1922-04-04

MARKETING OF WHEAT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi) presented the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, as follows:
That without delaying investigation by this committee as to the advisability of the reestablishment of the Canada Wheat Board, the matter of the constitutionality of such re-establishment be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada and that every effort be made to secure decision at an early date.
Also the third report of said committee, reading as follows:
That the reference to the committee of the memorandum of Council of Agriculture be enlarged, and that the committee be instructed to consider also the suggestion of a "Voluntary Pool" under control of the Government and working in conjunction with the elevator system now owned by the Government, and also the proposal of marketing of the wheat crop by the co-operative system, and to report to the House its finding.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia and Defence) moved that the House go into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
1.	That it is expedient to bring in a measure to create a department of the Government of
[Stage Direction]
National Defence
[Stage Direction]
Canada to be called the Department of National Defence, over which a Minister of the Crown shall preside vh o shall be the Minister of National Defence.
2.	That the minister shall be charged with all matters relating to Defence, including the Militia, the Military, Naval, Air and Police Services of Canada.
3.	That there shall be a Deputy Minister of National Defence who shall be appointed by the Governor in Council, and hold office during pleasure, and such officers may be appointed as are necessary for the carrying on of the business of the department.
4.	That the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister may appoint an officer who shall, in relation to the Naval Service exercise all the powers and duties vested in the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service by or under The Naval Service Act, and who shall have the rank and salary of a deputy head of a department, and shall be a member of the Defence Council.
5.	That the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the minister may appoint an officer to be known as Comptroller, who under the Deputy Minister of National Defence, shall be charged with all financial matters pertaining to the Department of National Defence.
6.	That any person whose position is abolished on the coming into force of the Act to be based upon these resolutions may, on the recommendation of the minister, be appointed by the Governor in Council to such position in the department and with such rank, title and salary as shall be prescribed.
7.	That if any person is removed from office or an appointment in consequence of the abolition of his office or his appointment by the Act based upon these resolutions or by any order or regulation thereunder, or is retired *within two years after the coming into force of the said Act, the Governor in Council may grant him a gratuity, retiring or superannuation allowance, or pension not exceeding such as he would have been entitled or eligible to receive if he had been retired under the provisions of any Act applicable to him, after adding from one to three years, as the Governor in Council may deem advisable, to his actual term of service.
8.	That provision be made to vest the powers, duties and functions vested in the ministers and deputy ministers under the various Acts relating to the Naval Service, the Militia, Militia Pensions, the Royal Military College, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Dominion Police, in the Minister of National Defence and the Deputy Minister of National Defence respectively :-Provided that the powers vested in the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service under the Naval Service Act shall be exercised by the officer appointed for that purpose as aforesaid.
9.	That provision be made to constitute a Defence Council to advise the minister on all matters of defence, including or relating to the Militia, the Military, Naval, Air and Police [Services of Canada, and on all matters referred to it by the minister, and to perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council.
He said: Although the statement appears in Hansard that His Excellency the Governor General has been apprised of the subject matter of this resolution and com-

mends it to the consideration of the House, it does not appear in the Votes and Proceedings.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: I think a few words of explanation from the minister would not be out of place at the present time with regard to this important resolution.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I proposed to make a statement on moving the second reading of the bill.


Mr. McMASTER:: We cannot hear at this end of the Chamber.


George Perry Graham: It is the first time I was ever accused of speaking in too low a tone. I am quite willing to make a short explanation now as to the object of this resolution; but I shall reserve the further and more detailed statement until the motion for the second reading of the bill.
As hon. members know, announcement was made some weeks ago that it was the intention of the Government to bring under one ministerial head what might properly be termed the defence forces of Canada. There are four branches,-the Militia, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Naval Service and the Air Service. The object of the present resolution, and of the bill to be founded on it, is to bring these branches under one ministerial head, in the hope of thereby promoting efficiency and economy. It is a fair question to ask: In what direction does the Government expect to promote economy? I will just mention one phase of the matter which I think will appeal to every member of the House. In all these branches there are quite a large number of temporary employees. Now the word "temporary" used in this connection has not the significance we usually apply to the term. A clerk in one of these departments, or in any other department, may be properly termed temporary though he or she may have been in such department for years. The fact may be that they have failed to pass the necessary examination entitling them to become permanent employees, or even some may have passed such examination and still not have been made permanent under the act. Now, in the departments referred to there are a large number of temporary employees, and the Government hope that by the amalgamation of the different branches in question the services can be approximately carried on by the permanent staff. If our hope in that direction be realized, I think there

National Defence
would be a saving on this account alone of between seven hundred thousand and a million dollars per annum. Then there are other directions, I think, in which economy can be promoted; for example in the amalgamation of the various executive forces of these different branches, those engaged in buying and selling-what we call the purchasing departments-and other services of this nature. By amalgamation it is hoped that we can do the business just as well, or perhaps a little better, with a smaller staff. There is a question involved in the uniting of these branches that is a difficult one to solve. Hon. members who have been ministerial heads of departments will perhaps appreciate the fact more thoroughly than those who have not held such a trying position. There are not a few semi-heads of branches, including men quite prominent in the land, splendid men, whom it will be perhaps a little difficult to establish under the new organization; but I am taking the House into my confidence when I say that I will endeavour, as far as possible, to see that in the carrying out of the new organization no injustice will be done to these men who have given years of service to the public. I do not know that it would be wise, or even necessary, at this stage to enter upon a consideration of the details of what is proposed. I think it would be more satisfactory to do that when the bill has been printed and placed in its entirety in the hands of hon. members.


Mr. MACLEAN (York) :: Has the Minister made provision for these changes in the Estimates that are before the House?


George Perry Graham: It will take months to bring about this organization; and I may say that discussing it with a gentleman, not in the employ of the Government but one who has had experience in several departments, he assured me that if it were accomplished in one year it would be good work. But the Estimates had to be prepared for the fiscal year, and we have just entered upon a new fiscal period. It has not been possible to adopt any other method in this respect than that which we have followed.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the committee will agree that the resolution forecasts a bill which, in general, will be to the advantage of Canada; and while we cannot give to the present minister the credit for originating the idea still, I think, we may accord him full credit as the first Minister of Militia in Canada who has brought forth
42i
a concrete scheme, or proposal, for accomplishing the purpose. So far back as the year 1909 or 1910, the older members of the House will recollect, Sir Frederick Borden, then Minister of Militia and Defence in the Liberal Administration of that day, considered it would be desirable to bring together the Naval and Military services. It was at the time of the discussion in this House of the act known as the Naval Service Act of Canada, but there were difficulties in carrying out the proposal at that time and there have been difficulties since.


George Perry Graham: And there are difficulties now.


Hugh Guthrie: In fact it has been said that the only time properly to consolidate several departments of government into one is at the beginning of a new parliament and upon the formation of a new ministry. The Naval Service section of the defence forces of Canada has heretofore always been under the Minister of Marine and Fisheries who was known also as Minister of the Naval Service. The Mounted Police were, for many years, under the jurisdiction of the President of the Council. The force is still under the President of the Privy Council, but under the late administration the holder of that portfolio was, for a time, also Minister of Immigration and Colonization. The Air Board was, I think, at its inception attached to the Department of the Secretary of State. Shortly afterwards it was transferred to the Department of Militia and Defence, but only in so far as the minister himself was named as the chairman of the board; the board did not function under the Department of Militia and Defence save in regard to the chairmanship of the Minister of Militia. In a scheme advanced by Sir Frederick Borden, and in another scheme suggested to Parliament in a report by Lord French-made, I think, in the year 1910 or 1911-the suggestion was advanced that all the military and naval forces of Canada should be brought under one department. Speaking subject to correction let me say that neither in Sir Frederick Borden's suggestion nor in Lord French's report was it proposed that the Mounted Police of Canada should be made part of the Department of National Defence. Then at a later stage, following the late war, General Sir Arthur Currie, while chief of staff in the Department of Militia, made a report and I had the pleasure and honour of discussing that report with him. It will be found, I think, in the militia report of

National Defence
1920. In his report Sir Arthur Currie recommended that the military force, the naval force and the air force should be brought under one department, and also that there should be a committee of national defence in the government, but he, I think, likewise excluded the Royal Northwest Mounted Police.
We have, however, waited until the present time before taking action in regard to the matter. The proposal of the minister is to take all of our defence forces and all of our police forces not strictly of a military or naval nature and place them under one central control and in a single department of government, and by so doing the minister says-and I think be has reasonable ground for the statement-that he will to some extent reduce the expenditure in regard to national defence. I assume that that will he one of the results of the proposed action of the minister. I, for one, am very much gratified that he is taking this stand in regard to national defence. From statements made in this House last session and the session before, and from speeches made during the recent election, I feared very much that the present Government upon attaining power would not do anything in regard to national defence at all. I felt gratified when I looked over the Estimates and found that the proposals for expenditures on national defence this year were practically about what they were the year before and the year before that. It was a matter of gratification for me to see that the proposed expenditure this year in the Department of Militia is just about ten million six or seven hundred thousand dollars and I think I am within the mark when I say that all we spent in the Department of Militia last year just closed was ten million two hundred thousand or two hundred and fifty thousand or about half a million less than the proposed expenditure for this year. I feared from what I had read and heard in this House that a severe assault was to fbe made upon the militia system of Canada and I am greatly gratified to find that that is not the case but that substantially the Government proposes to maintain in this country what we have maintained from Confederation down to the present time. I believe it will be in the general interests of the service and of the Dominion to bring the various defence forces together as the minister proposes, but I am going to reserve, durihg the present discussion, from expressing any opinion in regard to the proposal to

bring the Mounted Police into the Department of National Defence, as part of the defence forces of Canada. No one knows better than my hon. friend the minister (Mr. Graham) and the Government of which he is a member, that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was originally established upon the distinct understanding that it was not to be a military but essentially a civil force. While it is true that it has always been drilled and organized upon military lines, its duties and functions have always been distinctly civil, as apart from military. The late Sir Frederick Borden did not suggest taking it in, neither did Lord FrenCh nor Sir Arthur Currie, and the ground of .their refusal to suggest its being taken in was that it might be continued as a purely civil force. I do not think I am going beyond the facts when I say that the chief benefit derived in the Dominion of Canada from the Northwest Mounted Police has been in regard to civil work. It has been of tremendous advantage to this country that we have had such a force. It has been engaged in the investigation of crime, the preservation of law and order, just as an ordinary municipal police force would be, and if you now turn that purely civil into part of your military establishment or part of your national defence, you will rob that exceptional force of the distinctly civil character which it has enjoyed heretofore, and by reason of which it has been so useful from its inception to the present time.
Also, I point out to the committee at this stage that the present resolution forecasts a bill, and the bill will be brought in, in due course. The resolution and the bill, 1 am satisfied, are mere skeletons, they merely state that a department of national defence shall he established, but the whole machinery for the establishment and carrying on of that department is left to the Governor in Council. It is rather strange that in a short resolution such as the present one we find that in no less than six different instances the Government proposes to carry out this scheme by Order in Council. This intention on the part of the Government is even more marked in the bill than in the resolution. The Government boldly proposes to reserve to itself the right to deal with this new department, to carry on the great matter of national defence, by Order in Council. If the com-nittee will stop to count the references in this short resolution, they will find that the Order in Council method of dealing

National Defence
with the matter is adopted in no less than six instances, and it occurs more frequently in the bill than it does in the resolution. Eor any one who sat in this Parliament during the last three sessions, and heard the members of the present Government, then in opposition, condemning in the strongest language, in season and out of season, what they called "government by order in council," it is a strange thing that the first piece of real legislation which they have to present to the House this session is merely a skeleton, and that the present Government, which formed the Opposition during the last three years, now deliberately proposes to carry out this measure under the powers which can be exercised by the Governor in Council.
I was glad to hear the minister state that it was his intention, as far as possible, to take care of the experienced members of his staff although it is quite possible that he may not require the services of them all. I think it is worth the time of the committee to give some consideration to that question. We have to-day in the Militia Department-and I can say this without any qualification-the most highly-trained men and the most thoroughly experienced military staff that we have ever had in the history of the Dominion. That is, of course, by reason of the fact that the men who are now in the commanding positions in that department were men who served with the Canadian forces throughout the great war. We have now in that department, or had until very recently, as Inspector-General, Major General Sir Henry Burstall, one of the ablest officers that the Dominion of Canada has yet produced. We have as Chief of General Staff, Major'General MacBrien, as Master of Ordnance, Major General Sir Edward Morrison, as Adjutant General, Major General Elmsley, and as Quarter-master, Major General Ashton, a group of men, who, as field commanders in time of trouble, or as advisers and adminstrators in time of peace, it would be hard to surpass. These officers are all highly experienced staff officers whose places could not be easily filled in this country. Most of the men have been trained, to some extent, at the expense of the Dominion of Canada. Three, at least, of them have been sent by and at the expense of this country to the staff college in Great Britain, and they have taken brilliant courses there. They have been equipped, at the expense and for the benefit of Canada, with the
highest kind of military training, and they are all yet within military age. I believe, if this bill goes through and this reorganization takes place, some of these men will have to leave the service to seek other walks of life, and I believe it is proposed to promote some juniors in the service to their positions. Is it in the interest of Canada to have specially trained officers, to spend our money to send these men to the staff college in England, and then to cast them adrift rather than to continue to utilize their services? It is of the highest importance that such men, as those whom I have enumerated, should be retained in the Militia of Canada and that their services should not be dispensed with. If it be wrong to train men and to send them to the staff college in England, let us stop doing so now; but let us have the services of those men who have heretofore been trained, not only in the staff college, but in the long and hard school in which they served during the years of the Great War.
In connection with the retirement or release of officers, there is another point which should be especially drawn to the attention of the committee, and that is the provision for their retirement. If they are to be retired, I want to see them liberally dealt with; but I do not know that the minister has adopted the right course. He is proposing to add to their years of service for the purpose of increasing their pensions. We have not been accustomed to let out our privates on that basis, and I think the 400 clerks, who were let out of the Militia Department on the first of this month, were not treated in that way. I do not know that it is a proper principle to add unserved time to time served, for the purpose of increasing pensions, but that is the power which the minister is taking under this bill.


Mr. VIEN:: What other course would the hon. gentleman recommend if he wants these men to be treated generously?


Hugh Guthrie: I would retain their services instead of putting other men in their places. We have now a Militia Council, and its place is to be taken by a Council of National Defence. This will mean that new men will be taken on or that other men will be promoted.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman said: If the department has to dispense with the services of these men, I wish the minister would treat them generously; but I do not agree with the minister in his proposal of adding to their years of service so as
National Defence

to increase their pensions. I put this question to the hon. gentleman. If he does not agree with the policy of adding years to their years of service for the purpose of increasing their pensions, what other course does he suggest, if we admit that their services must be dispensed with?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not admit that their services must be dispensed with. The services of the men, who are now there, and whom I have enumerated, should be retained, and I am asking that they be retained.


George Perry Graham: Under the present law, the Government has practically carte blanche to add to their years of service for the purpose of pensions.


Hugh Guthrie: Then why put this provision in the bill?


George Perry Graham: Outside of the men who come under the Military Pensions Act, there are men in the other branches who do not come under that provision.


Hugh Guthrie: I hope the minister will be able to convince me when we come to deal with that clause, which struck me as an odd clause when I read it. My experience is that experienced men, whom Canada has educated, of whom Canada is proud, who did so well in the Great War, should be retained, and new men should not be introduced, either by promotions or new appointments.


Thomas Vien: Does my hon. friend believe that seventeen generals are necessary to manage the affairs of the Militia of Canada?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: There is some applause to that sentiment from the Progressive side of the House. These seventeen officers were not Generals before the war; but by reason of the fact that these men succeeded in the war, they were promoted at the most critical time in the history of this country and its people. Thus it was that they rose to high command. Should that now be a disqualification? Does it justify us in saying: "Now, you cannot stay in the Militia? You must make way for less experienced men." The seventeen Generals of whom my right hon. friend speaks, are men who did not rise to that rank before the great war; but by reason of their good and hard work during the war, they attained that rank, and we should retain them.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I should like to say just one word as to what my hon.

friend has stated about the references in this resolution to Orders in Council. I think no one understands better than my hon. friend that there is a great difference between asking Parliament to authorize certain administrative acts by Order in Council, which acts can be performed only in that way, and the Governor-in-Council taking to itself power, to all intents and purposes, to enact legislation on matters which should be the subject of legislation in this Parliament. What we on this side of the House took strong objection to in the case of hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were sitting on this side, was that, having-been given certain general powers for war purposes, they continued to use those powers for the purpose of putting through by Order in Council enactment after enactment which should have had their origin in this House, if they were to have an origin anywhere. My hon. friends will recall that it was more or less a habit with them to pass Orders in Council and then to come to Parliament and ask Parliament to legalise the effects of those Orders in Council. I remember, in the case of one bill relating to some matters affecting coal mining operations in the West, the government of my hon. friend opposite presented to this House 180 Orders in Council and Parliament was asked to re-enact these Orders in Council, to give them beyond question the effect of law, although Parliament, at the outset, was not even favoured with copies of the Orders in Council. They were enumerated by number, from number 1 to No. 180, and this Parliament was asked to give the force of law to Orders in Council that were enumerated in that way. What we are asking in this resolution is for Parliament to authorize the Governor-in-Council to do certain administrative acts which are necessary to give effect to the intention of Parliament with regard to this legislation. If, in any particular, hon. members think the powers asked should not be given for certain specific acts, they will not be further asked for. It will be for the House to decide whether these particular administrative acts should be performed by the Governor-in-Council; and if the House decides that they should not, to suggest some other method of doing what is proposed. I think it is but right that the point to which we have taken such strong exception in the matter of Orders in Council, should be made clear. The objection is not to the Governor-in-Council discharging necessary acts of administration, but to the Governor-

National Defence
66:
in-Council usurping certain powers of legislation by proceeding by Order in Council where legislation should be sought.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I wish to say a few words about the resolution and also a few words as to this monthly sermon that we receive from the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King).


Mr. LAPOINTE:: We are receiving a
daily one from the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen).


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Right from the pulpit.


