will have to excuse us if we ask him a few questions as to what we are getting for that expenditure. The hon. member for Antigonish and Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair) asked the minister some questions as to the very familiar and old-fashioned subject of an able seaman, and the definition given in the classification is not very satisfactory. I trust, however, that other definitions are better. Perhaps the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. P. Mc-Gibbon) has summed up the whole business as well as anybody who has been dealing with this Bill, and I almost agree with that hon. member. He says that this Bill and the commission constitute the crowning act of incompetency and insufficiency of this

Government. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard .that from my good friend from Muskoka. While I do not doubt that this is one of the crowning acts of incompetency, I will not go so far as to say that this is the crowning one. I think the hon. member for Muskoka would have to give some time and consideration to the question of which.is the crowning act. He would find,
I am sure, that he is surrounded with a great cloud of witnesses, a great cloud of actions vying strongly the one with the other as to which is the crowning act of incompetency. While I agree with him that there is not a great deal of competency shown in connection with this Bill, perhaps, after all, it is not the crowning act of incompetency. That is the only particular in which I do not agree with the brilliant young member for Muskoka. I am glad that he .has the independence, clear-headedness and good judgment to express his views in connection with this matter, good party man as he is. I am sure that it is only when the evidence was overwhelming and when conditions were such that he could not do anything else that he would give voice to this opinion in respect to a Government that he would very much like to see doing better.
I am not going to criticize the classification very much further. The only thing to say is that we hope that as matters go along, as the commissioners will be experimenting with this measure and getting used to it from time to time, it may come a little closer towards perfection.
I have only one thing to say to the commission, if they will take my advice, and that is that they should take this work in hand themselves and keep absolutely clear of calling in other people to pass judgment upon the class of men they should bring into the service. If they will do that, they will find as they go along that they will gain in experience, strength, confidence, and courage, and will have the reward and satisfaction of the public having confidence in them; but so long as they continue to switch off the difficult part of their work to somebody else, calling in to do their work new boards and raw recruits, they will not inspire the people with the confidence which otherwise should repose in the Civil Service Commission.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-commencement of Act:
Robert James Manion: The few remarks I have
to make do not bear particularly on this clause, but then I do not think any of the remarks made here this afternoon bore particularly on the clause under discussion. I am in agreement with my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie), if I drew my conclusions correctly from the latter part of his remarks -and if I did not he will correct me. I understood him to criticise the details of the Bill but to agree with the principle, and if I was correct in drawing that conclusion I entirely agree with the view expressed by my hon. friend. The details I took exception to when the Bill was introduced in the House; I think very many of the details can stand correction. But I believe that the Appeal Board which will act in conjunction with the Civil Service Commission between now and the first of April next will correct many inequalities in the classification. I do not see how anybody can legitimately take the ground that the principle of this Bill is not correct. Nobody can defend the patronage system, the appointing of civil servants entirely on the recommendation of ministers of the Crown and members of a political party. So long as I can remember the whole people of this country have been arguing against patronage, and different Governments have promised to eliminate it. I believe that this is a very good attempt to eliminate patronage. The principle is correct, if the details are incorrect, it is not the fault of the principle but the fault of the executive, and while executives may change or expire, principles live. Therefore I think the principle should be carried out, even if the execution of the details may be imperfect in some cases. We can all hope that ultimately the details will be worked out correctly.
I rose particularly to say something to the Government and the minister in charge -of the Bill in regard to a soldier being appointed to the Civil Service Commission. Unfortunately, the Committee appointed to consider the Bill, of which I was a member, did not see their way clear to bring in a recommendation that the Civil Service Commission be enlarged by the inclusion in its membership of a returned soldier. The main reason, I think, why returned soldiers are particularly entitled to representation on that commission is this: We will say the number of returned soldiers is 400,000; it is more than that. Multiply that by five, the usual method of computation to take in families, and we get these 400,000 men representing 2,000,000 people in this country. Thus a distinct class of 400,000 men to which the Civil Service Act has given a preference represents two million people or twenty-five per cent of the population of this

country. On those grounds I think it is a most legitimate request on the part of the Great War Veterans' Associations of the different parts of this Dominion, and particularly of the Dominion War Veterans' Association that they should toe represented on the commission. Just as I left the Chamber this evening I had this question brought to my attention, and a number of resolutions passed by the Dominion War Veterans' Association with headquarters at Ottawa were handed to me. One of them is to the effect that two returned soldiers be appointed as Civil Service Commissioners, and that any vacancies on the Civil Service Commission within the next five years be filled by returned soldiers. I am not arguing for two returned soldiers on the commission, but I think it is a legitimate request that one should be appointed, and if I interpreted correctly the remarks of the Prime Minister last year when I brought this matter up in the House, and of the minister who was piloting the Bill through the House on a late occasion, they rather leaned towards granting the request of the Great War Veterans' Association by appointing a returned soldier to the commission. I should be very pleased if I could extract from the minister this evening some sort of assurance that a returned soldier will be appointed to the Commission at the proper time.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: My attention has been called to section 12, which fixes the time at which this Act is to come into operation. I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the original Bill dealing with this matter, Bill No. 136, introduced last session, antedated the time at which the Bill was to come into operation to' April 1, 1919. In April, 1919, the President of the Privy Council stated in the House that the new classification when put into effect would apply to the current fiscal year, commencing , April 1, 1919. This promise was repeated by him in answer to a question
9 p.m. by the horn, member (Mr. Andrews) in May, 1919. It seems to me that in justice to those members of the Service who are to be benefited by the classification, and who have been relying upon the promise made last session, and who have not received a bonus supplementing their salary, this Act should come into operation commencing April 1, 1919.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Even had my hon. friend not raised this point it was my intention at some stage of the discussion in committee to make a statement in reference

to the matter. I want to put the facts before the Committee, and to state my own view and just what .the position of the Government is at the moment.
It is true that when this Bill was before the House last year it contained a provision that it should become effective as from April 1, 1919. I myself stated that several times in the House. However, when that observation was made by me I did believe that the Bill would be passed and classification become effective by the later part of June or early in July, or, say, within the first three months of the present fiscal year. At that time we had established a bonus for the first three months of this fiscal year, so as to cover approximately the period from April 1, 1919, until the time when the new classification should come into effect. The Government felt that, with the classification in effect, it would be enabled to adjust the bonus on a more proper and scientific basis, because there would be a readjustment of the salaries of all those in the Service. However, the Bill did not pass and classification was not adopted. In view of this fact the Government were obliged to establish a bonus for the Service covering the whole fiscal year from April 1, 1919, to March 31, 1920, and about July 15 an Order in Council was passed creating a bonus for the Service which would be effective until the end of the present fiscal year.
While I had intimate knowledge of the bonus and the steps that were being taken to set it up, yet I had left Ottawa just before the Order in Council was passed making the bonus effective. I understood that having enacted these bonus regulations to which I have referred, it could not be expected by the service that the classification when adopted would become effective as at April last. Now it transpires that under this section which we have changed, it cannot become effective until April next. The effect of the classification will he to give very formidable increases to some members of the Civil Service. In the meanwhile they have got a very substantial bonus, and I am not quite satisfied myself that they are entitled to both-without, at least, some consideration. But on conferring with some of my colleagues I discovered that there might be some doubt about it, and at least one or two of my colleagues feel that the matter should not he definitely disposed of and the definite statement made that the classification should not relate hack. Accordingly I wish to say that the matter will have the attention of the Government. In any event

if it turns out that the classification should relate back to Aipril by virtue of any statement of the Government, the service will not suffer because it can not become effective until the first of April next, and in the meantime legislation may be passed to make it effective. I wanted the opportunity of making this statement and to assure the service that it will not be prejudiced by reason of the lack of the clause which my hon. friend indicates.
My hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) suggests that the Commission be extended. He has been very consistent about this and has never neglected an opportunity of pressing this view upon the Government. When the Act of 1918 was in progress through the House many hon. gentlemen expressed the view that there should be a soldier upon the Civil Service Commission. There was then, rightly or wrongly, an impression among the returned men that the Order in Council giving the soldier preferential treatment was not being justly carried out; or, they at least claimed that it was not. Whatever objections could have been made in 1918 as to the action of the Civil Service Commission in this regard have since passed away. I do not think that the returned man can fairly complain that to-day the clause of the Civil Service Act of 1918 requiring preferential treatment to him is not being carried out. If there was any reasonable, well founded complaint in this regard, the demand for the appointment of a returned soldier upon the Commission might have some merits. There are requests from other classes for representation on the Commission which would involve an increase in the number. I understand the labour unions claim that they should be represented upon it; the Civil Service also made a similar claim as well as the women of the Civil Service. After all, this is a business question and it resolves itself into this: Is it necessary to increase the number of the commission to administer the provisions of the Civil Service Act? Personally, I do not think it is. However, if it should be the judgment or wish of Parliament to increase the number of the commission, I would gracefully bow to its opinion. While I suppose my hon. friend has no amendment drafted at the moment, I would suggest to him that he allow the Bill to proceed and on the third reading, if he has a clause drafted and it meets with the support of the House, no further opposition to it will be made by me. There is, of course, the further objection
that a money vote would involve a resolution. I did not think of that.


Walter Davy Cowan: Was the bonus which was adopted in lieu of the classification paid to all the parties who will be affected by the classification?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, not at all.


Walter Davy Cowan: Then some are going to suffer as a result of that. What are you going to do for these parties?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The only members of the service who are not in receipt of a bonus are those enjoying an income of over $3,000.


Walter Davy Cowan: It applies to everybody except that class?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Those receiving salaries in excess of $1,800 do not get it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Those receiving salaries in excess of $1,800 who are unmarried and without dependents.


Robert James Manion: The minister mentioned the possibility of my moving an amendment to this Bill on the third reading. I may not be in the House when the third reading takes place-these things go through very quickly some times-and I would like to find out if it would be in order to move an amendment now. As the minister mentioned, it would be a money vote. I would like to have the view of the Chairman if it would be in order at the present moment to move an amendment recommending that a returned soldier be appointed on this commission. If I am in order I would like to move it now, because I may not be here on the third reading.


Georges Henri Boivin: I regret to say that
the hon. member would not be in order in moving an amendment which would increase the expense in regard to this Bill. That amendment would have to be preceded by a resolution, it would first have to foe adopted by the comittee of the whole House and it could only be proposed by a member of the Government, and if recommended by His Excellency the Governor General.


Robert James Manion: Under these circumstances of course I cannot move any amendment.


Michael Steele: As an amendment which calls for an increase of expenditure under this Bill is precluded I thought that possibly an amendment which would reduce


Mr. MOW  AT@: The matter raised by the hon. and gallant member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) is left in a somewhat unsatisfactory state. My hon. friend made a very good attempt to get before the House the object of his desire, but he is met with a very formidable obstruction in the British North America Act, which prevents a private member moving any motion involving expenditure. But it seems to me that, in view of the statement of the minister, that while he does not himself approve- of the matter, yet he would not object to having the sense of the House taken on it, he might bring in a resolution pro forma, so to speak, in order to allow that matter to be decided upon the third reading of this Bill. Otherwise hon. members will not be able to give that expression of opinion which the minister said he was willing to take.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I want to acknowledge
the courtesy of the chairman of the commission in providing me with a somewhat comprehensive statement showing why there is a difference in the salaries of the supervisors at the Printing Bureau. This statement on the face of it is intended to prove that a supervisor of compositors should get $200 a year more than a supervisor of pressmen. I find that the Civil Service Commission, in its wisdom and in its extravagance, ap-

pointed two bodies of experts. One body of experts went through the Bureau to determine whether it was efficiently managed; another body o-f experts were put in to find out what salaries should be paid. The second body of experts, being theorists entirely, and having none of the quality that the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) spoke of as practical experience, do not even seem to think it necessary to examine the expert report made by three of the best qualified commercial printers in the Dominion of Canada with respect to the efficiency of the Bureau but they apparently find that the supervising compositor has eight departments-one of those departments being a place where they stack type that is not in use. However, this is what the practical experts who examined the Bureau said, and I put their report in a phrase: "This composition department is 57 per cent efficient, and the press department is 98 per cent efficient." The proposition of these theoretical experts is that the man who is running an absolutely inefficient department should get $200 more than the man who is running an efficient department. I submit that no person can have any respect for a classification which is prepared on such a basis.
The report of the three commercial gentlemen, Mr. Slack, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Tarte, is to the effect that $165,000 a year is being wasted in the composition department, and they propose that the cost oi that department be reduced $165,000 a year. They report that the press department is operating under ideal conditions. And yet these so-called American experts want to give the supervisor of the inefficient department mpre money than the supervisor of the ideally conducted department. Upon my word, I do not think anything more than that is necessary to convince any man that Parliament should give more consideration to this classification than it has yet received. I know it is idle fox me to protest, that this is all cut and dried and is going through, but at the same time I want to express my opinion. This classification will increase the salary of the inefficient man over that of the most efficient man.


