1923-05-11

BANKING AND COMMERCE

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I move that the name of Hon. T. A. Crerar be taken from the list of members composing the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce and the name of Mr. Robert Forke be inserted in lieu thereof.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 159 (from the Senate), to amend the Dominion Lands Act respecting the sale or other disposal of coal lands and coal mining rights.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 165 (from the Senate) to amend the Petition of Right Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 160 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edgar Lindsay.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 161 (from the Senate), for the relief of Charles Marigoli Hare.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 162 (from the Senate), for the relief of Esther Levin.-Mr. Gordon.
Bill No. 163 (from the Senate), for the relief of Hilda Marguerite Watt Black.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 164 (from the Senate), for the relief of Abigal Aileen Beryl McCrea Tull.- Mr. Duff.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. HOCKEN:: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister if he can give any explanation for the extraordinary delay in British mail reaching this country. For example, the latest issue of the London Times received here was dated April 6th, but it did not arrive until May 7th. There .must
surely be some reason for this delay of apparently a month in the transmission of mail to Canada,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot offhand give my hon. friend a reply. There has been some considerable delay in the crossing of some of the ships, as the hon. member will have observed. I have no doubt there are other reasons to account for the matter to which he refers. I will direct the attention of the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Graham) to the question and will endeavour to get a reply.



THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: I should like to direct the attention of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment to a telegram which I have received. I know that the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) received a similar telegram, and I am sure other hon. members have received telegrams of the same tenor:
The Fort William branch of the Great War Veterans Association joins with the Dominion command in demanding from Pension Board immediate statement as to whether it intends to review claims now pending in accordance with Royal Commission findings. Board's refusal to act causing unwarranted distress and hardship among many widows, dependents, and disabled ex-service men throughout the Dominion. Urgently request immediate acceptance.
In view of the report of the royal commission, which has pointed out many defects in the carrying out of this act, I should like to ask: Does the hon. minister feel it within his power to instruct the Board of Pension Commissioners to cam' out the. intent of the law, as brought before the House of Commons last year by the parliamentary committee, and as explained to the House? If he cannot do that, I should like to find out, if possible, when he intends to bring in legislation which he stated some time ago he was going to bring in, to carry out the recommendation of the royal commission, and settle the discontent which exists very seriously throughout the country among ex-service men.


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: It has come to my knowledge that a very large number of telegrams have been received by members of the House, and also by members of the government. As to the interpretation of the Pension Act by the Board of Pension Commissioners, my hon. friend and hon. members of this House are aware that it is entirely within

The Budget-Mr. Fielding

the discretion of that board. The question of the advisability of amending the Pension Act is for this House and parliament generally to consider. It is the intention of the government to bring down legislation during the present session with a view to remedying the grievances which have been uttered more or less all over Canada by the ex-service men. It is hoped that these amendments will meet the situation. Again repeating myself, I say that, as far as an interpretation of the act is concerned, it is entirely within the power and authority of the Board of Pension Commissioners.


Robert James Manion: The Board of Pension Commissioners, according to the ruling of the commission-I do not wish to discuss it, and I shall not do so except to say one wordhaving put up certain information to the minister for interpretation, and having finally taken their own interpretation, perhaps not according to what the minister had said, point out that these clauses should be interpreted to a certain extent with different points in view. Under the circumstances, does the minister not think that he might direct the Board of Pension Commissioners to interpret the act in the most broad-minded way possible, and will not he promise the House to bring down the alterations which he suggests at a very early date?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The minister has on repeated occasions, in memoranda addressed to the Board of Pension Commissioners, asked for the most generous interpretation of the act. The contention of the Board of Pension Commissioners is that they have always remained within strict interpretation of the statute. The remedy, therefore, would appear to be in an amendment to the statute, and this amendment, or these amendments.
I propose to introduce in the House as soon as possible-as soon as the budget debate is* over. Whatever legislation may be adopted by this House or by parliament would not take effect before it is assented to by His Excellency which would happen only at the time of prorogation. But I repeat that I expect that it will be possible to amend the Pension Act so that the complaints which have been uttered during the last year or year and a half will be remedied. That assurance has been given by myself to all those who have done me the honour of corresponding with me either by letter or telegram.



SOUTH SHORE BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Marine and
	<
Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) to the fact that an order was agreed to on the 23rd April last, regarding the construction of the South Shore bridge. When may we expect that return?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I have been advised that this report will be handed to me in a few days, and I shall be pleased to lay it on the Table.



THE BUDGET


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: Mr. Speaker, I think the rules of the House permit that you should leave the chair without a motion, but as that will not carry out the object in view, I will move that the House do resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means.


Hewitt Bostock: Rule 17 C provides that
on Thursdays and Fridays, when the Ordei of the Day is called for the House to go intc Committee of Supply or Ways and Means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question. Though that is the letter, it is not the spirit, of the rule, The budget speech must be delivered before the House and not before the committee. Therefore, living up to precedent, I shall put the question:	Mr. Fielding moves, seconded by Mr. Lapointe that I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means.


William Stevens Fielding: The financial affairs for
the fiscal year, 1921-1922, which was the last year of which we have the public accounts, call now for only a passing notice. With regard to that year, the year ended 31st March, 1922, it is worth while remembering that while the present government were in power at the time the accounts were made up at the close of the year, they had only been in power three months, and, therefore, it will not be unfair to treat that year as a Conservative year, inasmuch as the Conservative government of the day, in the discharge of their duties, prepared the estimates and voted the money, made the contracts, and practically controlled the expenditure of the year. So that I think we may count that year, practically speaking, as a Conservative year. I am going to ask at this stage, and at one of the other stages during my remarks, that the courtesy of the House be extended to me, which is usual, to enable me to put into Hansard, in the form of a summary some figures which I may present.
Income and Expenditure
The revenue for the year was $381,952,386.99 against ordinary expenditure of $347,560,690.63.

The Budget-Mr. Fielding
If the surplus is to be ascertained by comparing the ordinary revenue with the ordinary expenditure-and that was the time-honoured way of determining surpluses-then on that year there was a surplus of $34,391,696.36. But there was a capital expenditure of $16,295,332.55. If we take that into account, both ordinary expenditure and capital expenditure, there was still a surplus of $18,096,363.81. Then there were certain special expenditures, including demobilization charges, of $1,526,583.22. So, if we take into account ordinary expenditure, capital expenditure and what is called special expenditure, there still was a surplus of $16,569,780.59. So far this is a story of surpluses; but there is a further statement to be made which quite destroys that happy picture. There were charges for advances to railways of $97,950,645.36. If we take, then, the whole expenditure for the year, ordinary, capital, special and railways, there was a deficit in that year of $81,380,864.77. After allowances for some deductions are made, the net result was that in that year we added to the public debt $81,256,818.04.
We turn now to the year 1922-1923 which closed not many days ago. AVe have not the complete accounts before us, but there is sufficient information to enable us practically to announce the result. Ordinary revenue amounted to $393,619,000. These are estimates, as the figures are not absolutely final. Ordinary expenditure amounted to about $331,780,000. As between those two items, there was then a surplus of $61,839,000. Capital expenditure, however, represents $14,500,000; adjustment of war claims, $6,700,000; cost of loan flotations, $3,050,000; these representing in all $24,250,000. There was thus a surplus over ordinary, capital and special expenditures, of $37,589,000. But again the railways have to be taken into account. We had to advance during that year $92,190,000 for railways, and $6,060,720 for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, making in all for that charge, $98,250,720. This, of course, takes up all the surplus I have mentioned and leaves a large balance on the other side of the account. If we take everything into consideration for the year, the net result was that . we added to the public debt in the year just closed $49,293,086. The receipt of something over $8,000,000 from the British government on exchange account helped us to keep down what otherwise would have been a larger addition to the public debt.
The Public Debt
The addition of nearly $50,000,000 to our public debt in the past year is not a situation that should cause very much satisfaction in
168J
any quarter. During the war it was inevitable that there should be large additions to the public debt, and after the war was over there also had to be large additions to the public debt; but the war has been over for several years; we are now getting to a period of peace, so-called, and many will think it is about time that we endeavoured to balance our budget; that is to say, that we no longer have the excuse of the war for spending more money than we receive. I suppose stern economists will say that that is what should be done. I confess, as Minister of Finance, that it would be very agreeable to me if I could present such a statement, and the temptation is strong to pile on the taxes and meet the difficulty. Many people who have the critical spirit, without responsibility, will probably say that that is what a Minister of Finance should do. There is, however, another side to the account. The people of Canada are pretty heavily taxed to-day; between Dominion, provincial and municipal taxation, the burdens of the people are very great, and I am reluctant to add to those burdens now by introducing new forms of taxation. Readjustments there will be, reductions here, changes in various ways; but I do not want at present to yield to the temptation of opening up new fields of taxation. I am going to ask the House and the country to bear patiently for a year or two, perhaps, the condition of affairs, in the hope that the betterment which, we believe, is near at hand, will enable us to bear the burdens without opening up these new fields of taxation to which I refer. I am, therefore, going to ask the House to take the result that we may have to add some little amount to the public debt even yet, rather than introduce new forms of taxation.
It is true that we are adding to the public debt each year, but I note with satisfaction that the amount of the addition is each year diminishing. The figures of our additions to the debt immediately before the war, during the war years and in the years since the armistice, are encouraging. I will now give the round millions. From 1914, the increases in the public debt are as follows:
1914	 * 21,000,000
1915		 *113,000,000
1916		 165,000,000
1917		 264,000,000
1918		 312,000,000
1919		 382,000,000
1920		 674,000,000
1920 seems to have been the banner year in the way of additions to the debt:
1921		 *92,000,000
1922		 81,000,000
1923		 49,000,000

The Budget-Mr. Fielding

more than is paid now for the Canadian liquor. I believe that in all probability we shall do well to await the development of events and see how the matter operates. In the meantime it is worth noting that the French Treaty will not be in operation for some weeks. The formalities in closing a treaty generally take time, and we need not be alarmed at any immediate danger in that respect. With regard to the excise duty on wines, as this reduction is intended to offset the provisions of the French Treaty, it will only be brought into operation by proclamation at the same time as the treaty comes into force.
In the observations I have made to-day it will be noticed that I am not touching the Income tax. If there be necessary changes in this respect they will be dealt with later in a separate bill.
/*"'Among the taxes imposed last year was an increase in the duty on cigarettes. Ministers of Finance always look upon tobacco and cigarettes as easy marks-if you ever want a few million dollars just clap an extra duty on tobacco and cigarettes. There was a time when whiskey bore this burden, but additional revenue is no longer possible from this source. I confess I thought last year we might get more money by increasing the duty on cigarettes by $1.50 per thousand. However, the figures seem to show there is a falling off \ in the consumption of cigarettes. My own ' judgment is that there is no falling off in the consumption, the only falling off is in that portion of the commodity which pays duty. Along the boundary line, I am informed, it is a very easy matter to smuggle cigarettes. There are articles which cannot well be smuggled, and there are articles which may be smuggled very easily. Unfortunately, cigarettes come within the latter class. However, our expectations in regard to this tax have not been realized, and we propose now to strike off the extra $1.50 duty and revert to V^the old rate.
There were other disappointments. We thought we might get some money from an excise tax on beetroot sugar, but nothing has come of that. The trade interested has complained very much; no revenue has come to us; and, as I am proposing some readjustment of the sugar duties in other directions, we have concluded to abolish the tax on beetroot sugar.
There were several taxes which caused a good deal of irritation, among others the soft-drink taxes. We propose to change the form of these, and instead of 5c. per gallon and 5 per cent, we propose to strike that business at

its source by imposing a tax cf one cent per pound on carbonic acid gas. We think we will get our money to the same extent and with less trouble.
Customs Tariff Changes	~-
Wre are not making many changes in the details of the Customs tariff. I will mention some, others will be found in the resolutions by those who study them carefully Nearly every item I shall mention is in the direction of reduction. It is a rare thing in this budget to have any proposal to increase taxation, but there is an exception in the item I am about to mention. We are proposing to increase the duty on raisins and dried currants so they will be free from Great Britain and pay 3 cents a pound under both the other tariffs. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) recently made a trip to Australia in the hope of coming to a commercial arrangement with the Australian Commonwealth. As we know, wliile he made some progress which gave him some encouragement, he was not able to conclude an agreement. We are advised that in addition to our British preference which we offer to the Australians they are particularly interested in raisins and dried currants, and if we change our tariff so as to offer some inducement to them on these items it will go far to make them content with our scheme and bring about an agreement. In the hope that that may be the case, we are going to provide that the duty on raisins and dried currants shall be increased to 3 cents a pound under the intermediate and under the general tariff, but that they shall be free under the British preference. If Australia makes an agreement, and thus comes under the benefit of the Biitish preference, this will be the rate which will be imposed upon the things that she is most anxious to send us. There is a small duty on raisins and dried currants now.	^


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Two-thirds of a cent.