Arthur Meighen: Sometimes the obstinacy of the audience puts an unnecessary burden on the instructor. As regards the Governor-in-Council or the government that has gone out of office taking to itself powers, I do not know what meaning that has in the mind of the Prime Minister. I know it has no meaning at all in mine, and I am sure it has no meaning at all in the mind of anyone who takes a practical grasp of what a Governor-in-Council is, of what an Order in Council is. A Governor-inCouncil can take no powers to itself, no more than can a gentleman take powers to himself, no more than this Parliament can take powers to itself. A Governor in Council cannot add to its powers, nor can any Order in Council at all expand the powers vested in the Governor in Council by the Parliament of Canada. There do come times in the life of every government, and never so much, certainly, 'as in the life of the late government -because the late government had charge of the affairs of this country during by no means ordinary times, to put it mildly- when it is found that the Governor in Council must anticipate the will of Parliament if it is to do its duty 'by the nation. We did that frequently during the war, and we had to do it subsequent to the war, because the condition# that prevailed then were really not different from those that obtained during the days of the war. To say that the late government did anything different from what every government in the world did is simply to speak without any knowledge of the facts. The late government passed its war Orders in Council under the provisions either of ordinary statutes or of what was known as the War Measures Act, an act which virtually gave to the government the powers of Parliament and which passed this House unanimously. The British Government had a corresponding act entitled the Defence of
the Realm Act. Our act was out of effect at least a year-although I think I should be closer to the exact time if I said two years-before the corresponding act went out of operation in Great Britain. Great Britain was legislating under her Defence of the Realm Act, and the King in Council, for a year, if not two years, after our act was out of force, was passing orders in council in the Mother Country. Now, the hon. gentleman says that we passed 180 orders in council which we had to come to Parliament to have confirmed. I have some recollection of what he refers to particularly. During the war we were compelled to establish an office, the exact title of which I do not recall.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Director of Coal Operations.


Arthur Meighen: The Director of Coal Operations. Hon. gentlemen will remember the difficulties that arose in the coal mines in the province of Alberta, difficulties that involved an imminent peril to the whole of western Canada. We appointed the Coal Controller and empowered him to make orders fixing various conditions as between the workmen, on the one hand, and the mines on the other. He made many orders under the powers vested in him by the Governor in Council, which powers were exercised under the War Measures Act. That is the time when the 180 orders were passed. And, by the way, I do not know how many of them were of any consequence, nor am I sure that all of them were not wholly legal, under the powers vested in the Controller by the instrument that appointed him, which instrument was passed by virtue of the War Measures Act itself. But there arose a doubt as to whether, the Governor in Council having acted under the War Measures Act and passed an Order in Council empowering a man to do certain work, that man himself could issue written orders having the force of law. For that reason we came to Parliament and confirmed the whole matter. But to say that everything should1 have stood still, and the whole Chaotic state of affairs allowed to continue, without anything being done until Parliament met, is merely to speak what has no basis in common sense, if indeed it has any basis in sanity. I am pretty sure that the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) was a member of the government when we appointed Mr. Armstrong a controller. If I am wrong the hon. member will correct me. It will be recalled how perilous the condition was; and, standing
National Defence

here, I am prepared to say, and leave it to the judgment of the House, that our conduct in the crisis of the coal situation in Alberta at that time, and its results, may be very favourably compared with the conduct of the present Government in the coal crisis in Nova Scotia to-day. That is the basis of the hon. gentleman's allegation in that regard. Occasionally, let me repeat, the time comes-and naturally it comes more often in troublous, tempestuous months and years of war, than in the ordinary times of peace-when it is essential, unless the Government runs away from its duties, that it anticipate the will of Parliament. And I do not think that any one can look back to-day and say, wherever we considered it absolutely essential in the public interest to do this in the days that have gone, that our conduct, when it came before Parliament for consideration, was ever open to question as to the rightness of the course we had pursued. Of course, there was the usual talk that this was government by Order in Council, and that Parliament should have done these things. Had it [DOT]been possible to wait for Parliament, undoubtedly that course would have been adopted. However, this is not the time to draw the parallels; but let me suggest to the Prime Minister not to be over confident; because since he has been in office Orders in Council have been passed in fairly quiet times, when the sun was shining^ and all was quiet without, as respects which, if they are to have validity, he will have to come to Parliament for ratification.
Now, this resolution foreshadows a bill which is considered of such moment that it was thought necessary to refer to it in the Speech from the Throne; and very considerable beating of drums and sounding of trumpets have been going on as to this very vital piece of legislation. I think, first of all, that the disposition of the responsibilities of departments and branches of departments among ministers is a matter which might well be left to the Government in office, a matter more or less of domestic arrangement; and as respects any such disposition I should not be inclined to offer very severe criticism. I think a government should be permitted to dispose of its work among its ministers as it may deem best. There might, of course, be arrangements as to the distribution of work that would be incongruous. In one respect the present proposal is open to that objection, and only 
as regards that do I feel like offering criticism. But to say that this is any great outstanding piece of legislation is surely rather to reflect on the weight or moment of the programme which the Government has in mind. The Government could practically do what it now proposes under the legislation that has been in effect for years. The late government brought departments and branches of departments together under that legislation. It is true that by the existing provisions you cannot wholly amalgamate and get rid of deputy ministers. Under those provisions you can keep departments separate, but under one minister; while under this legislation you can get rid of deputy ministers and effectually amalgamate departments into one. Whether anything more will actually result under this proposed legislation than could be done under the machinery now in force I doubt very much. I, at least, do not think, and I do not believe that any one else does, that there is any doing away with ministers by this legislation. Previously the Marine and Fisheries Department, the Naval Service Department, the Militia Department, the Air Department, the Mounted Police, and External Affairs-I name six-were all under the review and the charge of three ministers, the Minister of Militia, ordinarily so-called, the Minister of Marine, and the Prime Minister. Those six departments, when this legislation goes through, will still be under three ministers, just the same number as before. The work will be differently disposed among them, that is all. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries will have charge of Marine and Fisheries alone; the Naval Service goes from him to the Minister of Militia. The Prime Minister will have charge of External Affairs; and the Mounted Police, which before was under myself, will go from that department to the Militia Department. Sb that the six services that previously were under three ministers will be under three ministers still.
As to taking the Naval Service out of the Marine and Fisheries Department, so called, or really disjoining it from the Marine and Fisheries Department-for it is a department in itself-and putting it under the Militia Department, I have no criticism to make. I fancy that as the duties of the Minister of Militia now will be very much lighter than they have been in the last eight years, it may be a division that will more equitably take care of the services and responsibilities that fall to the various ministers. And it may be that the Naval Ser-

National Defence
vice is really more akin to the Militia service than it is to the Marine and Fisheries service. I presume it was really joined with the latter as two departments under the one minister because both the Marine and Fisheries and the Naval Service are departments that have to do with our waters. That the Naval Service should be taken out and now joined to the Militia Department is in my judgment a matter for the Government itself to determine, and does not lend itself to criticism.
But I do object to the Mounted Police being' taken out of a civilian department and made part of the military forces, and I see no reason for the step whatever. The Mounted Police from its inception has been a civilian force, and the very credit that accrues to it to-day throughout this Dominion is derived more from the fact that it is a civilian force than from any other consideration. Make it a military force and throw around it the atmosphere and the trapping's of the militia, and you will not find the Mounted Police held in the same regard; the attitude of the public towards that force will not be maintained. The Mounted Police is not a defence force in any sense whatever; it has been a civilian force all through its history, and there is more reason for maintaining it as a civilian force now than there ever was before. Why? Because two or three years ago the Dominion Police, which had been administered under the Justice Department, were joined with the Mounted Police and under the title of The Royal Canadian Mounted Police. So here we have the Dominion Police and the old civilian Mounted Police in one force, now to be merged in the Militia Department and to be administered as part of the defence forces. Bt what turn of language can the Mounted Police or the Dominion Police be described as a defence force? They are in no sense such a force. I think that the use of the Mounted Police has been solely for the purpose of supplementing the work of the local police in taking care of emergencies that the latter were incapable of handling, and hence municipalities called upon the Mounted Police for assistance. That use will not be availed of with the same freedom, and the Mounted Police will not be held in quite the same regard, if the local authorities feel that it is really part of the militia they are calling in to do service that they would rather have performed by a civilian force. The Mounted Police investigate crime, they go into the far remote parts of our country and ferret out the criminal. Why should men engaged in that pursuit be attached
to the militia? This suggestion I remember was made before I had the honour of being head of the Government, and after consideration it was felt that it would be a mistake to take the Mounted Police out of its civilian rank and put it under a Minister of Militia, although it was never even considered that they should be assigned to militia service and to that extent be given the character of a defence force. I think the minister would be well advised to reconsider this resolution in the light of that experience. Beyond that I offer no objection to the resolution, but I think it will be regretted in the days to come if the Mounted Police with its splendid history is taken out of the category of a civilian police force and placed before the public as part of the militia or defence force.


Mr. MARTELL:: I have only one short observation to make as regards the amalgamation of these various departments. I do not know exactly from the resolution what the Minister of Defence, as he is to be termed in future, contemplates doing with the fishery protection service, but I hope that he will take into consideration the advisability of putting back this service under the control of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Some years ago I had the honour of being an official in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and unfortunately the fisheries protection service was placed under the Department of National Defence. The result was that when the departmental officials sent in reports to the department complaining that Americans or others were poaching and in other ways breaking the Fisheries Protection Law, they had to take the matter up with the Naval Service Department, and there was so much red tape that it took three or four days before a naval service boat was despatched to the scene of action. I really believe that it is in the best interests of our fisheries administration that when this co-ordination of the service is being brought about the fisheries protection fleet and all its officers should be put under the control of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Their function is not as a defensive force against an invader, but primarily to see that the fishery laws are observed, and under no department can they be so thoroughly and efficiently enforced as under the Marine and Fisheries Department.


Mr. MEWBURN:: I wish to offer my congratulations to the hon. minister on his
National Defence

endeavour to bring some of the departments together in the way suggested, but I have one or two minor exceptions to make. As the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) pointed out, this is not a new proposal; it was suggested years ago, during the war, and since the armistice, but it did not then seem feasible to carry it into effect. I am not particularly interested in the post-mortems respecting orders in council that the hon. leader of the Government and my right hon. leader have been sparring about; I should like to get down to the essentials of this bill.
I do feel very strongly that the Mounted Police should not be interfered with. The reason that has already been given I entirely concur with. Our Royal Canadian Mounted Police has beyond a question of a doubt been respected not only in Canada but the world over as the finest force for the preservation of law and order that has ever been organized. It is entirely a civil force, but the minute it is merged with the militia it cannot help but be known all over this country as part of the military forces of Canada. I am convinced that if the Mounted Police, which has now within its fold the old Dominion Police, could remain, for administrative purposes, under the Prime Minister, it would be much wiser and sounder. We have had troubles in the past, strikes and that sort of thing, and although under the present Militia Act it is within the power of a municipality to call upon the militia to turn out for the preservation of law and order, that is the very last resort that should be adopted in this country. The Mounted Police are available, and if it were not for the petty jealousies existing throughout the various provinces they could be utilized to much greater advantage than they have been up to the present time. The moral effect of the presence of one or two Mounted Police is the most wonderful thing in this country. I know that in the province of Ontario not very long ago, the Attorney General called for the services of that force in connection with some trouble at Thorold or Merritton. I think the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) will bear me out that the work that the Mounted Police did was a very vital force in the community. One or two members of the Mounted Police force can do more for the preservation of law and order than any number of militiamen that might be called out. Furthermore, every individual man of the Mounted Police force is a trained con-

stable, possessing nerve and judgment and experience, and in the case of any trouble where the services of the Mounted Police may be required, there is far less danger in utilizing their services than in calling out the militia. I would therefore urge that the minister seriously consider eliminating the Mounted Police from the scope of this bill.
There is one other matter that I would like to touch upon. It may not be serious, and can be discussed more fully on the second reading of the bill. I notice that the resolution provides for two deputy ministers. I do not wish to make any severe criticism, but it seems to me that the services of one deputy minister are all that should be required. We already have a deputy minister of the Naval Service, a deputy minister of Marine and Fisheries, and a deputy minister of Militia and Defence, and from my own personal experience I think that the present deputy minister of Militia and Defence is capable of carrying on three or four important departments now that the war is over, and, I think, with due economy. If you are going to have two deputy ministers, you will be practically carrying on the same administration as we have to-day in the Naval Service and Militia Departments.
I wish to concur heartily in the remarks of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) about some of the staff officers. A good many people in this country and elsewhere are very prone to criticise staff officers and the "brass hat," but those who do so fail to realize that it is no choice of these men how they are dressed or what uniform they wear. Behind the staff uniform there has been an education going on for years, and during the late war an experience and ability have been gained through the testing of time. I think, instead of sneering at these men, this country owes them the greatest possible debt of gratitude, and I sincerely trust that the minister will use the services of these men whom it has cost the country something to educate. Some of these men have cheerfully given up their lives, and those who are left are prepared to give the benefit of their experience to this country, to the second and third generation. I commend the minister for the efforts he has made on their behalf.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just wish to be sure that I understand what my hon. friend has in mind. If I gather rightly, he is of the opinion that the Mounted

National Defence
Police should be kept under the Prime Minister in order that they may be available in times of industrial disputes to be sent into the area affected to act on such occasions. As against that, the method which has prevailed in the past has been for the civil authorities to request the calling out of the militia, if additional aid is needed when there is an industrial dispute in any locality. My hon. friend, I gather, thinks that that course should no longer be followed but that the mounted police should be used instead in these industrial disputes.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: Not at all. My hon. friend entirely misunderstood me. I said that the Mounted Police have always been known as a police force, a civil force pure and simple, not as a military force, and I thought it was far better to have that force under the Prime Minister, as it was in the past until a change was made and the force was put under the Privy Council. I do not say that the mounted police should be called into any area where there is a dispute or a strike, or anything of that sort. What I said was that it would be far better if the Mounted Police force, for administrative purposes, was entirely under the Prime Minister, and was known all over the world as a civil force rather than as a military force. I pointed out that I realized that in the event of any trouble arising in any municipality, at the present time the municipal authorities can request the aid of the militia, but I say that before that step is taken, the presence of a few Mounted Police, who could be sent in there to investigate, has such a moral effect in many instances as to prevent further trouble arising.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is most desirable that the Mounted Police should not be drawn into these industrial disputes at all. I might point out to my hon. friend that if we had followed the course he now suggests, there probably would have been very serious trouble in Nova Scotia. A request was made of the Government some two or three months ago to do just exactly what my hon. friend suggested, that is, to send the Mounted Police into these areas in Nova Scotia where there has been industrial trouble and have them skirmish about, as my hon. friend says, keeping order, and in that way obviate possibly worse happenings later on. But the Government took the position that if we wished to create an
industrial disturbance of very serious proportions, possibly the best way we could go about it would be to order the Mounted Police into those areas. The matter came to my attention directly, and I refused absolutely to countenance sending the Mounted Police into these areas at that time. We told the municipal authorities that if they were unable to maintain law and order themselves, as they were supposed to do, they had the right under the Militia Act to call in the aid of the militia, but that they would be responsible for so doing and would have to be prepared to meet the expenses of the militia when called out. If you once open the door to having the Mounted Police called in to aid the civil authorities on any occasion when there may be alarm on account of industrial disputes, you will in a very short time have the federal government discharging a function in the matter of keeping law and order which it was never contemplated it should discharge. I think that if an injury has been done to the Mounted Police, it has been that under the late government on two or three occasions the Mounted Police were brought into these industrial disputes where it was absolutely unnecessary for them to have been brought in.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: My hon. friend says that he refused to send the Mounted Police to Nova Scotia, and quite right. He can always refuse to send them. The Mounted Police, under my suggestion, would only be sent when the Prime Minister acceded to a request for their services and where those services were absolutely essential. I hope that the Prime Minister will never be required to give his consent, but the day may come when he will be very glad to have the force at his disposal and to be able to accede to such a request.


Mr. CRERAR:: The principle underlying the resolution that is now before the Committee has been pretty fully explained by the Minister of Militia, and further elaborated in the debate which has taken place. With this principle, which is that the different defence arms of Canada should be united under one control and direction, I am in hearty sympathy. I think such a step is in the right direction. It has several things to commend it. In the first place if it is necessary-and I am not among those who believe that it is not the duty of a country to provide for its own defence-[DOT] if it is necessary to provide for defence, a
National Defence

unification of the arms of defence, particularly in a country like Canada, should lend itself to efficiency in control and in operation. That is my first point. In the second place the step that the minister proposes to take, as outlined in this resolution, should bring' about a greater efficiency with greater economy; and that certainly is to be desired at the present time.
As to the details of the bill in respect to the status of deputy ministers and other officials now in these departments, that is a matter that can, of course, be much better discussed when we are considering the measure clause by clause. There is one point, however, on which I find myself in general agreement with the position taken by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), and that is in respect to the inclusion of the control of the Mounted Police in this measure, in the amalgamation that it is sought to bring about. Either the Mounted Police is a defence arm or it is not. If it is intended for purposes of defence, then by all means it should be included in the proposed co-ordination or amalgamation; but if it is intended for an arm of defence why do we need it at all? We do not require it for that purpose; we have enough scope in the Militia law for the provision of defence without creating an additional arm for that purpose. On the other hand, if the Mounted Police is a civil force, and it certainly has been a civil force, intended for the administration of civil law, then I submit it is not sound policy to include it with the arms that have to do with defence. I am among those who believe that the administration of civil law and the maintenance of civil order should be kept away as far as possible from that relating to the defence of the country-I think that is a sound principle upon which to proceed. I am a little bit doubtful also of the wisdom of including the Canadian Mounted Police in the coordination as suggested because of the fear that the association of that splendid force with the arms of the service that have to do with the defence of the country, may create a wrong impression in the public mind, and may create a wrong impression altogether in the mind of the force itself in relation to its public duty. I take second place to none in this House, or out of it, in my regard for the distinguished service that the Northwest Mounted Police-the forerunners of the present body-gave this country. They have a very distinguished place in our history and a very distinguished record. I believe I am on record as expressing a doubt as to the wisdom of creat-

ing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as we have it at the present time. I think the step taken in converting the Mounted Police into the present organization was one of very doubtful wisdom. After all, the maintenance of civil law and order is a function that belongs to the provinces. Why then should there be any attempt to create a Canadian police force for this purpose? In the olden days, in the large unorganized territories in western Canada, it was absolutely essential to have this police force, which was created in the days of the Mackenzie government for a specific purpose. In those days the force rendered admirable service to western Canada. But to take the position now that we must have a federal police force, with headquarters in the Capital city of the Dominion, sending its officers and constables into all parts of Canada, has no justification either on financial grounds or for reasons of utility. Consequently I am favourable to this idea-that recognizing as I do the splendid traditions of the force, recognizing the admirable service it has rendered to Canada in the past, the time has come when this force might very well be discontinued excepting in so far as it is necessary to police the territory in Canada that still remains unorganized. For that reason I trust the Government may be able to give consideration to the suggestion made that the Mounted Police, at any rate, or such of it as we may retain, should not be included under the administration of the Militia Department that has to do purely with matters of defence. I think that is a sound principle to adopt in relation to this matter.
Let me say again, Mr. Chairman, that I cordially support the principle of the bill. I think it is a step in the right direction, because it will make for greater efficiency, or should do so, and will at the same time make for greater economy. I trust the Government may be able to give consideration to the suggestions advanced in connection with the Mounted Police. I for one would be very glad indeed if the Government could see its way clear-


An hon. MEMBER:: To get rid of it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No. I shall not say get rid of the force, but at any rate to reduce its personnel to what is necessary to police the unorganized territory of Canada.