Walter Davy Cowan: Is that inefficiency due to the man or is it due to the inefficiency that politics forced on the man? That is the point with me. If it is the fault of politics you cannot blame him.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not know whether it is the fault of polities ox of the man. But I submit that a department running at

$165,000 a year more than it should be run for ought to have its staff reduced by 165 people, which will then, bring it down to a staff very little larger than that engaged in the press department, which is being run under ideal conditions. As I say, I know it is perfectly futile for me or anybody else, to oppose this Bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The only reason I have been able to discover why the supervising compositor gets more than the supervisor of pressmen is because he is a personal friend of the secretary of the commission, and the secretary runs the commission with an iron hand. Whatever he says goes. If his friends want increases they get them. When they want to get in the Service they get in. It (has been said in the corridors of this House and elsewhere that there is a back door to Mr. Foran's office, and if you go there and give him the high sign' you can go through. He handles the commission and does what he likes. I am not attempting to go into details, but they can be given, especially by the member who declared, not on the floor of the House but in this building, that he had knowledge of the back door methods adopted 'to get employment in the Civil Service. The whole thing is a fraud on the people. The people have been kicking about the way appointments have been made. Appointments made on the recommendation of members of this House are a great deal better than are those that are being made now. What the people did complain about was the handing out of contracts and the purchasing of supplies on a patronage basis, and that is something that really might be corrected. But this whole proposition is a fraudulent deception of the people, and they will discover i-t some day when the Service is staffed with high school boys and girls and completely run down. It is running down every day of the week. If you speak to men who have been in the Service fox fifteen or twenty years, they will tell you that the Service is not as good now as before the commission took it over. The class of employees now being engaged may be able to pass examinations, but they cannot do the work, they have not got the necessary stability, and a good many of them have not got character. In a word, the commission is filling up the service with a lot of inefficient juveniles. And that is what they call Civil Service reform! If that is the kind of thing that is 'being done, then I think the people will be sadly dis-

appointed in the results of the work of this subterfuge masquerading under the name of Civil Service reform.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I cannot escape the impression that my hon. friend's views respecting classification are largely formed by reason of the fact that he seems ito he very much prejudiced against the secretary of the commission.
I offered to bring the secretary of the commission and my hon. friend together; if I could have arranged that I have no doubt that I would have satisfied my hon. friend. The secretary of the commission is a very capable public officer, interested only in performing his public duties. My hon, friend makes this mistake in judging of the classification: He thinks it is the personnel of the service which is being classified and the compensation of which has been fixed. But it is not the individual Who has been classified; it is the position. Now, the experts go to the Printing Bureau and they find that salaries there are arranged on a wrong basis-and I have no doubt that they were able to find that. At any rate, they come across a position there filled by a man known as " Supervisor of Composition." It does not matter whether that man was efficient or inefficient; he had certain duties to perform. He had under him 378 men and the weekly payroll was $9,119.80. Another person was filling a position known as " Supervisor of Press Work;" he had under him116 men, and the weekly payroll was $2,330. The Civil Service Commission very reasonably assumed that the responsibilities and duties of the man having under him 378 men were greater than the responsibilities and duties of the man who had under him only 116 men; and there- was the further consideration of the difference between a weekly payroll of $9,000 and a weekly payroll of $2,300. Surely these are factors in determining the compensation to be paid to a man having supervisory duties.
My hon. friend refers to the report of the committee of printers. I, too, might take a strong attitude and say that the judgment of these gentlemen would not influence me in respect to the classification, as indeed it would not, I care not who the men are. If the duties pertaining to the position of Supervisor of Composition are inefficiently and extravagantly carried out, that should be corrected. If he has fifty per cent more men under him than he should have, that fifty per cent should be removed; and when that is done and the duties and responsibilities pertaining to that office changed, the Civil Service Commission can establish new compensation rates. The Civil Service Commission always have in mind the duties and responsibilities attaching to a given office and the ability and talent necessary to the proper discharge of those duties. It may not be a perfect system of fixing compensation, but it cannot be any worse than the system which prevails to-day; it must be better. The classification raises the compensation of those in the Civil Service who are receiving a fairly low rate of pay; it does not change very much the salary range among those who are getting from $2,000 up to $3,500, because in many instances men were given increases annually, not by virtue of the duties they were performing but simply .in order to give them increases. That is the d'ffi-culty in the Civil Service at the present time, men are not paid according to the responsibilities and duties attaching to their work. This is at least an honest effort to put the system on a proper basis. If it is not perfect now, I hope that it will approximate that condition at some time in the near future.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	_
Bill reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 9.42	p.m., until Tuesday,
October 14.

[Stage Direction]
Abbreviations.-lr., 2r., Sr. = first, second, or third reading. Arndt. = Amendment. Com.= Committee. Con. = Consideration. Div. = Division. M. = Motion. Ques.= Question. Ref. [DOT]*= Reference. Rep. = Report. Res. = Resolution. Sec. = Section.
"Able Seaman," qualifications of, 973-5
Address in Reply to Governor General's Speech, 3, 52, 272, 371 Debate given precedence, 370 Message from Governor General, 1558 Whidden, Mr. (Mover) 3; Mr. McIntosh . (Seconder) 6
Adulteration Act Amdt. Bill, (Bran and shorts), lr., 176, 2r., 714, com., 1223, 1950; 3r., 1950 Ref. to standing com., 1223 Report, 1332
Agriculture and Colonization Com., 50, 1332
Aircraft, Imperial Munitions Board, ques., 1500
Alberta and Saskatchewan, needy settlers, 1954
Alien Enemies. iS're also Dominion Bands Act Amdt.
Interned, wages of, 956	[DOT]
Title to land, 868
Aliens, 831
Passports forged, ques., 909
Americans in First Contingent, ques., 2000
Ames, Sir Herbert B. (St. Antoine)
Appointment under League of Nations, 502-9
Peace Treaty, French text, 25
Andrews, Mr. George W., (Centre Winnipeg) Grand Trunk Acquisition, 1325 Proportional representation, ques., 1062 War veterans gratuity claim, 1326, 1751 Amdt., 1776; withdrawn, 1888, 1892 Com. final report, 1771 Motion (Mr. Currie) for adjournment, to discuss, .317
"Native born" and others, 1879
Appropriation Act (For 1919-20, for $62,916,039.42), res., 2004; lr., 2r„ com., 3r.. 2005
Archambault, Mr. Joseph (Chambly and Ver-cheres)
Address in reply to Governor General's Speech, 371. Prince of Wales, 371; Peace Treaty and League of Nations -high cost of living, 372; credits to foreign countries, 375; fixing of prices, 376; limitation of export of foodstuffs, 379
Army camp riots in England, ques., 1144 Board of Commerce French-speaking member, 825 Third member, appointment of, 444, 714 Bulgaria, peace tree, y with, 605 Canadian contractors' claims against United States government, ques., 622 Canadian National Railway and political picnic, ques., 953, 1679-81 Doctors and post graduate courses, ques., 1144
Doctors in Permanent Force, ques., 712, ques., 1144
Forged passports, ques., 909 Grand Trunk Acquisition, 1675 Arbitration, 1685 Halifax Board of Trade, 1688 liquidation, 1684 Montreal Board of Trade, 1687 [DOT] Public ownership, 1677
Regina Board of Trade, 1687 Shareholders, 1021, 1035, 1145 Stocks, 1046 Taxation, 1555
United States, lines in, 1059-60, 1676, 1687
" Ilazen " the, ice breaker, ques., 405 Inquiry for papers-Ministers' trips to Europe, 901
Judiciary, reflections upon, 588 National Industrial Conference, 370 Orders for returns, inquiry for, 2007 Orders of the Day, procedure, 662 Prince of Wales-literature supplied in Royal train, ques., 271
A
Volume I:: 


Volume II :: ii


Volume I:: 1 -99.2


Volume II :: 



INDEX-1919

[Stage Direction]
iii
Borden, Right Hon. Sir Robert (Prime Minister)
Address in reply to Governor General's Speech, 34. Prince of Wales-Board of Commerce, 34; Profits and prices, 35; labour matters, Cabinet changes- Nickle, Mr., resignation of, 37; Peace Treaty, 38
Army lists, alleged padding of, 26 Illness of, 75, 2003 Peace Treaty
Approval or non-approval by Parliament, effect of, 23
Arrangement for discussion of, 24-6 Concurrent resolutions in Senate and House of Commons, 51-52
Documents, 2
Explanation and motion to approve, 13
French text, 24, 27
Botha, the late Sir Louis, 7, 19
Bourassa, Mr. Joseph B. (LOvis)
Lfivis railway station, ques., 553
Boyce, Mr. George (Carleton)
Bran and shorts, 721 Canadian Wheat Board, 681 Civil Service classification, 775 Government coal supply at Ottawa, ques., 1381
Guelph Novitiate, ques., 1144 Oleomargarine, 892, 946
Boyer, Mr. Gustave (Vaudreuil-Soulanges) Oleomargarine, 947
Bran and Shorts. See also Adulteration; Grain Supervisors; Wheat Board Adulteration, investigation promised, 724
Brien, Mr. John Wesley (South Essex)
War veterans' gratuities-statement of Mr. Currie, 1672
British Columbia, Orientals and the vote. See Dominion By-Elections
British Investments in Canada-treasury restrictions, ques., 1499
Brouillard, Mr. Joseph 0. (Drummond and Athabaska)
Military Defaulters in Quebec, ques., 621
Bulgaria, Treaty of Peace with, 605
Bureau, Mr. Jacques (Three Rivers and St. Maurice)
Canadian National Railways-Transcontinental and Intercolonial, 1223 Grand Trunk Acquisition, arrangements for debate, 1331
International Trade Congress, 1176
Bureau, Mr. Jacques-Con.
Interpretation Act Arndt., 610 Judiciary, reflections upon, 587-8 Lapierre, Arthur, ques., 1796 Military police, use of firearms by, .109 Naturalization Act Amdt., 619-620 Navigable Waters Act Amdt.-bridges, etc.
impeding navigation, 515-8 Orientals, disfranchisement of, 612-614 Peace Treaty, arrangements for debate of, 12, 27
Point of order, relevancy of speech, Mr. . Richardson, 733 Preambles in public Acts. 613 Soldiers Civil Re-Establishment, 407-429 Pensions, and, 411 Soldiers' votes, 739, 784, 792-5
Burnham, Mr. John Hampden (West Peterborough)
Board of Commerce, 449 Canada Temperance Act, 870, 1977, 1985-6 Civil Service Classification, 770 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Exchange, rate of, 1334 Guaranteed stock, 1735 Parliament, ratification by, 1710 People, appeal to, 1459 Intoxicating Liquors Bill-referendum, 1946 Production costs and consumption costs

application of science to existing economic problems, 468, 475 Protection or protective tariff, necessary; motion, 905
Speeches in House-time limit proposed, 649
War veterans' gratuity claim, 1753, 1843 Motion (Mr. Currie) for adjournment, to discuss, 333
Soldiers' Bond Loan, 1807 Special Com., 258, 1806
Burrell, Hon. Martin (Secretary of State and Minister of Mines)
Orders for returns, inquiry for, 2007
By-Elections. See House of Commons Act
Cabinet Changes, 32, 37, 497
Cahill, Mr. Frank S. (Pontiac)
Address in reply to Governor General's Speech, 58
Bran and shorts, 678, 683 Civil Service classification, 774 Withdrawal from Special Com., 825 Civil Service Commission, 957 Drayton, Sir Henry, candidature in Kingston, ques., 955
Government railway employees and Civil Service Act, 964	.
A
Volume I:: 


Volume II :: iv

Cahill, Mr. Frank S.-Con.
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 10371046, 1091-7, 1111, 1277, 1383-1393 Amalgamation, 1567
Arbitration and arbitrators, 1506-7, 1521-2 Assets, current, 1111, 1390-1 Committee of Management, 1529 Dividends, excessive, 1039 Equipment, 1428-9 Finance, 1401-4, 1420-2, 1654 Grand Trunk Pacific and National Transcontinental, 1037, 1278, 1440-2, 1571-2 "Majority," 1534	,
Negotiations with Company, 1022-3 Obligations of Company, 1383 Obligations of Government, 1091, 1,333, 1335
Public ownership, 1280
Senate amdts., 1929
Stock, guaranteed, 1038-1040, 1419
Arbitration of, amdt. (Mr. Campbell), 1736
Superannuation and pension fund, 154S Taxation, 1554-6 United States, lines in, 1547 Central Vermont, 1393, 1434-6 Meat and Canned Foods Bill, 1121, 1148-9 Morning sittings of the House, 1564 Oleomargarine, 890, 933
Railway Act Amdt., standard equipment, 1940-5
Soldiers Civil Re-establishment Department, 1909-10
Transportation-car shortage, 58
Calder, Hon. J. A. (Minister of Immigration and Colonization)
Canadians in Imperial forces, 1767 Coal-car shortage, 1952 Finance and Re-establishment, 1759-65 Housing-garden cities for returned soldiers, 466
Immigration Act Amdt. (transportation of officers), 1498, 1919-21 Manitoba, Northern, development of, 1383 Soldiers Civil Re-establishment Departmental appointments, 1777, 1900-8 Statement in Com. of Supply, 1958-68 . AA'ar A'eterans' gratuity claim, 1217-8, 1788, 1883-4, 1891, 1958-68 Amdt. ((Mr. Andrews), 1841 Amdts. to .be made in Senate, 1907, 1911
Com. on Bill, 1898 Com. Report
Concurrence in, motion for, 1748 Press report in advance of, 1748 Printing, 1997-8 Estates of soldiers, 1909-10
Calder, Hon. J. A.-Con.
Solders' Civil Re-establishment.-Con. Finance, 1844
Government to resign if House votes for General distribution of gratuities, 1749, 1776, 1786, 1829, 1843 Penalties, 1910 Senate amdts., 2006 Soldier Bond Loan, 1821 Statement allowed by unanimous consent, 1888
A'ote of $40,000,000, 1958-67 '	Distribution of, machinery for, 2005-6
Caldwell, Mr. Thomas Wakem. (Victoria and Carleton)
Canada Temperance Act Amdt., 1989 Election for Victoria and Carleton, 1940 Campbell, Mr. J. A. (Nelson)
Canadian National Railways and Railway Commission, 1019
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Arbitration, 1085, 1724 Duplication of lines, 1630 Obligations of company, 1576 Senate amdts., 1931 Stocks, 1085
Hudson Bay Railway, 903, ques., 908 Manitoba, Northern, development of, 1383 Police amalgamation-local jurisdiction, 836-7
Provincial control of natural resources, ques., 1144
Public works and finance, ques., 1998 Canada Grain Act, 1919, Amdt. Bill. Res., 659; lr., 660; 2r., com.., 846; 3r., 847 Canada Shipping Act Amdt. Bill ((Masters and Mates). Res., 1794; lr., 1911; 2r., moved, 1935; withdrawn, order discharged, 1940
Canada Shipping Act Amdt. Bill (Pacific Coast Pilotage). Res., 1912; lr., 1914; 2r., 1932; com., 1933; 3r., 1935 Canada Temperance Act Amdt. Bill, lr., 869; 2r., 1974; com., 1986; 3r., 1997 Inquiry ((Mr. McKenzie), 1012 Canadian Contractors' Claims against United States Government, ques., 622 Canadian Mercantile Marine Ltd., ques., 906 Canadian National Railways Bridges
Cap Rouge-Portneuf, repairs, ques., 404 Montreal-Charlemagne, ques., 1219 Earnings and debt, ques., 908 Eastern Division-ties and fence posts, ques., 955
Intercolonial Railway. Sec that title Management, 1249


Volume I:: 


Volume II :: 