William Stevens Fielding: 
A new induitry ls promised us for the manufacture of artificial silk. It is represented to us that this industry will employ j a large amount of labour and we have everv reason to believe that if we can make en-| couraging terms a great industry will be established. We propose to make a classification in which it will be treated largely | as silk, and we have every reason to hope this will lead to a very important industry ' beipg_gstablished._____________.- 

We proposes to adhere to and extend the British preferential tariff. Our proposal is that on whatever duty may be payable according to the varying rates of the British preferential tariff a discount of 10 per cent shall be allowed. This, of course, does not mean a 10 per cent reduction of the tariff rate. Where the tariff rate is 30 per cent the discount of 10 per cent will reduce it to 27 cents; where the tariff rate is 25 per cent, the discount rate will reduce it to 22i per cent, and so forth. To these reductions we attach two qualifications, the first of which is that they shall not apply in the case of any article where the duty is not above 15 per cent. A duty of 15 per cent will not be regarded as a high one, and it will hardly be expected that we ought to apply these reductions to items which stand at 15 per cent or less. That is one important qualification. There is another one, however, which I am sure the House will receive with satisfaction; we say that this 10 per cent discount shall only apply when the goods are brought direct to the ports of Canada. With Montreal and Quebec in summer, Halifax, St. John, Victoria, Vancouver, and Prince Rupert all the year round, Canada has abundant opportunity to bring her goods into her own ports. We think this is an important step in the direction of the encouragement that many people in our ports have long desired. In this part of our programme we believe we are doing three things which are worthy of commendation. In the first place, there is a comprehensive reduction of duties-and that will be agreeable to those who regard the tariff as a tax. Then, there is an emphasis given to the British preference, which has always found favour among the people of Canada, and then at the end we have this effort to do something for the encouragement of our own ports. We hope the proposal made in this respect will meet with the satisfaction of the House; I am sure it will.
I mentioned that we were having some revision or readjustment of sugar duties. Increases of taxes on commodities are quick to reach the consumer; reductions of taxation on like articles are slower in their operation. The reductions which I have already mentioned will in. due time represent a substantial diminution of the burden of taxation.
Sugar Duties
There is another item on another article of commerce to which I now wish to invite the attention of the House. If there is one , article of almost universal use among our 1 people, it is sugar. Taxation on sugar is a burden on the whole people, and a reduction of the duty on sugar is one of the most direct methods of granting relief. During the war sugar advanced to very high prices. After the war there was for some time a reduction
The Budget-Mr. Fielding

until prices became somewhat normal. Quite recently, however, we Beem to be returning to war-time conditions with respect to the cost of sugar. Just what may be the cause of this advance is perhaps a matter of controversy. In some quarters it is alleged that speculators in the United States have obtained control of the market and that this is the cause of the rapid increase of prices. But one thing that the consumers distinctly know is that they are again called upon to pay very high prices for this very necessary article of household use. In the United States the feeling is so strong that householders in many places are' organizing boycott campaigns against the use of sugar. Nothing of the kind has yet occurred with us, but the consumer is everywhere feeling keenly the burden of the high cost. If, then, we would make Borne very substantia! reduction of taxation, something having a direct bearing on the cost of living, what article is so suitable for the purpose, under present conditions, as the article of sugar? We propose a reduction of 50 cents per 100 pounds on refined sugar and a proportionate reduction on the raw sugar from which the refined article is made. I estimate that in this item we relieve the consumers of sugar of taxation to the extent of $2,500,000.
There is another point I should mention in connection with sugar duties. You know that we have in our tariff what is called the dumping duty, which is designed to apply where illegitimate competition is taking place. There are some lines of trades in which it has not been deemed necessary to apply it; the dumping duty does not apply to refined sugar imported from the United Kingdom. So long as sugar is at a moderate price, that may be all right; the dumping duty would be applied in the case of importations from other countries. But if sugar is going to be at a very high price, as it is now, with the prospect of going higher, then we think a restriction of the dumping duty should apply, and we propose that wherever sugar costs at the point of shipment more than 8 cents per pound, the dumping duty shall hereafter not apply-that is, there will be freedom of purchase irrespective of dumping duty.
Copper Bounty
We have been asked from time to time to do something to encourage industries of various kinds. Where these applications take the form of a request for higher duties, the problem is not an easy one. One of the difficulties of such a situation is
4 p.m. that there are many items in the tariff which cannot stand alone IMr. Fielding.]
for consideration; they are closely related to one another. The article which is the finished product of .one man is practically the raw material of another, perhaps of several others. If you increase duties to assist the first man, you disturb the whole scale and all the others will expect compensatory increases. Industrial aid of this kind naturally meets with widespread objection. There is another form in which it may be possible to assist industry without the disturbing results I have mentioned. The granting of a bounty simplifies the case. Many people, willing to see industry aided, would prefer the bounty rather than protective duties, especially if the bounty be of a temporary character and placed on a sliding scale. One merit of the bounty system is that you know precisely what you are paying and can compare the cost with the results. We have given careful consideration to requests made to us on behalf of the copper interests of Canada. Canada is a copper-producing country. Our far western province, British Columbia, is rich in this respect. Yet the copper industry has made but moderate progress. There is a duty of 1-| cents per pound on copper in the form of ingots. A very large enterprise has been established in British Columbia which is encouraged by this duty. The next stage of the copper business is the production of bars and rods, which become the raw material of other manufactures, such as the making of wire. Copper bars and rods are the raw material of wire manufacturers. To assist them, these bars and rods were some years ago placed on the free list for the use of manufacturers in their own factories. All these bars and rods are thus imported free. Neither of these copper products is produced in Canada for the reason that our producers are unable to compete with large manufacturing enterprises in the United States. We sympathize very warmly with the desire to have a larger development of the copper industry in the Dominion. Since a duty on bars and rods would probably necessitate increased duties on the manufactures of a number of articles made from copper, we are unwilling to grant aid in that form. We have concluded that if the copper industry is to be encouraged as we would desire, it will be better to deal with it directly in the way of a bounty than by higher duties on that which is the raw material for other factories. I said that a bounty will be regarded by many as a better form of aid than any increase of protective duties. But even a bounty would be objected to with much reason if it were not of a temporary character. Much has been heard in times past of the importance of assisting infant in-

The Budget-Mr. Fielding
dustries. Most folk will be kindly disposed towards the industries while they are in their infancy. But experience has shown that the infant grows up, and when he has attained to all the strength of manhood he is still found clinging to protective duties and claiming that he cannot live without them. A new industry which is to have that kind of experience is not a very desirable one for the country. An industry based upon the natural resources of the Dominion which wants a helping hand at the beginning and is prepared later to rely on its own strength and character is worthy of consideration. We propose to afford a measure of help to the copper industry of Canada on the condition that that help shall take the form of a bounty, that the amount of the bounty shall be held within proper limits and that it shall be reduced from year to year until it is extinguished. We propose to allow a bounty for a period of five years, beginning at 1J>
cents per pound and diminishing from year to year until the end of the five-year term. The bounty will apply to copper bars and copper rods manufactured in Canada, from copper produced in Canada, and sold for consumption in Canada, and not to include exports. The privilege now granted to manufacturers to import copper rods and bars for their purposes free of duty will continue. What we desire is that the aid we are giving will enable the Canadian producers to compete as they have not been able to compete before with their American rivals and that they will get a reasonable command of the market. We are placing a limitation of $200,000 per anum upon this bounty. At the beginning the industry will not earn anything like that. As the time rolls on it will probably earn that much, but when it gets to its highest point it cannot get more than $200,000 in any one year.
Bounty on Hemp
There is another industry to which we are going to extend similar aid. We have been working together to encourage the cultivation of hemp, for which article we are assured the soil of parts of our country is particularly adapted. It is believed that with some encouragement a large manufacturing plant can be established in Manitoba, drawing its raw material from the crop to be raised in the immediate vicinity. Here again is a case, where the helping hand may only have to be extended at the beginning. There is a large market in Canada for products manufactured from hemp, and other articles of similar character. If we can economically produce the hemp ourselves and turn it ini a manufactured products in factories within easy
reach of the fields in which it grows, surely that is an industry which may be well worthy of the helping hand. We therefore propose to apply in this case substantially the same rule as in the case of the copper industry. Under the aid we are affording, copper rods and bars should be turned out in Canada at an early date. The development of the hemp business will be slower. To complete the plans of the authorities who are giving attention to the promotion of the movement, to raise the crop and to prepare and manufacture the hemp, will take a considerable time. Ws therefore propose that in this case the five year period shall begin on the first day of July, 1925. By that time binder twine and other products made from Canadian hemp should be ready for the market and the producers will be in a position to claim the bounty. In this case also we propose a bounty beginning at one and one-half cents per pound on the hemp and diminishing from year to year, until at the end of the five years the bounty is extinguished.
In this case, too, we limit our payment to $200,000 per annum. A much less sum would be sufficient at the beginning, but as the enterprise develops its business may be large enough to absorb the full $200,000.
Bounties Granted and Bounties Withdrawn
We are proposing the granting of certain bounties to develop new industries. Let me now draw attention to our desire to put an end to some bounties-


Mr. McMASTER:: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: -which we think have served their purpose.
One of the measures adopted under authority of the War Measures Act was the granting of a bounty to encourage the production of linen thread. The bounty was not to exceed $25,000 per annum and was limited to a term of three years. The law allowed an expenditure of $25,000 per annum, but in no year did the actual expenditure reach as high as $6,000. However the three years are over and that bounty will cease. We are not proposing to renew it.
Many years ago provision was made for a bounty of three-eighths of a cent per pound on manila hemp used in the manufacture of binder twine. There was at the time an export duty in the Philippines against hemp coming into Canada, which did not apply to hemp going to the'United States. This placed the Canadian manufacturer at a disadvantage to meet which the bounty was granted. The export duty was repealed some years later and no money has been paid under this
The Budget-Mr. Fielding

Tariff
Items
502a
524b
583a
583b
583c
583d
611b
638a
663a
670a
672a
drawn or seamless iron or steel tubing over four inches in diameter, for drilling for water, natural gas and oil, and for prospecting for minerals, not to
include motive power	
Staves of wood, n.o.p., not less than five-eighths of an inch in thickness, further manufactured than sawn or split but not further manufactured than
listed	
Fabrics of cotton or other fibre including cord fabric, for use in the manufacture of pneumatic
tires	
Artificial silk yarns or filaments or artificial fibre silk yams or filaments produced from a form of cellulose obtained by chemical processes, not more advanced than singles, not coloured; artificial silk tops and waste or artificial fibre silk tops and waste produced from a form of
cellulose obtained by chemical processes	
Artificial silk yams, n.o.p., threads or twists or artificial fibre silk yams, n.o.p., threads or twists, produced from a form of cellulose obtained by
chemical processes, coloured or not	
Artificial silk fabrics or artificial fibre silk fabrics produced from a form of cellulose obtained by chemical processes or of which artificial silk or artificial fibre silk is the component part of chief value, n.o.p	
690a
Manufactures of artificial silk or of artificial fibre silk produced from a form of cellulose obtained by chemical processes or of which artificial silk or artificial fibre silk is the component part of
chief value, n.o.p	
Coal, anthracite and lignite; anthracite and lignite
coal dust; coke	
Specially constructed boot or appliance made to order for a person having a crippled or deformed
foot or ankle	
Hat sweats; hatters' tips and sides when cut to shape. The articles in this item when imported by hat and cap manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of hats and caps in their own
factories	
Cyanamid or lime nitrogen	
Emery wheels; carborundum wheels and stones, n.o.p.; manufactures of emery or of carborundum. Carborundum wheels or stones not further manufactured than moulded and burned	
Sticks or canes cut into suitable lengths for umbrella, parasol or sunshade or walking sticks, further manufactured than in tariff item 672 but not further finished than bent, when imported by manufacturers of umbrellas, parasols, sunshades or walking sticks for use exclusively in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories.
Casual donations from abroad sent by friends, and not being advertising matter, tobacco, articles containing spirits or merchandise for sale-when the duty otherwise payable thereon does not exceed one dollar in any one case, under regulations
by the Minister of Customs and Excise	
(6) Usual coverings containing goods, not machinery, subject to any ad valorem duty, when not included in the invoice value of the goods they
contain	
(66) Usual coverings containing machinery subject to any ad valorem duty, when not included in the invoice value of the goods they contain.
British
Preferential
Tariff
Intermediate
Tariff
General
Tariff
Free
10 p.c. 15 p.c.
10 p.c. 17} p.c.
17} p.c.
30 p.c. Free
Free
Free
Free
17} p.c.
10 p.c.
10 p.c.
Free
15 p.c.
7j p.c.
Free
12J p.c. m p.c.
121 P.c. 221 P.c.
275 p.c.
35 p.c. Free
Free
Free
Free
22J P-c.
125 p.c.
125 p.c.
Free
20 p.c. 15 p.c.
Free
15 p.c. 20 p.c.
15 p.c. 25 p.c.
30 p.c.
375 p.c. Free
Free
Free
Free
25 p.c.
15 p.c.
15 p.c.
Free
20 p.c. 20 p.c.
[Mr. Fielding.)

