1919-05-28

REPORTS PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of the Trade of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1918; Annual Report of the Department of Labour; Report of the War Trade Board-Hon. A. K. Maclean.

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

Mr. HOCKEN:: Westmount:
Salary $4,000, out of which the Postmaster pays three clerks $2,040. The post office is a Government building. By order of the Postmaster General, June 1, 1918.
3.	(a) Head office 1; (b) Postal stations 9; (c) Sub-offices 110; (d) On other basis, Nil.
4.	The post office at St. Jean Baptiste de Montreal was made a sub-post office on May 18, 1918, and the rent allowance of $80 a year was discontinued from that date.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Yes.
7.	No.
8.	All sub-post offices are supposed to be conducted on the basis as to rates of pay, etc.


REGIMENTAL FUNDS BOARD.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: *1. Is there a Regimental Funds Board under the control of the Government?
2.	If so, what are the functions of this Board?
3.	Who are the members of said Board?
4.	When was it created?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes; one in Canada and one in England.
2.	Regimental Funds Board in Canada- (a) To deal with all questions relating to regimental funds referred from the Overseas military forces for adjustment in Canada; (b) All questions concerning canteen or other regimental funds arising in Canada; (c) The final adjustment of all regimental funds on the final demobilization of units, the approval of trustees and trust agreements; (d) The supervision, and audit, if necessary, of all regimental funds in hands of trustees. 3. Lt.-Colonel J. H. Kaye, Lt.-Colonel G. F. McFarland, Captain F. W. Campbell. 4. January 16, 1919. Regimental Funds Board in England-
2.	To supervise and report upon all funds and regimental property of units in United Kingdom, and arrange for transfer of assets or absorbed and depleted units to local trustees of the unit and their dependents, or where no trustees were appointed, to the Paymaster General, Overseas Military Forces of Canada, in trust for transfer to such authority in Canada as might be specified by the Department of Militia and Defence.
3.	On the date of formation of the board as follows: President, Colonel R. M. Den-nistoun, Judge Advocate General. Members: Lt.-Colonel R. I. Towers, 70th Battalion; Lt.-Colonel D. R. Street, 77th Battalion; Captain R. R. Pattinson, Department of fMr. Rowell.l
General Auditor, (Secretary). No information as to any change from the above is available at present.
4.	January 31, 1917.


TAXATION OF GOLD STORAGE WAREHOUSE COMPANIES.
Joseph Archambault: *1. What sum has the Government collected from cold storage warehouse companies since the Order in Council limiting the profits of the said companies to 11 per cent has been paissed?
2.	What amounts have been collected from each one of said companies, and what are the dates when said amounts were collected?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1 and 2. Persons, firms and incorporated companies engaged in the slaughtering of live stock or the manufacture of products therefrom liable to taxation under the Order in Council of 9th March, 1918, are assessable for all profits in excess of 15 per cent upon capital and one-half profits in excess of 7 per cent up to 15 per cent upon such capital. Regulations under the said Order in Council were in effect from 1st January, 1918. The Commissioner of Taxation has been engaged in investigating the business and accounts of all persons, firms and incorporated companies who might be liable to assessment under the Order in Council. These investigations are not completed, but so far as they have proceeded they do not disclose profits in excess of the amount exempted by the Order in Council. Many firms and companies engaged in the business concerned, sustained heavy losses during 1918 calendar year, which year was most unfavourable to the packing industry.


ENLISTMENTS IN CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
Joseph Archambault: *1. How many men belonging to the United States enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force: (a) of English origin; (<b) of French origin?
2.	Were the said' enlistments registered separately, or numerically credited to the different provinces? If so, how many, and to which provinces?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	33,335. No distinction was made between French and English. Recruits were obtained simply as British subjects.
2.	Recruits were sent to nearest military district from the place of recruitment.
Ontario- M. D. 1. " 2.
"	3.
Accepted. Rejected.
2,163 + 228 12.342 + 804 791

Accepted. Rejected.
Quebec-
M. D. 4	
5,049	+	314M. D. 6	
212	+. 11
Nova Scotia-
M.D. 6	 212	-4-	11
New Brunswick-
M. D. 7	 1.362 +	46
Manitoba-
M.D. 10	 2,672	+	393
British Columbia-
M.D. 11	 3,538	+	228
Alberta-
M.D. 13	 382	+	6
29,275 +2,038= 31,313
The 2,022 unaccounted for by districts include recruits who transferred on arrival to Imperial units (Inland Water Transport, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, etc.), and those who joined other units than the ones to which they were sent.


HULL. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
Joseph Archambault: *1. Who was the Commissioner a-ppointed to hold an investigation concerning the Hull industrial dispute, during the current month of May?
2. When was the said Commissioner appointed, and what salary is he being paid therefor by the Government?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1. There have been two industrial disputes in Hull during the current month of May, as follows:
(a)	Hull Electric Railway and its employees, being street and electric railway workers, and the board being constituted as follows: Chairman, Mr. D'Arcy Scott, K.C., Mr. George D. Kelley, and Mr. F. Bancroft.
(b)	The Huil corporation and its employees being firemen. In this case the Minister of Labour claims jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, only with the concurrence of the employer concerned, and the employer having granted concurrence, a board was established, Messrs. Archambault, Mayor of Hull, and Pat Green, Ottawa, being appointed as for corporation and employees respectively. Messrs. Archambault and Green being unable to secure a chairman by agreement, the minister, acting under section 8, paragraph 4, appointed the Honourable Mr. Justice F. S. Maclennan, of Montreal, of the Superior Court of Quebec, to the chairmanship. The board was called to meet on Thursday, May 22. Before the board met Mayor Archambault resigned on the ground that the chairman was not French-speaking
and belonged to the district of Montreal, rather than the district of Hull. The Registrar requested the City Council to nominate a substitute for Mayor Archambault and the City Council recommended the reappointment of Mayor Archambault. Mayor Archambault was accordingly reappointed. Judge Maclennan notified the Registrar also that court engagements would preclude his continuing to act as chairman. Messrs. Archambault and Green have been instructed, under section 8, paragraph 3, to confer, looking to a recommendation for a third member, who will be chairman. No report has been received.
2. No salary is paid any members of Boards of Conciliation and Investigation, but each member receives the fees payable under the Industrial Disputes Act, section 51, as amended, namely, twenty dollars per day for each day when conducting the inquiry.


HON. MR. JUSTICE MACLENNAN.
*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Has His Honour Judge McLennan, acting as Chairman of the Board of Industrial Disputes in connection with the dispute between the Canadian Express Company and its employees, been paid his fees and expenses therefor, by the Government?
2.	If so, on what date and for what amount?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1 The Honourable Mr. Justice F. S. Maclennan acting as chairman of the Board of Appeal which dealt with a dispute between the Canadian Express Company and its employees has been paid his fees and expenses therefor.
2. April 14, $50.61.


INSPECTORS AND ASSESSORS IN INCOME TAX OFFICE, MONTREAL.
Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	How many deputy inspectors have been appointed, under the Income War Tax Act, in Montreal?
2.	What are their names and salaries?
3.	Under whose recommendation were they appointed?
4.	Have any returned1 soldiers been appointed?


William Thomas White: 1 and 2. None. The following inspectors and assessors are employed in the Dominion Income Tax Office at Montreal:
Name.	Salary per mon'tl
P. F.	McCaffery, inspector	$300
A. Labbe, inspector	 250
Geo. C. Leroux, chief assessor	 250
A. H.	Rowland, asst, chief assessor..	233 33J. B.	Kreps, assessor	
200	00J. L.	Frigon, assessor	
200	00
ggg '

Name-	.	Salary per month.A. G. Foot, assessor	
$150	00J- A. Archamfoault, assessor	
150	00R. L. Warden, assessor	
150	00E. Robitaille, assessor	
150	00Jas. Barclay, assessor	
166	66H. E. Smith, assessor	
166	66Leo. Duquet, assessor	
133	33T. H. Carbray, assessor	
133	33Janies Dunlop, assessor	
133	33H. Pearson, assessor	
125	00J. O'Keefe, assessor	
100	003.	Inspectors .were appointed on the recommendation of the Commissioner of Taxation. Assessors were appointed on the recommendation of Inspector MeCaffery endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation.4.	Yes.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	How many applications for divorce Bills have been received since Confederation?
2.	How many divorce Bills have been passed during: the same period?
3.	How many applications for divorce Bills have been received during the present Session?
4.	How many divorce Bills have been passed during the present Session?
5.	Have fees been remitted in connection with same?
6.	If so, in how many cases?


COAL FOR CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS.
Mr. J. H. MACKIE moved:: For a return showing the tenders received for coal for the Canadian Northern Railway and Canadian National Railways, between 1st January, 1918, and 1st April, 1919, also a statement showing the tenders accepted during the same period, along with a statement of all tenders for coal (a) received, and (b) accepted by the Grand Trunk Pacific since that road passed into the hands of a receiver.


Hon. J. D. REID:: I mentioned to the hon. member (Mr. J. C. Mackie) that I could not agree to this motion going through in its present form It includes a return relating to a private company.


Herbert John Mackie: May I ask the permission of the House to amend that notice of motion so as to drop out the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway? The motion will then be for a return as to all tenders affecting the Canadian National Railways and excepting the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Do I understand the amendment is to eliminate the Grand Trunk Pacific? The hon. member can put his amendment in proper form lrv V. morrow. Motion allowed to stand.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: For a copy of all correspondence since 1911 between this Government and the Government of Nova Scotia, relating to the licensing of bonded warehouses for the storage of intoxicating liquor.


John Howard Sinclair: For a copy of all correspondence, .petitions, resolutions and other documents in the .possession of the Government relating to the establishment of abattoir and cold storage facilities at Halifax, iN.S.


INQUIRY ABOUT THE FRANCHISE BILL.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. ROBB (Huntingdon and Cha-teauguay):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) to the speech from the Throne delivered during his absence in which considerable prominence was given to the question of a new Franchise Bill. We were then promised a Bill to amend the Franchise Act. We have now been in session for three months but the Franchise Bill has not yet been brought down. Might I ask the Prime Minister when we may expect the Franchise Bill and when the five constituencies which are now without representation in this House will have an opportunity of electing members ?-


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: In regard to the latter question I believe that the answer has already been given by my hon. friend (Sir Thomas White). In so far as the first question is concerned I cannot give my hon. friend (Mr. Robb) a definite answer to-day. Some papers connected with the Franchise Bill were placed before me last evening, or this morning, but I really have been quite unable even to look at them. I imagine they will require something more than a mere cursory examination. If my hon. friend will let the matter stand for to-day, I shall endeavour to give him his answer at as early a date as may be reasonably possible.


DESTRUCTION OF FOOD-COLD STORAGE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: I am informed that the following quantities of food were confiscated and destroyed in Mont-''eal during the last four months:

Beef	
Veal	
Mutton	
Pork	
Fowl	
Fish	
Various meats Vegetables. . . Other foods. . Ice	
7,90S pounds. 10,539	"
12,750	"
7,125	"
607	"
48,216	"
5,049 -	"
2,484	"
2,766	"
203 tons.
In view of that statement is it net the intention of the Government to nationalize the cold storage establishments in the country so as to decrease the very high cost of living!


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend will realize that he ought to put a question of that character on the Order Paper.



CONTRACT BETWEEN CANADA AND GREECE FOR SUPPLY OF WHEAT.

["There are one or two things which I deem it my duty to bring to the notice of the minister in connection with this Resolution and the Civil Service. In the first place, I think work is imposed on the Civil Service Commission that they should not be called upon to perform. The resolution seeks to appoint a body of men, not exceeding five in number, of whom four will receive $6,000 and one $7,000 a year. Such a body of men is almost equal in number to the membership of any of our Supreme Courts. Now we all know what important duties are discharged by a judge of the Supreme Court, and what important work the Supreme Court in any province, as a body, is supposed to perform. It would be very absurd if we were to appoint judges, with salaries ranging from $7,000 to $8,000, to do work that could well be performed by a justice of the peace. No Government could justify such a proceeding as that, yet it is exactly what is happening here. The appointment of a tide waiter in the county of Guysborough, the appointment of a fishery guardian in the county of Pictou, the appointment of a postmaster in the county of Victoria, which I have the ihoifour to represent, thousands and thousands of such appointments are being\n\nmade all over the country, and we have a commission sitting in Ottawa to whom we are to pay $31,000 a year in salaries alone, not 'to mention incidental expenses, to deal with matters oi that nature. 1 think such a proceeding is highly improper. I am entirely in favour of appointing big men to handle big questions; but I certainly do not approve of having a commission, whose members are paid large salaries, to deal with small matters that can be dealt with by the most ordinary individual in the country. I submit to the minister that he should cut down the volume of work which is imposed upon this commission. Let him remove the manifold appointments of a petty nature that the commission now have to deal with, and let the appointments be made in some other way. It transpired last night, during our questioning of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that the hundreds and thousands of fishery guardians that must be appointed in this country within the next few months, are first recommended by the fishery overseer, and then the nominations are sent to Ottawa to be confirmed by the Civil Service Commission. Is that not a work of supererogation? Is not that taking up the time and energy of the Civil Service Commission to no good purpose? In such cases the commission must of necessity accept the recommendation of the overseer, and must trust him to nominate the right man. If he has done so, why not put the appointee in office at once, and thus cut down the enormous amount of petty work which now goes to the commission, and the dealing with which does not require any executive ability at all. I submit that ii this is done much unnecessary work on the part of the commission can be dispensed with. It is not fair to ask the Civil Service Commissioners to sit down in solemn form and to pass judgment as to who shall be tide waiter at Big Bras d'Or, or who shall be fishery guardian in British Columbia. All these appointments could be dealt within another way, and in a manner more expeditious and less expensive to the country. I certainly protest against increasing the number of Civil Service Commissioners from three to five in order to deal with matters of this kind. If the real questions that should engage the attention of big, capable, brainy, well paid men were cut down to the class of work that should be done, you will find that three men could do it just as well as five, and with less trouble.\nThere is another thing about these examinations. I suppose the Government\nthink they are conferring a favour upon any candidate for a position in the Civil Service whom they let in with an easy examination. I do not view it in that way.\nI do not think that a worse service could be done any young man in this country than to set an examination by which he could get into a lower class at an age between 18 and 25. He gets in after a certain examination. He is there until the next stage of promotion arrives, five or six years afterwards, when the age for learning has passed, when the time for going to school has gone and he finds himself up against a stone wall. He never can pass any more examinations and he has to stay where he is or go back into the world to seek some other work. I submit to the minister that he should always have in view the admission of good men to the service who would be capable of development and promotion from one stage to another and that he would in the different classes pass such an educational examination in the very first instance as to qualify a person educationally for promotion in that class until he reaches the top.\nI am not in favour of asking candidates for the Civil Service to pass a high examination in Greek, Latin, geometry, trigonometry, and all those difficult subjects. I am in favour of a good English, or French education. I want a man to be a good writer, a good speller, to have a good knowledge of the English or French language, and such general knowledge as would bring him to a standard perhaps equal to our grade 12 in our curriculum, or qualify him to pass a first class teacher's examination. You have a man of good common sense and fair practical education. Put him at the bottom if you like but qualify him once for all so that if he is ambitious and capable he may look forward to getting to the top. It is no friendship or favour to any person to give him an easy examination whereby he can get into the first grade. He spends some years there, he cannot go to school again, he cannot pass any further examination and he is blocked for the rest of his life. I wish the minister to keep that in view when dealing with the educational test. As I read the examination papers and the curriculum prescribed for Civil Service examinations, it appears to me that it is not a fair test. In some things it goes too high, and you require an examination on subjects that keep many good people out of the service. People get in by reason of their ability to pass these", 'tests who are not as good as those who would get in if the test were along the line that I have suggested.\nMy whole remarks come down to this: That too much small business is imposed on the commission. Hundreds of thousands of cases which come before the commission might be dealt with by a most ordinary officer at an ordinary salary, and my other point is that I think the educational test should receive more consideration and that it should be conducted in such a way that it would secure for the service the right kind of man and the right kind of woman.\nResolution reported, read the second time, and concurred in.']
James Alexander Robb: The Montreal Gazette of this morning contains a special cable despatch from its London Correspondent which reads as follows:
London, May 25.-A contract has been signed between the Canadian and Grecian Govern-, ment for the supply of 25,000,000 tons of wheat to Greece to be transported in Greek tonnage by the London shipping firm of M. Emibiricos. Ten vessels of five thousand tons are en route, and during the summer months will mostly call at Montreal.
I would like to inquire from the Ministei of Finance (Sir Thomas White) or the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), how much of this statement is correct. It is quite apparent that it is not entirely correct inasmuch as it represents more wheat than we would have to export for three or four years. I think it is important that a statement should be made as to how much of this information is correct and whether it is the policy of the Government to give precedence to the sale of wheat rather than the products of wheat.


Robert Laird Borden: Negotiations
have been proceeding for the disposal of some wheat to the Greek Government but we have no official intimation up to the present time that any contract has been signed. Pending any definite information on that subject, I am unable to give a reply of the character which my hon. friend (Mr. Robb) would desire. I may say, however, that the efforts, of the Government have been directed towards the exportation of wheat products in the form which he mentioned. It is not always possible, in negotiations that are being carried on,
to accomplish that to the fullest extent desired. I am not quite sure whether any portion of this is to go in the form of flour or whether the whole of it is to go in the form of wheat.


William Thomas White: I might add to what the Prime Minister has said that the amount involved is about a million bushels a month which will run to an aggregate of 12,000,000 bushels and cover a period of twelve months.
Sir .SAM HUGHES: May I ask how the prices are fixed in these deals?


William Thomas White: The price will
be the price in Canada at Port Arthur or Fort William, plus carrying charges to the seaboard and upon the ship. The Greek Government have been desirous of furnishing its people with the best possible flour, and they therefore desired to obtain a quantity of Canadian wheat. The matter was most carefully considered by the Government with those interested in the sale of our wheat, especially wheat of this year s crop, and it was thought desirable in the national interest that the wishes of the Greek Government should Ibe met, with the result that some twelve or fifteen million bushels of wheat will be sold. About three million bushels of that will be of this year's exportable surplus; the balance will be of the coming year's crop. I may say that the Government considered it desirable that no effort should be spared to furnish as far as possible a market for the entire exportable surplus of this year's wheat crop, including, of course, " wheat " flour, whioh is a product of wheat.


James Alexander Robb: If I may trespass again, does this apply to the raw material, or will the Greek Government take flour?


William Thomas White: This applies to wheat, because the Greek Government wants wheat. The policy of the Government, as I explained to my hon. friend when the deputation waited upon us not very long ago, has been, to the utmost extent possible, to promote the sale of Canadian wheat in the form of flour. But obviously it cannot all be exported in that form, and the Dominion Government would not feel justified in missing the advantage of a sale such as this, with its ultimate beneficial consequences, by reason of the fact that the Greek Government desires to make this purchase in the form of wheat.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it financed by the Canadian Government?


William Thomas White: No; by the Greek Government from outside funds.



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): Is the Government in a position to make a statement in regard to the strikes in Western Canada?
Hon. A-. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Labour): There is nothing further to convey to the House respecting the Winnipeg strike situation. What little news has been received by the Government since yesterday has been of a reassuring nature. The only change which has taken place-which, perhaps, I might mention-is that the railway mail clerks of the Winnipeg Division are out on strike. There is nothing particular to report concerning conditions at Edmonton. A general strike was ordered and is now effective; but it would appear that no very large number of men have responded to the order. At Calgary strike conditions prevail, there being about six or eight different classes of trades out. The postal clerks at Calgary are out in sympathy with the strike, but at Edmonton they are still in the service. At Vancouver a general strike vote has been or is being taken, but we have received no official information as to the result.
Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: What about the threatened strike at Toronto?