INDEX-1919 v

[Stage Direction]
Canadian National Railways-Con.
Men training for employment, not returned soldiers, 665
National Transcontinental and Intercolonial, 1223 Operation, 1113
Ottawa Station-trains backing out, ques., 553
Political picnic, and, ques., 953, 1679, 1925 Provident Fund, ques., 404 Quebec Bridge, 1265 Kailway Commission control of, 1019 St. John Valley road, operation, Westfield-St. John, 714
Uniforms, contracts for, ques., 459 Western Ontario peninsula, and, 1255
Canadian Northern Railway arbitration, 1135 Canadian Official Record, ques., 1011 Canadian Reconstruction Association, 662 Canadian Soldiers
Housing and fuel, 534 Imprisoned in England, 903 Memorials to, in France and Flanders, 496 'Sen also Army; Returned Soldiers; Soldiers Civil Re-establishment
Canadian Wheat Board
Ministerial statement (Sir George Foster), 1005	.
Wheat sales, ques., 840
Canadian Wheat Board Bill. Res., 670; lr„ 683; 2r., 910; 3r„ 994
-Canned Goods Contracts. See Dominion Canners
Cannon, Mr. Lucien (Dorchester)
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1258 "All persons interested," 1551 Arbitration, 1267, 1550 Ownership-title, 1546-7 Public finance, and, 1262 Public ownership, 1265 Quebec and Levis terminals, 1536 Quebec bridge, 1265 Ratification by Parliament, 1519 Taxation, 1557 Peace Treaty, 24, 28, 132 Soldiers' votes, 798
Stewart, Mr., Chairman Canadian Wheat Board, ques., 953
Canso, Harbour Master, 460, 623 Capital Punishment. See Criminal Code Cardin, Mr. P. J. A. (Richelieu)
St. Lawrence Channel dredges, ques., 533 Sorel-McCarthy property, ques., 843
Carleton, N.B., Vacancy, 1 Car Shortage, 2004
Carvell, Hon. F. B., Vacancy caused by acceptance of office by, 1 Casgrain, Mr. P. F. (Charlevoix-Montmor-ency)
Canadian Northern Railway finances, ques., 1222
Enemy aliens, ques., 622 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1168, 1484-5
Com. of Management, 1537-8 Delay, reasons for, 1173 Finance, 1172 Historical review, 1168 Indebtedness to government, 1558 Part consideration for acquisition, 1477 Public ownership, 1169 Sleeping and parlour cars, 1551 Stock, jurisdiction over, 1480 International Waterways Commission, ques., 270
Isle aux Coudres, ques., 1221 Lotbiniere and Megantic Railway, ques., 1381
Murray Bay service
C.G.S. " Champlain," ques., 1220; ques., 1381; ques., 2000
Pointe au Pic post office, ques., 1221 Quebec and Saguenay Railway, ques., 1221; ques., 1381; ques., 1999 Railway subsidies, ques., 1222 Riviere Quelle train service, ques., 1381 Ste. Anne de Beaupre, ques., 1221 St. Fidele Wharf, ques., 1382 Chabot, Mr. John Leo (Ottawa)
Soldiers and drugs, 417 China, Canadian Trade Commissioner in, 1565
Chinamen, disfranchised. See Dominion ByElections Act Christie, Mr. Loring C., 19 Christmas Island mail service, 868 Churches, the, and Canadian citizenship, 106
Civil Service. See also Public Printing Absentees in, lost time by, 773 Administration-buildings, 777 Appointments
Canso Harbour Master, 460 Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, 1777, 1900
Bonus, ques., 533, 756, ques., 1498 Classification. See also Civil Service'Act Amdt.	.
Experts, 751, 759, 765, 781
Volume I:: 


Volume II :: vi

Civil Service-Con.
Commission, 756	[DOT]
Additional members suggested Civil servant, 758, .766 Labour representative, 760, 764 Returned soldier, 763, 766, 767, 775, 987, 989
Woman, 760, 763, 764, 775 Outside service and. See under this head, Outside
Salaries See Civil Service Act Amdt. Dismissals, ques., 1380 Examinations, 758, 763 Fishery officers, 966 Merit system, 776
Outside service and Civil Service Commission, 761-771 Overmanning, 774 Parliament, responsibility of, 774 Returned soldiers, and, 756 Salaries. 959, 1694
Maximum not reduced by re-classification, 758
Superannuation, 757, 774 Printing Bureau, 1917 Temporary appointees, 757, 970, 976-7, 984 Undersirables, weeding out of, resolution of Civil Service Federation, 988
Civil Service Act, 1918, Amdt. Bills
1.	Classification and commissioners'
Salaries.	Res.-Classification,	660;
Commissioners' Salaries, 957; lr., 661; 2r., 748; ref. to Special Com., 784, 822; Com., 963;	3r., 994; Senate amdts.,
Official memo, in explanation of Bill, 752 Special Com.
Reports, 823, 906, 952 Withdrawal of Messrs. Murphy and [DOT] Cahill, 825
2.	Postmasters' Salaries. lr., 993;	2r.,
1223; com., 1227, 1373, 1915; 3r., 1915
Clark, Mr. Hugh (Parliamentary Secretary for the Department of Militia and-Defence)
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Departmental employees, 1910 War veterans' gratuity claim, 422, 1879, 1902-9
Clark, Mr. Michael (Red Deer)
Board of Commerce, 444, 451, 456 Civil Service Commission, 958 Economy, 958
Grand Trunk Railway acquisition, 1495-6 Oleomargarine, 943 Soldiers' votes, 561
Clark, Mr. Michael-Con.
Speeches in House-time limit proposed, 652
War Veterans' gratuity claim
Motion (Mr. Currie) for adjournment, to discuss, 322
Press report of Com., 1501
Clemency, Mackay and Horsley, murder, ques., 460
Coal operations, Director of, 1951
Coal Supply, United States export to Canada, ques., 1999
Cochrane, Hon. Francis (Timi'skaming) Death of, 458, 490, 531 Cockshutt, Mr. W. F. (Brantford)
Grand Trunk Railway acquisition, 1281 Alternatives, 1287
Arbitration and arbitrators, 1288, 1508, 1512
Maximum amount, 1578 Canadian Pacific, relation to, 1285 Liquidation, 1290
Obligations of Government, 1285-6 Public ownership, 1281-2 Sleeping and parlour cars, 1484, 1571 Taxation, 1352
House of Commons Act Amdt., 529 King, Hon. W. L. Mackenzie Congratulations to, 1281 Opposition leadership, and, 1284 Peace Treaty, 166 Rhine territories, 261 Thanksgiving Day Bill, 436, 478, 481, 521, 523
War veterans' gratuity claim, 1817 Soldier Bond Loan, 1821
Commercial Feeding Stuffs, 724 Conner, James, dismissal of, 654 Cooper, Mr. Richard C. (Vancouver South) War veterans' gratuity claim, 1846 ' Appointments, 1905
Vocational training, 1803
Copp, Mr. Arthur B. (Westmorland)
Civil Service promotions, 969-970 Gagetown to Westfield, operation of St.
John Valley Railway, 714 Grand Trunk Railway acquisition, 1635 Atlantic terminals, 1643 Canadian Pacific, relation to, 1638 Delay proposed, 1639 Finance, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1641 Grand Trunk Pacific and Transcontinental, 1637
Halifax Board of Trade, 1177


Volume I:: 


Volume II :: 



INDEX-1919

[Stage Direction]
Copp, Mr. Arthur B.-Con.
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition-Con. Liquidation, 1637 Physical assets, 1641 Shareholders, 1636
Meat and Canned Foods Act Amdt., 11471152
Thanksgiving Day, 478
Cost of Living See also Address; Board of Commerce
Production costs and consumption costs, 468
Cowan, Mr. Walter D. (Regina)
Irrigation, 1954 Police amalgamation, 828-9 Regina Board of Trade, 1593 War veterans' gratuity claim, appointments, 1902	.
Crerar, Hon. T. A. (Marquette)
Aliens with firearms, 881-3 Canadian National Railways, development of and by, 1167 Canadian Wheat Board, 927 Grand Trunk Railway acquisition, 1160 Electrification, 1167 Grand Trunk Pacific, 1161 Liquidation, 1162 Re-valuation, 1166 Oleomargarine, 951 Public ownership, 1162 Reciprocity, 928
Criminal Code Amdt. Bill (Aliens with firearms). lr., 841; 2r., com., 871; 3r., 884
Criminal Code Amdt. Bill (Electrocution), lr., 148; 2r., com., 482, 1000
Cronyn, Mr. Hume (London)
Grand Trunk Railway acquisition, 1105, 1618
Arbitration, 1105, 1621 Delay proposed, 1622 Finance, 1619
Stocks, market prices, 1618
Crothers, Hon. T. W. (West Elgin)
Civil Service classification, 768
Currie, Mr. John A. (North Simcoe)
Canadian National Railways, operation, 1765
Civil Service Classification, 661 Foreign credits, 1761-2 House of Commons Act Anjdt., 1923 Patents of Invention, 888-9 Pilotage, 1913-4
vii
Currie, Mr. John A.-Con.
Question, not answered, 2002 Revenue-producing methods, 1789 Soldiers' Votes, 540, 1787 Taxation, 1766
War veterans' gratuity claim, 1755-8, 1784, 1855, 1892
Motion for adjournment, to discuss, 177, 272, 306 In reply, 367
Currie, Gen. Sir Arthur, and War Veterans' Gratuity claim, 177
Customs Duties
Exchange rates, effect upon, ques., 840 * ques., 842
Dairy Products, 452. See also Board of Commerce; Oleomargarine Prices, 446
d'Anjou, Mr. Joseph Emile Stanislas Emmanuel (Rimouski)
Address in reply to Governor General's Speech, 47. French language and Debate on the Address-Prince of Wales -Military Service defaulters, 47 Grand Trunk Railway acquisition, 1665 Hill, Mr. H. P., M.P.P., ques., 1499	[DOT]
McKinley, Major John, ques., 746 Peace Treaty 238
Davidson, Mr Avard Longley (Digby and .	Annapolis)
House of Commons Act Amdt., 442, 524 Member holding two seats, 524 Opposition, Leader of, clerical assistance for, 1971-2
Thanksgiving Day Bill, 480, 522-3 Davis, Mr. Fred Langdon (Neepawa) Canada Temperance Act Amdt., 1996 Grand Trunk .Railway acquisition Arbitration, 1579 Obligations of Company, 1385-7 House of Commons Act Amdt., 1376 Parliament, next session, date of, 2002 Peace Treaty, 211 Thanksgiving Day Bill, 520 War veterans' gratuity claim, 426 Appointments, 1902 Estates of soldiers, 1909 Deacon, Col. F. H., ques., 954 Death Penalty. See Criminal Code Debates, Com. on, 51
Dechene, Mr. Aime Miville (Montmagny) Civil Service bonus, ques., 533 Grand Trunk Railway acquisition, "Other companies and interests," 1431-2 Railway mail service, 1063
Volume I:: 


Volume II :: viii


Volume I:: 


Volume II :: INDEX-*-1919
ix
Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees-Con.
Thanksgiving Day Bill, review of proceedings in, 523 Unanimous consent Bill, 3r., 889
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Bill, 1551
Request for information, 1008 Second speech of Minister not to close dehate, 1888
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, 407 Wheat Board-statement of Sir George Foster, 1007
Desaulniers, Mr. Arthur L. (Champlain)
St. Lawrence River protection works, ques., 842	[DOT]
Deslauriers, Mr, Hermas (St. Mary)
Montreal-Charlemagne bridges, ques., 1219 Montreal Post Office and returned soldiers, ques., 1063
National Industrial Conference, ques., 553 Peace Treaty-seals used at signing, ques., 843
Devlin, Mr. Emmanuel B (Wright)
Aliens with firearms, 879 Cabinet ministers-rumoured resignations, 497 Civil Service
Classification, 767
Post Office Inspectors, 96S	-
Promotions, 969
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 10235, 1054, 1071, 1082-4, 1173, 1181, 1418 Branch lines, 1422-3 Finance 1404-5 Negotiations, 1082
Ratification by Parliament, 1462-3 Stocks, 1084
Subsidiary companies, 1395-7 United States, lines in, 1432-3 Intoxicating Liquors Bill, 2009 Meat and Canned Foods Act Arndt., 1146 l'eace Treaty, 213, 501
Concurrent resolutions in Senate and House of Commons, 51-52 Public finance, 1173, 1181 Soldiers' votes, 805-6, 810 War indemnity, 499
Dickenson, Major, ques., 1220
Division See House of Commons
Doctors in Permanent Force, ques., 1144
Doherty, Hon. C. J. (Minister of Justice) Aliens
Criminal Code Arndt. Bill, (Aliens with firearms), 841, 871-884 Enemy, interned, wages of, 956 Austria, Peace Treaty with, 994, 1362-6, 1369
Board of Commerce
French speaking member proposed-[DOT] Col. Lafleche as chief examiner, 707, 825
Orders of, how made known, 711 Penalties, 686
Board of Commerce Salaries Bill, 14 4458, ('83, 707-712
Bulgaria, peace treaty with, 605 By-elections. See under thin title, House of Commons
Canada Temperance Act Arndt., 869-870, 1974-1997
Canadian Manufacturers' Association, representations by, 1276 Canso Harbour Master, 460 Cochrane, Hon. Francis, death of, 458, 490, 531
Debate on Address, resumption of, 271 Dominion Canners Ltd.. 1143 Dealings with Government, 862 Electrocution, 490
Exchequer Court Act Arndt. (Claims against Germans), 993 Foster, Lady, death of, 402 France and Great Britain, treaty between, 605
Franchise, 618 French Treaty, 1915 Grain Supervisors Bill, 666 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Arbitration-Exchequer Court, 1523 Horn, Werner, 1063
House of Commons Act Arndt., 526, 13751380
By-elections, 1922-4
Immigration officers' transportation, 1921 Imperial Conference, 2003, 2008 Interpretation Act Arndt. Bill, 513, 607 Intoxicating Liquors Bill, 870-871, 1946-9 Senate Arndts., 2009 Judiciary, reflections upon, 586-7 League of Nations. See also uniter thin title. Peace
Canadian representative, 532 Mackay and Horsley murder, 494 Member holding two seats, 530 Military Police, use of firearms by, 109 Naturalization Act Arndt., 619-620 Naval policy, 1276, 2003 Opium and Drug Act Amdt. Bill, 1915 Orders for returns, inquiry for, 2007


Volume I:: 


Volume II :: X


Volume I:: Volume 11 :



