1919-05-16

SENATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Mary Ann Scheib.-Mr. Fripp.
TMr. Carve 11.1
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Vernon Balm Bailey.-Mr. McCurdy.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Mont-morency):: I wish to draw the attention of the Government to this startling headline [DOT] which appears in the Montreal Gazette this morning: " Winnipeg sees general strike in full effect-27,000 workers quit in sympathy with metal men-minister powerless-bakers, firemen, postal employees and railway shopmen among those out." The Minister of Labour is reported as saying that the Government can do nothing in the matter. I should like to know what steps the Government are going to take in view of the extraordinary circumstances, and what action will be taken to prevent the recurrence of strikes on such a huge scale in the future. I remember that when there was a little disturbance in the city of Quebec last year the military forces were called out, and I think this is the proper time


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member is perfectly in order in asking a question, but he is out of order in referring to anything that may have occurred last year.
"Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Labour): The Minister of Labour has been closely in touch with the situation at Winnipeg during the past ten days. He is being advised of events from moment to moment, and he is ready at all times to do everything he can in the circumstances.


Mr. J. A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Hunting-don):: Has the Government any statement to make with regard to the strike of postal employees at Winnipeg?
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (for Postmaster General): Nearly all the postal employees in the Winnipeg post office have gone out on a sympathetic strike in accordance with the action taken by the labour organizations in Winnipeg. The Government considers that such action on the part of the postal employees is entirely without justification. We are advised that efforts are being made to intimidate the employees who are still faithful to the public service. The Government will stand absolutely behind all the employees who are performing their duty in the service of the Government and in the administration of the post office in Winnipeg.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): I understand that a number of the employees

of the railways and telegraphs are also on strike. Has the Government any information as to their grievance?


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways):: I have received no information from the officials at Winnipeg.



ROYAL NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE ACT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Newton W. Rowell (President of the Privy Council) the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Act, chapter ninety-one of the Revised Statutes, 1906, and to provide,-
1.	That all members of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Force on active service in the naval, miliitary or air forces of His Majesty during the European war, which began in August, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, shall, for the purposes of pension for service in the said Force under the said Act, be entitled to have such active service counted as service in the said Police Force: Provided,
(a)	that the amount of any pension, gratuity or allowance which any member of the said Force receives or is entitled to receive or apply for, in respect of any injury received by him while serving in the military, naval or air forces aforesaid, shall be deducted from any pension, gratuity or allowance to which such member would be entitled under the said Act, other than a pension for years of service, irrespective of any infirmity of mind or body or bodily injury;
and,
(b)	that no widow or child of any such member who received or is entitled to receive or apply for, any pension, annuity, gratuity or allowance in consequence of the death, incapacity or injury of any such member while serving in the forces aforesaid, shall be entitled to any pension, annuity or allowance under the said Act.
2.	That in case of the re-appointment or reengagement in the Force of any person who was a member of the Force, and who, subsequent to the fourth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, resigned or purchased or otherwise obtained his discharge from the Force for the purpose of serving in the military, naval or air forces of His Majesty during the said European war, and who served therein, the period of such service in such forces shall, for the purposes of pension only under the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Act, be deemed to have been served in the Force, and in any such case such member shall be repaid any money paid by him to purchase such discharge.
3.	That the rates of pay as fixed by chapter forty-seven of the statutes of 1913, be increased as follows:-
"Eight staff sergeants, each per diem. . $3 00 Other staff sergeants, each per diem . 2 50 Other non-oommissioned officers, per diem	
Constable, per diem	$1 75
Scouts, per diem		250
Trumpeters and buglers, under eighteen
years of age, per diem	 l 25
Working pay to artisans and others
specially employed, per diem. ...	0 75"
. That the Governor in Council may authorize extra pay to be paid to members of the Force employed as detectives, to those serving in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, and for a period of five years from the first day of June, 1919, to any other member of the Force.
5.	That an officer who is retired compulsorily for any cause other than misconduct or inefficiency after ten years' service, shall be entitled to a pension for life, not exceeding one-fiftieth of the pay and allowances of his rank or permanent appointment at the time of hie retirement for each completed year of service.
6.	That the Governor in Council may, as to him seems fit, grant a pension to the widow and a compassionate allowance to each of the children of any officer who, having completed twenty years' service, was at the time of his death on full pay, or who, having completed ten years' service, is at the time of his death in receipt of a pension.
7.	That the pension of a widow shall be,-
(a)	if her husband was at the time of his
death on full pay, an amount equal to onehalf of the pension to which he would have been entitled if he had been retired compulsorily immediately before his death; or,
(b)	if he was on pension, an amount equal to one-half of such pension.
8.	That pensions to widows heretofore granted under the provisions of the said Royal Northwest Mounted Police Act may be readjusted in accordance with the provisions of these resolutions, but no such readjustment shall authorize the increase of any payments for pension that accrued before the passing of the Act based upon these resolutions.
9.	That every constable who is a member of the Force at the time of the passing of the Act based upon these resolutions, or who hereafter becomes a member of the Force, shall be entitled, upon retirement, to a pension for life, as follows:-
(a)	if he has completed ten but less than twenty-one years' service, one-fiftieth of his annual pay and allowances for every year of service:
(b)	if he has completed twenty-one but less than twenty-five years' service, an annual sum equal to twenty-fiftieths of his annual pay and allowances, with an addition of two-fiftieths of such pay and allowances for every completed year of service above twenty years;
(c)	if he has completed twenty-five years' service, an annual sum equal to thirty-fiftieths of his annual pay and allowances, with an addition of one-fiftieth of such pay and allowances for every completed year of service above twenty-five years; Provided, that the pension shall not exceed two-thirds of his annual pay at his retirement. But for the purpose of estimating any such pension, neither working pay nor extra pay of any man shall be considered.
10.	That the Governor in Council may authorize the Commissioner to appoint, by warrant under his hand, such officers and men, who have served in the Force, to be a Reserve, to be known as the " Royal Northwest Mounted Police Reserve,"
2 25
[Stage Direction]
(a)	such officer or man when called up for duty to hold the rank and draw the pay which he received on the date of his retirement or discharge from Force; and,
(b)	any member when called up for training for a period not exceeding seven days in any one year, to receive the same rate of pay as when called up for duty.
Mr. ROWELL:: The members of the Committee will see that this resolution gives effect to the policy I announced the other evening when the Estimates for the Royal Northwest Mounted Police were being considered. The first section provides that the time in which any member of the Force may have served in the overseas forces shall count for the purposes of pension. Under the Mounted Police Act as it now stands the members of the Force become entitled to a pension on retiring after twenty years' service. A large number of the members of the Force were granted leave of absence without pay to serve overseas, and others retired or purchased their discharge for this purpose. Our view is that all who withdrew from the Force in order to go overseas, if they intend to resume their place in the Force should have the time they spent overseas counted in estimating the amount of their pension. Provisos (a) and (b) are to ensure that for a disability suffered in the service overseas for which they are entitled to a pension under the general pension law applying to all who served overseas in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, they shall not be entitled to a pension under the Mounted Police Act. This, of course, does not affect the pension for length of service.
Section 3 provides the statutory authority for the increase in pay which I intimated to the House had already been granted to the Force last year under Order in Council.


Mr. BUREAU:: What is the percentage of increase granted?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The amount is fifty cents per day for constables and n.c.o.'s. As the Statute stood, before the Order in Council was passed, the rate of pay for the men for the first year was $1 a day, for the second year $1.10, and for the third year $1.25, the maximum being $1.25. This increases the maximum to $1.75, and the same ratio of increase will continue as before.


Mr. A. THOMPSON:: How much extra pay do the officers and men serving in the Yukon territory receive?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Under the present Act it is as follows: Officers, $1.25; staff ser-
geants and sergeants, 75c; corporals and constables, 50c.
Section 5 of the resolution changes the law in reference to the period of service to earn a pension. At the present time if a mounted policeman retires after twenty years of service he becomes entitled to a pension on account of length of service. This section will permit of a pension being granted after only ten years service, under the conditions mentioned therein.
Sections 6, 7 and 8 deal with the pensions of officers' widows, making provision for some increase. Section 9 deals with the pensions of private members of the force and non-commissioned officers. At present the officer's pension is based on pay and allowance, and this is to put the pension of the private in the Royal Northwest Mounted Police on the same basis. Section 10 of the resolution provides for creating the reserve to which I referred the other evening, that is, the reserve of the men who have served in the force and have retired from it.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



BANKRUPTCY ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Solicitor General)., Bill No. 18; respecting Bankruptcy, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce), Bill No. 74, to amend the Fertilizers Act, 1909, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways), Bill No. 93 (from the Senate), to amend the Railway Act (Location of Railways), was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-R.S., c. 37, ss. 157 and 159 amended:
John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps I may explain the purpose of this Bill. In the Railway Bill which is before the Special Committee these clauses have been changed so as to vest in the Board of Railway Commissioners the authority to approve of route maps, this authority having in the past been' exercised by the minister. When a charter was granted by the House for the incorporation * of a railway, before they could proceed with the construction of the railway a route map

had to be approved of by the minister. We now purpose to change that to provide that the Board of Bailway Commissioners shall have this ipower of [DOT]approval. It is the intention to have this Bill put through in case the regular Bailway Bill does not pass at this session. I should like to have this Bill go through the Committee now and put down for third reading, and if the Bailway Bill now before the special committee were passed I would not proceed further with this Bill. In the event of the Bailway Act not being passed at this session, we are desirous to provide that the . authority for approving of route maps shall be placed in the hands of the railway commissioners. The reason for this is that practically speaking there are only two railway systems in Canada, and it is advisable that the Board of Bailway Commissioners should decide on the route maps to be approved of. The Government railway or the Canadian Pacific railway might be involved and there might be a conflict of two interests.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 159-sanction by board:
Mr. McMASTEB:: Suppose the Bailway Bill now before the special committee does not go through, would we not have to examine this Bill with the same care? Should we not examine it with the care that would be exercised if it were certain that the Bail way Bill would not go through? .


John Dowsley Reid: Under the Bailway Act as it now stands the Canadian Pacific railway or the Canadian National railways before they can proceed must come to the Minister of Bailways and get his approval of the route map. The only difference that is now contemplated is to provide that instead of coming to the minister the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National or the Grand Trunk or any other private companies will go to the Board of Bailway Commissioners who will look into the whole situation and give their approval. I think the Eailway Bill will go through this session; at least I hope it will, in which event I shall not move the third reading of this Bill. However, if the Bailway Bill does not go through I have no objection to having this referred back to the Committee in order to have it more closely examined if it is deemed fit.


Mr.   BUBEAU@: Do I understand that
these clauses are an exact repetition of the
clauses contained in the new Bill which has
been considered by the special committee?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not compared
the clauses closely, but I instructed Mr. Gisborne, the Parliamentary Counsel, to see that they were identical. If we have to go any further with this Bill I will look into the matter closely and explain the situation. Then we can go into Committee again if necessary.


Mr. CAHILL:: What difficulty does the
Government anticipate in connection with the new Eailway Bill? It contains only a few contentious clauses, and the closure is in good working form, so that if any difficulties arise the Government can overcome them. Why should there be any hesitation in applying the gag in the case of this Bill, which is a Government measure, when there was no hesitation in invoking the closure on an earlier occasion?


John Dowsley Reid: I have no doubt at all about the Bill going through this year as reported from the Committee in some form. I am not able to apply the gag to the Senate, otherwise there would be no difficulty in passing the Bill as it leaves this House. The trouble is that when we send it to the Senate they may not pass it in the form in which it leaves the Commons. That was the difficulty two or three years ago; this House agreed unanimously on the form the Bill was to take, but when it reached the Senate they amended it there, and we could not get it through in the shape in which we wanted it. If I was sure that Senate would pass the Bill in the form jn which it leaves us, there would be no difficulty whatever.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, and Bill reported.
PIUDSON BAY AND STRAIT®.

Georges Henri Boivin: I have the
honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate re-i questing that the House permit Hon. F.. iCochrane, one of its members, to attend and give evidence before the special committee of the Senate appointed to take evidence and report at this session upon the navigability and fishery resources of the Hudson bay and straits, and upon the character of ports .of said Hudson bay with regard to their fitness as railway terminals.



DOMINION WATER-POWERS ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) Bill No. 94, respecting Dominion Water-Powers was read a second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2, paragraph (a)-Definition of " Dominion Water-powers."
Andrew Ross McMaster: Did the minister set forth the purpose of this Bill on the first reading? I do not remember his having done so.


Jacques Bureau: Even so, we are entitled to further information.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: At present the Interior Department embraces - a Water-Powers Branch, which has for some years been engaged in the administration of water-powers under the authority of section 35 of the Dominion Lands Act. That section is for administrative purposes, brief and inadequate. Other countries administering water-powers have been driven to the enactment of comprehensive basic legislation. We are following -their example by this Bill. The terms of the measure are easily discernible by its perusal, because it consists in no sense of amendments; it is complete in- itself. The Bill simply declares what the property of the Dominion is, and what the authority of this Government in relation to that property shall be, as regards water-powers and everything incidental to water-powers, and determines the principle upon which those water-powers shall be administered.


Mr. MURPHY:: The definition of " water-powers " in this section suggests that the control of the administration of water-powers may be under some other branch or department of the Government than the Interior Department. Is that the fact, or is it intended that all water-powers in respect of which this Government may exercise jurisdiction will be under the department presided over by the hon. Minister of the Interior?


Arthur Meighen: They are all under the Department of the Interior.


Jacques Bureau: Could the minister give us a concrete instance of "water-powers" which are the property of Canada, and which have been or may be placed under the control and management of the Minister of the Interior? The definition is:

" Dominion water-powers " means any water powers on lands of the Dominion, or any other water-powers, etc.
Is there an instance of any other waterpower coming under the control of the Minister of the Interior?


Arthur Meighen: The reason for the insertion of that phrase is this:	If possible
the Federal Government may at some time, obtain jurisdiction over waters where it does not own- the bed of the stream-that is the land underneath. It is further conceivable that the bed of the stream may have been . parted with, reserving the rights in the stream itself. That is to say the Government may have parted with the bed, or surface rights, and not have parted with the jurisdiction of the stream itself, in which event the water-powers would still be ours.


Jacques Bureau: That seems a queer condition of things. What purpose could be served by any one getting the bed of the river itself unless they might acquire servitude, or some such right, for the purpose of erecting a public dock or pier, or running a pipe underneath the stream? I do not see that this is a case where that is liable to happen, and I would like the minister to instance a case where a Government, or any individual, parts with the bed of a river and reserves the right to the water. As far as navigable rivers are concerned, we know exactly where we stand in this country as to the ownership of the bed of those rivers and the control of the flow of water.


Arthur Meighen: -Supposing, for example, a company, or a person acquired the bed of a stream for the purpose of taking out -sand or gravel, or exercising quarrying rights; those rights would be quite valuable without the rights to the stream itself. I am not aware of any instance where that has been done, but the draughtsman- who prepared the Bill believed it was quite possible, in which event the jurisdiction and ownership of the power rights in the stream would still be vested in the Dominion. It has been the practice for some time to exclude the bed and shore of waters or streams from ordinary land grants, but there might be land grants where the bed and shore were not excluded but the stream itself was.


Jacques Bureau: Would the term " waterpower " include streams and everything of the kind where no power could be generated? I do not know the conditions in certain provinces, but where the water-powers on any rivers are exploited I do not think

it would be to the advantage of any man to lease the bed of the river to get sand or gravel which might be under the rapids or falls.
Mr. MEIGHE.N: The grant might be made over an extended area and there might be a fall in that area. The water-power must be of commercial possibility.


Jacques Bureau: That explanation would not cover the present case, because waterpower is described here in this way:-
(g) " Water-power " shall include any force or energy of whatever form or nature contained in or capable of being produced or generated from any flowing or falling water in such quantity as to make it of commercial value.
It is very improbable that any man who is going to lease or buy the bed of a river for the purpose of getting gravel or sand would do it where there were rapids. Take these words:-
Or any other water-powers which are the property of Canada and which have been or may be placed under the control and management of the Minister of the Interior ;
How can these water-powers be placed under the control or management of the minister? If the Government buy them, all right. We know that anything purchased by the Dominion of Canada is the property of the Dominion-except the Canadian National railway ! I do not see how we become owners unless there be a specific case, and I would ask the minister to explain why these words are inserted?


Arthur Meighen: I am not arguing that this is of vital consequence, because I do not think there are likely to be many, if, indeed, there are any. But it cannot do any harm, because the power must be ours or the definition will not cover it. In the Yukon, ownership of the bed might be given for mining purposes, but not ownership of the stream rights; that is quite possible. The instance that I gave before of grants of land for the purpose of taking out sand and gravel might be over an extended area on much of which there would be no waterpower at all. I know, for example, of grants made for that purpose in Ontario, but I do not recall one for the moment in the provinces where we own the water-powers.


Frank S. Cahill: Has the Government now any water-powers except those acquired from private individuals ot the provinces? For instance, I understand the water-powers of the eastern provinces are the property of the provinces, that is, they own the land. How do you acquire these powers, or what powers have you in mind?
160	,	;	.;>
'art
Take the case of Dominion ownership of land in Saskatchewan on the Saskatchewan river where power would be developed, would that give you ownership of the power at that point?


Arthur Meighen: We do not need to have them given to us, we have them now. All
water-powers of the three Prairie Provinces are the property of the Dominion; they are included in the term " natural resources," and they are administered now under the Dominion water-powers management and have been for many years. Also the water-powers in the railway belt are our property, but by virtue of two statutes the right of administration of these powers was ceded to the province of British Columbia, for the reason that the strip of land was narrow and the streams frequently ran in the delta owned by the Dominion as well as in land in the provincial jurisdiction. So an arrangement had to be arrived at.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: This Act does not apply then to the eastern provinces at all? In what case would it apply to the province of Nova Scotia, for instance?


Arthur Meighen: The Act has no substan tial application to the eastern provinces. I purpose adding a clause which will form the statutory authority and basis for the work we are now doing in reference to water-powers in the eastern provinces-work that we only can do by agreement with the provincial governments. That is really the only clause that has much interest for the eastern provinces.


James Alexander Robb: The Dominion has water-powers on every canal throughout Canada. These water-powers are under the Department of Railways and Canals, some of them being leased on the basis of ninety-nine years, and others on the basis of twenty-one years, with right of renewal. If I understand this Act aright, the minister will have power to take over all these water-powers from the Department of Railways and Canals, and then they will be administered under this Act. Is that correct?


Arthur Meighen: Yes; in fact that could be done to-day without this Act at all. Any administrative responsibility of a department may be taken over by another department. But it is not the intention to transfer the administration of canal water-powers to the Interior Department; that has never even been considered.


Jacques Bureau: Water-powers generated by the construction of canals which are now



under the control or jurisdiction of the Department of Railways and Canals are Dominion water-powers under this Act?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think so.


Jacques Bureau: How are they classified?


Arthur Meighen: Because they are not under the control and management of the Minister of the Interior.


Jacques Bureau: Unless we decide that water-powers generated as the result of constructing a canal are not water-powers under this Act, an exception ought to be made.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the hon. gentleman has read the definition clearly. They are not Dominion water-powers under the definition of this Act until they are vested in the Minister of the Interior. So this definition does not include any waterpower on a canal.


Jacques Bureau: Then the water-powers will not he under the same department.


Arthur Meighen: No; they are not now. This makes no change.


Jacques Bureau: What is the object of the Act?


Arthur Meighen: The object of the Act is mainly to establish the principles of statutory authority for the administration of such water-powers as are on Dominion lands, or any other water-powers the administration of which may hereafter be vested in the Department of the Interior.


Jacques Bureau: Has not the Interior Department at the present time authority to administer all those water-powers which are on Dominion lands?


Arthur Meighen: It has under section 35 of the Dominion Lands Act, which section has in many respects proved inadequate for the proper administration of these powers. For instance, section 35 does not enable the Department of the Interior or the Government at all to exercise any control over the appurtenances to water-power, over the transmission of the power developed, over the provision of dams, the securing of land necessary, and all such requisites. The very purpose of this Act is to provide for a more complete utilization of Dominion water-powers.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that the powers of the Department of the Interior as defined by section 35 do not go far enough to permit the acquiring of these

lands or the development of these powers by that department?


Arthur Meighen: They do not.


Jacques Bureau: What about the general Expropriation Act, which vests power in the Government to acquire lands necessary for the carrying out of any public work?


Arthur Meighen: Even if the Dominion does assume the business management of a water-power development, the clauses of the Expropriation Act are not adequate for the purpose. But it is not worth arguing whether they are or not, because the powers of the Expropriation Act do not apply where the Dominion- does not expropriate, but leases the power subject to certain conditions, and the expropriation right is required by the lessee. These are. some of the restraints under' which water-power administration has laboured; we require that these restraints be removed. We simply desire the establishment of an adequate statutory basis upon which the administration may proceed.


Jacques Bureau: This Act allows the Dominion Government to do what any private company may do, lease or develop waterpower, and have all the rights inherent thereto. Is there a provision in this Act that will vest in the lessee from the Government power to expropriate?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. Of course, he cannot do so under the Expropriation Act, because he is a private person and must go before the ordinary courts. But he may set expropriation proceedings in motion under the Railway Act, with the authority of the Governor in Council.


Jacques Bureau: There is provision for that here?	.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: What department of the
Government controls the waters along the rapids of St. Lawrence and at the foot of lake Ontario, where there are vast water-powers?


Arthur Meighen: I am not sure that I can give a very satisfactory answer to that question. The Department of the Interior, as a department, has no administrative responsibility in the St. Lawrence river. If works were to be constructed, then it would be determined whether they were under the Public Works Department or under the Department of Railways and Canals. But as regards the power features

of these works, which are inextricably linked up with the navigation features, the Dominion Power Board, of which I am chairman, is constituted for the purpose of advising the Government in relation to water-power development.


James Alexander Robb: Will the Department of the Interior have any administrative responsibility in regard to power on the St. Lawrence river after the passing of this Act?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Charles Murphy: The doubt my hon. friend expressed seems to relate only as to which department of the Dominion Government these powers along the St. Lawrence are under. The doubt does not extend, I take it, to the question whether the jurisdiction is of the Dominion or of the provinces.


Arthur Meighen: I did not touch that point at all. The Dominion is concerned inasmuch as the stream is an international stream, and any arrangements that would require to be made of an international character would necessarily have to be made by the Dominion. That is one subject. As to the question whether the powers so developed should belong to the province or to the Dominion, I made no statement.


John Howard Sinclair: Suppose the stream was not an international stream. It is contended by some that the ebb and flow of the tide in the bay of Fundy twice a day constitutes a very important water-power. The bay of Fundy, of course, is a navigable water. Has the Dominion Government power to regulate that water-power or to give to any person the right to develop it, or would an applicant for such right have to go to the province of Nova Scotia?


Arthur Meighen: The question which the hon. member raises has no reference to the present Bill, which deals with water-powers on lands owned by the Dominion. The Dominion's interest in respect of, say, the bay of Fundy or the St. Lawrence river arises primarily from its jurisdiction, its sole responsibility, in connection with navigation. But any improvements looking to navigation in a river or a bay where water-powers are developed is necessarily mixed up with water-power development; consequently the Dominion cannot keep out. That is the primary source of interest we have in the whole thing. As to whom the power should belong to, the province or the Dominion, that is a subject that I think the Committee should not now be led into.