Robert Laird Borden: A delegation from the city representing both employers and employees, together with the Mayor and the President of the Board of Trade, are to arrive here to-morrow morning for a conference.


HIGH COST OF LIVING AND MINIMUM . WAGE.
Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (Peterborough West):: I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. A. K. Maclean) what is the weekly budget for the average Canadian family as found by the latest report of the Department of Labour; and what is the minimum weekly wage to correspond with that weekly minimum budget?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I could not answer my hon. friend's question. I may be able to do so at the close of the session to-day possibly, or Friday.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That question should properly go upon the Order Paper. From its nature the hon. member could not expect to have it answered off-hand.


GENERAL CONFERENCE SUGGESTED TO SETTLE LABOUR DISPUTES.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Leader of the Opposition):: Might I take the liberty of suggesting to the Prime Minister that the Government would be well advised to take into consideration the calling of a general conference of all the parties concerned in connection with the various strikes that are now proceeding, throughout the country? Such a conference here in Ottawa might have the effect of allaying the general unrest now prevailing.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall, of course, give very attentive consideration to the suggestion which my hon. friend has made. If possible it would be most desirable to have the Minister of Labour (Hon. Gideon Robertson) here if any such conference should be called. He is at present doing his best to bring about an adjustment of the strike at Winnipeg. I shall give the suggestion full consideration and communicate with him.


COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
Mr. E. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: In connection with the same matter, in answer to my friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Andrew's-) who yesterday asked what was the attitude of the Government in regard to " collective bargaining," the right hon. the Prime Minister said that there w'ere many definitions of this term, and if given a certain interpretation the result would be rather unfortunate. May I ask the Government w'hether there is some system of collective bargaining with which the Government is in sympathy; and if so, what is that system?


Robert Laird Borden: As I explained yesterday-possibly my hon. friend was not present-we are awaiting the report of the Industrial Commission, wdiich no doubt will take this question into consideration.
I should not desire to anticipate that report by making any such announcement as my hon. friend suggests.


Mr. CAHILL:: Would it not be possible for the Government to get that commission to report at an earlier date than was mentioned yesterday, viz. the 15th of June?
In view' of the dangerous condition of the country as the result of the many strikes

in operation and threatened, I believe an early report by that commission is of the utmost importance.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether it is possible for the commission to report at an earlier date or not. I believe they have been very actively engaged. Indeed, they might reach the conclusion that they are, after all, getting on as fast as the House is.	*


Frank S. Cahill: As fast as the Government is?


CIVIL SERVICE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. Macelan (Acting 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 bring in a measure to amend The Civil Service Act, 1918, and therein to provide :
[Stage Direction]
1.	That the Civil Service Commission shall consist of not more than five members appointed by the Governor in Council: Provided, however, that after the expiration of three years from the first day of April, one thousan nine hundred and nineteen, no person shall be appointed a Commissioner until the number of members of the Commission is reduced to less than three, and after such reduction the number of members of the Commission shall not exceed three.
2.	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.
3.	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 be amended, and that provision be made for re-classifying the Civil Service and for any additional expense which may result from such re-classification.
Mr. MANION:: Last year when the Civil Service Commission was being appointed, the hon. member for Muskoka and myself took up with the Prime Minister the question of appointing a returned soldier as a member of the commission. I believe the Prime Minister gave us to understand that the suggestion would be favourably considered this year. I should like to ask the hon. minister if it is the intention of the Government to give effect to our suggestion?


Rodolphe Lemieux: On the same line as
the question put by my hon. friend, I suggested last year when the minister introduced his Bill that a woman should be
appointed to the commission; first of all in view of the large number of women who are in the Civil Service; and, second, in view of the fact that we have now given the suffrage to women. Under these circumstances they ought to be represented on that commission.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should not like to give a definite answer to the questions put by the member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) and the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). We are taking the authority to increase the number of the Commissioners by two, and it naturally follows that there is no reason why one returned man should not be placed on the commission. However, I do not like to anticipate the action of the Government by saying any more than that. I assure my hon. friend (Mr. Manion) that every consideration will be given to the suggestion which he puts forward and which was urged very strongly and repeatedly during the last session of Parliament. Perhaps later, during the course of the passage of the Bill, I shall be in a position to make a more definite announcement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about my question?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I cannot answei
my hon. friend's question; I do not like to anticipate the action of the Government in the matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As to the principle,
does not my hon. friend see eye to eye with me?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I assent to the
principle that women are entitled to the suffrage and to fill any position that they are capable of filling. I cannot say? however, whether I am in favour of the appointment of a woman to the Civil Service Commission and at the moment I do not propose to bind the Government or myself in that matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not even for the time being?


John Howard Sinclair: This is a time
when the Government ought to practise economy. I do not see any reason why there should be an increase in the number of Commissioners. The minister accepts the principle that it is better to have three Commissioners than five, because he provides that after a couple of years no new appointment shall be made until the number of Commissioners has been reduced to three. Why should we incur the expense involved in the appointment of two new

Commissioners when three are sufficient to do the work?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The principle oi
enlarging the commission may be right or may be wrong; it will be for Parliament to settle that question. At the present time the commission is an exceedingly busy organization and the view is.held by many that they cannot possibly do justice to the great volume of work that is before them from day to day. During the reconstruction period it may fairly be held that the commission should be enlarged by the addition of further members. The Bill will provide that the number will automatically revert to three. I will read the section which will appear in the Bill.


Charles Murphy: I do not know whether the minister has already explained the reasons for the introduction of this resolution and of the Bill which is to be founded upon it. If he has not, would he be good enough to do so, and to state also whether it has anything to do with the reclassification that has been in progress for some months, so that we may understand what we are talking about?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I propose, with the permission of the House, to advance this Order to-day to the extent of having the resolution adopted. I shall not move the first reading of the Bill to-day, because what are known as the classification schedules are not yet fully printed. I hope that some time during the next week they will be available and that when I move the first reading of the Bill I shall be able to place on the Table, and possibly in the hands of hon. members, the printed classification schedules. I do not wish, therefore, to make any extended explanation of the Bill this afternoon, if I can avoid doing so. However, I desire to say just a few words.


Charles Murphy: So that the reclassification will be under discussion at the same time as the new Bill?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes. Hon. gentlemen will remember that under the Civil Service Act of last year the commissioners were directed to reclassify the service. Since last August, experts employed by the commission have been engaged tin that work. As I have already stated in the House during this session, the task was a stupendous one; otherwise the reclassification would have been submitted to the House long before this. I assure hon. gentlemen that it involved a great deal of

work, but satisfactory progress. has been made and the work is about completed; in fact, the actual classification has been completed-the delay is in the printing. The classification involves the arrangement of the whole Civil Service, outside and inside, into classes. For instance, there is a clerical service, which will be common to a great many of the .departments; the felerical force is found in almost every department. To-day the clerical staff of the Department of Public Works, for instance, may be paid on an entirely different rating from that which applies to the clerical services in other departments. The scheme of reclassification will put all the clerical staff into one service; the members of that service will be paid according to their duties and responsibilities and there will be no variation in the salaries throughout Canada. The postal service is a service by itself, because everybody engaged in the postal work belongs to the postal service. There may, however, be a clerical staff in the post office which will become part of the clerical service.
I should like to give to the Committee a definition of some of the new terms which will be imported into the Bill ratifying the classification. The word " position," which will be used frequently, is understood to mean " one specific office or employment occupied normally by one person." For example, a man may have the position of delivering letters, or taking dictation, or driving an automobile; his position is defined.
The word " class " will be used also in the reclassification and in the amending Bill. " Class " is understood to include all those positions, employments, or offices the duties and responsibilities of whose incumbents and the qualifications required and demanded of applicants therefor are sufficiently alike to be given the same denomination or title. In the Department of Railways and Canals, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Marine and Fisheries we have persons engaged in marine work; regardless of the department they are employed in, they will come within the class of marine workers.


Charles Murphy: Engineers the same way?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is an engineering division. " Service " is understood to mean an aggregation of classes having similar functions. For instance, all the clerical staff, wherever found, inside or outside, regardless of department, belong to the clerical service. The classification will disclose the following services.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before my hon. friend
proceeds, may I inquire what is the name and location of the firm that made the reclassification, what are the names of the classifiers, and are there any Canadians among them?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The work of reclassification was carried on 'by the Civil Service Commission who employed certain people to do it. The principal assistants were furnished by the firm of Arthur Young and Company who are engaged solely in the work of classifying and organizing civil services.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of Chicago?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Their main office is in Chicago, but they have offices in other large cities, including, I think, an office in Toronto. They furnished the Civil Service Commission with a certain number of experts and some Canadians were engaged in the work.


Mr. DEVLIN:: What firm in Chicago would know about the working out of the Civil Service system of Canada?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not see why a firm in Chicago would not be able to do the work just as well as a firm in Canada,


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Then why not give the preference to a firm in Canada?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think there is in Canada any person or firm that has ever given any attention to this class of work.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Are these people not accountants solely?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, they are not accountants. Their attention is devoted entirely to work of this character, and they are now being and have been employed by many States and cities of the United States of America.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: As a matter of fact, is it not true that the heads of the department did the work of re-classification?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, they had nothing to do with it other than to give information when asked for it.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Was not Mr. P. D. Ross available for this work?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: His services were not sought by the commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who is Mr. P. D. Ross?


John Howard Sinclair: What is the remuneration.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I cannot inform the hon. member as to the exact remuneration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How much per day?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I cannot give the information. The firm of Arthur Young and Company engaged by the Civil Service Commission, was a very able body of men who knew their work well, and it matters little to me what country they are citizens of so long as they are capable of doing this particular work. I think it will be found, when the whole matter is submitted to the House and thoroughly understood, that they were very capable men.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the rate of paj of this American firm; how many are included in their staff, and how much is the staff paid ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend that information to-day. I would hardly be expected to carry that around with me, because there is no particular reason why I should know it. This Parliament authorized the Civil Service Commission to carry on this work, and the commission secured the services of this firm without consulting the Government at all. I shall, however, later on inform the House as to the probable cost of this work.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Have certain departmental officials found it necessary to revise the classifications made by this firm?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That question might be answered " yes and no." When the report is fully completed, the Civil Service Commission and the experts who are assisting them, do not expect the report to be without error. There are 60,000 positions in Canada which are being classified, and the classification schedules will occupy between six and seven hundred pages. There will be some 1,600 or 1,700 classes of positions classified in the service, and it would be almost too much to expect that such work would be absolutely free from error; in fact, the commissioners would be well satisfied it they did not find greater error than from five to ten per cent. From time to time the commission have consulted different members of the Civil service, sometimes a deputy minister, sometimes another departmental official. This was necessary, and I have no doubt that, from time to time, they secured from such persons valuable information which would induce them to revise a preconceived idea as to classification of any particular service.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: All of this leads one to wonder whether a commission of experts composed of our own officials would not have done the work better than this imported commission.


Mr.  A. K. IMAOLEAN@: I am not of that view, and I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. friend. We shall be in a better position to judge of that when the schedules are printed and in the hands of hon. members. My opinion is that when the report is studied it will be the judgment of hon. members that the work has been well done and that it will ultimately prove to be in the public interest.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Without wishing to be too persistent about the gentlemen who came from Chicago to revise the whole Civil Service system, I should like to know who recommended them.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Civil Service *Commission obtained the services of these men. They went out looking for men capable of doing this work; they could not obtain such services in Canada, and they took the best means they could of obtaining the names of some concerns outside which might do the work.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Then I understand the Civil Service Commission themselves, without the recommendation of anybody, engaged these accountants or others in the city of Chicago?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is true.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Thus trading and trucking with the Yankees.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would be unsatisfactory to the Committee and also to myself if I were to endeavour this afternoon to give an explanation of the classification without the schedules before me. I hope, therefore, the Committee will he good enough to permit progress to be made with the resolution, and when I move the first reading of the Bill I purpose giving as full an explanation as possible.
I should like, however, to give an illustration of what classification means. For instance, I have in my hand what will be a page of the classification schedule. This contains three schedules, and to give the Committee an idea of what a schedule actually .means, I will read it. The schedules are headed " Junior Forward Sorter," " Bor Collectors," and " Postal Labourer." These are three positions in the postal service. It is the position which is classified,

and not the individual. The responsibilities and duties of the position are first set forth,


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is nothing new there.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When I move the first reading of the Bill I 'think I shall be able to point out oases in the Canadian public service where men are receiving at least one hundred per 'cent more than they should for the class of work they are doing. In other cases civil servants are underpaid for the class of work they are doing. I have read this schedule merely to give hon. gentlemen an idea of what a classification schedule means. The duties of a Junior Forward Sorter are set forth as follows:
Examples: Facing and sorting letters for the cancelling machine and hand stamper; revising and tying sorted letters ; opening, closing, and labelling mail hags; checking amounts of postage on mail matter; sorting letters for forwarding in one or more easy frames; sorting newspapers for forwarding.
From this the incumbent of the office can see what are the duties of his position. Heretofore, the duties pertaining to positions in the public service have not been defined except in a very casual way, and have varied according to the departments.
The schedule also states the qualifications for the position, 'which in this case are as follows:
At least public school education; good physical condition and a good memory; quickness of hand and eye.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Public school qualifications?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: For this particular position of Junior Forward 'Sorter, the intention hereafter, and this will be provided for in the Bill, is that candidates for positions in the Civil Service shall be examined merely in respect of the duties of the office which they are seeking, instead of undergoing a general examination on matters which really do not relate to the duties of the office.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is well enough in its way, but will there have to be another
examination in the case of promotion to a position requiring higher educational attainments?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There would be another examination in .respect of the work to be done in the new position to which the man seeks 'to be .promoted. The schedule also sets forth the principal lines of promotion, so that a person on entering the service in any position may know

what lines of promotion are open to him. Of course, it does not follow that the official will necessarily be promoted, because promotion will depend upon his record and efficiency. It was the judgment of the Civil Service Commission, however, that the lines of promotion should be stated in the schedule so that the incumbent of any office might know what other positions in the public service he might aspire to.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Did I understand the minister to say when speaking on the Post Office Department that some officials of that department were receiving one hundred per cent more than they should be receiving?	[DOT]


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, I did not say that.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I think so.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am certain I did not say that. I said that if I deemed it necessary or wise to do so, I could indicate some positions in the public service of Canada where the incumbent was receiving one hundred per cent more for the work he performed than the work was worth. The principal lines of promotion for junior forward sorter are as follows:
To perform, under supervision, simple tasks in connection with the forwarding1 of mail in a large post office and other related work as assigned.
To: Forward Sorter, Directory Clerk, General Registration Clerk, Money Order Clerk, Registration Clerk, Registration and Money Order Clerk.
I think it is an excellent plan to have inserted in the schedules the principal lines of promotion open to anybody in the Civil Service. The schedule finally states the compensation, under monthly and annual heads. The commission have examined fairly well all the civil positions in the public service of this oountry, and have classified the duties 'and responsibilities and qualifications of each class of posi-. tions. I do not think it is necessary for me to give any more examples.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Does the report of this new commission differ materially from the report of Sir George Murray?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My recollection is that the report of Sir George Murray was a general report on the conditions in the Civil Service of Canada. This new report has to do entirely with the re-classification of the service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Murray report was discarded, if I mistake not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Did I understand the minister to say that the classification has been completed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am curious to know what the minister is going to do when the report of the Special Committee inquiring into the manning of the Civil Service is presented. As this new classification is going to be confirmed by an Act of Parliament, does it not seem to the minister, labour in vain for this Special Committee to be toiling every day reconstructing what has already been reconstructed? I would like to know what the minister thinks this Special Committee is doing, and what the result will be when their report is presented.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I really cannot tell my hon. friend what I think the Committee is doing, because I am not a member of it, and I should not like to make a guess. The Committee were directed to inquire into the question of whether or not the service was overloaded, and not to make a classification of the service. The reference to the Special Committee was of a more general character. I do not think there will be any conflict whatever between the two reports.


Frank S. Cahill: What have been the salaries of the commissioners up to this time?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Chairman $6,000, and the Commissioners $5,000.


Frank S. Cahill: In view of the fact that there is now a Special Committee of this House investigating whether the service is overmanned, and the further fact that the service has now practically been reclassified, having regard also to conditions generally throughout the country and the dissatisfaction with a lot of appointments made,.on what ground do the commission justify the appointment of two other commissioners to undertake work ithat has already been done? The Special Committee may report in favour of reducing the number of civil servants. Upon what ground does the minister base his opinion that there is going to be a large increase in the Civil Service of this country in the next two years.1
lit seems to me that this is entirely uncalled for. Instead of increasing the salaries of these commissioners, if they are not satisfied and are not able to get along w;th a salary of five or six thousand dollars



a year, the Government might be able to get other very estimable gentlemen who would accept the position at the present remuneration. There are doubtless many returned men in Canada that are perfectly competent to fill these positions, and would be glad to accept a stipend of $5,000 a year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The salaries of
deputy ministers were recently fixed at $6,000, and it was felt that the members of the Civil Service Commission occupy a position in the service analogous to that of a deputy minister. Let me point out that the duties of the Civil Service Commission will not terminate because the reclassification has been completed. The members of that commission could not have carried out that re-classification because their time is fully occupied with other duties, and on the first reading of the Bill to amend the Civil Service Act I propose indicating to the House in some manner the many duties which they have to perform. During the last twelve months a tremendous amount of work has been placed upon the commission, and the putting under their administration of practically the whole Outside Service has imposed an enormous additional burden on them. Furthermore, after the re-classification is adopted by Parliament the service must be fitted into it, which will be no slight task; also the Civil Service Act of last session, directed a reorganization of the departments,, involving additional duties. Again the placing of returned men in public positions in this country means additional work for tire commission, because a preference is being extended to those men. With the permission of the House I will read a clause which will appear in the Bill covering this extension of the personnel of the commission.
There shall be a commission to be called the Civil Service Commission, consisting of not more than five members appointed by the Governor in Council: provided, however, that after the expiration of three years from the first day of April one thousand nine hundred and nineteen no person shall be appointed a commissioner until the number of members of the commission is reduced to less than three, and after such reduction the number of members of the commission shall not exceed three.
After the lapse of a few years the Civil Service Commission will be better organized than it is to-day; its staff will have more experience, and the public will have become accustomed to the new order of things.
Mr. 'LBMIEiUX: My hon. friend stated a moment ago that as a result of the re-classification referred to, many civil servants would get an increase in their salaries,
.	,	'
whilst others might, perhaps, in future face a decrease. Might I call the minister's attention to what has taken place lately in a large corporation? The Canadian Pacific Railway has of late re-classified the salaries of its officials from coast to coast. Under that re-classification not only has the company considered the salaries of the officials who are in active service, but it has also, according to my information, given a pro rata increase to those who have been superannuated, on the ground that the cost of living and the prevailing conditions apply to the latter class, just as much as those who are serving actively. I understand that there are very few-at least only a relatively small number-public servants who are now on the retired list, and enjoying superannuation. I would therefore ask if it is the intention of the Government in the re-classification which will be presented to the House by my hon. friend to include the former officials who have been superannuated? The additional expenditure which would he involved thereby would not be large in view of the smallness of their number, and there is some justice in the claim for consideration in their case, because with a reduced salary, resulting from their superannuation they also feel the stress of the times we are passing through.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I might say that no person now in the public service holding a permanent position will suffer any diminution in salary during his or her lifetime, even if the position which he or she fills is re-classified.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is, re-classified at a lower salary?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, at a lower salary. The same provision was contained in the Civil Service Acts of 1908 and 1918. Thp schedules will show a very substantial increase in salaries, though speaking generally the compensation is not based upon the actual conditions to-day

the salaries have been fixed just as if the cost of living was normal and the war had not occurred. During last year a -bonus was paid to a very large section	of	the	CivilService, and that is being continued; in fact,	the Committee	will	be	askedto vote a certain amount this afternoon to enable	the bonus t-o be	paid	for	April,May and	June of this year.	After the
amended Civil Service Act becomes law, and the salary schedule which accompanies it is adopted, it is proposed to present to Parliament a scheme for the payment of a bonus to civil servants which will meet

the prevailing conditions, but that will probably not take place until very late in the session. My hon. friend has suggested that a bonus should be given to those employees who have passed out of the Service and been pensioned. My hon. friend was good enough to mention this matter to me yesterday, and two other persons in Canada wrote me making the same suggestion, but I have not had an opportunity of placing the matter before my colleagues. The first thing to be done will be to ascertain what additional cost will be involved if the suggestion is carried out. I readily admit theTe is much force in the suggestion because the purchasing power of the pension which is paid to these former officials has fallen very much, and I shall 'be very glad to give consideration to it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I might give my hon. friend a concrete case. Take, for instance, the inspectors of customs who ten or fifteen years ago received a certain salary, and whose pensions, when they were superannuated, was based on that salary. Their successors in the Service '.lave, since their promotion, had the benefit of one or two increases, and will now get a further increase, so that when they in turn are superannuated they will receive a pension proportionate to their salary. On the other hand, the men whom they succeeded are receiving a smaller pension based on the salary paid years ago. It seems to me that it is only a matter of justice to grant recognition in the way suggested to these former public servants.