[Stage Direction]
xi
Edwards, Mr. John Wesley (Frontenac) Address in Reply to Governor General's Speech, 64. Prince of Wales-Reply to Mr. Turgeon 65; Borden Government and the farmers-expenditures in Antigonish-Mr. J. H. Sinclair and profits, 66; war profits, 67; High Cost of Living, 68; Industrial unrest -Reciprocity, 69; tariff, 70 Aliens with firearms, 878 Canadian Wheat Board, 920 Civil Service classification, 765 House of Commons Act Arndt., 526 Kingston
By-election, 1541-2
Military doctors employed, ques., 900: ques., 907
Member holding two seats, 526 Oleomargarine, 941
Police Amalgamation Bill, pensions, 886 Reciprocity, 920 Soldiers' votes, 592 War veterans' gratuity claim Appointments, 1902-5 Currie, Mr., statement of, 1672 Motion (Mr. Currie) for adjournment, to discuss, 342 Special Com. report, 1799
Electrocution. See Criminal Code
Elevators, Overages. See Canada Grain Act
Enemy Aliens
Deportation of, ques., 622 Internments, ques., 404
Estimates, Supplementary, 1631
Ethier, Mr. Joseph Arthur Calixte (Laval-Two Mountains)
Military Service defaulters, ques., 40"; ques., 1010	.
Euler, Mr. William D. (North Waterloo) Aliens with firearms, 874-6 Enemy aliens, internment of, ques., 404 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1326, 1338
Delay, proposed, 1329 Finance, 1391, 1397-8, 1405-9 Liquidation, 1329 Management, 1455 Operation, 1327 Ownership, title, 1345 Public ownership, 1326 Taxation, 1344, 1349, 1352 Greece, Canadian goods ordered by, 371 Kitchener postmaster, ques., 270 Soldiers' votes, 726, 805
Exchange rate
Canada and United States, ques., 459 Customs duties, and, ques., 840; ques., 842
Exchequer Court Act Arndt. Bill (Claims against Germans), lr., 993; 2r., com., 3r„ 1373
Extravagance, evil of, 1775
Fafard, Mr. J. Fernand (L'lslet)
War veterans' gratuity claim, 2003 Wheat sales, ques., 840
Family, The, and national life, relation of, 105
Fielding, Hon. William Stevens (Shelburne and Queen's)
Austria, peace treaty with, 993, 999, 1364 Business of the House, morning sittings, 1558
Canada Shipping Act Arndt. (Masters and Mates), 1795
Canada Temperance Act Arndt., 1976, 1986-90
Civil Service superannuation, 1918 Fisheries convention with United States, 1180
Fraser River salmon, 1180 French Treaty, 1915, 1926 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1020-6, 1035-6, 1041, 1072, 1089, 1240 Arbitration 1089, 1336-9
Administration of oaths, 1548 Exchequer Court Judge, 1524-5 Canadian Pacific, relation to, 1416-7, 1495
Commission to inquire-amdt. to 3r., 1584-8
Com. of Management, loans to, 1543 Company, entity of, 1347-8 Delay, proposed, 1072, 1078, 1584 Drafting of Bill, form of, 1551, 1552 Preamble, 1581
Expenses under the Bill, 1972 Governor in Council, powers of, 1551 Grand Trunk Pacific and National . Transcontinental, 1722
Grand Trunk Pacific receivership, 1560-7
Liquidation, 1468, 1492-3 Negotiations, 1357-61 Obligations of company, 1036 Ownership-title, 1546 Parliament, ratification by, 1089, 1439 1464, 1723
Public finances, and, 1076 Public opinion, 1360, 1417 Public ownership, 1077, 1416 Senate amdts., 1927-31
Volume I:: 


Volume II :: xii


Volume I:: 


Volume II :: 



[Stage Direction]
xiii
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir George E.-Con.
Grain Supervisors Bill, 665-670, 847-851 Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, 884 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1176 Halifax Board of Trade, 1176 Montreal Board of Trade, 1063 . St. John Board of Trade, 1143 Time of voting on, 2r„ 1143 Guelph Novitiate, 1565, 1584 Printing of report, 1633 House of Commons	[DOT]
Adjournment to discuss milk prices, proposed, 544
Business of the House, 532
Monday sittings, proposed precedence for Government orders, 823-4 Morning sittings, 1558-9, 1564 Notices of motion, 906 Soldiers' votes, discussion of, 543 Sunday sitting, 1993, 1997 Thanksgiving Day, sitting or adjournment, 904-5
Wednesday night sittings, 843 Time limit for speeches, 648 Hudson Bay Railway, 662 Indemnities of Members and Senators, 1974
Intereononial Railway-proposed system of extensions, 857-8 International agreements, 1180 International Labour Conference, 1950 Parliament Buildings, 1502 Peace proclamation, probable date, of, 846 Pork and beans for army use, 862 President Wilson, illness of, 846 Prince of Wales, 1865 Prorogation, expectation of, 910 Public Printing and Stationery Bill, 1940 Railway Mail Service, 1063 Sugar shortage, 1635 Tariff Commission, 1583 Thanksgiving Day and Ontario elections.
714	'
Victory Loan, arch, 1799 War veterans' gratuity claim, 1865 Finance, 1869
Wheat. See under thin title Canadian Wheat Board and Grain Supervisors Appeal Board, 851 Free storage, 848 Foster, Mr Thomas (East York)
Civil Service classification, 771, 774 Revenue proposals, 365, 1810 War veterans' gratuity, 364, 180S
Fournier, Mr. C. A. (Bellechasse)
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1034, 1044, 1097-1103 Capital charges, 1099
Fournier, Mr. C. A.-Can.
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition-Con. Delay, reasons for, 1102 Earning power, 1100 Grand Trunk Pacific, 1101 Maintenance, 1034
Obligations of Company, 1044,	1098,
France
Exchange rates with, ques., 840; ques., 842 Immigrants from, 1502
Franchise.. See Dominion By-Elections Act Fraser River Salmon Protection, Res., 1177
French Canadians, Volunteer unit at Quebec, ques.,. 1634
French Language
Bills printed in, 1926 French and Belgian immigrants, 1502 National Industrial Conference, report, ques., 553
French Treaty Bill, Res., 1915; lr., 1916; 2r., com., 3r„ 1926
Fripp Mr. Alfred Ernest (Ottawa)
Civil Service
Appointments-age limit, 970 Classification, date of coming into force, 986
Temporary employees, 970-972 Chairman, ruling as, 1540 Returned soldiers, treatment of, 642 War veterans' gratuity claim, 1755
Gagetown-Westfield Railway, 714 Galicia, Eastern, 902 Garand, Mr. J. H., ques., 1381 Garden Cities, 461
Gauthier, Mr. Louis Joseph (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville)
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1020-1, 1672
Peace Treaty, 207
Gauvreau, Mr. Charles Arthur (Temis-couata)
Civil Service appointments, 962 Grand Trunk Railway acquisition, repetitions in debate, complaint of, 1476 House of Commons Tranksgiving Day, 905 Wednesday evening sittings, 824 Military Service Amnesty, ques.. 1998
Defaulters, ques., 403; ques., 746; ques., 1143
Volume I:: 


Volume II :: xiv

Gauvreau, Mr. Charles Arthur-Con.
Naval decorations, ques., 26 Notre Dame des Sept Douleurs wharf, ques., 842 Peace Treaty, 145
Railway Provident Fund, ques., 404 Tanlac, ques., 954; ques., 1011
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd, 19
Germans, property of. See Exchequer Court
Germany, Imports from, ques., 1499
Gervais, Mr. Theodore (Berthier)
Lanoraie, dredging, ques., 1011
Gervais, Dr. See Mackay
Glass, Mr. Samuel Francis (East Middlesex) Board of Commerce, 452, 455, 689 Flax, ques., 622
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1661 House of Commons Act. Arndt., 527 Oleomargarine, 893, 948
Six-months' hoist for Bill, 950 Port Stanley, public works, 663 Prices and price regulation, 689 Thanksgiving Day, 521
Glengarry and Stormont, by-election, 1796
Government
Resignation of indicated if vote favourable to general gratuities to war veterans, 1749, 1776, 1780, 1786, 1801, 1807, 1829, 1839-40, 1843, 1869
Graham's River, P.E.I., dredging, ques., 843
Grain Supervisors Bill. Res., 665; lr., 670, 2r., com., 847; 3r., 851
Grain, Winnipeg market, closing of, ques., 953
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. See also Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Information asked for, 956, 1007 Operation, ques., 270
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Bill, lr., 823; 2r., com., 884; 3r., 904 Information asked for and given, 884, 904, 956
Grand Trunk Railway. See also Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Indebtedness to Government, ques., 1558
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Bill. Res., 1012, 1063; lr., 1118; 2r., 1122, 1154, 1181, 1277; com., 1331, 1332, 1358, 1383, 1445, 1502, 1565; 3r., 1584, 1607, 1635, 1672, 1748
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Bill-Con. Arndts.
2r.
Defer consideration (Mr. McKenzie), 1204; neg., 1330 3r.
1.	Commission to inquire (Mr. Fielding), 1587; neg., 1701
2.	Agreement, ratification by Parliament (Mr. Mackenzie King), 1710; neg., 1723
3.	Four per cent guaranteed stock- value to be arbitrated (Mr. Campbell), 1728; neg., 1739
4.	Award, ratification by Parliament (Ml-. Denis), 1744; neg., 1744
5.	Canadian trade, non-diversion of (Mr. Parent) 1746; neg., 1746
6.	Six-months' hoist (Mr. Robb), 1747; neg., 1747
For other divisions on this Bill, See House of Commons, Divisions Senate amdts., 1921, 1926 "Agreement," 1532 Accounting, 1491-3 Alternatives, 1275, 1288
Arbitration, 1088, 1105, 1120, 1156, 1186, 1213, 1231, 1242, 1267, 1288, 1295, 1321, 1334, 1356, 1578, 1621, 1672, 1685 Award, ratification of by Parliament, amdt. (Mr. Denis), 1744 Board of Arbitrators, 1506
Expenses of; proposed amdt. withdrawn, 1118, 1508 Judges as arbitrators, 1508 Limits to award, 1509, 1927 Oaths, administration of, 1548 Sittings to be in Canada, 1509 Assets, current, 1111
Atlantic and St. Lawrence Railway, 1433 Atlantic terminals, 1021, 1058, 1157, 1254, 1316, 1628, 1643, 1663 Amdt. (Mr. Parent), 1745 Bill reproduced in Hansard, 982 Canada the greatest railway owner, 1165 Canadian National Railways, development of and by, 1167 Canadian /Northern Railway, 1184 Canadian Pacific, relation to, 1053, 1113, 1128, 1192, 1285, 1328, 1416, 1494, 1497, 1609, 1638, 1657, 1667, 1729 Committee of Management 1529, 1537 Loans to, 1538
Section withdrawn, 1566 Company, entity of, 1347 Debate, arrangements for, 1331, 1582-3, 1594, 1631


Volume I:: Volume 11 :



INDEX-1919 xv

[Stage Direction]
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Bill-Con. Delay, proposed, 1069, 1072, 1078, 1123, 1173, 1211, 1259, 1291, 1298, 1318, 1325, 1589, 1594, 1623, 1639 Delay allowed shareholders, 1465, 1475 Details to be worked out, 1431 Dividends, 1039, 1194 Documents laid on the Table, 1007 Drayton-Acworth-Smith Commission, 1066 Duplication of lines, 1237, 1301, 1593, 1629, 1100, 1216
Effect upon Canada, 1695 Electrification, 1167 Equipment, 1428, 1445, 1581 Exchange, rate of, 1334 Expenses, vote for, 1972 Feeders, 1627
Finance, 1068, 1172, 1598, 1619, 1641, 1654 Financial terms, 1329 Governor in Council, powers of, 1551 Government influence, 1320, 1615 Grand Trunk Pacific and National Transcontinental, 1065, 1100, 1134, 1141, 1161, 1183, 1189, 1228, 1254, 1297, 1301, 135961, 1453, 1609, 1659, 1673, 1713, 1722 Edmonton Bulletin, and, 1567 Policy in constructing, 1049 Receivership, 1048, 1550 Discharge of, 1566
Saskatchewan Government, and, 1501 See also Grand Trunk Pacific Bill Guarantees, 1035, 1112, 1122 Government, by, 1138, 1477 Indebtedness to Government, ques., 1558 Intercolonial Railway, 1138 Halifax Board of Trade, 1176, 1688 Hotels, 1411, 1419
Information desired and given, 1007 Liquidation, 1056, 1085, 1132, 1162, 1230, 1257, 1290, 1492-3, 1573, 1637 Mackenzie and Mann 1314 Maintenance, Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific compared, 1097 " Majority," 1532-4 Maximum award, 1289, 1509 Modification of agreement-" not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act," 1431, 1459, 1477
Montreal Board of Trade, and, 1063, 1211, 1302, 1304, 1687
Negotiations with Company, 1021, 1051, 1055, 1087, 1135, 1197, 1210, 1280, 1307 Obligations of Company, 1036, 1040, 1098, 1213, 1243, 1270, 1382-3, 1450, 1576-8, 1582
Obligations of Government, 1105, 1127, 1200, 1285-6, 1290, 1333
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Bill-Con. Operation, 1115, 1275, 1297, 1300, 1316, 1605, .	1648, 1659
Exchange of traffic, 1527 Government patronage, 1207, 1615, 1667 Interim, 1527
Ownership-title, 1292, 1298, 1345, 1353, 1546
Parliament, ratification by, 1231,	1240,
1412, 1430, 1437, 1459, 1510 Amdt. (Mr. King), 1710 Award, of, amdt. (Mr. Denis), 1739-44 Physical condition of road, 1113-4, 1278, 1641
Preliminary statement and draft, 977 Present legislation long foreshadowed, 1134
Privilege, Mr. Reid, 1276 Procedure in, 1114 Time of vote on 2r., 1143 Provincial Governments' guarantees, 1097 Public finance, and, 1076, 1173, 1181, 1193 Public opinion, 1360-1
Public ownership, 1071-2,	1124,	1163,
1195-6, 1204, 1213, 1227, 1246, 1256, 1265, 1280, 1292, 1299, 1300, 1320, 1324, 1327, 1596, 1601-7, 1611, 1623, 1645, 1656, 1661, 1666, 1673, 1677, 1699 Railways, capital cost of, 1241 Railway subsidies, 1259, 1277 Regina Board of Trade, 1687 Re-valuation, 1166 Running rights, 1599 St. John Board of Trade, 1143 Shareholders, 1021, 1216, 1636, 1660, 1733 Motion for return of, 1145 Ratification by, 1526 Sleeping and parlour cars, 1484, 1571 Stocks, 1051, 1069, 1073, 1084, 1355 Common, 1024 Control of, 1429 Guaranteed, 1079, 1502, 1565 Amdt, (Mr. King), 1502 Arbitration; amdt. ,(Mrl. Campbell), 1728
Four per cent, 1025, 1039 Jurisdiction over, 1480 Market prices and dealings, 1089, 1109, 1137, 1203, 1415, 1488, 1618-20 New issue, 1348 "Stock jobbing," 1079, 1238 See also under this title, Stocks, Market prices and dealings Subsidiary companies, 1290, 1431 Superannuation and ; pension fund, 1548-9 Taxation, 1343, 1349, 1452, 1596
Amdt. (Mr. L. A. Lapointe), 1553-4 Terminals-Toronto and Montreal, 1580-2 Transcontinental systems, 1064
Volume I:: 


Volume II :: 
Volume I:: 


Volume II :: 