John Howard Sinclair: That is the question I want answered.
I60i


Jacques Bureau: I want to be quite clear about this definition. Two things are required, first that the water-powers be on Dominion lands; second, that they be under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. Water-powers owned by the Dominion under other conditions than these would not be considered as Dominion water-powers?


Arthur Meighen: No.


James Alexander Robb: In section 3 I notice that
an exception is made of British Columbia. Why is that?


Arthur Meighen: On account of the Dominion Railway Belt Water Acts of 1912 and 1913, which divest the Dominion of its authority to administer the water-powers of the railway belt and places that administration under provincial authority.


James Alexander Robb: The Fraser river would
come in there?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: Are there any developed water-powers which come under this Act?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes, we have very large developments in Western Canada that will be directly under this Act. All the water-powers, for example, that supply Winnipeg city with power. The Grand du Bonnet power in the Winnipeg river is now being developed. About 100,900 horsepower is now developed there, and about
400,000	horse-power is still to be developed.


Frank S. Cahill: Those water-powers are still vested in the Dominion Government?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-application of Act:
Jacques Bureau: What is the particular reason for excepting British Columbia from the operation of this measure?


Arthur Meighen: Because the British Columbia Government administer the water-powers on the railway belt, as well as the other water-powers of that province. They do so under authority of this Parliament vested in them by the statutes named in the section.


Jacques Bureau: Is there any definition of the word "lands"? Would that comprise the bed of any river which would be required and which, as explained just now by the minister, had been leased or disposed of ?


Arthur Meighen: I think the Bill covers all previous grants of water-powers as well

as any grant since the passing of the statutes mentioned in the section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-title to water-powers in Crown:	,
Frank S. Cahill: Why is this declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada?


Arthur Meighen: In order to establish Dominion jurisdiction without question. That is to say, there is no doubt at all that jurisdiction in the Dominion is complete so far as our ownership goes, but by de-i daring that an undertaking that now is or may be formed to he a work for the general advantage of Canada, our jurisdiction is extended to anything within the definition of the word " undertaking," and consequently our control is extended also.


Frank S. Cahill: What purpose can be served ? Is it for the development and distribution in towns or for the transmission of power?


Arthur Meighen: The only way in
which water-powers may be usefully and properly administered is by the administering body having jurisdiction ample enough to extend not only over the power itself, but over everything connected with that power development and the transmission and distribution that follow. You cannot sever jurisdiction and at the same time have adequate and successful administration of the power. I do not think it would be asked on the part of the province that the jurisdiction should be so severed. If the administration of the power itself, the mere waterfall, the mere energy that the waterfall develops, is to be under one Government and everything else under another, successful administration is impossible. The purpose of this section, and, in fact, of the whole Bill-and this is merely in harmony with the rest of the Bill-is to extend the jurisdiction of the Dominion in order to enable it adequately to administer the power itself. The word " ur. lertaking," as defined in section 2, is made a work for the general advantage of Canada, thereby extending the jurisdiction of the Dominion to the full extent of that definition.


Frank S. Cahill: If the Government disposed of power under this, would the power carry the same character as if it were developed by the Government itself?


Arthur Meighen: If the Government disposes of power it does so in accordance with this measure; it does not do so by granting

a fee simple; it does so by lease, subject to such terms and conditions as may
4 p.m. be imposed. The terms and conditions necessarily have to do with the distribution of the power developed, that is to say, with the undertaking. This section establishes our jurisdiction to make those terms and conditions.


Frank S. Cahill: I do not know that I made my question clear. At least I do not understand the answer. Supposing the Government disposes of one of these powers or leases it for, say, ninety-nine years, or whatever the term may be, would the company acquiring the power be declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada?


Arthur Meighen: The company would not be, but the works would.


Frank S. Cahill: The company would control the works that were declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister mentioned
the distribution. Would this give such a company the right to distribute power without the consent of municipalities? It certainly gives them the right to go through municipalities with transmission lines.


Arthur Meighen: This would not give
them any rights except the lease itself. They would have any rights of water-powers vested in them by the lease. In fact, I do not think any right of distribution would be given at all. Conditions of distribution would be imposed, and no rights that I can conceive of now would be granted.


Jacques Bureau: In the interpretation
clause, I do not see any definition of the term "water-power", except that the term "Dominion water-power" is defined. Section 4 says:
The property in and the right to the use ot all water-power is hereby declared-
And so on. Would it not be better to insert the word " Dominion " before the word " water-power?" The term " all waterpower " is pretty broad.


Arthur Meighen: It might be just as well. After all, the intention was that water-powers would be limited by clause 3, which defines what the Bill applies to, and that clearly says that it applies to Dominion water-powers. I would agree that the word "Dominion" should be inserted.


Jacques Bureau: I move that in section 4 the words "water-power is" at the end of the first line be struck out, and the words

"Dominion water-powers are," be substituted therefor, and that the word " power " in the fourth line be Changed to " powers."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 5-essential lands also remain Crown property.
Jacques Bureau: That would cover the bed of a river, I suppose.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes. I beg to move that the words "right of entry" be inserted in line 25 after the word "permit."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: Does the minister think that the Dominion has control over the beds of streams that are not navigable?


Arthur Meighen: Only in the three Prairie Provinces. My statement did not refer to any other province.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-expropriation of private lands where required by the Crown.


Mr. PARENT:: Does the minister think this would cover non-navigable streams?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. If it happened that part of the bed of a river of a nonnavigable stream was required for a Dominion water-power development, it could be expropriated.


Georges Parent: It would apply also, 1 presume, in the case of a water-power owned by a private individual. There is a law in the province of Quebec which gives about the same rights as this section would.


Arthur Meighen: The Dominion could acquire such bed of a river under this section.


Jacques Bureau: Not in Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: Oh no, because we have no Dominion water-power there. I beg to move that the word "or" at the beginning of line 44 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 7-taking of private lands by applicants or licensees:
Jacques Bureau: This is the section I was asking the minister about just now. It provides that any person who is authorized by the minister shall have the power to expropriate. Now I think that is a pretty broad provision. Generally speaking, powers of expropriation are granted by the legislative
body. The power to expropriate is limited very strictly. When the minister authorizes a man to take another man's property against his will for the benefit of a private individual he is delegating a power which I think should rest alone with the legislative body. The power of expropriation is used only in case of public utilities, on the principle that the public good prevails over the individual good but under this section it is a case of the individual against the individual. Some person may acquire from the minister a water-power for the purpose of his farm, and he may want to back up the water. Under this section, upon the authority of the minister alone, he may go to his neighbour and say: "I cannot agree with you as to price, so I am going to expropriate your land which is required for the development of my water-power, which is useful to me alone." I think that is against the law.


Arthur Meighen: The whole theory oi
this Act is that water-powers are essentially and increasingly a public utility. All water-power developments of business organizations developing and transmitting water-power are more and more public utilities. Consequently, the power of expropriation, under the very principle which my hon. friend has enunciated, is necessarily vested with the Government. We do nothing more here than is done under the Government. We do nothing more here than is done under the Irrigation Act. Under that Act the very same authority to expropriate under similar circumstances is vested, and the same with the Railway Act. It would never do to require every company that is developing a water-power to come back to Parliament when it wanted to expropriate a few acres that might be needed in connection with the development of its water-power. Water-power development is necessarily, in a sense, local-not like a railway which runs over a considerable length of line-and in connection with its development only a very small acreage may have to be expropriated.
They may expropriate if the minister is convinced that it is a proper case for expropriation; that is to say, if upon the advice of his water-power authorities it is shown to him that the land is required in connection with that public utility, then the clauses that Parliament has passed will be invoked, but only then. Surely that is a sufficient safeguard. I would be quite willing to have " Governor in Council " substituted for minister, and it would be along the same line as the preceding

clause which authorizes the Governor in Council to expropriate lands in a proper case where the development is a public undertaking. In this case it is a private undertaking under lease from the Crown, and we say that it being a public utility, if it is shown that certain land must be acquired to make that utility useful and effective, then the power to expropriate is granted.


Jacques Bureau: I do not think it would
improve matters to make it " Governor in Council." If you intend to assume the control of water-powers, to lease them and have them developed, it is a very easy matter for this Parliament to pass a law defining in what cases power of expropriation shall exist. We have a law in Quebec whereby any private individual, provided he can develop so many horse-power, can expropriate, but there is a limit, and it cannot be confined to a private individual for his own purposes. 'It would be fair and more within the rights of expropriation of eminent domain if there were a general law applicable to every man, and if the powers were graded. There are certain powers that cannot be public utilities owing to the very small amount of horse-power that can be developed, and they can be used only for limited purposes. Let us have a general law grading these powers and it would prevent the cession by Parr liament of what I think is its most sacred prerogative and duty, the protection of private rights, not leaving either in the minister or in the Governor in Council the power to give any individual the right to go over the land of his neighbour and take it from him.


Mr. BUTTS:: I agree with the hon. member for Three Rivers that the granting of powers of expropriation is not always sufficiently considered by Parliament. I happen to have sat in the legislature of Nova Scotia for a number of years, and one of the things I continually railed against was the power of expropriation given by the Nova Scotia Government to the Dominion Coal Company. I always contended that where the public welfare was being served, the Government might well and legitimately grant powers of expropriation. But they went so far at one time down there as to grant the Dominion Coal Company the power of expropriating for the building of their own houses to accommodate their workmen. This, to the average man, would appear to be a very extreme measure, and I therefore suggest to the minister that he should be some-
[Mr. Meigh.en.1
what more cautious in the matter of expropriation. It is a dangerous undertaking that may work injustice in many cases. I am of the opinion that this section is a little bit extreme in that it gives almost absolute power of expropriation and very nearly takes away the right of private ownership of property. We cannot always ignore the rights of a private individual to his ownership of his own land. I have not considered the section with sufficient care to offer an amendment, but I think it is rather loosely drafted and perhaps the minister might reconsider it and make it more in keeping with the views that have been expressed.


Arthur Meighen: In 1897, not so very long ago, Parliament enacted the following legislation with regard to irrigation companies :	,
Lands required for the works of any applicant, as shown by the maps and plans filed, in whomsoever they are vested, whether in the Crown or in any other applicant or licensee, or in any railway company, or in any other person whomsoever or in any interest in or right or privilege with regard to such land which is so required, may be taken and acquired by such first mentioned licensee; and to this end all the provisions of the Railway Act which and so far as they are applicable to such taking and acquisition, shall apply as if they were included in this Act.
The rest of it is the same as the wording here. That was re-enacted again in 1906 and is the law to-day. Now, this is a public utility; it must be essentially so. It may be only in a small way and it may be in a large way; but if in a small way, surely we are not going to require the expense of coming to Parliament for a special Bill. That much ought surely to be trusted to administration. That is the whole principle upon which the administration of legislation operates. The power is not granted absolutely, as the hon. member for Cape Breton seems to fear. There is no absolute provision here. The minister must be convinced-I am ready to have it made the Governor in Council-on representations of his water-power authorities that the land is required for the development of that water-power. If so, then they have to acquire it and pay for it under the provisions that are laid down. It seems to me that there can be nothing expensively cumbersome about that method.


Jacques Bureau: I absolutely agree with the minister that it would not be fair to ask every little company to come before Parliament for expropriation powers. That is not what I contended. What can be

done without expense to the man who is going to buy water-power is to pass general legislation applying to all Dominion water-powers which could be classified without being named specifically. We could classify them by the amount of horse-power that could be developed, and limit the extent of the powers of the individual intending to develop them. The minister is the person to decide whether or not the land is required. Plans have to be filed with him, all the records will remain with him, and the-owner-of the land will just-receive a notice under the Railway Act and then the arbitration takes place if they cannot agree upon the compensation. That is all the consideration shown the owner.


Arthur Meighen: Section 35 of the Dominion Lands Act, passed in 1908, in this regard is just the same as the section we are enacting now, but the interposition of the minister is the check which exists. A company when it has authority may expropriate, under the law as it is to-day, and we are not asking for any more power in this case.


Jacques Bureau: It is not a good reason that because section 35 of the Dominion Lands Act contains these powers that they should be embodied in the present Bill. To my mind it is wrong to give a man the right to take the property of his neighbour under certain conditions, and we should prevent as much as possible the delegation of any such power.


Arthur Meighen: We have such waterpower legislation now.


Jacques Bureau: That may be, but when we find it necessary to pass a new law why not improve on the existing legislation? If the existing power is sufficient and greater than that for which the minister is now asking, I do not see the necessity for this Bill. If the minister is asking for certain powers, and we find that they ought not to be granted to him but left with Parliament, why not take that point into consideration? I do not say that every man who wants to develop water-power should come before this Parliament and ask for the right to expropriate, but it is easy for Parliament to legislate generally with respect to cases where men wish to develop water-powers and ask for the right of expropriation, and to declare in that Act that the development is intended for public and not private purposes. The expropriatory potver should not be left subject to the whim of a man's neighbour because he has more money to pay for water-power development than the
owner of the property who has this water on his farm or domain. That is the reason I say a general law should be passed regulating this matter, and the power which this Bill seeks to confer upon the minister or the Governor in Council should not be granted. I do not say this in disparagement of the minister; but it is a matter of principle that this power ought to remain with Parliament and not be delegated to any one, except under general legislation defining the powers that can be developed and the circumstances under which the expropriation can take place.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I have not' heard the
whole of the discussion on this Bill, but I very largely agree with the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) and the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Butts) that it is rather too great a power to grant any private individual the right to expropriate his neighbour's property. This Bill particularly deals with Government-owned water-powers, and we cannot criticise the Government in laying down rules as to property of which it is the owner. But right alongside of that Government property there may be privately-owned property which the owner himself may need for the development of the waterpower which it contains. But suppose a man who is better off than the owner, and is prepared to go on with the development at once, buys the adjacent water-power from the Government. Under this Bill he could obtain authority from the Government to take his neighbour's land and possibly for all time to deprive that neighbour of the opportunity to develop the water-power on his own land or to utilize the property for a thousand and one other reasons for which he may require it. It is quite possible for the wealthier individual to step in and under the provisions contained in the Railway Act take his neighbour's land. I think that he should be left to deal with his neighbour just as would be the case if a person wanted to build a store on his own property and required some adjoining land for the purpose of keeping a cattle yard, or for some other reason in connection with the running of his store. In such a case as that the man contemplating the purchase must deal with his neighbour and buy the land in the ordinary way. Nobody would think of giving a man who wished to build a warehouse the right /to go and expropriate his neighbour's land. He would be told at once' "Make your bargain in the ordinary way, and if you cannot get the property you will

have to go without. The fact of your wanting to establish a stock-yard in connection with your business does not affect the public, and therefore jve cannot pass over to you the power of expropriation.'' I cannot see very much difference between that case and the case of a man who buys a piece of property on which there is a waterfall or a creek that is strong enough to furnish hydraulic energy. I don't see why such a man should have the right to compel his neighbour to yield his property to him if he does not want to do so. I have not heard the minister advance very much argument on the point, and I would like to be convinced that there is any real necessity for any such right to be vested in a private individual. If it was a corporation that had to develop a certain amount of horse-power before their proposition would be considered by the Government at all-a corporation, for example, that were prepared to go on and develop power for the general benefit of the country, or for the benefit of a town or local industries, or something of that nature-I could understand it. As I read the section, however, it gives the right to any individual who wishes to build a sawmill, a grist-mill, or anything of the like, for which he requires water-power entirely for the benefit of himself, 1o take his neighbour's land and use it for such private purpose. I cannot agree with any such proposition.
My hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Butts) has referred to the powers given to the Dominion Coal Company. Those people operate a very large coal mine under the provisions of the Coal Mines Act of Nova Scotia which permits any lands required for mining purposes to be expropriated. Well, to operate a "coal mine you must have miners and you must have houses for the miners, and you can very easily persuade the Minister of Mines, of the province that if you need to build houses for the accommodation of your miners you should get the necessary land. It was for such purposes as that, expro-priatory powers were given to the Dominion Coal Company. Now, the running of coal mines, or like operations, is in the public interest, and everything should be done to encourage the enterprise and help it along. But that is entirely different from undertakings of a purely private character, and for the reasons I have given I think the minister should not be too ready to grant rights of the kind to a private individual.


Arthur Meighen: I am not able to comprehend the argument, still less the distinction, raised by the leader of the Opposition. He seems to think that it is right and proper to grant to a large corporation engaged in developing coal mines the ex-propriatory powers necessary to that development, but entirely wrong to grant them to an individual, say, or a small corporation-, desiring to utilize a water power. In my judgment, one is exactly on the same ground as the other. I am finding no fault with the Nova Scotia legislation, although I hope that legislation does not vest the power absolutely in the coal mine owners, but maintains governmental control. If it does, then it seems to me it is justified, and this legislation rests on the very same, if not, indeed, on a higher ground. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) says that in the case of a public utility the expropriatory power is all right; but that with respect to a private property the expropriatory power, even although govern-mentally controlled, is all wrong.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member does not want to misrepresent me? I say that the delegation of the expropriatory powers is all wrong, whether for use by a corporation or by an individual. I think we ought to have uniform legislation granting to people who come within this legislation the right to expropriate under certain conditions to be enumerated in the statute.


Arthur Meighen: Very true. I think the class who would come within it would be public utility users. If not, I do not know what distinction my hon. friend would draw when he is making his classes.


Jacques Bureau: 1 object to the power being delegated from this Parliament to the minister to give to any individual or corporation the right to expropriate.


Arthur Meighen: Our legislation for the last forty or fifty years gives that power.


Jacques Bureau: That does noj make it any the better.


Arthur Meighen: Parliament could not carry out its duties if it had to pass an Act for every expropriation that might be required.


Jacques Bureau: That is misrepresenting my point.
Air. A1EIGHEN : I do not know what point my hon. friend is raising then.


Jacques Bureau: I will get for the minister our Quebec statute so that he may read it.

That gives to all individuals who come within its provisions the right to develop water-power with the right to expropriate. They do not ask for a separate commission; they classify the water-powers wherein this right of expropriation can be taken advantage of. I am contending that we should pass a general law enacting that when a corporation or an individual comes within certain conditions therein specified, such corporation or individual shall have the right to exercise expropriation powers. I do not know if 1 have made myself dear. It would be a general law covering expropriation powers, and defining in what cases the ex-propriatory right can be used, whether by an individual or by a corporation.


Arthur Meighen: It only shows that I have understood my hon. friend all along. The Quebec Act defines in what cases expropriation can be used. What is the class of cases? The first class of cases is where development is for public utility purposes, If not, what is the general characteristic of the class? There is no other I ever heard of or that the hon. member suggests. We say here that wherever it is shown to be to the public advantage that the expropria-tory power should be exercised it can be exercised; that is all. That is really the Quebec legislation. My hon. friend from Cape Breton says it is all right if a corporation, it is all wrong if an individual. Take the Grand Bapids river in Manitoba, where there is tremendous water-power. A company has a lease of that power and purposes a large development. There is an area of land below the falls which will be flooded if further development of that power takes place, and consequently that area must be expropriated. It is private property. It is quite true that the company are not there for the good of their health or the good of the community; they are there to make money. But is the community to be advantaged by enabling the owner of a little swamp land below the falls to deny the development of the whole water-power in the Grand Rapids river?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Buy his land.


Arthur Meighen: Very good. He says: " I want a millioh dollars an acre." What are you going to do?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Arbitrate.


Arthur Meighen: Suppose he says: " I will not arbitrate."


Jacques Bureau: Let him come under the law instead of under the minister.


Arthur Meighen: Suppose he will not arbitrate?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If I was satisfied he had been offered a fair amount of money for his property and would not accept arbitration, then I would be willing that some extreme measures should be taken. That power should be held in reserve for cases of that kind.


Arthur Meighen: That is exactly the Act. Mr. McKENZIE: There is no reservation.


Arthur Meighen: No, this is exactly the Act. I have made a convert of the hon. member. The Act forbids expropriation to be exercised by any company or individual until the facts are laid before the minister and he approves of the expropriation. That can be changed to the Governor in Council if the hon. member desires. But no one would suggest that you should come to Parliament because somebody up on the flats of the Grand Rapids river refuses to accept the value of his land or to arbitrate.


Jacques Bureau: No one suggests that.


Arthur Meighen: That is what it
amounts to if my hon. friend sticks by his argument.


Jacques Bureau: My argument is that the right of expropriation should not be determined by the minister or the Governor in Council, but should be defined by law. That is the whole thing in a nut shell. My hon. friend need not cloud the issue. You ought to have a separate Act specifying in what cases the right of expropriation can be exercised and under what powers.


Arthur Meighen: In what cases should it be exercised, and in what cases should it not be exercised?


Jacques Bureau: I can tell the hon. gentleman after he makes his surveys, and so on.


Arthur Meighen: On what principle?


Jacques Bureau: That every man should have the same rights under the law, instead of having to go to the minister to get his rights.


Arthur Meighen: What characteristic
class can expropriate and what class cannot?	[DOT]


Jacques Bureau: The volume of power they can develop and the use to which it may be put. If for waterworks or something of public advantage for a municipality, or for the development of an enterprise of any kind, well and good; but if you are going to let a man develop sixteen, eighteen or twenty horse-power for his own purpose, I

say that should not be allowed. I would make a classification of that kind to show what the minister may do under his regime. That man, I should judge, should not be entitled to go to work and for his own personal use be able to expropriate his neighbour's property. It depends on the conditions where the water-powers are located. That can be classified easily; we do it in Quebec. We go to the courts, and I think that is preferable to the Minister of the Interior or the Governor in Council, for the courts after hearing the evidence are in a much better condition to give a satisfactory decision.


Arthur Meighen: The classification the hon. member gives is by the amount of development of water-power or by the use to be made of it. If for distribution for public utility purposes, then he would allow expropriation. There might be only a hundred horse-power developed, but certainly it is in the public interest to develop it. Is 100 horse-power to lie forever unused merely because of the obstinacy of a single individual, and are we to sit by helpless? You cannot classify these matters in the way the hon. member suggests. However small the horse-power may be, it may be distinctly in the public interest to have it developed, rather than allow it to lie dormant merely owing to the obstinacy of an individual landowner. The power may be exercised harshly, but that must be left to the Governor in Council, because you cannot isolate every individual case and determine whether expropriation should be exercised there or not until you have the facts before you. So I submit to the hon. member that the Bill is most convenient and most useful and safest in its present form.


Jacques Bureau: It is no use arguing the point any longer, but that is just what I deny; it is unfair.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-cancellation of entries, leases, etc., in certain cases.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are these provisions in section 8 subject to the Railway Act?


Arthur Meighen: Where the expropriation is by the Crown, it is under the Expropriation Act; otherwise it is under the Railway Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-joint development of two or more water-powers:
James Alexander Robb: What is the explanation of this clause?


Arthur Meighen: The basic idea of clause 9 is to secure the best use that can be made of falls that are close together. We should be able to make our regulations so that adjoining falls may be developed together, because that is the most economical method and requires a smaller capital investment. For example, the reservoir for the one may serve the other. On the Ottawa river we have no jurisdiction with regard to powers, and there is one province on one side of the river and another on the other, each with different regulations. By reason of these two conditions there is a very uneconomical power development. A lg,rge amount of capital has been invested by separate companies developing powers closely adjoining, whereas the proper and sound development would be a unified one, with one large plant producing power at much less capital cost and, consequently, at less cost to the consumer.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-surveys, measurements, etc.:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are there any records or reports showing the water-powers in Canada that are owned by the Government?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, we are rather
proud of the progress that has been made in our water-power inventory. At a recent conference in Great Britain held under the auspices of the British Government, a survey was made of the potential and developed water-powers in all portions of the Empire-and, indeed, in other countries- of the progress made in inventoring water-powers and securing data of the requirements for their development and use, of the various mineral and other resources in the neighbourhood, etc., and it was freely acknowledged that we had made more progress than any other part of the British Empire, and that our information was in much better and more available form.