The Budget-Mr. Fielding
4.	Resolved, that schedule B to The Customs Tariff, 1907, as amended by chapter twenty-six of the Statutes of 1914, by chapter forty-seven of the Statutes of 1919, chapter nineteen of the Statutes of 1922, and by Order in Council, be further amended by striking thereout tariff items 1029, 1030, the enumerations of
goods, and the rates of drawback of customs duties 3et opposite to each of the said items, and to repeal Order in Council P.C. 17/846, dated the twenty-first day of April, 1922, and to provide that the following items, enumerations and rates of drawback of customs duties be inserted in said schedule B.
Tariff Item	Goods	When Subject to Drawback	Portion of Duty (Not including Special Duty or Dumping Duty) Payable as Drawback1029	Materials	When imported by manufacturers of hat sweats and hatters' tips and sides and used in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories	99 p.c.1030	Materials	When used in the manufacture of articles enumerated in tariff item 236	50 p.c.1031	Sugar not above number sixteen Dutch standard in colour, sugar drainings or pumpings drained in transit, melado or concentrated melado, tank bottoms, sugar concrete and molasses testing over fifty-six degrees and not exceeding ninety-six degrees of polarization.	When used exclusively in the manufacture of syrups and molasses enumerated in tariff item 140, not to include syrup and molasses produced in the process of refining sugar. Provided, however, that such drawback shall not be paid unless the claims as presented by a manufacturer at any one time aggregate twenty-five dollars.	30 p.c.1032	Oil	When used in the manufacture of manila rope, not exceeding one and one-half inches in circumference, when used exclusively in the fisheries	99 p.c.1033	Glass tubing	When used for the manufacture of glassware and other scientific apparatus for laboratory work in public hospitals	99 p.c.1034	Barilla or soda ash	When used in the manufacture of sal soda	99 p.c.1035	Machinery, and parts thereof, and dies valued at more than five hundred dollars each, of a class or kind not made in Canada.	When used in manufacturing or producing goods of a class or kind not manufactured or produced in Canada prior to the twelfth day of May, 1923	60 p.c.1036	Materials, including all parts not finished.	When used in the manufacture of goods enumerated in tariff item	448c	40 p.c.1037	Copper in blocks, ingots, pigs or bars	When used in the manufacture oi rods for use only in the manufacture of trolley, telegraph and telephone wires, electric wires and electric cables	99 p.c.5.	Resolved, that any enactment founded on the foregoing resolutions shall be deemed to have come into force on the twelfth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the foregoing resolutions imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.1.	Resolved, that it is expedient to amend The Inland Revenue Act, chapter fifty-one of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, as amended by chapter six of the Statutes of 1914, chapter twenty-eight of the Statutes of 1918 and chapter twenty-seven of the Statutes of 1922 by repealing paragraphs (g) and (h) of section two hundred and seventy-nine thereof and substituting therefor the following:(g)	On cigarettes made from raw leaf tobacco or any substitute therefor, weighing not more than three pounds per thousand, six dollars per thousand;(h)	On cigarettes made from raw leaf tobacco or any substitute therefor, weighing more than three pounds per thousand, eleven dollars per thousand.2.	Resolved, that any enactment founded on the preceding resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the twelfth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three.3.	Resolved, that it is expedient to amend The Inland Revenue Act, chapter fifty-one of the Revised Statutes of Canada. 1906, as amended by chapter twenty-seven of the Statutes of 1922, by repealing section 378 thereof.4.	Resolved, that any enactment founded on the preceding resolution shall be deemed to have come
The Budget-Mr. Fielding

into force on the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred'and twenty-three.
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, and amending acts and to provide:
1.	That the maximum amount of stamp tax payable on a cheque, bill of exchange, promissory note, advance on securities, overdraft, receipt by a person for money paid to him by a bank chargeable against a deposit of money in the bank to his credit, express company's money order or traveller's cheque, or post office money order be reduced to one dol'lar.
2.	That after a date to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council the excise tax on wines of all kinds, except sparkling wines, containing not more than forty per centum of proof spirit be reduced to seven and one-half cents per gallon, and the excise tax on champagne and all other sparkl.ng wines be reduced to one dollar and fifty cents per gallon.
3.	That the existing provisions respecting tax on sales be amended by providing for the imposition of a consumption or sales tax of six per centum on the sale price of all goods produced or manufactured in Canada, including the amount of excise duties when the goods are sold in bond, the tax to be payable by the producer or manufacturer at the time of the sale thereof by him, and of a like tax upon the duty paid value of imported goods, the tax to be payable by the importer, or transferee who takes the goods out of bond, at the time when the goods are imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption, subject to the following conditions, that is to say:
(1)	A manufacturer or producer who produces goods to the value of ten thousand dollars or more during any fiscal year shall take out an annual license, the fee therefor not to exceed two dollars; the minister may direct that a manufacturer or producer, who doe9 not manufacture or produce goods to the value of ten thousand dollars a year, and who uses a substantial portion of goods which are exempt from the tax in the manufacture of goods which are liable to the tax, shall take out a license and shall be subject to the same conditions as the licensed manufacturer or producer.
(2)	A wholesaler or jobber who sells not less than thirty per cent of his total sales of goods to a licensed manufacturer or producer to be used in articles to be produced for sale, may be granted an annual license, the fee therefor not to exceed two dollars. Such licensed wholesaler or jobber shall give security that he will keep proper accounts and render true statements of sales to licensed manufacturers or producers and pay any tax imposed by the said act.
(3)	The said tax shall be payable by a licensed wholesaler or jobber at the time of the sale by him to other than a licensed manufacturer or producer of goods the price of which shall include the amount of excise duties, if sold in bond, or the price of which shall be the duty paid value thereof, if imported.
(4)	The taxes imposed by sections 16A, 19B. 19BB and 19BBB of The Special War Revenue Act shall apply to goods sold or imported by:
(i) His Majesty in the right of His Majesty's Government of Canada;
(ii)	His Majesty in the right of His Majesty's government of any province of Canada, for the purpose of resale;
(iii)	Any railway operated by or under the au, thority of the Leg Mature or the Lieutenant Governor
in Council of any province:
(iv)	Any commission, board or public utility which is operated by or under the authority of the Legislature or Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province.
(5)	The said consumption or sales tax shall not be payable in the following cases, that is to say:
(a)	on goods exported; or
(Mr. Fielding.]
(b)	on sales by a 1 censed manufacturer or producer to another licensed manufacturer or producer of goods to be used in the production of articles for sale; or
(c)	on goods imported by a licensed manufacturer or producer to be used in the production of articles for sale; or
(d)	on goods sold by a licensed manufacturer or producer to or on goods imported by a licensed wholesaler or jobber whose sales are to be accounted for in accordance with the provisions of paragraph two of section three of this Resolution.
(6)	A manufacturer or producer who does not produce goods of a value over ten thousand dollars a year, unless he comes under the provisions of paragraph one of section three of this Resolution shall not pay the said consumption or sales tax on goods produced by him, but he shall pay the tax on importations.
(7)	A refund of the amount of the said consumption or sales tax may be granted in the following cases, that is to say:
(a)	to a wholesaler, jobber or other dealer on goods sold to a licensed manufacturer or producer to be used in articles produced for sale; or with the consent of the wholesaler, jobber or dealer a refund or deduction may in the like case be granted to a licensed manufacturer or producer [DOT] or
(b)	to a licensed manufacturer or producer or a licensed wholesaler or jobber in respect of goods on hand on the 1st of August, 1923, and which are to be used in the production of articles for sale, no refund to be allowed in respect of goods on hand after the 31st of December, 1923; or
(c)	on goods manufactured or produced in Canada when satisfactory evidence is produced that such Canadian goods are at a disadvantage by reason of the fact that like goods may be imported into Canada free of duty, such refund or reduction not to exceed twenty-five per cent of the said tax otherwise payable; or
(d)	on imported goods on which customs duties have been refunded on exportation; or
(e)	to a manufacturer, producer, wholesaler, jobber or other dealer, of taxes paid under sections 16A, 19B, 19BB, 19BBB of the said act on goods sold to His Majesty in the right of any province when His Majesty in such right is exempt from taxes in respect of such goods.
(8)	That the "duty paid value'' of any article be defined as meaning the value of the article as it would be determined for the purpose of calculating an ad valorem duty upon the importation of same into Canada under the laws relating to the customs and the customs tariff whether such article be in fact subject to an ad valorem or other duty or not, and in addition the amount of the customs duties, if any, payable thereon.
Provided that in computing the "duty paid value'' of tea purchased in bond in the United Kingdom the amount of the customs duty payable on tea for consumption in the United Kingdom shall not be included in the value of such tea for purposes of this act, 12-13 Geo. V., c. 47, s. 12 Am.
4.	That schedule I to the said act be amended by striking thereout the items respecting confectionery and beverages.
5.	That schedule II to the said act be amended by striking thereout the item respecting beverages and by adding to the said schedule the following item:
"Carbonic acid gas in cylinders, per pound, one cent."
6.	That the provisions of the said act respecting stamp tax on receipts be amended by providing:
(i) That paragraph (b) of subsection four of section fourteen of the said act as enacted by said chapter forty-seven be amended to read as follows:

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
"(b) a receipt or document in the nature of a receipt which is taxable under section twelve of this act."
(ii) By adding provisions for the better enforcement of said section fourteen.
7.	That the provisions of this resolution, except the provision proposed by section two, shal'l come into force on the first day of August. 1923.
1. Resolved, that it is expedient to amend The Petroleum Bounty Act, 1909, being chapter forty-six of the Statutes of 1910, by providing that the bounty shall be payable on crude petroleum having a specific gravity not less than .8235 at 60 degrees Fahrenheit's thermometer, produced from wells or from shales or other substances mined in Canada which have actually produced crude petroleum before the date of the coming into force of the act to be founded on this resolution.
The said bounty shail be paid at the following rates, that is to say:
On such crude petroleum produced on or before the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, the bounty of one and one-half cents per imperial gallon provided in the existing law shall be paid;
On such crude petroleum produced on or after the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, and not later than the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five, a bounty of three-quarters of one cent per imperial gallon shall be paid.
On and after the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five, no bounty shall be paid.
1. Resolved, that it is expedient to repeal The Act respecting Bounties on manufactures from Manila Fibre in Canada, being Chapter five of the Statutes of 1903, the act to amend the act respecting the manufacture of Binder Twine in Canada, being chapter five of the Statutes of 1907, and regulations made thereunder.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I desire to make a few remarks which I am able to do more easily because my friend was kind enough to let me have information as to some of his figures this morning. Before dealing with the budget, I would like to present my compliments and congratulations to my hon. friend. It is a very nice thing to be able to do that which you like to do and have pleasure in doing. I have great pleasure in congratulating my hon. friend on the presentation of his seventeenth budget. It is hard to realize that this is his seventeenth budget, because he is showing such an evidence of youth all the time. You know, Mr. Speaker, that the supreme evidence of youth is the ability to learn, and I want to congratulate him upon the manner in which he is still learning and taking his lessons to heart. Last year we told him in connection with the cigarette tax what was going to happen, that we had there a tax so high that if anything higher was tried it would kill business and destroy the revenue. My hon. friend said "No, we are going to get an increase of half a million." But there is a drop in the revenue of $1,200,000. But the 1694
hon. minister is not the Bourbon that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) is so fend of speaking of. He sees the figures, he learns and he repents. Further than that we told him what would happen in the case of the beet sugar tax. That was a tax that was directly against the farmer and against a primary producing industry, we told him what would happen. Again he has learned, and he has taken the duty off. Besides that, my hon. friend is showing what an apt pupil he is of to-day's conditions. We know he had a great deal of trouble with the French Treaty, and we explained, and explained and explained in this House just exactly my hon. friend's errors in connection with that treaty; -how if he had first had a duty on luxuries which he was dealing with, that would have enabled him to get a proper treaty with France. We are again delighted to get this further evidence of my hon. friend's youthfulness of mind and adaptability, because to-day he turns around, applies what we have been saying, and tells us that the one real excuse for the imposition of a three-cent per pound tax on raisins and dried currants as against a three-quarter-cent per pound tax at the present time is simply because, if that is done, there is some opportunity of making a proper trade treaty with Australia. Again I congratulate my hon. friend; but most of all I desire to congratulate him upon his newfound faith. When I say "new," I say "new" simply because I have reference to what my hon. friend has said time and again from this very seat on the tariff issue. Why, he finds to-day that there is necessity for stability in business. It has taken him a long time to find that out.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Some hon. members laugh, but the other day we had a discussion as to what is going on in the United States and the reasons therefor. There is progress there; they have no idea that this manufacturer or that manufacturer, or this kind of business or that, is to be put out of business overnight. They are not drifting; they have some idea where they are going. Yes, they have prosperity in the United States, and my hon. friend says that times have been bad in Canada. But my hon. friend now thinks there is a real necessity for business stability in Canada, and that you cannot have business stability unless you have tariff stability.
My hon. friend has made another wonderful discovery, which I think is the most hopeful

The Budget

Sir Henry Drayton
discovery of them all, namely that the tariff is a low tariff. My hon. friend is absolutely and perfectly right. But I do not like to leave the situation as my hon. friend leaves it. I do not think Canada is in such an awful position as he seems to think. It is true that we are not doing as well as other countries. I do not know that it is incumbent upon the opposition to give apologies and reasons for that. It is true that only last session we were found, by the government that came into power, to be in a better position that any other country was in. But, notwithstanding the fact that we are suffering from a delayed and repressed recovery in this country, it is also true that you cannot keep Canada down, and we are going ahead now. Our trade figures are not bad figures now, although they ought to be better. While our trade figures are not what other countries have had, while we cannot point to the tremendous changes that they can point to in the Mother parliament, while we are piling up deficits as against surpluses reported in the Mother parliament, yet the country itself, the real fundamental business of the country itself, is, at the bottom, sound. We are increasing our exports; we are increasing our activities to some extent, although not as much as I would like to see them increased; but Canada is sound, and Canada will come through, no matter what government is in power.
I want to make just one or two remarks as to the figures submitted by my hon. friend. In the first instance, he very fairly pointed out that the kind of surplus we have to-day is an old story. We had the same thing before. In 1921, we had a surplus of $150,000,000, and still we had a very large increase in our debt. In 1922, we had a surplus of $115,000,000. It is also true, as my hon. friend says, that our whole financial trouble at the present time really has reference to the railway situation. I am going to ask my hon. friend hereafter just to pay a little more attention to that railway situation. I cannot understand how it is that the railways this year cost this country $92,000,000, unless it be that the new management wanted so to swell the vote and the expenses this year that, perforce, an excellent showing must be made next year. Look at the report brought down by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham). That hon. gentleman made, as we all thought, a good showing this year. In the year 1920, I think we had a deficit of $36,000,000. In the year 1921. we had a deficit of $16,000,000, a reduction of practically $20,000,000. For the year 1922, we had this year a report read on the floor of the House that

there was an operating surplus df $4,000,000 as against a deficit the year before 6f $16,000,000. Yet, in some way or another, the full appropriation asked for, an appropriation which was asked for on the figures of the year before-and though an appropriation is asked for, it is never intended that the money shall be spent unless it is absolutely necessary to spend it-amounts to $92,190,000 which has been drawn on account of railways. I do not know, of course, why it is drawn or anything about it; but without knowing much about it, I suggest to my hon. friend that he should do just this simple little thing-look into the details of the appropriation as made by him last year, check those details and see just how much money has had to be switched from one detail to another in order to make up that amount. I am sure that is something to which my hon. friend may very well give his strictest attention.
Just another word as regards the accounts. My hon. friend points out that we are going behind. So we are. As he told us, the deficit, the addition to the debt before other matters are taken into consideration, will be $61,000,000. Then we have refunds of exchanges, and the net result of it all is, as he tells us, to bring the net addition to the debt down to $49,000,000. The refunds of exchanges amounting to $8,000,000, cannot, of course, be taken into consideration in this year's operations, because they have nothing to do with that at all. That exchange was earned years ago, and the amount Was simply fixed this year. If that were not taken into consideration, we have an addition of $57,492,339 to our debt.
That is the addition to the debt which flows out of the operations of the government this particular year; and my hon. friend I am afraid is sending us off, not with a benediction on this year's work, but practically with an admonition to look to a deficit of $58,000,000 next year, because he tells us that his estimated surplus next year will be $14,100,000 apart from railway obligations. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that the situation is really a little better than that; I think that probably my hon. friend is taking too gloomy a view of matters, just as I thought he did last year. Last year his estimate for customs was $103,000,000; he has collected over $15,000,000 more, so that he is out in that respect about fifteen per cent. In other words, his spectacles were fifteen per cent too black in that case. Then again, in the case of the income tax, his estimate was $60,000,000; in this direction he was out 812,797,000 or over twenty-one per cent. The thing that is extraordinary to me