INDEX-1919

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons-Con.
Divisions-Con.
Thanksgiving Day Bill
Arndt. (Mr. McMaster), 555 Six months' hoist (Mr. Steele), 556 War Veterans' Gratuity Claim. Arndt. (Mr. Mackenzie King), to motion for adoption of report, 1897 Elections, 1
Employees, classification of, 2007 Hearing debates, difficulty in, 517 Internal Economy Commission, 25, 147 Leader of the Opposition, clerical assistance for, 1971 Members' indemnity, 1969 Next session, probable date, 2002 Officials
Classification of, 1004, 2007 Deputy Sergeant at Arms, 2 Orders for returns, inquiry concerning, 2007
Prince of Wales, visit of, 1865, 1875, 1898 Questions unanswered, passed as orders for returns, 2002
Speeches-time limit proposed, 646 Sunday sitting, 1993
Vacancies. See also House of Commons Act Arndt.
Assiniboia, 1 Carleton, N.H., 1 Kingston, 1 Prince, 1
' Quebec East, 1 Timiskaming, 532 Victoria and Carleton, 1 Victoria, B.C., 1
House of Commons Act Arndt. Bill (Fixed time for By-Elections; polling day a public holiday), lr., 241; 2r„ 439; debate adjourned on div., 443; 2r., 524; ref. to Com. on Privileges and Elections, 531; reported, 900; Com., 1375, 1921; 3r., 1950
Hudson Bay Railway, 662, 903, ques., 908, ques., 1998
Road bed and terminals, 714
Hughes, Lieut.-General Sir Sam (Victoria) Army paylists, alleged padding of, 3, 26 Board of Commerce, Murdock, Mr. James, appointment of, 714
Canadian casualties in certain battles, 624 Canadian soldiers, housing and fuel, 534 Double income tax, 554 Galicia, Eastern, disposition of, 902 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1340-1 Guelph Novitiate, 1565, 1584
Hughes, Lieut.-General, Sir Sam-Con.
Printing of report, 1632-3 House of Commons-Thanksgiving Day, 904
Interpretation Act Arndt., 609-611 Mackay and Horsley murder, ques., 460 Manitoba. Northern, development of, 1383 Memorials in France and Flanders to Canadian soldiers, 496 Militia Act Arndt., 661-2
Peace Treaty, approval or non-approval by Parliament-effect of, 23 Pork and beans for army use, 860-2 I rivilege-statement by Toronto Star, 814 Record and policy in the Great War, 624-5, 844
Ross rifle, 533 Roumanian credits, 848-9 Vladivostok, telegraph rates to, 1565
Immigration Act Arndt. Bill (Transportation of Officers), lr., 1498; 2r„ com., 1919; 3r.. 1921 Imperial Conference, 2003 Imperial Forces, Canadians in, ques., 1010 Imperial Munitions Board-Aircraft, ques., 1500
India, Sentiment in concerning immigration, 887
Indians and franchise. Sec Dominion ByElections Act
Industrial Conference. Her- National Industrial
Industrial Relations Commission, 370 Industrial Unrest, 69
Causes of-production costs and consumption costs, 469 Winnipeg strike, 31
Inland Waters and Coasting Trade. See
Railway Act
Intercolonial Railway, 1138
Extensions, proposed. 850, 899, 906. 1000 Operation of, 1125, 1138 Riviere Ouelle, ques., 1381 See also Canadian National
International Labour Conference. See also Peace Treaty; Austria
Correspondence, 1631
Vote to defray expenses, 1950
International Trade Congress, 117k
International Waterways Commission, ques., 270
1!
Volume I:: 


Volume II :: xviii


Volume I:: 


Volume II :: 



[Stage Direction]
King, Hon. W. L. MacKenzie-Con.
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition-Con. Parliament, ratification by, 1412-1430-1, 1437-1444, 1459-1465, 1468-9, 1518-1520, 1528-9, 1705, 1715-6 Amdt. to 3r„ 1710 Public Ownership, 1292 Quotations made during debate, 1973 Reflection on members, alleged, 1401 Senate amdts., 1930-1 Statement of main provisions, 1702 Stocks, 1293
Guaranteed, 1502
Amdt. (Mr. Campbell), 1736 Non-voting, 1479-80 Subsidiary companies, 1411 Taxation, 1343-5 Title-ownership, 1502-4 United States, lines in, 1703 House of Commons Act Amdt., 1379 International Labour Conference, 1365, 1950
Kingston by-election, 1539-41 Lapointe, Mr. E., introduction of, 1748 Opposition, Leader, clerical assistance for, 1971-2
Parliament Buildings, 1502 Prime Minister's health, 2003 Questions, not answered, 2001 War veterans' gratuity claim, 1891, 1969, 1891
Amdt. to amdt. to motion for adoption of report, 1892 Appointments, 1907 Penalties, 1910
Special Com., printing of report, 1998 Kingston
By-election, 1176, 1539
Drayton, Sir Henry, candidature of, ques., 955, 994
Medical doctors in Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, ques., 907 Vacancy, 1
Kinmel Camp Riots, ques., 1144 Kitchener, postmaster, ques., 270
Labour. See also International Labour Conference
Civil Service Commission, 760 Organizations and Police. See Police Bill
Lafleche, Lt. Col., Appointment under Board of Commerce, 825
Lafortune, Mr. David Arthur (Jacques Cartier)
Beet sugar, 1698
Canada Temperance Act Amdt, 1989 Civil Service salaries, 1694
xix
Lafortune, Mr. David Arthur-Con.
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1688 Public works needed, 1690 Greater production, 1696 Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto highway, 1697 Sunday sitting of House, 1992-5 War veterans' gratuity claim, 1893
Lalor, Mr. Francis R. (Haldimand)
Hog products, prices, 702
Lanctot, Mr. Roch (Laprairie and Napier-ville)
Atholstan, Lord, dynamiting of residence of, 1062, 1381
Laporte, Sir Hormisdas, ques., 1633 Land Tax. See Taxation Lanoraie, Dredging, ques., 1011 Lapierre, Arthur, ques., 1144, ques., 1796
'"Lapointe, Mr. Ernest (Kamouraska)
Election and introduction as member for Quebec East, 1748
French Treaty Bill, French version, 1926 Imperial Conference, 2003, 2007 Judiciary, reflections upon, 587 Masters and Mates Bill, 1935-7 Naval policy, 2003
Orientals, disfranchisement of, 612-3 Peace Treaty, 109
Arrangements for discussion of, 27 Proclamation, probable date of, 846 Point of order, relevancy of speech, Mr. Richardson, 733
Resignation for Kamouraska, 994 Sunday sitting of House, 1994-5, 1997
Lapointe, Mr. Louis Audet ((St. James) Austria, peace with, ques., 460 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1302, 1476-7
Arbitration, 1728
Canadian Pacific Railway, relation to, 1497	_
Montreal Board of Trade, 1302 Montreal delegation, 1304 Taxation, 1553, 1557
Order, point of, Kingston by-election, 1542
Thanksgiving Day Bill, 438
Laporte, Sir Hormidas, ques., 1633
Lash, Mr. Z. A., K.C., 1314, 1319
Laurier, Sir Wilfrid, Vacancy caused by decease of, 1
* Resigned October 14 ; introduced as member for Quebec East, November 5.
Volume I:: 


Volume II :: Lavigueur, Mr. Henri E. (Quebec County) Address in reply to Governor General's Speech. 290. Prince of Wales-Peace Treaty, 290; Expenditures in Quebec, railway situation, 291; Military Service defaulters, 296
Belgium. King and Queen of, ques., 1010 Railway car shortage, ques., 1010
Lawson, Captain, ques., 1220
Leader of Opposition. See also King, Hon. W. L. MacKenzie; McKenzie, Mr. D. D.; Senate and House of Commons Act
Clerical assistance for, 1971
League of Nations. Sec also Peace Treaty Calendar, the, and, 522 Canada's relation to, 89, 507 Covenant, with official commentary, 269 Peace Treaty, and, 85, 88, 99, 103 '
Leduc, Mr. J. Alfred (Westmount-St. Henry)
Thanksgiving Day, 438
Leger, Mr. Auguste Theophile (Kent, N.B.) Address in reply to Governor General's Speech, 275. Military Service defaulters, 276, 279; Soldiers' votes-cost of living, 277; French Acadian enlistments, 278
Intercolonial Railway-proposed extensions, 851
Kent County telephone pole purchase, ques., 899; ques., 909 Military Police, use of firearms by, 109 War veterans' gratuity claim, 1877
Lemieux, Hon. Rodolphe (Maisonneuve, and Gaspe)
Civil Service Commission, suggested appointment of woman as member, 760 Exchange rates with France, ques. 840 842
Eeague of Nations, Ames, Sir Herbert, appointment of, 502-5, 508 Member holding two seats, 529 Montreal Harbour Commission, 840-1 Naturalization Act Arndt., 618-620 Orientals, disfranchisement of, 616 Peace Treaty, 154 Poles and Ukrainians, 747-8 Tariff Commission, 495 Victory Loan, ques., 459
Levis' railway station, ques., 553
Library of Parliament, Joint Com., 73
Life Saving, Vancouver Island, west coast, ques., 405
Lobster. See also Meat and Canned Foods Regulations, ques., 533, 606, 663
Loggie, Mr. William Stewart (Northumberland, N.B.)
Meat and Canned Foods Act Amdt. Bill, 1147-50
Lotbiniere and Megantic Railway, ques., 1381
Lotteries, State, 1789
Macdonald, Major, ques., 1220
Mackay and Horsley Murder, ques., 460* 494
Mackie, Mr. H. A. (East Edmonton)
Address in reply to Governor General's Speech, 43. Prince of Wales-Peace and League of Nations, 44; effect of league of Nations on Canada's relations with the United Kingdom, 46 Aircraft, Imperial Munitions Board, ques., 1500
Civil Service Commission, 959 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1340-1 House of Commons-Thanksgiving Day, 904-5	'
McArthur railroad, 871 Peace Treaty
Austria, with, 1366 Poland, Galicia, etc., 1366, 1370, 1372 Questions, not answered, 2001 Titles, ques., 1381
Officers serving in Canada, ques., 1633 War veterans' gratuity claim, 1852-3, 1860, 1899
Bill, 3r., haste unnecessary, 1911 Flynn, Mr., 1880 Funds, means of providing, 1780 Special Com. report, 1776 Amdt., withdrawal of, 1899
Maclean, Hon. A. K. ((Minister without portfolio)
Aliens with firearms, 875 Business of the House, morning sittings, 1563
Canada Grain Act, 659-660, 846-7 Canada Shipping Act, 1794-5 Canso Harbour Master, 460 Civil Service
Appointments, method of. 962 Bonus, 986-7
Classification, 660-661, 780, 957-977, 986991, 1961
Date of coming into force of Act, 956 Eligibles, list of, 969 Expense of, 973-6 Experts, services of, 974


Volume I:: 


Volume II :: 



INDEX-1919 xxl

[Stage Direction]
Maclean, Hon. A. K.'-Con.
Civil Service-Con.
Classification-Con.
House of Commons officials, 1004 Ministerial statement on second reading of Bill, 748 Post Office inspectors, 468 Printing Bureau, 991 Special Com., 823 Temporary employees, 971-2 Commission-Salaries, 957-963 Economy, 959
Fishery Officers, 966	.
Grade and ranks, 965-6, 969 Fraser.River salmon, 1178 Government Railway employees, 964 Grain Supervisors' Bill, 666-8 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Halifax Board of Trade, 1688 Operation, 1648 Stocks, 1488
Lobster regulations, 663 Masters and Mates Bill, 1935-40 Meat and Canned Foods Bill, 1120-2, 1145, 1147, 1154
Montreal Harbour Commission, 840 National Industrial Conference, 495 Pilotage, 1912-4, 1932-5 Postmasters' compensation, 993, 1915 Prince, Professor E. E., 965 Purchase by tender and contract, 1919 Tariff Commission, 495 War veterans' gratuity claim. 1794
Maclean, Mr. W. F. (South York)
Address in reply to Governor General's Speech, 279. Cost of living, 279; enforcement of Dominion laws by Dominion authorities, 280; public ownership and operation of utilities, 285; finance and economy, 287 Board of Commerce Dairy products, 664 Prices, 701
Canada Temperance Act, 870 Canadian Wheat Board, 679 Civil Service classification, 776 Coal supply, 1649
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1645 France and Great Britain, treaty, 605 Intoxicating liquors, 870 Jews, Polish outrages upon, 263 Newsprint, 1635
Obligations upon Canadians, 266
Peace Treaty, 141
Peace proclamation, 499	'
Public ownership, 1645 Revenue proposals, 1814
Maclean, Mr. W. F.-Con.
Telegraphs and cables, 1652
Thanksgiving Day, 522
War veterans' gratuity claim, 1812
McArth'ur Railroad, 871
McCoig, Mr. Archibald Blake (Kent, Ont.) Canadian Wheat Board, 681 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition-taxation, 1343 Oleomargarine, 894 Wheat crop, sale of, 1671
McCrea, Mr. Francis N. ((Sherbrooke)
Civil Service classification, 779 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1213 Arbitration, 1215
Canadian Pacific Railway, relation to, 1215
Delay, proposed, 1217 Earnings, 1216 Equipment, 1581-2 Grand Trunk Pacific, 1214 Public ownership, 1213 Shareholders, 1216
McGibbon, Mr. Peter (Muskoka)
Canadians in Imperial forces-nurses, 1767
Civil Service classification, 767, 973 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1670 Guaranteed stock, 1737 Nurses war service gratuity, ques., 843 Oleomargarine, 945 Peace Treaty, 151
Salaries-Civil Service Commission and Pensions Commission, 959 Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Insane patients, 409, 416 Vocational training, 412 Thanksgiving Day, 522
War veterans' gratuity claim, 1759, 1856-8 Appointments, 1902
Motion (Mr. Currie) for adjournment, to discuss, 340
McGibbon, Mr. Peter Robert (Argenteuil) Post Office savings banks, ques., 623
McIntosh, Mr. John Charles (Nanaimo) Address in reply to Governor General's Speech, 6 (Seconder). Finance Ministership, Sir Thomas White and Sir Henry Drayton, 6; Death of Sir Louis Botha-Peace Treaty-Prince of Wales-Canada's war effort for France, 7; Sir Robert Borden, 7, 8; Peace Treaty, 7, 8; Peace Treaty and Labour-Board of Commerce and prices, 10
Volume I:: 