Mr. McKENZIIE:: Has the department
any policy in regard to the selling of water-powers?


Arthur Meighen: We do.not sell waterpowers, nor shall we have authority to sell them under this Bill. They are leased, and as yet they are not leased with the primary object of obtaining revenue. The aim of the Government is to secure the cheapest possible distribution of power- Fifty cents a horse-power of developed power is what is charged now. For a time at all events it is probable that the principle of charging nominal rental will prevail. We maintain control of the enterprise from the beginning.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What provision is
there against a man getting a water-power and holding it idle and undeveloped?


Arthur Meighen: The regulations now deal with cases of that kind, so far as our regulatory power extends-and that regulatory power will be more ample under this Bill. But at the present time any one leasing water-powers has to develop according to the conditions of his lease. He must in the first year expend so much and in the second year so much. He must have so much power up to a certain time and he must sell that power in accordance with the regulations.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have in Sydney what is known as a Utilities Board, a body which regulates the price of water-power or of anything that is a public utility, and to which application may be made for adjustment of complaints or disputes as to charges, and so on. If the water-power owned by the Dominion were developed in a province, would the industry or institution agreeing to sell that power be subject to the regulations of the Utilities Board of that province?


Arthur Meighen: That question is a very important one and will be before the Committee shortly when section 10, sub-clause (m) is under consideration. I am disposed to the opinion that as it is the development of a Dominion property, the Dominion has full jurisdiction in relation to everything incidental to that development and that any regulations we made as to rates, and so on, would be valid. We assume their validity by this clause (m) of section 10 and propose to act upon it. But that section also contains power to devolve that authority upon any provincial utilities commission or other body provincially appointed. They can exercise the authority which originally is ours if it is convenient that they should-and in my judgment it would very probably be convenient.


James Alexander Robb: How much power has been leased at the price of fifty cents per horsepower of developed power?


Arthur Meighen: About 100,000 horsepower. I desire to move that sub-clause (b) of section 10 be amended by striking out the word " developed " in line 35, and by adding the following as sub-section 4:
The Minister may enter into co-operative agreements with the authorities of any of the provinces for the making of steam measurements, the carrying on of investigations and the collection and publication of data respecting
water and power resources and the best method of utilizing the same.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 11-director of water-power:
Arthur Meighen: I wish to amend clause 11 by striking out the words " a duly qualified engineer," in lines 31 and 32, and replacing the said words by the words " an officer."


James Alexander Robb: I do not think the minister is improving the Bill very much. He is now asking for permission that will enable him to appoint a barber, for example, to do the work of an engineer.


Arthur Meighen: I do not like what might be called professional legislation. I do not like legislating into any body of men the right to say: We alone can be
5 p.m appointed to a certain office. It is obvious that an engineer should be appointed to this office. It is an engineer, and a very capable one, that holds this post now, but I do not like the principle of engineers being allowed to say to the Government: You have not power to appoint anybody but us and now do the best you can.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think we should leave everything in except the word " engineer." If the minister says " a duly qualified officer," I should not have so much objection.


Arthur Meighen: I agree to that.
Mr. MoMASTER: I suppose all Government appointees are presumed to be duly qualified for the positions to which they are appointed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I hope I have made no ' mistake. This work is the work of an engineer, and I think the term " a duly qualified officer " means that he must be qualified for doing work of that character.


Arthur Meighen: I move to replace the word " engineer," in line 32, by the word " officer," so that the clause will now read:
All investigations and surveys and all undertakings shall, subject to the control of the minister, and for the purposes of this Act,.be under the direction of a duly qualified officer to be designated the " Director of "Water-Power.''


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 12-powers of Governor in Council:
James Alexander Robb: I was wondering whether
there was anything the minister had forgotten in this clause.


Arthur Meighen: I hope not.


Andrew Ross McMaster: As this is a very wide reaching clause, it might be well to go over it paragraph by paragraph.
On section 12-paragraph (b):


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister mean to go over private lands?


Arthur Meighen: That is one of the purposes of this Bill. We have to go over private lands or our water-powers can not be used.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I thought that the ex-propriatory power with which we were dealing in clause 7 was the safeguard against any impediment of that kind.


Arthur Meighen: That clause provides the condition upon which we go on .private land and use it, but this is the power to go on it and take it. The regulations will say what may be done with private lands, but if anything is done, it must be done by expropriation. That is, there must be compensation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would not the Expropriation Act provide the procedure?


Arthur Meighen: It provides the procedure for expropriation, but this says that the regulations we make shall cover this subject. That is, when we are making our regulations as to the development, transmission, distribution, sale, exchange, disposal or use of water-power, those regulations may contemplate development, transmission, distribution, sale, exchange, disposal and use over private lands, but if, for the sake of carrying out the regulations, we have to have private lands then, of course, the expropriatory clause applies.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister says that this does not give him any greater power over private lands than what is contemplated by clause 7.


Arthur Meighen: No.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Let me suggest a verbal change which I think will make the clause clearer. I move that the words "of waterpower" be struck out at the end of the paragraph and inserted after the word "use" in the second line of the paragraph. The paragraph would then read:
For the development, transmission, distribution, sale, exchange, disposal or use of waterpower through or over lands of the Dominion or any other lands.


Arthur Meighen: That is be/tter. I accept the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On paragraph (h):
Arthur Meighen: I move to amend paragraph (h) by adding after the word "dividing" in line 26 the words "and collecting. '


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Andrew Ross McMaster: I notice something that strikes me as awkward drafting in so much of the legislation that is brought down and that is putting in part of the predicate at the commencement, then some adverbs or adverbial phrases, such as "from time to time," and then finishing the predicate. For instance, paragraph (h) reads "for the purchase or taking over of works already constructed, and for the dividing from time to time of the cost of constructing, etc." It would be better to say "for the purchase or taking over of works already constructed, and for the dividing of the cost of constructing from time to time, etc." I have noticed that several times, and I think the draftsman's attention should be called to it. I do not wish to delay the Committee by moving an amendment now.


Arthur Meighen: I think it might be better if it came after the word "operating." I beg to move that the words "from time to time" be struck out of lines 26 and 27 and inserted after the word "operating" in line 28.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Mr. NESBITT:: Reverting to paragraph (b) is there any danger of our interfering with municipal rights?


Arthur Meighen: No. The Dominion has power to legislate with regard to its own . property, including all the use that can be made of it, and embodied within that power is the power to legislate upon everything incidental to the use of its own property. Of that there can be no dispute, even though it may involve the passing over of private lands.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why the "development, transmission and distribution?"


Arthur Meighen: Because the property that is being developed is our own in fee simple in right of the Dominion. If it were not for that, we would not have the jurisdiction.


Jacques Bureau: I notice that this is not restricted to Dominion lands. It says "over lands of the Dominion or any other lands."
MAY 16, 1&19


Arthur Meighen: For the development of our water-power iwe may require other lands, and inasmuch as the water-power is ours we have the right to legislate in regard to anything incidental to its development.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Coming back to the point of law my hon. friend (Mr. Nesbitt) has raised, I wish to be sure that I clearly understand the minister. That incidental power is conferred upon the Dominion Government in connection with the use or development of any public utilities-public works, for instance. But if the Government should go privately into the development of water-power exclusively for its own use, I question very much if it would have the right of passing over private lands just as if- it was a case of building a railway. In the provinces, if a railway runs along a mile or ten miles of the public road, we have the power to build another post road alongside to take its place, because that is incidental to the building of the railway, but T am not so clear that the Dominion Government could exercise this power if it chose to go into the development of waterpower exclusively for its own use.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that I quite apprehend the difference. Perhaps it is this: If the Dominion owns a water-power and is developing it as a public undertaking, then the power to do anything incidental to its development is clearly vested in us.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: But if instead of developing it as a public undertaking, we lease it to a pulp-mill, for instance, my hon. friend contends that we cannot grant that pulp-mill the necessary incidental powers which will enable it to use the waterfall. If that is my hon. friend's doubt, I cannot agree with him. I think the Dominion has power to make whatever use it desires of its own resources, either by itself directly or through the agency of the lessee.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Certainly, the Government can exercise its incidental powers when it is a case of the greatest good for the greatest number, but 1 am not at all so clear as to the Government's right when it is a case of developing a saw-mill for private purposes.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend (Mr. Nesbitt) has raised a 'question with regard to paragraph (b). Section 12, condensed, will read as follows:
The Governor in Council may make such
orders	for the development, transmis
sion, distribution....over lands of the Dominion or any other lands, of water-power.
What would those orders be limited to? Apparently they are not to be limited to Dominion lands, because it- clearly says "any other lands."


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that I can make the section any clearer than it stands.


Jacques Bureau: It is too clear. It covers everything and everywhere.


Arthur Meighen: Only in so far as is requisite to the transmission of the developed power; that is incidental to the use of the power itself. If the power is not to be used entirely at the point of development it must be transmitted, and we have the power to provide for its transmission and distribution, even if in its transmission it has to pass over private lands. All of that is incidental to the use of the power, and we have jurisdiction to deal with it under the constitution. We enable the Governor in Council to pass regulations as to the transmission of the power involving the passing over private lands.


Jacques Bureau: As it stands now, the
Governor in Council could make orders for the taking over of the streets of municipalities and for putting posts upon them for transmission purposes.


Arthur Meighen: I presume that the Governor in Council could exercise that power tyranically, but it would never be in our interest to do so. We must assert the right that is ours. This is our property, and we must not put ourselves at the mercy of provincial legislatures. We are simply asserting our right; we have asserted it in statutes innumerable ever since Confederation. We asserted it in the Railway Act, in the Irrigation Act, in the Dominion Lands Act, ever since 1887, and this is simply another assertion of the same kind; but in the exercise of it we would endeavour to conform to the utmost extent with any provincial necessities.


Jacques Bureau: Far from asserting our rights, I think we are abandoning them. It provides that these matters shall not be regulated by statute but by the Governor in Council. We are abandoning our rights; it is the same old story relating to the Bill which my hon. friend is laying aside to get stale or have us forget about it.


Arthur Meighen: If this is abandoning rights, the hon. gentleman abandoned them in 1897 and again in 1906.


Jacques Bureau: The minister is advancing the same defence, that two wrongs make a right. When he cannot stand upright on the northwest corner of a hair he falls back on precedent, and endeavours to make us believe that he can convert two black balls into a white one. We are now in a period of reconstruction, and the Government must not forget that important fact, and if we are going to reconstruct at all, we had better proceed on sound democratic principles. Let us not abandon any of our rights. We should not encroach on private or provincial rights by reserving to individuals any arbitrary power. Let us do things as a Parliament and not delegate to the Governor in Council the rights and powers that belong to the House of Commons.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not rise to object to the clause, but I would like to know what the clause means.


James Alexander Robb: If the minister finds it necessary to regulate the passage of logs and timber, will he also require a regulation to put in fish ways in these dams? I cannot find provision for that in the Act, and it is most important.


Arthur Meighen: That is left to the operation of the general clause at the end.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is not this matter of fish ways provided for by the Fisheries Act? There are such regulations in the Fisheries Department, and _we shall have to be careful not to enact * anything that will conflict with the other statute.


Arthur Meighen: If it were deemed wise we might exercise the power provided in subclause (p).
for any purpose deemed necessary for giving full effect to the provisions of this Act.
I think that representations would be made to the Marine and Fisheries Department with regard to any fishery obstruction, and they might take steps in the matter.


James Alexander Robb: I have in mind a firm of mill owners who constructed a dam of cement without providing a fish way and after it was constructed the Marine Department drew their attention to this omission. It is a question whether they had the right to put in the fish way, and that right .might as well be provided for at once in this clause which regulates the flow of timber.


Arthur Meighen: I understand that the Fisheries Act requires a fish way to be provided where a dam is built. Our regulations would provide that a fish way should be provided. We have the power to make such regulations under the clause I have read.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What would be the
position in regard to the regulations made under section (k) in a possible conflict with the rules and regulations which are laid down in the province of Quebec in connection with boom companies? We have considerable legislation determining the relative rights of lumber men on slides, and there is also provision for the forming of boom companies. I would take it that on a tidal river under control of the Dominion these regulations would override the provincial law. Am I right?


Arthur Meighen: I think not, because
this Act would not apply to such a case, as evidenced by section 3. It applies only to Dominion water-powers and lands and properties used in connection therewith.
On paragraph (m) :


Jacques Bureau: I should like some explanation in regard to the controlling of bond issues, and the appointments of a special commission to regulate and control the stock and bond issues. There exists in every province, I believe, a public utilities commission which has the control of those things, and this seems to contemplate a double service or at least a duplicated authority in the regulation of these matters, which is not in the public interest. It would not promote the advancement of any public utility as much as if there were one control.


Arthur Meighen: That is why the word
" designating " is used-" for the appointing or the designating of the board or commission." For instance, Mr. Macdonald in Manitoba is (Public Utilities Commissioner and we could either appoint him, or designate the Public Utilities Commission of Manitoba as the proper authority. I do not think it would be well, whether this Act contemplates it or not, to put ourselves wholly in a position where we must appoint only the public utilities commission of the province, because it is conceivable that the commission might act arbitrarily with regard to our property. Possibly there might be a provincial development competing with it, although it is not very probable. But the intention is to appoint the Public Utilities Commission, which is in

the nature of a court of the province, as the controlling factor.


Jacques Bureau: The case may be reversed: If this Dominion Board is competing with a private utility, it may be arbitrary in its proceedings. The objection that my hon. friend laid at the door of the provincial commission might exist in the case of a similar federal body.


Arthur Meighen: If we appoint a federal board it would have no jurisdiction at all over property provincially developed-property developed by, or entirely within, the province-


Jacques Bureau: Certainly not.


Arthur Meighen: -so the case could not be reversed. I think it is conceivable that a provincial commission which exercises authority over some provincial developments-for example, over street railways and other enterprises of that character- might act arbitrarily with regard to our property.


Jacques Bureau: Hardly.


Arthur Meighen: It is very unlikely.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the Dominion Government anticipate developing water-powers in the different provinces as a federal enterprise, or is it simply putting itself in a position under this Bill to control 'those rights and be able to sell them? I can see at once that if the Government, as a public ownership enterprise, is going to develop power and sell it to cities, towns, and individuals in the different provinces, a very serious situation is going to arise at once. Because if we can absolutely control this development by the Government in a province we can say that it shall be exempt from taxation. The Government can say, for example, " Any works that we construct in the province of Nova 'Scotia shall be free from taxation; we shall not be subject to school rates or any other rates in the province ", That certainly cannot be contemplated, because when a property is built in a province it becomes ipso facto, I think, subject to the regulations of that province, so far as taxation is concerned for provincial purposes, etc. I point out to the minister that if the minister is going to develop these powers and intends to keep everything incidental to them within his own control he is bound to encounter a great deal of difficulty. If the minister is going to develop power on a large scale say, in some part of the province of Nova Scotia where the
Government might own land, he might have a considerable village there consisting of men employed by the Government, having houses and requiring everything that any other village in the province would require. Now, if that village is entirely subject to the control of the Dominion Government the Provincial Parliament could not legislate in regard to it at all, and the provincial regulations in regard to assessment and all that pertains to the running of a city, town, or municipal district, would not apply. I think it should be clearly understood the moment any condition of that kind develops that community would be subject to the laws of the province.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman has forgotten for the moment section 3, the application section, which defines the area within which the Act shall apply. Nova Scotia water-powers would not corne within it, consequently as to his province, or, indeed, any except the three Western Provinces, the point he makes could nat arise.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But it can arise in the West.


Arthur Meighen: It can arise in the three Western Provinces. As a general matter of policy, we had not intended, and do not now intend, governmental development of these water-powers as Government undertakings. We intend to exercise control through a leasehold licensing system, but there may be specific instances where Dominion development is right and may be undertaken. For example, in Banff Park, which we own, it is indeed probable that there should be, and will be, a Dominion development to take the place of the present steam boiler that is utilized in the park. Then it is quite possible, as well, that in connection with the Winnipeg river power sites there may be a Dominion storage plant laid down-that is to say, the reservoir utilizable in connection with all the powers there may be Dominion owned; that is under consideration and may be a development of the future. So that while there may be exceptions, and very important exceptions, the general rule is to administer under private leaseholders licenses.
Mr. iMcMASTER: I want some further information about paragraph (m), because it seems to go very far. In saying that I do not wish to be regarded as opposing the principle of the paragraph, because I am rather favourable to it. The provision reads:

For regulatling and controlling |bh,e stock and bond issues of persons establishing or conducting undertakings.
I think, first of all, the sort of undertakings should be mentioned; it must be undertakings in connection with power development.


Arthur Meighen: "Undertaking" is defined in the Bill.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Then perhaps it is not necessary to incorporate a definition in this paragraph. However, I would ask if the Government contemplates controlling a case such as this: Suppose a company acquires a certain Dominion water-power, by license or otherwise let us say, and manufactures boots and shoes, not conducting a public utility. In that case is it contemplated that the Government should supervise the company's issues of stock and bonds?


Arthur Meighen: Not necessarily; I
should not think so in a ease such as the hon. gentleman mentioned. But suppose the company is one that desires a power on the Grand Rapids say, a tremendous power, and it is the only one in the whole district. It may be the part of wisdom on the part of the Governor in Council to take control even to the extent of supervising the stock and bond issue in order to prevent concessions, so-called, given by the Cfown, being exploited on the market for merely jobbing or private purposes. That is the idea. The stigma that frequently comes back on the administration is not that the concession itself originally was improper, but that it was used for improper purposes in order to exploit the public. We desire to shield ourselves against such an occurrence as that in advance.
Mr. MoMiASTER:	You do, however,
practically take such power under this paragraph?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.
Air. MclMAiS'TER: If any company wishes to develop power obtained from the Dominion Government for the purpose of furnishing motive power for its industry, it may have to lay all Jts internal financing before the 'Government?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: That is a thing that may work both ways. My hon. friend says he wants to protect the general public from being fleeced by the issue of stocks?


Arthur Meighen: And protect the department too.


Jacques Bureau: The department would
not be affected very much; it owns the power and if the parties did not live up to the terms of their lease the department could cancel the lease and grant the privilege to somebody else. But there is another thing: We must not forget that it is within the power of the Governor in Council in such cases as these to ruin a man also. The Governor in Council might say to that man when he wants to make certain improvements that are necessary:	No, this
is the end of your bond issue, and we cut your credit therefore to the wall. The povrer to do that ought not to exist. I think the public are well able to take care of themselves. When they are fleeced they do not cry it from the housetops, but generally conceal the fact.
I think they know well enough that water-powers have been generally well developed, and they know what the possibilities are, and I think it would be hampering the proper administration of the undertaking to have such a clause as this. I understand that the Government may think they are impeccable, but, on the other hand, the public does not seem to think so. This restriction would prevent the sale of bonds at as a high a price as otherwise might be secured because there is this power of the Governor in Council to step in and regulate or handle the stock over the heads of the directors, or of the stockholders. I do not think it is wise to insert such a clause.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am not opposed to the idea that the Government should retain control of valuable privileges which it disposes of to anybody; but I do see the danger which has been pointed out by the member for Three Rivers. 'Let us suppose that the Governor in Council were not fair in regard to the limitations placed upon the proposed issue of stock and bonds; the company would be without redress. The Government, representing the people, would be judge and jury and one of the parties to the case.


Jacques Bureau: Safety first.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would ask the minister to consider the wisdom, in such a case as I have outlined, of giving to the company which is asking for the privilege the right to appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision of the Governor in Council. I think the minister will understand what my fear is, that a company might possibly consider that the regulation was too onerous and was not giving it a fair chance.


Arthur Meighen: This power would be exercised mainly in the case of the establishing of undertakings. That is to say, as a part of the negotiations for the acquirement of the lease certain stipulations will be laid down. Now, the company knows it must abide by those stipulations, and if it does not want to do so it does not need to take the lease; consequently it could not complain of any hardship. It might be, though, that a company having acquired its lease. desired afterwards to change its stock issue, so as to readjust itself on a proper financial foundation, and I do not think it would be taking any chances in submitting that stock issue to the control of the Governor in Council. Without this clause that company might take its concession and get far enough away, and by exploiting the public, cause a hue and cry to be raised that the public resources were being squandered to enable friends of the Government to make a profit. We want to insure ourselves against that in advance. The mere terms upon which a stock or bond issue may be made do not involve the possibility of confiscation, or what was once called "conscription of wealth.'' It is merely a matter of regulation-something with regard to which, if the company's intentions are honest, it is not going to be deprived of, its legitimate rights. Otherwise, of course, there should be an appeal to the Exchequer Court. But this is not a case of that nature. It does not contemplate that the Governor in Council shall have power to wipe out the company's property at all; it merely gives power to stipulate what stock and bond issues shall be made, and the like of that. So it seems to me there is scarcely any necessity for appeal to the Exchequer Court. I would have no objection to it but for the fact that it would very probably render cumbersome and, consequently, not of much value, the power we seek here.


Georges Parent: The regulation does not seem to control the salaries paid to those managing the company. There might be restrictions as to the amount of securities, bonds and stocks, and at the same time enormous salaries might be paid to the officers.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think we ought to regulate that. That is merely a matter of internal management. All we want to guard against is that they do not take our concession as a mere promoting enterprise.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I can understand that sometimes it may be a little troublesome to have an appeal, but let me draw to the attention of the Committee this fact. Some time ago a price for newsprint was set by the Governor in Council, and, whether it was well founded or not, a very strong protest was made by the pulp-mills of this country, with the result that the Government thought it wise to appoint a commissioner to sit as judge and decide whether the price limitation was just. On the one hand we want to avoid-and the minister is trying to do that, and I absolutely approve of his action-the dissipation of the public domain in private hands by exploiters who make for themselves money which should belong to the people; but at the same time I think that any safeguard should be effected in such a way that the parties will feel they have had a square deal, and if they are dissatisfied with the decision of the Minister of the Governor in Council, an appeal to the Supreme Court will convince them that they are being fairly treated.


Jacques Bureau: We all know that railways are about the most useful public utility we now have, and in the charters of the railway companies we stipulate that they shall not bond their railways more than so much per mile. Why not insert in the leases or licenses granted by the Government that the maximum amount of bonds to be issued shall be determined per horsepower? That would regulate the thing completely. We do not meddle with the stock of railway companies, we let them is'sue it as they want to. As to their bonds, we limit their borrowing capacity to so much per mile. There we have a unit, as we have a unit here.


Arthur Meighen: I think a moment's reflection will convince the hon. member that that will be impossible. For example, a company formed to develop power on the river at the Lake of the Woods would first of all perhaps develop, say, 10,000 horsepower, but the company must be organized with a view to an ultimate development of 100,000 horsepower. Now, if you are going to regulate their stock issue on the basis of power development you would have to be regulating their issues all the time, because they are developing their power from year to year.


Jacques Bureau: Not on the developed
horse-power, but on the estimated horsepower. The railways do not borrow their



money on the constructed mileage, but on the mileage specified in the Charter.