George Perry Graham: I am very much pleased with the reception the committee have given to this proposed legislation. I do not make any great claim to be the origi-

National Defence
nator of this suggestion; but a suggestion that is only originated and never acted upon does not get us anywhere. I think I may say that I am the first minister who brought in a concrete proposition dealing with this subject.
I concur in what my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said with respect to the military officers he named; and in discussing the question of the militia of Canada we ought to remember one thing-that the men who now hold these offices largely went to war from the volunteer forces of Canada on their own volition and were advanced in rank, some of them from the rank of captain, to the positions they now hold. We therefore do owe them respect, and we ought to take advantage of their experience, so far as we possibly can, when they are willing to give us that experience. That is the way I feel about it. I am not an enemy of the militia of Canada-not by any means; I have reason to be otherwise-but what I I do want to accomplish if I possibly can, and I think we all have it in mind, is to have a well organized, snappy, defence force that will be a credit to Canada without being too expensive.
Now as to the officers mentioned by my hon. friend and the*law pertaining to them, I may say that one of the gentlemen who have retired has been given more than a year's leave of absence by the Government which proves that the law touching this matter exists and that the Government has the power to do such a thing so far as the militia is concerned. I want to say further that as regards Sir Henry Burstall he is one of the men who brought distinction to Canada every time he was called upon to take a stand for the good name of the country not only at home but on the battlefield. General Gwatkin, one of the generals who has been retired, came from Great Britain and during the war rendered Canada great service by reason of his experience and his advice. I tell the House now that under the existing act the Government thought it fair to give General Gwatkin one year's leave of absence. So far as Commissioner Perry is concerned, he is one of the great men of this country. He asked to be retired the first week I was here, I think, giving good reasons, but remained on for a while. The Government, acting on its right under the statute, has given Commissioner Perry one year's leave of absence. Consequently, no matter what my confreres of the press may
say, there can be no successor appointed for one year, because Mr. Perry will draw the salary for this year. The suggestion made by some hon. members in regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is certainly worthy of consideration. The object of the Government and of the Militia Department was not at all to make soldiers of the Mounted Police, but we thought that, for convenience and economy, that department lent itself more readily than any other department to the combination of the executive or accounting forces of the different departments. That is the only object, and the matter is worth consideration and discussion. The question has been raised as to the amalgamation of the Northwest Mounted police. That force was established in 1874, and performed the work that no other body of men could have performed, and whether people assembled in small numbers or in vast crowds throughout the western territory, one or two of these mounted police were able to maintain order where, perhaps, the ordinary policeman could not have done so, even if there were a dozen policemen present. No person has a higher regard than I have for the work done by that grand body of men in the years gone by. But the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) called attention to one phase of the matter that is worthy of thought. Has the time arrived when the Northwest Mounted Police, or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as they are called now, should be reduced and the responsibility placed on the provinces for the maintaining of order? I have been in communication with the various provinces in this respect, and personally I am of the opinion that, whilst there are services to be carried on yet by the federal authority which probably could not be carried on well by the provinces, speaking in the main the provincial authorities are responsible for maintaining order within their several areas. There still exists unorganized territory to which the application of federal authority cannot be questioned. The Dominion Police, I think, were organized away back in 1846, and they have carried on their work splendidly. Their work included what we might call secret service work all over the Dominion of Canada, and it was not confined alone to eastern Canada. If I were not a member of a government, and were sitting somewhere else, I might express the personal opinion that I think the secret service of Canada ought to be under the Minister of Justice. It seems to be along the line of his work rather
National Defence

than the Miiitia Department, and I am free to confess that the Government would be advised by me to take into consideration the advisability of handing that part of the Royal Mounted Police work over to the Justice Department, rather than have it under the Militia Department. I assure hon. gentlemen that this bill is meant to carry out just what I have indicated. When we are in committee I will be glad to have both sides of the House help to make the bill as perfect as possible. What we want is the best defence force that we can get at as little expense as possible, all with keeping in mind that no country is fully equipped as a nation that has not an armed force of some kind.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I would like to endorse the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman from Marquette (Mr. Crerar). Those of us who have been old-timers in the Canadian Northwest will recognize the splendid work which the Mounted Police performed in the early days. Some of us who have been on the plains know the work that they did in connection with the cattle thieves and the Indians, I venture to say that in the last few years we have witnessed a complete transformation of the activities of that force, and I would go so far as to say that I doubt very much, indeed, whether the honour which was once attached to that force is maintained to-day. Speaking as a representative of labour, I believe that there is no other organization that causes so much friction in our communities as the Northwest Mounted Police. Perhaps, that is rather a serious charge to make, but since the whole matter is under consideration with a view to re-organization, possibly this is the time when it should be discussed. The Mounted Police to-day are no longer the "riders of the plains" that we used to hear about. To a very considerable extent they are reduced to the position of being a secret service department. I might say they are a very large spending department; last year they cost almost $4,000,000-to be accurate, the expense was $3,927,798.82. Some of these items are of very special interest to those concerned with industry. I notice that, not only are amounts spent for the police themselves and their activities, but amounts are paid to outside people and to agencies. In the criminal investigation branch the expenditures are as follows-
Services and expenses of special agents, $87,236.14.
We are not told who those agents are-

Employers' Detective Agencies, Services and expenses of operators. . $5,608 00 Pinkerton's Detective Agency, Services and expenses of operators.. 2,412 15 The Thiel Detective Service Company, Services and expenses of operators	 1,473 92
About $100,000 has been spent on those items alone, for which no details are given. I learn from the report that the services of the Mounted Police have been used for spying upon labour activities. Among the expenses of the members of the force in various investigations at Toronto we find-
O.B.U. Activities	$	234 62
O.B.U. Labour Unrest at Winnipeg..	2,173 3C
Then an expenditure at Regina. Another
item for duty altogether outside this country was:
Special duty at Boston and Springfield	 $ 190 70
Investigating Bolshevistic and labour
conditions	 3,380	40
Expenses at Prince Albert, agitators
and suspects	 49	55
Lumber Workers' Industrial Union of
the O.B.U	 356	10
Expenses at Edmonton, attending
the Labour Church	
4	00Bolshevist and Labour conditions..	22	10At Lethbridge, attending a	labourmeeting	
700Agitators and suspects	
31	75
At Vancouver, attending labour
meetings	
18	86Self Determination League	
328	80
I suppose this last was the meeting which Lindsay Crawford held in Vancouver, and which was broken up by a gang of rowdies. So the report goes on down the line. It would seem that there is an atmosphere of suspicion throughout the entire report. The Police have been conjuring up all sorts of hobgoblins, and then proceeding to say that when they arrive on the scene, by their moral influence everything evil vanishes. It is rather a serious thing when we undertake to employ detective agencies, and even to employ American detective companies to keep up a system of close espionage upon labour movements. About a year ago there was issued a very close study of the American spy system-and remember three of these firms whose names I have given are American firms. These are some of the instructions that were given to a spy:
We want you to stir up as much bad feeling as you possibly can between the Italians and the Serbians. Spread data among the Serbians that the Italians are going back to work. Call up every question you can In reference to racial hatred between these two nationalities.
I am quoting from a series of articles by Sidney Howard, Investigator for Dr. Rich-

National Defence
ard Cabot, now Professor of Social Ethics in Harvard University. Again the spy says:
I was expressly told by Russell's general manager, Burgett, to try and get the pickets to cause as much trouble as possible so that Russell agency could keep its men on the job for as long a time as possible. I also was sent by Russell to Marinette to work in .... Lumber Company, X worked in the plant as general handy man around the yard. My particular work was to join the union and watch the men and report any labour agitation or activity.


The CHAIRMAN:: The quotations which the hon. member is making dealing with matters arising in a foreign country and with regard to the administration of order there, are hardly relevant to the question which is being discussed in the committee now, namely, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I bow to your
decision. I quoted these extracts because American detective firms were being employed in Canada, and I take it that the same methods which they employed in the United States were being employed in Canada. I should like, however, to deal with conditions in Canada. We had a keen industrial dispute several years ago, and we know the part which the Mounted Police took at that time throughout the country. Perhaps, I might be permitted to quote an affidavit produced in Montreal with regard to the type of work which was carried on there in searching houses. This work of searching houses was carried on from coast to coast, and this instance is one, amongst many, which was printed in one of the labor papers:
Province of Quebec,
District of Montreal,
Canada,
I, the undersigned Joseph Schubert, Secretary International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Montreal Locals, being duly sworn, depose and say:
(1)	On the morning of July 1st, 1919, between the hours of 12.30 to 1.00 o'clock, 4 men in plain clothes and another in a police uniform visited my house for the purpose of searching same. On my request to let me see the warrant, they refused -to put same in my hands, but they permitted me to read same, as it was held by one of them. As I could not see my name mentioned in the warrant, I asked them to show me my name. To this I was answered that my name was not put in the warrant, that the warrant was general, and permitted them to visit and search any house they choose.
(2)	The aforesaid men proceeded to search my house. My wife, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy, was ordered out of her bed, as well as my little child, who were frightened by the rough treatment they received by the aforesaid visitors, one of whom was drunk.
(3)	After a thorough search, lasting half an hour, which brought particular hardship to my wife, the /fallowing books., periodicals* and things were removed by the aforesaid men:
The Statesman, a Liberal weekly paper.
A set of reproductions of paintings of Jesus Christ and prayers including "Our Father."
Socialism and the Great State, a book by H. G. Wells.
The Liberator, single copy, a journal purchased at any newstand.
A book by Heinrich Heine.
A book by F. Lasale.
American Labor Year Book.
Three memoirs on the Roumanian Jewish question.
Two personal letters.
Two copies of The I. L. G. W. Trade Journal.
And I have signed,
Joseph Schubert.
Sworn before me at Montreal, this 22nd day of July, 1919.
L. Tannenbaum, J.P.
That is an example of the searching of houses, and I think hon. members can understand the feeling of labour men from coast to coast when they and their wives are subjected to indignities of this character. I would call attention to the case of one man, who is still in the employ of the Mounted Police and who, according to the report has been transferred to Montreal- Corporal Zaneth. We had some knowledge of the kind of work which he did shortly after, or about, the time of the Winnipeg general strike. One paragraph from the report of his cross-examination at that time is as follows. This is a summary; I could give the original, if necessary:
In direct examination, witness told the court that he had joined the police in 1917, enlisting so that he could go overseas with them. Physical disability prevented this, so he was given work in Canada. He wras an Italian by birth and was later naturalised as a Canadian citizen. On September 12, 1918, he was detailed to work amongst the miners at Drumheller, Alberta. Shortly after his arrival there he had joined the Socialist Party of Canada. He named the officials of the party in Alberta. So keenly had he worked there that he was elected Vice President of the Federal Labour Workers.
For a considerable period he had distributed literature and also sold some of it at <the conventions held in Calgary. This literature he was distributing under instructions from the Socialist Party of Canada.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bonnar, Corporal Zaneth told of his early life, saying that he was born in the northern part of Italy. He had changed his name only once, which was when he was out in Alberta. The name he assumed then was Harry Blask. He had signed an obligation when he joined the Socialist Party of Canada. He admitted that while he was out there, he had told lots of lies as he was only following his instructions.
Mr. Bonnar: Did your Officer Commanding tell you to tell lies?
Witness: No, he did not.
Mr. Bonnar: You weren't following his instructions then?
National Defence

Witness: I certainly wasn't going to tell those people I was a Mounted Policeman.
Here we have a ease in which a corporal of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police be-' came an "agent provacateur," actually selling literature which he knew to be banned. Are we, as a Canadian people, reduced to the position, that we have to adopt the methods of "agents provocateurs?" I should like to assure this House that, in labour circles, when any man stands up in a meeting and begins to talk violence, he is immediately susipected by the labour people of being a spy. That is the kind of thing that is going on, and there are to-day in the ranks of labour, men who are recognized as outstanding radicals who are in close touch with such men as Corporal Zaneth.
The result is that the whole labour movement is permeated by this system of espionage, and also by a sense of suspicion. People are arrested, we do not know why. We cannot tell whether they are simply expressing their radical notions in order to get others into trouble. I should like to read one other passage closely relating to the Winnipeg trials, because it shows that evidence was really purchased at that time. That is going still further than the work of the agent provocateur.
A bench warrant to bring Daskaluk into court was applied for and issued by the judge. The copies of letters filed in court by Mr. Bird are as follows:
I think these letters explain themselves. They are from the relief officials of Winnipeg and Vancouver.
530 Gambie St., Vancouver, B.C November 4, 1919.
G. B. Clark, Esq., Secy. Social Service Committee, Winnipeg, Man.
Dear Sir,-Re Daskaluk, 688 Linden Ave., Winnipeg, Man. This man, his wife and infant child, three weeks old, Ukrainians, are destitute and a public charge in this city. He states he was sent here by the Provincial Government, as his life was in danger in Winnipeg on account of evidence which he gave against Almazoff in recent trials at Winnipeg. Formerly he had been a special agent of the R.N.W.M.P. I have wired Col. Stearns, O.C., R.N.W.M.P. who is said to have paid transportation to this city A former promise of $500.00 and transportation to his own country was not carried out for the alleged pretext that Ukrania was now at war and this man could not enter his country. He states that he has only received $150.00 of the $500.00 promised him. I have read the evidence as contained in the newspapers which he gave and there is absolutely nothing in any of his statements that would endanger his personal safety. I expect the R.N.W.M.P., to provide transportation through their local commanding officer for this man and his wife to return at once to your city,

if his statements are correct. Will you be good enough to investigate his statements especially with Col. Stearns, with Mr. Andrews, the prosecutor for the province, and his brother who lives at 256 Austin Street. Thanking you in advance,
Yours sincerely,
Geo. D. Ireland,
Relief Officer.
To which there came the following reply after investigation.
November 13, 1919.
Geo. D. Ireland, Esq.,
530 Gambie St.,
Vancouver, B.C.
Dear Sir,-Re H. Daskaluk, 688 Linden Ave., your letter 4th inst. to hand and owing to the writer being sick reply was delayed. I called on Col. Stearns of the Royal North West Mounted Police who told me that this man gave evidence for the crown, and was promised $500, and he states that as soon as the case is finished they will give him the balance. As your letter states, he has received $150 and his transportation to Vancouver. Col. Stearns told me that he wired to the officer commanding the Royal North West Mounted Police in Vancouver to advance Mr. Daskaluk $100. I also called to see Mr. Daskaluk's brother at 256 Austin Street, but was not able to see him as he is working on the railroad, and comes in but once a week, and owing to the big snow storm we have had in Manitoba, all the trains are held up and we do not know when he will be in. I further found that Mr. Daskaluk was never a resident of the city, but of East Kildonan, Man. Trusting this will be satisfactory, I am, Yours truly1,
B. Zeglinski,
Agent, (B.Z.M.H.).


Andrew Ross McMaster: What do those letters mean?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not sure.
This gentleman was the agent of the Social Welfare Department of the city of Winnipeg. Now, in the report of the Northwest Mounted Police a good deal is made of the alleged fact that the good humour and tact of the Mounted Police have done much to avoid friction. Well, I have one other quotation which I want to read in this connection. It will show that, instead of avoiding friction, the presence of these men is often a decided irritant. I read from a copy of the Winnipeg Telegram of June 21, 1919:
Serious Turmoil this Afternoon Almost Certain
"Mounties" Resent Statements That They Are "Yellow Dogs"-Soldier-Strikers Insist They Will Parade This Afternoon and Authorities Are Just as Determined They Will Not.
Five hundred Royal Northwest Mounted Police are under orders to disperse any parades which may attempt to march on the streets of Winnipeg to-day.
Every "Mountie" is a returned soldier. They will be armed with revolvers and swords. They are in an excellent mood to cope with the situa-

National Defence
tion. Remarks made by strikers at their gatherings to the effect that the "Royal North West Mounted Police" were "Yellow Dogs" has raised the ire of the Mounted Police and they stand doubly determined to take nothing from persons who attempt to break the law this afternoon.
The order for the Royal North West Mounted Police to maintain law and order in Winnipeg came from Hon. N. W. Rowell, President of the Privy Council, to Commissioner Perry.
In a kaleidoscopic change in the strike situation last night confident hopes of an early and peaceful settlement gave way to a condition which to-day heralds a crisis of the first magnitude.
Those of us who were at all closely in touch with the situation at that time know, as can be borne out by the member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson), who was one of those who kept the channels of communication open between the provincial government and the men, that there would in all probability have been a peaceful settlement of the Winnipeg strike had the Mounted Police not been ordered out at that time. Their presence incensed the curious crowd that gathered on the streets and precipitated the trouble. One of the most serious facts in the labour situation is the constant surveillance which labour men, as such, are forced to endure. I should not like to suggest how many thousands of dollars I have cost Canada in having the police trail me around. I want to make that very clear; possibly I was worth watching. But the things I am saying to-day are the very things for which I was trailed, and my fellow-citizens in Winnipeg have very clearly given their verdict as to what they think of this sort of business. I r'emember a few instances particularly. Before I threw myself into the labour movement I could hardly credit this kind of thing. I remember addressing one night a meeting of labour people, and the next morning an officer of the Mounted Police came to my home and asked me to go to his office. You speak about this as a civil police force. Well, when I entered that office I found everything exactly as though it were a military tribunal. There an effort was made to persuade or intimidate me into either retracting my statements or pledging myself not to make similar statements to the people. I was trying to plead for decency and good order in this country, and to prevent the occasions of strife which are so frequently occurring. I remember speaking at a little town in southern Saskatchewan. The local clergyman was chairman of the meeting, and
everything was conducted in perfect good order. But the next day after I left, the local clergyman was subjected to all sorts of indignities at the hands of the local Mounted Police officer. The clergyman happened to have been born in England. We had to tell the Mounted Police officer when he came over to this country, whether he had any connection with the Reds, and Labour, and all the rest of it. A few days later I happened to be addressing a class in political economy in the University of Saskatchewan, and the Mounted Police tried to discover what was going on inside the class room. It was too much for the editor of the local newspaper who reported the address, and he had to reprimand the police and ask what right they had to enter the class rooms of our universities to find out what was being taught. I can remember another occasion at Nanaimo, where a police officer deliberately attempted to draw me into a dispute and to provoke me into saying something that, I presume, he thought would be of service to him.
We have heard about the way in which the Mounted Police have backed up the provincial authorities. I can refer the House to a little industrial dispute in southern Saskatchewan, at Bienfait, where there was next to a clash between the provincial police and the Mounted Police-perhaps I should scarcely go that far, but I know relations were very much strained between the two groups-and the whole country was filled with spies and policemen.
Now, I ask hon. members if we are going to establish good working relations in this country by the presence of a body of men of this character, doing detective work and acting as spies, as agents provocateur,- actually, according to this information, paying for evidence, and on the slightest provocation being ready to "protect" law and order, although, as appeared from the reports, in practice their actions precipitated trouble?
Coming definitely to the question that we have before us, I submit that when reorganization is being discussed we should seriously consider whether we need to continue a force of this character. And I should like to urge what I intend to bring forward a resolution, but as the question has come up I mention it now. I contend that the activities of the Mounted Police should be confined to the unorganized territories, and that each province should be left to administer its own civil affairs.