Volume II :: xxii

Mclsaac, Mr. James (Kings, P.E.I.)
Address in reply to Governor General's .Speech, 297. Peace Conference, ^Canada's position, 297; League of Nations, 299
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1183 Arbitration, 1186 Grand Trunk Pacific, 1183 Meat and Canned Foods Act Amdt., 1146, 1151 [DOT]
McKenzie, Mr. Daniel D. (Cape Breton North and Victoria)
Address in reply to Governor General's Speech, 10, 28. Prince of Wales, 11; Peace Treaty, 11, 28; Board of Commerce, 29; Cost of living, 30; Sir [DOT]Robert Borden, 31; Labour and Peace Treaty, 31; Cabinet changes, 32; Mr. W. F. Nickle's resignation, 33 Aliens with firearms, 879-882 Alien enemies and Dominion lands, 867 Austria, peace treaty with, 997, 1363 Board of Commerce Dairy products, 664 Filing of orders of, 706, 7.11 Salaries, 453, 456-7 Bran and shorts, 723
Business of the House, morning sittings, 1562
Canada Grain Act, 659, 846 Canada Temperance Act, 1975 Canadians in Imperial forces, 1767 Canadian Wheat Board, 682, 917, 930-932 Christmas Island, head of East Bay mail service, 868 Civil Service
Appointments,'method of, 961, 963 Classification, 660, 984
Post office inspectors, 966 Commissioners' salaries, 961 Temporary employees, 984 *Cochrane, Hon. Francis, death of, 458 Dominion Canners, 858, 1143, 1970 Dominion	finances-correction of Debates, 1004, 1218, 1332 Dominion Lands Act, 863 Drayton, Sir Henry, candidature in Kingston, 993
Electrocution, 490 Foster, Lady, death of, 402 .Franchise, 617
Grain Supervisors' Bill, 666, 669 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1027, 1052-5, 1106, 1187, 1626, 1717 Arbitration, 1027
Administration of oaths, 1549 Exchequer Court, 1522-4 Atlantic terminals, 1061, 1191
McKenzie, Mr. Daniel D.-Cow-
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition-Con. Canadian National Railways, 1113 Canadian Northern Railway, 1188 Canadian Pacific Railway, relation to, 1113, 1192
Commission of Inquiry-amdt. (Mr. Fielding), 1594 .
Debate, arrangements for, 1582-3, 1594-5 Defer consideration, amdt., 1204 Delay, reasons for, 1188, 1594 Dividends, 1194 Equipment, 1446 Finance, 1598
Governor in Council, powers of, 1551-2 Grand Trunk Pacific and National Transcontinental, 1055. 1189, 1568-70 Liquidation, 1573-6 Obligations to Government, 1552-3 Operation of, 1568 Receivership, 1052, 1549, 1566-8 Guarantees, 1112
Halifax, representations from, 1177 Identity of institution, maintenance of, 1060-1
Information desired, 884, 904, 956, 1114, 1117
Liquidation, 1056, 1085 Modifications of agreement, 1470 Negotiations, 1083, 1197 Obligations of company, 1107, 1582 Obligations of government, 1109, 1111, 1200, 1333 Operation, 1648
" Other necessary and usual provisions," 1544
Parliament, Ratification by, 1462, 1469, 1520, 1717 Procedure, 1114 Public finance, 1193 Public ownership, 1195-6, 1596 Running rights, 1599 Senate amdts., 1930 Shareholders, ratification by, 1526 Stocks, 1448-9 Guaranteed, 1477-8 Jurisdiction over, 1483 Market and prices, 1106, 1203, 1620 Subsidies and guarantees, 1035 Taxation, 1350-3, 1452-8, 1555, 1596 Traffic, exchange of, 1535-6 United States, lines in, 1550 Valuation, date for, 1340-2 Grand Trunk Pacific Railway
Information asked for, 884, 904, 956 House of Commons
Monday sittings, proposed precedence for Government Orders, 823-4


Volume I:: 


Volume II :: 



INDEX-1919

[Stage Direction]
xxiii
McKenzie, Mr. Daniel D.-Com.
House of Commons-Con.
Notices of motion, 906 Thanksgiving Day, 904 House of Commons Act Arndt., 441, 13751380
Housing-garden cities for returned soldiers, 467
Immigration officers' transportation, 1920 Intercolonial Railway
Extensions, proposed, 851, 906, 1002 Patronage, 964
International Labour Conference, 1951 Interpretation Act, 512-3, 607 Intoxicating Liquors Bill, 1947-9 Leadership of Opposition, 1284, 1291 League of Nations Covenant, 269 Masters and Mates, 1794-6, 1932, 1939 Meat and Canned Foods Act Arndt., 1146, 1151-4
Navigable waters, 514
North Empire Fire Insurance Company, 841
Oleomargarine, 890 Orders in Council
Effect of Interpretation Act Arndt, upon, 607-9
To be continued in force, 666-9 Parliament Buildings, 1501, 1799 Patents of invention, 886 Peace Treaty, 74, 500, 509 Ireland, 510 Poland, 262, 267
Jews, outrages upon, 263 Rhine Territories, 258-261 Procedure in discussion of, 23-5, 28, 178 Senate amdts., 997
Personal promptness in bringing forward resolutions notice of which given, 906 Pilotage, 1913-4, 1933-5 Point of order, complaint of unfair treatment, 819
Police amalgamation, 826, 886
Local responsibility for maintenance of the peace, 833, 838 Postmasters' Salaries Bill, 1373
Absence from House of Mr. McQuarrie, 1915
President Wilson, illness of, 846 Private wharves injured by dredging, 515 Production costs and consumption costs -competition, 472 Prorogation, expectation of, 910 Public finance, ques., 1004; ques., 1218 Public Printing and Stationery Bill, 1917, 1940
Questions, unanswered, orders for returns, 2002
McKenzie, Mr..Daniel D.-Con.
Roumania, credit to, 241 Ships, Canadian, commandeered, 150 Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, 417, 430. See also under this title, War Veterans Appointments, 1902-8, 1911 Penalties, 2006
Soldiers' Land Settlement, 1957-61 Soldiers' votes, 534, 792-3, 803, 812 Documents produced-question of laying on the table, 819-820 Party who gave information, 552 Speeches in House-time limit proposed, 650
Telegram proposed to be read-ruled out of order, 177
Transportation question, 1191
War indemnity, 177
War veterans' gratuity claim, 257
Distribution of funds voted, machinery for, 2005
Documents, distribution of, 268 Estates of soldiers, 1909 Motion (Mr. Currie) for adjournment, to discuss, 361 Special Com. Report Press report in advance, 1501 Printing of, 1998 Vote of $40,000,000, 1963-6 Wheat sales-Appeal Board, 851 Wheat tax, 683
McLean, Mr. Hugh Havelock (Royal)
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1058, 1242
Arbitration, 1242 Atlantic terminals, 1058, 1252 Canadian Pacific Railway, relation to, 1248
Grand Trunk Pacific, 1245 Obligations of company, 1243 Public finance, 1247 Public ownership, 1246-1252 Land tax, 1248
New Brunswick wharves, ques., 1797; ques., 2000
McLeod, Mr. Harry Fulton (York-Sunbury) Re-establishment, 257
McKinley, Major John, ques., 746
McMaster, Mr. Andrew Ross (Brome) Austria, peace treaty with, 996 Board of Commerce salaries, 446, 457 Canadians in French reserves, 1767 Canadian Wheat Board, 1006 Car shortage, 1953
Director of Coal Operations, 1953-4
Volume I:: 


Volume II :: 
Volume I:: Volume 11 :



INDEX-1919 XXV

[Stage Direction]
Meighen, Hon. Arthur-Con.
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition

Con. Commission to inquire; amdt. (Mr. Fielding), 1588
Com. of Management, 1529, 1537 Loans to, 1543, 1566 Subsidiary companies, and, 1538 Debate, arrangements for, 1583 Delay allowed shareholders, 1466-8, 1476 Delay proposed, 1030, 1078, 1589 Details to be worked out, 1431 Documents, 1007
Drafting, form of Bill, preamble, 1581 Duplication of lines, 1593 Equipment, 1428 Expenses under Bill, 1972 Governor in Council, powers of, 1551-2 Grand Trunk Pacific and Transcontinental, 1440-2, 1569-70, 1591 Obligations of company, 1552-3 Operation of, 1568 Receivership, 1550, 1566-7 Saskatchewan Government, and, 1571 Guarantees, 1479 Identity, maintenance of, 1061 Liquidation, 1085, 1269 " Majority," 1533
Modifications of agreement, 1470-3 Negotiations, 1055, 1082, 1087 Obligations of company, 1041, 1049, 1095, 1270, 1450-2
Obligations of government, 1095, 1105 Operation, 1275 Feeders, 1592
" Other necessary and usual provisions," 1544
Ownership-title, 1546-7 Parliament, ratification by, 1430-1, 14371444, 1459, 1465, 1511, 1711, 1718-20 Part consideration for acquisition, 1477-8 Preliminary statement and draft, 977 Regina Board of Trade, 1687 Repairs, 1033-5 Running rights, 1599 Senate amdts., 1927-31 Shareholders, 1733 Sleeping and parlour cars, 1551 " Stock jobbing," 1496 Stocks, 1051, 1079, 1449
Arbitration-effect of market upon,
.	1089, 1106, 1489-90
Common, 1024 Control of, 1429-1430 Exchange rate, effect upon, 1486-7 Guaranteed, 1079, 1504-6 Jurisdiction over, 1480-2 Non-voting, 1479 Watering of, alleged, 1489
Meighen, Hon. Arthur-Con.
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition-Con. Subsidies and guarantees, 1035 Subsidiary companies, 1431-2 Superannuation and Pension Fund, 1548 Taxation, 1554-6
United States, lines in, 1032, 1059, 142333, 1532, '1547, 1582, 1715 Central Vermont railway, 1425-6, 1434-6, 1546
Journal of Commerce, New York, quotation from, 1715,	1973. (See
1703)
Jurisdiction, 1550-1 Mileage,! 434
Valuation, date for, 1508, 1544 Voting powers, 1537-8 House of Commons, papers, preparation of, 902
Irrigation, 1955
Mail delivery-difficulties, 869 Needy settlers, relief, 1956-7 Returned soldiers and Dominion lands.. Ner under this title Dominion Lands Act
Seed grain advances, 1973-4 Soldiers' Land Settlement, 1957 Statistics, 1973 Soldiers' votes, 816-8 Alleged manipulation of, 544 Alleged telegram concerning, 534
Mewburn, Major-General Hon. S. C. (Minister of Militia and Defence)
Army paylists, alleged padding of, 3, 26, 108 [DOT]
Canadian soldiers in Wandsworth jail, 1902
Demobilization, progress of, 713 Memorials in France and Flanders to Canadians, 496 Militia Act Amdt. Bill, 661-2 War veterans' gratuity claim, 177
Michaud, Mr. Pius (Restigouche and Mada-tvaska)
Canadian National Railway-ties and fence posts, ques., 955 East Tracadie lobster hatchery, ques., 404 Exchange rate, ques., 459 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition-St.
John Board of Trade, 1143 Horn, Werner, 1063 Peace Treaty, 95
War veterans' gratuity claim, 1884 Middlebro, Mr. William S. (North Grey) Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, debate, arrangements for, 1583, 1595 Parliament Buildings, 1634
Volume I:: Volume 11 :
xx vi


Volume I:: Volume 11 :



INDEX-1919

[Stage Direction]
xxvii
National Labour Conference, vote to defray expenses, 1950
Naturalization Act Amdt. Bill. lr* 532; 2r., com., 618; 3r., 621
Naval Decorations, ques., 26 Naval Policy, 1276, 2003
Navigable Waters Protection Act Amdt.
Bill, lr., 305; 2r., com., 514; 3r., 532 Senate amdts., 1145, 1915
Nesbitt, Mr. Edward Walter (North Oxford) Board of Commerce, 445 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1378, 1929
Revenue proposals, 1832 War veterans' gratuity, 1830
New Brunswick Wharves, ques., 1797
Newsprint, 1635
Nicholson, Mr. George Brecken (East Algoma)
Board of Commerce-dairy products, 708 Civil Service classification, 770 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1298, 1625
Atlantic terminals, 1628 Duplication of lines, 1301, 1629 Feeders, 1627
Grand Trunk Pacific, 1301 Operation, 1300 Public ownership, 1300 Running rights, 1599
Railway employees and standard equipment, 1943
Soldiers' votes, 792, 798 War veterans' gratuity claim Estates of soldiers, 1909 Motion (Mr. Currie) for adjournment, to discuss, 350
Nickel, exports, ques., 1062; ques., 1219 Germany, and, ques., 746 Nickle, Mr. W. F.
Resignation of seat in House, 1 Notre Dame des Sept Douleurs, ques., 842 Nurses' War Service Gratuity, ques., 843 Oaths of Office Bill, lr., 1
Ocean Steamers, Government supervision of operation, ques., 900
Official Record. See Canadian
Oleomargarine Bill. Res., 890; lr„ 898; 2r., 933; 6-months hoist moved, 950; neg. on div., 952; com., 3r., 1000
Ontario Elections and Thanksgiving Day, 714
Opium and Cocaine, ques., 1004
Opium and Drug Act Amdt. Bill. Res., 1118; lr., 1120; 2r., com., 3r., 1154 Senate amdts., 1915
Opposition Leader, 1924. See also King, Hon. W. L. Mackenzie and McKenzie, Mr. D. D. .
Orders in Council
Continuance in force, 666 Interpretation Act Amdt., effect upon, 607
Orientals and franchise, ques., 553. See also Dominion By-Elections
Ottawa, Government coal supply, ques., 1381
Pacaud, Mr. Lucien Turcotte (MSgantic) Peace Treaty, 100
Paderewski, I. J., President of the Republic of Poland, 2
Panama Canal, wheat via, ques., 901
Pa net, Mr. Louis Charles, 2
Pardee, Mr. Frederick Forsyth (West Lamb-ton)
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1324 War veterans' gratuity claim-motion (Mr. Currie) for adjournment, to discuss, 353
Parent, Mr. George (West Quebec)
Atlantic cables, ques., 2000 Canadian National Railway-Cap Rouge-Portneuf repairs, ques., 404 Civil Service bonus, ques., 1498 French and Belgian immigrants, 1502 French Canadian Regiment (22nd), ques., 1634
Germany and Austria, imports from, ques., 1499
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Atlantic terminals, 1628 Amdt. to 3r., 1745 " Majority," 1532 Stock, market price, 1621 Voting powers, 1537-8 Peace Treaty, 230 Quebec riot claims, ques., 1380 St. Malo shops, ques., 403
Parliament Buildings, 1223, ques., 1634, 1799 Progress, 1501
Time of occupation-incipient fire, 553
Volume I:: 