Combines
is this, that my hon. friend to-day-that is, assuming that I took down his statement correctly-discounts the collections on income and excess business taxes some 817,797,000. I think that was the figure he gave; he will correct me if I am wrong. Surely my hon. friend is not taking the view that the country is in as bad a position as that estimate indicates. Last year we were told in the address that we were in an excellent position; but we were told in the budget of that year that the year previous had been a very bad one. The exact words of my hon. friend were:
This tax is levied on income of the past year, which was not a good business year. Indeed, I think it was a year of exceptional depression.
And in connection with a year of exceptional depression, the year 1921, he wrote down the collections in respect to income and business profits taxes from 8101,500,000 to $60,000,000, yet, as I say, he collected 872,797,000. This year he is going to make his collections on the income tax and the business profits tax materially lower than he made his estimate for a very bad year. What is the trouble? I admit, of course, that my hon. friends have been in power fourteen or fifteen months;
I admit that business has been harassed and bothered by a hundred and one kinds of pin pricking taxation; I admit that we have experienced uncertainty, and all that sort of thing. But I do not think that the effect of my hon. friend's government is as bad as he thinks it is. The year 1921 he told us was a year of exceptional depression. What does my hon. friend call this year? What kind of language would he apply to it if he is to discount our income and excess business taxes still further? Why, Mr. Speaker, he is making the figures in regard to direct taxation and consumptive taxes much worse even than they were last year. The year before that, when we were responsible, we raised, if I remember rightly, 32 per cent of all the revenue from direct taxation, income and business profits taxes. This year so far-and again I am speaking from recollection, although, I think, correctly-the government has raised only 24 per cent. And we used to be chided and scolded all the time because we were not doing a great deal more in that direction. What does my hon. friend think he has done to business?
I want again to congratulate my hon. friend on becoming an advocate of industry. That is another discovery we have made to-day. He wants to help the artificial silk industry: he wants to help the growing of hemp in Canada and the manufacture. We have not had an opportunity yet of going through the resolutions, and I am not going to say anything about that phase of the budget until 1 have had a chance to study these resolutions. The hon. member I have no doubt is sincere in his conversion in this respect. And all this is to be done in the interest of trade and to ensure that stability which he finds so sadly lacking in Canadian industry to-day. I shall not go any further now, Mr. Speaker, and therefore beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



COMBINES, MONOPOLIES, TRUSTS AND MERGERS

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 54, to provide for an investigation of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 22-Distribution of report.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: When this section was last under discussion the hon. member for Sim-coe (Mr. Boys) emphasized the wisdom of making public any report by a commissioner under the provisions of the act. I intimated to the committee at the time that I would f subsequently discuss the matter with the hon. member to see if we could arrive at a clause which would be satisfactory to both of us. I beg therefore to propose the following amendment which is agreeable to my hon. friend, and if it meets with the approval of the House, I hope it will be adopted. The amendment is:
To strike out the first sentence contained in lines 24, 25, 26 and 27, which are as follows:
"A copy of any report may, if the minister so directs, be sent free of charge to any person and to the representative of any newspaper in Canada who applies therefor, and the report may also be published in the Canada Gazette."
And substitute therefor the following:
"Within fifteen days after its receipt by the minister, a report (other than an interim report) of any commissioner shall be made puhlic, unless the conn-missioner is of opinion that the public interest 'will be best served by withholding publication, and so states in the report itself, in which case the minister may exercise his discretion as to the publicity to be given to the report in whole or in part."
The committee will observe that the limitation of fifteen days is placed in this clause in order that whatever the particular circumstances of the case may demand may be taken into account, I would also suggest that the word "distribute" in line 27 be struck out and the woid "publish" be substituted therefore. The clause would then read.
The minister may publish and supply copies of any report in such manner and on such terms as to him seems most desirable.
Amendment agieed tp.
Section as amended agreed to.
Combines

On section 27-Contempt of registrar or commissioner.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought this section was standing over for a definition of the word "insult" by my hon. friend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This will have to be left to whomever the remark is addressed to, to decide. The clause is similar to one which is contained in the Combines and Investigations Act, 1910; it is also similar to a clause in the Industrial Disputes Act. This simply protects a registrar or commissioner in the same manner as a judge from being insulted by persons who may appear before him.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The judge of a court determines what is contempt of court and what is not; he has the authority and the qualification to do so. The registrar is not given any authority here, even if he had the qualification to decide what is an insult. I do not know who drafted this bill, nor do I know who drafted many bills that have been brought down this session, but I can tell the Prime Minister who did not draft it. It was never drafted by the Deputy Minister of Justice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I say, that language is taken from the Combines and Investigations Act of 1910- Section 31 of that act reads as follows:
If, in any proceedings before the board, any person wilfully insults any member of the board, or wilfully interrupts the proceedings, or without good cause refuses to give evidence, or is guilty in any other manner of any wilful contempt in the face of the board, any officer of the board or any constable may take the person offending into custody and remove him from the precincts of the board, to be detained in custody until the conclusion of that day's sitting of the board, and the person so offending shall be liable, upon summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars.
The registrar or the commissioner stands in the place of the board in this bill. I do not think the section is a very important one, but if it seemed wise to give that protection to the members of the board in a former act,
I think it would be equally wise to give it under this.


Arthur Meighen: I doubt if anybody will ever insult the registrar, indeed, I do not know that many will ever see him unless at a social gathering so I would not worry about the substance of the clause. But it just shows bad draftsmanship; nobody is given power to decide what is an insult.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Where does the bad draftsmanship come in in that clause?


Arthur Meighen: Because the registrar is not given any power to decide whether there is any wilful insult or not.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If a man is given power to hold an investigation, it is not unreasonable that he should have the powers of a judge-


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: -in preserving decorum in his courtroom.


Arthur Meighen: Then why not give it to him?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is not that what the clause gives him?


Arthur Meighen: No, that is just what I am complaining of, he is not given this power at all. He is not to be a judge, so he is not competent to exeicise the powers of a judge. I call the hon. gentleman's attention to this too: the word "combine" is defined in clause 2, but it is used all through the bill just as if it had never been defined at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, no.


Arthur Meighen: A combine is defined as something that works to the detriment of the public, and so on, and subsequently the registrar is commissioned to decide whether some combine works to the detriment of the public. I am curious to know who drafted this bill. Will the Prime Minister tell us?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might satisfv my hon. friend when I mention to him tha-, the bill as drafted was submitted to the Justice department and gone over by its officers and approved.


Arthur Meighen: That was only as to the competency of this House to pass the measure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all, it was as to the drafting. Particular reference was made to each section.


Arthur Meighen: Will the Prime Minister not tell us who drafted this bill? The English and general structure of the bill is not reviewed by the Justice department except on special occasions. All I can say about the draftsmanship of this clause is that it is no better than the plan and the whole structure of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 31-Appointment of registrar and commissioner and employment of requisite technical and special temporary assistance, etc.

Combines
Henry Lumley Drayton: I forget whether the Prime Minister or his Minister of Labour told us in committee that there was to be only one registrar.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then why other offices in the various cities?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It does not mean other permanent offices; it applies onry to temporary offices which the commissioner might require when holding an inquiry outside of Ottawa.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The cheapest
way would be to use the court houses.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is probably what would be done.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Our exchequer court judges have that right. I do not know why we should hire offices merely to conduct investigations. I think it is absurd.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING I agree with my hon. friend that we should use the courthouse building wherever we can get it.


Arthur Meighen: I want to call the attention of the committee to the fact that this clause in effect repeals the Civil Service Act so far as this institution that is going to be erected is concerned. This clause says that the permanent employees shall be under the Civil Service Act, then it goes on to say, all except the registrar, the commissioners, the technical experts. Who in the world is going to be there who would not come under one of these various classifications? The government decides who is technical and who is not. I venture to say that you can invoke the word "technical" as an excuse in connection with every single one in the service so far as the purposes of this bill are concerned. Why is the Civil Service Commission not competent to appoint in this case, as they appoint to-day, officers of the Geodetic Survey, officers of many technical departments of the government? Either wipe the whole thing out, or make the ordinary provisions apply here. Of course the main purpose of the bill is to get a chance to appoint some officers, and this is the clause which, if it passes, enables the government to put their friends in any of the offices that are going to be set up. I would like a photograph now of all who are going to be appointed by the Civil Service Commission if this clause passes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend deliberately misconstrues the purpose of this clause. Nothing could be more emphatic
than that by this provision any such appointments as can reasonably be regarded as permanent appointments under this act will be made by the Civil Service Commission. The clause reads:
All persons permanently employed under this act shall be subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Act, 1918, and amendments thereto, and other simitar acts bearing on the Civil Service of Canada.
That is a clear statement of the intention of the government with respect to all the permanent appointments under this measure. In connection with individual inquiries, where commissioners have to be appointed, and the like, no one would contemplate to-day, in connection with a royal commission, asking the Civil Service Commission to name the clerks necessary to carrying out its work. If we had to go to the Civil Service Commission each time an individual inquiry was to be made and ask them to designate such persons, I do not think we would get very far in facilitating the procedure The bill as drafted simply allows the necessary lati-5 p.m. tude to permit investigations to proceed in the most efficient and most economical manner. The section also provides :
The Governor in Council may appoint any British subject to be, .... a commissioner thereunder.
It is clear that the government should have the right, in the case of an important appointment like the registrar, to proceed as it does in connection with the appointments of deputy ministers. Similarly, the provision respecting commissioners should be the same as the provisions respecting commissioners under the Inquiries Act. The responsibility rests with the ministry as to the class of person to be appointed. But these are clearly not appointments which the Civil Service Commission is in a position to make with the same guarantee of qualifications as when the appointment is made by a minister of the Crown. The section also says:
The minister may employ such technical and special temporary assistance as may be required to meet the special conditions that may arise in carrying out the provisions of this act.
That clause has been drawn to meet special conditions. In other words, it is assumed that the Civil Sendee Commission will make the necessary appointments in the case of all ordinary classes of work, but if a commissioner is making an inquiry, say, at Vancouver one day and at Winnipeg another, and an inquiry into one industry here and another industry there, he should be free to engage the class of . temporary assistance that may from time to time be needed in the particular locality in which he is working.
2G62
Combines


Henry Lumley Drayton: is the minister quite sure that he is right on that question of the deputy minister? I put it to him in all sincerity; would he not be saved a great deal of trouble if, say, in connection with the appointment of a deputy minister to the Post Office Department the responsibility had been on the Civil Service Commission? Perhaps, if that had been the case, the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) would never have been ill and would still be here. Nor would my hon. friend himself be in the midst of so much turmoil in that connection; there would not have been the charges that have been made against the responsible minister and against a reputable member of a department that he is wirepulling and doing all sorts of things to get a job. Does my right hon. friend not think that in the interests of good government and ordinary decency it would be well to avoid that kind of thing by having these matters placed in the hands of the Civil Service Commission?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I only wish I were in a position to assure my hon. friend that the unfortunate and, I regret to say, somewhat serious illness from which the hon! Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) has suffered was due to anything relatively so insignificant as what my hon. friend has thought it well to mention. I again assure him that the illness of the Postmaster General has had nothing whatever to do with any happenings in any department of the government.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, the
leaders of the Opposition are bringing to bear upon the discussion of this clause what I might call the acidulated method and the humorous method. The former Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) is responsible for the humorous method and the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) for the acidulated method. I do not think that either of the hon. gentlemen is right. The people of Canada want a bill of this sort. The vote the other night was a very striking testimony of the desire of the Canadian people that such legislation should be enacted, because with all the eloquence of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, eloquence which was exercised in no unmeasured terms, only twenty-one of his followers, including himself-if that is not an Hibernianism-responded to the division bell to vote against the bill. Now, the objections raised by the hon. leaders of the Opposition are not well founded. Both of them are, or were at one time, distinguished members of the bar; but evidently they are not familiar with admiralty practice. In ad-(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
miralty practice the judge calls in nautical assessors to help him, just as in this case the registrar will call in expert technical assistance to help him in his investigations. Is the right hon. leader of the Opposition serious in his pretension that the Civil Service Commission should be had recourse to in order to find out what technical or expert assistance should be obtained to enable the work of the registrar to be carried out with wisdom and despatch? I hardly think he can be.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member say that that applies only to the temporary technical men?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think that is the meaning of the bill. I have carefully read this clause-and I trust my vision is not obscured by a disdain of, and a contempt for, the whole legislation which, I am sorry to say, I thing obscures the vision of the right hon. leader of the Opposition. But as I understand clause 31, its meaning is that the ordinary permanent officials who will be attached to the office of the registrar will be chosen in the ordinary manner by the Civil Service Commission, but that the registrar himself and the registrar's temporary assistants from time to time of a technical or expert nature will be chosen by the minister under whose department this investigation will be carried on. It seems to be a reasonable and perfectly proper suggestion. I can hardly think, therefore, that the two methods of criticism are well founded.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry I cannot imitate the delightful, the mellifluous turn of phrase of the hon gentleman, much less his charm of manner, but I will try to approach within reasonable distance, his admirable logic in arguing the meaning of this clause. I do not pretend ever to have beeen an adornment to the bar-


Andrew Ross McMaster: You would if you had remained there.