William Cameron Edwards: I think that in dealing with the salaries of civil servants we have commenced at the wrong end, I suppose, on the principle embodied in the old saying, "To him who hath shall be given. '
Those who stood most in need of salary increases were t'he men at the bottom of the list, getting from $1,200 to $1,400 a year. On these salaries they have been forced to exist-you cannot call it live-owing to the increased cost of everything they have had to buy and they have found their salaries, with the bonus addition, hardly sufficient to keep their families and themselves in any kind of decency. These, in my judgment, are the members of the Civil Service who should receive the first consideration but those who have received the first consideration have been the deputy ministers and the chief clerks whose salaries were comparatively large. I say " comparatively large " when placed alongside the salaries of others in the service who are getting $900, $1,000 or $1,200 a year.
185J
I fail to see how the hon. member (Mr. Sinclair) can possibly arrive at the conclusion he expressed a moment ago that the members of the Civil Service Commission were quite sufficient to do the work. *He was at that time criticising the increase in the number to five members. We have any amount of evidence that the Civil Service Commission were not capable of doing the work which fell to their lot. What did they do? They handed their work over to sub-committees. Applications were received for a position and a sub-committee was appointed to make >a choice from amongst the applicants. That did not occur only once; it occurred many times, showing very clearly that the Civil Service Commission composed of three members could not cope with the amount of work 'that fell to them. If the Government are open to censure at all for increasing the Civil Service Commission that censure should come to them because they did not increase it sooner. I- would very much rather have, not three, not five, but a dozen members of the Civil Service Commission who were in some sense responsible to this Parliament than have a commission of three finding themselves unable to do the work devolving upon them and making selections of men who have been milking the Government ever since they were big enough to appreciate the possibility of obtaining assistance from the Government.
A very notable example of that is the editor of the Ottawa Evening Journal, Mr. P. D. Ross, who from 1896 to 1911 succeeded in obtaining for advertising between $9,000 and $10,000 out of the Government of the country, who, in the last six years, has obtained from '.this Government alone over $24,000 in advertising and who, in addition, has obtained something over $62,000 for the rent of a part of the premises which he built and which he occupies as a newspaper office. Here is a gentleman who has been called upon by the Civil Service Commission, I believe, on more than one occasion, to decide whether this person or that person was the proper one to appoint to a Civil Service position.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that the editor of the Ottawa Journal 5


William Cameron Edwards: I understand so; Mr. P. D. Ross.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is he subsidized ?


William Cameron Edwards: I think the figures show how very disinterested this public-spirited citizen is, how he is not looking for anything

for himself. We find this gentleman with his hand out from 1896 to 1911, receiving $10,000 for .advertising, and we find him with his hand out to every department of the Government for the last six years and receiving payments in the way of advertising. Was it because of his very minute knowledge of every one of these departments that he lias foeen chosen to act on a sub-committee to make appointments which should be made by the Civil Service Commission? Is that the kind of a disinterested man that we should have making these appointments? I am told, and I believe on good authority, that it was an understood thing that when this gentleman put up the building that he at present occupies and holds, and from which he issues his paper, the Government would rent or lease a part of it for Government offices. In that way he was investing his money in such a way as to have a sure thing, that in the course of a few years he would get back, in the form .of rental, the money he had expended in putting up the building. This is the type of man who has been selected to do the work, in the way of making appointments, which should be done by a Civil Service Commission responsible to this House. This is the gentleman who takes advantage of the fact that he owns a newspaper, to criticise very severely any member of this House who ventures to express an opinion different from his own in regard to the members of the House having a say in the appointments which are made in their constituencies.
I repeat, in the face of the facts which have been placed before this House again and again, that the Civil Service Commission have been entirely unable to cope with the amount of work which has been thrown on their hands. In view of the fact that they have appointed sub-committees to deal with hundreds of applications for positions in the Civil Service, and in view of the fact that we have had men who are not responsible to Parliament, or to anybody else, making selections of persons for appointment to the Civil Service, it is high time that we had an increase in the personnel of the Civil Service Commission, so that we will have some person who is responsible to Parliament for the appointments which are made.
I do not blame the Civil Service Commission for it but that situation has developed through the assinine policy of this House in placing upon the Civil Service Commission work which could be better performed in the public interest by the

men who are responsible to the people, the representatives of the people sitting in this House. It is an absolutely ridiculous and illogical situation that faces this Htouse and the country to-day thalt we as members of the House are to be held responsible to the people for appointments which are made not by members of the Civil Service Commission but by sub-committees appointed by the Civil Service Commission and responsible to no person in the country not even to the commission itself.
That is an absolutely ridiculous state of affairs against which I want to protest, just [DOT] as I also want to protest against the way in which salary increases have been made in the Civil Service. Are we to suppose-perhaps we can get some consolation from looking at it from this point of view-that the only officers affected in the city of Ottawa by the high cost of living are the deputy ministers of the various departments, the chairman and members of the Civil Service Commission, and the chief clerks? Is it to be presumed that the high cost of living does not affect those men getting from $1,200 to $1,400 and that therefore it is not necessary to deal with them?


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend has referred to the lavish way in which the Government has poured money into the pockets of Mr. Ross and I have no doubt he has told the truth. I think that is likely all true, but he has not referred to the other side of .the story. Mr. Ross has earned every dollar that he ever received from the Government. There has not been a shady transaction in which -the Government has been concerned since 1911 that Mr. Ross has not defended and if the hon. gentleman had told the whole story there would not have been so much of a reflection to be cast upon Mr. Ross.
My hon. friend criticised my proposal that the commission should be reduced from five to three or that it should remain as it is at present. I think that is a proper proposition. It depends altogether on what w'ork the Civil iService Commission are endeavouring to do. Are they conducting clerical work? Or are they making inquiries throughout the country as to who a man is, what stripe of politics he is, and whether he ought to be appointed over somebody else? Are they engaged in work of that kind? If, on the other hand, they are engaged like judges, in delivering decisions, as they should be engaged., they could do the work all right, and the clerical work these gen-

tlemen are doing could be performed by a clerical staff. I cannot see why five commissioners would be any better than three in doing work of that kind, because we want the combined judgment of the commission in arriving at decisions according to some definite principles. These men have got a great deal of work to do no doubt; but 1 fear they are doing work that somebody else might be carrying on at a very much lower cost. Therefore, I still want to register my protest against increasing the personnel of the commission. I think a commission of three would be more efficient, and with a sufficient staff such a commission, I submit, would be able to do the work better than five commissioners, with less confusion and with much greater satisfaction to the country .


William Cameron Edwards: I do not want to be
taken as endorsing what the hon. member for Guysborough has said in regard to the editor of the Journal having earned money for backing up shady transactions, although Mrx Chairman, I am quite willing to defer to the superior judgment of the hon. member in matters of that kind. I do not know any member of this House better qualified to judge of what is and what is not a shady transaction than the hon. member for Guys-1 borough. I sat with the hon. gentleman in this House for a number of years when the party he supports was in power, and although Liberal newspapers from one end of the country to the other were receiving gifts of money, I do not remember to have ever heard him suggest that any of that money was being earned by the Liberal press in supporting shady transactions; and yet unquestionably from my standpoint many of those newspapers during the fifteen years the Liberal party was in power were backing up transactions which I might, without going very far astray, characterize as shady.	I do not think
it comes with a good grace now from the hon. member for Guysborough to talk about backing up shady transactions., and making that as a political stroke, because the hon. member has been ready in season and out of season when his party was in power to back up anything anid everything that came along, no matter what might be the colour or the shade of it.
Mr. LEMiIEUX:	Mr. Chairman, I
would be sorry indeed that in this discussion any one should introduce party polities. I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) in his denunciation of the practice of some gentlemen belonging to the press receiving subsidies directly or indirectly from any Government. The other day I used very severe language regarding a certain portion of the press, and I was taken to task by that press, and yet I find to-day the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) justifies completely the statement I made to the House on that occasion.
Here is a concrete case. Mr. P, D. Ross is a wealthy gentleman with a large and profitable property in Ottawa, who is supposed to enlighten the public with independent information and to guide it with his unbiased judgment. We however find from the blue-books that he is not satisfied with being appointed on special commissions and with receiving fat contracts from the Government, but he also rents his buildings to the Government.
Now, let us take the case of the Free Press-or the Journal Press, because it has changed its name. (If the leopard can change his spots-


The CHAIRMAN:: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I must ask him to address his remarks to the resolution before the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will, Mr. Chairman.
The Free Press was a Liberal newspaper before 1896. I know that in 1911, when the Reform party, met its Waterloo, that paper supported the naval policy and the reciprocity pact and yet immediately after the Hon. Mr. Rogers became the master of the Borden Administration that paper, having, I suppose, adopted the principle of Dr. Osier, became choloroformed, and one morning, the Liberals found that it had not the same old vigorous style as usual.
At that time the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) denounced in the House the shady transaction which had taken place by which that paper was parading as a Liberal paper although it was the property of well known Tory financiers. Not only was it masquerading as a Liberal newspaper, but it was reading the Riot Act to 'Sir Wilfrid Laurier and to some other members of the old Liberal party. That concrete case explains, Mr. Chairman, many of the events that have taken place since 1911. The purchasing of the press en masse by the powers that be is one of the deplorable conditions to-day in Canada, and if the people have no direction from an independent press, it is because the press has surrendered its independence into the hands of those powers. There is no respect to-day for the press in Canada. There are indeed respectable newspapers, but those 'other papers which have been chloroformed

have, so to speak, contaminated the whole press family in the eyes of the public. I am not inventing this. My hon. friend knows it just as well as I do.
The statement was positively made in the House of Commons in 1912 that the Ottawa Free Press, although parading as a Liberal paper, was really the property of certain Tory financiers. It is not surprising, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that the Free Press should have defended all the shady transactions since, because the price has been mentioned by my hon. friend. Not satisfied with receiving job printing contracts from this Government, not satisfied with accepting positions on important commissions, the proprietor of that paper receives large amounts every year for rentals. How can you expect the public to respect the press of Canada in view of such a condition of affairs.
We are passing through a revolution, Mr. Chairman, and one of the most regrettable features of that revolution is that there is no leadership from the press of Canada today on the great questions that are confronting the Dominion. And the revolution which is gaining ground every day-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -is chiefly caused by
that purchase


Georges Henri Boivin: Order, order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -of the press of Canada.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am through, Mr. Chairman.


*Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: My hon. friend has said that the press of this country has no respect for the people of Canada. I just want to say that is a melancholy reflection to me that the press say exactly the same thing about members of Parliament, including the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux).


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is in a melancholy mood this afternoon.


Mr. BEST:: Will civil servants who have been voted increases of from $500 to $1,000 during the present session obtain these increases if the re-classification gives them a lower rating than they had before these additional sums were voted? If so, why were they voted these increases?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think they will.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON:: It seems to me that the time has come when this House has

to do one of two things, either take back into our own hands the responsibility of making all appointments, or make this commission proficient in every way. It is evident to members of Parliament who have had anything to do with appointments during the last year and a half that things have not been working too smoothly. I have been told by deputy ministers that the Civil Service Commission is practically using their staffs for the purpose of ferreting out information that could be got for the asking from any member of Parliament. If you are going to exclude the advice of members of this House in these matters the principle embodied in this Bill is correct: we must enlarge this commission to such an extent that the work can be carried on fairly and well. These commissioners should not act upon, I was going to say, half information; they should not act without being well informed as to the merits and demerits of all appointments. The minister stated that one of the reasons for increasing the number of commissioners was the fa^t that soldiers had been appointed to different offices throughout the country. I refer him to page 1026 of Hansard, where an answer to a question is quoted which states that out of 1,672 permanent appointments and 14,570 temporary appointments made last year, a total of 16,242, only 1,834 were given to returned men. I might go on and say what everybody knows: the appointments they did get were those at the very bottom of the list. A year ago the Prime Minister, in answer to a question, gave what was practically a promise lo the House that if this Commission was enlarged a returned man would be given an appointment on it. Considering the great unrest that prevails in Canada to-day, and having regard to the great service that the returned men are rendering to the country at this present hour, there is no doubt in my mind that the appointment of a returned soldier to the Civil Service Commission would do a great deal to quiet things down and would cause returned men throughout the country to feel that their interests will be properly looked after.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: While the minister does not like to make a definite promise, without consulting his colleagues, that a returned man will be appointed-


Peter Robert McGibbon: I am not asking that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: -I might recall what I said earlier this afternoon, namely, that there was no reason that I knew of

why a returned man should not be appointed to the Commission. I am not in a position to give the Committee this afternoon the number of returned men who have been appointed to public offices, but I think I can say that practically no appointments are at present being made to the Civil Service which are not given to returned men. True, promotions are being made in the Service, in accordance with a provision of the Civil Service Act, which, in my judgment, should be observed. I am giad to say that in my interviews with returned men I found that they did not ask the abandonment of the principle of promotion of men who had been long years in the service and the giving of these appointments to returned soldiers. I think it would be unfortunate if that principle was departed from. When I move the first reading of the Bill I shall endeavour to give to the House some figures which will indicate the number of returned men who have been placed in the public service.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Any remarks which I make this afternoon I shall not direct against the minister ad hoc respecting the subject now under discussion; I shall rather direct them, generally speaking, to the Government which is responsible for the legislation we are now called upon to consider. The senior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) has perhaps borne greater burdens than the ordinary man could bear; he has occupied several positions with respect to different departments. This is accounted for partly by the fact that the Postmaster-General (Hon. Mr. Blondin) is not in this House. Then, a number of ministers went away and the hon. gentleman took their places while they were travelling. It seems incongruous to have called for the return of these ministers and not to have them here to give a word of explanation when such an important matter as this is before the Committee. I direct my remarks particularly to the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell). There has been, not only throughout the country but within the Civil Service, a great deal of unrest that might have been obviated had a proper course been adopted at the proper time. I speak now as a member representing a rural constituency, and with a very strong feeling that right and justice should prevail in the Civil Service as well as in all other classes of the community. Some years ago, when the bonus was spoken about, I offered a suggestion on the floor of the House that in view' of the increased cost of living

Mr. A. K. MACLEAN; If the hon. member purposes discussing the matter of bonus to the Civil Service, I might say that immediately after the committee disposes of this matter, I purpose taking up the vote in connection with the bonus so that my lien, friend will then be enabled to discuss this particular subject.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I would be delighted to do so, but the suggestions I mean to offer to the minister are such as he might yet in time embody in his Bill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Go on.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I was saying that when the question of the bonus came up, 1 suggested to the House that owing to the increased cost of living there should be an all round increase in the w'ages of the civil servants of this country sufficient to meet that increased cost, and that coupled with, that, a bonus should be given to put civil servants in a position to meet some of the back debts which they might have contracted owing to the insufficiency of their salaries and the constantly increasing cost of the articles they are obliged to purchase. The Government in its wisdom at the time gave a bonus to a certain class in the Service, namely, to those earning under $1,800, and nothing at all was received by the poor devil who might have been thirty or thirty-five years in the Service, as I know some of them had been, and who happened to have a salary of $2,000 with a large family to support and under greater obligations in many instances than the man earning $1,800. Had my suggestion been adopted at the time, the minister would have got rid of one of the great reasons of unrest in the Civil Service to-d'ay. The second reason for the present unrest in the Civil Service as well as the unrest throughout the country is the fact that the Government has taken no earnest steps to meet the profiteer. Whenever it was a case ot capital, well, capital had its way wdth the Government; but when it was a question of the ordinary consumer needing redress, then the Government was inactive or indolent or refused entirely to do anything. We have had one Minister of Labour who did his best according to his own light as minister of that department. He followed on exactly the same course as that on which the new Minister of Labour is following, but he was not considered to have had enough initiative or to have succeeded, and he was, therefore, set aside. We have now the same difficulties over again in an aggravated form

and the ministry-and I am not blaming my hon. friend, but I am blaming the ministry generally-have been indolent, inactive, and have not taken the proper steps to meet the increased cost of living and to keep down the undue profits that have been made in this country for some years past. It was mentioned to-day that there was a report by Sir George Murray, but the Government does not even know to-day what Sir George Murray's report was. There were reports from other commissioners, but the Government does not know what those reports were. There is a report now from some experts from the city of Chicago, and I want, as a Canadian, here and now to enter my protest against the action of the Civil Service Commission or the Government in going over to the United States to get a few accountants, or experts if you will, to do work in Canada that Canadians are quite competent to do. I do not think it is any arrogance upon my part to say that I have confidence that we have in Canada as good brains as those that are to be found in the country to the south of us. It is true there is a great deal of good and a great deal of money in the United States. It is true that from time to time it becomes necessary to go to the United States to borrow money. It is true that at times it becomes necessary to truck and trade with the Americans. All that is a business arrangement; but when we are told upon the floor of this House that in order to get brains enough to remodel the Civil Service, we have to go to the United States for them, I, as a Canadian, protest arid wish to make that protest as formal and as strong as I know how. The money has been paid for these men, and how much has been paid? When the Supplementary Estimates were under consideration, we were told that $46,650 were expended, and that is a pretty good pay for these American experts. Have they gone away yet? There are some cruel enough to say that after they have finished the re-classification of the deputy ministers, chief accountants and other high officials of the different departments, they are going to enter upon the gigantic work of reclassifying the Cabinet. I give that rumour for what it is worth; it may be true or it may not be true. If they are capable of classifying this Cabinet, it is no business nor concern of mine, but I wish them God speed, and I think they will have a difficult task before them. It is unfortunately the case in this country, and it may be so in 
many other countries, that when it is a question of paying a man a very high salary, that man's case immediately assumes such proportions that it must be considered at once; but when we, the poor men of Canada, who represent the poorer classes, the wage earners, the consumers of Canada, come before the Government, we cannot get from it that information, much less that action that we ask for.
What is the purport of this resolution which the minister pleads with us to pass, telling us not to consider for a moment the lack of information afforded, and that the information will be given at some later date? I accept the minister's word that the information will be given at some later date, but we are told that from time to time. We longed for the return of the ministers in order that unrest might be allayed in Canada, and what were we told yesterday: Wait one month for the report of the commission and then the Government will tell you what it will be able to do. While I do not want to charge the Government with not doing things they cannot do, and while I am with them in the upholding of law and order in this country, there is another way of settling the present unrest, and it is not necessary to wait another month. Action may be taken at once. Get after your profiteers; lower the cost of living, so that the wage-earner can keep his family and himself, and then you will settle all the unrest in this country. This is not a matter that has cropped up since the war ceased, nor did it begin during the war; we have been complaining of it ever since 1912. The Government knows that the cost of living has been increasing ever since that year. The Government was prepared for it, and they got together certain combinations to work out means. The Government threw aside the old Conservative party, and formed a new party, called the Unionist party. True and staunch Conservatives had to take back seats in order that the new blood which had been allied with other parties in the past could take the Teins in their hands and meet the situation. What has been the outcome of it all? A dismal failure, disunion in the Cabinet, assassination among the ranks; and that has contributed to the unrest in the Civil Service.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The hon. gentleman is not confining his remarks to the resolution before the Committee.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: If I am not to say anything further about what I consider to be

the cause of unrest in the Civil Service of this country I shall resume my seat.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: In my constituency, in 1914, a man by the name of Charles Gauvreau, and another by the name of Alfred Trudel, volunteered to go overseas, but were rejected as medically unfit. They were subsequently appointed fire rangers, which position they held up to this year, when they were discharged by the Civil Service Commission on the ground that the position must go to a returned soldier. Now, a returned soldier may mean a man who has only visited Argyll House, or a man like my brother, who has been in France about fifty miles behind the firing line. If Trudel and Gauvreau had been discharged for cause I would have no grievance, but I say that the principle is wrong for the Civil Service to give preference to a returned soldier who may not have gone any farther than England over men who were perfectly willing to sacrifice their lives for the Empire and who actually volunteered. If this point is not covered by the Bill I would ask the minister to give it his consideration.
There is another feature. I understand that under the present Act a civil servant holding a permanent position cannot be removed except for cause. Now a fire ranger is appointed every spring, and unless there is reason for dismissing him he should be re-appointed every spring. The position is of a permanent nature, although a fire ranger cannot be appointed for twelve months in the year. I would ask the minister to see that provision is made in the Bill that men who were willing to serve their country but were rejected as medically unfit shall not be removed from the service except for cause.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not acquainted with the facts in the case of these two men other than my hon. friend has stated them, but I shall make inquiries of the commission and later shall make a statement in the House or personally to the hon. member. I quite appreciate his viewpoint that these two men should be regarded as permanent appointees, and not merely casual employees. I do not like to express an opinion one way or the other, however, until I have learned something from the commission as to the reasons for dismissing these men.