Arthur Meighen: Then the company
would have to make its stock issue simply on the basis of whatever potentiality there was in the river on which they were operating.


Jacques Bureau: Not necessarily.


Arthur Meighen: So many circumstances might intervene that you could not possibly adopt any rule. It may depend on the purpose they are going to use it for. For example, if they are going to contribute their power for thirty or forty miles -and in the case of the Lake of the Woods Company they may very shortly be distributing electric energy up to sixty or eighty miles-then they will require a greater capitalization-


Jacques Bureau: That would be within your power to provide for.


Arthur Meighen: -than they would if they were going to use it merely for the running of a mill on their own property. You get back to the investigation of each individual case, as surrounded by its own circumstances.


Jacques Bureau: There is provision here for surveys to determine the potentiality of the water-powrer and what it ought to be leased for. I suppose in the lease it is stipulated that these people shall be obliged to develop so much horse-power. That could be the basis for determining the bond or stock issue-if the power is for a mill, say so many thousand dollars per horse-power; if it is for distribution, increase the amount per horse-power, just as we regulate the issue of bonds by railways according to the difficulties of the ground they have to traverse, the number of bridges they have to build, and the cost of the land they have to acquire for a right of way. The man who takes out a lease is going to state to the Government what the power to be generated will be used for, and the Government is going to bind that man to do certain things within a certain time under penalty of forfeiture. The purpose for which the power is acquired is well-known; therefore it would be easy for the lessor to determine, according to his judgment and according to the potentiality of power and the service to be rendered, the amount of bonds that should be issued per horse-power.


Arthur Meighen: You cannot set in advance the value of this power. Different sites require different kinds of development,
fMr. Bureau 1
and we cannot ar-bitrarily fix in the Act a minimum or maximum-


Jacques Bureau: Not in the Act, in the lease. Instead of saying "regulating and controlling," say "determining in the lease" the amount of stocks and bonds which may be issued.


Arthur Meighen: 
Jacques Bureau: I do not think so.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: Has the Federal Government power to expropriate water-powers in the eastern provinces? I know it has so far as some of the western provinces are concerned, but I should like to know with regard to Ontario and the east.


Arthur Meighen: No, it has not.


Jacques Bureau: Does the.minister intend, then, to leave this sub-clause as it is?


Arthur Meighen: I think it is better as it is. If we bind ourselves only to make the regulation in the lease as to what stock issues shall be made in each individual case, we should have to change the lease in order to enable a larger issue. I move that section 12 be amended by adding after the word "undertakings" on line 13, page 8 of the Bill, the word " and."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On the preamble.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was not in the House when section 4 was dealt with. This section is capable of taking away all that people may have acquired or owned by prescriptive right and have held in their possession for, say, sixty years. I do not think it should go that far. In many places throughout the , country squatters have acquired certain rights by holding property a long term of years, and it would be a pity to deprive them of those rights.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: I may point out that this, clause was carried with a slight amendment: The word " Dominion" was added after the word "water-powers" on the first line. It applies now only to Dominion water-powers.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is what I had in mind. Certain powers and lands may belong to the Dominion so far as legal title is concerned, but persons may have acquired rights with regard to them, and to

be deprived of those rights would be a very serious matter for these people. This Act knocks everything out unless such people have a grant from the Crown.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think such . people have any right to a water-power unless they have a grant from the Crown. Prescription, of course, does not run against the Crown, as the hon. member knows. It is true that the Crown recognizes squatters' rights, but it would be hard to imagine how a man could acquire squatter's rights on a water-power.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Suppose a man has a mill, and that he has a race, as it is called, from the river or from a fall to his mill; and suppose he has been operating that mill for twenty, thirty or sixty years. Would it not be very serious for him if that power was cut off from his mill ?


Arthur Meighen: We do not say that. We simply assert that this is our property -and it is ours whether we assert it or not. That man cannot say that he owns it. We are not taking anything from him that he owns. He is merely an interloper, a man who has assumed to use a property of the Crown without saying " by your leave." He does not get any prescriptive right. Consequently, We take no right.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister must recognize the fact that in any province in Canada sixty years' possession is absolutely good against the Crown. Tl?e term used to be twenty years, but the famous Emmerson land case from New Brunswick reversed the old law. That is the law in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and, I think, in Ontario. What is to be said after a man has had possession of such a right as I mention for sixty years if that right is to be taken away? Even if he has had possession for a shorter period, I do not think tlie arbitrary measures which the minister desired to take should be tolerated. If a man went away into the woods and built a mill which was of the greatest possible utility for the settlement and he owned that mill for a long time, he should be considered as improving land in the West. The rights of squatters have always been considered, and they have been paid for any improvements they have made.. The same right should be extended to any man who has acquired using powers of that kind for a long time, and who has meant no harm by his action. He should not be ruined by the application of this law, but should have some consideration.
161i


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid I must take exception with the hon. member on his law. In New Brunswick there may have been provincial, or even preGonfederation legislation which acknowledged, even as against the Crown, a possessory title after twenty years at one time and sixty years now. But apart from statutory concession, there is no prescription as against the Crown, and there is no statutory concession in Dominion law, so that there cannot be any prescriptive right in the three provinces to which this Bill applies. Therefore, the section as it stands takes away nothing that the holder has.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Even in that case, does the minister think that -the Government should stand absolutely on its legal rights and take away a man's property without any consideration?


Arthur Meighen: This does not say that it shall be taken way. It is not his property now. It is quite true that if we found a man in possession and properly using a water-power and that he had used it for a long time, that man would have the preference as regards the leasing of that power, but all this Bill says is: We now assert that this property is ours. We do not say that we will throw the man out. It is for us to say what we shall do with the property.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the preamble carry?


Jacques Bureau: I should like to know where the preamble is in this Bill. We do not want to carry a thing that does not exist.


Arthur Meighen: The Bill does not need any.


Jacques Bureau: Then we do not need to carry it.


Georges Henri Boivin: Certainly there is no preamble to the Bill, but in a Bill in which there is no preamble, an opportunity for discussion of the principle is always given on the enacting clause. An enacting clause is in this Bill as in all Others.


Jacques Bureau: Bourinot says that there shall be the title, the preamble, and statement of the enacting authority, so I thought I would not vote for a thing that did not exist.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the enacting clause carry?	.
Enacting clause agreed to.

Bill reported, and amendments concurred in.



ROYAL NORTH WEST MOUNTED POLICE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Council): With the consent of the House, I move for leave to introduce Bill No. 116, to amend the Royal North West Mounted Police Act. It is based on the resolution passed this afternoon.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 35, respecting the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.-Mr. Clements.
Bill No. 63, respecting the Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Kennedyi
Bill No. 23, respecting the Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Cruise.
Bill No. 33, respecting the Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.-Mr. Richardson.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 92 (from the Senate), respecting the Fire Insurance Company of Canada and to authorize the use of a French equivalent of its name.-Mr. Nesbitt,
Bill No. 97 (from the Senate), for the relief of David Jamieson.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 98 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lillian North.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 99 (from the Senate), for the relief of Thomas Davies.-Mr.	Douglas
(Strathcona).
Bill No. 100 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frederick Millman.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 101 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Irvine Tuck.-Mr. Wallace.
Bill No. 103 (from the Senate), for the relief of Wilmot Orley Wiles.-Mr. Ball.
Bill No. 108 (from the 'Senate), for the relief of Mary King.-Mr. Ross.
Bill No. 109 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Herman Depper.-Mr. Cronyn.
[The Chairman ]
Bill No. 110 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Rogers Latimer.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 112 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Pinkerton.-Mr. Mowat.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.


[Stage Direction]
Loan of $25,000,000 to provincial governments to encourage the erection of dwelling houses in congested districts throughout Canada, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Order in Council of the 3rd of December, 1918-the amount of loan to any one province not to exceed the proportion of the said $25,000,000 which the population of the said province bears to the total population of Canada, as shown by the last federal census.
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL:	As this
proposal constitutes a very important part of the Government programme of reconstruction for this year, it is but due to the Committee and the country that I should briefly outline the proposals of the Government. The members of the Committee will recall that during the four years of the war, building operations so far at least as they related to the building of private houses, largely ceased in many cities, while in others they were very materially curtailed. So that we find ourselves at the close of the war in arrears in the normal erection of dwellings in our principal cities throughout Canada. Besides this, the war had the effect of stimulating early marriages. A large number of young men, who enlisted from the English-speaking provinces, married earlier in life than was the custom prior to the war. Not only did large numbers marry in Canada, but many thousands married in Great Britain, and they are now returning to Canada with their wives. These married soldiers, particularly those who enlisted in the larger cities and a number of our towns, are finding it exceedingly difficult if not impossible . to secure homes on their return to Canada, with the result that there has been a very great demand for increased housing accommodation. We all recognize that the home is the unit of the nation, and that it is in the national interest that a man may have opportunity to rear his family in a comfortable house of his own, equipped with modern sanitary conveniences. The fact that a man owns his own home undoubtedly induces him to

take a more practical interest in the affairs of the country and thus tends to the strength and stability of our national life.
Good housing has a great deal to do with good health. It has a great deal to do with the whole character and tone of the community. and we in Canada should guard against the repetition of what has happened in so many of the cities of the Old World where slum conditions have developed with consequent deterioration in the character of the population. However, the primary reason why the Government decided to take action was the demand for increased housing accommodation due. to the return of the soldiers to Canada, and that fact made it a matter that came within the jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament and one in which the Government must take a very lively interest.
Another consideration was the importance of providing employment, under conditions that would really add to the national wealth and the strength of the nation, for the many men who might be thrown out of employment through the cessation of war activities. Obviously, if building operations could be stimulated on a substantial scale in many of the cities and towns of Canada, suitable employment for workingmen would thus be found at remunerative wages, which would prevent the growth of unemployment and so safeguard the national interest. For these reasons the Government decided, 'after the conference held with the provincial premiers who gathered in the city of Ottawa about the latter part of November last, to take action along the lines indicated in the resolution.
Before going into the resolution I should like to point out that action to secure the same object was taken by the Government of Great Britain. Action for not quite the same object, but dealing with the housing problem in another aspect, was taken by the United States. The British Government, as hon. members will recall, for many years, by its legislation and by its administrative measures, has been endeavouring to improve the housing accommodation in the United Kingdom, and one of the existing departments there has been organized with a view to providing advice and assistance to municipalities throughout Great Britain in laying out improved sites for town planning and in erecting houses along modern lines. That machinery has been utilized as the basis for the British Government's present proposal. What is contemplated is the erection of three hundred thousand houses-that is the objective, the
minimum number, the British Government has in view. The British Government is not erecting these houses itself, but is loaning money to municipalities throughout the country that will embark in municipal housing schemes. It is also loaning money to housing companies, with restricted dividends, on favourable terms, in order that they may erect comfortable houses for the workingmen of Great Britain. I believe it is estimated that those houses will each cost on an average about £500, or $2,500. Hon. gentlemen will see what an enormous expenditure it would involve on the part of the Government of Great Britain if no less than three hundred thousand houses are erected at an estimated expenditure of $2,500 each. But the British Government look upon that expenditure, which is a loan, as I have explained, to municipalities and housing companies, as not only being in the national interest but as being necessary in order to improve social conditions. I know we all realize tliat conditions in Canada are very different from conditions in Great Britain, but nevertheless there is a shortage of houses in the Dominion for people of moderate means which this proposal is intended to meet. Personally, I do not think the federal, provincial, or municipal governments can contribute more largely to improve social conditions than by aiding in a housing programme which will ensure the erection of suitable houses equipped with modern conveniences, and with adequate breathing space and playgrounds around them where children may have an opportunity of breathing the fresh air of heaven. I do not know of any way in which they can contribute better to the social welfare of the country than by adopting this method.
With these objects in view the Government passed an Order in Council on the 3rd of December, 1918, to give effect to the decision which was arrived at at the Interprovincial Conference. I have had a large number of copies of this Order in Council distributed to hon. gentlemen so that they may have the opportunity of carefully studying its provisions. The Order in Council which was made on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, recites the reasons for making this loan. First, it refers to the Interprovincial Conference recently held in Ottawa between premiers and other members of the governments of the several provinces and members of the Dominion Government. One of the important objects discussed at the conference was that of creating better housing conditions for the industrial population of our
[Stage Direction]
larger centres. Then it is pointed out that owing to the cessation of building operations during the war there is at present a great scarcity of housing accommodation in most of our cities, and that this condition will become intensified with the return of our soldiers from overseas and their re-establishment with their families in civil life and occupation. The Order proceeds:
In view of the national importance of the matter, which touches vitally the health, morals and general well-being of the entire community, and its relation to the welfare of returned soldiers and their families, together with the fact that the carrying out of such a policy on a substantial scale by provincial governments would afford considerable employment during the period of reconstruction and readjustment of industry following the war, the minister recommends as follows:
And the Committee will see here the practical proposals upon which the vote is asked to be granted:
1.	That the Minister of Finance be authorized under the provisions of the War Measures Act upon request of the government of any province of Canada to make loans to such government for the purpose mentioned.
That is the purpose I have already outlined in the preamble:
2.	That the aggregate amount to be loaned to all provinces shall not exceed $25,000,000 and the amount of loan to any one province shall not exceed the proportion of the said $25,000,000 which the population of the said province bears to the total population of Canada.
3.	That the loans made hereunder may be for a period not exceeding twenty years, with the right to any province to pay off the whole or any part of the principle of the loan at any time during the said term.
4.	That interest at the rate of five per cent per annum, payable half-yearly shall be charged upon advances from the dates thereof respectively.
5.	The Minister of Finance may accept bonds, debentures, or such other form of security as he may approve evidencing the indebtedness of any provincial government for loans made hereunder.
6.	Advances shall be made from the War Appropriation.
7.	Advances may be made as soon as a general scheme of housing shall have been agreed upon between the Government of Canada and the government of the province applying for a loan hereunder.
I would like to point out in passing that the rate of interest at five per cent is a lower rate than the rate at which the Government could borrow the money. The Government to that extent was rendering direct practical assistance towards the construction of houses under this programme. If the provincial governments loan at the same rate of interest, it means that the working man, particularly the returned soldier, will be able to acquire his house and
PMr. Rowell.]
lot at a rate of interest on the investment very much below the rate at which he could possibly secure it under existing conditions from private sources-.
Of course, at the present time-indeed, at any time a workman could not expect to get nearly, the full amount necessary to purchase the property and erect the house. If he did get the full amount it would be only by means of a second mortgage on which he would have to pay a very high rate of interest. To arrange for a rate of interest of not more than 5 per cent on the total amount that he is called upon to borrow from the Provincial Government is a very substantial contribution by this Government to the building cost.
Mr. PETER McGIBBON:: Is it intended to restrict the provinces 'to that rate of interest, or to give them: liberty of action to charge more if they so desire?
Mr. ROWELlL:	We have not imposed
any restriction on the Provincial Govern- [DOT] ments, but I understand they are loaning at that rate. We all recognize that the cost of building at the present time is greater than it was before the war, and it is greater now than we hope it will be when vye get back to anything like normal conditions. Therefore the man who builds a house at the present time is called upon to put more money into it than the property may be worth in four or five years when values come back to something more approaching normal. Consequently, if the State is to encourage the building of houses at this time it is necessary that it should make some contribution. When it has arranged for- repayment of the loan over a period of twenty years and fixed the interest at 5 per cent, it seems to me, the Government has rendered substantial assistance.
The other clause to which I desire to draw particular attention is No. 7:
7. Advances may be made as soon as a general scheme of housing shall have been agreed upon between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province applying for a loan hereunder.
The Government had in view not only assisting the provision of houses, but the importance of insuring that those houses would be of a certain standard as to size or rooms,	air space, size of	the
site, and sanitary conditions.	In
short, they had in view the direct object of improving the housing conditions, particularly in our larger cities. Therefore they stipulated that before any money could be advanced a housing scheme must

be agreed upon between the Provincial and Federal Governments.
In order to work out the provisions of that Order in Council, that is, to take up with the Provincial Governments and endeavour to agree with them upon housing schemes, a further Order in Council was passed on the 12th of December, 1918. Hon. members will find it in the pamphlet already distributed. By the way, this Order also was made on the recommendation of the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White). It says:
The Minister observes that in view of the national importance of adequate and suitable housing accommodation, which affects vitally the health, morals, and general well-being of the entire community, it is desirable that the financial assistance thus provi'died should be utilized at the earliest possible date in the provision of the housing accommodation contemplated by the said Order in Council.
The Minister further observes that it is therefore desirable that a Committee of the Cabinet should be appointed to be known as the Housing Committee, which shall be authorized to take up without delay with the several Provinces of Canada the question of their need for additional housing accommodation and the housing programme they have in view in order to secure -an early agreement with the said provinces under which the said moneys .may be utilized for housing purposes.
The Minister therefore recommends:-
1.	That there be constituted a. Committee of the Privy Council known as the Housing Committee, consisting of the following members :

Hon. Mr. Rowell, President of the Privy Council;
Hon. Mr. Robertson, Minister of Labour;
Hon. Mr. Maclean, Vice-President of the Reconstruction and Development Committee of Canada;
Hun. Mr. urerar, Minister of Agriculture.
The Honourable Mr. Rowell is to be Chairman of the Committee.
2.	That this Committee formulate the general principles which should be followed in any housing schemes in order to secure the results aimed at by the said Order in Council.
That the Committee communicate with the Governments of the several Provinces of Canada in reference to the matters above mentioned with a view to agreeing with the Governments of the said Provinces, respectively, upon any such general schemes of housing, so that the moneys provided by the said Order in Council of December 3, 191S, may be applied for the purposes contemplated by the said Order.
4. That the Committee be authorized and empowered to do and perform all such further acts as may be necessary in order to carry out and give full effect to the said Order in Council of December 3, 1918.
The Minister further recommends that the said1 Committee be authorized to secure the assistance and co-operation of Mr. Thomas Adams, the Town Planning Expert of the Commission of Conservation, and of any other person or persons specially qualified to advise r+ assist the said Committee in carrying on its work.
Pursuant to that Order in Council, the Committee did take up the question of the
principles to be embodied in the housing schemes which the Federal Government might be asked to approve. Drafts of those principles were furnished to all the Provincial Governments, and received consideration at the hands of those Governments. Some modifications were suggested, but on the whole the principles as laid down and submitted by the Committee were accepted. An Order in Council was then passed setting out those principles. The members of the Committee will find this third Order in Council at page 9 of the pamphlet. The important clause of this Order is No. 2:
The Housing Committee observe that they have submitted the general principles to the Governments of all the provinces, and requested suggestions from the said Governments, with reference thereto, and after duly considering all such suggestions, the Committee submit the following statement and report, and recommend the approval thereof by Your Excellency in Council, and further recommend that upon approval, copies of said memorandum be furnished the Governments of the said Provinces of Canada.
Now, what are these principles which underlie the Government's housing policy and which must be embodied in the policies of the different Provincial Governments? You will find a statement of the object the Government has in view at the top of page 10:
(1)	General object in view.-The object of
the Government 'iln making provision for a loan of $2'5,00'0,0'00 at 5 per cent to the Provincial Governments for housing purposes is-
(a)	to promote the erection of dwelling houses of	character tc .relieve Cvugesliou of
population in cities and towns; (b) to put within the reach of all working men, particularly returned soldiers, the opportunity of acquiring theiir own homes at actual cost of the building and land acquired at a fair value, thus eliminating the profits of the speculator; (c) to contribute to the general health and wellbeing of the community by encouraging suitable town planning and housing schemes.
(2)	Promotion of Housing Schemes matter
for Provincial and Municipal Jurisdiction.-The provision of houses, so far as it may be regarded as a public duty, is a matter which comes more properly within the jurisdiction of the provinces and municipalities, and in ordinary circumstances, the question of what regulations should be imposed, and what policy should be adopted, in regard to the administration of housing schemes, are matters for these Governments. As the Federal Government will lend the money on the general security of each province, it is not necessary to impose financial regulations as to the means which should be employed to safeguard the loans.	\
Conditions on which Loans will be Granted by the Federal Government.
Having regard however, to the responsibility incurred by the Federal Government in providing the money, and to the object for which the money is proposed to be lent, loans will be

made to the Provincial Governments on the following four conditions :-
1.	Approval of General Provisions.-Each province shall prepare and submit to the Federal Government for approval, a general housing scheme; setting out the standards and conditions to be complied with in connection with local housing schemes. The general scheme of each province should include a schedule of minimum standards in regard to grouping of houses, provision of open spaces, sizes and heights of houses, sizes and heights of rooms, provision of light and ventilation, heating, lighting, character of materials, etc., which it is proposed should be enforced as the minimum requirements for health, comfort and convenience.
Eacli province, before it can obtain a loan from the Federal Government, must submit its housing scheme, setting out the particulars with regard to the administration of its own housing proposals.
The second condition is in regard to the maximum cost of dwellings. As the object of the Federal Government was to ensure that workingmen particularly returned soldiers and men of limited means, should have the full advantage of this loan, the Government decided that no money loaned by it should be used for the building of large houses for people who could well afford to build their own houses. The Government, therefore, imposed these restrictions as to the amount that could be loaned on any house:-
2.	Maximum cost of dwellings, etc..-The object of the Federal Government being to facilitate the erection of dwellings at a moderate cost suitable for working men, particularly returned soldiers, it is necessary to place a maximum on the amount which may be loaned per dwelling, and the following maximum has been fixed having regard to the conditions existing in the different Provinces.
(a)	Detached or semi-detached dwellings with walls constructed wholly or partly of frame, stucco on f ame, brick veneer, inclusive of the capital value of the site and necessary local improvements:-
With 4 or 5 rooms exclusive of bathroom and summer kitchen, $3,000.
Having regard to the present cost of building, it was considered that that was a fair amount for a house of that size and character:-
With 6 or 7 rooms exclusive of bathroom and summer kitchen, $3,500.
(b)	Detached, semi-detached1, groups of three or more or duplex (cottage flat) dwellings with walls of brick, hollow-tile, stone or concrete and roofing of fire-proof materials, inclusive of the capital value of the site and necessary local improvements:-
With 4 or 5 rooms exclusive of bathroom and summer kitchen, $4,000.
With 6 or 7 rooms exclusive of bathroom and summer kitchen, $4,500.


Sir HERBERT AMES :: Does " dwelling " here mean a building which may contain
 '
several families, or a building which will contain only one family?


Newton Wesley Rowell: A dwelling containing
only one family. Provision is made for flats, which, of course, may contain two families. With reference to the limitation of the amounts that may be loaned to any one building a house of the character mentioned in this condition, the provinces which so far have taken advantage of the scheme have accepted these limits, except Ontario. Ontario originally fixed their standards at a lower figure than this. They put the maximum amount that might be expended in a building ' at a somewhat lower figure than ours.


Mr. BELAND:: Before the Order in Council was passed?