Arthur Meighen: -but I think I arrived at the stage, long years before I came to the bar when I could reasonably understand English. The hon. member says, and the Prime Minister reiterates, that under this clause only temporary appointments can be made by the government and by the minister whether commissioners or whether technical. That is what the hon. member said, and the Prime Minister reiterated it. He was also good enough in his speech to say that I had deliberately misconstrued the section. Now,

I am going to put myself in the hands of the committee:
All persons permanently employed under this act shall be subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Act, 1918, and amendments thereto-
And so forth. And then:
-notwithstanding anything in the said acts or amend-meats thereto.
If there was no exception to the application of the Civil Service Act to permanent employees why is the proviso there at all? Certainly the registrar is a permanent employee and he is to be appointed by the government without regard to the act. I ask my hon. friend does he now say that technical employees must be temporary?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think that is the reading.


Arthur Meighen: No, my hon. friend does not think so. I can measure the intelligence of the hon. member better than he can himself in this regard. The section says that permanent employees shall be appointed subject to the Civil Service Act but paragraph (a) provides that the Governor in Council may appoint any British subject to be registrar, or any British subject to be a commissioner.


Andrew Ross McMaster: "And".


Arthur Meighen: There is the proviso:
-and (b) the minister may employ such technical and special temporary assistance as may be required-
And so on.
Mr.' MACKENZIE KING: Does my hon. friend contend that his argument applies to technical assistant ?


Arthur Meighen: If it does not, why is the word "notwithstanding" used in the first part of the section? That word would not be used if that were not to be the case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite agreeable to transposing the word "temporary" and having it read "such temporary technical and special assistance as may be required".


Arthur Meighen: That will have a different meaning.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was what was intended.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the way it is now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are changing it to get over my right hon. friend's objection.
Combines


Arthur Meighen: Appointments can be made to positions that are permanent, otherwise the word "notwithstanding" would not apply in that case at all. I want to say to my right hon. friend that in the practical working out of this bill the phrasing will not make very much difference. The government will employ practically all the persons they can; they will make the appointments and work the appointees in in some way even though they are supposed to be only temporary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend must not judge this government by his own.


Arthur Meighen: I am judging my right hon. friend's government by its own actions and I will give a few instances to bear out my contention. I want to point out that a well-known Liberal organizer in Alberta, Mr. May, was appointed Immigration agent in the United States.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise to a point of order.


Arthur Meighen: I thought the hon. gentleman would. He Dever cares for particulars. I am giving instances-


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise to a point of order.


Arthur Meighen: -of what I expect is going to be done.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise to a point of order. I submit that the right hon. leader of the Opposition has no right, in the discussion on this bill, to indulge in the criticism of the administration of the Immigration department.
Mr. MEIGHEN' Oh no, 'he Civil Service Act.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Oh, the Civil Service
Act?


Arthur Meighen: That is what I want to
draw your attention to, Mr. Chairman. I am pointing out what the government has already done. I was illustrating my contention of what the government are likely to do under this clause by what they have already done. They have appointed the Liberal organizer in western Canada to be Immigration agent in the United States.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Since when
was Mr. May a Liberal organizer? I never heard of it before.


Arthur Meighen: He has been most of his life.
Combines


Charles A. Stewart: I beg the
right hon. gentleman's pardon. He never was a Liberal organizer for one moment or for one day, he was a Liberal candidate and was defeated.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: The right
hon. gentleman is very much at sea.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think he is.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I again rise to a point of order.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the Minister of the Interior could speak of Mr. Ingram of Manitoba. Was he not a Liberal organizer?


The CHAIRMAN:: I must draw the attention of the right hon. leader of the Opposition to the fact that a point of order has been raised.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I was going to show
that this discussion has been caused by the right hon. leader of the Opposition's reference to the Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization. It demonstrates that the point of order was well taken. Now, if I might reply to my right hon. friend while I am on my feet-


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman has no right to the floor except to state his point of order.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is true.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does the right hon.
leader of the Opposition wish to discuss the point of order?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think there was any; it was an abortive point of order which the hon. gentleman raised.


George Newcombe Gordon: No, the hon. member
for Brome asked for the chairman's ruling.


Arthur Meighen: I will shift my ground and the point of order will not then apply.
I realize how sedulously anxious the hon. gentleman is to prevent this information coming out with respect to these Liberal organizers.
I know he is very ingenious in getting the sunlight stopped but he should remember the injunction of his leader.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The sunlight?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the sunlight. His right hon. leader says the sunlight should be thrown on certain secret transactions. According to the Prime Minister this bill is going to do for the social system what the sun does for the physical universe. Did not the hon. member get that lesson from his chief 
during the second reading of this bill? If the sunlight is to be diffused why not let it be directed upon the acts of this government who are appointing immigration agents despite the provisions of the Civil Service Act? However, if I am stopped from proceeding any further in that direction-


Charles A. Stewart: May I interrupt the right hon. gentleman to say that the appointments to which he refers were not made despite the Civil Service Act, nor was any attempt made to evade that act.


Arthur Meighen: Who appointed those men?


Charles A. Stewart: I appointed them and I did not evade the Civil Service Act in one single instance.


Arthur Meighen: You just paid no attention to it.


Charles A. Stewart: No; I beg my right hon. friend's pardon.


Arthur Meighen: What right had the minister under the Civil Service Act to appoint them?


Charles A. Stewart: The Civil Service Act gives authority to appoint a person for a period of ninety days.


Arthur Meighen: Under conditions of emergency.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Where was the emergency in appointing those Immigration agents in the United States? The emergency was in the Liberal camp.


Charles A. Stewart: The emergency arose the other day. Let me say this to my right hon. friend: The gentleman who occupies the position of Deputy Minister of Immigration was undoubtedly an organizer-


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Charles A. Stewart: -and was appointed by my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and we had the right to appoint him too under the act.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not disputing that but I do say that my right hon. friend has no right to question my power to make an appointment under the act.


Arthur Meighen: If you make the appointment under the act. You have no right to appoint Immigration agents that is different.

Combines


George Newcombe Gordon: This discussion is getting out of order if it has not already reached that stage.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It was out of order long ago.


Mr. SHAW:: I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he should transpose the word "temporary" in the manner indicated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have an amendment here to do so. In order to make clear the intention of the section I would move that the word "temporary" in line eleven of section 31 be transposed and inserted before the word "technical" in line twelve.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I wish to say with regard to the second and third subsections of section 31-


George Newcombe Gordon: We have not reached that yet, we are on subsection 1 of section 31, and the Prime Minister has moved an amendment.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The same words occur in two other clauses following, which would make it abundantly clear that the word "technical" was in a class distinctly by itself, and distinct from the word "temporary."


George Newcombe Gordon: It is moved that in subsections 1, 2 and 3 of section 31, the word "temporary" be transposed to appear before the word "technical" wherever the word appears before the word "assistance."


Arthur Meighen: In view of the fact that there is no definition of the word "temporary" in this bill, may I ask what is the Prime Minister's idea of the maximum length of time a temporary employee should serve and be paid?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would depend on the length of the inquiry. There might be some inquiries lasting a couple of days, some a couple of weeks and some a couple of months. The reference here is to the commissioners, to get the necessary clerical or expert assistance in carrying out tha inquiry.


Arthur Meighen: The United Shoe inquiry lasted for some years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were not going all the time.


Arthur Meighen: I think they were, and the government has degenerated since, so that I fancy the expression "temporary employee' will be interpreted with much elasticity.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member said the other day that the officers had nothing to do under the old act.


Arthur Meighen: This only applies to the extent that they had anything to do. They had nothing to do under the old act, save in the one case. There was one case and it was very lengthy, almost as lengthy as it was worthless.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 32-Technicality not to invalidate proceedings:


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Does the Prime Minister mean by section 32 that steps can be taken irregularly or not in accordance with the procedure laid down in the act, and that then the final determination will be the action of the registrar, and that would be as binding as if it were regularly taken and without any departure from the procedure? It seems to me that it is an unusual clause, and I would like to know its history. It may be in the Combines Investigation Act of 1910, which 1 have not had the pleasure of reading recently.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is where it came from-section 42 of the Combines Investigation Act and also the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, which has been on the statutes a great many years. It has been found useful in the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, just to meet the possible quibblings of persons who wish to obstruct the proceedings before the commissioner and it may serve a similar purpose in connection with investigations before the registrar. The intention of the government is to make it . a workable machine, and it is well known that in most of these inquiries parties who are interested in blocking the inquiry are going, wherever opportunity presents itself, to raise some technical objection or sqme quibble. The idea is to get rid of that kind of ambuscading, as far as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 33-Governor in Council may take necessary regulations:
Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to find out from the Prime Minister what regulations are contemplated and what is supposed to be done? What is there that we have not already covered by the act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid I (cannot answer off-hand. As an act of this kind is put to the test and cases arise under it, there will develop or be disclosed undoubtedly reasons for laying down certain
Combines

general regulations that should be complied with by parties, for example, making the application, as to the form of the application, and also the time and matters of that kind. The same power is given under similar legislation to which I have referred, the Industrial Disputes Act, and regulations there have been found useful. They were not put in the statutes because they were not important enough to find a place there, but they are of assistance in trying to preserve a certain uniformity of procedure.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I would like to ascertain whether this legislation would in any way interfere with the rights of parliament as they are being exercised now by the Committee on Agriculture in making inquries of a similar character and giving great publicity to certain wrongs, and perhaps to certain cures. Under this act it may develop that it is not quite within the purview of parliament through a committee toNinvestigate even the things that are assigned to this special structure which we are creating to-day. I would like to ask the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) what his idea is in regard to the question I have raised.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Parliament
must be supreme in everything.


William Findlay Maclean: This cannot be treated as in any way interfering with the rights of parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. ,
On section 34-Trade unions not affected:
Arthur Meighen: Will the Prime Minister tell us what he understands by reasonable protection? Would the word "reasonable" there have the same meaning as it would have with reference to other combinations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would have exactly the same meaning as it has where this clause appears in the criminal code. My hon. friend knows that this section is taken from section 2, subsection 2, 9-10 George V, chapter 45, Combines and Fair Prices Act of 1919. There is a similar clause in section 498 (2) of the Criminal Code, the original of which was enacted by 63-64 Victoria, chapter 46, section 3. Perhaps, I can answer my hon. friend's question as to the meaning by saying it has just the meaning he had when he passed the Combines Act.


Arthur Meighen: I asked the minister's conception of its meaning, and I accept the compliment he pays me When he says he can-
!Mr. Mackenzie King.]
not define it better than referring to the language I used myself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend knows that any construction he or I put on it would not affect the interpretation the courts would put on it.


Arthur Meighen: I know, but I wanted the Prime Minister's opinion on it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
I he CHAIRMAN: Shall the title carry?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend asked me, on the seconding of the bill, what was the difference in the interpretation clause between the phraseology and the effect of the phraseology and the definition relating to combines from that which appears in the code. I think possibly for the purpose of record I had better place the distinction on Hansard. It is a little technical, but I have it in detail. This memorandum reads:
The difference between sec. 498 of the Criminal Code and the crime created by sees. 26 (a) and 2 (a) of Bill 54.
Sec. 498 of the Criminal Code reads as follows:- 498. Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars and not less than two hundred dollars, or to two years' imprisonment, or, if a corporation is liable to a penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and not less than one thousand dollars, who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with any other person, or with any railway, steamship, steamboat or transportation company:
(a)	to unduly limit the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce; or,
(b)	to restrain or injure trade or commerce in relation to any such article or commodity; or	[DOT](c)	to unduly prevent, limit or lessen the manufacture or production of any such article or commodity, or to unreasonably enhance the price thereof-or,	*(d)	to unduly, prevent or lessen competition in the production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, transportation or supply of any such article or commodity, or in the price of insurance upon person or property.
2. Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to combinations of workmen or employees for then-own reasonable protection as such workmen or employees. 63-64-V, c. 46, s. 3.
Subsections (a), (b), (c) (d) of section 498 should be compared with the following subsections of section 2. Section 498 (a) of the code reads:
To unduly limit the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce.
Clause 2. (a) (3) (i) of the present bill reads:
Limiting facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing,
The word "limiting" is substituted for the words "to unduly limit." Section 498 (b) of the code reads:
-to restrain or injure trade or commerce in relation to any such article or commodiity.

Combines
Clause 2. (a) (3) (vi) of the present bill reads:
Otherwise restraining or injuring trade or commerce.
Section 498 (c) of the code reads:
To unduly prevent, limit or lessen the manufacture or production of any such article or commodity, or to unreasonably enhance the price thereof.
Clause 2. (a) (3) (ii) of the present bill reads:
Preventing, limiting or lessening manufacture or production.
That is, eliminating from it the words "unduly" and "unreasonably." Section 498 (d) of the code reads:
To unduly prevent or lessen competition in the production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, transportation or supply of any such article or commodity, or in the price of insurance upon person or property.
If that is to be compared the present bill, clause 2. (a) (3) (v) reads:
Preventing or lessening competition in, or substantially controlling within any particular area or district or generally, production manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, storage, transportation, insurance or supply.
In the above section it will be seen that section 49S contains the word "unduly" in subsections (a), (c), and (d), whereas such word does not appear in the corresponding provision of section 2. The test in section 2 of whether a crime has been committed is whether what has been done has operated, or is likely to operate to the detriment of, or against the interest of the public whether consumers, producers or others. This is the test which is substituted for the word "unduly."
Section 498 applies only to persons who conspire, combine, agree or arrange with any other person, or with any railway, steamship, steamboat or transportation company to do any of the acts set out in subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d). Section 2 (a) is wider in that the limitation with respect to conspiracy, etc., is not mentioned, and it extends to "any actual or tacit contract, agreement, arrangement or combination which has, or is designed to have" any of the results mentioned in the rest of the paragraph.
Section 2 (a) extends not only to the matters which have already been enumerated and contrasted with the corresponding sections of 498, but also to:
(1)	Mergers, trusts and monopolies so called;
(2)	The relation resulting from the purchase, lease or other acquisition by any person of any control over or interest in the whole or part of the business of any other person.
(3)	Any actual or tacit contract, agreement, arrangement or confirmation which has or is designed to have the effect of,
(iii)	fixing a common price or a resale price, or a common rental, or a common cost of storage or transportation ; or
(iv)	enhancing the price, rental or cost of article, rental, storage or transportation.
It will thus be seen that section 2 (a) is substantially broader than section 498, and more applicable to modem conditions.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question in connection with a report sent to me to-day of a debate in the Manitoba legislature dealing with the combination of steamship companies, in which report the legislature has declared that it will ask this government to provide other penalties or remedies for the discrimination by those transportation companies which is complained of; that the coastal laws be suspended so that the companies which have made combinations shall meet with the competition of American ships, and that the use of the canals and waterways be denied to transportation companies that continue to conspire against the public interest and especially against the transportation interests of the West.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the question?