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull) (translation) :: I understand that the object of this resolution is to enable the members of Parliament to make suggestions. Well, I feel in
duty bound to offer a few suggestions. First of all, I object to and protest against the idea of increasing the number of commissioners from three to five. I know the present commissioners personally, I believe them to be mindful of their duty, and I do not think the Civil Service or the country has suffered from the fact that the commissioners are but three in number.
It occurred to me that the hon. Prime Minister was perhaps encumbered with the present number of his ministers. Journeys to Europe being now at an end, we have two Ministers of Militia, and the position of commissioner might be deemed suitable for one of them or perhaps for the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), as a reward due to the services he has rendered the Union Government, as all the ministers have now returned and there no longer exists a vacancy.
However, I strenuously object to and protest against this additional expepse of $12,000. While not being opposed to the increase of $1,000 a year, which the commissioners are being granted, I think the question of increases to employees in the lower grades should have been dealt with in the same resolution. I understand that the Bill will come up at a later date and we shall know, then be enlightened as to the salaries of those employees. In the meantime we can only guess, though we know that the Government has always been in the habit of favouring the high paid officials and of overlooking the subordinates altogether. The hon. minister who has charge of this Bill will allow me to tell him-
An hon. MEMBER (translation): He does not understand.


Joseph-Éloi Fontaine: If he does not understand, let him ask for a translation of my remarks. He will allow me to tell him, once for all, that, this time, he must not overlook the lower grades.
In the city of Hull, we have a large number of public servants and, a startling, nay incredible fact, there are among them some who are earning but $50 a month. I wonder how one can think of adding $1,000 or $2,000 to the salaries of the commissioners and deputy ministers without providing also an increase for those employees who do not ' even get enough to buy bread for their families.
Mr. Chairman, I would not like to wander from the question, but it seems to me that I may be permitted to digress and say that one of the reasons for all the unrest
29'22

prevailing to-day among the workers is the failure on the part of the Government to look after the destitute and small wage earners. Had I the honour of being a member of the Government-


Mr. CANNON (translation):: You should rather say, the misfortune.


Joseph-Éloi Fontaine: My hon. friend from Dorchester thinks "misfortune" would be the better word. I shall follow his advice and say again: had I the misfortune of being a member of the Government, I would consider it my first duty to find a way of lowering the cost of living, of protecting the poor and destitute people, instead of being only concerned about those who got large salaries.
I do not intend, saying any more at this moment, as we shall have the opportunity of reverting to this matter when the Bill is laid before us; but it seems to me those are things which the hon. ministers should at once look into. They should show greater concern, because if the Government did nothing to mend the present state of affairs, the strike which is now going on in the West and threatens to spread eastward, may extend to the public servants here.
While I have no desire to advocate strikes, I may say it is quite natural for those who get inadequate salaries to be dissatisfied and to try in every way to better themselves.
Conditions are very serious to-day and I must protest against the inaction of the Government who do nothing at all for the consumers and who, since they are in power, speaking not only of the present Administration but also of the former, since 1911. have exclusively concerned themselves about the millionaires and the manufacturers, without doing anything for the people.
Why should they be so solicitous of commissioners who are earning $5,000 or $6,000 a year? Why should they be so concerned about deputy ministers who are getting $5,000 or $6,000 in salaries, when they do not care at all for the men who only receive $50 or $75 a month?
Mr. Chairman, when we have to pay such high prices as we are now paying for food, when we have to give 75 cents a pound for butter and $10 for a pair of shoes, and when the Government give but $50 a month to some of those employees, it is the Government, I say, who are responsible for all those evils and I cannot blame the men who go on strike under such circumstances.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am very much obliged to my hon. friend for his references to myself; I appreciate them very much. I can assure the hon. gentleman that the salary schedules which relate to the lower positions in the Civil Service will show a marked increase over the existing rates, and the bonus which must be given this year will,, of course, add to that. I would like to impress upon the hon. gentleman, and upon every member of the House, that all people in the Civil Service cannot receive the same compensation because their responsibilities and duties differ. I know of no other principle upon which any body can be employed 'and paid than according to the nature of the responsibilities that are assumed and the duties that are discharged. Unfortunately it may happen at times that those in the lower positions in the public service are unable to get a salary which perhaps may be deemed suitable, having regard to adverse or unfavourable conditions which affect the cost of living. That is to be regretted, but it is applicable to all other classes of work as well as Government activities. However, I hope when the bon. gentleman sees that classification schedule he will be pleased with the compensation 'to be given to those in the lower ranks of the public service.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There are one or two things which I deem it my duty to bring to the notice of the minister in connection with this Resolution and the Civil Service. In the first place, I think work is imposed on the Civil Service Commission that they should not be called upon to perform. The resolution seeks to appoint a body of men, not exceeding five in number, of whom four will receive $6,000 and one $7,000 a year. Such a body of men is almost equal in number to the membership of any of our Supreme Courts. Now we all know what important duties are discharged by a judge of the Supreme Court, and what important work the Supreme Court in any province, as a body, is supposed to perform. It would be very absurd if we were to appoint judges, with salaries ranging from $7,000 to $8,000, to do work that could well be performed by a justice of the peace. No Government could justify such a proceeding as that, yet it is exactly what is happening here. The appointment of a tide waiter in the county of Guysborough, the appointment of a fishery guardian in the county of Pictou, the appointment of a postmaster in the county of Victoria, which I have the ihoifour to represent, thousands and thousands of such appointments are being

made all over the country, and we have a commission sitting in Ottawa to whom we are to pay $31,000 a year in salaries alone, not 'to mention incidental expenses, to deal with matters oi that nature. 1 think such a proceeding is highly improper. I am entirely in favour of appointing big men to handle big questions; but I certainly do not approve of having a commission, whose members are paid large salaries, to deal with small matters that can be dealt with by the most ordinary individual in the country. I submit to the minister that he should cut down the volume of work which is imposed upon this commission. Let him remove the manifold appointments of a petty nature that the commission now have to deal with, and let the appointments be made in some other way. It transpired last night, during our questioning of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that the hundreds and thousands of fishery guardians that must be appointed in this country within the next few months, are first recommended by the fishery overseer, and then the nominations are sent to Ottawa to be confirmed by the Civil Service Commission. Is that not a work of supererogation? Is not that taking up the time and energy of the Civil Service Commission to no good purpose? In such cases the commission must of necessity accept the recommendation of the overseer, and must trust him to nominate the right man. If he has done so, why not put the appointee in office at once, and thus cut down the enormous amount of petty work which now goes to the commission, and the dealing with which does not require any executive ability at all. I submit that ii this is done much unnecessary work on the part of the commission can be dispensed with. It is not fair to ask the Civil Service Commissioners to sit down in solemn form and to pass judgment as to who shall be tide waiter at Big Bras d'Or, or who shall be fishery guardian in British Columbia. All these appointments could be dealt within another way, and in a manner more expeditious and less expensive to the country. I certainly protest against increasing the number of Civil Service Commissioners from three to five in order to deal with matters of this kind. If the real questions that should engage the attention of big, capable, brainy, well paid men were cut down to the class of work that should be done, you will find that three men could do it just as well as five, and with less trouble.
There is another thing about these examinations. I suppose the Government
think they are conferring a favour upon any candidate for a position in the Civil Service whom they let in with an easy examination. I do not view it in that way.
I do not think that a worse service could be done any young man in this country than to set an examination by which he could get into a lower class at an age between 18 and 25. He gets in after a certain examination. He is there until the next stage of promotion arrives, five or six years afterwards, when the age for learning has passed, when the time for going to school has gone and he finds himself up against a stone wall. He never can pass any more examinations and he has to stay where he is or go back into the world to seek some other work. I submit to the minister that he should always have in view the admission of good men to the service who would be capable of development and promotion from one stage to another and that he would in the different classes pass such an educational examination in the very first instance as to qualify a person educationally for promotion in that class until he reaches the top.
I am not in favour of asking candidates for the Civil Service to pass a high examination in Greek, Latin, geometry, trigonometry, and all those difficult subjects. I am in favour of a good English, or French education. I want a man to be a good writer, a good speller, to have a good knowledge of the English or French language, and such general knowledge as would bring him to a standard perhaps equal to our grade 12 in our curriculum, or qualify him to pass a first class teacher's examination. You have a man of good common sense and fair practical education. Put him at the bottom if you like but qualify him once for all so that if he is ambitious and capable he may look forward to getting to the top. It is no friendship or favour to any person to give him an easy examination whereby he can get into the first grade. He spends some years there, he cannot go to school again, he cannot pass any further examination and he is blocked for the rest of his life. I wish the minister to keep that in view when dealing with the educational test. As I read the examination papers and the curriculum prescribed for Civil Service examinations, it appears to me that it is not a fair test. In some things it goes too high, and you require an examination on subjects that keep many good people out of the service. People get in by reason of their ability to pass these

tests who are not as good as those who would get in if the test were along the line that I have suggested.
My whole remarks come down to this: That too much small business is imposed on the commission. Hundreds of thousands of cases which come before the commission might be dealt with by a most ordinary officer at an ordinary salary, and my other point is that I think the educational test should receive more consideration and that it should be conducted in such a way that it would secure for the service the right kind of man and the right kind of woman.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and concurred in.



SUPPLY.


[Stage Direction]
*On the motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in'the Chair.
To provide for the continuance of the payment to those employees of the Civil Service to whom a War Ronusi (including: provisional allowance under item 419 voted at the last Session of Parliament) was authorized to be paid under the provisions of the Order in Council dated the tenth day of December, 1918, and the Orders in Council incorporated therewith, or in amendment thereof, and who are still in the Service, of amounts equal to one-fourth of the amounts so authorized to toe paid to them during the fiscal year 1918-19, toy way of a War Bonus for the first quarter of the fiscal year 1919-20, $2,500,000.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Will you kindly explain that?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Hon. gentlemen no doubt are acquainted with the fact that last year a war bonus was granted to the Outside Service and also to members of the Inside Service. The bonus was first granted to the employees in the postal service, I think in September last, but it was not made applicable to those who were receiving a salary in excess of $1,800. Later, the bonus was extended to large numbers of the Inside Civil Service, but again it was not made applicable to those who were in receipt of a salary of over $1,800. It was deemed advisable .and necessary to continue this bonus during the present year as conditions affecting the cost of living had not changed any since last year. It was not desirable to vote this sum of money by Order in Council-hon. members opposite, I am sure, will approve of that-but it was thought better we should come to Parliament and ask for a special sum to carry on this bonus as it was paid last year for the months of April, May, and June.
fMr. McKenzie.]


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will it stop then?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, that is not the idea of the Government. As hon. members are aware there were many qualifications and limitations last year as to payment of the amount and its receipt by members of the -Service. It was thought that there were some inequalities and, perhaps injustices, in the method used in this regard. The Government accordingly submitted the whole matter to the Civil Service Commission, and we are hoping for a report from it shortly. In the meantime we wish the bonus to be paid as it was last year. Towards the end of June we hope 'to make a new submission to Parliament and ask for a larger vote. This now merely carries the bonus on for three months.


Ernest Lapointe: In the constituency which I have the honour fo represent there is an experimental farm. I am informed by the labourers on that farm that the men higher up, the superintendent and the foremen, have received a bonus, but that the ordinary working men have not. If that is the policy the Government is going to pursue this year, I wish to register my protest against it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There are many persons in the employ of the Government who receive a daily wage, which in most places is at the market rate. For instance, in the city of Ottawa there are many classes of employees, tradesmen of one kind and another, who receive the market rate of wages. The bonus did not apply to that class, because it was thought they were receiving what was the current market rate for their labour. I assume that upon the same principle, possibly, these persons to whom my hon. friend refers did not receive the bonus. It may be that thev are not receiving a fair wage. If so, that should be investigated. I shall be very glad to discuss the matter with the Minister of Agriculture and later advise my hon. friend privately or in the House, just exactly what is the position.


Mr. ROWELL:: May I supplement what my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce has said? The matter is dealt with by Order in Council of the 10th day of December, 1918, in this form:
All persons known, as mechanical or labouring men employed at a yearly or monthly salary or wage shall toe entitled to receive the bonus. All those employed at a daily wage at current rates of pay shall not toe entitled to receive the bonus. All those .employed at a daily wage at less than current rates shall be entitled to

receive such bonus within the limits defined by the said Order in Council of November 7, 1918, and this report as the minister In charge of the department fn which such person is employed may recommend and the Governor in Council approve.
My hon. friend will see that the object was that where any men were employed by the day at less than the current rate of
wages-


Ernest Lapointe: Who is to define
what is the current rate?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Mr. MORPHY:: Are those men on the permanent list or not?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They are not regarded as permanent employees of the department, although many of them continue in the public service for a long time. This is the principle involved: It was assumed that the classes referred to in the portion of the Order in Council just read by the President of the Council had received increased pay by reason of war conditions, and in that way had received their bonus. Now it might happen in case of the employees of the experimental farm in the eastern part of Quebec that they were overlooked entirely, and perhaps their pay was not increased at all, which of course would be unfair.
Mr. MORPHY': I would like to call the attention of the minister to the same thing that I have always complained about in this House, namely, that there is nobody to look after these men. They are not acquainted with the Orders in Council, they do not know whether they are permanent employees or not, and they are standing back too frightened to ask. When the-miniter says they get an increase in wages in accordance with the increase caused by the war, he forgets entirely the increased cost of living of these wage-earners, wdio have to work daily year in and year out as if they were permanent employees, but are not so treated. I repeat again-.and I hope the minister wdll take it into consideration-just	what I Said the other night
that it is the easiest thing in this House for a man who is getting a salary of $4,500 to have it raised suddenly to $6,000-a jump of $1,500-as happened in the Estimates under discussion at the time; while these
poor men all over the Dominion, in Ottawa and outside of it, with families to maintain, notwithstanding the increased cost of living are working along at $600 a year. I do not think that any able-bodied employee of the Government with a wife and family to support should be asked to w'ork for this Government or anybody else at $600 a year. It is about time that the Government realized that it is their duty to look into the lower branches of the Service through some specially appointed person, whose duty it will be to ferret out injustices and to remedy them.


James Alexander Robb: At the outbreak of the war certain civil servants joined the forces and were given their regular pay, in addition to which they received their pay as officers in the army, and, if they were married, their families received separation allowances. In many cases those men never went to France; some got safety-first jobs in England and others got safety-first jobs in Canada. Is it the policy of the Government, in addition, to favour those men with a bonus, while employees, as represented by my hon. friend from Kamouraska, are given no bonus whatever?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Civil servants who receive both civil and military pay are not entitled to the bonus under the Order in Council or under this vote.


Mr. COWAN:: Nor do they receive separation allowances at all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Civil servants for whom I have a great deal of sympathy are the Dominion Police. They are a highly respectable body of men and have rendered, during.the last few years, most important services to Canada. I understand that last year they did not receive the bonus. I do not think it is fair that they should be overlooked; in my opinion they should be treated just the same as other public servants.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend perhaps will correct me if I am in error, but my impression is that the Dominion Police are not civil servants. They are under the Department of Justice. The fact that they are not civil servants would, I assume, be the reason why they do not come under this Order in Council. It would be quite a legitimate matter for discussion whether they should not receive some additional compensation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Dominion Police are as much entitled to a bonus as office employees, day labourers, and others. They

are subjected to examinations; they are men of character and ability, and it seems to me that they are entitled to the same treatment as that which is accorded to other members of the public service.


Mr. FRIPP:: I wish to support the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) with regard to the Dominion Police. I cannot see any distinction in this matter between a member of the Dominion Police and a Public Works employee in Ottawa. Labourers in the Public Works Department have received this bonus. There is no real distinction between the permanency of a member of the Dominion Police and the permanency of a labourer in the Public Works Department. Moreover, the Dominion Police are not, I understand, paid as well as the City Police Force in Ottawa, and they have not the same advantages. They have not the superannuation, and many other privileges and advantages that the City Police Force have are not enjoyed by the Dominion Police. Therefore I strongly support the contention of the member for Maisonneuve that the Dominion Police should get the benefit of this bonus.


Mr. KEEFER:: I concur in what has been said with regard to the Dominion Police. They should be put in the same position as any other members of the public service who receive the bonus. They render efficient service, and are entitled to every consideration.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am under the impression that the question of a bonus or of increased compensation to the Dominion Police is under advisement by the Department of Justice. I cannot speak with certainty in the absence of the acting minister, but he will be here in a day or two, and I will bring the matter to his attention.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend attend to that? The minister is away, and the acting minister is away, too.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The acting minister will be here to-morrow, and I will bring the matter to his attention.