Arthur Meighen: I have already spoken on the point directly relevant to the resolu-

National Defence

tion, as to whether the Mounted Police should come under the Militia Department; but, whatever is done with this resolution, it does seem to me that what should be the composition and the extent and scope of the work of the Mounted Police has some pertinence as a matter of administration.
I gather from the remarks of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) that he feels it was a mistake to extend the work of the Mounted Police beyond the unorganized territories, and particularly to encompass within the same force the Mounted Police and the Dominion Police. If I have rightly interpreted his conclusions, I am sorry that I can not agree with either one. I do not know whether, first of all, the Mounted Police did confine their activities to the unorganized districts. I am quite ready to accept the statement that they were formed for the purpose of taking care of law and order in the large unorganized portion of Canada at that time; but though they may have for the time being confined themselves to those areas, nevertheless their work was continued and even extended after those districts became erected to the full status of provinces. Not only was it continued, but I am confident that no hon. member would say that the Mounted Police should have been retired from Alberta or Saskatchewan or even Manitoba. I think the House will agree with me that we would have been flying in the face of the very plainest conclusions of the history of the last three decades had we effected such a retirement. Every one must also admit that within the last few years there have been reasons for maintaining the Mounted Police in those very provinces; and I would go further-though some might dispute me here-there was reason also for the use of the Mounted Police in the other provinces during the last six years.
The hon. member for Marquette was himself a member of the government when it was decided to incorporate the Mounted Police with the Dominion Police, not because we were anxious to send the Mounted Police anywhere, but because we felt we could not avoid the request of the local authorities, but must answer in the affirmative and add to the strength of the local force for the maintenance of order in great and perilous emergencies. That such emergencies existed in the three prairie provinces at more than one place during the past six years there can be no doubt; that such emergencies existed, indeed, before those years there can be no doubt. For

example, such an emergency existed two or three years ago in the city of Winnipeg. I do not want to seriously criticise any one, particularly any one who looks at this matter from a different angle-and there may be one or two hon. members who do-but would any hon. members opposite say that it was the duty of the government, three years ago, to decline the request of the local authorities for help when those authorities felt themselves unequal to the maintenance of law and order in the city of Winnipeg? If there was criticism at the time it would have been appropriate to introduce a resolution then condemning the conduct of the Government in that regard, but no such resolution was introduced, nor was there any serious criticism of the government either in this House or in the country. Consequently I think it will be generally admitted that there has been in highly organized districts-districts organized just as highly as the city of Montreal and the city of Toronto-reason for the cooperation of the federal authorities with the local authorities to overcome emergencies that, fortunately, very rarely arise in this country.
Then the question comes: Is it best in the interests of our country that there should be a federal civilian force applicable tc assist the local authorities under conditions when the latter feel themselves unequal to coping with the situation? Now, I agree very firmly with the hon. member for Marquette and with the Minister of Militia, that the responsibility for the maintenance of peace and law is provincial; not only so, but that it should be made fundamentally provincial. And I am against-perhaps more against than some of the acts of the late administration would indicate-the overlapping of activities. I am in favour of leaving the responsibility as the Constitution has left it, in the local authorities, to the utmost possible extent, as regards this and other subjects; and I am in favour of no more police interference than is absolutely essential to the fair and reasonable maintenance of law and order. But is it not true that we can maintain law and order at least expense by the maintenance of a civilian force of this kind- one that can be used anywhere as desired, but that will be sent only when there is a request for it by the local authorities as essential to the preservation of law and order? If not it will then fall upon the provinces not only to maintain such an ordinary force of local police as will take care of all oidin-

National Defence
ary situations, preserve law and order in the towns and villages and meet all emergencies that might ordinarily be expected but they will have to go further and prepare themselves against almost any contingency that might arise within their borders. There is no need to anticipate that we will need as large a force as in the past, but with a moderate-sized, mobile federal force that could be kept at one or two or three points, and whose services would be at the disposal, when requested, of the local authorities of any province, you could maintain law and order and take care of extraordinary situations much more cheaply than if you put that obligation, not upon one, but upon each and all of the whole nine provinces of Confederation.
Now as to the criticism that an error w^s made in amalgamating the Dominion Police with the Mounted Police, really I cannot see the force of that argument at all. We have no Dominion Police for the purpose of the general maintenance of law and order. We never had; we have none to-day. But we have always had a Dominion Police. What for? For the protection of our own federal buildings and our own property. The provinces are not obliged to protect our property; we protect our own; that is what the Dominion Police is for. The Dominion Police were, for the purpose of administration, joined to the Mounted Police, and all was described as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and placed under the charge of Mr. Commissioner Perry. What objection can be taken to that, I do not know. I would certainly not be in favour of any extension of the responsibilities of the Dominion Police, nor would I be in favour of any further maintenance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police than was essential to supplying a sort of civilian police reserve which might co-operate with the local police upon request of the local authorities, rather than that it should be essential to call instead upon the militia for that purpose. I think it is far better that a civilian reserve should be at the disposal upon request of the local authorities. Keep the police out to the last hour; let the police never go in at all, if you can; but it is far better that a civilian force should be at the disposal of the federal authorities available to answer a call locally should unfortunately that call come, and I ask the Government to consider carefully before they put it out of their power to answer any local call by sending a moderate-sized civilian force, and by putting it out of their power, make it essential
that the militia in case of any contingency shall be called on to operate instead.
I repeat, inasmuch as we are not now in the period we were in, inasmuch as there is not now as much likelihood of disturbance as there was during the period of the war and the period of demobilization that followed, it is undoubtedly possible that the strength of the force and the cost of operation could be reduced. Let that be done. To that I will offer no objection whatever, but I think there should be very serious consideration given before the operations of the Mounted Police in the organized parts of Canada should be entirely done away with. If you are only going to have the Mounted Police to take care of the needs of law and order in the Northwest Territories, you eliminate the Mounted Police almost altogether. I would not be in favour of that. I would be in favour of such reduction as the Government felt it was possible to make and still maintain a mobile police reserve with the reputation the Mounted Police have, for the purpose of answering these extraordinary contingencies that arise, and that probably will arise in the future as well.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Chairman, it is pleasant to hear so much said in commendation of the principle of the bill. The only criticism heard, if we can call it criticism, has been of a constructive nature with respect to exempting the Mounted Police from the amalgamation provided by the resolution.
There is one consideration to be added to those suggested by hon. members this afternoon, and it is that under our constitution the question of police is a provincial matter. So far as it is necessary to maintain a police force in an organized territory, I would leave it to the provincial authorities to look after it. So far as unorganized federal territory is concerned, the Mounted Police could be retained. I think everybody will agree with what has been said as to the high standing and fine reputation of the Mounted Police. The right hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Meighen), in speaking of retaining as strong a force of Mounted Police as possible, due regard being had to the exigencies of the service and the exigencies of the financial situation of the country, conveyed the idea that we should maintain the corps, in consideration of its activities in the past and the splendid services it has rendered to the country. I believe that we should maintain no such organization as a decoration, or as a souvenir. I think we should
National Defence

do away with the force as much as possible. The Mounted Police was organized mainly to maintain law and order in those territories which were not under provincial authority, and to my mind we should limit their activities to that field.
My right hon. friend also intimated that the amalgamation of the Mounted Police with the Department of Defence would lower their standing in the public opinion; I want to say that I am of a different opinion. It is casting a totally uncalled for aspersion on the militia of Canada to say that amalgamation with it will discredit the Mounted Police. The militia of Canada is composed of an army of citizens and I believe that as such it is a credit to the country. Certainly it should be no discredit to the Mounted Police to be amalgamated with it.
There is one other point. When there is a disturbance in any part of this country and the civilian authorities find it necessary to call the militia to their aid, preferably to the Mounted Police, I would call the local regiments of the militia, which are composed of citizens of the locality. They understand the mentality of the people of that community, and would be better able to cope with the situation than a police force from a distant part of the country, almost a stranger to the conditions with which it would have to deal.
I might give an instance in which this principle has found application. I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that when there was a disturbance in Quebec in 1918, and regiments were brought from Toronto, to march through our streets, post their machine guns on different corners and fire at peaceful citizens as they did, which in itself was a provocation to the people of that city, if the local regiments of the militia had been called out instead, as was recommended by General Landry in command of the district, bloodshed would probably have been avoided.
The same thing is likely to happen again whenever, in order to quell a local disturbance you bring regiments from a distant part of the country, be they a Mounted Police force, a regiment of artillery or a battalion of infantry. The feelings of these soldiers are often inflamed before they leave their quarters, and sometimes as they are reported to have said in Hamilton on one occasion, they say: "we will fix bayonets and we will go down to these people." In such cases as that you do not quell the disturbance; you only add

fuel to the flames. Therefore, I believe it is a wise thing to bring even the Mounted Police under the Minister of Defence.
In the second place I believe the Mounted Police should be limited to the smallest possible number, so as to avoid expense, and its operations should be limited to the territories that are not under provincial authority. In that way we should avoid expense and also the duplication of authority so far as the police organization is concerned.
May I add another consideration? Why should I of the province of Quebec, or you of the province of Ontario, be obliged to contribute to policing the territory of a distant province? We in Quebec look after the organization of our provincial police, and we pay for it. Why should not other provinces do the same, leaving it to the federal government to provide that small force only which is necessary to look after the unorganized territories which are in its jurisdiction?
May I add a word or two on another question which has been touched on by a few hon. members? Speaking on the principle of the proposed legislation, and particularly in respect of the reduction of the staff of the militia, my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn), whom I am sorry not to see in his seat at the present time, has shed a few tears regarding the few generals who have to retire. As to the general character of these officers, the services they have rendered the country, and their high attainments, I do not believe there is any difference of opinion among the members of this House, or among all classes of our population. But I do not think that we should be altogether as sensitive as my hon. friend would like us to be.
There are other people who displayed merit during the war. There are many men who served in the Canadian Expeditionary Force who cannot display their breasts bedecked with medals; they received no titles; they can only show their merits and their claims to consideration by exhibiting an amputated arm or an amputated leg. And yet these brave men when the forces were called back to this country were demobilized and granted a very small pension indeed. Sometimes, forsooth, they were left in a dire condition and face to face with great hardship.
But if these examples are not altogether appropriate when we consider our great

National Defence
o77
generals at home-and I do not sneer at the officers in question-if these examples are not altogether appropriate to their ease, let me cite to them an example that history gives us. There was once a great general in Rome named Cincinnatus. He came out of the ranks of the citizens. He served his country, and when he left the army he returned to the plough. A great number of our generals came from the ranks of the citizens of Canada to'serve in a citizen army. They have served their country well; their country is much indebted to them; now that the war is over let them return to the plough; let them return to their daily occupation, let them serve in the large army of the citizens of Canada who are toiling to establish peace and prosperity in this Dominion. If they do this they will not only deserve the commendations of the nation for the services they have rendered under arms, but they will earn the praise of future generations for having done their duty whether under arms or in civilian attire. Mr. Chairman, I believe the proposed legislation deserves the approval of the committee and that the resolution should pass as drafted.


Mr. BOYS:: Before the resolution is
adopted I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the provisions of section 8. Let me read them:
That provision be made to vest the powers, duties and functions vested in the Ministers and Deputy Ministers under the various Acts relating to the JN'aval 'Service, the Militia, Militia Pensions, the Royal Military College, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Dominion Police, in the Minister of National Defence, and the Deputy Minister of National Defence respectively-	.
and so on. I take it for granted it is the intention of the minister to include the Canadian Air Force because I observe by section 2 the following language:
That the Minister shall be charged with all matters relating to Defence, including the Militia the Military, Naval, Air and Police
Services of Canada.
It would appear to me under the wording of the section as it stands now, that the powers, duties and functions which are vested in the minister under the provisions of the Air Board Act, 9 and 10 George V, Chapter 11, are entirely omitted. I am personally very much interested in the Air Force and I certainly do not wish to see it omitted. I do not believe it is the intention of the minister to omit the Air Force, but I would like to suggest that the language of section 8 be amended so as to include the provisions of the Air
Board Act. It may be there is other legislation dealing with the Air Board, or the Canadian Air Force, with which I am not familiar; but I think that all such provisions should be included in section 8 so that thereby the powers, duties and functions vested in the minister and deputy minister pursuant to the same may also pass to the Minister of National Defence, which evidently is the intention of the section.


George Perry Graham: The Air Force is a little different in its organization; there is no deputy minister in the Air Force.


William Alves Boys: No, but there is the act.
Mr. GJtAHAM: And the Minister of Militia is only chairman of the Air Board.


William Alves Boys: The language of section 2, if I remember correctly, provides that the minister himself shall be chairman. There is also a vice-chairman provided for, and then there is the provision of the act which gives certain powers which are now being exercised by the Air Board. I presume it is the intention of the minister that all these powers should now be vested, under the proposed bill, in the Minister of National Defence. If it is the intention to include the various statutes relating to the Minister of Militia and Defence it seems to me to be equally necessary to include the statute relating to the Air Board.


Mr. MURPHY:: May I ask my hon.
friend a question? I have not at hand the statute to which he refers but in that act are there powers and duties vested in the minister and deputy minister?


William Alves Boys: I would say so, certainly, although I have not read it all.


George Perry Graham: I do not think so.


William Alves Boys: It is provided that the Governor in Council shall appoint a member of the Air Board, who is one of the Ministers of the Crown, to be chairman of the board, and shall appoint one of the other members of the Air Force to be vice- chairman. One member of the Air Board is to be appointed as representative of the Department of Militia and Defence, and one as a representative of the Department of Naval Service. The members of the Air Board are to be appointed for a term of three years and are to be eligible for reappointment. They are to be paid such salaries as the Governor-in-Council may determine. Then follows section 3 dealing with the duties of the Air Board, and section 4 dealing with their powers. It is
National Defence

under that statute, as far as I know, that the Air Board gets all its powers.
It is manifest to me, from the remarks of the minister, and from the provisions of section 2 of the resolution, that it is his intention to continue the work of the Air Board, perhaps in a lesser degree, because I notice the estimates are cut to some extent, but I think the minister should amend that section to include the Air Board Act to which I have just referred, and perhaps some other legislation.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend will see that there are no such powers vested in the minister or deputy minister under the act from which he has just quoted as there are in the acts cited in this resolution and in the bill that will be founded upon it.


William Alves Boys: I do not suggest that for a moment, but I say there are powers, and I presume the desire of the minister is to retain those powers, whatever they may be, but I think the motion would have to be amended to accomplish the object.


George Perry Graham: How would you propose to amend it? The object is to give all the authority necessary to the minister and deputy minister of the Department of National Defence for the management of the Air Service. As I understand it, there being no deputy minister, no act and no minister really referring to the Air Service, it was not necessary. The Air Service, as the hon. member from South Wellington *'Mr. Guthrie) stated was attached to the Militia Department. The minister acted as chairman of the board. As I intimated his duties were most perfunctory. If the lawyers agree that an amendment is necessary, I am willing that it should be inserted. To my mind, it is not necessary, but legally it may be desirable.


William Alves Boys: I do not profess any special knowledge on the subject at all, but I understand the entire work of the Air Board is carried on under this act, and it is the intention, to some degree at all events, to continue that work under the Minister of National Defence, and where is he going to get power to do it, unless the power under this act is taken by him. as power is taken by other branches of the service.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I asked what was going to be done with regard to the fisheries protection service, and I have received no answer. I think we should make some provision for that service. We are going to create a department of National Defence,
fMr. Boys.]	*
and I suppose that means the appointment of a large number of officials wearing gold braid. But we are leaving the Fishery Department, which is second only to Agriculture, altogether unprotected. I should like some answer as to what is proposed under this bill with reference to the fisheries protection service, which is administered by the Naval Department.


William Alves Boys: I move that the word "and" as it 'first appears in the fourth line of paragraph 8 be omitted, and that the words " and the Air Board " be inserted after the words " Dominion Police."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Perry Graham: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) ? Under the act as it now stands, the fisheries protection service can be transferred from the Naval Department to the Marine Department by Order in Council. This scheme we now have in hand is not workable. I may point out, however, that the British navy undertakes largely, if not altogether, to operate the fishery protection service.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I know that in days gone by, when the fisheries were placed under the Naval Service Department, it was necessary, on all occasions, for the fisheries branch to apply to the naval service to protect the fishery routes. There was so much red tape and the departments were so jealous of each other, that often the reason for the fishery protection had disappeared before the department authorized the fishery boat to go to the place in question.	*


Ernest Lapointe: I think there is much in favour of this argument, and some of the officers of the Naval Department say that the protection of fisheries should be under the Department of Marine and Fisheries. It is a matter which may be adjusted between myself and my hon. friend later on.


Mr. CLARK:: Although a new member of the House, and inexperienced in speaking before the committee, I consider that I would not be doing my duty if I did not place myself on record in connection with the resolution now under consideration. I have heard some very extreme views expressed this afternoon, and I feel that some of these views have been expressed by men possibly who have not had the actual experience in the matters on which they have so freely addressed the com-

National Defence
mittee. I have been privileged to belong to the defence forces of Canada for some twenty years, and during that time it has been my great misfortune to have been called out in civil aid forces. It rather astonished me to hear the great applause which greeted the suggestion that the generals who had won their promotions in the face of the enemy, should now be decapitated, or as one hon. gentleman put it " let them return to the plough." All those of us who had the honour of serving our country, and the distinction, though I cannot say the honour, of fighting for those who so readily applause these extreme measures, will be astonished at the applause which greets the suggestion of doing away with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the dismissal of officers referred to and proposals which are detrimental to the efficiency of our defence forces.
The hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) asked if it was the desire of the late Minister of Militia that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should be called out in cases of industrial dispute. I do not know whether that is the leader of the Government's view of what the Mounted Police force exists for or not. That is not my view of the purpose for which they exist, but I shall refer to that later. The view has been expressed that the Mounted Police should become part of the National Defence Force of Canada. My opinion is that it is a dangerous thing to make the Mounted Police part and parcel of the defence force of Canada. The two are entirely distinct. One is for the purpose of defending the country in case of invasion; the other is, in my opinion, for the purpose of assisting in the maintenance of law and order in the country.
I have seen the Mounted Police used on numerous occasions, and I should like to give one instance of how I saw them used. Only two mounted policemen were used in this case, which occurred about a year ago in the town of Merritt, B.C., where a mine foreman had been foully murdered. The whole town was in a state of nervousness; the police of the town had no conception of how to tackle the problem; appeals were made by practically the whole town to bring in the Mounted Police, and a small detachment of two policemen was sent there. The moral effect which the presence of those policemen had in that town justifies the maintenance of such a force for the purpose of its moral effect, if for no other purpose. That, of course,
would not justify the maintenance of a very large force, but the maintenance of a force is justified by the moral effect it has upon a community. I have seen the same thing demonstrated in many other towns, and I have given that one community as an illustration. There is a feeling of security in a community where the Mounted Police is established.
There comes, however, in our civil life a more serious phase which has had to be dealt with on many occasions in the history of Canada, and which may have to be dealt with in the future. That is not exactly what the Prime Minister has referred to, but it is something which has arisen out of industrial disputes and other conditions. I think the term " industrial disputes " is too narrow, and I personally would regret having the Mounted Police called into any town or city for the purpose of settling industrial disputes, because that, in my opinion, is not what they are for at all. But when, arising out of industrial disputes or any other conditions, we have anarchy or the danger of anarchy, then there is, in this or any other country, no force more fitted than the Mounted Police to deal with that condition. As one who has served in a civil aid force and one who has been unfortunate enough to be called out in the militia for that purpose, I want to place myself on record. to the effect that no greater error can be made than to call the militia out in aid of the civil power. The last hon. member (Mr. Vien) who spoke on this subject, recommended that. If you want to destroy the efficiency of your defence force, that, in my opinion, is the best way to do it, because if we are going to have an effective defence force in this country, it must not be confined to any one particular class in a community. It must be open to all classes. We must encourage men of all classes, labouring men and others alike, to join the force, in order to make it efficient and give it scope to do the work that such a force should do, because, if that force is given the scope that it should be given, it will do more for the patriotism of this country than any other factor we have in Canada.
I am in entire sympathy with the general principle of the resolution. There are, no doubt, some features of it which can be criticized, and I think those points have been fully covered. But my object in speaking this afternoon is to attempt to bring home to the committee and to place before the Minister of Militia
National Defence

and Defence (Mr. Graham) the great danger of ever placing the military forces of Canada in a position where it will be necessary to call them out in aid of the civil power, execept in the most dangerous and extreme cases. To place the Mounted Police in a position where they are part of the defence force of Canada, and may be called out for the purpose of the defence of this country, will have the same effect on the Mounted Police as the calling out of the militia has on the efficiency of that force.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend knows, of course, that the law, as it stands, gives the civil authorities the right to call out the militia in aid of the civil power.