Newton Wesley Rowell: After the Order in Council was passed. All we require is that the amount shall not exceed the amount stated; those who take advantage of the loan may accept less if they see fit. I say, Ontario fixed their maximum at a lower figure than this, but since then they have revised their figures and have now fixed as their maximum the figures mentioned in this Order in Council:
(3)	Ownership of land.-Public money may be advanced for building houses on sites owned by :-
(a)	The Provincial Government or municipality.
(b)	Housing Societies or Companies comprising groups of citizens associated to promote good housing, supplied with proper improvements ; such Societies or Companies to have not more than a statutory limitation of dividends payable on stock of 6 per cent.
(c)	Owners of lots for the purpose of erecting houses for their own occupancy.
The reasons for limiting the use of the Government money to loans on properties of the classes mentioned were the following. In the first place, if the province itself or the municipality was prepared to undertake a housing scheme, to provide dwellings at cost for workingmen and returned soldiers, we were glad to advance money for that purpose. If they did not agree to go into it for themselves, or if they went into it only partially, and public-spirited citizens who desired to improve housing conditions and who were prepared to limit their dividends to six per cent would form housing companies in order to promote good housing, the moneys might be loaned to such housing companies. But it was not the intention to lend the money to men interested in real estate speculation or to builders for speculative pur-

poses. Then the tennis of the loan follow :
(4)	Terms of years for repayment of loans. -The Federal loan will be repayable by the Province over a period of twenty yeais. Provided that in order to encourage the erection of more durable buildings, and to bring the financial terms within reach of a large number of workers, the period of 20 years may be extended to 30 years in respect of any portion of the loan which the Provincial Government may decide to re-lend for thirty years for such purposes as purchasing land or erecting buildings under the above class. Repayments by the Provinces on account of Federal Loans may be made quarterly if so desired, or otherwise a.s may be agreed upon.
These are the four conditions which the Federal Government imposes in connection with loans to any of the provinces. But we have recommended to the provinces that they themselves should impose certain standards in their housing schemes, and the provinces which have taken advantage of the loan have largely followed these standards.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What provinces so far have taken advantage of it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Ontario and British Columbia have submitted their housing schemes, and these have been duly approved. The province of Quebec has submitted its housing scheme, and only one small matter requires consideration before it is approved. Manitoba has submitted its scheme; the general principles have been agreed upon and I believe it is about to be approved. New Brunswick parsed the necessary legislation last session; it has prepared its scheme, which is now under consideration. Nova Scotia passed an Act at the last session of its legislature to take advantage of the loan, but has not yet submitted its scheme.


Andrew Ross McMaster: All their schemes
must be based upon this?
Mr. RO'WELL: They are all based on this; they must comply with the four conditions. Before these conditions were laid down they were submitted to all the provinces for their consideration and for any suggestions which they might like to make before the conditions were agreed upon. I believe that Prince Edward Island also has submitted its scheme. Alberta and Saskatchewan are the only two provinces which have not intimated that they intend to take advantage of the loan.


Mr. FIELDING:: In the case of the
formation of a housing company as described by the minister, the company may
remain the landlord provided they do not take a dividend in excess of six per cent?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is- correct. I shall not go through the various general principles and standards which are recommended to the provinces. Hon. members will find them on pages 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Order in Council. I will, however, mention two which appear to be of particular importance. Number 1 is:
Acquisition of Sites, etc.-The success of the housing movement depends upon the acquirement of suitable land at its fair value, and at a cost which working men can afford to pay.
It is essential, therefore, that statutory provision shall ' be made by the provinces for a cheap and speedy method of compulsory taking of the land required for housing purposes. To facilitate proper planning and to secure economy in connection with housing schemes comparatively large sites should as a rule be chosen so as to permit of comprehensive treatment. Such sites should be conveniently accessible to places of employment, means of transportation, water supply, sewers and other public utilities.
It is the first part of the clause to which I direct attention. All who have taken an interest in this question of housing, particularly for workingmen, must realize that one of the difficulties in our larger cities is the very high cost of land, especially in the majority of our larger cities. Add to this the high cost of building, and you have such a charge upon the workingman's income as to make it difficult for him to live in such a house as he and his family should be entitled to live in. If you must -proceed by expropriation of land for a housing scheme-I am speaking now particularly from the standpoint of Ontario, with the laws of which I am familiar-if you took proceedings under the law regarding expropriation, and you had finally to pay what might thus be decided, after hearing experts on both sides, one boosting the price up and the other trying to beat it down, you would delay the operation of the scheme so that you would not secure the desired result. The Government, therefore, suggest this proposition. I know Ontario has adopted it; I do not know how far the other provinces have done so, but they have provided a .cheap and speedy method of settling the value of property where they Tequire to expropriate. The other principle to which I desire to direct attention is No. 4 which reads:
Limit of income of persons to be provided with dwellings.-In order to ensure that the money shall be loaned to those who most need it, no person In receipt of an income exceeding $3,000 per annum should be eligible as a purchaser or tenant of a house erected with the aid of Government funds in any schemes carried out by provincial governments, municipalities, housing associations or owners of lots.

We do not stipulate that as a condition, but we suggest to the provinces that they should stipulate it as a condition in order that a man of means, who can afford to pay a higher rate of interest and get the money from private sources, should not use this money which is intended for different purposes.


Frank S. Cahill: Have the provinces not done so in contracts they have made?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think Quebec has imposed it as a compulsoj'y condition. Some of the provinces have recommended it to the municipalities. I do not at present sufficiently recall the different housing schemes to speak accurately.


Frank S. Cahill: These are only recommendations and do not necessarily form part of the contract between the Dominion Government and the provinces?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, but the majority of the provinces have embodied them in their housing schemes, and in the majority of cases they are imposing them on the municipalities.


Frank S. Cahill: I thought the minister said that only Quebec had done so.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am speaking generally of the scheme. Quebec has imposed this particular condition, and some of the other * provinces have made it a recommendation. I cannot recall what each of the provinces has done.


Mr. SHEARD:: Is there any process of law in contemplation by which, when a workingman pays the $3,000 or whatever the amount may be for his house, he can sell it at some future time to any one he chooses?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We do not impose any conditions as to that. The Provincial Government must decide that matter itself in dealing with the municipalities.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: In the event that Alberta does not indicate its intention


Andrew Ross McMaster: Will the hon. member speak louder? We on this side cannot hear what is being said.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Talk less, and you will hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise to' a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think that is a most discourteous remark in answer to a very reasonable request.


Henry Arthur Mackie: In the event-


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The point of order raised by the hon. member (Mr. Mc-Master) seems to be that he has drawn upon himself a discourteous remark from an hon. member upon the other side of the House. One of the rules of the House and of the Committee is that members should always address the Chair. If the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) had first addressed the Chair, there would have been no possible occasion for the remark and I am quite willing to draw the attention of the hon. member (Mr. II. A. Mackie) to the fact that he also should have addressed to the Chair any remark which he desired to make. I did not understand that his remarks were directed to the hon. member for Brome nor that he said anything derogatory to the reputation or honour of the hon. member.


Henry Arthur Mackie: In the event that Alberta does not indicate its intention of taking the benefit of this money which is to be paid over to the provinces in proportion to population, what will the Dominion Government do regarding that [DOT] province?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not see that the Dominion Government can do anything. This is a loan to the provinces, and it cannot be lent to any individual nor can the vote here be divided. If the province does not take advantage of this at once, it is up to the people of that province to endeavour to get their Government to take advantage of it.


Mr. COWAN:: Has the minister received any communication from either Saskatchewan or Alberta as to why they have not accepted this? Have they any particular objection to the housing scheme? Is it not a fact that in those western provinces, for instance, in the province of Sas-
9 p.m. katchewan, that the big trouble is not that they object to the scheme-for I think practically everybody is agreed to it-but that they find it difficult to put it into operation because the municipalities have not power to deal with the loaning of money as the scheme provides because they have to go to the burgesses before they could lend this money? Is not that a fact?


Mr. J. R. WILSON:: I think I can strengthen the point. Apparently, under this housing scheme as drafted the Do-

minion Government lends the money to the provinces, putting the responsibility on the provinces. The Provincial Government of Saskatchewan, as I understand the matter, wishes to pass the financial responsibility on to the municipalities or the cities, and the cities at the present time, owing to rapid development in the past, have pretty well taken up their borrowing powers and do not think they should assume this additional burden, as they look on it as a national scheme. That is the crux of the whole situation.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have heard, through the premier of Saskatchewan, that that is the view of some of the important municipalities in that province. The difficulty, however, as to their exceeding their borrowing limits is one that could be met by legislation of the province. Their borrowing limits are fixed by the legislature of the province, and if it was considered in the interest of the province that their borrowing powers should be enlarged for this particular purpose i think the legislature would have the right to do that.
I have only one word to say in conclusion, and then I shall be glad to answer any further questions. It is a matter of gratification to the Government that the proposals they have submitted to the provincial governments have been received so sympathetically and that the Provincial Governments have evidenced a desire to co-operate most heartily with the Federal Government in working out the plan. Our proposal here is being watched with the greatest interest in 'the United States. The Rational Government in the United States did not proceed on the lines on which we are proceeding. As a war measure, they started in themselves to build a large number of houses, primarily for their own employees in connection with the various national enterprises upon which the United States had embarked. They have spent tens of millions of dollars in erecting houses themselves, and have certainly put up some very creditable houses or flats for their employees in the city of Washington and other places. It will be of interest to the House, I am sure, to know the views of one of the leading firms of architects in the United States who had charge of the housing programme of the Ordnance Department. Upon receiving a copy of our proposals the firm of Mann and MacNeille expressed their view as follows :[DOT]
We wish to express our unqualified admiration for the completeness, practicability and
simplicity of the administration methods outlined in the data received from you. We believe this to be the most practicable step toward the provision of good housing by Federal co-operation which has yet been taken in any country.
That is 'the testimony of leading architects in the United States who have been concerned with the work of the United States in providing houses for their own employees. With that information, I submit the matter to the Committee.
Mr. H. A. M.ACKIE:	Did the Government of Alberta give any reason to this Government for not adopting this scheme?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not think so. My recollection is that they simply intimated that they did not desire to take advantage of the plan at the present time. I do not recall the exact phraseology, but that was the substance of it.


Frank S. Cahill: The Orders in Council quoted in this pamphlet refer more particularly to the returned soldiers, but in the general recommendations there is no reference made to him. There is absolutely no provision whatever for the returned soldier in the agreement between the Dominion Government and the. provinces.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The returned soldier was the whole reason for the programme.


Frank S. Cahill: But no provision is made for him direct.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Had it not been for the returned soldier there would have been no housing programme at all.


Frank S. Cahill: At the risk of sending the minister into heroics again over the returned soldier, I would ask if there is any provision in the contract between the Dominion and the provincial Governments whereby the returned soldier, or even the labouring man, has any preference over anybody else. What is the contract? We want to know what this money is being voted for. As it is now, we are simply handing over the money to the provincial governments without any contract at all.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The whole programme is induced by the necessity or desirability of making provision for the returned soldier. Tfie question whether the returned soldier alone should receive the benefit of the scheme, or whether it should apply to the returned soldier and other men similarly situated, is a matter left to the provinces. The scheme submitted by the province of British Columbia, as I recall it now, is limited absolutely to the returned soldier.

The Ontario scheme provides for both, within the limits here mentioned as to the amount of loan, the ownership of the property, and income.


Frank S. Cahill: If all the provinces limited the scheme to the returned soldier, is there any too much money ta take care of him alone? There are something like 300,000 or 400,000 returned soldiers, and when they are taken ca,re of how much money will there be left? If this scheme is for the returned soldier, let that be understood, and let us make an agreement to that effect with the provinces. If not, why quote the returned soldier for the sake of handing over this money from the Dominion Government to the provinces. The Government claims to make the loan for the benefit of the returned soldier, but he is left out of the contract entirely.


Walter Davy Cowan: I hope we have not reached the point in the Dominion of Canada where we have no faith in the Provincial Governments giving proper or even preferential treatment to the returned soldier. I am prepared to take the Government of Saskatchewan on faith, .even though their politics are not of the stripe that mine have been in days gone by. I believe no provincial government in Canada, Quebec included, would do anything else but put the returned soldier in the first place in all its legislation. I do not think there is any reason why we should go into heroics over the attitude any government takes in this matter. I think the principle of this Bill is exceedingly good, and although our Government in Saskatchewan have not signified their intention of taking advantage of it, our people are quite prepared to do so. The only difficulty, as- I have already stated, is with the municipalities, and our absolute inability to take advantage of the scheme owing to our present liability. I wish our Provincial Governments had the power to pass an Order in Council removing all these difficulties, so that we might take advantage of the scheme immediately. I think this scheme is a mighty good one, for two reasons. In the first place, the returned soldier is getting the money at a very low rate of interest, lower than he could get it anywhere else. In the second place, he is getting the full amount of money he requires to build his home, and thereby become the very best type of citizen. I do not care who the man is, if he owns a home he is a better citizen than he otherwise would be. For these two reasons, I wish to see the plan made operative as far as pos-

sible. As to the difficulties in Saskatchewan, I think the Government ought to make every effort to have them removed as soon as possible, so that our returned soldiers may be able to take advantage of this plan.


James Alexander Robb: 
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I supose no
member of this House would take much pleasure in opposing this proposition outright when it is represented as being something to help the returned soldier. But we are bound to examine the proposition and see what is really in it. It is a proposal [DOT]to build houses-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-costing about $3,000 each, and to lend $25,000,000 for the purpose. A very simple calculation will reveal the fact that if the houses were all up now at a cost of $3,000 apiece and were used to accommodate families averaging five in number, we should have done something, for 42,000 people.


Andrew Ross McMaster: To be exact 35,710.


Michael Clark: Well,we may split the difference and say around 40,000. The Rouses are noit all up now, and I do not know whether the minister can give us any idea how long it will take before the provincial governments will have come into agreement *with the Dominion Government and started the operations at all. So that, after all, it is not possible to represent this scheme as *one of hurricane relief to any housing conditions needed ! to make returned soldiers [DOT]comfortable. I very much fear that the scheme partakes of the nature of a pill to cure an earthquake, if there is any housing condition of a serious character to relieve. I sympathize very much with .the last .remark that fell from the lips of. the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb). What I think the country is looking to this Government for, and what it will look for to any government that may rule the destinies of this nation in the immediate future, is something in the way of fundamental reform. Now this kind of social welfare relief-I desire to make myself clear-will be better the sooner it takes effect, and I repeat that this thing seems small. It seems likely to be tardy, and I do trust the Government will try to couple with this, which no one wants to oppose, something very much more substantial when the Budget comes down. I have an idea, Sir, after seventeen years in this country which I began by putting up a shack of some kind in six weeks that did not cost very much and was built without help by way of loan from any government,

I have an idea that if this country were properly governed, and its wealth properly distributed, as far as it can be distributed, by wise acts of governments, every man with much in him would soon get his own house. The reason he does not do so is that there is too much wealth in the hands
of few and too little in the hands of many, and it is possible for the Government to take steps, through proper fiscal arrangements, to alter this -state of affairs. As I said, I do not want to offer any flat opposition to this or any other measure of the kind that seems to offer a chance of some kind of relief to the conditions that are unfavourable amongst our population. The fact of the matter is that we have too much paternalism in a-country like Canada, where you have a continent of resources and only eight millions of people. There is a tendency in the Government to imitate,
I think, whatever they see being done in other countries under post-war conditions. The minister has been in England and I am perfectly sure he has given a great deal of sincere study to the conditions there; but I -want to put it to him that in the British Islands there are forty-five millions of people living on what are practically two pin points compared to the immense area of natural wealth we have here; and measures that are suitable for the relief of conditions which have grown up during centuries in England may be entirely unsuited to us in Canada. We may want to go back in the history of the world to find out what Britain -was doing for her population seventy years ago when she destroyed tariffs and repealed the corn laws. It might be better if we got our inspiration from that period. I throw that out as a suggestion that should be helpful to the Government, and hope they will communicate it to the Minister of Finance. And I want to tell the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) that if he would take that prescription he would find that it was not a pill to cure an earthquake but that it would operate almost immediately in giving the people social welfare, neither in clauses nor in preambles, nor in health bills, nor even in a tardy and small housing scheme, but social welfare in their stomachs and upon their shoulders and on their -feet. For that is where the people want primarily to feel social welfare. They want it at once, and I agree with my hon. friend from Chateauguay-Huntingdon that they ought to get much through proper fiscal arrangements. I hope I shall not be taken as being very truculent in my criticism of this scheme.	The figures I
have given, are, I am sure, correct when they are brought up to date by my hon. friend from Brome.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I made a mistake. The hon. member's figures were arithmetically correct. I was dividing by thirty-five hundred.


Michael Clark: I am charmed to think that I should have excelled my hon. friend in accuracy. He is invariably very careful in these things. I generally deal more in principles than in details, but we may leave it at, say, 40,000 people, approximately. It would be well for us to reflect that if the houses were up to-morrow, that is all that we should be doing for the people under this scheme; and to get that done we will have to get started and get the Provincial Governments into line quickly. I do not oppose the measure on principle, but I would like to see something bigger and better from the Government pretty soon; and a lot of the folks in the country, in Winnipeg, for instance, feel the same way.


Herbert Brown Ames: If I may be permitted to bring the thoughts of the hon. member and the Committee back to the subject under consideration, I would like to offer a few observations with respect to the general question covered by this proposal, and the broad methods outlined by it. For twenty-five years I have been deeply interested in the matter of the housing of the working people, and have had some personal experience which may perhaps at this juncture, be of some value to the Committee. '
I want in the first place to congratulate the Government upon this venture in, I will admit, entirely new and untried fields, but a venture which I hope will be received by the provinces in the spirit in which it is made, and a venture which I hope may bring fruit from co-operation with all those other organizations whose assistance is necessary to make this ia success. I have listened with very close attention to what the minister has said, and I have read the memorandum which he has submitted with some care, and I must say that in one respect I feel disappointed in the proposed measure, tl am quite willing that the returned soldier should be assisted in securing a home; I am quite willing that the workingman should find it possible to build a residence in the outskirts of a city; but I jeel that this money, if it is to do the most good, should be expended in the centre of the big cities where the slum conditions exist. The proposition as it at present stands, I think, does not meet that need.
I had occasion some years ago to make an intimate social study of the constituency which I represent in (Montreal, and I know that the conditions which were found then still persist to-day, and probably will continue to persist until they

are dealt with by the Dominion or Provincial Governments in a drastic way. There are districts in the constituency I represent where five hundred human beings live on an acre. There are blocks in the constituency I represent where, if every man, woman and child in that block should go and stand shoulder to shoulder they would make a line entirely round the four sides of the block on the four streets. When you come to undertake a building scheme in an area like that, what do you find? You find that the properties are held by scores of proprietors. You may acquire a little space here, by paying for it; you may acquire a little space there; but you cannot acquire an area that will be sufficiently large to let light and air into the district and thus do .some real benefit. There will always be some proprietors who will hold you up for a large amount or will not sell at all-and I am very glad to see that this (Bill not only contains the necessary financial provisions, but also the power of expropriation which is absolutely necessary if you are to improve any of the slum areas of our great cities.
Now the city of Montreal, as hon. gentlemen know, lies between the beautiful mountain and the still more beautiful river. The space available for habitation is limited, unless you go away out to the north or away out to the west. There are immense industries down near the water front. These industries employ large numbers of men, women and children. They open early and they close late, and the working people have to be at their employment sometimes before sun-up in the morning, and remain there until after sun-down at night. They cannot live three, four, or five miles out in the suburbs in the beautiful little homes you propose to build for them; many of them being night workers as well, they must live in the centre of the city near their work. I remember twenty years ago in my city making an industrial census of an area which contained thirty thousand people, and ascertaining the wages, the rents, the sanitary conditions, the number of rooms occupied, the death rate, the crime rate, and ia great many other figures in connection with it. Then, after ascertaining what was the social condition of the thirty thousand people that lived there, we were able to put up a certain number of model dwellings in the place where they were most needed, and where the largest number of people had to dwell to be near their work. And more, as a result of the study we were, able to determine what rent

they could pay, the number of rooms they would be able to occupy, and the class of accommodation they should seek; and I want to say as one who has had experience with this problem that there is no work that a human being can undertake in a big city that brings in greater returns of satisfaction than an investment well placed for the housing of working people. You sometimes are told that they do not appreciate property of that kind. You sometimes are told that they will not pay the rent. That has not been my experience. I cannot say that the properties have yielded six per cent, but I can say that there is never a vacant house for more than a week, and that there are forty families who are always grateful and self-respecting.
I would like to see many of the areas in the city of Montreal that are slufns wiped out. I would like to see it possible for a building corporation, or -an individual, or a group of citizens, to select the worst area there is in the city, wipe out four or five blocks, and re-plan those blocks so that there would be plenty of playground space, so that all the courts would be paved, and so that there would be elbow room for the people that live in that block. I do not think you can do that under this Bill.
As far as I can see this Bill provides that the houses must be -practically individual houses. Suppose you start to build individual houses in a congested part of the city of Montreal. You cannot put one of these little cottages on a lot less than twenty-five feet front by eighty feet depth. There is an area of two thousand feet right away. You would have to pay at least $2.50 a foot for that property. That would represent an immediate expenditure of $5,000, and if you put another $2,500 into the building, which is the smallest amount you could possibly use to -house a family, you have a total of $7,500 to provide a dwelling for one single family. The only way in which that can be done is by erecting buildings of a size sufficient to enable three or four families to live one above another. In that way you can spread the cost of your land over the four families, and you can bring it within the allowance that is permitted here. It would seem to me that instead of using our money out in the suburbs, where there is already plenty of air and light, in building nice little houses with a garden patch and plenty of space around them, which would be done by the ordinary speculator and land developer anyway, we should do what these other men will not do-go into
the heart of the city, take the most congested area you can find, and use this money in turning a place which is a byword and a hissing in the neighbourhood into a place where a hundred families can live decently, comfortably and under conditions that would put them near their work, enable them to send their children to school, and enable them to live in a comfortable and happy -way together.
I think the Government has made a splendid advance in this direction, but I would like it to give serious consideration as to whether this scheme is really meeting the [DOT] congested city area difficulty. We speak of building for the returned soldier. Well, this, in a sense, '.ve do. Still, I do not suppose that these houses are -to be exclusively retained for the returned soldier; the necessity for them is in a large degree created by the return of the soldier. Now, I know from the returns of -the Patriotic Fund that during the war a great many families doubled up; that is, a couple of soldiers' families lived together. Now that the men are coming back we have the same report from - every one of our large cities: they cannot find homes for the re-con-stituted soldiers' families.
In Toronto in our rest rooms we keep families for a long time while the ladies of the Patriotic Fund search up and down the streets trying to find a place where they can be housed. And one of the most difficult problems we have in Montreal is to find adequate accommodation for the newly-linked up and reconstituted families that have returned from overseas. So I trust the Government will get on with this scheme as speedily as possible, for the present condition will grow worse unless it is quickly remedied, and the sooner we get it remedied the better it will be for this country in the years to come.
There is one canny feature in connection with the scheme that I cannot help admiring from the financial point of view, in that it involves no addition to the permanent debt of the country. The Government, it is true, is providing $25,000,060, but it is loaning that sum, and whatever it adds to the debit side it will add to the credit side, and consequently the net debt of the country will not be increased. Those who view with alarm the very rapid increase of our national debt will be glad to see that at least one expenditure is bound to be reimbursed. Therefore so far as the investment feature is concerned no criticism can be coming to the Government. But I trust

they will arrange to utilize a fair share of this money for the purpose of wiping out those blots on our modern civilization which every large city has to-day-the old broken-down buildings, held by some speculator at a rack rent, unfit to live in, and yet not condemned and not removed, but which, if replaced with decent dwellings, would support a contented population.