William Findlay Maclean: I want to know if the Prime Minister would say whether those penalties are still available together with other penalties that are provided for the correction of parties conspiring against the public interest.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly it is open to parliament to enact by way of legislation any remedy that it thinks best to meet the situation.


William Findlay Maclean: Or the Governor in Council can exercise his powers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. That, I think, will be the great advantage of legislation of this kind. It will enable the government and the public to know the facts with respect to any particular situation, and in that manner it will likely suggest the most effective remedy, whether it is to be found within the confines of the legislation or not.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill as amended, reported.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the third reading of the bill.
Arthur Meighen: A bill like this should not be read the third time the same day.
266S
Canada Shipping Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought my right hon. friend was anxious for the sun to come out soon.


Arthur Meighen: If I had the same faith in the sun coming out as my right hon. friend has I would be glad that the bill should be read the third time to-day but it has as close a relation to the sun as it has to the nether elements.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is somewhat cryptic.
Motion stands.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend section 487 of the Canada Shipping Act, chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes, 1908, by providing that a master or mate upon application as therein provided may, if his application be approved by the pilotage authority, be thereupon examined, and if found competent, a pilotage certificate may be granted to him.
Arthur Meighen: Explain.


Ernest Lapointe: By section 487 of the Canada Shipping Act apart from the pilotage districts of Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax, the master or mate of any vessel can apply to the pilotage authority to pass an examination as pilot, and the pilotage authority, after the ordinary examinations and upon the payment of the dues, is compelled to deliver a certificate to that master or mate. The object of the resolution and of the bill is, that instead of making this compulsory on the pilotage authority, to make it discretionary. The pilotage authority, instead of "shall deliver the certificate", "may deliver the certificate" after it has approved the request. The necessity for this has been shown to the department in a special case this season in the pilotage district of Mirami-chi. At this place the channel is narrow, and any accident that takes place there would block the traffic altogether. It is not a very important district, and the pilot could not make a living if the most important ships that go there were relieved from the obligation of taking those pilots on those ships. It is very important to the port that pilots should be retained there to bring foreign ships in. The only purpose of the resolution and of the bill which will be introduced based upon it is, in special cases, to empower the pilotage authority to refuse the examination of a master and mate and to place the small pilotage districts on the same level as Quebec,

Montreal, St. John and Halifax in this regard.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Who is the pilotage authority?


Ernest Lapointe: The Governor in Council under a section of the Shipping Act can at any time nominate the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as pilotage authority for any port. For the port of Miramichi, for instance, the minister is the authority.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 166 to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 136 to amend the Immigration Act, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 3-Certain persons to be deemed to belong to the prohibited or undesirable classes:
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Acting Minister of Immigration):: When the
bill was last under consideration exception was taken to the amendment to the Immigration Act which is proposed in section 3 of this bill. This section proposes to repeal section 41 of the act and replace it by the old section which was embodied in the act up to the time that the present section was adopted. That old section, which it is now proposed to reenact, provides:
Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen advocates in Canada the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Great Britain or Canada, or other British dominion, etc.
Objection was taken to the words "any person other than a Canadian citizen" on the ground that they implied a reflection on British subjects who were not Canadians. I propose therefore to strike out the words after the word "any" and substitute in their stead the word "alien," so that the section will now read:
Whenever any alien advocates, etc.


Mr. MORRISON:: Why not say "any person" instead of "any alien"? There is no reason why a Canadian citizen should not be amenable to the law in this respect.


Charles A. Stewart: This section relates to immigrants who are subject to deportation for the offences described. A Canadian citizen could not come under the section.

Immigration Act


Arthur Meighen: The minister has failed to protect himself. An alien is forbidden to advocate the assassination of any official of the government, but apparently he may advocate the assassination of any member of the government.


Mr. JACOBS:: Which is sometimes justifiable.


Arthur Meighen: Why not simply leave it at assassination, without any qualification? If anyone advocates the assassination of anybody, that surely is a sufficient offence.


Charles A. Stewart: I am simply adopting the old wording; I have not changed the language of the old section at all. Exception was taken to the fact that, by implication, permission was given the department to deport a British subject, and the amendment I now propose is intended to meet that difficulty.


Arthur Meighen: I am not objecting to the amendment, but I would strike out the words "any official of the government of Great Britain or Canada or other British dominion," etc., and simply say "assassination." I do not know why officials of the government should be particularly sacrosanct.


Samuel William Jacobs: Particularly if appointed by the Civil Service Commission.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps it is the immigration agent the minister wants to protect.


Mr. BANTER:: Listening to the budget
this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, I thought this provision was going to be dropped, that the withdrawal of the duty on hemp was for the purpose of getting the proper kind of rope for hanging these people instead of sending them out of the country. What'is the purpose of the government?


Arthur Meighen: If the section can be improved why not improve it?


Charles A. Stewart: For ten years we have got along all right with this wording, and it is well to be careful not to change the wording of any particular clause without considering its effect upon other parts of the bill. However, I have no particular objection to striking out the words my hon. friend complains about. He is complaining that the section applies only to officials of the government and not to citizens?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. Why should it be
any more a deportable offence to advocate the assissination of an official of the government than the assassination of anybody else?


Samuel William Jacobs: We are also providing
against the assassination of Lenine and Trotsky, because this section applies to all foreign governments.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I submit with a good
deal of confidence that assassination is undesirable under all circumstances, and in regard to all persons, and if it is advisable to retain this clause, I do not see why the words "of any official of the government of Great Britain or Canada, or other British dominion, colony, possession, or dependency, or of any foreign government" should not all be stricken out.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I mean.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Any person who advocates assassination is ipso facto undesirable and should be deported.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Strike out the
word "the" before assassination. If a person advocates assassination he at once becomes an undesirable.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: Assassination applies only
to the murdering of those high in authority, not to ordinary individuals.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Make it apply to ordinary individuals. I want the protection to apply to ourselves.


Mr. CARROLL:: Should not the word "assassination" be supplemented by another word?


Henry Lumley Drayton: "Assassination"
is a good word. Do you like "murder" better?


William F. Carroll: I would suggest "assassination or murder."


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the difference?


William F. Carroll: There is a legal difference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the section would be clear in this form:
Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen advocates in Canada the overthrow by force or violence of the goverment of Great Britain or Canada, or other British dominion, colony, possession, or dependency, or the overthrow by force or violence of constituted law and authority, or by assassination, or shall, by word or act, and so on.
The whole idea is to look after assassination which tends to overthrow government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Better leave the section as it is, I think.


Arthur Meighen: Strike out the word "the" before assassination.
Immigration Act


Andrew Ross McMaster: It seems to me that assassination with a political complexion is no more heinous than assassination of an ordinary sort.


William F. Carroll: Does the term "assassination" apply to the ordinary individual?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think so. An assassin is a person who kills another. I do not think the person assassinated has to be in a higher position in the scale of society than the murderer.


Arthur Meighen: I move:
That the word "the" before "assassination" in line 21 be struck out and that the following words after "assassination" be struqk out, "of any official of the government of Great Britain or Canada, or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or of any foreign government."


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Would that enable us to get at anyone who is attempting to interfere with a foreign government?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Are these remarks merely for the ear of the right hon. leader of the Opposition?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Yes, it is just a private conversation. I think we should retain the words "of any official of the government," and so throw protection around the hon. Minister of the Interior.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Charles A. Stewart: Exception was taken by the shipping interests to the amendment to section 52. In order to meet their objections I beg to move that section 6 of the bill be amended to read as follows:
Subsection one of section fifty-two of the said act. as enacted by chapter twenty-two of the statutes of 1919, is amended by striking out all that portion of the said section preceding the word "such" in the ninth line and substituting therefor the following:
"52. (1) Upon arrival of any vessel in Canada from any port or place outside of Canada, it shall be the duty of the transportation company, owner, agent, consignee or master of a vessel to deliver to the agent or inspector in charge of the port of entry such lists as may be required by the minister containing the names of all officers, seamen or other persons employed on such vessel which lists shall contain whatever information the minister shall prescribe, and before the departure of any such vessel the minister may also require-"


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does that mean?


Charles A. Stewart: It is an amendment .to section 52. We are striking out the increase of fine and also meeting the objection taken by the shipping interests that they have to prepare manifests simply for the

use of the Department of Immigration, but that actually are never used except to trace someone who becomes a public charge and whom it becomes our duty to deport. Under the amendment we will use the manifest deposited in ordinary course with the secretary of the Shipping Association, rather than compel the purser on every trip to make out a separate manifest for the department. This, however, will not apply to foreign bottoms


Henry Lumley Drayton: Am I correct in understanding that under the present law a manifest is made out specially for the Department of Immigration?


Charles A. Stewart: Both on
arrival and on departure.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And the whole effect of the amendment is to render that unnecessary in the case of British bottoms?


Charles A. Stewart: No. They have been using a separate manifest for the department; we now propose not to ask them for that but to accept the manifest filed with the secretary of the Shipping Association at the port. That applies only to British bottoms; we still reserve the right to ask the owners or masters of foreign bottoms who have not deposited such a manifest to make one for our use.


William F. Carroll: Has the department a complete record of the entry into Canada of all immigrants who came here legally?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does this amendment meet with the approval of the shipping federation?
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 154 L-om the Senate), to incorporate Trans-Continental Assurance Company.-Mr. Carroll.
Bill No. 155 (from the Senate), to incorporate National Surety Company of Canada. -Mr. Mitchell.
Bill No. 156 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Austin Trow.-Mr. Duff.

Supply-Public Works
Bill No. 157 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ethel Jean Buchan-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 158 (front the Senate), for the relief of Louisa Wemp.-Mr. Simpson.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 136, to amend the Immigration Act, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Newcombe Gordon: When the committee rose at six o'clock an amendment had been moved to clause 6 of the bill.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister tell us what the purpose of the amendment is?
M# STEWART (Argenteuil): I did that before the committee rose at six o'clock. In discussing this matter with the shipping interests they were anxious not to have to provide a double manifest as they are required to do under the existing act. One manifest they file with the secretary of the British and Canadian shipping interests, and the other with tne Immigration department. This second manifest we do not use for any purpose except foi reference when we find a sailor who is liable to become a public charge upon the country, and who therefore is liable to deportation. We agree to accept the manifest of the secretary of the Shipping Association, rather than have the purser make out a second list. The shipping interests are objecting to the increased fines, and, therefore, I have struck out section 6 as it stands in the bill, substituting the amendment before the committee as an amendment to subsection 1.


Arthur Meighen: That clause 6 is an addition to the present clause 6.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I am
striking out clause 6 in the bill and substituting the amendment.


Arthur Meighen: Section 52 is really subsection 1.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Harbours and rivers-EsquimaJt, B.C., dry-dock under construction, $1,500,000.
['Then they would not take much time to pass when they are next considered. I do not know whether any particular objection is entertained in regard to them or not, but if we get as much done every day as we have done to-day, we will not be here long.\nItem stands.\nOn motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.08 p.m.\nMonday, May 14, 1923']
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Public Works) :: The first item 81,500,000, is a vote to continue the construction of a dry-dock at Victoria. Ihe amount of this contract was $4,217,400. In 1921-22 $1,164,872 was expended. Of the apropriation for 1922-23, on the 31st March, $547,700 had been expended.


Arthur Meighen: How near completion is that dry-dock?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: The contract expires in January 1924. There have been certain delays and probably an extension will be required. Although the contract should be completed in 1924, I would not think the dry-dock would be ready for operation before 1925.


Arthur Meighen: The government is responsible for the delay. Did the government not hold up the work for quite a while?


John Warwick King: There was some
delay last year by the failure to vote supply in the Main Estimates.


Arthur Meighen: The minister sees his error, I hope, and is duly repentant. Has the minister a report that he can lay on the Table, that the government received us to the necessity of this dock, the probable utility of it?


John Warwick King: This is not a new project; it has been under consideration for many years. Negotiations were carried on years ago and a site purchased for the construction of this dry-dock. All that went by the board; but in 1919-20, my right hon. friend and his government entered into a contract to construct this dry-dock. There was some hesitation on the part of this government [DOT] as to the advisability at the time, with conditions as they were lollowing the war, of entering into the construction of two dry-docks on the Pacific coast within a few miles of one another. This government, on coming into office, found that an expenditure of $1,000,000 had been made at Victoria, and although there was a doubt as to the advisability of continuing the construction of these two dry-docks, one at Esquimalt and one at Vanvouver, it was considered advisable, after careful investigation had been made, to continue construction of the dry- dock at Victoria. In the Supplementary Estimates of last year, an appropriation of $1,000,000 was passed for continuation of construction, and the work has been proceeding since that time.


Arthur Meighen: The minister stated that this matter was deferred for investigation. What was brought to the minister's attention



Supply-Public Works
during the investigation that contributed to the decision of the government to go on with the work?


John Warwick King: I do not think there should be any doubt in my right hon. friend's mind as to the attitude of the government on taking office. The declaration was made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he was contending in the countryside for election and the election of his party, that contracts which had been entered into would be investigated. We found on the Pacific coast that two contracts for dry-dock purposes had been entered into, and these with other contracts were held up. As regards the work at Victoria, as I have already explained to the committee, there had been an expenditure of $1,000,000, and after a thorough investigation and going into the requirements of shipping on the Pacific coast, we concluded we would be well advised to continue construction of that dock.