John Arthur Clark: I quite understand that.


William Findlay Maclean: I have listened very attentively to this debate, and the committee will pardon me if I say that I think they have rather ignored the real issue that is raised in this resolution. The real question to be considered in this bill is whether there is to be an instrument of some kind for the federal enforcement of federal law, as is the case in the United States. The President, the Attorney General and all the deputy attorneys general under him, throughout the United States, are to-day so organized as to be able to cope with any emergency that might arise. In the early history of the United States the principle was observed that the local community should be responsible for law and order in its own territory. But after 150 years of experience that principle has been gradually departed from and a great organization now exists on the other side, embracing an immense force, for federally enforcing federal law. They have erected federal courts throughout the United States, and we in Canada are moving in the same direction. We have a Supreme Court, a Court of Exchequer and other federal courts, and possibly later on we may find it advisable to follow in the footsteps of the United States and create a federal organization with comprehensive jurisdiction for the enforcement of federal law. Especially since the enactment of the federal prohibition law in the United States, the organization for enforcing federal law has been greatly increased there. They maintain courts, attorneys, officers of all kinds, a wide secret service, and, generally, thousands of agents. We cannot ignore

altogether what they have done, because the time may come when we shall find a similar organization absolutely necessary in Canada.
Some other time I may refer further to this matter, but in the meantime I agree with what was said by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). His suggestion was a wise one, that some kind of civil force ought to be at the disposal of the Government. In my opinion it should be in the special charge of the Prime Minister or of the Minister of Justice. I also agree with what has been said by an hon. member, that in some way the protection of. the fisheries should be properly maintained; and this bill could be modified to that end. If we think that the federal authority will not be called on at times to maintain federal law by its own organization, and even go the length of creating federal courts and appointing attorneys to prosecute in those courts, then we are not reading the signs of the times. Some hon. gentlemen contend that the provinces should maintain law and order. The doctrine was preached in Ontario that the local authorities should maintain order in their own localities, but the province is now creating a provincial police force for the purpose of enforcing provincial law where hitherto the local authorities were held responsible.


Charles Murphy: Have they not always
had a provincial force in Ontario?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, but the
force is being highly organized now, somewhat on the lines of the Mounted Police.
I am not advocating any particular action;
I am simply pointing out that in the United States the question of federal enforcement of federal law has become so alarming that they have voted immense sums of money to carry on the machinery I have mentioned. It is all very well for us to ignore what they have done in the United States; but peace and order in that country have been maintained in the last twenty-five years only by constitutional subter

fuge. They have created institutions for the enforcement of all kinds of law throughout the country by legislation of pretty much the same order as that which gave them control of transportation. There the condition of things is much like ours; there is a distribution of powers between the states and the central government. We may be compelled to maintain some kind of force for the enforcement of federal law in connection with the prohibition laws we have in this country. In view of the fact

Supply-Indians
that, as I have pointed out, the President of the United States, the Attorney General, and the vast organization which they have created are holding themselves in readiness to meet any emergencies that might arise, I think that we ought at least to be prepared to do something in the same direction. I do not contend that the federal power should be increased, but I do say that we may have to assume such responsibilities as the federal authorities on the other side have had to shoulder. I believe the leader of the Opposition gave a very fair statement of his case, and as near as I can judge he reflected the opinion of Sir John Macdonald on this very question.	Sir	John inclined to the view that the	provincial authorities should as far as possible enforce the law within the provinces. But notwithstanding all that, our Customs and Inland Revenue organization at the start was largely undertaken by the federal authorities, and to-day we have a federal organization for the enforcement of our inland revenue law; so have the United States. In the same way we may have to adopt a similar procedure in the maintenance of peace and order. Ultimately we will pass through the same experiences as the United1 States, and while I should like to see our local authorities in all cases able to maintain peace and order, they may fall down in that work, and I think we ought to have some little skeleton organization, a's the leader of the Opposition termed it, around which could be maintained a force for the maintenance of peace and order. I should like to see such an organization put under the charge of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice. In that way we might avoid mistakes that otherwise will certainly be made if we take the position that the federal authority has no responsibility for the maintenance of peace and order.
Resolution as amended reported and concurred in.
Mr. GRAHAM thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 27 respecting the Department of National Defence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first and second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Progress reported.
William Alves Boys: Will, the minister at eight o'clock make the somewhat lengthy statement he promised?


George Perry Graham: I am prepared to go right on with the bill to-night, if you choose.


William Alves Boys: We do not want any mistake. At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
CORRECTION-STATEMENT BY Mr. FIELDING


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, there is a personal explanation I desire to make. I notice in the press an item referring to yesterday's proceedings which would convey the impression to those who were not present that our good friend the Assistant Clerk of this House had been rather lacking in courtesy to myself. I desire to say that there is no foundation for it whatever. What happened was exactly in accordance with the understanding, and the Assistant Clerk simply did his duty. Then, as in every other case, he has always been courteous, as he should be, to all the members of the House. For his sake, I regret the comment in the press, because it was entirely unwarranted.

The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Civil Government-Indian Affairs-salaries, $145,425; contingencies, $19,000.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the minister
will explain what he is doing with respect to what I might call the extraordinary services of the department, for example, the greater production work.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argen-teuil, Minister of the Interior) :: During the period when production was very necessary, a scheme of breaking land upon the Indian reservations was undertaken under the supervision of Mr. Graham, who is the official in charge at Regina. He has made a very fair success of the undertakings. Naturally it is not desirable to continue that work, but there is the question of getting the land back into the hands of the Indians who farm the land, and these are invariably students coming out of school. A very large proportion of that land has been given to these young students, and they are now established in farming them. I would have had the figures with me had I

Supply-Indians
anticipated this matter coming up this evening, but I have not got them here.


Arthur Meighen: I could not expect the minister to furnish them under this item. I would just like a statement of policy as to what he proposes doing.


Charles A. Stewart: I hav<
discussed this matter with Mr. Graham and the deputy minister, and we have decided that as fast as the Indians are able to take this land and farm it under the supervision of the agents, they will be allowed to do so. In the meantime, a very considerable portion of it will have to be farmed under the supervision of Mr. Graham. There are some four hundred odd acres in the vicinity of Regina, which it is the intention of the department to continue as an experimental and demonstration farm. The rest will be turned over to the Indians as fast as they are able to take the land.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister
mean that this farm near Regina will be retained for experimentation purposes by the Indian Department, or will it be turned over to the Department of Agriculture?


Charles A. Stewart: The in
tention is to run it under the control of the Department of Indian Aifairs, simply be cause it is very close to Mr. Graham's office. It will be used for demonstration purposes, the distribution of seed grain, and that sort of thing. We think it will be very beneficial.


Arthur Meighen: I think probably the
minister is right in that. I notice that the salary for the Accountant and Purchasing Agent has been very considerably increased, much beyond the figure, I think, fixed by the classification for an accountant. Why is an exception made here.


Charles A. Stewart: This is absolutely under the control of the Civil Service Commission and I cannot understand how the salary of the accountant in this case could be higher. I understand there are three grades of accountants

at least that is true of the Department of Interior-and different salaries appertain to the different grades.


Arthur Meighen: I think in this case the salary is higher than in the case of the accountants that have been re-classified. When I see an extra piece of nomenclature after an officer's title I always become suspicious. That is the plan usually adopted should they want to get in a bigger salary than the classification allows. The

official then becomes something exceptional.
I notice here the accountant has become a purchasing agent. I think the minister would do well to look into the matter before he brings this estimate down as the proper salary.


Charles A. Stewart: I can give you a summary of the estimates of the department in so far as civil government is concerned. For the fiscal year 1922-23 these increases were granted for meritorious service: Three increases of $180; 17 of $120; 15 .of $60; and 6 of $50. The increase in the salary of the Superintendent of Indian Education, due to change in classification in the schedule, amounts to $335. There is an increase due to an amount being provided for a new position as clerk stenographer, $960, making a total increase in civil government in the department of $5,075. Then there were savings due to no provision being made for two positions. There is the position of chief surveyor, which you will notice is dropped, and that of junior architect. The chief surveyor has $3,240, the junior architect $1,920. As to the savings I am not very clear but I imagine they are because the salaries set forth are the minimum salaries in positions which became vacant during the year. The appointees now start at the minimum; therefore, there is a saving in the salary. As the appointees start at the minimum, you have a saving until the individual who takes the position goes to his maximum. The reductions in salary are: Clerk, $900; chief stenographer, $340; chief clerk, $460; head clerk, $320; architect, $180; junior clerk stenographer, $180; clerk stenographer, $90; and clerk stenographer, $60. This makes a total of $7,690 and the increases are $5,075 representing a net saving of $2,615 for the department this year. There is no special claim made for saving because there are no changes; it is simply the result of the classification in these particular cases. The senior officials have either gone into other positions or have retired from the service, and those filling the positions have begun at the minimum salary.


Mr. JACOBS:: Could the minister tell us how many Indians are wards of the Government? I would like to have some idea of the number?


Charles A. Stewart: It is a most difficult thing to obtain this information at present. If hon. members will confine their questions to estimates on civil government I can furnish them with the

Supply-Indians
desired information which has been pretty well prepared. If they venture out of that field, however, I shall have to hunt for the details. However I shall be able to give that when the general Estimates are under discussion. All matters appertaining to those estimates will then be the subjects of inquiry. I am perfectly willing if the necessary time is allowed to answer questions outside of civil government, but I may say that it is on that particular subject I have had the information prepared.


Hugh Guthrie: I notice that in the Department of Indian Affairs there is a departmental solicitor, and of course a law clerk stenographer to help him out. The solicitor this year receives $3,660. Would the minister give us an idea of what this official's duties are in the department? His name is Williams, I think.


Charles A. Stewart: I notice there are legal officials in every one of the departments. I imagine this particular official will have to attend to transfers of property, and leases; there is also other legal business being done by the department. I am not prepared to say just exactly what he does, but I presume he is transacting that sort of legal business for the protection of the department.


Hugh Guthrie: That touches the point I desire to raise. For many years, I think, the various departments have had solicitors upon their staff. I notice on page 77 of the Estimates that the Department of the Interior has another departmental solicitor drawing a similar salary; and if you turn to page 76 you will find that in the Department of Secretary of State there are two departmental solicitors. There is also one in the Department of External Affairs, and one in the Militia Department; but the latter is Judge Advocate General and deals with military law, because I think the practice in this department in regard to civil law is to refer all questions to the Justice Department. I think there is a solicitor in the Customs Department, another in the Public Works Department, and certainly one in the Department of Railways. Now under our system we have a Department of Justice which is the responsible legal department of the Government. The head of that department is the legal adviser of the Government, and of all the departments of the Government, and in my judgment that department alone should retain the necessary legal assistance and should advise the various public departments. I have heard this matter discussed
by the last Minister of Justice the hon. Mr. Doherty, and I remember hearing it discussed during the former Liberal administration. The truth is that under the present system each department is acting for itself in regard to practically all the legal matters, while at the same time the head of the Department of Justice is nominally responsible for the administration of justice and the conduct of legal affairs throughout all the departments of government. I believe that the legal talent in the various departments should be concentrated in a single department. I think there would then be a considerable saving, and even if there were no saving it is proper that it should be done. I believe that in England they have certain law officers of the Crown, as we have here, but they are all in their proper department and advise the various departments of the public service; and if outside advice is sought, or extra work has to be done by solicitors, it is the Justice Department of Great Britain that employs them. They are responsible for every department and I think that system is the one we should work out here. To me it is an anomaly that, for instance, the solicitor of the Customs Department, or the solicitor of the Interior Department should advise that department and carry on legal business in the department, as Js done in hundreds of cases, without referring the matter in any way whatsoever to the Department of Justice. During my term in the Department of Justice I saw case after case where there was a variance between the ruling of the Department of Justice and the ruling of the solicitor for the particular department involved. The thing is bound to happen. I know that Mr. Doherty had very serious views on the subject and I believe if the matter were tackled, money could be saved and better administration would result. In addition to that, we would have one single head responsible for the administration of all law in all departments. I, would ask the ministers to consider the question, and see if they cannot concentrate and amalgamate in this instance, just as the minister is endeavouring to do in the matter of national defence.


Lewis Herbert Martell: In reference to the departmental solicitor, while I quite agree with a great deal the hon. ex-minister (Mr. Guthrie) has said, I think it is a matter of great convenience to the departments to have their solicitors in the building where the department is situated. Very often

Supply-Indians
matters come up which are purely of local interest to the department. They are not establishing any new point of law. For instance in the Department of Marine and Fisheries there are cases Where a contract has to be drawn as regards the collection of spawn for salmon breeding purposes, or there are cases Where they have to draw a short contract between some people who are collecting the spawn, or short term leases. Probably these contracts will expire in six months or a year, and the deputy minister or the official concerned can go to the solicitor in that particular department, give instructions to him and have him draw the document, whereas if the department had to take these matters to the Department of Justice they would remain there for five or six weeks before any reply would be given, and sometimes the contract would not be entered into because it was too late. Moreover the Department of Justice, if it has not improved very much of late years, has no officer who is fully qualified to deal with particular branches of the law. They may have no officers who are qualified upon the law relating to marine and fisheries. The law official for the Marine and Fisheries Department should be thoroughly conversant with maritime law. I think there have been cases where the decision of the Department of Marine and Fisheries has been at variance with the decision of the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice has over-ruled the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The matter has been pressed by the Department of Marine and Fisheries with the result that the Department of Justice has had to admit it was absolutely wrong. I think it is most absurd that a man in the Marine and Fisheries Department who is qualified in regard to maritime law should be compelled to submit his opinion to the Department of Justice perhaps to a man who from the maritime point of view would be termed a "land-lubber." The majority of those in the Department of Justice do not know the stern of a boat from the bow, the keelson from the keel, or larboard from starboard. They are not expected to know, because the majority of them were trained in law schools, or in portions of the country where shipping is not an important thing. I think, therefore, that it is a very good practice to have in the different departments as solicitors men who are well qualified and Well acquainted with the branch of the law which 
is apt to come under the cognizance of that particular department, and I believe that is the reason why the conditions which obtained in the past as regards departmental solicitors still continue. They have obtained for the past twenty years, but if the hon. gentleman's views are to prevail then it should be a condition precedent that the Department of Justice allocate to the different departments men who are thoroughly qualified to deal with the particular phase of law applicable to the department to which they are allocated.


Hugh Guthrie: Even on the statement of my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Martell) an expert in maritime law in the Department of Marine and Fisheries may be a very good lawyer and may advise his minister or his department in a certain way, but the man who is responsible to this House and to the country for all the advice given to this Government is the Minister of Justice, and it frequently happens that he knows nothing whatever of the advice that has been given by a body of solicitors in the various departments. That has happened time and again. The one responsible head has never heard of it, and if it is only a matter of getting experts in the various branches, if they do not have them in the Department of Justice, they can get them; that is where they should be. It would be more convenient, and work could be done more expeditiously if they were there, and it would mean a considerable saving.


Lewis Herbert Martell: If it is the practice
now, I know it was not the practice in days gone by for the departmental solicitor to give advice on any matter that might be regarded as a matter of governmental policy. I understand the practice was that he merely advised on local matters, which were merely of temporary moment, but not of any great importance as affecting the government's policy from the legal standpoint.


Hugh Guthrie: They have gone further " than that.


Arthur Meighen: It would appear from
the estimates that the architect has died or been retired, and lower amounts have been placed in the estimates, indicating that a new man is coming in. I suggest to the minister that before he takes anybody, either as architect or secretary clerk, but especially the first, he consider the advisability of abolishing the position. I never saw any need of the architect. There

Supply-Mines
was an architect. I think in the course of nature he now is an officer no longer. It is worth considering whether there should be a successor appointed. As to the secretary clerk, I found the officers of the department faithful and efficient, but I must say that I never was persuaded that they were overworked, and I made up my mind that I would not interfere with the course of Providence, if they were reduced in number.


Charles A. Stewart: In reply to the hon. leader of the Opposition, it has occurred to me, although I am speaking largely from hearsay, that there is a large number of Indian schools-rightly or wrongly I have been hearing of some of them-that require some attention. It is not absolutely necessary that a man should be an architect to inspect a building, but there is some construction to be done, and undoubtedly there are many architects in other parts of the service of this Government, and there may be no great necessity for this particular official in this department. Indeed I may say, in enlarging upon what my hon. friend has said with respect to solicitors, that there does seem to be overlapping, if one can judge by a simple glance at the Estimates of the Civil Service. I have forty odd surveyors in the Interior Department, I think, in addition to the assistants. True they do a valuable work, and there is provision in this estimate for them. I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend in the suggestion that something might be done to prevent overlapping. I am somewhat in agreement with the statement of my hon. friend who has just spoken on behalf of the departmental solicitor. He might very well be an official of the Department of Justice, under the control of that department, and I may say for the benefit of my legal friends that in the small province from which I come we had one department under the control of the Attorney General, and did not have solicitors in any of the other departments, but I am surprised to hear them say that lawyers disagree. They should not, on matters of this character, where no very serious questions are involved. I quite understand the necessity for those particular individuals in those particular departments, but I think they should be under the control of the Department of Justice.
Might I answer the question of my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) as he is desirous of
having it upon the record? I have made a rough estimate of the Indian population; I am not sure that I am correct, but I will, with the consent of the Chairman, give it by provinces. The figures are as follows:
Number
Province	Population of reserves
Nova Scotia	2,031	45New Brunswick. . .	1,846	26Prince Edward Island	292	2Ontario	20,969	138Quebec	13,366	20Manitoba	11,927	68Saskatchewan .. ..	10,431	89Alberta	9,332	61Northwest Territories	3,620	
This statement does not give the number of reserves in the North West Territories.