Mr. MORPHY:: May I ask for a little light upon this subject? I have the pamphlet published by the Government showing the principles upon which the Act is to be administered, and on page 11 I find under the heading of "General Principles and Standards Recommended for Consideration in Schemes," Section (4), which reads:
(4) Limit ot Income of persons to be provided with dwellings.-In order to ensure that the money shall be loaned to those who most need *it, no person in receipt of an income exceeding- $3,000 per annum should be eligible as a purchaser or tenant of a house erected with the aid of Government funds in any schemes carried out by provincial governments, municipalities, housing associations or owners of lots.
I take it that if a man has $50,000 in vested at 6 per cent, bringing him in exactly $3,000 a year, he can take advantage of the scheme; but if he has $3,001 of income he can not. My mind has been all along directed to the idea that this scheme was to help the man who had no money of his own; but if it is to help the man with a capital of $50,000 capable of investment at 6 per cent, I am going to oppose it. I would like the minister to tell me if he intends to apply the scheme to a man who has $50,000, which at 6 per cent would bring him in an income of $3,000.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, it is not the intention. I do not know whether my hon. friend was present when I was explaining that these general principles and standards are recommendations to the provincial governments for embodiment in their schemes, and those governments determine as between themselves and the applicants what class shall be eligible. The class intended is men of limited incomes those earning not more than $3,000 a year. I agree that it might be urged that that figure should be lower, but the Minister of Labour,-who knows labouring conditions pretty well,-was strongly of opinion that we should make it as high as $3,000, and we have put the limit on that basis. He no doubt hopes there are working men who now earn or will earn that income. It is not intended that the moneyed man should get a loan, and I am quite sure no

provincial government would make a loan to the class of men the hon. member has referred to


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Why put.in that figure expressly unless it is intended to be operative?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That means earned income. My hon. friend has to interpret that in the light of the whole scheme. The whole scheme is limited to working men, particularly returned soldiers. Working men who earn that income is what is understood in the paragraph quoted.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have no quarrel with helping the working man, but I think the Bill should be framed to help the poorer working man, not the working man who has got an income of $3,000. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the working man who earns $3,000 a year is able to get his own home without asking the Government any questions about it. I think his individuality would carry the strength and pride which would make him want his own home without asking any paternal help from the Government. It seems to me that the scheme should be limited to the class of working men earning from $1,200 to $1,500. Those men would no doubt need help. A working man earning $1,500 a ye-ar-and there are many of them-might be very thankful to take advantage of this scheme because of his family conditions, the expense to which he is put, and so forth. But to say that a man in receipt of an income of $3,000 should be eligible would probably leave the Act open to a rush of that class, who would take up the money in the various centres-and it could not be reasonably refused with this clause startling upon the Government's advertising matter-with the result that the man for whose benefit the Act would be put upon the statute-books, as I see it, would be crowded out, and with the further result that we would be forced later on to enlarge the scheme because the money already provided had been taken up by a class who did not need it and had not any right to be helped.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I quite agree with my hon. friend that men of means should not be entitled to take advantage of the provisions of the Government loan. I would again draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that this is simply a recommendation to the provincial governments, that in no case should the money be loaned to a man who earns more than this specified amount. It is within the competence of the provincial governments to limit the amount to $1,000,

$1,200, or $1,500-whatever they may determine. We are simply fixing that limit as a safeguard. I think the figure might be fixed lower; however, it was fixed at that amount. The provinces have the same object as the Dominion Government in keeping the money for the class for which the loan is provided, and may limit the amount as low as they like.
While I am on my feet may I answer the question put by the hon. member for Cha-teauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Eobb) with reference to the form of the proposal; and also a question suggested by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) and my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames)? The order is under the War Measures Act, and if any money had been advanced before Parliament met it would have been advanced under that Act, because that was the only authority the Government had for taking such action. But it so happens that no money was advanced; in other words, the provinces did not put themselves in a position before the meeting of Parliament to take advantage of the scheme. Therefore the advance will now be made by the House, if the House votes this amount, on the terms set out in the third Order in Council. The War Measures Act has no effect on it one way or the other.
Coming to the next question my hon. friend suggested, that this should be deferred until after the Budget. I do not think he was really serious. My hon. friend from Red Deer emphasized that suggestion too. I quite recognize that the question of the tariff may have a bearing upon the cost of living and the cost of materials. I am under the impression, however, that the bulk of the materials that would enter into the construction of an ordinary house are produced in Canada.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does the minister suggest that the tariff has nothing to do with the price' of goods' which are produced in Canada?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I did not express any
opinion on that point.


Jacques Bureau: It was merely insinuated.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I shall have an opportunity of expressing my opinion on that point when the Budget is brought down. I have the greatest respect for the opinions of the member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark). I almost always find myself in agreement with him, but I am not wholly in agreement with him on this matter. If the result of this proposal is to provide houses for forty thousand people, it will be 162
a very real factor in the solution of the housing problem in our cities. Moreover, by erecting a good type of workingman's house, sanitary in all its appointments, with a breathing space around it, under the conditions outlined in these Orders in Council, you set a standard for workingmen's houses whioh should affect-experience shows that it does affect-all other workingmen's houses erected in the same town or city. You improve the general character of the workingman's house when you have a good type of house erected, because men prefer the better rather than the less favourable.
My hon. friend thinks that there is a danger of our copying legislation enacted in other countries without considering whether it is adaptable to our own country.
I cannot agree with him in that. I frankly recognize that the adoption of some policy in Great Britain is not necessarily a reason why it should be adopted here, the conditions in the two countries are, as my hon. friend has said, very different. We have this immense expanse of territory; we have these great opportunities in Canada; but the startling and the disappointing fact is that notwithstanding the potentiality of these great unoccupied areas we are^rapidly developing slum conditions in our larger cities. I think that we should profit by the experience of Great Britain. My hon. friend has paid me he compliment of assuming that I have looked into this matter: I tried to get all the information I could when I was in Great Britain in reference to their housing policies and programme. I visited some of their garden cities and discussed the matter with experts of the British Board of Trade. In 191J, when in Great Britain, I discussed with Right Hon. John Burns, who was then President of the Local Government Board and who had direction of the housing scheme, the various pieces of social legislation which the Lloyd George Government had introduced in Great Britain. I said to him: "Suppose we decided to make a start in Canada on this social legislation, which one of your various measures do you think we could adopt with the greatest profit?" Without a moment's hesitation, he said: "Housing and town planning." He went on to say that he was astonished beyond measure to see the conditions in some of our cities. He mentioned particularly what was known as "Shacktown" in the northern part of Toronto. He emphasized the fact that in a well laid-out district, where the people live in clean and com-

fortable houses, you have people who are more law-abiding and better citizens than they would be if they were brought up amid disorderly slum conditions. These things have a real effect, he said, upon the character of the people-upon their outlook, upon their respect for and observance of the law. That really is one of the fundamental questions to which my hon. friend has referred. I do not doubt that the other is a fundamental question; bu't I believe that the provision of good, clean, sanitary houses is fundamental to the best social conditions in this or any other country.
In my investigation into this matter I have actually looked into the housing conditions in my own city of Toronto. In the winter of 1914, when unemployment was very conspicuous, I took occasion to visit many of the homes in the poorer districts of the city. I went in and talked to the people, I saw the conditions under which they were living; and I have no hesitation in saying that it is a disgrace that with all our natural resources and advantages, such conditions of housing and poverty should exist. It is our 'bounden duty, by every possible measure that we can adopt, to try to improve these conditions.
My hon. friend has suggested that one particular measure might solve the problem. To-night is not the time to enter into a discussion of that question; we shall get that on the Budget. Only as a justification for this measure, not in answer to my hon. friend on the other point, I suggest that although Great Britain has enjoyed the benefits of free trade for the last sixty or seventy years, she does experience these conditions of unequal distribution of wealth in a most acute form. In other words, that one measure to which my hon. friend referred has not brought about an equitable distribution of wealth. I agree that measures should be taken to help meet the condition; we cannot go on in the future with the unequal disr tribution of wealth that has prevailed in the past. I believe that that unequal distribution is in a very .substantial measure responsible for the world-wide social unrest. We must recognize the fact that in the future division of the results of the joint effort of labour and capital, labour must have a larger share, and any wise administrative act that may be carried out with a view 'to bringing about this result will tend to improve and stabilize social and industrial conditions.
The horn member (Sir Herbert Ames) said that he thought these proposals did

not meet a condition which existed in Montreal. This scheme does cover the duplex house-the two-story house-which is almost a standard house in certain sections of that city. With reference to the larger problem that my hon. friend has suggested, I recognize its great importance. He has made a real contribution to the discussion in what he has 'told us of the situation in his own city and of the steps which might be taken to relieve it. But I am rather of the opinion that a condition of that kind is a question to be taken up and dealt with by the city itself. That is the way these questions have been dealt with in Great Britain. Whole sections of the city of London have been cut right through with a view to opening up a highway between certain sections of the city. The result is that they have cleared out the old houses in the district through which this street runs, and by appropriating the land and laying it out with this fine highway running through it they have been able, through the increased selling value of the land bordering on the highway, largely to recoup themselves for the expenditure incurred in that connection.
I am rather of the opinion, while I do not know the conditions in Montreal, that if any one took up the proposition and undertook to clear up certain of those sections, and lay them out in improved style, the city should not be a great loser by the cost of doing it. In othef words, the return, under the improved conditions, should compensate the city for the outlay in clearing up the situation.


Herbert Brown Ames: Might not some of this money be made available for that purpose?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I suppose the only reason is this, the reason which the hon. member has mentioned, that this sum will not do everything. Certain limits must be placed upon it. My hon. friend might suggest that the Government should vote more money for this purpose; but the Government, having regard to the many demands on it, thought this was a fair amount to provide. I cannot say whether, if the Quebec Government requested that we should endeavour to meet the situation, the Dominion Government might not see its way to consider the matter, but at the present time we have had no request from the Quebec Government to deal with it in that way.
In conclusion, let me say one word in reference to the observations of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) as

to the provinces taking advantage of this scheme and how soon they will put up houses. Two or three weeks ago, I wired the premiers of all the provinces to find out how much of this sum they would need this year, with the view that if they did not require the whole of the $25,000,000 this year, I might reduce tfie estimate in view of the other very heavy charges on the country. The replies I received from all the provinces that are taking advantage of the loan indicate that they will require the full amount, and some of the provinces are, I am glad to say, adding a substantial sum themselves to the amount they are receiving for this housing scheme.


Mr. PARDEE:: Is any specified sum to be given to each province?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Ontario, at an early date, stated $2,000,000, but I think it has increased that amount. I cannot give the exact amount, but it is increasing the amount by a substantial sum. Ontario was, I think, one of the provinces that intimated that it would require the whole amount and would be glad if more was available.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: How will the loan be apportioned?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Each province gets its proportion according to population. I have heard that Quebec is also putting up an amount. I am not officially informed of the fact, and therefore I cannot submit it to the committee.	*	'


Peter Robert McGibbon: The object of this resolution is practically to expropriate land and start new suburban residences, and in that case probably many streets would have to be laid out. Sewers would have to be put in and a considerable amount of money spent in engineering, architectural designing, and so on. Is it the intention ultimately to apportion all this on the cost of dwellings 'to the working men?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. While municipalities may have the power to spend this money in developing suburban areas, there is no obligation on them to do so. The money might be spent in the heart of the city in unoccupied areas available for buildings, just as it might be spent in suburban areas. With reference to the case mentioned by my hon. friend, that is a question with which the province would deal absolutely. Under the Ontario system, where local improvements are provided, a certain percentage of the cost is assumed by the municipality and a certain percentage charged to the lots, and
I presume that law would apply to any' sections laid out under these proposals.-


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I am quite in sympathy with the principle of this resolution, but it appears to contain some incongruities. In connection with the question raised by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy),
I think the Government has gone too far in that section in putting the maximum income of those to whom this scheme may apply at $3,000. Let me take the minister's own words for it. If I understand aright the principle of a Housing Bill, it is to help those who are in congested districts and who are more or less, or who may be classed as, the poorer portion of the population. They are necessarily the poorest class of the population; otherwise they would not reside in the congested districts. Taking that as a premise, may I refer to the illustration given by the minister himself, that when he asked John Burns what measure of social reform he would most gladly recommend him to apply himself to, John Burns immediately mentioned a housing scheme. The Housing scheme in Great Britain is, I understand, applied to the class of people I have mentioned. If that be so, is it right to bring down in a resolution or a Bill a principle that those men who are earning incomes to the extent of $3,000 shall be entitled to come in under exceptionally good conditions?-to apply to the Government, to receive their loans,
10 p.m. and to get the amount that they are allowed to get under those resolutions, while those who are not nearly so well off are not allowed to do so? Does not that mean that a man who is earning $3,000 a year is in a much better position to apply for and obtain this loan, and as a consequence will get more out of it than any other man will? I think that is unquestionably so. Let us take Shacktown, for instance, which the minister mentioned. I have been there and I wonder how many of those people are in receipt of an income of $3,000 a year. If they were, they would not be living in that district and in that class of houses. This loan should be applied with a much smaller maximum income than is here set out. It is true, the minister says, that the Provincial Government has a right to make it less, but we all know that Provincial Governments-and my experience is that they are all much alike in this respect-if they have the right to take advantage of a maximum in a Bill will take it, and will say:	The Dominion Government gave us the right to go as high as

$3,000 and we shall do so. I strongly urge Upon the minister-and I am not criticising in any hostile spirit-that the maximum ought to be considerably reduced, so that it might and would apply to those who are much more in need of the assistance which this resolution will give to them than those who receive incomes amounting to $3,000. I think that would be the right thing for the Government to do, and under those circumstances they would be helping the class of people who are much more in need of help than the people to whom this resolution would, at the maximum rate, apply.


Michael Clark: I am sure the Committee will agree that we have had from the minister a very sympathetic speech and a speech of great debating excellency. I rise only to clear myself from a misapprehension which I should have not expected to arise in his very clear mind. I-have frequently met the same argument in other quarters, but I was a little disappointed to hear it from the minister. He seemed to think that I suggested that by some fiscal arrangement the milennium could be brought about. That was not in my mind by any means. He pointed out that under a certain fiscal arrangement in Britain there are slums, and inferentially he argued that slums are the product, perhaps, of that fiscal arrangement.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


Michael Clark: Well, that they have
not been cured by that fiscal arrangement.


Newton Wesley Rowell: They have not been
cured by it.


Michael Clark: While that fiscal arrangement has been in existence in Great Britain, to my hon. friend's intimate knowledge as well as to my own, it has made the people so prosperous that before the war they were drinking intoxicating liquors as beverages to the sum of $800,000,000 or more. That is conduct on the part of the people of Great Britain which I am sure meets with the absolute disapproval of my hon. friend; but his disapproval does not alter the fact as to their conduct, nor does it alter the sum that has been -spent in that way, nor does it alter the other economic fact with which he is very well acquainted, that if people spend too much money on intoxicating liquors out of comparatively limited incomes they will very likely get into slums under whatsoever fiscal arrangement they may live.
['Mr. Pardee.]	i
I wanted to clear myself from the misapprehension which appears to have arisen in the mind of my hon. friend. I have no panacea for society, I have no panacea for poverty; none of us have. It might easily be argued on very high authority that there is no panacea for poverty because we were told by a very high authority two thousand years ago that the poor we have always with us, and a straining of the interpretation of that statement might lead us to think that we always will have them with us. While we do have the poor with us, their poverty is produced by many causes, and none is more potent in Great Britain than that which I have mentioned, which is totally unconnected with any fiscal arrangement. I was anxious to make a contribution, if possible, from the back benches to the wisdom and effort of the Cabinet, and I am sure my hon. friend will allow me to clear myself from possible -misapprehension on this point.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Are we to understand that under this Bill a man living in a county like my own with large coal mining and steel manufacturing industries, if he is able to acquire half or a quarter of an acre of land, can apply to the Government and receive a loan to the amount of $3,000 for building a house? The reason I ask is that I have some land myself, and I was just thinking that if I were to distribute it among a number of indi-scriminates perhaps I might get some, money out of this Government that I never expected to get.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am afraid my hon. friend would not qualify under this Bill. He would have to apply to the provincial government and satisfy them that he was a workman and came within the conditions set out.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I am not altogether in accord with this measure, because I believe with the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) that the object should be to remove slums. If that were the object, so far as the West and the cities of the western provinces are concerned, we have no slums. There is only one alternative to consider, and that is the one which was put forward this evening by the minister, namely, that most of the money should be spent in assisting the returned soldier. If that really be the object, the distribution of money proposed under this legislation is improper; the distribution should be in proportion to enlistment instead of in proportion to population. In that case the province of Alberta would

be entitled to a greater share of this appropriation than we shall get under the present proposals. If it is not the object of this legislation to assist the returned soldier, let the money be diverted to the cities to remove the slums and establish better social conditions.
I ask the minister to take into consideration my suggestion that the money should be paid to the provinces in proportion to enlistments, and not in proportion to population. Inasmuch as he has stated, and it is amply demonstrated in the Orders in Council that have been passed, that this plan is primarily for the benefit of the returned soldier-the appropriation is made from the War Vote-then let the provinces that have given the most men to fight for their country get the most money.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The first remark I have to offer to the Committee is that this debate plainly shows the impropriety of the way in which this legislation was introduced. Although we all recognize without the slightest reserve the ability of those gentlemen who compose the Cabinet Committee that dealt with this matter in council, this debate has showed very clearly that there are in this House opinions and views and experience which would have been valuable to the Government in drafting this legislation. Why was this plan effected by Order in Council instead of being introduced in this House by a Bill founded upon a resolution? It will be stated that Parliament was not sitting. Why was not Parliament sitting in the month of December? Parliament rose in the latter days of May, 1918; the armistice was signed in November, but Parliament was not summoned to meet until almost the end of February. I believe that the Government should not have launched upon a scheme absolutely new in this country, an absolute departure from anything the Government had done before without consulting the representatives of the people. I believe that if the Government had consulted the representatives of the people they would have got a very much better plan than the one before us to-night.
My next submission is that this discussion is more or less of an academic character. The scheme must be worked in cooperation with the provinces. The provinces have been consulted upon a plan prepared by Order in Council, and many of them have formulated theii schemes on the plan submitted to them Therefore, although the minister kindly pays the closest and most courteous attention to our suggestion, after all the matter is largely concluded, and it is practically impossible for us at this time, even if we were able to convince the minister that we were right, to change the plan. That only goes to prove how well it is to stick to sound constitutional usage, and not to attempt short cuts. Very often the shortest road to any objective is the travelled road -the road which is lighted by the lamps of experience.
There were some good suggestions offered by the hon. member for St. Antoine whose contribution to the evening's discussion was most valuable. I agree with the minister on that score, but he seemed to think that the member for Red Deer had been beside the point because he had spoken about fundamentals. Suppose that instead of being called upon to give his opinion upon a national question, the member for Red Deer had been summoned as a physician and had found the patient lying on the bed in a superheated room suffering from fever, while the member for St. Antoine was busy administering a small homeopathic pill. And suppose the member for Red Deer had ordered the windows to be thrown open to let in the air. Would he have gone beyond his duty as a medical practitioner? I do not think so, and my opinion is that he was absolutely within his province as a member of the House when he said-and I agree With every word that he said-that the present measure is a mere palliative, and that this country can never prosper under the application of palliatives. It is jijst as if a man came in hungry after a hard day's work and were offered a little cube of beef tea. We have overcrowding in this country in some of the large cities, and this proposal will not obviate such overcrowding. Men will live near their work if they possibly can. and what the member for St. Antoine said is absolutely right, that putting up nice houses of $3,000, $4,000 and $4,500 in pleasant suburbs will not remove congestion in the congested parts of cities. What are the slums due to? They are due, I take it, among other things to a bad system of municipal taxation. I think this has more to do with congestion than perhaps almost anything else, and that is something that is not in the purview of this House. Then I believe that effective means of transportation have a great deal to do with slum congestion; and thirdly slum congestion in our large cities is, I think, due to a false and unsound economic practice which this country has been following for thirty years and more. This is a time of reconstruction,

and it is a time for the Canadian people to examine these questions to the very core and make up their minds as to what is the right thing to do. I am afraid that this is a mere palliative. We have all sorts of plasters in the pharmacopoeia and this is almost a shinplaster. If we take the average cost of houses at $3,500-they run as -I understand it from 83,000 to $4,500 -I am afraid that at the present 'cost of building, the houses will probably cost nearer the larger than the smaller figure. But let us take the next smallest figure as our basis, $3,500. If we divide the $25,000,000 by $3,500, we have 7,142 houses. Let us suppose that the average family will consist of five persons, and we shall have 35,710 persons to be accommodated. Now, this is not restricted to the returned soldier; anybody can get it by meeting the necessary requirements. As it is not mentioned that the applicant is to be a returned soldier, the authorities administering the Act must of necessity take applications as they come forward indiscriminately as to whether they are returned soldiers or not. If they did not, they would not be carrying out the intention of the legislation. I think that if we find housing accommodation for two or three regiments we shall be accomplishing as much as we can expect, and therefore I am very much afraid that we are going to spend a great deal of money and will not help the returned soldiers to any large extent. The member for St. Antoine said that we would not be increasing the financial debt by this system. Well, if all the money is well laid out and is all paid back we shall only lose the difference between what it costs us to borrow the money and what is paid back, but meanwhile we shall increase the debt although the net debt will not be increased by a large amount. I am not altogether opposed to this measure, although I do not think it is a wise one. I am thoroughly convinced that under our federal system it would be infinitely better for such matters as this to be dealt with by the municipalities or the provinces. If that is not done you are going to have the spectacle which *we see now of trying to suggest types of houses for half a continent with climates and local, physical and geographical conditions altogether different. The plan which has been laid down for houses may be quite suitable to Nova Scotia and be absolutely inapplicable to Alberta, and this, I think is a very serious defect. It is centralization as against decentralization and as a rule in matters of administration I prefer [Mr. McMaster.J
the system of decentralization. Of this I am thoroughly convinced and my words are borne out by what the Minister of Labour said yesterday or the day before in another place, that we cannot expect to have lower cost of living in Canada until we get more people on the land. And if you are going to endeavour by governmental aid to effect a return to proper living conditions, it is your duty to encourage the	flow of	population	from	thecity	to the	soil, which	will not
be done by this project. The scheme does not contemplate the building of farm cottages for farm servants, and I think that one thing that would help the development of rural life in Canada would be this assistance to farmers where necessary, in the furnishing of proper building accommodation, in order that a man who had a liking for country life might find proper accommodation for himself and his family. I believe that one of 'the obstacles that keep people from rural pursuits is the fact that the young man who goes on the farm has to live with his employer, very often to the disadvantage of the latter, as well as unpleasant to the hired man, who likes to have a time for himself away from his daily work. But the great obstacle to the development of farm life is the fact that the hired man cannot look forward to marriage because he cannot get a house of his own with facilities for founding a family. I believe that this proposal is absolutely wanting; that it fails to go to the root of the matter in view of the fact that i't makes no provision for the development of proper living conditions in the rural parts of the country.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member (Mr. McMaster) has just said that the proposal is unalterable in its terms. I did not so understand the minister who is in charge of the proposal. Am I to understand that the matter has not yet been crystallized in the form of legislation, that the negotiations with the provinces are almost in a tentative state at present, and that nothing is absolutely and finally agreed upon.
I suggested that it would be well to reduce the application of the Bill so that a man with an income of $50,000, on a six per cent basis, could not take advantage of it, and the minister said that that sum might well be reduced; therefore, 'I assume that it is still within his power to assure the House that the point will be taken up and dealt with. If so, the argument of the hon. member falls to the ground. I would like

the minister to assure me as 'to that point and also to give an assurance that he will reduce the sum, I would say, to an amount not exceeding $1,800.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Make it $1,000.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would not like to go any further than that just now until I have some stronger reason for doing so. With regard to the statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. McMaster) in regard to this country following a false economic policy, I would invite his attention to the slight divergence of opinion between him and his leader (Mr. McKenzie). I should think that the quarrels on that side-


Andrew Ross McMaster: I did not catch the hon. gentleman's remark.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would invite the hon. gentleman's attention to the divergence of opinion between himself and his leader, who claimed that he was not an extremely high protectionist, and I understood got a scolding from some of his friends because he dared to make such a statement in this House. The quarrel, Mr. Chairman, is on the Opposition side, and I think that the hon. gentlemen sitting there should settle it between themselves.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not lose any sleep over it.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I will not lose any sleep over it, and I do not think anybody else will, even if the row is a noisy one. We can continue on lines that have been settled by the country and maintain a fiscal policy that both political parties have agreed upon for many years past. I do not think there will be much trouble about it, adapting the policy, as it always has been adapted, to the amelioration of conditions of hardship, and to the betterment of conditions in places where they can be bettered. I would like the minister to state now, if he can, whether or not the proposition can be limited to a man who has got an income of, say, $1,800 a year?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I would point out that
the clause to which the hon. member refers-in fact all the clauses under that head, from 1 to 12 inclusive-are simply recommendations to the provincial governments. If he will turn to page 14 he will see it is expressly provided that .additional recommendations may be made from time to time, as experience is gained and comparative information is collected, from different provinces. It is open to the Federal Government at any time to make new recommendations to the provincial governments in connection with any of the twelve or fourteen conditions referred to.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: My objection still stands, notwithstanding a reading of the provisions of the Bill. If a provincial government knows that this (Parliament has approved of the larger sum there will be a tendency to work up to it. If the provincial governments know that the smaller sum is the maximum there will be a tendency to work to that; and I feel, recognizing the human elements of governments, the friendships that men form with ministers, and the avenues that get them " next " here and there, that men of wealth will get in under this scheme, although the minister will admit to me that he does not intend that they should. If it is possible to so arrange with the provincial governments that no man possessing $50,000, which on a six per cent basis would bring him in an income of $3,000, can get in under this housing scheme, I want it done. It seems to me that the limit of $1,800, based on the investment of $30,000 at six per cent is not intended to be covered by this scheme. I do not believe the country is looking for a man who owns that much money to be assisted in the way proposed by this Bill. Therefore I want to know now, if the minister is at liberty to answer me, whether it is too late to make the change I have suggested.