Volume II:: xxviil

Parliamentary Procedure. See also Speaker; Deputy Speaker; Fripp, Mr.; Morphy, Mr.; Steele, Mr. Arrangements across the floor, 178, 1459 Bills
Arndts, by officers of House, 1923 Com. and 3r. stages at the same sitting, 1923
Introduction of, in advance of adoption of res. already proposed, 51 Printing of, amendments italicized, message from Senate, 2002 Peace Treaty-concurrent resolutions in Senate and House of Commons, 51 Privilege, Com. of the Whole, in, 1970 Relevancy, 1969
Votes of money approved by Governor General, how amended, 1968, 1974
Party System, 735 Passports, forged, ques., 909 Patents of Invention Bill, lr., 863; 2r., com., 886; 3r., 889 Senate amdts., 1915 Pathescope Company, ques., 1999 Patronage. Sec Civil Service; Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition
Peace Conference, Canada and, 84, 123, 180, 297
Peace Treaty
Appointments under, 505 Approval or non-approval by Parliament -effect of, 75, 79, 86, 95, 101, 109, 118 Arbitration, 129. See also under this head League of Nations
Arrangements for debate of Bill 12, 28, 73, 178, 240 French text, 24-25
House of Commons and Senate-concurrent discussion, 51 Article X, 80, 91, 95, 103, 116, 129, 153, 157, 169, 190, 197, 212, 231, 385, 500 Maps, and, 27
Austria, with, 993-4, 1142, 1362. See also Austria
Autonomy of Canada, amdt. (Mr. Fielding), 191 Belgium, and, 87 Bulgaria, with, 605
Canada's national status-effect upon, 76, 95, 97, 112, 121, 123, 129, 135, 137, 142, 146, 155, 169, 192, 208, 214, 221, 229, 230, 505, 1301, 1367
Canada's position in relation to, 11, 98, 156
Labour, 21
Peace Treaty-Con
Correspondence, 107 Damages, reparation, indemnities, 16 Documents, 532, 554, 952, 1142 Brought down, 2, 148, 267 Printing of, 304 Dominions Overseas
Additional territory, 499 Special parliamentary sessions to consider Treaty, 263
Economic provisions, customs, trade, etc., 16
Expense, 511
Finance, national debts, etc., 16, 511 France and Great Britain, treaty between, 605
French Canadians, and, 165 Galicia, 902, 1366 German atrocities in war, 92 German nationals, property of in Canada, 511
Germany, terms imposed upon, 133, 152, 174, 357, 369
Armament, limitation of, 16 Colonies, 15 Reparation by, 5 6
Governor in Council, powers of, 501-5 Ireland, 134, 156, 166, 229, 235, 510 Italy and Fiume 903 Labour clauses, 9, 85, 153, 174, 270 League of Nations. (See also that title) 17, 85, 88, 99, 103, 116, 131, 135, 172, 224, 227
Covenant of the League with official commentary, 269 Geneva as seat of, 169, 170 Mandatory territories, 151 Mexico, 135 Militarism, 146, 154
Order in council advising His Majesty to ratify, 240 Penalties, 501 Poland, 15, 91, 115, 1366-72 Galicia, Eastern, and, 902 President Wilson's " fourteen articles," 101, 111
Proclamation of peace, probable date of, 846
Ratification by His Majesty-status of plenipotentaries, 82 Rhine territories, occupation of, 258 Seals used at signing, ques., 843 Secret diplomacy, 141 Shantung, 115 Speech from the Throne, 1 Summary by Prime Minister, 13


Volume I:: 


Volume II:: 



[Stage Direction]
xxix
Peace Treaty-Con
Territorial adjustments, 152 Alsace-Lorraine, Saar Basin, etc., 14, 15 Time of coming' into force, 14 Trade treaty with Prance-effect upon, 137 War, prevention of, 17, 93, 153. See also this title under League of Nations William II of Hohenzollern, 17, 175
Peace Treaty Bill. (Sec also Address; League of Nations; Peace Conference). Res., 13, 109, 150, 179, 258; amdt. (Mr. Fielding) 191, neg., res., agreed to, 239; lr., 51; 2r., 498; com., 502; 3r., 532
Error as to resolutions, explanation of, 240
Peck, Lieut.-Col. Cyrus Wesley, V.C.
(Skeena)
Electrocution, 490
Peace Treaty, and arrangements for debate of, 178
War, movements of 16th Batt., 641 Pedlow, Mr. Isaac Ellis (South Renfrew) Aliens
Enemy, and title to land, 868 Firearms, 872-7 Board of Commerce, 457 Civil Service Commission, 957, 963 Foreign credits, 1763
House of Commons-Thanksgiving Day, 905
Nickel and Germany, 746 Nickel exports, ques., 1062, 1219 Sugar, retail, ques., 1062 Thanksgiving Day
Choice of 13th October, 306 October 13th and Ontario elections, 714 Thanksgiving Day Bill, 25, 431, 476-481, 518, 523
War indemnity, 107
Pelletier, Mr. Francois Jean (Matane)
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1114 Masters and Mates, 1938-9 Nationalization of public utilities, including railways, 1115 National finance, 1116
Order, point op-Kingston by-election, 1542 Pilotage, 1913-4
War Purchasing Commission, ques., 621
Pensions. See also War veterans' gratuity Commissioners' salaries, 959 District officers, 713
Permanent Force, medical and dental officers, ques., 712
Pilotage, Pacific coast. See Canada Shipping Act
Pointe au Pic post office, ques., 1221 Poland
Message from President Paderewski, 2 Peace Treaty, under, 15
See also League of Nations; Peace Treaty
Poles and Ukrainians, 747 Police Bills
1.	Unionism prohibited lr., 74; withdrawn, 899
2.	Amalgamation; Pensions. Res., 884;
lr., 712; 2r., com., 825, 886; 3r„ 904 Criminal law-authority of police to en-1679, 1925
Local responsibility for maintenance of the peace, 833, 836-7
Political Corruption
Absence of. in Wright County, 811 By-elections, in, 730, 1899
Political Picnic and train service, ques., 953, 1679, 1925
Polling Day, public holiday. See House of Commons Act
Pork and Beans for Army, 858
Porter, Mr. Edward Guss (West Hastings) Canada Temperance Act Amdt., 1977, 1986-96
Intoxicating Liquors Bill, 1947
Privilege-Statement of Mr. Archambault, 1925
Port Stanley, public works at, 663
Postmasters' Compensation Bill. See Civil Service	'
Post Office
Railway mail service, 1063 Registered mail, change of system, ques., 2000
Revenue. See Civil Service Act,-Postmasters
Post Office Savings Banks, deposits in, ques., 623
Power, Mr. Charles Gavan (South Quebec) British Expeditionary Force, canteen funds in France, ques., 406 Canadian Expeditionary Force, pay, equalization of, 406
Canadian National Railways, uniforms, contracts for, ques., 459 Peace Treaty, 227
Volume I:: Volume 11:


Volume I:: 


Volume II:: 



[Stage Direction]
xxxi
Public Ownership. See Grand Trunk
Public Printing and Stationery Act Arndt.
Bill. lr., 1332; 2r„ 1916; com., 1917; 3r„*1940
Purchasing of Supplies
Policy of Government, 2002 Tender and contract, by, 1918
Quebec and Saguenay Railway, ques., 1221; ques., 1381; ques., 1999
Quebec Bridge, 1265
Quebec City
Government plans and expenditures- railways, shipping, dry dock, Ross Rifle factory, soldiers' huts, etc., 291 Riot claims, ques., 1380 St. Malo shops, ques., 403
Quebec East (Electoral District), 1, 1748
Railway Act, 1919, Amdt. Bill (Inland and coastwise vessels), lr., 240
Railway Act, 1919, Amdt. Bill (Jurisdiction), lr., 1912; 2r„ 1940; com. rises, 1946
Railway Service, promotion by seniority, 1679
Railways
Capital cost, 1241
Cars, shortage of, ques., 1010, 2004
Duplication of, 1237
Expenditure per mile of road, comparative statement, 1097
Mails, payment for carrying, 1063 Rates, Intercolonial and Canadian Pacific, 1999
Subsidies to, ques., 1222, 1230, 1232, 1259, 1277
(For individual railways, see their titles.)
Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, Com. appointed, 48
Read, Mr. Joseph, vacancy caused by death of, 1	.
Reciprocity, 917, 1140, 1180
Reconstruction
Bonus, scheme proposed, 108 Cost of living, and, 145 Speech from the Throne, 2
Re-establishment. See also Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment; Returned Soldiers War veterans' gratuity claim, 177
Documents ordered to be printed, 268 Ministerial statement, 242 Papers presented, 268
Redman, Mr. Daniel Lee (East Calgary))' Pensions, district offices, 713 War veterans' gratuities claim, 258, 1871 Motion for Commission, withdrawn, 304 Motion (Mr. Currie) for adjournment, to discuss, 329
Regiment-22nd French Canadian, ques., 1534
Registered Mail, ques., 2000
Reid, Hon. John Dowsley (Minister of Railways and Canals)
Canadian National Railways-political picnic, holding of train-case of Mr. R. H. Thompson, 1680 Canadian Wheat Board, 925 Car shortage, 1952, 2004 Drayton, Sir Henry, candidature in Kingston, 994
Gagetown to Westfield, operation of St.
John Valley Railway, 714 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 10121062,	1091-4,	1309-32,	1333-9,	1444,
Arbitration, 1028, 1334, 1469
Expenses of, proposed amdt.-withdrawn, 1118 '
Maximum award, 1579 Atlantic terminals, 1058, 1061 Canadian National Railways, 1113 Canadian Pacific, relation to, 1057, 1575 Company assets, 1390 Debate, arrangements for, 1331, 1583 Delay, proposed, 1318 Earnings, 1216
Equipment, 1428-9, 1445-8, 1581-2 Finance, 1402-12
Grand Trunk Pacific, 1312, 1454-6 Liquidation, 1574 Hotels, 1411-2 Mackenzie and Mann, 1314 Mileage, 1385
Montreal Board of Trade, 1063 Obligations of Company, 1040,	1091,
1096, 1243, 1383, 1576, 1582 Obligations of Government, 1333 Operation, 1327-8 Exchange of traffic, 1528 Ownership-title, 1309, 1503-4 Physical condition, 1113 Procedure in debate of Bill, 1114 Shareholders, ratification by, 1527 Sleeping and parlour cars, 1571 Stocks, 1448-9 Guaranteed, 1029 Taxation, 1343, 1452-3 Terminals-Toronto	and Montreal,
Volume I:: 


Volume II:: xxxii

Reid, Hon. John Dowsley-Con.
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition

Con. Traffic, exchange of, 1535-6 Unions of employees, 1679 Valuation, date for, 1296-7, 1339 Hudson Bay Railway, 714 Kingston by-election, 1540 Manitoba, Northern, railway into, 1383 Privilege-statement of Regina Leader, 1276
Wheat trade with United States, 925 Reid, Mr. John Flaws (Mackenzie)
Railway rates, ques., 1999 Vancouver Terminal elevator, ques., 901 War veterans' gratuity claim, 1884 Repatriation Com., ques., 1498
Resignations, Cabinet Ministers, of. rumoured, 497
Restaurant, Parliamentary, Joint Com., 73 Returned Soldiers. Hee also Canadian soldiers; Civil Service; Dominion Lands; Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment; war veterans' gratuity
Canadian National Railway, men training oh, 665	.
Civil Service, and, 971 Housing-garden cities. 461 Montreal post office, in, ques., 1063 Treatment of, 1117
Res. (Mr. Fripp), 642, ref. to com., 646 Rhodes, Hon. Edgar N. (Cumberland). ,sVr Speaker	.
Richardson, Mr. Robert Lome (Springfield) Board of Commerce, 449, 695 Business of the House, morning sittings, 1561
Conner, James, dismissal of, 654 Corruption in 1899 by-elections, 730 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1227, 1601
Arbitration, 1231, 1241 Grand Trunk Pacific and Transcontinental, 1229, 1359 Liquidation, 1230 Operation, 1604 Public ownership, 1602 Railway subsidies, 1230, 1232 " Stock jobbing," 1239 Taxation, 1349, 1352 Terms to be scrutinized, 1239 * Valuation, date of, 1340 House of Commons Act Arndt. Bill, 440 Macdonald by-election, 1606 Personal political experience, 737 Public ownership, 1227, 1234 Soldiers' votes, 729 Thanksgiving Day, 440. 476-9
Riots in England, ques., 1144
Robb, Mr. James Alexander (Chateauguay-Huntingdon)
Address in reply to Governor General's Speech, 400. Differences between Mr. Murphy and Mr. Rowell, 400; Mu. Rowell and French Canadians, 401; cost of living, 402 Board of Commerce, 445 Canadian National Railways, finances, ques., 908
Canadian Wheat Board, 673-9, 923, 931-2, 1006
Canso Harbour Master, ques., 623 Financial obligations of Canada, ques., 909
Fraser River salmon, 1178 Grain Supervisors, 665-8, 847-8 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1274, 1409-1411 Arbitration, 1578
Atlantic and St. Lawrence railway, 1433-4
Canadian Pacific, relation to, 1575 Duplication of lines, 1629 Equipment, 1428, 1445-6 Finance, 1392-4 Negotiations, 1274 Postponement suggested, 1029 Ratification by Parliament, 1459-60 Six-months' hoist; amdt. to 3r., 1747 Subsidiary companies and Com. of management, 1538
Superannuation and Pension Fund, 1549 Terminals-Toronto and Montreal, 1582 United States, lines in, 1545, 1582 House of Commons' officials, 1004 International Trade Congress, 1176 Macdonald by-election, 1606 National debt, totals, ques., 553 Pilotage Bill, 1933
Public Printing and Stationery, 1917
Reciprocity, 923
War veterans' gratuity claim
Special Com., printing of report, 1998
Robertson, Dr. James W., 19 Roger Miller & Sons Ltd., ques., 1797
Ross, Mr. Duncan Campbell (West Middlesex)
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1393-1 Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, 425 Expenditures, 413
Imperial services, members of, 416
Ross Rifle, Motion for papers (Sir Sam Hughes), 533
Roumania, credit to, 241, 371, 406


Volume I:: 


Volume II:: 



[Stage Direction]
xxxiii
Rowell, Hen. Newton W. (President of the Privy Council and Minister of Health) Address in reply to Governor Gen. r m's Speech, 388. Profiteers and the Government, 388; Board of Commerce, 389; Sir Joseph Flavelle and Imp rial Munitions Board-reply to charges of Mr. Murphy, 391; conscription-personal position, 395; French Canadian soldiers, 396; alleged slander of Roman Catholic Church, 397; position of Liberal Unionists, 400 Adulteration Act Arndt. (Bran and Shorts), 719, 726 Investigation to be made, 724 Canadian ships, registry, 150 Fraser River salmon, ,-rotection of, 11771181
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1046, 1054, 1108, 1204
Arbitration, 1108, 1289, 1338-9 Stocks, price to be paid, 1415-6 Assets, 1390
Canadian National Railways, 1209 Canadian Pacific, relation to, 1053-4 Central Vermont railroad, 1391 Company, entity of, 1348 Delay, proposed, 1211, 1360 Finance, 1395-1402
Grand Trunk Pacific and Transcontinental, 1360 Receivership, 1053 Montreal Board of Trade, 1211 Negotiations, 1051, 1210, 1354, 1358 Obligations of Company, 1389 Ownership-title, 1345-8 Parliamentary approval, 1412 Public opinion, 1361 Public ownership, 1054, 1204 Reflection on members, alleged, 1401 Stocks, 1046 Market value, 1109 Taxation, 1344-5, 1350-3 Valuation, date for, 1342 International Labour Conference, 1365 League of Nations
Covenant and commentary, 269,	270
See also under this title, Peace Treaty Labour clauses, with explanatory statement, 270
Opium and Drug Act Arndt., 1118-1120 Peace. Treaty, 117. See also under this head, League of Nations
Documents and printing, 304-5, 952, 1142 Correspondence brought down, 148 South Africa, approval by, 512 Political patronage, 1207
Rowell, Hon. Newton W.-Con.
Postmasters' salaries Bill, 1373-5 Royal Northwest Mounted Police, 178, 712, 825-840, 885-6 Ships, Canadian registry, 178 Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Department, 304, 407-431 Soldiers' votes, 802 War veterans' gratuity claim Distribution of documents, 269 Ministerial statement, 242 Motion (Mr. Currie) for adjournment, to discuss, 366 Royal Assent, 1024, 2009
Royal Northwest Mounted Police. Sec Police Rural Mail Service, 775 St. Croix River bridge, blowing up of, 1063 St. Fidele wharf, ques., 1382 St. John Board of Trade and Grand Trunk, 1143
St. John River wharves, ques., 2000
St. John Valley Railway, Westfield-St. John, 714
St. Johns barracks, ques., 746
St. Lawrence River protection works, ques., 842
St. Lawrence ship channel, ques., 533 Ste. Anne de Beaupre wharf, ques., 1221
Salmon, Fraser River, protection of, 1142, 1177
Secretary of State-Enemy aliens and Dominion lands, 865
Seed Grain Advances, 1954, 1973 Senate and House of Commons Act Arndt. Bill (Leader of the Opposition), lr., 1924 Senate
Members' indemnity, 1969 Message from; amending Bills, printing of, 2002
Settlers, needy, relief for, 1954, 1973 Sexsmith, Mr. John Albert (East Peterborough)
Board of Commerce-prices, 699 Canadian Wheat Board, 681 Shaw, Mr. Hugh Murray (Macleod)
Hay shipments-car shortage, 2004 Sheard, Mr. Charles (South Toronto)
Civil Service classification, 762 Oleomargarine, 891 Shillington, Dr. A. T„ ques., 1011
C
Volume I:: Volume II;
xxxiv