Arthur Meighen: What about British
Columbia?


Charles A. Stewart: The population is 20,744. I cannot say whether the Yukon in included in that or not. I have not the figures for the Yukon.


Arthur Meighen: The total is, I think, about 91,000.


Charles A. Stewart: I made
a rough computation showing it to be a little more.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government-Mines-salaries and contingencies, $514,862 50.
Arthur Meighen: There is a substantial increase.


Charles A. Stewart: A very considerable increase will be found in the estimates for the Department of Mines. This is one of the departments in the success of Which, outside of the Department of Agriculture, I am more interested than in that of any other department of the Government. We are continually speaking about the future of Canada, and I think it is well said that if we are to make a success of Canada, we must make our agriculturists successful; but in the same breath I would say that it is necessary that we carry on legitimate research work in connection with the vast stores of minerals contained within the boundaries of this country, and hand in hand with the development and success of agriculture, should go the success of mineral development in Canada. In the province from which I come, the question of mineral development is a very live one, because a great deal of wealth comes from the products of our mines. One

Supply-Mines

need only mention that, of the tonnage carried by the railroads of Canada, 44 per cent represents the products of the mines.


Arthur Meighen: Is that not mostly coal from the United States?


Charles A. Stewart: Not altogether. A proportion of it is coal from the United States, but the balance is the product of our mines. The products of the mines of the United States travel over short distances in Canada, by rail from Port Arthur to Winnipeg and slightly beyond the latter point, and throughout the province of Ontario. I mention this merely to point out the desirability of proper research work being carried on in this particular department.
I found, on taking charge of this department, that, owing to the very rapid development in Canada during the period of the war, we lost the services of a number of officials of the department, who were very important to its success. We have in the province of Alberta two or three highly skilled men, who should, in my opinion, be in the Mines Department of the Dominion of Canada to-day. One of them is a chemist, who is experimenting in clays with the idea of solving the problem of a mixture of clays that will make a road surface that will stand the weather conditions of our province. He is having splendid success. We have not in that province, as, indeed, in many other parts of Canada, road metal either of gravel or of rock for the purpose of surfacing our roads, and this gentleman is working in the Science Department of the University of Alberta, endeavouring to solve this problem. Alongside of him is Dr. Stansfield, a chemist who is experimenting with the briquetting of lignite coal. He is working there on the problem of the extraction of oil from the tar sands found in the vicinity of Fort McMurray, north of Edmonton, in that province. Speaking of agriculture, I think that, perhaps, no greater benefit has accrued to the Canadian farmer than the development of "Marquis" wheat by Dr. Saunders, and in the same way, I am asking for an appropriation to carry on investigational work in the field of mining, increasing the staff of men who will perform geological field work through this Dominion wherever there appears to be a favourable opportunity. They will map the area and furnish the information to men who are desirous of pursuing the business of mining, in order to attract them to Canada to develop those vast natural resources which

we possess. I dwell upon this because I believe it is an important work, and I believe this money that I am asking Parliament to vote will be well spent and will come back a thousand fold to the people of Canada if it is spent in a proper direction. That is the statement which I have to make in this connection. There is an increase of nine officials, principally young men who will go out on investigational field work during the summer months. The rest of the increases, so far as I know, are statutory increases, a matter over which we have little or no control.


Arthur Meighen: In general I agree with the minister as to the value of the department from a practical standpoint, and as to the wisdom of not too strictly confining it in the matter of expenditure. But what he says as to the department can be said with equal force of, I should say, 50 per cent at least of the services of the Government, though with less force as to the rest. This is scarcely a year for expanding the overhead charge of any department. Last year, when there was considerable criticism, there was a reduction in the expenditures from the year before. This year the increase is about $18,500 over last year and aoout $17,000 over the year before. This is a pretty substantial increase. I would ask the minister to consider if it would not be possible to obtain the services he requires */vithout expanding the vote. I know there is always a tendency on the part of deputies, indeed on the part of good deputies, to increase the number of their officers. I have no fault to. find with the Deputy Minister of Mines. Indeed, I think he is an excellent official. As a matter of fact, I selected him myself.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No higher praise is possible.


Arthur Meighen: I say, he is an excellent official; nevertheless the tendency on the part of the very best men is to seek to expand the number of men around them. It is human nature, and if the minister will look down through the estimates I think he will see a few cases where, at the first opportunity, he might very well effect an economy. For example, it will not decrease the mineral output of the country if we did without an ethnologist. I believe that an ethnologist has been added at $3,300. How will he increase our mineral output? I may be wrong but I understand that this persons studies the remains of prehistoric man. Then, why should there be an ornithologist in the Mines Department? In the

S upply-Mines
Interior Department the minister will find that there is a Parks Branch under a very competent official who pays particular attention to the bird life of Canada, which he has taken very practical steps to preserve and increase. He has done admirable work, which is of a practical nature. But why should we study ornithology as a scientific pursuit in connection with the Mines Department? I do not see that any practical service could be rendered that branch by the study of ornithology.


Charles A. Stewart: He is
an addition this year.


Arthur Meighen: Well, at least the
ethnologist appears to have been added by the minister, that is, if I read the item correctly.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not think that either the assistant or the chief ethnologist is an addition. I agree with the leader of the Opposition in his criticism of the gentleman who looks after the birds, but I think that the ethnologist was in the department when the right hon. gentleman was there.


Arthur Meighen: I think the minister is wrong. I do not see an ethnologist in the list last year, and if he looks at the item he will see that $3,300 is provided for this officer this year. Further down the list an assistant chemist is added, and on the next page there are added a principal account clerk, principal clerk book-keeper, and a senior translator. Really I do not know what need there is for a translator in the Mines Department. There would be need for one in the Indian Branch, because there is a language to translate, but not in the Mines Department.


Samuel William Jacobs: They need the translator in studying prehistoric man.


Arthur Meighen: That might be so, but I do not think that they often find literature among the remains of prehistoric men. Now, at various points down there have been additions, and almost everywhere increases in salary, varying considerably. It seems to me that if the minister would go over this list with his deputy carefully he could come within last year's figure, and at the same time meet all the really practical requirements of the department. *


Charles A. Stewart: The
translator, I understand, is at work preparing detailed reports of the department in French. The additional clerks are in
connection with the Explosives Branch. Perhaps my hon. friend will know more about that branch than I do, but I believe that that branch is a necessary addition to the Mines Department, and they are expanding it this year.


Arthur Meighen: But why expand it?
It has been a part of the Department of Mines for years.


Charles A. Stewart: It has
not been in existence very long-about four years, I think.


Arthur Meighen: Five years.


Charles A. Stewart: It was established for the purpose of preserving life and property, and I think it is of considerable value. Outside of one or two of the officials mentioned, my hon. friend will find that the nine persons that have been added are largely young men who will go out on field work. I am informed that during the war the department was depleted to a great extent. I think my hon. friend will agree that in pre-war days there was really'a larger staff in the department than there is to-day. At least the deputy minister so informs me. The study of the structure of the earth's crust with respect to the location of oil and minerals is a very important work in this country, and I should like this vote to stand for this purpose. It may not be all used; we may not be able to get the men. As a matter of fact, that was one of the difficulties which my hon. friend had to contend with when he was the minister of the department; men could not be secured. More than that, the department could not hold the men at the salaries that were paid. Now, I am very desirous to see economy exercised in every department of the Government, but it must be recognized that we have to pay larger salaries to men who go into this class of work and who make investigational research their life work. No one can estimate the value of this work in dollars and cents, and at this stage of the development of Canada it is important that we attract all the capital possible to this country to develop our resources. That is what I have in mind in increasing research work in the field this year by the addition^of a few young men who will spend the summer months in various parts of the country.


Arthur Meighen: There is a great deal in what the minister says. It is true that during the time I was minister we were
Supply-Mines

not able to hold the good men, and some perhaps not so good, at the salaries we were paying. At that time owing to the general commercial conditions very high salaries were offered in private service, particularly for expert geologists.


Charles A. Stewart: And for
chemists as well.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. They were
attracted by those offers and accepted them, and had the vacancies been filled immediately we would have had to fill them at a scale that I thought we could not maintain after the war, and certainly we would not be able to reduce it, for that is virtually never done. Therefore it seemed to me that in the public interest it would be better to wait until men could be secured at a more reasonable scale of salaries rather than throw out of line the scale for similar work in all the departments, because if men were brought in at a higher scale in one department that scale would have had to apply throughout the other departments. I see no objection to these positions if properly qualified men can be secured at reasonable salaries to do the work, so long as the offices are for the achievement of practical mineral work. But, for example, if the Vertebrate Palaeontologist has been taken away by the attraction of a high salary from a private company, I do not see that the vacancy should be filled. And my criticism still stands as to the Ethnologist. For the life of me I do not know why that position has been created. Nor would it occur to me that there is any need at all for an extra translator. Very often it happens that each department feels it has to have a translator of its own, and that translator has to have an assistant under him. It seems to me that if the translators on the principle suggested by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) could be brought together to do the translating for the various departments, there could, be a very great reduction in their number. Last year we had only one here; this year I notice an extra translator has been added. I have reviewed only a few. It is such positions as those that I should like to see reduced whenever it can be done without breach of contract with any of the men.


Charles A. Stewart: I agree with a great deal that has been said with respect to this matfer, and as I am in charge of four departments employing a good many civil servants, I want to have an investigation conducted to ascertain whether or not we are now over-lapping in certain directions. If we are, then it is

within the power of the minister to reduce the positions. I am not able to say at the moment whether all of those officials are required or not, but I agree with what the right hon. leader of the Opposition has said, that in appointing Mr. Camsell he chose a very efficient official. From the explanations Mr. Camsell has given me I think he is desirous of getting results with the minimum amount of help. But I am pleading for sufficient money to employ those young men who are taking scientific courses in our universities, and during the few months of the summer season to put them out on this investigational work in order to secure results that will be valuable to those who are interested in our mineral development. I agree with my right hon. friend that those who invest money in such development require a very considerable amount of capital for the purpose. Therefore it should be our business to attract to Canada all the capital we can for the development of our mineral resources. I am not able to say at the moment that every one of these positions can be filled, but if they can be, and parties can be put out to gather valuable information for tabulation and use, it will be to the advantage of the country, and that as why I am asking for this vote.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Does the minister know of any member of the government who is going to ask the House to accept lower estimates for the current fiscal year than for the fiscal year just passed?


Charles A. Stewart: I have just finished the estimates of a department that is asking for a smaller vote-the Department of Indian Affairs.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am sorry I was not in the House at the time. But with that exception every department has shown an increase in its estimates for the current year.


Mr. BELAND:: There was a reduction in my department.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: There were several etceteras added to the estimates of the minister's department.


Charles Murphy: In my department there are very substantial reductions and no etceteras.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: We have not come to that department yet.


Charles Murphy: Not yet.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: But I ask hon. members who have listened to the proposal put

Supply-Mines
forward if it is not the fact that upon the right hand side of the Estimates the amount is less than that appearing on the left hand side. In a word, these increased figures are characteristic of the Estimates so far, including what the minister proposes in this instance. The Department of Agriculture, wherein I expected my hon. friends to my left would have sounded the note of economy, has submitted estimates, and notwithstanding the provisions of the Civil Service Act we have found at the foot of the column an addition made for such sums as the minister might seek to add in case of promotion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is too bad.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Now, Mr. Chairman,
I have been called to account by two ministers, and that is enough. But I should like hon. members opposite to me, hon. members to the right of me, and hon. members to the left of me, to tell me of any single manufacturing concern in Quebec, Ontario, or in the West that within their knowledge has increased the salaries of its staff for the current year. I pause for any hon. member to rise in his place and say if that has been done. But we have had here with depressing uniformity, one case after another of ministers standing up and asking to be accorded the privilege of increasing the salaries of officials in their respective departments. Now, that is wrong. The country, irrespective of parties, is determined that economy shall be practised. A system of rigid economy coupled with intelligent business management, is what the country is looking for, but I submit that we are getting neither economy nor good sound business management.


Arthur Meighen: I have gone down the
list a little more carefully and would draw
New Positions Included 1922-23
1 Ethnologist.
1 Engineer Grade III.
1	Associate Vertebrate Palaeontologist.
2	Associate Mineralogists.
1	Associate Physical Anthropologist.
2	Assistant Geologists.
1 Principal Account Clerk.
1	Principal Clerk Book-keeper.
2	Engineers Grade 1.
1 Assistant Chemist.
the minister's attention to these additions- particularly the office of Ethnologist; I should like him not to forget the office of the Ethnologist. Then I see there is an Associate Vertebrate Palaeontologist. As far as I know that position has nothing to do with mines or mineral development.


Charles A. Stewart: Those
men are employed in making and arranging collections.


Arthur Meighen: There have been added also two associate mineralogists. I do not say that they are not necessary, but I really do not feel that they are. There is also an associate physical anthropologist. It is some days since I studied anthropology, but I do not think that position is very closely related to mineral development either. On the next page there is a principal account clerk, a principal clerk book-keeper and two engineers, Grade 1, added. I do not know what these engineers drawing a salary of $1,680 are for. I do not know what particular work they have, but I think it is worth inquiring whether they are necessary. The assistant chemist may be passed along with the associate mineralogists. I notice that a translator has also been added. That makes three translators in the Mines Department, where I feel fairly satisfied there is no need of that number. Then there is a stores clerk added, near the bottom of the list-why, I do not know.


Charles A. Stewart: There are only nine new positions including the young men I have mentioned who are going out into the field. The others are promotions. The titles I do not pretend to understand. Apparently the service generally has gone mad over giving official titles. I will give the list of new positions included for 192223 and of the positions dropped which were included in 1921-22:
Positions dropped which are included in 1921-22
1 Associate Ethnologist.
1 Fuel Efficiency Examiner.
1	Vertebrate Palaeontologist.
2	Assistant Mineralogists.
1 Senior Account Clerk.
1 Senior Clerk Book-keeper.

Supply-Mines

New Positions Included 1922-23-Con.
Forward 13	Forward
1 Junior Research Clerk.
1 Translator.
1	Senior Laboratory Assistant.
2	Museum Assistants.
1	Clerk Book-keeper.
2	Clerk Stenographers.
1 File Clerk.
1 Stores Clerk.
1	Assistant Photographer.
2	Junior Clerk Typists.
2 Junior Clerk Stenographers.
Positions dropped which are included in 1921-22.-Cow.
1 Clerk.
2 Associate Geologists.
1 Associate Invertebrate Zoologist.
1	Technologist.
2	Junior Topographical Engineers.
1 Junior Geodetic Engineer.
1	Research Clerk.
2	Map Draftsmen.
1 Lapidary.
Totals 28
My hon. friend will see that there are twenty-eight new positions and that nineteen have been dropped, which makes a net addition of nine.
In reply to my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman), who has spoken so heatedly over salary increases, let me say that the members of this Government have little or nothing to do with those increases. It is true that an official may be recommended for promotion by the deputy minister, but it does not follow that the promotion will be approved by the Civil Service Commission. They decide whether the promotion shall go through, and fix the salary.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If the Civil Service Commission fix the salaries, how was it that the Department of Agriculture was provided with a certain appropriation to take care of promotions? If we have a certain sum to take care of promotions, why can we not provide for decreases. That is what troubles me.


Charles A. Stewart: If you vote the minimum salary and the individual is promoted, you have no money to pay him, so you must either vote the salary he will receive if the expected promotion goes through, or vote a lump sum to take care of expected promotions. That is what has been done in nearly all these cases, with possibly the single exception I have mentioned where it happened that the two salaries were voted. In the case of the Department of Agriculture a lump sum was voted to take care of expected increases. But the point is that neither the minister nor the deputy minister controls the salary; that is fixed by the Civil Ser-
vice Commission. We can recommend a promotion, but it does not follow that it will be approved; we do not control promotions.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The minister says that he cannot control the promotion, yet in the vote that was before this House yesterday a certain sum was provided to take care of promotions.


Charles A. Stewart: I thought I explained that. I said that in certain departments a lump sum was voted to take care of expected promotions, and that in others the expected salary increase was voted. It would undoubtedly tend to a great deal less confusion if either the one or the other course was followed in all departments, and undoubtedly that will be done next year.


Mr. LEWIS:: With respect to the men who are going out to do field work, I notice that opposite these positions are certain salaries. Are these salaries for the year, or are these university students simply paid for the few months they are out in the field?


Charles A. Stewart: The salaries are on a yearly basis.


Mr. KNOX:: The minister has stated that a number of men will be sent out on field work this year. I should like to know how many of these parties will be sent to northern Saskatchewan.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot say offhand as to Saskatchewan, but I think I am correct in saying that there is an arrangement with British Columbia that certain investigational work will be car-

Supply-Post Office
ried on there each year. I know that in Alberta the local government frequently makes representations to the department, and I believe individuals do also, asking that certain areas be investigated. In the northern part of both these provinces a considerable amount of work has been done. I cannot say at the moment just what territory will be covered by the field parties this year, but I am given to understand that we endeavour to send out parties wherever there are indications that a field requires investigational work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Post Office Department-salaries, $1,118,648 ; contingencies, $168,000.
Charles Murphy: In connection with this item the committee will observe that there is a decrease in the number of employees as compared with the number last year, and also a decrease in the salaries to be paid. Last year there were 951 employees in the Inside Service; this year there are 806, or a decrease of 145. The explanation regarding these decreases will be found at page 102, at the end of these estimates, under "Civil Government." Forty-seven positions have been abolished. Sixty-seven positions are now in the Outside Service that were previously in the Inside Service and these, I may explain, consist of positions in the branch dead letter offices throughout the country. Then there were six positions not required and which were done away with, and twenty-six unclassified positions not required which were also done away with. Last year, the committee will observe, the salaries amounted to $1,297,146. This year they total $1,118,648 or a decrease of $178,498. In all other respects I may observe that the estimates of this year for civil government for the Post Office Department are substantially the same as those for last year. The committee will further observe, under the head of contingencies, three items, the total of which last year was $156,000; this year the amount is $168,000. Two of the items are identical in amount; the other, that for printing and stationery, shows an increase of $12,000. Last year the amount voted was $63,000. This year the amount asked for is $75,000, and the explanation is the increased cost of supplies and materials. These are the chief features of the estimates for civil government as they appear before the committee.