Newton Wesley Rowell: First, I do not think any change is necessary to meet the point my hon. friend mentions. It would not be in accordance with the principle upon which this Bill is framed for any provincial governments to allow a man under such conditions to take advantage of the scheme. The whole thing is predicated on it being help for the workingmen. At the same time, if my hon. friend thinks the plan is open to that interpretation I have not the least objection to communicating with the provincial governments, and to point out that it is not the intention of these regulations,	or the	view of	the Government, that in administering them the money	shall	be	expended	in the wayreferred	to.	It	is quite	open to usto do that. We have not deemed it wise to impose any of these features as conditions;	they	are	only recommendations.
The provinces are borrowers; they must take a certain measure of responsibility. If we are granting money to them outright we should define exactly what the conditions are; but we have only felt justified in suggesting four main conditions, or rather re-

commendations. I say to my hon. friend now that I will draw the attention of the prime ministers of the provinces to the fact that this question has been raised in the House, point out that it is entirely contrary to the whole spirit of the regulation, and state that we do not expect the money to be expended in any such way.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Just one word more. The pamphlet which I hold in my hand is entitled " Housing in Canada. General Project of Federal Government." It is printed by the King's Printer, and I presume is issued at the instance of the Government?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is set forth in the section I have already read:
No person in receipt of an income exceeding $3,000 per annum shall be eligible as a purchaser or tenant under this scheme.
Now, inferentially that says, as plainly as language can do so, that a person who has got an income of not more than $3,000 can get in under the scheme. If the proposition is sent forward in that shape to the provinces, they will say: "Your own data furnished by yourselves, gave us the latitude to let Mr. John Brown, who has got $50,000 out at interest at six per cent, and earning not a cent more than $3,000 " (providing possibly he was a returned soldier) " come in if he complies with all the other condtions." I do not think that is the intention of the Government; it surely cannot be. It is declared in this very paragraph that the money shall be loaned to those who most need it. I do not think a man who owns $30,000 or who has $50,000 could possibly need any assistance from the Government. I think it would be monstrous that he should be allowed to get such assistance, and yet the propaganda published by the Government says that he may.


James Robert Wilson: We in Western Canada, particularly in the city which I represent, when the Order in Council providing for this housing scheme was passed early in the year, were very much taken with it. But since that time, conferring in our cities with our Provincial Government as to how the scheme is to be worked out, we find that it does not seem to be making the progress expected, and does not appeal to our people so strongly as it did at the first blush. In Western Canada our country is new, and our cities are of recent growth, and we have not the slums that exist in some of the eastern cities which have been mentioned this evening.

Nevertheless, we have an acute shortage of houses. In my own city since the House assembled I have had to get permission from the Public Works Department for the use of the local immigration hall to house returned soldiers and their families, there being no places of residence available.
What our people object to is that although this is taken hold of as a national scheme, it is hardly fair that the municipality should be saddled with the financial responsibility, that is, to the extent of reducing its borrowing power. Apparently the policy as propounded by our provincial government was for them to accept the money from the Dominion Government and pass it on to the city authorities, that money then becoming a charge against the borrowing power of the city. Now, during the past four years all public works in Western Canada practically ceased, with the result that at the present time many public works are needed, and the municipal authorities feel that the urgency for those public works is so great that it will take up pretty well all their borrowing powers to finance them. Therefore they do not wish to load those borrowing powers with this extra burden, viewing it as a national scheme.
I would like to ask the minister if he thinks it possible in any way to so work out the scheme that the money can be advanced the same as it is in Great Britain, the national Government taking the full responsibility of advancing to the municipalities, leaving them to administer the loan? Our people view with some little apprehension the present high cost of building material, and they feel that in four or five years there will be a considerable depreciation in property corresponding with the depreciation in the prices of building materials, with a possible loss to them. In the British housing scheme the Government bears 75 per cent of that loss. To sum up, I have here a clipping from a newspaper which gives the views of our cities as expressed in a resolution passed at a convention held to discuss this matter. It reads:
Resolved that this meeting of delegates from towns and cities in the province of Saskatchewan is of opinion that the proper housing of the workers and returned soldiers at this time is extremely urgent and is a national question, and requests the provincial Government in cooperation with the other provincial Governments of Canada to bring the matter before the Dominion Government and urge it to assume all responsibility in financing housing schemes, the municipalities being made responsible only for administration.

I received a communication a few days ago from an association in our city requesting me to bring this to the attention of the Government. At the present time, so far as we are concerned, unless there is some change of our view point, it seems that we are not likely to take any advantage of this scheme, althougn when it was first mentioned our city of Saskatoon went so far as to make application for a loan of $500,000; but when they found it was to he made a direct Charge against their borrowing power they felt it was not of such very great advantage to borrow from the Government. At the present time we could borrow $500,000 from other sources, but might have to pay a cent and a half more interest.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have listened to my hon. friend with very great interest. He has presented very clearly the views of the people of Saskatoon as they have been communicated to us. Let me point out that this matter first came up at the Interprovincial Conference at the instance of one of the provinces to see if the Dominion Government would loan the money. All the provinces were represented. Hon. Mr. Martin, Hon. Mr. Motherwell, Hon. Mr. Dunning, and Hon. Mr. Turgeon representing Saskatchewan. The matter was discussed, and the Dominion Government decided that it would make advances to the provinces, imposing certain conditions which I have outlined. Therefore it is a provincial scheme with Federal co-operation.
With reference to imposing an obligation on the municipalities, this Governmeut does not impose any such obligation. This Government loans the money to the province. The province itself may loan it direct to the applicants for loans; it may loan it to housing companies, citizens organized for the purpose of erecting suitable houses, or it may loan it to municipalities; it may loan it to private individuals, or it may buy land itself and develop it. The province has full and complete jurisdiction over the matter, and it is purely a question between the municipality and the province as to whether any obligation should be imposed upon the municipality.
With reference to the Government changing its policy and loaning to municipalities or handing the money over to them for administration, I can only say that the Government has considered the representations which have been made to that effect. We have not seen our way clear to adopt that suggestion and I think my hon. friend
will agree that the Government would be assuming a very great responsibility if it turned over large sums of money to various municipalities throughout the province for them to administer without having any direct control over such administration. It would be changing the whole basis upon which this policy is framed.
As to the high cost of building, -and the fact that there might be some loss conse-auent upon building at the present time while we all hope that present conditions will not become the normal condition and that the cost of building will be reduced,
I am afraid that there is not the evidence of a decline in the cost of building which a good many people thought would come about after the signing of the armistice. In view of the rate of wages being paid and being demanded, and in view of many other considerations entering into the cost of building, it does not seem probable that we shall get back for many years to come, if ever, to the conditions which prevailed prior to the war. Therefore, people should not be deterred from building at the present time. A private citizen seeking to borrow the whole amount necessary to build a house-as he could under this scheme could not get it in my hon. friend's province at less than over eight per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: Could he get the whole amount on any terms?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Probably he could not get it on any terms. But assuming that he could go into the market and get the bulk of the money, it would cost him eight per cent for at least fifty per cent of the amount required, and he would have to pay a good deal more for the next twenty-five or thirty per cent 'if he was able to-obtain it. That means that the total loan -if he could get it- would probably cost him nine or ten per cent. When he gets it under this scheme at five per cent on the twenty-year payment plan, the Government is contributing twenty-five or thirty per cent of the cost, because of the lower rate of interest. I think the cost is not likely to be reduced below that figure for many years to come. A workingman who builds a house within the next few years with money borrowed at five per cent for twenty years and with the right to pay back principal and interest will not be a dollar out of pocket and will be in no less favourable position than the man who builds his house three, four or five years hence. In fact, I am inclined to think that he will be money in pocket, on the basis of that rate of interest and plan of repayment.

The member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) objects, first, because we did not bring down a Bill when Parliament met, instead of taking action by Order in Council; and, second, because, he says, this is only a palliative. Why did we act before Parliament met? For several reasons. First, the provinces wanted to know what the Dominion was going to do in ordeT that they might formulate their own plans. Second, the provinces wanted to know at once the terms on which they could get the ihoney. Third, if housing was to be proceeded with this spring, it was necessary that the provinces should have this information at once in order that they might proceed with their plansi. Fourth, the soldiers were returning; they were in need of houses, and it was essential that progress should he made in providing houses for them. An additional reason was that employment might be available this spring to help meet the anticipated serious unemployment because immediately after the armistice was signed last November the majority of the people looked forward to a serious condition of unemployment. The Government felt, therefore, that in order to meet the conditions it was well within their power to agree with the Provincial Governments to make these advances on the terms they did.
My hon. friend referred to the question of orders in Council. I admit that the question whether the Government should act in a particular matter by Order in Council or by a Bill is a proper one for discussion and for legitimate difference of opinion. I promised the committee the other evening, when we were discussing the Northwest Mounted Police Estimates, that I would make a statement with regard to the matter of Orders in Council. But we went on to discuss other points, and I passed over it. As the hon. member for Brome has brought it up on this occasion, I shall say1 a word on the subject now.
I think it' was an article in Le Devoir that first brought forcibly home to me the enormity of the offences which I was committing as President of the Council in grinding out so many Orders in Council. It was stated in that paper that more Orders in Council had been passed in one year while I was President of the Council than had been passed in eighteen or twenty years previously. I think the number of years stated was eighteen or twenty; in any ease, it was very many years. I really commenced to think that I must be a very 
bad man indeed if so many Orders in 'Council were being turned out while I was President of the Council.


Mr. BEL  AND@: I thought Le Devoir was
the minister's organ?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Well, not recently-to
put it mildly. Upon seeing this statement of Le Devoir I was interested in looking the matter up, and I got some figures from the Clerk of the Privy Council. I went back for ten years; let me read the figures. Nobody who has been a member of the Privy Council, as the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) and some other members opposite have been, takes seriously this talk of "Government by Order in Council". You might just as well say that municipalities should not legislate by by-law.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: May I point out the difference? On matters of simple routine, of course, we must pass Orders in Council; the Government is carried on by Orders in Council in matters of routine. But when you rule by Order in Council on a question of policy at a time when Parliament is in session you are making a mistake from the constitutional point of view.


Jacques Bureau: It is legislation by Order in Council that we object to.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am glad to have my hon. friend's statement that we carry on 'Government by Orders in Council. That is the way the Government acts.


Jacques Bureau: You carry on Parliament by Order in Council.


Newton Wesley Rowell: ;I will touch on that in a minute. As I say, that is the way the Government acts; it is the manner in which the decision of the Government is given on matters of routine and on matters of policy. In the same way a municipality acts by bylaw or resolution; the Cabinet acts by Order in Council or by Minute of Council approved by the Cabinet. Now, what is the record? In 1908, 4,832 Orders in Council were passed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: With all due deference to the minister, may I say that these statistics are purely childish?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is very well for my hon. friend to say so, because they completely undermine all that he has said on other occasions.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, no.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will give the figures, anyway. I have told my hon. friend that

the occasion, for my looking up the figures was because of the statement that so many more Orders in Council had been passed recently than had been passed in previous years. The figures are as follows:-
Year.	Orders in Council
passed.
1908		 4,832
1909		 4.865
1910		  4,769
1911		 5,73-2
1913	  6,728
1914-	 5,815
1915		 6,245
1916		 1.282
1917		 6,991
1918		 6,246


Frank S. Cahill: How many of those
Orders in Councils were passed under the War Measures Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: il have not the figures
of that. There would, no doubt, be a substantial number, but the great majority of them in every year are purely routine. My hon. friend knows that not an Order in Council can be passed unless this Parliament has given the executive authority. Mr. DUFF: By closure.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend was not in the House when that Act was passed. The War Measures Act, under which action has been taken, was passed unanimously, if I remember aright, by the House of Commons. There was not a dissenting voice, and the Government has acted only under an Act passed with the unanimous consent of the Parliament of Canada, and passed for the very purpose of giving to the Government power to act in case of emergency during the progress of the war. In passing this particular Order in Council, the Government were simply exercising that authority. My hon. friend may say that a measure like this should have been held over and dealt with by this House. That is perfectly legitimate criticism, and men may honestly differ as to whether that may be the case or not. I take the view, and I believe the Government will take the view, that they were justified in the action they took under the conditions that existed at the time.
With regard to the remark made by -the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MoMaster) that this was a mere palliative, I shall not argue the matter further. It is a good deal more than that. All these social measures are matters of vital moment affecting the social and industrial welfare of the people.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am very sorry to see any minister obstructing his own Estimates, and if I could, by Order in Council or otherwise, restrict the minister's time or put him under closure, I think he would get his Estimates through very much more quickly. It is a great gift and a great privilege to have masterful command of the King's English, but sometimes it is rather a drawback to be so generous in the use of it, as sometimes we find the President of the Council. If I had any advice to give him, it would be to be a little more sparing in replies. He will always find opportunities to continue speaking for the next six months if he will reply to everybody who seems to be seeking information.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I thought it a matter of courtesy to my hon. friends on the other side.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is such a thing as too much courtesy. I am very glad to find courtesy, and I have no reason to complain of the courtesy of hon. gentlemen on the other side. The hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy)-and I am sorry he is not in the House-thought that he had occasion to refer to myself and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), by saying that we were not on friendly terms.
He is entirely misinformed; he
II p.m. is almost lacking in information in that regard as the President of the Council is about this Housing scheme. Let me assure the hon. member for North Perth that, while there are many [things on which he could with profit look over to this side of the House for information and light and guidance, when he is looking for quarrels and schemes and divisions and subterfuges, he can find plenty of that in the Government and in the benches on his own side of the House without coming over here. Let me assure him again: The Opposition is getting along quietly, nicely, with the very best of feeling, not only amongst themselves, but with their friends on the other side of the House.
I refrained purposely from saying anything about this housing proposition, as I really had no fixed ideas about it, simply because of the way in which this has been put through. It is a new idea, a new scheme, a new principle in this country, and whenever people launch upon a new principle, the matter should come before Parliament and be threshed out in the form of a resolution and legislation passed based upon that resolution. That is the constitution and the safe way to proceed. The President of the Council says that he findsmany Orders

in Council passed in different years and not many more since the war than 'before. That is not the question, and as the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) has said, a comparison of those figures does not make us any wiser. We do not complain that the War Measures Act was passed, that that power was given to the Government, but we claim that the Government has put constructions on that Act and has done things under it which they should not have done; that they have strained the powers which were given to them under that Act, and that the powers given to them under that Act should be interpreted by the Government in the light of the reasons for which that Act was passed. It is a well known principle that history must be read according to the conditions at the time at which it was written, and Acts of Parliament ought to be construed by courts or Governments according [DOT]to the reasons for which they were passed. 'Will the President of the Council, with his training as a lawyer, say that Parliament, when this Act was being passed, had in mind that it should be used for the purpose of putting railroads into liquidation or [DOT]appointing receivers for railways put into [DOT]liquidation? No man would think of such [DOT]a thing at the time; but the President of the Council, and the rest of the Government, have used this Act for that purpose [DOT]and for many other things equally as bad. We on this side of the House say that there [DOT]is no justification whatever for using the War Measures Act for any portion of this [DOT]housing scheme except one. The minister would be perfectly justified, and the people of this country would justify him, in using [DOT]that power in order to provide homes for [DOT]returned soldiers, if that is necessary. The [DOT]minister's department is not the department in which returned soldiers should be looked after. We have a Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, with a minister at the head of it, and it has all the necessary machinery and ought to look after the returned soldier in every phase of his requirements. Why not, then, leave the housing of the returned soldier to that department? If it is in a position to bring *in here proper information as to the scale of housing required in the different cities [DOT]and towns for the returned soldier, and if [DOT]those requirements are properly set forth [DOT]in Parliament, there would be no criticism [DOT]at all. But here is a scheme which does not touch the returned soldier *more than any body else. Everybody and 
everything are put into the boiling-pot, and, as has been pointed out by some of the supporters of the Government, the wealthy man, the capitalist can take advantage of this scheme to get cheap money and build houses which he can rent at any price he thinks fit. I submit-the minister is not to blame for this-that the Government has not the information on this subject which they should have. They simply jumped at a conclusion, passed an Order in Council under the War Measures Act, and accepted the scheme of the provinces whatever it was. The members on this side of the House have often complained of the armies of commissions that have been appointed by this Government for different reasons, some of them good, some very bad. I submit that during the last ten years no scheme has been submitted by a Government in this country that would more fully justify the appointment of a commission to inquire into and report on the conditions than this very subject of housing. A commission is travelling through the country to-day on the very proper mission of ascertaining the social and industrial conditions of the country, and I submit that one of the matters that that commission could legitimately and properly inquire into is this very question of housing. They would then be able to tell the Government what was really required, and the minister could bring down to the Houise information that would be of ' value and which would justify us in agreeing to the expenditure of this money. But that information is not here, that inquiry has not been made. Without the slightest intention of being unkind or lacking in courtesy, let me say that in my judgment we are not in possession, much letes is the Government in possession of the detailed information that they should have about this scheme before launching upon a loan of $25,000,000 of money which they have not got. If they had the money it would be all very well, but they have to borrow this money from somebody else, and then lend it to somebody ellse who is going to lend it to somebody else. It is only in the most extreme and necessitous cases that we should undertake to spend money in view of the financial conditions of the country to-day. Tf we can by any possibility get along as we have been getting along for the latet ten or fifteen years, let us try to do so until the financial condition of the country improves. It is represented to us by members of the Government who have addressed themselves to the question of national fin-

ance that we are short some hundreds of millions of dollars of what we need. In face of these conditions we find the Government proposing to borrow $20,000,000 for highways, $25,000,000 for housing, and from $25,000,000 to $100,000,000 to create trade with foreign countries. The debt of this country is something over two billion dollars; our revenue is falling off, and our sources of revenue are less promising. These are the conditions which the Government should take well into consideration before launching upon schemes to borrow money which we can do without. The hon. member for Broine has very well said that a housing scheme belongs naturally to cities and provinces. The laws to-day are too lax respecting the way in which concerns who hire men look after them. In the province of Nova Soctia, though it is not very large, we have thousands upon thousands of working men, and as a rule they are very well housed. In the town of Glace Bay in Cape Breton, you will see thousands upon thousands of workmen's, houses, each with its plot of land and all the equipment necessary for comfort. The different companies for which these men work are obliged to keep the houses up in that style, or they could not get the men to work for them. If the manufacturers and other large employers of labour throughout the country were given to understand that one of the-conditions under which they would be permitted to hire men and carry on their business was that their employees should be properly housed, we would be beginning at the right end. We would be dealing with the people who had the power to bring about the right conditions, and if it was necessary, money could be lent to them. That would be better than beginning where we are beginning now, because from what information I have been able to gather from the minister, a poor man cannot take advantage of this plan at all. It is mere talk so far as the poor man is concerned. If anybody wants to borrow money from the Government he must show that he owns the land and that he is in a position to make a start. It is very much like going to a land company to borrow.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Perhaps I did not make myself clear if I left that impression on my hon. friend's mind. The man who owns the lot may borrow the money. The whole plan is based on the view that the provincial government may buy property and sell it again. The provinces, of course, accept the responsibility. We impose no limit on the provinces, but the provinces themselves in
a good many eases do impose some limit. Ontario, for instance, loans 85 per cent of the total cost of the land and the house. This whole scheme is designed just for the purpose of aiding the working man of limited means.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: All I have to say in conclusion is that I am in hearty accord with any scheme that will provide a home for the returned soldier, if it is gone about in the proper way and if the soldier is not kept waiting too long. In my part of the country I do not think there will be very much trouble about the returned soldier. Most of them came from the steel and coal works and from the farms. The soldier who left the farm, when he comes back, naturally wants to go back to the farm if he is physically fit, and it is the same with the coal miners and the steel workers. So we have not had very much trouble in Nova Scotia in that respect. If we were having trouble we would be'very glad to have provision made. Of course, it may be quite different in other places. If the minister in co-operation with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, could formulate a concrete scheme for accelerating conditions which would help the returned soldier and his family to be properly housed he would have the hearty co-operation and sympathy and support of hon. members on this side of the House. But in view of the financial condition of the country to-day, I am not in favour of a general housing policy upon which we have not sufficient information.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many applications have been received from returned soldiers?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We only loan to the provinces. The applications are made to the provinces.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the minister not know the number through the provinces?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, the provinces do not return that to us. The provinces act on the applications-Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.