Volume II:: 



INDEX-1919 xxxv

[Stage Direction]
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-Con. Fishermen, 423, 428 Gratuity, 425
Great War Veterans, 417, 430 Housing, 427
Garden cities for returned men, 461 Imperial forces, members of, 407, 415, 422 McCurdy, Mr., resignation of, 417 Medical re-treatment, 410 Orders in Council, 418, 428 Pensions Act, application of, 411 Re-training, 413
United States, enlisted men from, 408, 415-6
Vocational training, 411
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Act Arndt.
Bill. lr., 304;	2r„ 407-429; ref. to
special com., 429-431; com., 1898; 3r., 1911
Senate amdts., 2006 Special Com.
Reports, 443, 621, 1217, 1607
Motion (Mr. Calder) that final report be received and proposed expenditure recommended, 1748, 1799, 1812, 1835; agreed to, 1997; amdt. (Mr. Andrews), 1776; withdrawn, 1888, 1892; amdt. (Mr. Mackenzie King), 1892; neg. on div., 1897 Publication of in advance of presentation to House, 1501 Vote of $40,000,000 to carry out, 1958
Soldiers' Land Settlement, 1789
McMaster, Mr., case reported by, 1906 Printing of rules, 305
Statement as to procedure in several countries, 253
Vote for advances and expenses, 1957 Soldiers' Votes
Alleged manipulation of, 557, 726, 784, Motion for Com., 534 Cable, use of, ques., 2001 Effect of, 1787, 1801
Sorel, McCarthy property, ques., 843
Speaker (Hon. Edgar N. Rhodes)
Rulings and statements of
Adjournment, motion for, to discuss matter of urgent public importance, 497, 555
Adjournment to special hour-unanimous consent, 1748 Amendments
Announced only, withdrawal unnecessary, 1947
Speaker-Con.
Rulings and statements of-Con. Amendments-Con.
May not be moved by member who has exhausted his right to speak, 1931
Technically not to be moved by mover of res., 1564
To be made in Com. of the Whole, 1982
Anticipation of debate, 306 Bills
Com. of the Whole, motion for, question as to its being debatable, 1940-3
Com., report from, " without amdt.," 555-6
Introducer has right to speak first, 1940
Motion that House go into Com. to consider proposed resolution, not debatable-vote may be called for, 1013
Second reading
Discussion of details inadmissible, 1223
Explanation by Minister, 1936
Member allowed to speak only once, 1146
Chair to be addressed, 57 Close of debate, 1226, 1372 Announced, 1936
Canada Tbmjperance Act Amdt., 1982
Committee, not reported, proceedings not to be referred to, 843, 1128 Complaint by member (Mr. McKenzie) of unfair treatment, 819 Concurrence in Supply, motion for, not debatable (Rule 17A), 1974 Corrections, limitations of, 1373 Debate not necessarily closed by second speech of mover, 1566 Debate within a debate, 25 Decorum, 820
Conversation, 1894 Personal reflections, 1792 Division, vote given must stand, 1014 Documents
Not read, to appear in Hansard, 244, 246, 248
Produced-limits of discussion (Soldiers' votes), 820
Quoted by private member not necessarily laid on the Table, 822 Reflecting on members-not to be read, 530
Hansard, correction, 1332
Volume I;
Volume II:: xxxvi

Speaker-Con.
Rulings and statements of-Con.
House of Commons, Timiskaming vacancy, 532
Imputation of motives, 547 Interrogations-member having the floor may not interrogate another, 1893 Interruptions, 163, 289, 547, 1208, 1239, 1274, 1607
Questions allowed only by consent of member having the floor, 1792 Invites a member to speak, 905 Kingston, by-election, 1176 Language
" Are saying 'hear, hear ' from the depths of most profound ignorance," 920
"Misquoted the report," 1273 Prevent highway robbers and thieves from influencing the decisions of the Government," 1266-7 " 'Pork and Beans ' member of this House," 922
" Wanting in those principles which constitute a real man," 1801 " Worst libel that was ever uttered by any man on the floor of this House or outside," 597
Member may not speak twice except by consent, 1930
Members, how to be referred to, 822 Motions
Arndt, to amdt. (War Veterans) suggested change, 1892 Doubtful, allowed pending establishment of procedure-debate should be limited, 1941-3 Mover-right to reply, 1000-4 No subject matter before the House- debate not permissible, 820 Order paper, correction to be made, 1004 Order of the Day, superseded by motion of Minister, 272 Orders of the Day, on
Limitations of debate, 258, 306, 497, 664, 665, 956, 957, 1565, 1671 * Document may be referred to but not its contents cited, 1143 Documents calling in question action of the Government, 177 Imperial Conference, 2003 Matters not urgent, 662 Questions asked, 28, 825
Drayton, Sir Henry, candidature in Kingston, 993 Form of, 662 Points of policy, on, 2004 Victory Loan arch, 1799
Speaker-Con.
Rulings and statements of-Con.
Point of order-debate limited to point raised, 821
Privilege-limitations of statement under, 491-4, 496 Questions, 686
Answers in discretion of the Government, 902
Based on Com. proceedings and in advance of Com. report, 899 Form of, 623 Not answered Lapse with session, 2001 Made order for return at request, 2002
To be put only by permission, 817, 818 Reading of documents from outside referring to proceedings of House, 786, 792
Relevancy, 305, 307, 628-9, 649, 1895, 1896 Civil Service appointments, papers called for, 461
Richardson, Mr., speech of, 733 Senate, reference to proceedings of, 1615, 1928-9
War veterans gratuity claim and public revenues, 1790
Six o'clock adjournment, precedence at next sitting, 549
Speaking second time-unanimous consent, 1736
Speech concluded when member interrogates another, 1893 Speeches by courtesy, 1373 Supply Bill, printing and distribution of, 2005
Unanimous consent, 370, 407, 606, 646, 1217, 1143
Adjournment to special hour, 1748 Bill, two stages at one sitting, 1997 Canada Temperance and Intoxicating Liquors Bills, 869-870 Explanation of Bill on 2r., 1936 Imperial Conference, 2007 Member speaking second time, 1736 Minister, explanation by, 1930 Printing of documents Guelph Novitiate, 1632-3 Labour Conference, 1632 Report of Com., immediate adoption, 823
Report of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, 1607
Votes of money-designation of not to be widened; correction of clerical error, 1974
Spence, Mr. Hugh S., ques., 713


Volume I:: 


Volume II:: 



INDEX-1919

[Stage Direction]
xxxvii
Stacey, Mr. Frank Bainard (Fraser Valley) Peace Treaty, 102
Stamps on Cheques. See Civil Service Act Amdt.
Standing Orders, Com. appointed, 49
Steele, Mr. Michael (South Perth)
Address in reply to Governor General's Speech, 380. Limitation of export of foodstuffs, 380; Board of Commerce -demagogues and class differences, 381
Board of Commerce, 445 Chairman, rulings as
Adjournment of debate in Com., 1993 Parliamentary day governed by sitting, 1995
Privilege, question may not be raised under certain conditions, 1971 Relevancy, 1988 Civil Service
Classification, 773 Dismissals, 989, ques., 1380 Thanksgiving Day Bill, six months' hoist moved, 556
Stevens, Mr. Henry Herbert (Vancouver Centre)
Bamfield life saving station, ques., 405; ques., 1219
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1129 Arbitration, 1136
Canadian National Railway-economies in operation, 1131 Grand Trunk Pacific, 1134 Guarantees, 1138 Liquidation, 1132 Negotiations, 1135 Physical value, 1342
Present legislation long foreshadowed, 1135
Stocks, purchase in market, 1137 Valuation, date of, 1341 Intercolonial Railway, 1138 Navigable Waters Act Amdt., 515 Bridges, etc., 517
Orientals, disfranchisement of, 615 Pilotage Bill, 1933 Public ownership, 1130-4 Registered mail, ques., 2000 Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Expenditures, 422 Imperial forces, members of, 422 Orders in Council, 421 War trophies, ques., 1634 Water front rights, 516-7
Sugar
Retail, ques., 1062
Shortage in Prairie Provinces, 1635 Supply of, ques., 1796
Sugar Beet, 1698 Sunday Sitting, 1992 Supply Bill. See Appropriation Act Supply, Com. of, 1950-74, 1961-74 Sutherland, Mr. Donald (South Oxford) Adulteration Act Amdt. Bill (Bran and Shorts), 176, 714, 724, 1223 Board of Commerce, 719, 725
Dairy products, prices, 663-4, 684-9 Milk, price of, 554 Salaries, 447, 684, 707-9 Vice-Chairman, statements of, 497, 1009 Canadian Wheat Board, 677-9 Civil Service-temporary employees, 972 Dominion Analyst, 719
Noxious weeds. See under this title, Adulteration Act
Oleomargarine, 687, 894, 897, 933, 944, 951 Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, medical re-treatment, 410
Tadoussac steamer service, ques., 1220 Tanlac, ques, 954; ques., 1011 Tariff, The
Canadian Manufacturers' Association, 1276 Commission, 495, 1583
Taxation, 1780, 1862, 1870 Aliens, tax upon, 365 Business profits, 1845 Commissioner of, 957-8 Customs, 1845 Income, 1827, 1845
Double-Great Britain and Overseas Dominions, 554 Land, 1248, 1811, 1826, 1832
Telephone Poles, purchasing of, Kent County, N.B., ques., 899
Temiscouata, Military Service defaulters, ques., 1143
Thanksgiving Day, 904
October 13th chosen, 306, 714
Thanksgiving Day Bill. lr., 25; 2r., 431; com., 476, 518, 555; 6 months' hoist moved, agreed to on div„ 556
Thompson, Mr. Alfred (Yukon) Electrocution, 489 Pilotage, 1933
Police amalgamation, 826-830
Volume I:: 


Volume II:: xxxviii


Volume I:: 


Volume II:: 



[Stage Direction]
xxxix
Vien, Mr. Thomas-Con.
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition-Con. Commission of inquiry, 1607 Equipment and maintenance, 1447 Grand Trunk Pacific and National Transcontinental, 1048, 1608 Guarantees, 1479 Haste, complaint of, 1058 Modifications of agreement, 1472 Obligations of Company, 1041, 1047 Operation, 1605-7, 1615 Patronage, 1615 Public ownership, 1611 Repairs, 1027, 1031 Stocks, 1028 Jurisdiction over, 1481 Terminals-Toronto and Montreal, 157982
Traffic statistics, 1008 United States, lines in. 1019, 1030 Valuation, date for, 1508 Tariff Commission, 1583 Victory Loan arch, 1799
Vimy, memorial to Canadians, 496
Vladivostock, telegraph rates to, 1565
Vocational Training, 1881. See also Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment; War Veterans
Wandsworth Jail, Canadian soldiers in, 903 War
British Expeditionary Force, canteen funds in France, ques., 406 Canada's position in, 83 Canadian Expeditionary Force Overseas pay lists, 3, 108 Pay, equalization of, ques., 406 Regimental canteen funds, ques., 406 Casulaties in certain battles, 624 Conduct of, 625
First Contingent, American in, ques., 2000 Indemnity, 107, 177, 499 Railways of Canada, and, 1070
War Purchasing Commission, ques., 622; ques., 1633, 2002
War Service Gratuity, staff officers, to, ques., 404
War Trophies, ques., 634
War Veterans' Gratuity Claim, 1865 Arrangements for discussion of, 1784, 1794, 1796
Canada's treatment of returned soldiers, review, 1867
Correspondence, ques., 270 Estates of deceased or insane, 1909
War Veterans' Gratuity Claim-Con. Government's decision concerning, 257, 356, 361, 366, 367
Government to give consideration to all representations, 1890
Government to resign if House votes for general distribution of gratuities, 1749, 1776, 1786, 1879, 1887, 1892, 1967 Motion for Commission, dropped, 304 Motion (Mr. Currie) for adjournment, to discuss, 306
Penalties under Soldiers' Civil Re-tablishment, 1910
Reception of veteran's representatives by Prime Minister, 257
Soldiers serving in Canada only-number, ques., 843, ques., 899 See also, Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment
Ways and Means, Com. of, 2004
Weeds, noxious. See Adulteration Act
West Indies, rumoured sale to United States -confederation with Canada, 371
Wharves, New Brunswick, ques., 1797; ques., 2000
Wheat. See also Grain Supervisors; Canadian Wheat Board Sale of crop, 1671 Wheat Export Company, 849 Winnipeg grain market, closing of, ques., 953
Whidden, Mr. Howard Primrose (Brandon) Address in reply to Governor General's Speech (Mover), 3; Prince of Wales -Peace Treaty, 4; Reconstruction, 5; returned soldiers, 6 Police amalgamation, 835
White, Sir Thomas (Leeds)
Canada's Transcontinental systems, 1064 Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1063 Delay, proposed, 1069 Drayton-Acworth-Smith Commission, 1066
Finance, 1068
Grand Trunk Pacific, receivership, 1067 Historical review, 1063 National Transcontinental, 1065 Negotiations, 1068 Public ownership, 1071-2 Stocks, 1069
Wigmore, Mr. Rupert Wilson (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert) Senate and House of Commons Act Arndt. (Leader of Opposition), 1924
Volume I:: 


Volume II:: William II of Hohenzollern, 17, 175 Wilson, Mr. James Robert (Saskatoon) Bran and shorts, 722
Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition, 1095 Sugar shortage, 1635 Thanksgiving Day, 479
Wilson, President, illness of, 846
Winnipeg," Victory Loan subscriptions, ques., 459	.
Wright, Mr. H. O. (Battleford)
Wheat, fixed price for, 930
Yeigh, Mr. Frank, ques., 1011
Ypres, Memorial to Canadians, 496


Volume I:: 


Volume II:: 993-2011