Mr. HANSON:: The minister has stated that the increase of $12,000 in the cost of
44i
printing and stationery is due to the enhanced cost of printing material. It would occur to the ordinary mind that the reverse should be the case because the cost of paper, for example, has been very considerably reduced in the last twelve months. If that is not the case in this particular instance I think there must be something wrong with my hon. friend's printing department. I would like to know if the expenditure of $75,000 refers to payments made to friends of the Government, or does it represent payments made to the Printing Bureau? There are various ways of subsidizing the press friendly to the Government. I would like to know therefore if this is some government pap that has been thrown out to friends in the newspaper business or whether it consists of money paid to another department?


Charles Murphy: The suggestion contained in the concluding remark of my hon. friend falls on unaccustomed ears: I have no knowledge of any pap thrown out to any supporters of the Government. I may explain for the benefit of my hon. friend, who has asked a very proper question, as well as for the benefit of other members of the committee, that this money is disbursed through the Printing Bureau and not by the Post Office Department. All the supplies are purchased through the Printing Bureau, and the practice followed there will be explained by my colleague in the Government who has charge of that department. As to the other observation of my hon. friend that the amount of this vote should be less this year than last, because of a decrease in the price of paper, might I point out to him that he has not taken into account the ext quantity of material required by reason of the continuous increase in the business of the Post Office Department.


Arthur Meighen: Of the diminution in
numbers the minister has stated that sixty-seven represent positions formerly in the inside service that are now in the outside service. So that the reductions appear to be 47, 6 and 26 respectively-positions abolished by Order in Council; positions not required, and unclassified positions not required. Is the minister in a position to tell us the dates when these reductions were made by Order in Council? that is to say the dates of the forty-seven reductions, the six not required, and the twenty-six unclassified not required?


Charles Murphy: In reply to my right
hon. friend I am informed that these re-

Supply-Public Works
ductions were made by Order in Council between the 15th July last and the 15th January last.


Arthur Meighen: I thought so. Therefore I will assume that the applause coming from my left was intended for this side of the House. Now I am sure the minister will be frank enough to say, as well, that these reductions followed the re-organization which the late government put into effect for which it got so much abuse from the press of Ottawa, particularly the press of Montreal, and which doubtless was the cause of our losing some seats. However I am quite content that seats should be lost in order that the public interests might be served, and the encomiums of my friends to the left are now sufficient reward for me.


Arthur John Lewis: Instead of there being a
decrease in the estimates I think the minister will find, if he will deduct the salaries of all the other positions that have been abolished, that there was an increase in salaries to the amount of $34,554.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, say not so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Department of Public Works-salaries, $583,035 ; contingencies $94,000.
Edmond Baird Ryckman: Is this an increase?


Arthur Meighen: It is a decrease in
salary, and a small increase in contingencies, but I do not think the decrease is anything at all-I speak now from memory and subject to correction-comparable to decreases which have been made continuously in that department because of the reduction of the work. That department has become pretty nearly all overhead. It is top-heavy. I know that the minister has been in office for a less period of time than his colleagues, but I am satisfied that there is not a department of the Government in which the minister can, with better advantage, direct his energies towards reorganization than the Department of Public Works. The work of reorganization that we had under way, and which should be continued now beyond all doubt, went through the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments, the Post Office, the Printing Bureau and reached the Public Works Department. It was done against great obstacles and in the face of the bitterest possible criticism, because when you start that kind of work you know what criticism is. I suggest that he should apply that reorganization to the Public Works Department, and he

will be astonished at the saving he can make for the country. I must admit that he may possibly be a little surprised by the abuse brought upon his own head, but I know that he will be courageous enough to face it.


Hon. J. H. KING (East Kootenay, Minister of Public Works) :: Just a short explanation of the estimates. There has been a net reduction this year in the amount voted for salaries of $37,465. There will be some thirty-four employees dropped from the department, and we shall carry twenty-three vacancies. Some of those will be filled, and some probably will not be filled. The number of employees in the department has never, since 1913 or 1914, been as low as it is this year. There has been a gradual decrease. This year the total will be 295 as against 325 last year. In the contingency vote, there is r decrease in printing, the vote being $14,00( this year, as against $19,600 last year In clerical and other assistance, there has been an increase of some thirteen employees who are being carried under the vote this year, but who were placed under other votes last year. There is a reduction in travelling expenses and also a slight increase in sundries, but the net decrease is some $37,000.


Arthur John Lewis: We have become used to hearing about increases in salary, with the statement that the Civil Service Commission is responsible for it. Take the second item, assistant deputy minister, the salary has been decreased $600. Is that the same assistant deputy minister, or is this a new one coming in?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: There is a new one coming in at a lower salary.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is it necessary to
have two travelling paymasters, one at $2,700 and one at $2,475, and also filing clerks, one at $2,160 and one at $1,920? I do not think there is a commercial concern in the Dominion of Canada which pays any such price to a file clerk. I think the usual salary is $50 to $75 a month.


John Warwick King: These officials travel from one portion of the country to another on a certain work the department is carrying out. The salaries are fixed by the Civil Service Commission.

Supply-Public Works


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is an item here of $48,000 for travelling expenses; can the hon. gentleman tell me how much was expended last year?


John Warwick King: I am afraid I have not that information here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: For the benefit of new members, it would be a great convenience if we knew what was the expenditure in the preceding year. We are entirely at a loss-and I am sure the minister is in the same position-to know about what has been spent. I should like to point out to the minister that his department is carrying on practically no new capital expenditure. The only expenditure of any importance on the Island of Vancouver has been stopped altogether for reasons that seem good to the Government, and yet the country is asked to vote a very considerable sum of money for travelling expenses for officials of the head office of this department when there is little or no public work of the Character to which it could be applied going on. It occurs to me that this is a large sum of money to vote under that head. I think the minister will agree that I am right in that. Would it be possible for the deputy minister, who is present, to give us the information as to what was spent last year?


Milton Neil Campbell: I am not altogether satisfied with the answer regarding the file clerks. Do I understand the hon. gentleman to mean that the salary of those file clerks was fixed at $2,100?


John Warwick King: I thought the hon. gentleman was speaking of paymast-ters.


Milton Neil Campbell: I spoke of paymasters and file clerks. There are quite a number at $2,100. Most commercial concerns hire a young boy or girl at $50 or $75 a month to fill similar positions.


John Warwick King: The heads of the filing department should and would receive very good salaries. The junior file clerks do not receive large salaries, but the work is important, and the heads, no doubt, would receive very good salaries.


Milton Neil Campbell: These are evidently not heads. On page 95 there are two file clerks, one at $2,160 and one at $1,920. Then on page 96 seven file clerks ranging from $2,100 down. Further down nine file clerks from $2,100 down. These cannot be all head file Clerks.


John Warwick King: I think, as the hon. gentleman states, they are paid from $2,100 downward according to their grade as fixed by the commission. The salary,
I believe, is also fixed by the commission as applying to the departments generally through the whole service.


Milton Neil Campbell: A salary of $2,100 is too much for a file clerk. No business concern will pay such wages as that. Could the minister tell me what would happen to the working of the Civil Service if the House cut down that item, or the minister himself cut it down?


John Warwick King: I would hesitate about recommending anything of that kind.
I imagine the head filing clerk must be a competent man and one that can be relied upon. The salary proposed is not large for a position of that character and responsibility.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Are these salaries the result of the classification by the Griffen-Lagens or are they fixed by the Civil Service Commission?


John Warwick King: I understand they are the result of the classification made by the Arthur Young Company.


Mr. PARENT:: The same thing.


Arthur Meighen: It is not the same thing at all. The classification work of the Arthur Toung Company was done under the Civil Service Commission by men selected by them. The Civil Service Commission made the classification. The reorganization, which resulted in the great reduction in the Post Office Department, was the work of Griffen-hagen. I pause, in order that that may sink in. There is no Griffenhagen work in this case and, consequently, we do not see any names at the last omitted from the list of clerks. On the contrary, while, in the civil government estimates, there is a reduction, not a very large one, and one which, I think, should be larger, probably due to retirements and deaths, there is an increase, I notice, in the contingencies, and that increase in the face of the fact that the estimate for Printing and Stationery is very considerably reduced, doubtless because last year's estimate was not all used. The estimate for contingencies is increased from $15,000 last year to $31,000, due to the insertion of an item for clerical and other assistance. That is, it is more than doubled. I submit, right at this point, that the committee is entitled to know now- and I know of no reason why the information is not available-the expenditure for
Supply-Public Works

last year. Perhaps it is a little early to know it right up to date, but certainly the minister should be armed now with information that would enable us to estimate almost exactly the expenditure for last year. Otherwise, how can we know whether these are proper appropriations or not under the heading of contingencies? I venture to suggest that the amount spent last year is, in both cases, less than the amount asked for this year by the minister. I see that several officers are added to the list. For example, why should we need an assistant chemist in this department? It is really strange to me that a chemist should be needed at all; but with an associate chemist provided for, as is shown at the top of page 96, why have an assistant added as an additional officer just a little further down the list? If a chemist is needed in the Public Works Department, one would think the associate chemist would be sufficient without its being necessary to have an assistant chemist. On page 95, there is an item "senior mechanical engineer (heating and ventilating)," at a salary of $2,820, added in a department, the service of which is continually contracting, and is certainly not to be increased this year. Why then create these additional positions? I press chiefly for information as to the amount spent last year, and whether the department intends to apply to the Public Works Department the reorganization work that resulted in the saving in the Post Office Department.


John Warwick King: I think my
right hon. friend knows that the information is not available. The books of the department have not been closed for the year, and the information cannot be given definitely to-night. I am advised that we have not the information in our notes. It would seem to me that that information could be had at any time in the House, but it is not available in the department at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the
minister's deputy would tell him that. When I spoke, I said that they could not tell exactly. This is only the 4th of April, and the fiscal year ended on the 31st March; but undoubtedly the officials of the department could tell within sufficient limits that this committee would be quite satisfied. Otherwise, how are we to know whether these are right amounts to vote or not? That is the principal element of the information we ought to have in order to decide. It may be all right to give us

the information later, but the money will have been voted then.


John Warwick King: I regret the in-formataion is not available to-night, and it would not be advisable to make a guess.


Arthur Meighen: It is available in the
department.


John Warwick King: It would be
with time and investigation and the accounts for the year closed, but they are not yet closed.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister say
whether they propose to carry out in the Department of Public Works the reorganization work, .to which I have just referred, and to see what can be saved to the country by so doing?


John Warwick King: It is the purpose of the department and myself to make savings and to cut the service wherever possible. We have already indicated that in the amounts asked for this year, because we show a direct saving of some $37,000. With the statutory increases, which are applicable to various officials of the department and which will be paid this year, we are still able to show that decrease. It is my desire-and I know I shall have the co-operation of the head of the department-to cut the service down as far as it can be, while, at the same time, retaining its efficiency as an organization.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister shows a
reduction of staff from 325 last year to 295 this year, or a reduction of thirty. Then, in the contingencies, he shows, under "clerical and other assistance," an increase from $15,000 last year to $31,000 this year. What is the reason of this increase of $16,000, when a general reduction is going on? One thing, which, I think, is known to every member of this committee, is that the work of the Public Works Department has been decreasing very rapidly since the years of the war, and it should be back to pre-war levels and, perhaps, lower. During the war, with very few exceptions, public works were not constructed in Canada, and there has not been a necessity for the tremendous staff that the department has been carrying.


John Warwick King: I tried, at first, to make that clear. Some thirteen clerical officials had been transferred from other branches of the service, and they are to-day being carried under the contingency appropriation.

Supply-Public Works


Mr. STEWART (Leeds) :: I should like
the minister to explain to the committee just exactly what jurisdiction the Civil Service Commission has in connection with fixing salaries. There seems to be a considerable misunderstanding about that.


John Warwick King: I am not sure
that I could make an explanation as dear as it would probably be given by another minister. The matter has been referred to before in the committee. As I understand the matter, the Civil Service Commission grades a position, with a minimum and a maximum salary for that position and a clerk entering the service receives the minimum and is increased from year to year until he reaches his maximum.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it not a fact that these salaries are fixed by statute and not by the Civil Service Commission?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understand that statutory increases are provided and that the commission merely classifies the employees.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Alves Boys: I am not satisfied with the answer given to the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). He mentioned some of the ideas I had myself, and I had a motion which I intended to move unless the minister could answer the hon. member's questions to my satisfaction. My hon. friend called attention to the fact that we have a reduction of 30 clerks. Last year there were 325 as against 295 this year. It is admitted on all hands that there is a decrease in departmental work, and it seems a most extraordinary thing, under these conditions, that you should have under the heading "Contingencies clerical and other assistance" an increase from $15,000 to $31,000. The explanation given is certainly not satisfactory, and I therefore move, seconded by the member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) that the item of $31,000 appearing on page 97 of the estimates for clerical assistance be reduced to $15,000.


John Warwick King: There has been a transference of thirteen employees from various branches, and they are now being paid from the contingency vote.


Arthur Meighen: Why is that done?


John Warwick King: Surely my hon. friend is not serious, unless he wishes to wipe out a portion of the service. Thirteen
employees who have been previously paid by other departments, mainly in the engineering branch, are now being paid from the contingency vote, which is increased from $15,000 to $31,000. The result of my hon. friend's motion would be to dismiss those officials from the department, because there would be no money to pay them.


William Alves Boys: If these thirteen employees are not now in the engineering branch, why do not their offices appear in the estimates?
Mr., KING (Kootenay): They are not permanent appointees.


William Alves Boys: Is there a corresponding reduction in some other department? From what department or departments have these transfers been made?


John Warwick King: They are mainly from the engineering branch.


Arthur Meighen: I do not dispute the minister's good faith in his answer, but really it makes nothing clear to me at all. The present practice surely is not a proper one. How can the minister justify taking officers of the department out of the regular category, where the salary of each man is laid down, and lumping them all together under contingencies, asking the committee to vote just a lump sum without any particulars whatever? The various offices ought to be designated here. This practice should not be followed at all.


John Warwick King: Item 168 on page 42 provides for the salaries of engineers, inspectors, superintendents, draughtsmen, clerks and messengers of the outside service. The vote for that service last year was $542,000 as against $500,000 this year, or a reduction of $42,000. Now, the additional $16,000 in the item on page 97 is a part of the saving of $42,000 in the estimate on page 42. Salaries paid under that vote last year have been transferred to the contingencies vote this year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Were these thirteen men, who are now to be paid out of the contingencies vote, formerly engineers in the outside service?


John Warwick King: These officials were employed in Ottawa in the engineering branch, and were later transferred to other branches. They are temporary employees who will receive their salaries from the contingency vote this year.


William Alves Boys: Is it not possible for the minister to find out how this $31,000 is made up? If there are clerks to be paid
Supply-Public Works

I do not desire to press the motion, but I think we ought to get definite items to show how this increase of $16,000 is made up. That information ought to be available.


John Warwick King: I will give the names of these employees transferred.
They are:
Miss Logan	 $ 600
Miss Negall	 720
Miss Ruddy	 600
Miss Chene	 960
Miss Gorman	 700
Miss Facto	 840
Miss Mooney	 600
Miss Cote	 1,080
Miss Jette	 600
Miss Becker	 600
Mrs. Neilson	 600
C.	S. Boucher	 1,320
A. Despatie	 '960
G. Dudley	  900
D.	McKell	 960
P. MeClenahan	 960
W. Beckworth	 800
G.	E. Smith	 1,680
A. Bouchard	 1,200
F. J. Grace	 1,000
W. Stewart	 1,000
Miss Fellows	 L380
Miss McKay	 1,200
Miss Y. Duhamel	 840
Armand Nimeau	 1,800
J. O'Halloran	 1,020
J. H. Donuody	 1,200
H.	A. Cross	
1,200M. O. Durant	'..	l'260J. A. Mineau	
2,040
making a total of $30,620 for salaries.


William Alves Boys: Are they all temporary?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Why are they needed with a diminishing department?


John Warwick King: I am informed all the clerical staff are needed in carrying on the work of the department.


William Alves Boys: Have many of those officials been in the Service for two, three or four years?


John Warwick King: Some have been in the Service for three or four years.


William Alves Boys: Might they be described as junior file clerks, messengers or assistant accountants, and, if so, why are they not specified in the ordinary way?


John Warwick King: As the salaries would indicate, many of them are junior clerks.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Was the vote of last year, $15,000, sufficient to take care of the salaries of these clerks?


Arthur Meighen: I understand that thirteen clerks have been brought in. I am not
(Mr. Boys.]
hard to satisfy, but I really do not want to go away with the answer that those clerks were all needed in the department. That answer does not leave me any the wiser. How is it that a department whose services are contracting, and rightly so, needs those thirteen additional clerks?


John Warwick King: They were in the service before, carrying on very much the same work.


Arthur Meighen: Why is the change made?


John Warwick King: A matter of book-keeping in the department. They were not detailed before, but last year were carried in a lump sum under engineering and other votes; this year they are carried under the contingencies vote.


William Alves Boys: The minister gave the total in round figures at $31,000, but I am not sure whether the total number of clerks was thirty or thirty-one.'


John Warwick King: Thirty in all.


William Alves Boys: So as a matter of fact if we add the thirty to the two hundred and ninety-five, we find there are just as many clerks to-day as there were last year.


William Stevens Fielding: As the item appeared in the estimates it certainly conveyed the impression that there was an increase which needed explanation. I think the minister's explanation makes everything clear. Many of the clerks are paid out of contingencies. In this case the department, for book-keeping purposes, have transferred from one branch of the service to another these thirteen clerks. If it meant that thirteen additional clerks had been brought into the department at this time it would be a just cause for criticism, but I think the minister has made it clear that they were not brought into the service but were merely transferred from another vote, so that there has been no actual increase.


Mr. BROWN:: It would seem that while there was a reduction from three hundred and twenty-five to two hundred and ninety-five, that these thirteen clerks brought in from another department would reduce that reduction of thirty to a net reduction of seventeen ?


William Stevens Fielding: They were not brought from another department but were transferred from another branch of the same department.


John Livingstone Brown: That means a net reduction of seventeen?

SupplV-Puolic Works


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Stevens Fielding: May I suggest that on
the question of reductions generally I agree with what has been said, that as the work of the Public Works Department is being restricted it certainly should not lead to an increased expenditure. But may I not submit that it is rather unreasonable to expect that a new minister who has only recently taken office would be able to reorganize his department in a few days and determine what reductions should be made? He is bound to take the estimates of last year as his basis. If later on. he can reduce the staff, well and good. Take the question of dismissals, the minister may find the number of his officials is greater than is needed, and if a proposal is made to dismiss those men summarily he will find very strong representations made as to the hardship entailed. I submit it is fair and reasonable for the House to expect reductions, but that it is not reasonable to expect them to be made right away. It seems to me that it is not unfair that ministers should ask for their estimates pretty much on the lines of last year, and the House should rely on them, with the money placed at their disposal, to make every reasonable effort during the year to guard against increased expenditure-I do not think the House expects the Minister of Public Works, or any other minister, with the short time at his disposal to be able to reorganize his department at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think any
member of the House would say that we have been unmindful of the fact that the Minister of Public Works is new to his office. We have kept that in mind in all our questions and criticisms. We are simply seeking to get at the facts. The minister has made, not boasts, perhaps, but has taken credit for a reduction of thirty persons in the civil government vote. Now will he be good enough to tell us, as did the Postmaster General a few minutes ago, when these thirty reductions were made? I know there have been retirements from the Department of Public Works, especially large numbers of retirements from the engineer's branch.