Arthur Meighen: The minister got to the point at the last minute, but he was not very explicit. The point that I asked him was not as to any historical account. I know that pretty well myself. I asked him what were the results of the investigation that prevailed with the government and decided it to go ahead. He mentions that after investigating the necessities of shipping on the Pacific coast, the government decided to continue the construction. Does he mean by that the government was convinced that the necessities of shipping really required that dry-dock?


John Warwick King: After the investigation which the government made, and taking into account the fact that there had been a very large expenditure on the dock and also the increased shipping and development on the Pacific coast, the government was convinced as to the advisability of continuing construction of that dock.


Arthur Meighen: Supposing there had
been nothing at all spent on it, would the government then have seen fit to go on with the work? Did the necessities of shipping so impress the government that it would have gone on with the work even had we not commenced it?


John Warwick King: The government in that case would have been in an independent position to make its own investigation and to define its own policy.


Arthur Meighen: The government made an investigation and the minister has the result. Will the minister say to-day that the

late government went on too soon with the construction of the dry-dock?


John Warwick King: I would say that that government went on too late. That dry-dock should have been constructed in 19121913. If it had been constructed then, it would have served a useful purpose.


Arthur Meighen: Undoubtedly it would. Then will the minister say that we did not commence it too soon in 1919?


John Warwick King: It would have
been very useful during the war period.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister think we commenced too soon in 1919?


John Warwick King: I think it would have been much better to have commenced at an earlier date, as we would then have had the use of the dock during a time when it would have been of great service, not only to British Columbia, but to the Empire generally.


Arthur Meighen: That is not my point, and I do not know why the minister does not answer my question. Perhaps it would have been better if we had known when the war was going to break out. We, however, did not commence the dock in 1912. If we had followed the advice of my hon. friend's friends, there would have been a number of things that we would not have commenced. As, however, we did not commence the dry-dock before the war, or during the war, does the minister say that we were too early in commencing it in 1919? I know this is a poser.


John Warwick King: So far as I am concerned there is no poser. My right hon. friend has no reason to worry about my position as regards the dry-dock. My party had, in 1911, a contract for the construction of a dry-dock on the Pacific coast. When we came into power in 1921, we took conditions as we found them, and we are carrying on, I believe, to the satisfaction of the people on the Pacific coast in the matter of dry-dock policy.


Arthur Meighen: That is not what I asked.


John Warwick King: I am answering the question and my right hon. friend can interpret my answer. I think it is a fair answer, and so far as I am concerned there was no poser in his question. We are proceeding with the construction of this dry-dock.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is simply dodging the question. I am going to keep

Supply-Public Works
on a little longer, perhaps some time longer.
I am asking the minister: Keeping in mind that we did not commence during the war or before the war, did we commence, under all the circumstances, too early in 1919 at the time we did commence? He can answer that by saying yes or no.


John Warwick King: I will give my right hon. friend the same answer that I gave before, that he commenced construction of the dry-dock too late.


Arthur Meighen: How then does the minister justify his support of his leader who denounced us for commencing it too soon? Is that the poser for the hon. gentleman? I do not hear any answer to that. I presume I may assume that this is just another instance of the whole humbug that was perpetrated throughout the entire year. The minister, I presume, by his silence will acquiesce in that description.


John Warwick King: We do not need to acquiesce at all. My right hon. friend would like to develop a situation at this time, but the situation is not there for him to develop. If he thinks he can get any glory out of his policy in the matter of dry-docks, he is privileged to take all the glory he can get. As regards ourselves, we are carrying on. I think, in the interests of the country.


Arthur Meighen: I was not seeking glory at all; I was seeking a frank statement from the minister. He declines to answer whether we commenced too soon in 1919 or not. He dodges the question by saying that we should have commenced in 1912. I asked him then: Assuming that we had not commenced in 1912, had not gone on during the war, under all the circumstances did we commence too soon in 1919? He declines to answer.


John Warwick King: That is a matter of opinion entirely. My right hon. friend can have his own opinion.


Arthur Meighen: I know my opinion exactly and I will say it. I will say that we did not commence too soon. Will the minister have the courage to say yes or no?


Mr. GOULD:: Will the dock when completed be large enough to accommodate the largest vessel plying on the Pacific, or will the department be called upon in the future to ask for more money to enlarge it?


John Warwick King: The present
dimensions of the dock are such as to afford sufficient accommodation, I understand, for the largest ships afloat.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: How much money has already been spent on the work, and how much more is it estimated the construction will require before the dock is completed?


John Warwick King: When the item
was first introduced I gave the expenditures in 1921-22 and in 1922-23. There was an appropriation in 1919-20 of $500,000, there was only expended of that sum 14,994. In the year 1920-21 there was voted $500,000 of which $13,536 was expended; in the year 1921-22. $1,300,000 was voted and that year the expenditure was $1,164,000. In the year 1922-23 the expenditure was $547,720.


Edward Joseph Garland: But how much is it estimated will be required to complete the work?


John Warwick King: Something over


Oliver Robert Gould: What was the total estimate in the first place?


Arthur Meighen: The minister's figures
could not be right if he gave his details correctly. He did not give details aggregating that sum by nearly a million dollars.


John Warwick King: I have given it
year by year.


Arthur Meighen: I added the figures.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I understood the figure last given by the minister to refer to the amount still required to be spent.


Arthur Meighen: I thought the minister
was giving the committee what had been already spent.


John Warwick King: The amount estimated as being necessary to complete the work I should say, would be roughly $2,300,000.


Arthur Meighen: And the minister told us that the total already spent is some $1,600,000.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: And to complete the
work it will require $2,300,000. Now, owing to delays we shall have to wait until 1925 to have the use of the dock.


John Warwick King: Not necessarily.
Some of the delays were due to failure in voting supply in the Main Estimates last year; there was a delay of two or three months. Further delays have also been occasioned by
Supply-Public Works

certain occurrences in connection with the work which have held up progress somewhat. I should think that the contractors should be through in 1924,-at the end of 1924 at any rate.


Arthur Meighen: Will the work cost more because of the suspension of operations on the part of the contractors, and if so, how much?


John Warwick King: During the suspension of work there were certain operations that had to be continued of necessity and expenditures had to be made in connection with them. These expenditures were necessary for keeping the pumps going, taking care of the machinery, plant equipment, etc., for which the contractors have made a claim. The matter is under consideration.


Arthur Meighen: What is the amount
of the claim?


John Warwick King: It amounts to


Arthur Meighen: That is pretty expensive procrastination. Is that the only item though that the government will be called upon to provide for on account of this suspension of work?


John Warwick King: That is all that I
know of.


Oliver Robert Gould: What was the total estimate for the whole construction in the first place?


John Warwick King: The amount of the contract is $4,287,000.


Oliver Robert Gould: The amount already expended and the amount estimated as a further requirement will total somewhat more than that, will it not?


John Warwick King: There have been no additions except in one regard. An additional expenditure has been found necessary in the matter of certain yardage of rock which it has been found exceeds the yardage estimated originally by the engineers. This is a discrepancy that might occur in any engineering problem of this kind, and that is the only extra that I know of.


Mr. MacLAREN:: What are the dimensions of the dock?


John Warwick King: The length is
1,188 feet, the width at entrance is 126 feet on the sill and 135 feet at the coping level. The depth of the sill at spring-tide is 40 feet.

The dock will have two inner walls located 400 feet and 750 feet from the entrance respectively, thus making it possible to accommodate boats from 350 to 1,150 feet in length.


Arthur Meighen: Where are the ships being taken care of now pending the completion of the dock?


John Warwick King: Some of them are being accommodated at the old dock at Es-quimalt and others are going to Seattle and to other dry-docks on the coast.


Arthur Meighen: But the great bulk of them are going to Seattle?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: So that because of a year's delay the country will lose ail that is now going to Seattle. That will be another portion of the harvest that we shall reap from the hon. gentleman's procrastination.


John Warwick King: Yes, unfortunately; but it is only one year's delay as compared with many years' delay.


Arthur Meighen: But there is this difference between the delay in this case and the many years' delay my hon. friend refers to: We were not out any money all that time; this time we are out money, we are out the damages to the contractor, we are out the use of the dock, we are out the trade that results, and all that as a penalty on the country for the election propaganda of the hon. gentleman and his friends.


Mr. CAHILL:: And we are out the Tory government.


Arthur Meighen: Which is another penalty.


Oliver Robert Gould: When the contract was let in 1919,1 take it that it covered the whole construction and was intended to take care of the completed job. In other words, I should think that the contract price quoted them would be the total that the contractor would receive. I cannot see therefore why, if there has been any delay in carrying out the contract, the contractor should get this $60,000 that the minister has referred to. Is that amount to be added to the contract price?


John Warwick King: The matter is
under consideration, and if the amount is allowed it will be added to the total cost of the dock.


Oliver Robert Gould: In 1919, prices were high and any contractor would be inclined at that time to put in a high tender. Labour costs gen-

Supply-Public Works
erally, however, have gone down, as also have prices in other directions. I think therefore that the contractor who tendered in 1919 should be compelled to live up to his contract to the last cent, and I would urge upon the minister to see that this is done.


Arthur Meighen: I hope that the hon. member will not forget to ask next year what was done in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Arthur and Fort William-harbour improvements, 1135,000.
John Warwick King: In explanation of that item I may give the following particulars :
Port Arthur-	Dredging
To complete contract with Messrs. O'Brien & Martin, slip 2,350 ft. long by 100 ft. wide to depth of 26 ft. at mouth of McIntyre river in front of grain elevator under construction by Parrish & Heimbecker, Ltd	 $22,500 00
To dredge a slip 1,760 ft. long by 175 ft. wide at bottom to a depth of 25 ft. below low water in front of grain elevators under construction by Jas. Stewart and the N. Bawlf Grain Co., both of
Winnipeg, Man	 81.500 00
To complete payments to Messrs. Chambers, McQuigge & McCaffrey on the final estimate for their contract for the construction of a rubble mound extension 1,850 ft. to the Bare Point breakwater 2,042 14 Fort William-
To complete contract with Messrs. O'Brien & Martin for construction of 1,000 ft. rubble mound extension to breakwater 23,500 00
Inspection, contingencies, office, etc.. ..	5,000 00
Total amount required 1923-24	$134,542 14
The amount asked for is $135,000.


Arthur Meighen: Is there any other considerable expenditure contemplated for this harbour this year?


John Warwick King: There is under consideration a further extension of the Bare Point breakwater.


Arthur Meighen: What would be the probable estimate for that?
#


John Warwick King: I have not the item before me. Probably 8200,000 would carry on the extension that is considered necessary at this time. If my right hon. friend is familiar with the situation at Port Arthur he will know that this breakwater gives protection to a shore line where there are constructed a dry-dock and some pulp mills and elevators. The Grain Growers' Cooperative and Richardson's elevators are still exposed, and it is hoped to extend the breakwater this j'ear to give these structures protection, but it has not been finally decided upon yet.


Arthur Meighen: Is that the Grain Growers' elevator or the Saskatchewan Co-operative's?


John Warwick King: I think both the Grain Growers' and the Saskatchewan are in that locality.


Robert James Manion: I did not think there was any work contemplated of such an extensive character as that mentioned by the minister. Is the part that is to be extended simply to protect works that are now in existence?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Robert James Manion: You are not extending the breakwater in the other direction for works contemplated in the future?


John Warwick King: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec harbour-Champlain dock-to complete, $96,-
000.
Arthur Meighen: I suppose this is carrying out the programme laid down last year involving a total cost of a million and a half dollars?


John Warwick King: It is a revote. I think it has been carried for a couple of years. It is required to complete the construction of the Champlain dry-dock under contract with Messrs. M. P. & J. T. Davis as
follows:
To complete items of contract	 $55,748	80
Toilet building for use of crews off steamers in the dock and men engaged in repairs.. 21.924 10 Installation of soot blowers, feed regulators, and 3 electric motors and gears in pump
house	
12,700	00Inspection, contingencies, etc	
5,500	00Total	
$95,872 90


Arthur Meighen: This is not part of the million and a half dollar harbour improvements there?


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Meighen: This is just the completion of the Champlain dock?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose the government is receiving the same complaint as to no business being diverted to the harbour of Quebec which was a constant source of political fuel to the hon. gentleman a few months ago?


John Warwick King: I have not heard of it.
Supply-Public Works


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman cannot attend council, I am sure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. John Harbour-improvements, $860,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What amount has been spent in the past, how much is it anticipated it will be necessary to spend in the future, and then what will we get for the outlay? Also, does this include anything for the west side, or is it simply for the improvements at Courtenay bay?


John Warwick King: 
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That is just the dock and the dredging?


John Warwick King: Yes.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: No wharves?


John Warwick King: No, these are the other particulars:
Courtenay Bay contract amount required to
complete	 $809,385
Maintenance of harbour works	 20,000
West St. John-protection of concrete exposed to sea action	 10,000
Fort Dufferin-repairs	to breastwork	 3,500
Staff maintenance	 18,000
Total	 $860,885
There is no provision in this amount for the breakwater which my hon. friend speaks of.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Roughly, what is the amount that has been spent in Courtenay bay, so that with the $809,000 we may have the total cost?


John Warwick King: Practically, $8,000,-
000.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: So it will be pretty nearly $9,000,000 before it is all done?


John Warwick King: Practically.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is the minister hopeful of being able to do something this year for the extension of the breakwater to the island?


John Warwick King: I can only inform my hon. friend that the matter is receiving consideration. The government are fully alive to the importance of protection work at that point, but we feel that we should complete this large undertaking that has been under way for some years.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not find any fault with the completing of the large undertaking that has been under way for so many years.