Mr. POWER:: I wish to direct the attention of the minister to two other classes of civil employees who have not as yet obtained any bonus. I do not know about the employees of the Dominion arsenal at Lindsay, but I do know about those at Quebec. They are employed by the hour, the rate being fifty or fifty-five cents an hour for, mechanics. They have carried on during the war; they have done good work, but they appear to have had very little,

if any, wage increase during the war, and they have not been brought under the operation of this bonus. Another class which is, perhaps, even more deserving, comprises certain men employed in the Marine Department. Up to August, 1918, the employees of the Marine Department in Quebec had not received an increase of salary for ten or fifteen years. They were working at a great deal below current rates of pay, so much so that the Marine Department, which is not usually very generous in these matters, were finally obliged to grant them a very small increase. ,1 went into the matter thoroughly with ,the department at (the time and found that mechanics, boiler-makers and so on, in the Marine Department at Quebec were earning .about two-thirds of what men doing similar work were earning outside. These employees should be brought under the operation of the Order in Council which deals with the bonus. Furthermore, I cannot understand why a day labourer, as such, should not obtain a bonus while a salaried .man does. Of course, il see the viewpoint of the minister: That the wages of day .labourers have increased-


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: Especially where
they are organized, and in cities.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Whether they are organized or not, their wages certainly have not increased in the city of Quebec. Owing to the benevolent attitude of the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries an attempt at organization on the part of the labourers in the Marine Department in Quebec city was so well squelched that not one of the .men has been able to return to his position. ,1 am afraid therefore, that the argument about organization does not go very far. As organization is impossible under a Government department in Q.udbec-although it seems to be quite possible elsewhere- these men should be given an adequate bonus and be treated the same as other employees in the public service have been treated.


Mr. McCOIG:: I have seen Estimates go through providing for increases of $500 and $1,000 respectively to deputy ministers and other officials. As a matter of fact, we are passing Estimates daily increasing the salaries of almost all employees the Government has, from deputy ministers down. Let me put in a plea for the man who is the most deserving of all the employees of the Government so far as increased pay is concerned, and that is the man who delivers the rural mail throughout the different parts of the country. For instance,

one rural mail courier whose route is about twenty-five miles long, gets $750 a year. His contract calls for the supplying of a horse and rig and of two horses when the roads are bad, and he has to furnish these horses and maintain them and his rigs, at that handsome wage. When we are giving additional pay to employees of the Government-in some cases where they have not asked for it-we should consider the case of these men. They are held down to their contracts and in imany cases they are working for starvation wages. The action of the minister would meet with general approval if he would give some assurance that an additional allowance will be made to the men who have signed contracts .to deliver mail in all kinds of weather for the paltry sums which they are receiving.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have been speaking to the President of the Council and to my hon. friend (Mir. A. K. Maclean) about the matter of giving consideration to a certain class of men who are employed in this building.
I have listened to the President of the Council (Air. Rowell) reading the Order in Council and the regulations under which those increases are made. He speaks of the current rate of wages, but it is hard to determine the current rate of wages. If the pay of any member of this House was to be measured by the current rate of wages out in the street, his pay might be cut down materially, and I suppose the man who is working at a carpenter job or digging a drain or anything like that, would be much better off than any of the members.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A bonus was not withheld from the Parliamentary staff upon the ground set forth in that part of the Order in Council read by my colleague. The Order in Council provided that the bonus should be paid only to those who were employed during the whole year, and I think that pretty nearly every person whom my hon. friend has in mind is merely a sessional employee. It was under another part of the Order in Council that they were denied the bonus.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I would be very brief if the minister would give me some hope that those men would be considered. Their salaries have not been increased; indeed nothing has been done for them. If he would increase their pay in some way, I do not care whether he calls it a bonus or not, it would be of great assistance to them. There are men in this class that I speak of who are bookkeepers; some of them have
charge of many men and are doing particular work, and yet they have not received any increase. Some of them come here from long distances and while they used to get a free ticket to come here, they have now to pay their way, and the cost of living has no doubt increased their expenses when they have come here.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Have they had
any increases in recent years?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No increase whatever. I have had a talk with one of them who has been here for nearly twenty years and who is getting exactly the same pay as he was receiving twenty years ago. I do not care whether you call it a bonus or an increase of pay or an indemnity, the only thing I am after is that those men who come here from year to year, who, by reason of their coming here, have been to some extent disqualified for any other kind of work, who like to come here and who must come here to keep things going, should not be singled out and told that when others are receiving advances they must remain in the same old rut. I have spoken about this matter several times before, and I hope that the case of these men will be considered.


Air. McQUARRIE:: I understood the
minister to say that the Government were considering giving a higher bonus, and I should like it to be made clear that they are also considering providing a bonus to Civil Servants who are receiving more than $1,800 a year. I can see no reason why the Government should fix this arbitrary maximum of $1,800 and stop there. A short time ago the Government and the House adopted a principle that shows conclusively that the bonus should not stop at $1,800. When they gave an increase to deputy ministers, they recognized the principle that a man who received more than $1,800 a year might be so affected by the increased cost of living as to require extra remuneration. I know of several cases of men who are receiving more than $1,800 a year and who are not able, upon the salaries they are receiving at present, to keep themselves and their families in the condition in which they are entitled to live. The cost of living to them has increased in proportion to the way in which it has increased to men earning less than $1,800 a year, and I hope the Government will consider the advisability of extending the bonus to men receiving more than $1,800.


William Cameron Edwards: Has the Government given any consideration to placing in the class of Civil Servants those country and

village postmasters who have to devote all their time to the duties of office? I do not mean those postmasters where the post office is a side line. In my county I presume there would not he more than two or three of the class to which I refer and they should be classified along with the regular Civil Servants.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They have not
been up to date, but the classification will show a division of all postmasters of Canada into ten ranks. In some cases this does not mean an increase in salary, for rural post offices, but it will affect the compensation. I might say in reply to the hon. member for New Westminster (Air. McQuarrie) that members of the Civil Service receiving an income in excess of $1,800 have placed before the Government what they deem to be their grievance by reason of the withholding of the bonus from them and the matter is now under consideration, non. gentlemen will understand that until the re-classification of the Service is settled and the salaries for the current year determined, it is difficult to decide what bonus should be paid, because the re-classification will place some men in a more favourable position than they were in before. Shortly after the re-classification is submitted to Parliament, we should be in a position to announce our policy respecting the whole service.


Mr. J. M. DOUGLAS:: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to the case of postal employees in the West. I refer particularly to most of the employees in the Strathoona post office which is a semi-staff office. These men have an initial salary of $600 per annum and with the temporary bonus and some olther living allowance which is [given to [DOT] them, their salary is brought up to between $900 and $1,000. The point on which these men have a grievance is that the ordinary mail carrier who does not require the same amount of clerical ability is drawing more money than the postal employees in the office. Under the present strike conditions prevailing throughout Western (Canada, these men have remained loyal to the service inasmuch as they have not gone out on strike, and last year when the Winnipeg and Calgary officers went out on strike, these men remained on duty in spite of the fact that they felt they had a distinct grievance and that it was not being looked after by the department. This method of granting an initial salary of $600 a year which must be supplemented by bonuses and living allow-

ances is peculiar, and I hope the minister will assure me that in the re-classification all these anomalies will be wiped out, and that the salary will be fixed, so that a man will know definitely what his salary is, and that if he is getting $600 or $1,100 a year that amount will not be reduced by the stoppage of any bonus, living allowance or any subterfuge of that kind. I gathered, and I hope correctly, from what the minister said, that in the re-classification provision will be made for the adjustment of cases such as I have mentioned.


Mr.   HOWELL@: The minimum salary of the postal clerks at the present time is $600, and a living allowance of $180 has been paid for many years. There is also a war bonus, which brings the minimum up to $1,080. The maximum is $1,880, which is very much higher than the maximum of the letter carriers. The re-classi-fioation will fix the minimum and the maximum salary, and will provide for a bonus due to the high cost of living.
In answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Mc-Coig), provision has been made whereby if a rural mail contractor thinks his contract is at too low a price, he may ask to have it reconsidered and new tenders called for. We passed an Estimate the other evening for $375,000 to meet the increased cost to the country due to new tenders having been called from parties under the old contract.
With respect to the matter to which the leader of the Opposition drew my attention, namely, where contractors are held to their contract if no new tenders are submitted, I am looking into that matter; I think it should be remedied.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Has any provision been made for fixing a minimum rate per mile for the rural mail couriers?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


Air. PAPINEAU:: What was the amount of the bonus paid during the last fiscal year?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It would approximate $800,000 per month.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do temporary employees come under this?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Donald Sutherland: I wish to protest against the habit we are falling into of granting increases without due consideration of where we are likely to land as a result. First of all, I do not like the term "war bonus" in this item; I do not think

there is any justification for it. I believe that where competition prevails you will get much better service, and I think that the feeling of unrest throughout the country today is in no small measure attributable to the action of Governments in this country in fixing the hours of work and the wages in the Service. Once people get into the Civil Service they receive so much in, I fear, many instances regardless of the service they render. There is no competition. In the case of the rural mail couriers, however, who tender for contracts, and where competition prevails, the lowest tender is accepted even if the sum is only half what another civil servant is getting who is not rendering anything like as great service. In view of the fact that a commission is now inquiring into the relations between employers and employees in Canada, I think this item should stand until we know the findings of that commission. The Government of this country, not this or the preceding Government, but all governments are responsible for fixing the hours [DOT]of labour in the service, which I believe are from six to seven hours per day. I believe the fact that men and women in the Service 'do not have to work more than six or 'seven hours a day is largely responsible for the unrest that prevails in Canada to-day, and which is in no small measure responsible for the high cost of living. The short day attracts people to the Civil Service. The real creators of wealth in this country, the people who are producing food, are also attracted to the city and the Service by the short day and once they get in the Service they think all they have to do is to hold a gun to the head of the Government to get anything they want. There is no 'reason why a civil servant should not leave the Service if he or she can better themselves outside, and I think the t:me has 'come when we should quit coddling civil 'servants. We should deal with them as 'other people are dealt with, as though we expected them to render value for the salaries received. I know the Government is in a very difficult position in dealing with these people, but I think the time has come for 'plain speaking, and -we might just as well *face the issue now as at any time in the future.
Progress reported.
At six ociock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. 186


CONSOLIDATED RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 19 (from the Senate), to Consolidate and Amend the Railway Act, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was under consideration by the Committee we had considered and adopted all of the clauses with the exception of clauses 34, 210, 358, and 374. We will now take up clause 34.


William Garland McQuarrie: Before taking up clause 34, I would like to revert to clause 325. I understand that an amendment has been made to this clause as it originally stood, a fact of which I only learned yesterday, having, unfortunately, been absent from the House owing to indisposition.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am very sorry but
the hon. gentleman is out of order in discussing the clause referred to, which has been adopted in his absence. The hon. gentleman, however, can by unanimous consent take the opinion of the Committee on a motion that the clause be reconsidered.


William Garland McQuarrie: If you will permit me I would like to do that a little later on. The hon. member for Lanlbton (Mr. Armstrong) is desirous of speaking to the clause which has been called, but I would like if I might be permitted to move later on to reconsider clause 325.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. gentleman can do that at any time if there is no objection.


Mr. T. J. STEWART:: I object to the
clause being reconsidered. A deputation from the city of Hamilton was heard in regard to it, and after a full discussion the Committee unanimously passed the clause in its present form. I for one object to the subject being re-opened.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: I have no apology to offer for moving an amendment to this clause. It is true that in the early stages of the session I gave notice of a Bill which was worded similarly to this amendment. It is also true that the amendment went before the special committee appointed to consider this Bill and was defeated by a . small majority. Nevertheless, I believe that what I propose is in the public interest, and I hope the Committee will insist upon its being placed upon the statute book at the earliest possible moment, in order that the conditions which have existed in past years may not continue in the years to come.



The amendment I [DOT] propose is not as far-reaching as the one that was submitted to the special committee, and for this reason I laid it before Sir Henry Drayton, Chairman of the Board of Bailway Commissioners, and asked him to eliminate from it the words " in regard to ocean borne traffic." I also asked him to re-construct clause 358 of the Bill so as to confer upon the Bailway Commission control over the maximum rates to be charged; that is to say, that the commission should not have control over any other rates than the maximum rates. Sir Henry Drayton was good enough to re-draft the amendments in accordance with my wishes and I will submit them to the Committee. Sir Henry Drayton's letter to me on the subject is as follows :-
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. Office of The Chief Commissioner.
Ottawa, May 23, 1919.
Re Water borne traffic.
Dear Mr. Armstrong,-
You ask me to consider the amendments submitted, which read as follows:-
" Privilege and Concession to be under control of Board'.
" (A) 1. With respect to any privilege or concession 'given by any company or express company, or by any person owning or controlling any such steamboat or vessel as is in the next paragraph mentioned, and where any privilege or concession is given by any such person or by any company or express company to any person or class of business, or in any part of Canada, the Board may order that such privilege or concession be discontinued, or modified, or granted to any other person or class of business, or in any other part of Canada, either the same or in a modified form.
" Steamboats to be subject to regulations of Board of Railway Commissioners.
" Tariffs, etc., to be submitted to Board."
" (A) 2. With respect to the traffic accommodation, classification of freight, traffic agreements, tolls, and tariffs to be furnished, made, entered into, and charged in connection with and by steamboats, and other vessels carrying passengers or freight, or both, from one port or place in Canada to another port or place in Canada, and with respect to any place where such steamboats and vessels shall call for traffic, the time of all and duration of stay and all tariffs, tolls, traffic agreements, and classifications of freight charged, entered into, or adopted in connection with any such steamboat or vessel shall be submitted to the Board."
I understand that you are now of the view that the ocean traffic overseas ought not to be mixed up with the same kind of regulation . which would apply from one port to another in Canada.
If the policy of water regulation be adopted at all, I would certainly think that you are right in this conclusion, and that the amendment you propose making to the draft above submitted, '1or to a port or place outside of Canada," be stricken out.

You ask my view as to whether or not the sections are sufficient. The question as jto whether there should be any regulation of water borne traffic, and whether the Board's powers should be extended in this direction, is one entirely of policy for Parliament and a matter on which I do not presume to advise or take any part; but if Parliament does adopt the principle, I would suggest that in addition to the amendment above set out, Section 358 be recast. The present Section 358, which is headed, " Water Traffic," would indicate thait the Board's activities in this connection are limited to the traffic on water of any railway company. As I understand it, your proposal is to regulate all water carriers, whether such carriers be or be not railway companies. To give effect to your intention, I would, as stated, recast this section, and provide as follows :-
"'Section 3'58. The provisions of this Act in respect of tolls, tariffs and joint tariffs shall, so far as deemed applicable by the Board, extend and apply to the traffic carried by any carrier (whether such carrier be or be not a railway company) by sea or by inland water, between any ports or places in Canada; and no freight or passenger rate shall be charged by any such water carrier in excess of the maximum rates from time to time approved by the Board; and no such water carrier shall engage in the business of transportation, whether of freight or of passengers, until such carrier shall have submitted to and the Board shall have approved its standard freight or passenger tariffs." Yours faithfully,
H. L. Drayton, Chief Commissioner. J. E. Armstrong, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
That is the proposition which is now before the Committee. I may be asked my reasons for placing this matter under the control of the Bailway Commission. As every hon. gentleman knows, that commission is one of the best organized public bodies that we have in Canada. It has given most excellent service, and in spite of the fact that it was constituted some ten years ago, and that tens of thousands of questions of vital interest to the public have been brought before it from time to time, not one of the decisions it has rendered has been questioned on the floor of Parliament. This speaks well for the Bailway Commission, and therefore I cannot think of any more reliable body of men to have control of just such matters as we are considering to-night.
The reason for the creation of the Bailway Commission was this: It was found advisable to appoint a body altogether separate and apart from the Department of Bail-ways, that would stand between the public and the railways and deal out even-handed justice to the public in the face of the railway monopoly which then existed to a considerable extent. A somewhat similar situation exists to-day in regard to our water-

borne traffic. There is on our large inland lakes, and in connection with our coastwise trade, a monopoly which controls the traffic on those waters, and the eight millions of people scattered throughout this country are unable to organize and protect themselves from the combines that exist in connection with water transportation. It must be remembered that in my amendment I have eliminated the ocean-borne traffic, its provisions being confined to lake, river and coastwise trade. That object has been achieved by striking out the words " or to a port or place outside of Canada." If the amendment carries, and the Bill as amended goes back to the Senate and becomes law, then all the vessels operating on our inland ^waters and in connection with our coastwise trade will come under the control of the Railway Commission as regards the maximum rates which they charge.
In connection with ocean traffic, I hope, at an early date, to submit to Parliament a proposal, which should meet with the general approval of all the members, whereby a Board appointed by the Dominion Government, and a Board appointed by the Imperial Government, shall be able to control rates. In this regard I might call your attention to the fact that this Government, in 1912, appointed Sir Henry Drayton a commissioner to go overseas and investigate conditions in regard to the rates charged on ocean-borne traffic. Sir Henry Drayton made a thorough investigation and submitted a report to Parliament. In 1916 he prepared a still more exhaustive report in which he definitely and distinctly stated that it would be in the public interest to have a joint Board established in order that there might be a joint control between the Imperial and Dominion Governments of tolls and tariff agreements.
In 1912-13 the Imperial Government appointed a Royal Commission to investigate the natural resources, trade, and legislation of certain portions of His Majesty's Dominions. That commission travelled throughout the different Dominions beyond the seas, Canada amongst the rest, and, on its return to England, prepared a number of valuable reports. In 1917 it submitted its final report to the Imperial Parliament. I will just read one clause from page 128 to show the urgent need of taking action to control ocean-borne traffic:
Clause 538. Our investigations have satisfied us that in normal times the combination of shipowners is strong enough to limit the freedom of shippers, whose varied and detached interests make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to combine in any effective opposition,
186i
and that therefore, in principle, it is not desirable that the operations of the steamship companies should remain longer without some measure of Government supervision.
In this report you will find many recommendations, and it is with these recommendations that I intend to deal a little later on.
To-night we have before us the question of controlling the traffic on our inland waters and our coastwise trade, which is entirely separate from the matter to which I have been referring. It will be necessary for us to take into consideration the clauses 34 and 358 in connection with these amendments. They both deal with exactly the same subject, both being for the purpose of bringing our boats under the control of the Railway Commission. The Bill gives added powers to the Board of Railway Commissioners and we are most careful to see that in every detail we grant to the board complete control over traffic agreements and any concessions that may be made. We give them absolute control over almost everything connected with a railway system. Telegraphs, telephones, the wireless, and electrical development are all under Government control. But running alongside these great railway systems is another transportation system that has made wonderful progress within the last fifteen or twenty years. Last year there passed through the, Sault canals, American and Canadian, freights to the value of $85,000,000. As that traffic passes on down through lake Huron and the river St. Clair and into lake Erie, it increases in volume. Practically all the traffic is carried by boats that are absolutely free to charge whatever tolls and make whatever arrangements they please, and neither this nor any other Canadian Government can say a word. These boats can call or not at our ports, take goods or not, as they wish and are a law unto themselves. Let me call your attention to the increase in some of these rates. I will not have time to take many of them, but here, for instance, i,s a list of lake rates on wheat from Fort William and Port Arthur to Montreal for the undermentioned seasons of navigation:
	Rate per	bushel.	
Year.	Highest.	Lowest.	Average.1911	6.50	4.25	1912	5.771913	6! 34	L8	1914	5.52	4.2	1915	5.20	3.59	1916	9.11	6.71	1917	11	3.	1918	11	6.	
This is a statement prepared by Mr. Coats, Dominion statistician. I also had a statement prepared by Mr. Payne of the Department of Railways and Canals who says that rates went as high as 12J cents per bushel.