John Warwick King: Seven of the
reductions were due to death, seven to resignation, seven to retirement, and there were eleven transfers.


Arthur Meighen: When were the seven
retired?


John Warwick King: Five in July
1921; one in July 1922-


Arthur Meighen: Hardly; we are not
there yet.


John Warwick King: They are practically all in July 1921, except one.


Arthur Meighen: All the retirements
were made in July 1921?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Did not all the resignations also take place about the same time?


John Warwick King: The resignations took place in May, July, October and December last year.


Arthur Meighen: So the retirements and resignations all took place last year, and the rest are due to death, so the entire reduction in staff is due to Providence and the late government. Now we will see to whom the increase in staff is due. I remember quite well that in the engineering branch to which the minister has referred, page 42, very substantial reductions were made in the face of bitter criticism. I would just like to know whether it is to avoid some of those reductions that the thirteen men are brought from that branch now and added to the civil government vote under contingencies.


John Warwick King: These thirteen were not concerned in that reduction.


Arthur Meighen: These are thirteen more not required, under the engineering vote, but they are not the thirteen that were retired by the late Government. That is what I understand the minister's answer to be, that these are thirteen not required in that service, but they were not retired by the late government. There were others that were retired, but not these thirteen.


John Warwick King: No, they were not retired. They have been employed in other branches.


Arthur Meighen: So the method this Government adopts when men are not required in the engineering branch is not the method adopted by the late government of letting them out, but to bring them out of the department into the contingencies vote under civil government.


John Warwick King: This year we are carrying some twenty-three vacancies. The late Government carried thirty-three last year.


Arthur Meighen: What I stated is correct, then, so that whereas Providence
Supply-Public Works

and the late government made the reductions the minister himself is wholly responsible for the increases.


William Stevens Fielding: A very unusual combination.


Arthur Meighen: They often worked together.


William Alves Boys: I notice that the minister in one of his explanations gave as one of the reasons for the increase, the transfer of thirteen clerks, but what I cannot understand is why these thirteen are brought from one branch of the Department of Public Works into another where there is no work for them to do. If the minister could show that there was work for them to do, I would not be disposed to press my motion. Why are these men needed in the branch to which they have been transferred?


John Warwick King: There has been
a decrease in the amount of work in the engineering branch, but in the accounting branch, I am advised, there has been some increase. These people have been transferred to other branches where there has been an increase of work.


William Alves Boys: How could there be an increase of work in the accounting branch when there is less work going on in the Public Works Department? The Minister of Finance has rather intimated that there was an effort on our part to embarrass the Government.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not say that.
It is fair criticism.


William Alves Boys: I want to assure the committee and the Finance Minister that no such thought is in my mind, and if the minister could give me a satisfactory explanation I would not press the motion, but I do think we ought to be given some better explanation than has been given so far. If the work of the whole department is decreasing, there must be less work to do in the accounting branch, and if these men are not needed there, they might as well stay where they are. It seems to me we have been given no explanation of that whatever, and until we have, I do not see why this money should be voted.


John Warwick King: A large number of these persons have been transferred from the engineering branch to other branches of the service where there are vacancies to be filled.


William Alves Boys: It is not a case of vacancies because you would not need the extra money for that. You had $15,000 before, and you are getting $31,000 now. You are increasing the number of clerks in this particular branch where there is less work to do. That is what the minister does not explain.


John Warwick King: We are not increasing the staff. We are filling vacancies with officials who are not required in other branches of the service. There is no increase. As a matter of fact, there is a decrease in the civil government salaries vote this year.


Arthur Meighen: On account of reductions and resignations that we effected last year.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not quite satisfied that this item is right. The minister perhaps is under some disadvantage because he has not yet had sufficient time to familiarize himself with the workings of his department. I think it is only reasonable that he should have more time, but this much has been made clear, and it is some satisfaction to find that it has been made clear, that the whole reduction in this department is due to the action of the late government, that the whole reduction of 145 in the Post Office Department is due to the action of the late government, and that the claim of the Militia Department that 400 were let out on the 1st of April is wholly due to automatic reductions. So that this much applauded action on the part of the Administration in the direction of economy has very little foundation in fact. Only a day or two after these Estimates were brought down I saw some notice in one of the newspapers in the reading room of the number of reductions made in the various departments, but so far as our examination has proceeded, it appears that all these reductions were made under the late government, and so far as any one knows, the present Government has not made any reductions whatever in the Civil Service staff. That much has come out in the discussion, so I think if it has cleared up nothing else, the discussion has been worth while.


Mr. STEWART (Lanark):: Would it be possible for the minister to classify by occupation the thirty officials who are to be paid under this contingencies vote?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I would like to know
the sex of these engineers who have been transferred from one branch to another of the department.


John Warwick King: They are not
engineers, but clerks, stenographers and messengers, some male and some female.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: How many of each
sex?


John Warwick King: There are thirteen females, I think, in the list.


John Alexander Stewart: Is it not
possible to classify them having regard to the occupations that are set out on pages 95 and 96?


John Warwick King: I see no reason why they can not be classified. It has not been the custom, however, I understand, to set out the classification in this vote. I understand they were carried under the general vote last year.


John Alexander Stewart: I fear I have not made myself clear to the minister. Is it not possible to classify the particular employees under the headings as they appear here in order that we may know to which class they belong? That is to say, there are different classifications of stenographers and filing clerks. Cannot we get the particulars under these headings?


John Warwick King: Messrs. Smith, Bouchard, Grace and Stewart are clerks, the rest are clerk-stenographers.


John Alexander Stewart: Will the
minister then explain why the thirty persons of such occupations as are likely to be employed by the department are not included in the classification on pages 95 and 96?


John Warwick King: They are not permanent but temporary employees.


Arthur Meighen: No reason has been
given yet, and I am quite sure the minister has the information at first hand to show why they should be moved. It is a mystery to me why they should be moved from one branch to the other. It would appear, although I may be wrong, that they are not needed in the engineering branch at all. I know no reason why they should be there, and it would appear that the duty of the department would be to reduce the engineering branch instead of doing what has been done here. The minister may be able to refute that presumption, but I think
he should secure the information that would enable him to do so for the committee. Furthermore, we ought to have before we pass these contingencies an estimate, at least as close as possible, of the amount expended last year not only as regards civil government but as regards especially the amount required to provide for new appointments at the bottom of page 96. I would suggest that the committee rise and that the minister be prepared-I know he can be prepared quite readily from his department-when we meet again to give us this information.


William Stevens Fielding: The item might stand until the next meeting of the committee. In the meantime we might proceed with the civil government estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


William Alves Boys: Under the circumstances
possibly I might be permitted to withdraw the amendment now, and if the information which the minister submits to the committee at its next meeting is satisfactory it may not need to be moved.


William Stevens Fielding: Let the item stand.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure
of the committee that the hon. member have leave to withdraw his amendment.


Arthur Meighen: I think both had better stand until the next sitting. I would much prefer that being done and I would object to the amendment being withdrawn now.
Item allowed to stand.
Department of Trade and Commerce- salaries, $418,020; contingencies, $22,000.


Mr. STEVENS:: I have no desire to
enter into a very lengthy discussion of the business of the department under the estimates for civil government, but there are many questions that will arise when the main estimates of the department come up. I would therefore like to ask the minister for a brief statement at this stage, if he would be good enough to make it, in regard to the proposals of the department as to the extension of trade. I put a question on the Order Paper the other day, which I have not under my hand at present, asking particularly regarding the extension of trade to Mexico. The answer was quite satisfactory in a sense-that is it indicated that the minister was alive to the desirability of extending trade, but it was not very definite. There was one point in particular I desired to ask the minister about. That was as to the proposal for establish-
700	COMMONS
Supply-Trade and Commerce
ing steamship connections with Mexico which apparently have a very promising outlook; and if the minister could indicate whether steps are being taken to actually put into effect steamship connections on that route it would be very gratifying to know it. Furthermore, the reason I am pressing this point just at this time is I do not think there should be any longer delay in the matter than is absolutely necessary, and if we wait for information until the main Estimates come along it may involve a delay of a month. I think the steps which have already been begun for that service should be continued, and if the minister is in a position to let us know what has been done the information would be very welcome indeed.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce) :: When the general Estimates are up and we have under consideration the question of the extension of trade I shall be very glad to go fully into the subject of trade with Mexico and other ;parts of the world. It is only fair to say that my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) initiated an inquiry into the possibility of trade with Mexico; I found the documents which indicate this on file when I assumed the administration of the department. We are making a careful study of the possibilities of trade with that country and also as to the wisdom of encouraging the development of such trade owing to the recent disturbance in Mexico. It is a little premature just now to make a statement as to whether or not the Government will subsidize a line of steamers to Mexico. I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me that in such a matter it is better to move slowly, and be sure of results, rather than to encourage a trade that might not perhaps prove profitable to the Canadian people. I hope, however, that when the main Estimates come up we will be able to afford information that will not only be satisfactory to my hon. friend but encouraging to the country.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry) :: May I ask the minister to explain why such a large increase has been made in the salary of the director of commercial intelligence, viz., from $6,000 to $6,900? That official is now receiving a larger stipend than the deputy minister?


James Alexander Robb: That is one of the very questions I asked myself when going through the estimates-why it was that the director of commercial intelligence was paid a higher salary than the deputy minister.


Arthur Meighen: He never was.


James Alexander Robb: He is.
Mr. MEIGHfiN: Yes, he is now.


James Alexander Robb: I understand this is under the re-arrangement made by the Civil Service Commission and the general statutory allowance made in the regulations provided under the Civil Service Act.


Arthur Meighen: I really do not like to doubt the minister.


James Alexander Robb: The Civil Service Commission fixed this salary, and it was submitted to the previous government and they approved the increase authorized by the commission.


Arthur Meighen: From $6,000 to $6,900.? Who is the Director of Commercial Intelligence.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Poussette.


Arthur Meighen: And the Civil Service Commission fixed his salary at $6,900- over a deputy minister?


James Alexander Robb: With the possibility of his going to $7,200, and the government of which my hon. friend was the Prime Minister approved of the regulation.


Arthur Meighen: I have no recollection of it. I would like to be favoured with the papers by the minister. I am sure he has looked it up or he would not make the statement, but I do not think there is any other similar instance in all the civil government estimates.


James Alexander Robb: I quite agree with my hon. friend on that.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman explain why there is added to the list a publicity assistant and a junior departmental librarian as well? One would not think it was time to add those officers, and a senior photographer as well. I am told a lantern slide artist has been added also. I would like to hear the minister attempt to load this on the Civil Service Commission.


James Alexander Robb: For the information of my hon. friend, I may say to him that I have such confidence in my predecessors that I have accepted these estimates, number of employees and the salaries, plus the usual allowance made under the Civil Service regulations, exactly as I found them when I came into office, and I shall have to look to my hon. friend for an explanation.


Arthur Meighen: That will not go down at all. It was the habit, under the old gov-

Supply-State
ernment, for the minister to review the estimates submitted to him by the officers of the department. The time for reviewing estimates had not arrived on the 29th December. The time for reviewing the estimates by the officers came between that time and the time when the hon. minister assumed office. That is the unfortunate thing about it. These estimates would have been reviewed had there not been a change. However, the minister considered it his duty to take whatever was put before him. Really it is just as disgraceful to load it in that way on the late government as it would be to load it on the Civil Service Commission. Has the minister no better explanation as to why these offices were added? I know the numbers are the same as the year before, but if the minister had not created these offices there would be a diminution. These were not here before. The minister can see no provision was made last year for them. These were additions. If they had not been created, then there would have been diminution, but not by any act of the minister. I will venture to suggest that he has not retired one man or one woman from the department.


James Alexander Robb: Or added one.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes. How do you account for asking the House to vote $1,320 for a lantern slide artist, when the House did not vote a dollar last year? Then we have the publicity assistant. These were not in last year's estimates at all. The estimates may have been submitted to the minister by his officers, but what I am complaining of is not the work of the officers but the work of the minister. Why are these additions made?


James Alexander Robb: Surely the hon. gentleman would not expect me immediately on coming into office to go through the department and discharge men that his ministers had placed in office, as between the time the Estimates were passed last year and the time I assumed charge of the department?


Arthur Meighen: The minister last year could not place anyone in office unless there was a salary for him. There was no salary for him last year. These are salaries to be provided next year.


James Alexander Robb: I found that out when I came into office.


Arthur Meighen: How was this lantern slide artist paid? , There was no salary for him last year.


James Alexander Robb: He would be paid out of contingencies would he not? However, during the interim, he has been re-classified and given a standing, and I found this condition when I assumed office.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister has the same amount for contingencies this year as last year, why does he not reduce his contingencies by this amount?


James Alexander Robb: Would the hon. gentleman recommend that we reduce them?


Arthur Meighen: I would, yes. I observe that I do not get any favourable response.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Secretary of State-salaries, $132,732.50 ; contingencies, $28,800.
Arthur Meighen: We are not told in advance what items are going to be taken up. Unlike the last department, this estimate shows a slight decrease, but I have not the slightest doubt that, common with the others, the decrease was made before the hon. gentleman had a chance to change it. The number of officers is 96 as against 105. Will the minister explain how the reduction came about and when?


Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) :: I venture to say that the reduction is not really fifteen, because it is a transfer from one Classification to another. I think the real reduction is only six.


Arthur Meighen: When was that made?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Made by the deputy minister before I came in or since.


Arthur Meighen: The 'hon. minister
surely would not suggest that the deputy would dismiss people without his knowledge; so that if he knows of no reduction, these were all made before he came in.


Arthur Bliss Copp: These items were given to me by the deputy. I made no reduction myself, but I was glad to see a slight reduction in these estimates, and if there is any credit due to my hon. friend in this respect, I am the last one to attempt to take it away from him.


Arthur Meighen: I am not bothering about that, but I want to know the facts. There is a reduction of six in the number of employees. He says he made no reduction himself. He retired nobody. I do not suppose his staff under him are retiring people without the knowledge of the minister, and consequently all the retirements
Supply-Archives

were made before he came into office; so that the reduction is entirely due to his predecessor in office. Is that not correct?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not know when the reduction was made.


Arthur Meighen: Did the hon. minister make it himself?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I made no reduction, except that made by the department.


Arthur Meighen: The reductions were probably made before the hon. gentleman came into office.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I made no reduction except
what was recommended to me by my officials.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister tell
me one single retirement that was recommended to him and that he made?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I accepted the statement
given to me by my officials when they brought the estimates to me.


Arthur Meighen: I wonder why the minister is there. We may quite as well have this put before us simply by the deputy. The minister does not answer my question at all. Since he has taken office, has he retired one officer of his department, or has he not? I do not know of any way of answering that question except "yes" or "no".


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have not dismissed an
official from my department since I came in.


Arthur Meighen: So all the retirements
were made before the minister took office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government-Public Archives-salaries and contingencies, 579,680.
Arthur Meighen: There is an increase
in salaries.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not think there are
any except statutory increases.


Arthur Meighen: Is the minister's
enthusiasm for economy such that he feels he could make some reduction in the Public Archives? I do not wish to say a word against the retention of the work of the archives; every country must provide for its archives. Still, if the minister is consumed with a passion for economy, the reproductive activities of the country would not be at all impaired if economy was applied to the Department of Public Archives.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I think the work of the
Archives branch with regard to the affairs

of this Dominion should be extended rather than curtailed. We have in the person of Dr. Doughty, deputy minister of this branch, a man who has done splendid service and who has collected a great mass of data regarding matters relating to the whole Dominion. I have had a number of compliments paid to Dr. Doughty through me on the splendid work that he has performed. I have not yet had an opportunity of studying the department myself; but if there is an opportunity of making any reductions or bringing about economy, I would be very glad to assist and co-operate with all hon. members. I feel it would be a splendid thing and an afternoon, not lost, if every hon. gentleman would make it a point to visit the Archives branch some afternoon in order to see the splendid work carried on by it. I take no credit for the work myself; but I feel that we have in Dr. Doughty a gentleman who is doing splendid work in this branch. I am sure, if I have the privilege of presiding ever this branch for another year, I shall be able to give more information to the committee in regard to it. If there is any reduction my right hon. friend could suggest that could be made without interfering with the work of the branch, I should be glad to consider it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The third official in the list is the Assistant Director of War Trophies. These war trophies would, I should think, have been distributed months ago amongst the various municipalities and public bodies to which they were destined. In my province, you will see them dotted all over the landscape, and we are very proud to have them. Is this man to be a permanent employee of the department, and are we to keep him forever at a salary of $3,360? There would seem to be an opportunity for the minister to exercise that disposition of which he has just given verbal testimony.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The information I have is that we have a very large number of these war trophies yet on hand for distribution.


Samuel William Jacobs: I notice in this list a book binder at $31 a week We had one lone book binder last year. This year we seem to have abolished him. Can the minister tell us why?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Economy.


Samuel William Jacobs: Are we going to do without any binding? How are we going to preserve these valuable documents unless we have a book binder?

Questions


Henry Herbert Stevens: We replaced him by a high binder.


Samuel William Jacobs: A hide-bound Tory?
Have we abolished book-binding altogether in the public archives?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I cannot give my hon. friend the information. I do not know whether they had a book binder there, or whether his services have been dispensed with or not. The item is a small one, and I fancy the books will be bound whether this official is kept at this wage or not.


Samuel William Jacobs: Bound by whom?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would it not be likely that, under the efficiency efforts of the late government in the improvement of the Printing Bureau, in the gathering together of a large number of miscellaneous small printing plants under the bureau and the reduction of the cost of that establishment, this work is performed now at the Printing Bureau instead of at the Archives?


Samuel William Jacobs: Is that a fact or merely a theory?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it is a fact and a testimony to the efficiency of the late government.


Arthur Meighen: And $500,000 a year was saved in the bureau in addition to the fact of our taking care of the extra work.


Samuel William Jacobs: How is it then that
the hon. gentlemen find themselves on the other side of the House?


Arthur Meighen: Because of the failure of my hon. friend and those around him to state these facts to the electorate, and because, where my hon. friend did not have the hardihood to state himself what was in the interest of his party in the way of misrepresentation, there was always around him and through the press an army which was competent to do that.


Samuel William Jacobs: Therefore, I conclude the people of Canada were fools.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is not very far wrong.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: I really thought the hon. member had used the word "fooled." The hon. gentleman is only wrong to this
extent, that the "s" should be changed to "ed."


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
Wednesday, April 5, 1922