Jacques Bureau: I desire once more to protest against the manner in which we are called upon to vote this $25,000,000, This expenditure ought to have gone through the usual channel. The item in the Estimates says that this $25,000,000 is to encourage the erection of dwelling houses in congested districts. In the discussion that has taken place this evening suggestions have been made that the money could be used to buy suburban lots or to

create new subdivisions, to have new towns planned, and so on. My hon. friend contends that it was necessary to invoke the War Measures Act and pass an Order in Council. I think he is going too far. The Order in Council was passed on 3rd December, 1918, but the armistice was signed in November, 1918, and the War Measures Act, as has been remarked by my hon. leader, did not contemplate such things as this. If any power can be derived from the War Measures Act in com nection with the present measure, it is under section 6 of the Act, the marginal note of which reads, "Special .powers of Governor in Council." The general clause of the War Measures Act says that it shall cease to have force and effect upon proclamation of the Governor, duly published, that the wax is at an end. Section 3 of the Act says that the provisions of section 6 shall only be enforced during the war, invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended. We need not quibble on words. We know very well that to all intents and purposes the war ceased with the signing o>f the armistice, and in fact demobilization started from that time. The Order in Council was subsequent to that, and there is no justification whatever for the Government introducing this estimate based on an Order in Council. Generally when the Government want money they introduce a resolution and a Bill is presented. The resolution is discussed and the Bill is put through its various stages, and when it is agreed upon it becomes a concrete statute and every citizen of Canada can refer to it and know where to find it. I do not want to bore the Committee but I certainly desire to register my protest against this procedure, and will go further. We have not been credited on this side of the House with a superabundance of loyalty, but I may say that we never created such a condition of things as to make the representative of the King in this country falsify himself or break his promise. Yet this is what the President of the Council is doing to-day. 'On the 20th of February, 1919, an extra of the Canada Gazette contained the following:
Chamber of the Senate.
Ottawa, Thursday, the 20th February, 1919.
This day, at three o'clock, p.m., His Excellency the Governor Genaral proceeded in state to the Chamber of the Senate, in the Parliament Buildings, and took his seat upon the Throne. The members of the Senate being assembled, His Excellency was pleased to command the attendance of the House of Commons, and that House being present, His Excellency was pleased to open the Second Session

of the Thirteenth Parliament of the Dominion of Canada with the following Speech :-
In this speech I find the following-
Tour attention will also be invited to Bills providing for aid in the construction of highways, etc.
I pass that paragraph. The other paragraph says:
Bills will also be submitted for the promotion of vocational education; for the creation of a Department of Public Health; for promoting better housing conditions throughout the Dominion by loans made for the purpose to the several provincial governments, and for the validation toy Parliament of Orders in Council prohibiting the importation and manufacture of intoxicating beverages,-
and so on. It will be observed that in this speech by the Governor made to both Houses of Parliament it is promised that during the present session a Bill will be introduced providing for a better housing scheme. But what have we to-day to discuss? We are called upon to discuss an item which occupies about five or six lines in the Estimates, and no Bill has yet been introduced. Will my hon. friend explain why the promise contained in the speech from the Throne has not been kept, and why he is now proceeding by Order in Council when section 3 of the War Measures Act limits the general powers contained therein to the end of the war, the provisions of section 6 being in force, to use the words of the Act, only " during the war, invasion, or insurrection real or apprehended?" My hon. friend knows as well as I do that the war has ceased, and if he did not know, the great rejoicings that occurred at the signing of the armistice would certainly convince any one that at least it was taken for granted that at that time the war had come to an end. And when that time arrived section 6 of the War Measures Act which gave special powers to the Governor in Council ceased to be of effect. My hon. friend so well understood that, and that it was necessary to confirm the Order in Council of 3rd December and have its provisions embodied in legislation, that he advised His Excellency the Governor General to include in the speech from the Throne the promise that a Bill would be presented in order that there might be no equivocation as to authority and that the House could understand the matter fully and discuss it in detail. As has been remarked by some one preceding me, this is a new departure in policy, it is a new experiment, and my hon. friend the President of the Council will agree with me that we cannot discuss this measure which is before us to-night in pamphlet

form as adequately as we could a Bill. When a Bill gets its second reading it goes before the Committee and every section is discussed, and we can get all the information that we require. But this thing is in the form of a recommendation, and absolute power is vested in the Governor in Council, notwithstanding the promise made in the speech from the Throne that the matter would be left to be dealt with by Parliament in the form of a Bill.
There is another ground for objection. The President of the Privy Council knows as well as I do-because by reason of his position he is aware of the Orders in Council that go through-that it is very hard for any one to keep track of all the Orders in Council that are passed; whereas when legislation is submitted in the form of a Bill members are enlightened and cannot plead ignorance. It is not difficult, however, to plead ignorance of Orders in Council, because I have known some of them not to be published until three and four months after they had been passed. For these reasons I protest for the hundredth time-even at the risk of being considered a bore, because while I sit'here I will not allow one of the prerogatives that belong to Parliament to be invaded without registering an objection-at the course which has been followed. I claim that under the War Measures Act power could not be derived on the 3rd of December to pass an Order in Council such as the one that has been passed in this case. The only word in that Act which would justify it-and I will read the clause from the Act for the information of the Committee-is the word ''welfare." That word was not intended to be coupled with such a scheme as the present I do not use the word in any offensive sense, and perhaps it would be better to say "plan." Now section 6 of the Act reads as follows:
The Governor in Council shall have power to do and authorize such acts and things, and to make from time to time such orders and regulations as he may, (by reason of the existence of real or apprehended war, invasion, or insurrection, deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada.
I consider that the word "welfare" is the only one in the statute which would give them authority to pass such Orders in Council as we are now considering. Under those circumstances, I desire to register my most emphatic protest against it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the minister
will see that the information contained in the printed pamphlet which he gave
us this evening is very important. That pamphlet we only received when he began to speak upon this item of $25,000,000, and nobody on this side has had any opportunity of reading it. I simply glanced over the pamphlet here and there, but (I have not been able to fully digest its contents. I think, therefore, it would be advisable to let the Committee rise and proceed with this proposal a little later on when we have had the opportunity of fully studying what is proposed. When the minister comes down with a proposition to vote $25,000,000 for a proposal of this kind, he should not complain if it does not go through the first evening. I think he will be treating the Committee fairly by letting us have a little spell to study the information which he has placed in our hands.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend may
have overlooked the fact, but printed copies of these Orders in Council were distributed and placed in the boxes of hon. members more than a month ago. If hon. members have not read them, it was not because they did not have ample opportunity to do so. I had hoped that after such a full discussion as we have had to-night the item would be allowed to pass. On concurrence, of course, my hon. friends will have the opportunity for further discussion, but I would like to get the item through tonight and make that amount of progress.


Jacques Bureau: I remember getting one
of these pamphlets, but members receive all sorts of literature during the session, and when I saw ' the little frills " on the front page of the document. I did not imagine it was of an official character. I therefore laid it aside and never thought of it again until II saw it being handed around this evening. I was greatly surprised to find Orders in Council enclosed within such a handsomely illustrated cover. Members are not used to that, so it may be regarded as a justification for some of us not paying as much attention as we might have done to the pamphlets when we first received them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) has drawn attention to the fact that a measure on this subject was promised in the speech from the Throne. If that is the case does not the minister think the Government should implement that promise and bring down a Bill dealing with this vote? If the Government intends to do so this resolution will have to stand until that intention is fulfilled. If it is not proposed to do so.

we will have to deal with the resolution just as it is, and that will be the greater reason for reasonableness in permitting us to have a little further opportunity for consideration and discussion.
This publication is signed by the President of the Privy Council and anything which bears his signature ought to be good reading. Moreover, if we are better informed on the subject there will not be the same need for asking questions. The hon. gentleman should let the committee go now. When the hour of half-past eleven comes it is time to go to our homes; to sit any longer is only impairing our usefulness for another day. We can sit here until six o'clock to-morrow morning if need be, but we should be good for very little that day: I think we do a fair amount of work each day, and it is not making an unreasonable' request to ask that the committee rise now.


Jacques Bureau: I would suggest that the Government bring in a Bill and redeem the word of His Excellency the Governor General, as given in the speech from the Throne.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is not the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill, because this vote covers the whole situation. This is to provide for a loan to the provinces. If what is proposed here were the carrying on of a large administrative work under some new department the Situation would be different; but this is a loan under certain conditions defined by Order in Council. If there is any further information I could give I would be glad to furnish it. I want, if possible, to get the vote through to-night and if more discussion is -desired, it can take place on concurrence.


Jacques Bureau: Are we not engaging the credit of the Government to extent of $25,000,000?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We are voting $25,000,000.


Jacques Bureau: Are not we engaging the credit of the country to that extent?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, we are obligating the country to the extent of $25,000,000.


Jacques Bureau: Then why not follow the ordinary procedure of introducing a Bill, since the Government promised to do so in the speech from the Throne.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have listened to this
discussion about a Bill, and it seems to me that if one were introduced, it would only contain one clause to this effect: It shall be lawful for this Parliament to lend the provinces of Canada $25,000,000 to increase

the facilities for housing the people. What else could there be in it? I was rather pleased to know that the minister had taken so much pains as to distribute a pamphlet to members which gives more light and information about this particular subject than we ever have about any Bill. I do not think the criticism of hon. gentlemen as to the introduction of a Bill is very well founded, or has much cogency or force.


Jacques Bureau: Why not observe the
promise of the Governor General? Why make him false to his promise?


Mr. COPP:: What will the Dominion Government contribute towards this scheme in the difference between the interest it will receive and the interest it will pay?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Arthur Bliss Copp: Have you made an estimate of what the expenses were in connection with the Victory Loan?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The cost of the Victory Loan is a fixed matter, regardless of whether we loan the money this way or apply it to another purpose.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Has the minister made an estimate of what would be the cost of this particular loan?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Will the minister state
whether he has made any investigation or estimate as to what extra staff will be required by his department to carry on this work-what it will cost the country?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have availed ourselves of the services of Mr. Adams, who is already with the Conservation Commission, and we have also availed ourselves of the services of two other gentlemen, one on the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and the other in the Department of Public Works, who have been loaned for six months for the purpose of carrying out this work with the provinces. We expect that so far as this important end of the administration is concerned it will be over in six months. Then I think we have two additional officials, one for six months and the other for three months, their terms expiring concurrently, to take this matter up with the different provinces and arrange details.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is all very well as to the number; I asked as to the amount.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The whole expense, including the payment of salaries of the men who are in other departments and are being paid in the meantime in connection with this -work, I estimate will not exceed $10,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Then the cost to the country will be that much more. I notice on page 8 the minister further recommends that all expenses incurred by the committee be charged to the War Appropriation Vote. That refers to the expenses my hon. friend has already mentioned?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is correct.


Jacques Bureau: The minister has not
answered my question as to the reasons why the Governor-General changed his mind and proceeded in this way.


Newton Wesley Rowell: This comes up in the
Estimates, and it then comes up in the Supply Bill. It is covered by the Bill in that way. While my hon. friend is fair in his interpretation that a special Bill was implied, this is the method which the Government proposes to carry out the policy; and they think this is all that is required, simply a lump sum of $25,000,000 to be loaned to the provinces.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister would
never suggest that a Supply Bill was mentioned in the speech from the Throne?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. I said my hon. friend might fairly infer that there was to be a special Bill; but the Government decided that this was the best method of carrying it out.


Jacques Bureau: Was that determination
taken since the beginning of the session? The Government must have had some doubts as to the validity of the Order in Council under the War Measures Act for the reasons. I have cited, and I suppose in the moment of recognizing the rights of Parliament the Council wavered and said: We are going to bring down a Bill now; we are having the other Orders in Council ratified. That I think would be justified by the War Measures Act, like the sale of intoxicating liquors, etc. The Bill mentioned in the speech from the Throne was not a Supply Bill, but a Bill for legislation, and that is what was meant, and there can toe no other interpretation given to it. But the session went on, things were running smoothly, I suppose my hon. friends got more courage, and they said: We are going to bluff it through the House anyway, whether we make the Governor-General lie or not. I
want to know the reason why that course was taken. There is the promise of the Governor-General to introduce a Bill for that purpose, and who is making him false to that promise I want to know?


Frank S. Cahill: How did the Government arrive at the conclusion that they should loan this money to the provinces at 5 per cent-or one-half per cent to one per cent less than we are really paying for the money-and not make a stipulation with the Provincial Governments as to the basis on which they should loan thl money? The Provincial Governments are not obliged to loan it at 5 per cent; they may charge 5J or 6 per cent. Then there is no stipulation that it shall be loaned to soldiers; it may be loaned to a provincial government, and that government may loan it to any person. As a matter of fact the two larger provinces are getting the greater part of the money, and they are getting it at a price less than the Dominion Government can borrow it on the market. How does this advantage the returned soldier when you simply let loose the money to the province; or the real poor labouring man who needs the money, when you let the province make its own arrangements with a city or a company or some private individual? I think the Government should explain that phase of it to us. We have not had an opportunity of reading this, as my hon. friend from Three Rivers pointed out. I saw this thing in my box, but, as you know, our boxes are filled up every day with temperance literature or something else which we throw into the waste paper basket, and this pamphlet went with the other stuff as far as I am concerned.


Arthur Bliss Copp: How many provinces have [DOT]taken advantage of the scheme so far?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Ontario and British
Columbia have submitted their schemes which have been approved. The Manitoba plans have been agreed upon, but the Order in 'Council has not yet been passed. Quebec's plan has been agreed upon, except as to one minor detail, the question of the repayment of the money. New Brunswick has passed legislation and its plan has been agreed upon. Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have passed Acts, but their plans 'have not yet toeen submitted.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It looks as if not very much work will be done during the present *summer.	-
* Mr. ROWELL: So far as this Government is concerned, we have expedited the



matter in every possible way; if there is any delay, it is not on our part. But Ontario is going ahead very rapidly, as also is British Columbia. I believe it is the intention of Quebec to do the same.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the Government received any intimation from the returned soldiers' association that they are agreeable to this legislation?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The returned soldiers' *association strongly approved of it. The *request came from some quarters that we [DOT]should lend direct, but we could not see our way clear to do that.
*	Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR: I have an inquiry [DOT]from a returned soldier in Nova Scotia who wants to know how he can participate in [DOT]this scheme. I am told that Nova Scotia *requires that the municipality guarantee the loan to the province before a resident of that municipality may take advantage of it. That returned soldier, then, must call a meeting of the county council in the [DOT]county in which he lives. The county *council meets in April and January of each year, so that he will either have to call a special meeting or wait until next January. [DOT]Then, if he secures the guarantee from the county council he will have to go to the province; the province will, in turn, guarantee the loan to the Dominion, and I .suppose the money will then be available. [DOT]If he has to go through all that, it looks to me like a cumbersome method of getting the money. I should like to know whether I am right in this, because I want to give [DOT]my returned soldier the information.
*	Mr. ROWELL: If he is a workingman and comes under the terms of this proposal, it is a question between the Government of Nova Scotia and the soldieT him-[DOT]selE whether he gets the loan direct or through the municipality. We do not pretend to dictate how the province should proceed in that respect. If he is a farmer, even in a small way, he would likely come under the terms of the Soldier Settlement Act, in which case he could borrow direct.
Mr, J. H. .SINCLAIR: In that case the money would not come from this fund?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


James Alexander Robb: The minister is appropriating $25,000,000 to be distributed among the different provinces on a per capita basis. He says that only two provinces have actually taken up the scheme; others are negotiating. If only three provinces accept, will the $25,000,000 be distributed among the three?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, the Bill expressly provides that they can only get their per capita share. The balance of the vote will lapse if the other provinces do not take advantage of the loan.


Mr. PEDLOW:: I object to this item and to the method of introducing this proposal before the House. I object because there has been, a lack of vital information regarding this proposal, because the scheme is utterly lacking in proper safeguards, and because certain provisions contained in this beautifully printed .document are absurd. The minister has told us that certain agreements have been entered into with two of the provinces. It is only fair that these agreements should be placed on the Table.


Newton Wesley Rowell: They were placed on the Table some time ago.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: This is the first intimation that I have had of it. Of course so many things occur that it is impossible to follow them all. Indeed it is impossible to hear a good deal of what is said in the House. I repeat that I object to the method by which this subject was introduced. Legislation by Order in 'Council has of late been the rule, notwithstanding the figures submitted by the President of the Council tonight. There is mo sense in bringing this matter before the Committee now, because the deal has already been put through. Why insult members of the House by spending a whole evening discussing it when it is to be put through no matter how we discuss it? Arrangements have already been made with the provinces on the basis of the terms contained in this document. It is like the case where the judge of a divisional .court was about to render a decision One of the lawyers rose up and said: "Your honour, I would like to address the court." The court said "Well, you may go ahead and address the court, but it will make no difference anyway." We address this Parliament, but no matter how much we protest, that will make no difference anyway, because the decision has already been arrived at by Order in Council. I heard it stated on the floor of this House that this was specially designed for the benefit of the returned soldier. It is nothing of the kind. Under the terms of this scheme, any one who has an income not exceeding $3,000 per annum can qualify for a loan; in fact, many members of Parliament could qualify for a loan. Our salary or income for our services here is the magnificent sum of $2,500 per session, and we could

apply for a loan under this scheme and build in the city of Ottawa a house which we could occupy for a few months in the year and which would be convenient. I suggest that we incorporate in this measure a provision that members of this House may qualify for a loan to build a residence in Ottawa for use during sessions of Parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: And free from taxes.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: There is another feature of this resolution that I should like the minister to explain. Will he define what is a "workingman"? I should like to know where the line is drawn. The resolution puts the maximum income of those who may apply for a loan at $3,000, and as we are paid $2,500 per session for working about fourteen hours a day, I suppose we could qualify as workingmen under the terms of this proposition.
I should also like to refer to the case of a man who is in good circumstances in life and has, say $42,000 invested in mortgages and that class of security upon which he is receiving 7 per cent per annum. Such a man could qualify under the terms of this arrangement for a loan of $4,500, and he would be a very foolish man if he did not do so, because he could borrow that sum from the Government at five per cent and lend it out at seven per cent, and on the transaction he would net the nice little sum of $90, which added to his handsome income of $2,940 obtained from the investment of $42,000 at 7 per cent, would increase his income to $3,030. Notwithstanding that fact, he could still qualify for a loan under this proposition. Unless proper safeguards are thrown around this scheme as to the manner of making the advances, this loan will go into the hands of the capitalists of the country as well as of members of Parliament who are now about to vote upon the subject.
In view of the statement made that the British Columbia and Ontario Governments have already accepted contracts submitted to them by the Federal Government, it is evident that the operation of this scheme has already begun. Why then bring this matter into this House for discussion when the operation is already settled independently of the House of Commons. It would be just as well for the House to be dismissed as to ask us here day after day to discuss measures that have already been settled by Order in Council. We are mere rubber stamps, and I did not intend to come here to be used as a rubber stamp or
anything of , that kind. The 12 m. brains of Parliament are not always included in the section of the House to the right of the Speaker; there are some brains on this side of the House, and they might be of advantage occasionally in matters of this kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Mr. P'EDLOW: Hon. members need not be in a hurry, as if is early yet. In view of the statement made previously this session in this House as to the enormous liabilities we have already incurred and the enormous shortage that has been admitted, a shortage, I understand, of over $100,000,000 that is staring the Minister of Finance in the face, and that no doubt is causing him a good deal of worry and is partly responsible for the delay in bringing down the Budget, the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) should hesitate in pressing this scheme to a conclusion to-night. In view of all that, I think the time is inopportune for enforcing this proposition, and besides the amount the Government has decided to invest in this scheme is ridiculous. It will provide, on the basis of an average cost of $3,750 per house, which is the average cost of the four schemes under consideration, for the nine provinces about 629 houses to each province. It will not relieve the situation to any extent; It is a mere drop in the bucket. The House would be well advised to delay this scheme until a proper scheme is got into operation and until a more opportune time arises when money is more plentiful. I heard the acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) state that he would have to appeal to the country during the coming year for a loan of not less than $350,000,000. If the. Government go on throwing around the money already received by way of loan from the people of this country, as has been the custom for the last .month or so. in this Parliament, I fancy they will have a difficult problem ahead of them to raise another loan, and whether it is called a Victory loan or a Peace loan or anything else, the Government will have difficulty in enthusing the people in the matter. I had a good deal to do locally with regard to raising the last loan, and I know from experience gained at that time that the Government have quite a difficult proposition ahead of them, especially in view of the manner in which the money is being spent. The Government is giving $25,000,000 to the provinces without agreements that we know anything of and without proper safeguards. They have advanced'

$25,000,000 to buy merchandise to eend to Roumania, $25,000,000 to buy merchandise [DOT]to send to Belgium, and an unlimited amount for France and Great Britain, and 'they have also decided to appropriate $25,000,000 for good roads. I am not finding fault with some of those schemes, but a 'limit should be put to the amounts, especially when many of them are amounts 'which are not surrounded by proper safe-guards and on which the Government is taking a big chance making a big gamble. I think the funds subscribed by the citizens of this country deserve better protection than they seem to obtain.


James Alexander Robb: Before we proceed further, or before we adjourn, I desire to draw to the attention of yourself, Mr. Chairman, and of .the minister in charge, that this loan of $25,000,000 to provincial governments is asked for on the terms and conditions set forth in the Order in Council of the 3rd December, 1918. Article 6 of this Order in Council reads as follows:
Advances shall be made from the War Appropriation.
Inasmuch as we have already voted the War Appropriation of $350,000,000, I submit that the minister is asking for a duplication of that vote, and I think he should report progress .and adjourn until he has time to consult as to the legality of this vote.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is under a misapprehension. That was under the War Appropriation Vote. The new Vote is not the War Appropriation Vote but the Demobilization Vote. The War Appropriation Vote under which that was payable expired on the 31st of March last, and we have no authority to pay this out of the $350,000,000 Demobilization Vote.


James Alexander Robb: The minister will admit that there appears to be some conflict between the two, and I am not sure but what the country will think he is asking for a double vote.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think they are quite clearly defined. Expenditure could only be made under the War Appropriation Vote up to the 31st of March last. We have no authority to spend this money under the Demobilization Vote.


Frank S. Cahill: I think the minister should be generous enough to report progress. Every Friday night we seem to land up against some large appropriation, and I suppose it will be the same at the end of the session. Last session we pyssed some 
$60,000,000 on the last night. We have spent a good deal of time this week discussing various matters which if they had been discussed at this hour of !he night would have had a very small audience, even of Government supporters. We have only been informed of what this vote actually means this evening, and I think it is only fair that the minister should accede to the wishes of the leader of the Opposition and the Opposition generally, and I think also of many of his supporters. A large vote like this requires careful consideration. We have got into the habit of talking of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars, but the day is coming when we shall have to meet the interest on our investments and repay our loans. I think it would probably be the means of facilitating legislation in the future, as well as right now, if the minister would report progress.


Newton Wesley Rowell: When the leader of the Opposition made the same request I gave my reasons for hoping that we would pass this vote to-night. If there is any further information required, I shall be very glad to facilitate a discussion on Concurrence. I want to have regard to the views of the leader of the Opposition, but I was hoping that we would reach the point where this item would go through to-night.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have no desire to obstruct any of the business of the House, on the contrary, I want to facilitate it as much as possible.	I
would say to my hon. friend, who is getting to be rather an old member of this House now, that I have been a member a long time but I have never heard anything discussed on Concurrence, and if he has nothing to promise us but that, there will not be much discussion, unless an innovation is to he made. However, whenever the House gets in a bad temper, as it is beginning to get now, I never get very much satisfaction, and I am content to let the item pass.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell, the House adjourned at 12.10 a.m. Saturday.
Monday, May 19, 1919.