John Dowsley Reid: For what year?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Last year.


John Dowsley Reid: He must have been crazy.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: From what ports?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: From Port Arthur to Montreal.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that by rail?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: By boat.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: I have a letter that contradicts that flatly.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman can read the letter.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: I will read it later.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: All right; it will be for the hon. gentleman to show that the statement I have given is not correct. In 1909 the steamboats on our inland waters were able to carry that same kind of grain from Port Arthur to Montreal for two cents a bushel, and it has been stated that they carried it for less than that. In face of the fact that these increases have been going on from year to year there seems to be no limit to them, and there is no reason in the world why they should not charge 15 or 20 cents a bushel. They could possibly reach that limit and I have no doubt that they would be only too glad to have that rate.
I shall show a little later on the enormous profits that some of these companies are making. It would appear they are taking full advantage of the opportunity confronting them. I repeat again, that these organizations are under no control whatsoever, and all that I am asking in this amendment is that the Railway Commission shall have the power to declare what the maximum rates shall be.
In the United States they have complete control over their boats engaged in inland water and coastwise trade. Not only have they that control, but I have under my hand a complete set of the ocean rates from the United States ports. Let me call your attention to their legislation. Under a statute of the most drastic character they absolutely control their boats engaged on inland waters and coastwise trade. For
fMr. J. E. Armstrong,]
instance under this statute on April 18, 1919, the Shipping Board at Washington issued the following statement:
Rates for shipment on the Great Lakes this season for ore, grain and coal were formally approved by the Shipping- Board to-day as follows:-Ore 80 cents a ton; coal, 42J cents a ton; grain from Lake Superior to Lake Brie and from Lake Michigan to Lake Erie, April and May loading, 3J cents and 3 cents per bushel respectively; September, October and November grain loading, 3} cents and 3 cents respectively; and December grain loading, including winter storage of vessels, 5 cents and 5 cents respectively; grain rates to Georgian Bay and Goderich were fixed at one-half cent per bushel; to Port Huron one-half cent per bushel and to Collingwood one-half cent per bushel under the Lake Brie rate. The rate to Detroit was made the same as to Lake Erie ports.
In Canada we have no such condition -of agairs. Our shipowners can continue charging their ten cents or twelve cents a bushel or more if they please, and we are powerless to control them. Just a few words in regard to this Shipping Act which was passed by Congress in 1916. It is chapter 451 of the United States statutes and is intituled " An Act to establish a United States. Shipping Board for the purpose of encouraging, developing and creating a naval auxiliary and a naval reserve and a merchant marine to meet the requirements of the commerce of the United States with its territories and possessions, and with foreign countries; to regulate carriers by water in the foreign and interstate commerce of the United States; and for other purposes. This statute deals with the transfer of government-owned vessels to the board and the operation of American merchant vessels; it defines what is a common carrier; specifies the penalty for violation of the provisions of the Act-the authority of the board to approve or disapprove of rates-common carriers not to lower rates by unfair means -tariffs to be filed and displayed-through rates-restrictions on increasing charges- and so on. I might go on reading page after page of this Aot, but I have indicated sufficient to show that it is of the most drastic nature and that it covers absolutely all boats owned, operated and controlled in the United States. A number of amendments have been made to that Act since 1916, every one of them in the direction of giving still greater control over their water-borne traffic. But we have made no effort whatever to control our water-borne traffic. It is said that the Railway Commission is given control over the through rates of boats owned controlled and operated by the railways of Canada. That is

true, but they have only control over the through rate, and if that rate is charged without any unjust or unfair discrimination there is no cause for action on the part of the commission. As far as the railways are concerned, they have not appeared before any of the committees in opposition to this measure, and as far as 1 can learn they do not oppose it in any way.
But why should we allow the Railway Commission to have control over a certain portion of our water-borne traffic and not place the whole of it under their control ? We have 8,500 vessels under Dominion register, employing 45,000 men. In this Act that we are to pass to-night, the railway men who are assisting in the operations of the railroads in Canada are surrounded with all sorts of safeguards. During the hearings before the Select Committee, those men sat day after day, week after week, and month after month, listening to the arguments to see that their rights were protected; while, on the contrary, the 45,000 employees,, a,s far as I can learn, are absolutely at the mercy of the vessel owners. We assist water transportation in every way; we surround these men with special laws for their benefit. Not only do we do that, but within the last month when a member called attention to the fact that the United States had forbidden Canadian vessels to do any coastwise trade on their coast, the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce said that owing to that fact similar restrictions would be placed upon boats owned in the United States coming to do a coastwise trade on our coasts. So that these men are surrounded by every conceivable protection and are in the position of an absolute monopoly.
We protect our marine interests from foreign shippers; we buoy and light our rivers; we dredge them and we deepen our harbours; we build docks, piers, breakwaters, canals,' without end, until we have expended over $400,000,000 of the people's money on these great enterprises. And in the face of that we find members on both sides of the House asking the Minister of Public Works to continue the expenditure of enormous sums of money on such works in different parts of the Dominion. What for? In order to aid navigation. But are we to continue this expenditure? The more money we expend the higher go the rates, and we are in the unfortunate position that we have no control over these vessel owners as to what they may charge or the manner in which they conduct their affairs. The people Of Canada do not receive any interest on this money. We have abolished
the tolls on our canals. We are spending a million and a half a year in order to operate these public works, all aids to navigation, but there is no apparent return to the people; the rates have been constantly increased rather than reduced. In addition to this, we have built elevators at Port Arthur, Fort William, Montreal and St. John. We have spent immense sums to facilitate the loading and unloading ot grain. The capacity of the vessels has increased enormously. Not so many years ago we thought that a vessel which would carry 100,000 bushels of grain had reached about the limit of carrying capacity, but vessels are to-day carrying down our lakes 500,000 bushels in each cargo. When the Welland canal is opened these boats will be in a much more favourable position than they are in to-day. It is generally understood that rates on water-borne traffic should be at least one-third the rates by rail, but we find that the rates for waterborne traffic are kept as close as possible to the rail rates, those interested in the operation of these vessels desiring to make every dollar they can out of the people. We have expended enormous sums of money uj)on the construction of elevators in our western provinces. We have provided a grain commission. We see that the rates charged in these elevators are fair and reasonable and that the rates on the railways which carry the grain from the elevators to Port Arthur and Fort William are the very lowest that can be charged. From the day the grain is turned over to the vessel men at Port Arthur and Fort William and is loaded into their vessels until it reaches its destination -our own markets or the markets of the world-not one word can any one say with regard to the transportation charges made on that grain. That is surely not a reasonable or a fair position for the people of the West to be placed in. As I shall show you, the people of the East are in the same humiliating position. Why control only part of our transportation system? These undertakings have called for vast expenditures of money. No individual or corporate enterprise would undertake them. Canada has undertaken them; what return has she? An unregulated, irresponsible mercantile marine. Unless you place on the statute-book some such legislation as I am urging, you will continue to be subjected to excessive charges.
Either regulate and control this organization, or open the door to competitors. Expenses of carriage by water are small as compared with the expenses of carriage by rail. The shipowners have no roadbeds or tun-

nels or bridges to keep in repair, no terminal stations to maintain, no telegraphs or telephones to operate. Before the Committee these men told us of the severe storms that occur on our lakes and on our coasts, and how they materially interfere with the operation of the vessels. But have they taken into consideration the fact that during the winter season the railroads are able to do only about sixty per cent of the business they are capable of doing during the summer months? The amount of money invested in boats compared with that invested in railways is very small. Take, for instance, the 2,200 miles of splendid waterway that reaches on up into the heart of this continent. The first 1,000 miles from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Montreal may be traversed with perfect safety by vessels drawing thirty feet of water, and vessels drawing fourteen feet of water can proceed 1,200 miles further to Port Arthur and Fort William. When the Welland canal is completed a much better condition will be brought about. The investment in Canadian steamships plying on this route would, at a fair estimate, not exceed $50,000,000, while the cost of a railway covering about the same distance, at $100,000 a mile-which was the cost of the railway most recently built by the Dominion-would exceed $200,000,000. I make this comparison merely to show that while these men are carrying on their business as I have indicated, the expense connected with the operation of their vessels is small compared with the cost of our railways.
Our export trade is enormous. The following are the figures, roughly speaking, of the value of the exports of Canadian products for the year ended March 31, 1919, as compared with 1915:
The Mine	
The Fisheries., . The Forest... . Animal products Agric'l products Manufactures.	.
Miscellaneous.	.
1914-15.

19.000.	000
42.000.	000
74.000.	000 134,000,000
85.000.	000 663,000
1918-19.

37.000.	000
70.000.	000
197.000.	000
269.000.	000
549.000.	000 6,000,000
This makes a total of $419,000,000, in round figures, for 1915, and-$1,207,000,000, for the year ending March 31, 1919. Our exports will increase year by year, and as they increase the need of controlling these boats will become more apparent.
I have here a great deal of correspondence with regard to this matter, hut I shall only glance over some of it hurriedly to direct attention to what is going on in different parts of this country. On April 20 of this * Lib. j_ Armstrong.!
year the following statement was made -with regard to the conditions at Sarnia:
There is considerable dissatisfaction here because-the Northern Navigation fleet will again stop and take on the passengers at Point Edward this year, as in the past. Sarnia business men and citizens in general feel that all passengers for these boats should be taken on at the Sarnia wharf and discharged there as well.
Instead of stopping at the city and taking on passengers and products, they simply stop where they please. Here is a telegram from Niagara-on-the-Lake:
Strongly urge adoption of Bill to bring steamboats under Board of Hallway Commissioners. This district very much injured by lack of service at end of season and poor service with high rates, damaged freight, and lost goods; rates raised without notice, and boats taken off without warning.
C. H. Lloyd, President Nigara District Board of Trade.
L. H. Collard, Reeve of Niagara Township.
James Maophee, Mayor, Town of Niagara.
R. G. Dawson, President, Niagara Agricultural Society.
A. Onslow, Niagara.
G. W. Bernard, Niagara.
I have here another letter from the President of the Niagara District Board of Trade. Then there is the following telegram from Petrolia:


John Dowsley Reid: Between what points is the 7i cent rate?
Mr. J! E. ARMSTRONG: From Port Arthur to Montreal, I understand.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman stated that the vessel would carry 300,000 bushels from Port Arthur to Montreal, and the rate as stated by Mr. Horne was 71 cents. What I wish to say is this, that there is no vessel that can go from Port Arthur to Montreal carrying 300,000 bushels.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This gentleman was a steamboat owner and the minister must surely know him. If he does not the representatives from Port Arthur and Fort William can vouch for his standing in Port Arthur. He says: " The lower lake ports." He might mean Port Colborne, but the rate is 71 cents. A few minutes ago I showed that the United States had absolute control over their vessels and that their grain is carried from Port Arthur and Fort William down to Buffalo, a greater distance than to Port Colborne, for 31 cents. The people of Canada must feel humiliated at being compelled to pay such extortionate rates in the face of prevailing conditions.
I do not want to take up much of the time of the Committee in reading these letters, but they are all urging that these clauses be passed. I have here a communication from Mr. J. T. Small, barrister, of Toronto, strongly urging that these boats be placed under the control of the Railway Commission. This is a letter from a prominent citizen in the town of Sarnia:-
From our experience this year as shippers with the Northern Navigation Company, it is more imperatively necessary than it ever has been before, that this legislation should pass. As matters' stand now, shippers have no rights that the steamship lines in particular pay any attention to. Rates have gone up to the limit. Service, while fairly satisfactory is nothing as good as it should b;. "What does this, mean to your home county?
George French.

This is a communication to the Department of the Secretary of State from the Government of British Columbia:
Certified copy of a report of a committee of the Honourable the Executive Council, approved by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor on the 26th day of March, 1919.
The committee of Council submit for the approval of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor a resolution of the Legislative Assembly yof the province of British Columbia, of the 24th instant, as follows :-
That, In the opinion of this House it is desirable that the rates of lake and river transportation systems owned and controlled by the Canadian Pacific Railway in British Columbia should be under the control of the Railway Commission of Canada.
Be it further resolved, that an humble address he presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, praying that a copy of the foregoing resolution foe forwarded to the Honourable the Secretary of State for Canada.
The Committee advise that a copy of this minute be forwarded to the Honourable the Secretary of State of Canada.
J. H. MaoLean,
Clerk, Executive Council.
I might go on reading these communications, but I do not care to take up the time of the committee. It is true that Canada's waterways have been the chief factor in building up towns and cities along them. These are the channels through which pass much of our raw materials and manufactured products. We must, therefore, control these great national transportation facilities, and we must not turn over this splendid heritage of the many to be exploited for the benefit of the few. We must consider the interest of the producer at one end and the consumer at the other. Reduced rates will mean cheaper food for our people with commercial development all along our waterways. With boats under control, fair profits to boat owners will be given, and the producer and consumer will be greatly benefited. Vessel men are constantly asking for improvements. (Our past expenditures would have been justified had rates been reduced, but the opposite has been 'the case. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvel!), it is true, voted against this amendment in Committee, but inside of a few hours he was in the House voting away money for the improvements of these great waterways and for the benefit of the vessel men. There has been circulated among the members of the House of Commons and the Senate a pamphlet carefully prepared by one of the solicitors of the Canada Steamship Company.


Mr. BRISTOL:: By whom?
Mr.. J. E. ARMSTRONG: Mr. King.


Edmund James Bristol: He is not the solicitor.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: He is solicitor for the Dominion Marine Association. Is not that correct?


Edmund James Bristol: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: He represents at least ninety per cent of the vessels on our inland waters, and my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) knows it. This pamphlet was not very complimentary to me. It held up to ridicule my efforts in the pa-st in connection with this measure. It is true that at different times during the last six years I have brought forward this measure. It is also true that the Railway Act which is now under consideration has not yet been passed. But I do not see why I should be condemned for the action I have taken in the matter. I should like to give a brief account of what has taken place.
In the year 1912-13 members on both sides of the House called attention to the enormous increase in freight rates on our inland waters and on our ocean-borne commerce. Considerable time of the House was taken up in debating the question, and a Special Committee was formed which had under consideration the consolidation of the Railway Act. While it was under consideration, the Saskatchewan Government appointed a commission to investigate freight rates on our inland waters and ocean-borne commerce. That investigation took place, and I was able to submit to the Railway Committee in 1914, a statement in regard to the work of that oominis-sion. I also laid before the Committee a letter from Mir. R. McKenzie, secretary of the Manitoba Crain Growers' Association, reading as follows:
I am in receipt of your favour of the 20th inst., urging me to appear before a Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons who have the consolidation of the Railway Act under consideration. I did not receive the' telegram from you which you state you sent under the same date as letter.
I would foe very .pleased of an, opportunity to appear on behalf of the *Manitoba Grain Growers' Association before the Committee on the important question of the consolidation of the Railway Act, more especially clause 358 of the Bill to which you drew my attention. It appears to me that the Railway Commission or any other foody have not effective control on export rates unless that same body can also control the rates on vessels that are a pant of a through transportation system. It is a simple matter of bookkeeping for the railways to apportion a loss made on the railway, and make up on the water portion of the through system.

I also placed before the Committee the following statement from a manufacturer in the city of Sarnia:
As you are possibly aware, there is a most unjust dkcrimm tion against manufacturers situated as we are. At the present time, steamship companies will carry freight from Montreal to the head of the Lakes, we are told, at the same rates as we pay from Sarnia to the head of the Lakes. We know for a fact that there is an existing rate of 10J cents from Cleveland to Fort Wil iam, while we pay 16^ cents from Sarnia. This is one ease showing the unjust dis:rimination made under the present me the d. Where this affects a manufacture:-, such as ourselves, it would avail the manufacturers of the Fame commodities as we make, down in Montreal or Hamilton, to enter into a competition of territory, which, by our natural location, should be ours.
On the other hand, for all freight going east by train, we have to pay a much higher rate over these lines, and we cannot compete with the manufacturer, such as a fence company, in Montreal or Hamilton in its own district, while they themselves can ship their commodity into our territory at the same rates as we ourselves.
I submitted also a communication from the Western Co-operative Fruit Company, resolutions passed by a company of fruit growers in Western Ontario, and a letter to Mr. K. F. Green, M.P., from the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, all strongly supporting the measure.
I should like to quote the finding of the commission appointed by the Saskatchewan Government:
This Commission reports that the grain ol Canada pays more freight to r a:h Liverpool than does the grain of any other country in the world ; also that there has been practically no change since 1909 in the cost of transpc ing a carload' of wheat to Fort William or Port Arthur and selling it on commission. . .
	Were Winnipeg to Fort William the
ultimate market for our wheat, it would he unnecessary to pursue the inquiry east of these points. Some of our wheat is finally disposed of at Winnipeg, of course, but the great hulk of it is not. Moreover, the price received for that which goes the farthest is what sets the price for the remainder throughout the season of heaviest marketing. It therefore concerns the farmer even more than it concerns anyone else what the relation is between the Winnipeg market and the importing markets of Europe, for upon the transportation and oth r connecting links between these markets will the price received by the farmer in one part depend.
Those were some of the statements placed before the Committee in 1914. In 1915-16 the war was on, and as this measure was looked upon as contentious, it was not taken up. In 1917, although the war was still on, the Railway Act was taken up by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Cochrane) and passed this House, but was held up in the Senate. During the discussion that took place I was able to submit
many important matters to the Committee, among which was a letter I received from Mr. P. P. Woodbridge, secretary of the United Farmers of Alberta, as follows:
I am in receipt of yours of the 20th instant, together with the copy of Bill No. 2 and notes on same.
After discussing the proposed amendments with our president and several other members of our executive who happened to be available,
I beg to advise you that we are entirely in sympathy with -the object of clause 358 and unanimously endorse same. We believe, however, that as at present worded, the clause opens the way for a legal action as to the extent of its meaning.
Lines 2 and 3, clause 3'58, read at present,
" extend and apply to traffic carried by any railway company," etc. We believe that to make this clause really effective it must be made to cover all water traffic, whether carried in boats owned by railway o>r other company or individual, and would respectifuHy suggest that the word ' railway * be eliminated from this clause, making it read, ' traffic carried by any company or individual,' etc., etc., or whatever amendment your committee might suggest which would affect the purpose hereinbefore outlined.
T merely call attention to this for the purpose of showing that I did make an earnest effort to bring this matter before Parliament from time to time. Then again at the present session instead of proceeding with the Bill Which I introduced at an early period, I thought it was not wise to take up time with the various stages that would be necessary, and therefore, for the purpose of securing prompt action, I placed my amendment before the special committee of the House. It was defeated by a small majority, and to-night I believe I am acting in the public interest in bringing forward that amendment in Committee of the Whole and having a vote upon the question.
During the war every other country took measures to control its shipping but we apparently made no effort in that direction. The farmers, manufacturers, and shippers of Canada have been compelled to pay fifty, one hundred and fifty, and two hundred per cent more for the carriage of their goods by water than they formerly were compelled to pay. We are giving credits to Belgium, Italy, Greece, and Eumania. to the extent of tens of millions of dollars for the purpose . of carrying the products of farm and factory to those markets. But when you take into consideration the enormous tolls that are exacted on the inland vessels, and on the ocean-borne commerce, it is utterly impossible for us to expect, unless this amendment is accepted, that Canadian manufacturers and shippers will receive the benefit which they should receive

from the existing facilities. If this amendment is voted down it means keeping open the door for a further exploitation of the country's resources.
Let me call attention to some of the profits that these steamship owners have been making during the last few years. In 1912 the Canada Steamship Company formed a merger of six groups of vessels, the estimated value of which at that time was some $6,000,000. The company was floated for $12,500,000 of preferred stock, $12,000,000 of common stock, and $6,000,000 of'bonds. And what happened? The rates increased. In 1914, I asked one of the prominent vessel owners what the increase in rate? amounted to in 1913, and he said about twenty per cent. The rates have kept on increasing year after year until these men claim today that they have a capital investment of-or at least that the value of their industry is-$38,000,000, and they are paying the interest on $30,000,000 of that money. They are paying the interest not only on the preferred stock and on the bonds, but on the common stock as well. Let me give you a statement by Mr. Carruthers, president *of the company, but who resigned during the present year, as it appears in the Cana-[DOT]dian Railway and Marine World of last *March. Mr. Carruthers left Montreal for the Pacific coast some time prior to the *proposed meeting, and before doing so made the following remarks:
I cannot admit the propriety of paying such a dividend, for several reasons, and in this attitude have received Mr. Newman's consistent sympathy and support. My principal reason for adopting the attitude described was that I considered the company's best interests were bound up in maintaining the dividend position of its premier capital issue, the preferred stock. In other words, this issue should be strengthened during a period of exceptional earnings, with such a reserve backing that the continuance of the regular rate would be assured for some years to come. My contention is that the disbursement should not be made until there is a strong liquid reserve behind the preferred. It was not the idea of the organizers of the company at its inception that the common should receive anything in the way of dividend until the company had gone through a period of years of experience, which would prove its earning capacity beyond question. In order that my attitude should not prove an embarrassment to the board, and so that the decision to declare the dividend might be considered unanimous, I have decided to resign the presidency^ and also from the board, and Mr. Newman joins me in my retirement.
That is a pretty strong statement made *by the president in regard to the Canada *Steamship Company. But when the company are not only paying dividends on all *this stock, but have a surplus of $5,000,000, 
*and claim that their assets amount to *$38,000,000, hon. gentlemen can readily see *whether they have been doing a reasonable *or a fair business within the last six years. I know for a fact that many members of *this House have been receiving telegrams *and letters urging them to oppose this *amendment, and it must be expected that *practically every port in this country has *supporters of this steamship organization. *You can depend upon it that they are not *going to be content with the sending of a *few telegrams or letters voicing their opposition,.
* Now what else do I find in the report of this company? The capital stock I have *already stated, and the depreciation reserve *is $3,506,000. They paid in business profits *war tax $960,000, and a surplus was left of *$5,009,000. These figures show what one *company can accomplish within a period of six short years. Is it to be imagined that *a company that cleans up $30,000,000 in five or six years wants this legislation adopted? *Remember that Canada is going to do a *greater business on water than ever before. I expect a great expansion of our foreign trade when we control our trade routes, and our manufacturers and our shipping will develop. Off this legislation passes it will help the man who tills the soil, and it will help the man who runs a factory or carries a dinner pail. If it should be defeated the responsibility must rest on the heads of those who vote against it. It is a safe, sane and business like proposition. It will provide control of our waterways in addition to the control of our railways. The shippers scattered throughout Canada cannot organize into a monopoly. We must therefore trust to the Railway Commission to look after their interests. I therefore appeal to every member of this committee to vote for this amendment. By doing so they will protect the interest of the many against the avarieiousness and selfishness of the few.
In the early stages of my remarks I drew attencion to the fact that the amendment which I propose does not ask for the control of ocean freight rates; it is confined entirely to lake, river, canal and coastwise trade. Therefore, when hon. gentlemen are casting votes for this amendment they must remember they are voting for the control by the Railway Commission of maximum freight rates. By that I mean that the vessel owners will be able to give as low a rate as they choose below the maximum, but that tlhe Railway Commission will have the power to establish maximum freight

rates. Surely this is not an unreasonable request to make of this committee. I therefore strongly urge the members of this committee to vote for my amendment in order that we may control the great steamship monopolies that now exist in our country.
I beg to move to amend clause 34 by adding after subparagraph (a) in the fourth line of the said clause the following subparagraphs :
(A) 1. With respect to any privilege or concession given by any company or express company or by any person owning or controlling any such steamboat or vessel as is in the next paragraph mentioned, and where any privilege or concession is given by any such person or by any company or express company to any person or class of business or in any part of Canada, the Board may order that such privilege or concession be discontinued or modified or granted to any other person or class of business, or in any other part of Canada, either the same or in a modified form.
(A) 2. With respect to the traffic accommodation, classification of freight, traffic agreements, tolls and tariffs to be furnished, made, entered into and charged in connection with and by steamboats, and other vessels carrying passengers or freight or both from one port or place in Canada to another port or place in Canada and with respect to any place where such steamboats and vessels shall call for traffic, the time of call and duration of stay and all tariffs, tolls, traffic agreements and classifications of freight, charged, entered into or adopted in connection with any such steamboat or vessel shall he submitted to the Board.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the House at any great length in reply to the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) on this question. The Railway Bill is a very important one and one that has been before the House for the last two sessions. For a year or so previous to that we had men employed on this Act in order that it might be put in proper form. It is important that it should pass the House during the present session. It is urgent for many reasons. It is urgent on account of the necessity for the protection of the employees in connection with the operation of railways. It is also urgent in connection with the operation of the railways as a whole, and in the interest of the traffic that is carried. For these reasons, I hope that the Bill may go through during the present session. It has passed this House with the exception of the clause that the hon. member has referred to, and clause 374, which has been left over on account of the interest in it of the city of Toronto, the Hydro-Electric Commission and the Toronto and Niagara Power Company.
It is a very important question, that the hon. member has brought before the Committee. I am sorry that, his Bill, to which he has referred, was not proceeded with during the session, for the reason that we could have given more time to the discussion of the question and probably could have brought forth more facts bearing upon it than we are able to elicit this evening. The hon. member has referred to the letter of Sir Henry Drayton. From the tone of his remarks you would come to the conclusion that he is under the impression that Sir Henry Drayton is in favour of this amendment being passed by this House.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I read the lettei
and the letter distinctly says that he does not assume any responsibility.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that he does not assume any responsibility. But there is a part of the letter from which the hon. gentleman read that I think is very important in connection with this matter. On page 2 Sir Henry Drayton says:
If the policy of water regulation he adopted at all-
That gives me the impression that Sir Henry Drayton is not altogether in favour of the amendment as proposed by the hon. member.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: He does not take a position one way or the other.


John Dowsley Reid: That part of the letter emphasizes very strongly that he is not altogether in favour of the amendment. The hon. member leads the House to believe that the traffic by water between Port Arthur and Montreal is not now, and never has been, under the Railway Commission, and that the water traffic rates on wheat and other products have never been under any regulation.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: As far as steamboats are concerned.


John Dowsley Reid: As far as steamboats are concerned. In the Railway Act, which has been in force for many years, we have a clause:
The provisions of this Act in respect of tolls, tariffs and joint tariffs shall, so far as they are applicable, extend to the traffic carried by any company by sea or iby inland water, between any ports or places in Canada, if the company owns, charters, uses, maintains or works, or is a party to any arrangement for using, maintaining or working vessels for carrying traffic by sea or by inland water 'between any such ports or places.
It is a well known fact that the Canadian Northern Railway Company until two or three years ago, when their vessels were

taken, or disposed of, for purposes in connection with the war, had a fleet of steamers plying between Port Arthur and Montreal carrying grain, and therefore they came under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. If there were any complaints about the freight rates between Port Arthur and Montreal, they have been for many years past, and are now, under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners in so far as this provision applies to vessels owned or controlled by railway companies.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why object to this clause, then?


John Dowsley Reid: I am coming to that a little later. One of the strongest points that the hon. member has urged why this amendment should pass is that it may afford reduced rates on the wheat shipments that come from the West to the East and for transportation overseas. The Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern for years not only had their own vessels, but had the chartering of other vessels. That traffic has been as much under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners as any part of the traffic going to Montreal. I only wish to mention that fact to assure hon. members from the West that, there is nothing in the argument that freight rates between Port Arthur and Montreal may be lowered or changed from what they have been in the past.
Let me also take up at this point the hon. member's statement in reference to freight rates. He quoted the rates between the years 1911 and 1918. In 1911 the lowest average was between 4.24 and 6.50 between Port Arthur and Montreal. In 1912, if I took his statement down correctly, the average rate was about 5.77, or practically the same as in 1911. In the years 1913, 1914 and 1915 the rates were practically the same. In 1916 they commenced to jump; in 1917 they again increased, and in 1918 they still farther advanced. That is one of the reasons why the hon. member argues that these vessels should be put under the Board of Railway Commissioners. If it had only been on inland waters that these rates had been increased the argument might hold good, but the rates have increased not only between Port Arthur and Montreal but between Atlantic ports and British ports where the increases were far more in proportion than they were inland.


An hon. MEMBER:: Three times as much.


John Dowsley Reid: 
John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member has asked me a question which I am quite satisfied he must know I could not answer offhand. Had he given me notice I would be prepared to answer it. I do not know whether the question has ever been brought before the Railway Commission as to the regulation of a water rate between Port Arthur and Montreal. But they have power to regulate the railway freight rates, and they have also power to regulate the rates on freight originating on a Canadian railway and carried through to destination on a vessel owned or chartered by the railway company. Supposing the Railway Commission were to fix a certain rate for vessels plying between Port Arthur and Montreal to apply to all Canadian-owned vessels, our neighbours to the south of us could take advantage of it and secure the traffic, and it would be impossible for us to interfere. Let me give you an instance. Today when a vessel goes into Port Arthur she does not know what rate she is going to get. We will say that the rate is fixed by the Board of Railway Commissioners at 5 cents from Port Arthur to Montreal. The Canadian vessel cannot take any less than that rate.


Mr. HENDERS:: Is it not the maximum rate that we are asking to have fixed?


John Dowsley Reid: All right. At all events whatever rate is fixed, she applies for that
rate. Look at the competition our vessels have to-day at Montreal. If an American vessel goes into Port Arthur-that is, assuming she can go through the canals- and she finds that she can get a higher rate by taking that grain to Montreal than by taking it to Buffalo, I will tell you what her owners will do, because I know what has been done in the past, and I have no doubt it will be done in the future.
They take .a rate of three cents a bushel from Port Arthur to Ogdensburg, New York. The grain is there placed in an elevator and subsequently sent on barges to Montreal-and the American company can quote a. rate which is a shade less than the rate quoted by the Canadian vessels. In other words, American vessels may carry that grain in American, bottoms from one Canadian port to another Canadian port, and they cannot be interfered with. That is [DOT]the competition that the Canadian bottoms have to meet to-day and will have to meet in the future. If there is any question about fixing the rates charged on Canadian vessels from Port Arthur to Buffalo, the American vessel men will simply say to the shippers in the West: ship your grain to Duluth and we will take it from Duluth [DOT]to Buffalo.
We have very many people who are interested in water-borne traffic. Individuals or companies have put their money into vessels which ply on our inland waters. These enterprises are not public utilities, [DOT]and to place them undeT the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission would, in my opinion, interfere with shipbuilding in the future. The jurisdiction which is exercised by the Railway Commission so far as through traffic is concerned would seem to cover any possible chance of the imposition of extraordinary freight rates. I have watched the steamboat business .in the past with a great deal of interest. Until the war started, I venture to say, the profits of vessel men were not very high; none of them made extraordinary profits. I hardly think it is fair to take the last three or four years of the war in order to show that excess profits have been made.
The hon. member read a great many letters expressing the opinion that his amendment should be adopted and that we should bring these vessels under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. It would take me an hour to read all the communications I have received from individuals and Boards of Trade protesting against any such legislation. If the amend-

meat was adopted, it would interfere in a great many ways with our other inland water transportation. Privately-owned tramp vessels running from Montreal to Port Arthur are glad to get freight for inland ports at very low rates; in fact, they take it at any rates	they can possibly
get. They take freight also at low rates to Port Arthur, because in doing so they are just that much ahead. Again, if this amendment is adopted it will affect the operation of motorboats which carry passengers on our inland lakes, and other waters. On the St. Lawrence river, among the Thousand Islands and all the way between Montreal and Kingston, motor-boats carry passengers during the summer months. Under my hon. friend's proposal these boats could not carry passengers without first submitting their standard rates to the Board of Railway Commissioners.
I do not think the adoption of this amendment would be of any advantage to the shippers of the West. If I thought for a moment that such rates were being charged between Port Arthur and Montreal as were prejudicial to the people of the West I would be the first to introduce an amendment, or to bring down legislation to correct the wrong. But I am satisfied that the effect of the amendment would not be to reduce the rates. The Canadian Government owns 13,000 miles of railway-if it takes over the Grand Trunk it will own 20,000 miles. These railways operate steamboats, and the whole system is owned by the Government and controlled by Parliament. The freight rates between Port Arthur and the Georgian bay ports are subject to control; the rates between Port Arthur and Montreal can be controlled by the railways. As it has not been shown that there has been any unfairness, I think it would not be in the interest either of the public or of the mercantile marine of this country to have the Bill changed as proposed in the amendment.


James Alexander Robb: The Minister of Railways and I do not always agree, but to-night I find myself exactly in accord with the case as presented by him. The hon. member for East Lam'bton (Mr. Armstrong) may be actuated by the best motives, but I believe in all seriousness that his amendment would injure the very people whom he is hoping to help. As stated by the Minister of Railways, if the amendment moved by the hon. member were adopted, it would perhaps penalize more than any one else the men on the prairies who grow grain for

export and who require to import coal to keep themselves warm in the winter time. I would go a little further than the Minister of Railways who, in my judgment, has recently, as Acting Minister of Customs, done something to increase rates on the Great Lakes. I refer particularly to the removal of the coastal privileges, to reciprocity in shipping. Every restriction that we place upon vessels operating from one Canadian port to another enables the fewer vessels remaining operating upon the Great Lakes to charge the people just a little bit higher rates. If a fixed rate might be made that would be profitable during the summer months, it would be a ruinous rate in November because a vessel cannot be operated at the same cost in November as it can during the summer when conditions of navigation are practically ideal. Rates are affected also by variation in the carrying capacity of vessels. Some vessels are able to carry grain at a lower rate than others and some vessels are able to carry coal at a lower rate than others. The speed of vessels also has an effect upon rates. A vessel that can make the round trip between the head of the lakes and Montreal in seven or eight days can operate much cheaper than the vessel that takes two weeks. If this amendment should go through it would create conditions that the. Minister of Railways said would drive the business to Duluth. That was pointed out to our western friends at one time when they proposed to place certain restrictions on the inspection of grain at Fort William, and they discovered they were only driving the business over to Duluth away from Canadian trade routes. Therefore, I ask my western friends who are more particularly interested to look very carefully into this matter before giving their support to an amendment that will limit the number of vessels seeking cargoes at the head of the Great Lakes, and consequently enable the limited number of vessels to charge a higher rate. It will also discourage the building of new boats. If vessel owners charge rates which, as my hon. friend fears, may be fairly high, they will only be inviting competition and that competition will eventually regulate the rates. For these reasons I find myself in sympathy with the case as presented by the Minister of Railways, and I am compelled to vote against the amendment moved by the hon. member for East Lamb-ton. I believe that if that amendment prevails, it will restrict the carrying capacity of vessels on the Great Lakes, and;

will prevent tramp vessels from going up there seeking cargoes at perhaps a lower rate, whereas the lower rate, should it prevail, will eventually go back into the pockets of the men who grow the grain.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: Coming from a
city situated on one of the Great Lakes, I desire to say something on this question. I unfortunately was not present while the arguments were being put forth in the committee from time to time, as business called me away. The only arguments 1 have heard in favour of vessels being placed under the jurisdiction of the Railway Board are what I have heard here tonight, and no arguments from those who ship or receive goods by water have been produced to-night. Therefore, if persons who ship or receive goods by water are satisfied, I do not see why other persons should complain, and they utterly fail to produce evidence that anybody has suffered on account of the rates. The hon. member for East Lambton seems to be endeavouring to show that rail and water transportation are in the same position. They are in different positions entirely. Railways are established in certain districts and have monopolies of those districts, and if they were not under the jurisdiction of the Railway Board they could charge whatever rates they saw fit, and the Railway Board was appointed for the purpose of controlling those rates. As regards water transportation, the water is there; I can use it; you can use it; anybody who likes can use it. People can charge rates in competition with each other, and if any one is charging a higher rate than is commonly charged, competition will regulate the matter. I have not found any argument produced by the hon. member except in a circular letter that he sent out., and the argument produced there is as hopelessly weak as the argument he has made here to-night to convince any hon. member to vote in support of the amendment. The first paragraph in that circular letter goes on to show that all boats owned by the railway companies are under the Railway Board. It goes on to point out that shippers may take goods or leave them or refuse to call at certain points, or in other words, just do as they like. The hon. member has not undertaken to show that the boats referred to have ever refused to accept goods or have ever taken goods and charged an unreasonable price, but he makes a statement so broad that it would be utterly
impossible to corner him so as to show that there was nothing in his argument. The next paragraph goes on to show that our coastal regulations give our vessels every advantage over foreign vessels and that as far as possible the right has been retained for the use of our vessels. This might have a tendency to increase rates instead of diminishing them, but such has not been the case. The water rates have, I consider, been very low, and I can assure the Committee that there is not in the city of Hamilton, from which I come, a firm which would not vote against the amendment. The next paragraph goes on to cite that the Government has established elevators in the West and has appointed a grain commissioner to grade the farmer's product; that they control the freight rates to Fort William, and when the grain reaches Fort William they are obliged to turn it over to a group of vessel owners who are not under any Government control whatever. The facts in connection with the case are different from what the hon. member has been endeavouring to lead the Committee to believe. The rates charged by the Canadian Pacific on wheat from Regina to Fort William is 15 cents per bushel; that is a distance of 777 miles, and when they turn this grain over to the group of vessel owners referred to, the latter carry the wheat from Fort William to Montreal, about twice the distance, for half the rate charged by the Canadian Pacific from Regina to Fort William. That practically means that the rate on the lakes is 25 per cent of what it is on the railways under the Railway Board. If that be true, and I will challenge the hon. member to contradict it, surely the hon. member does not want a vessel to carry freight for less than'25 per cent of the rate charged by the railways. If he does, he is expecting too much.
There is another clause in this circular sent out by the hon. member in which he says that he thinks the freight rates should be one-third less by water than by rail. I should like to read the last part of Mr Payne's letter on that point:
Speaking broadly, it might be assumed with some degree of soundness that freight rates on our inland waterways are about one-third of that of the railways.
I will now read a letter from the Hamilton branch of the Canadian Manufacturers Association dated May 9, 1919, with reference to the Armstrong amendment:
This matter has been very seriously tik^n up with the Transportation Dept, of the Harnil-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: 

opinion of these men who know the situation thoroughly from a shipping standpoint should be respected. They have given this matter careful thought and consideration, and they find that it is absolutely impossible for the city and district of Quebec to continue in the path of progress upon which they have started if such -an enactment as the one under consideration is passed. I ask the Committee to very carefully view the matter, not only from the local but from the national standpoint, and consider whether or not it is a good thing to stifle the progress and the industry of one of our national ports.


Francis Henry Keefer: On behalf of the city of Port Arthur I ask the Committee to reject this amendment. The people of that city have taken a very active interest in (this proposal both last year and this year. They have studied the question carefully from the standpoint of the vital effect it will have upon their interests. Pott Arthur is dependent upon transportation from ship to railway, and the merchants, shippers, -wholesalers, and other interests of that city, after careful consideration, are unalterably opposed to this legislation and to any interference with the vessel trade. One dislikes to differ with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) in presenting anything to this House because of his particularly genial manner in so doing, but I think -he has not the experience in this matter of those who have always been dealing in ships and in the trade connected therewith. I do not intend reflecting in- any way upon- the Railway Board; but one cannot help thinking that if the railways are brought -into competition with public bodies before the Board on the question as to what rates are t-o prevail, the influence of the railroads in their endeavour to -raise the rates, must necessarily affect the board. A vessel to-day will carry a cargo equal to five train loads. Necessarily the freight rate by rail between the same points must always be much higher for that reason, and it will be to the interest of the railroads to pull up the freight rate by water, and especially in the case of through rates, instead of, by virtue of the competition, pulling it down.
The point made by the hon. member tor Hamilton ('Mr. -Stewart) that you cannot in the case of these vessels have fixed rates is very true. There are times on the lakes when vessels are operating that it becomes either a question of taking freight at a very low rate or taking water ballast. For years

before the war during the summer time we had coal coming from Cleveland to Port Arthur at thirty cents a ton, simply because the vessel owners would rather carry coal at that rate than carry water ballast. How can you have -fixed rates unless those rates are regulated each month of the year? -and then you could not fix the rates definitely for each month according to the business that was offered. Many o-f the wholesalers and dealers in the West bring their goods to Port Arthur and store them there-I have seen acres- of barbed wire so stored

waiting to be handled west in the winter, thus taking advantage of the low summer freight rate by boat. I am perfectly satisfied that if -the Railway Commission is given the power to control the rates on these vessels the result will simply be to destroy competition, to interfere with the freedom that ought to prevail, and will tend to raise the rates. If there is anything the railroads desire it is to get control of the docks and get control, if they can, of the boats, and as long as you have a man who is able to build a boat and who is willing to enter the business and get what freight he can, and can get deliverance at a dock, you need not fear any monopoly as you do in the case of the railroads. I hope the Committee will consider very carefully before it passes any of the amendments suggested.
M-r. CA-S-GRAIN: I would like to say a few words in reference to what the Hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. J. D. Reid) and the hon. member for Quebec (Mr. Power) have said. Coming from the district of Quebec where there is a large amount of traffic being carried by small boats plying between Quebec and lower St. Lawrence ports, I have followed this discussion with a good deal of interest. At nearly every place in my county along the banks of the St. Lawrence, there are five or six of these small boats plying between Quebec and these different places. These vessels have always made such freight and passenger rates as to them seemed fit and proper according to the circumstances and in accordance with the law of supply and demand. If this amendment were put into force these people would be placed in competition with large steamboat companies and also with the railway companies which would iiave the immediate effect of putting nearly every one of the small vessel owners out of business. It has always been deemed wise to leave water transportation free. As far as I am aware there have never been any excessive rates charged and I do not see why this amendment should

be adopted. It is not very often that I vote for the Government, but on the present occasion I find myself under the neces- " sity of voting with the Minister of Railways.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: I have noticed that the amendment has commanded a good deal of attention throughout Canada and that since its first introduction it has been followed by no class of people more closely than by the shippers on our lakes and rivers. It has been suggested to-night that almost every person Who has made representations to this committee or to the House has been opposed to the amendment as brought down. I would remind the committee that the amendments that the hon. member has submitted in the past are different from the amendment which we have before us to-night and that all the arguments which have been made against the amendment seem to be based on the fact that the hon. gentleman fixed a minimum charge in connection with transporting persons and goods over these routes. It was also argued in the special railway committee the other day that should this Government assume the responsibility, through the Railway Board, of establishing rates on the lakes it might interfere with the shipment of grain from Western Canada because the determination of the price in Liverpool depends on the transportation charges. But if we fix the maximum charges we still find ourselves in the position that we have been in in tlie past, namely, that the transportation companies on the lakes may reduce their charges so as to meet the competitive rates for shipment to the Liverpool markets and the West will not be injured by it.
It is to be regretted that we have not before the Committee more facts on which to determine the issue in regard to the regulation of transportation rates by water. But I wish to discuss the matter on general principles. It has been said that a ship, or shipowner, does not require any franchise. If he does not require any franchise, he is that much better off. When a railway corporation gets a franchise, it is put to the expense of costly construction of railways through the length and breadth of the country but the great national highways which we have in addition to the railways are the rivers and lakes. These are highways which have been constructed by the Dominion Government. They have been dredged, canalized; they are guarded in season, they have their buoys placed in them and they have their
lighthouses erected upon them. The Government has also erected, at a cost of many millions of dollars, docks for the purposes of shipping and the charges which have been collected recently are not in any way commensurate with the service which has been rendered. They start out with that great asset without the expenditure of one single dollar on the part of the men who own the ships. Is it too much, ~ then, to ask this Government to go one step farther and say that where they have absolute jurisdiction over the railways they should have some slight jurisdiction over the boats that traverse those waters?
In the United States where there was a demand that water transportation should be reasonably checked by legislation, the same difficulties arose as had arisen in connection with land transportation. We found that they had their pernicious system o>f rebating. We found that one shipper could bid for the goods of different men at different prices and carry on an unfair competition. We found that they would not call at certain ports unless legislation was brought in to compel them to call at these ports. We found that in the United States, until 1916, in so far as inter-state commerce was concerned, they were an absolute law unto themselves and nobody except their own shipping jurisdiction had any authority to regulate them. It has been contended that it would do great harm and occasion a great hardship, to legislate in this matter.
But that is what was done in the United States. In 1916 they introduced in the United States a statute, not, as was suggested in the Committee when this matter was under discussion, as a war measure, but just simply for the purpose of regulating what might be termed a public utility, or what is known to everybody as a common carrier. There were subsequent amendments made to the Act, twice, in 1918, and these amendments were the branches of the law which particularly had reference to the war phase of it. The United States to-day controls its shipping on the Great Lakes, as well as its foreign shipping, under that statute. They have authority whereby they can fix their rates, examine agreements entered into between various companies and whereby they can compel the publication of tariffs of rates in reference to marine transportation.. Every possible evil which arose in connection with railway transportation in the United States arose in connection with water transport*-

tion, and these matters were dealt with by the Shipping Act in 1916.
What is the position with reference to the navigation companies? There can be no iques-tion that not very long ago there were a large number of these companies owning a few small boats on the rivers and lakes. But these independent companies are being absorbed very rapidly by large corporations. We find that the principal of these are the Dominion Marine Association, the Montreal Transportation Company, the Canada Steamships lines, the Great Lakes Transportation Company, the St. Lawrence and Chicago Steam Navigation Company, and the Ottawa Transportation Company.
There is being created in this country a monopoly in connection with our inland - steamship service just as a monopoly was being created in connection with our railways. Although the opposition to this amendment is so loud and so strenuous, because it is feared that the poor shippers will have to pay higher rates, no person can tell this House that when we get a combine and a monopoly of the water transportation companies, such as is growing at the present time, that combine, that monopoly, is being created for the purpose of the reduction of freight rates by water. It is said that we will lose competition, that there will be fewer boats to carry our grain from the West. But, so long as there are a hundred thousand, or a million, or a hundred million, bushels of grain to be carried from the head of the Great Lakes to Buffalo or to Montreal, just so long will there be competition among shippers to carry that grain.
A public service corporation in the form of a common carrier is just as great a public service corporation as we can have in this country, and it should be as amenable to regulation as any other public service body. We are rapidly coming to the time when it requires a great deal of money to organize these transportation bodies. When we have that money placed in them we have created a monopoly by reason of the large investment made for the purpose of carrying on its operations. And when we have such a monopoly in public service work the Government should step in and either take it over or exercise jurisdiction for control of its operations.
It seems to me that there is nothing unreasonable in the amendment, and that this Government could well take a step in a forward direction by at least adopting the amendment and proceeding to establish

maximum rates of transportation charges imposed by these corporations.


William Garland McQuarrie: I am going to support the amendment. In British Columbia we have a coastal service which is practically monopolized by the Union Steamship Company, and that company is taking advantage of ithe situation to discriminate against certain ports of call. I am informed that at one place called Gibson's Landing, which is about thirty miles from Vancouver, some of the residents had a misunderstanding with this company, and by way of retaliation the company cut out the call there. Now, if we had a regulating body for these steamship companies it would be impossible for them to discriminate in that manner. It seems to me that there can be no real objection to the Board of Railway Commissioners having jurisdiction over steamboat companies as well as over railway companies. If railway regulation has proved to be satisfactory-and I think every one admits that that is the case- then why should not similar regulation be satisfactory in the case of water transportation? I am in favour of this resolution.


Mr. J. F. REID:: Several years ago the
Council of Agriculture, on behalf of organized agriculture in the West, made representations to the Federal Government to have lake transportation regulated, and I am sorry to-night, Mr. Chairman, to see the Minister of Railways objecting to this amendment. It is a progressive movement, but our Minister of Railways sees fit to support private corporations-he sees fit to support a large monopoly, for that is what I understand the Canadian Steamship Company to be, and naturally those interested in it very much resent being brought under proper control. As the hon. member for East Lambton stated, he is not asking that the rates be controlled exactly, but that a maximum rate be set; and if steamship companies choose to carry freight at a lower rate than the maximum by all means let them do so means let them do so.
I was very glad to hear that Mr. Car-ruthers when he discovered what kind of a company he was in-this Canada Steamship Company-pulled out to save himself.
The effect of the excessive rates charged on the lakes for the transportation of our wheat to the seaboard has a very adverse effect on business, for it tends to stagnation, and in fact sometimes causes a blockade. When the transaction of selling wheat at Port Arthur takes place the exporter, not knowing the rates he will have to pay

when his grain is shipped out, naturally charges the highest rate that has been in existence, and to make himself absolutely sure he charges a higher rate than what he would need to do if the rates were fixed. Thus this excessive rate which he is obliged to charge affects the producer and also the consumer, and thereby tends to stagnate trade. The wheat is held up in the elevators, which very often are filled to capacity, and all the available box cars are resorted to for storage, and the initial elevators are also congested, simply because the exporter has no guarantee as to the rate he will have to pay on exporting the grain. Not only does it affect the producer of the grain, but it also affects every business man in the country. It is a well known fact that if the farmer cannot sell his produce he cannot pay his debts to the business man, and if the business man does not get his money from the farmer how can he continue in business?
I hope to see this amendment carried. This is not a party government any more, we do not need to wonder what will the party think; what we need to be concerned about is what will the people think of this progressive movement? The hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb), I think, was very anxious lest the westerners freeze in the winter time, and he wanted to see them get their coal supply as cheaply as possible. I venture to say that if the rates were under control, those of us in the West who do use coal brought up to Port Arthur by boat would at least get it as cheap or cheaper than we do today.
The hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Stewart) remarked that the steamships on the lakes get no benefit from the Government. I think he did not mean to say that, because he surely knows that any ship plying on the lakes of Canada has the benefit of the aids to navigation provided by the Government, As has been stated by the hon. member for East Lambton, when the proposed extensions and improvements to navigation are completed they will have [DOT]cost this country over $400,000,000. That enormous expenditure is for the deepening of channels and the construction of canals and locks, and our steamships plying on the lakes will have the benefit and the free use of those aids to navigation. Yet they say:	We get no help from the Government; therefore our rates should not be brought under the control of the State.
This matter affects one of the most important links in our transportation system. We are approaching the time when we shall
be up against the keenest competition on the wheat market at Liverpool that we have ever seen. The countries of the world that were producing wheat in the past will again turn to that production, and Western Canadian wheat must be subjected to such a very 'long haul both by rail and by water, that if the rates are not cut down to an equitable basis we shall not be able to compete with our wheat on the markets of the world. The Committee should be very careful in considering this proposed amendment; the matter is of vital importance not only to the farmers of Western Canada and to the businessmen .as well, but to the Dominion as a whole. It is our surplus products that will eventually pay our huge debt.


Edmund James Bristol: There have been one or two statements in connection with this discussion which, I think, in the interests of the people should be cleared up in the minds of a few hon. members. I do not think it necessary to clear them up in the minds of business men, because I do not know of any Board of Trade, any shipper, any elevator man, any grain man, or any man who is interested in the .shipping of the country in a practical way and has an accurate knowledge of shipping conditions in Canada, who has either made a complaint or expressed a desire for this legislation. Therefore it is only fair to say to my hon. friend (Mr. J. F. Reid) that there are one or two facts which the people to whom I have referred know much better than I do, and which I think it is proper to present for his consideration. One of them is this. The price of the wheat of the world is fixed at Liverpool. All wheat meets there, whether it comes from the Argentine, from Canada, or from the United States. Wheat from the Canadian West has to go to Liverpool, and it is in the public interest that it get there as cheaply as possible. There are two routes which it can take: via Buffalo and New York, or via Port Colborne and Montreal. That is the first competition that is presented to every shipping company that is not controlled by a railroad corporation; and they have to beat that Buffalo-New York route if they are to ship via Montreal. Let me tell you why. The rate of freight from New York to Liverpool has always determined the rate from Montreal to Liverpool. To meet that rate the Canadian boats, have to beat the Buffalo-New York rate; they have to get to Montreal cheaper if they are to pay the addi-


Richard Coe Henders: We have reached the time in the history of Canada when public utilities are in a large measure coming

under public supervision or control. So far as I can see, no valid reason has been presented to-night for not bringing shipping rates under control of the Railway Commission. Years ago it was found absolutely necessary in the interest of transportation to bring railway rates under the control of the Federal Government. Every argument that has been used here to-night against the bringing of the shipping interests under the control of the Government was used at that time against the bringing of the railways under that control. We have had years .of experience with railways under government control through the board that is now operating, and we have no complaint against that control. Everybody is of the opinion, I believe, that it was a good thing in the interest of Canada that transportation by rail was brought under the supervision of the Railway Board.


James Alexander Robb: How much more does it cost to carry a bushel of grain from Fort William to Montreal than it did three years ago?


Richard Coe Henders: When I am through, the hon. member may ask his question. I want to present my argument and the hon. member has had an opportunity of presenting his. Every argument that was used in favour of bringing the railways under the jurisdiction of the Railway Board might be and has been reasonably put forward to-night why we should bring the shipping interests under some similar control. Now that we have tested out the value of control by the Railway Board, I believe we are quite safe in asking also that our water transportation mediums might be brought under similar control.
A great deal has been said to-night about fixing rates, and it was said that by fixing rates you preclude shipping companies from any right they might wish to exercise of carrying goods at a lower rate than the rate fixed. If it was a fixed rate, then the argument would hold good, but when it is not a fixed rate, but a maximum rate we are asking for, there is no argument in the statement. Ships can lower their rates as much as they see fit; all we ask is that there be a maximum rate beyond which they cannot go. Therefore, all that has been said along the line of interfering with railways reducing rates in order to get business, does not obtain here at all, and there is no argument in it.
Four years ago this matter came under consideration in the West. The interests
represented by the producers of one of the most important commodities we have to ship in this country gave careful consideration to this question at the time. They passed resolutions urging that the Government of Canada should bring Canadian shipping interests under the control of some board, and a request made by a large producing interest like that should have consideration. There are two classes of people affected directly by the control of rates; one is the producer and the other is the consumer. I claim that the producing interests of Canada are practically a unit in asking for the fixing of a maximum rate. I claim further that the great consuming interests of Canada are largely behind those asking for the fixing of a maximum rate. The resolutions that have come here have come from boards of trade, from manufacturing associations and from wholesalers. These are people occupying a middle position, and it matters vety little to them what attitude they take as regards fixing of rates. It affects them very little whether the rate is increased or not, because all they have to do is to add the increase to the cost of the goods and pass it on to the consumer. Both the producer and the consumer who are affected by the fixing of rates are largely if not entirely in favour of the amendment, and 1 therefore desire to urge as strongly as I can upon the Government the imports anee of giving careful consideration to this amendment. If the Government vote against this amendment, this will be another case where the statement may toe made that the high cost of living is not being dealt with sympathetically by them.
Mr. G. B. NICHOLsON: The hon. member for Toronto Centre( Mr. Bristol) put his finger on the pulse of the situation as regards the steamship companies when he said that what they wished to maintain was a flexibility in rates. If that is interpreted in another way, it means that the steamship companies wish to be in a position which will enable them to discriminate between shippers and to quote to shippers that are within the circle a rate that they will not give to those who are without. It just narrows the water-borne traffic situation down to this, that no man in business anywhere in Canada to-day can undertake to enter into a contract for the delivery of a commodity anywhere in Canada if it has to be transported by water, and know that he is going to get transportation at all or that he is going to get it within a certain radii of rates, because at the time

the goods are ready to be shipped, he is absolutely at .the mercy of the steamship companies. The hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Stewart) challenged the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) to cite an instance where discrimination had taken place or where a steamship company had failed to carry out its contract. I can cite a case where a steamship company entered into a contract to transport a large volume of freight, and because, in the interim between the time the contract was signed and the time the goods were to be transported, conditions had developed that made it possible for them to get any rate they asked, they repudiated their contract notwithstanding the fact that by so doing they placed the shipper of those goods in a position that meant ultimate bankruptcy. I know perfectly well the hon. member will say that the shipper had his recourse in the courts. That is true, and the shipper took recourse and the case has been before the courts for four years, and I anticipate that in all human probability it will be before the courts for as long a time as the steamship company can keep it there. In the meantime what about the goods that have to be transported? The situation in connection with the transportation on the Upper Lakes narrows down to this, to say nothing of rates, that the shipper is at the mercy of one or two large transportation companies that will take his freight if it suits them to take it and that will leave it on the docks if it does not suit them to take it, and there is no possible means by which the shipper can get redress.
After we have spent $400,000,000 in developing a waterway for the transportation of the commerce of this country, and large sums to protect that waterway for the steamers, it is only fair to the shippers that there should be some control over the rates in order that the steamship 'companies should not be permitted to do just as they like. I do not intend to enter into the question of the profits that have been made, but anybody who knows conditions on the Great Lakes knows that there has been a tremendous increase in the rates on the Upper Lakes from 1914 onwards. We hear a great deal about the increase of thirty-five to forty per cent in railway rates, but I know instances where there was an increase in water rates of 200 per cent on a certain commodity within four or five months during 1915-1(5. I cannot see any logical reason why the amendment of the hon. member for East Lambton should not carry. I am not sufficiently expert to know whether

all the details are as they should be, but the principle involved is simply this: That we have as much right to control waterborne traffic as we have to control railway traffic, and I have no doubt whatever that the Railway Commission could work out the details so as to do justice to all concerned.
Amendment (Mr. J. E. Armstrong) negatived; yeas 36, nays 61.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	-
On section 210-prior contracts:
Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Mackie) has moved to amend this section by adding after the word "agreement" in the fifth line, the following words, " or notice thereof by caveat or otherwise."


John Dowsley Reid: I have no objection to the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended, agreed to.
John Dowsley Reid: We have just one other section to consider, No. 374, which I shall ask the Committee to consider on Wednesday of next week.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-WAYS AND MEANS-SUPPLY BILL.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
William Thomas White: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $28,933,622.56 being one-sixth of the amount of each item set forth in the Main Estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1920, not yet adopted, .be granted to His Majesty for the year ending 31st March, 1020.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, resolution reported, read the first and second time, and concurred in.
The House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Resolutions concurred in.
On motion of Sir Thomas White, the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Sir THOMAiS WHITE moved:
Resolved, that towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1920, the sum of $148,211,640.39 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

Sir Thomas White moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 123 to provide for His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1920.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and second time, considered in Committee, reported, and read the third time and passed.
On the motion of 'Sir THOMAS 'WHITE the House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
Friday, May 30, 1919