I have always had grave doubts as to the advisability of ever having undertaken the project in that particular place-Courtenay bay. However, it was a fad of the hon. minister's predecessor, and no doubt the dock will be useful, but we will never get the full benefit of that expenditure until wharves are put in the basin to connect with the Canadian National Railways, which will mean considerable further expenditure. Several million dollars of the country's money have already gone into important works on the west sids of the harbour, but the most modem, the best built, and the deepest berths there are not capable of being utilized during certain weather conditions, and never will be until the breakwater is continued to the island. I am not attacking the minister. He has been down to St. John and I will give him credit for having shown all the interest that could be reasonably expected of a minister. I	think	he is sympathetic.
But I would like to carry the project a little beyond the point of sympathy. The completion of the breakwater is only a matter of good business; indeed, it is vital, for otherwise it will simply be a matter of carrying in a useless condition these other valuable works that have cost a lot of money and on which the country is bearing the interest charge. I would urge as strongly as I can that at least a beginning be made this year. The community of St. John, as the minister knowo and as a good many hon. members know, spent quite largely of its own means to make a winter port out' of the harbour. They have been helped by governments regardless of the political faith of those governments, and more will have to be done. After all, St. John and Halifax are to be the great winter outlets of this country on the Atlantic coast. The community has sent delegation after delegation to government after government here, but one thing after another has turned up. This Courtenay bay project has interfered; the war has interfered; and the difficulty of finance has interfered, and still we find in the winter seasons more vessels-perhaps the condition was not so bad last winder as it had been on previous occasions-lying out in the stream, waiting for berths, than there ought to be. I say it does not make good business in the port- and all the time there are two splendil docks which these vessels cannot utilize because a gap about a quarter of a mile long is not closed between this breakwater and the island. I would like to lend to the minister some of the vehemence that I and the community in general feel like expressing on this subject, so that he might use it in council

Supply-Public Works
with a view to effecting these purposes the consummation of which the whole community so strongly desires.


Murray MacLaren: What would be the estimated cost for the completion of the breakwater?


John Warwick King: The last tender we received on that work, I am informed, was $750,000.


Arthur Meighen: When was that tender? Mr. KING (Kootenay): Eight or ten years ago, I believe.


Arthur Meighen: It would be more expensive now. That is the Negro Point breakwater, intended to extend to Partridge island?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: What amount has been spent on that in the last four or five years.'


John Warwick King: This is an extension of work done, I believe, a great manj years ago. I have not before me the figures as to the cost of the original work.


Arthur Meighen: Has no money been spent on it in the last four years?


John Warwick King: Only for maintenance and repairs.


Arthur Meighen: Is the work in good shape now as far as it has gone? Is it serving as a breakwater yet, to the extent to which it has been built?


John Warwick King: The work was constructed twenty or thirty years ago. I am advised that it is in good condition.


Arthur Meighen: I would join in the appeal of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter). I visited the district, and it really appears to me that the millions that we have put there are not going to be available for service until that breakwater is completed. The breakwater is the protection of the investment, and I hope it at least will be carried on concurrently with the completion of the other work.


Murray MacLaren: Do I understand that no estimate has been made since the estimate of ten years ago?


John Warwick King: No new tenders have been called for since that time. The department has made frequent investigations and estimates, but I do not know that they are below that amount, which was the lowest tender received. Some tenders were as high as a million dollars and more.


Murray MacLaren: I thought it was customary for the department to make some estimate of its own.


John Warwick King: There is no item bearing on that, and I have not the information here.


Murray MacLaren: If that is the case, one cannot hope that the matter is being very actively looked into at the present time. I would remind the minister that several years ago there was a natural breakwater there which was removed for the purpose of the extension of the harbour facilities. The Negro Point breakwater has been only partly 9 p.m. completed, so that there has been no entire replacement of the natural breakwater that formerly existed. I am sure the minister will agree as to the reasonableness of the suggestion that the harbour should be put in as good a position as it was in years ago. We are voting $860,000 for the completion of the Courtenay bay works, but we are not providing for the completion of the breakwater which is the protection not only for these works but for the wharves and piers on the other side of the harbour I would urge upon the minister, therefore, the importance of proceeding with this work, not only for the protection of the existing government works, but also to put the harbour in as good a condition as existed previous to the taking away of the natural breakwater.


John Warwick King: I assure my hon. friend that we are not unmindful of the matter as it has been pressed by him. It is a question of finance and the ability to do work of this character at the present time. The matter is receiving serious consideration.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not want to torture the hon. minister, but earlier in the session he told me that the department was making some further investigation and that he was expecting a further report. Of course I do not know that it would be judicious to have the figures given out if a report has been made, because that might affect any future call for tenders. But if the minister has a further report, I would like to ask whether it shows any serious increase in the cost of doing the work. The condition at the port of St. John probably is of very little interest to a large part of the Dominion, and yet it ought to be of very great interest to those who do not believe that their own locality is the whole of Canada. That condition compels me to say something as to the work that has been done, and the work that is, in a sense, being wasted for want of something more

Supply-Public Works
being done. For a distance of about a quarter of a mile from the main channel of St. John harbour in towards the shore, and for a distance, I would think, of nearly half a mile along the length of the channel, mud and boulders which used to be visible at low tide have been dredged at thirty-two feet below water level. That work cost, if my memory is correct, about 90 cents a cubic yard of material removed. The soil that was removed was carried out beyond this breakwater that we are speaking of. Every tide, and there are two of them a day, brings some of that material back into the big ditch that it cost millions of dollars to make, which was excavated in order to establish wharves for ocean steamers. Two large piers were constructed. Three more, I think, could be constructed and if they were built we would have space for at least a dozen large vessels. We probably do not need all that space at the present moment; but following a course that has been pursued for many years-I am not laying this at the door of the minister alone-the country will be faced sonle time with the necessity of redredging this large area. If we bad that breakwater completed it would save the cost, to some extent, of redredging that area in the future; and I am trying to get the attention of the committee so that the minister may have reasonable support if he comes here at a later stage and says that it is good business to close that gap now, even though we cannot afford to build any more extensive wharves within the area which it protects. I am only appealing in the name of common sense and plain, decent, business economy. I believe the minister is sympathetic. I believe he is convinced of the utility of this work, but I think he fears, because of financial conditions, to put a project-even of the magnitude of perhaps a quarter of a million dollars for a beginning- before the House. I want to encourage him to do so, but I would like to evoke enough real attention and study to this problem, so that members should feel that it was no mere waste of money for the sake of pleasing a locality, but that it was a vital step in " enabling Canada as a whole to handle her traffic within her own ports and borders instead of letting it pass through the ports of a foreign country.


Mr. KELLNER:: Before the item passes I would like to ask the minister if he expects any extra ports will be needed in eastern Canada in view of the clause contained in the budget speech this afternoon.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Pardon me a moment. I do not know whether the hon. member's re-

mark was intended to be facetious,, or whether it was intended for a sneer but I am going to say that what was announced this afternoon in the budget speech was in my opinion a bigger thing than ordinary politics. It was a realization of the policy of Canada for Canadians, a thing that people with whom I have been associated have been talking of, dreaming of, and hoping for. I am glad to see that at last it is made part of the national policy of Canada, and I am prepared to back up a proposition of that kind no matter by whom, or how, or when it is introduced.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: It was the minister's opinion I asked for, Mr. Chairman.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Well, you got mine.


John Warwick King: We on this side entertain great hjpes that the tonnage and shipments coming in and going out of Canada will in the course of a few years, under the rule and regime of the Liberal party, be greatly increased not only in the ports on the Atlantic but in those on the Pacific as well.
Item agreed tc
Toronto Harbour-improvements, $250,000.


Arthur Meighen: We certa'nly should have information on this large item. We should be told what was spent last year, how far the work has progressed, if the present vote is intended to complete it, and the nature of the work still remaining to be done.


John Warwick King: This amount of $250,000 is required for the following improvements in Toronto harbour undertaken some years ago:
To complete the present contract for the construction of western breakwater	 $204,228
To complete contract for dredging at eastern
entrance	 17 415
Redecking west pier of eastern entrance.. ..	4,600
Office maintenance, salaries, etc	 18,000
Inspection, contingencies, etc	 5,757
Total amount required	 $250,000
The estimated total cost of the work authorized to be done under the present contract is $3,803,244.64. The amount which is now being voted will complete the contract.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I should like to ask the minister if he has taken into his favourable consideration the question of completing the agreement which the government has entered into with the city of Toronto. This is not a matter of favour, except as to the time when the government will implement its contract with the city. I know the minister

Supply-Public Works
is well aware how much depends on the carrying out of this agreement and I should like to know, because the time is opportune- in fact the date has long been overdue- when we can expect that agreement to be brought to a hapoy completion.


John Warwick King: The government realizes the importance of this *work, for the carrying out of which a contract was entered into with the city council and harbour board of Toronto. We are now trying to complete the scheme which has been undertaken. It is true that the work has not moved as rapidly as we could have wished but I am hoping that ultimately it will be carried through to completion.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Would the minister tell us how much the government has agreed to contribute and what amount has already been contributed?


John Warwick King: The government has spent approximately $6,500,000 and it will take $1,500,000 to complete the undertaking entered into some years ago.


Arthur Meighen: Before we leave this item, would the minister tell us what progress he has made in relation to the emergency which has arisen in Portage la Prairie? I want to draw attention to one error that the minister made in the previous discussion. He sought to chide me for having neglected to provide, while I was in office and in response, to appeals, for the correction of the error of 1908, in order that water might flow around the bend and thus take care of the sewage. I had no recollection of any appeal whatever, or of the question ever arising. Since then I have obtained from the Department of Public Works a copy of all the correspondence, and I find that my recollection is quite correct. That matter never arose at all. What was appealed for at that time was the dyking of the banks, in order that floods might be prevented. That was under consideration, and reports of engineers were made looking to the curing of the situation arising therefrom, but the matter in issue between my hon. friend and me was a wholly different matter. No appeal was made by the municipality and no appeal was made individually. I draw that fact to the attention of the minister, so that he will not fall into that error in the future, and that he will be more careful in a controversy to adhere to the issue and not to obscure it by something which has nothing to do with it. What progress has been made? He will recall that he stated to the House that it was the intention of the government to provide for
an extension of the sewerage system down to the present flow of the river, providing only that such was constructed at reasonable cost. That was the definite undertaking of the minister? His estimate then of what that would cost was $45,000 which he intended to contribute, but he made the statement very clearly twice, in answer to me, that the government's intention was to provide the extension at whatever cost it might entail; that is the money that would be required to complete it, if it were reasonably conducted. I understand that since he has made an offer wholly different from that. I do not know just what has taken place of recent date, but I hope to get a favourable report from the minister of this subject, and the time is now very close at hand when it will become a matter of increasing seriousness.


John Warwick King: In reply to my right hon. friend, I wish to state that there is. no misunderstanding. It is probably not worth while reviewing it, but in 1917 and 1918 the engineering department did request of the government that certain works should be done on the channel that, had been dug in order to prevent what has occurred. My hon. friend suggests that this is not in the correspondence. Well he probably has had more time than I have had. I understand he has had the correspondence, but the reports I had from the engineering department indicated that that was the condition at that time. In regard to the advance that was made since then, I do not think we have much to report to the House. In the previous discussion I suggested to the House that we had an estimate of $45,000. Since that time it has been revised by the engineering department, and we are advised that it can be done for $35,000, and the city of Portage la Prairie has been so advised. Within the last few days there have been tremendous floods in that area, and we are awaiting reports from them. I think the matter will be up for discussion later, when the Supplementary Estimates are before the House.


Arthur Meighen: I have read the correspondence very closely. The minister was complaining that there was no response on the part of the late government. There was no appeal to the late government and no request by anybody. What was requested was a different matter. I know the minister will recall it, if he will wait until I have made my assertion. I am aware that the minister of the time obtained a report from the engineers, in response to an appeal for dyking the river, not to any appeal with respect to the sewerage at all. The matter never came up, and
Supply-Public Works

would not come up till there was some need of it. In response to that appeal the engineer recommended that certain things be done with a view to meeting the situation, and, incidentally, in the course of that report stated that it would have the other effect as well. The weir would provide for the water flowing round the bend. That was a wholly different matter. How could he suggest that the failure to provide the weir was at the door of the late government, when the jnatter was never called to their attention? Nobody drew it to their attention. The correspondence clearly disposes of that. So much for that subject. The minister had no warrant to inject into the controversy anything in the way of a remonstrance against, the administration in relation to the bend in the river and the sewerage. Now the minister revises his estimates, but does he not see that that does not affect the issue at all, because the minister's undertaking in the House was, provided of course the city were satisfied to accept it, that the government was prepared to provide as much money as was reasonably necessary to continue that sewerage system down to where the water actually flows? Is the minister still ready to abide by that?


John Warwick King: I have had the opportunity of reading a letter addressed by my right hon. friend to the mayor of Portage la Prairie following the discussion recently on this item, and I have no doubt a similar letter will be written to-morrow to the mayor of Portage la Prairie, advising the mayor as to how he held the minister up, and how he made the minister say this and that. There is no doubt in regard to the position of the government. My hon. friend says there is no responsibility on his part, and that no representations were made. Who are the agents of the government? The Public Works engineer in that district, who did make reports, advised that a weir be put in in order that the water might go round the bend and prevent what has happened. Now I can quite understand that my right hon. friend, although a member of the government, might never have heard of that before. It is quite easy to understand that, but I claim that the agents of the government did foresee the danger at that point and recommended to the government that certain works should be undertaken.


Arthur Meighen: There was no mention of the danger whatever-not the least. The report simply stated that this would meet the request for dyking the river, and at the same time would provide a weir for turning the water
lMr. Meighen. J
round. No government in the world would propose to provide against a contingency that was never called to its attention. The minister tries to intimate to the House that I wrote an unfair letter to the mayor at Portage la Prairie. I would ask him to read that letter.


John Warwick King: I do not have it
here.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the minister should have so intimated. I merely stated the facts to the mayor, and I transmitted Hansard in order that the city would know where it stood. That was my plain duty to the council of Portage la Prairie. I recited what had taken place in no boastful tone at all. I think it is the duty of one who interests himself in this matter-and I take some interest in it, and I have some interest in it from many standpoints-to report what does result. That alone was done. I think it is the duty of the minister to state the position of the department fairly. I ask him, is he still ready to do that? I do not know that it will be of any value, but it may be. I know the city council feels that it should not be saddled with the cost of maintenance of that extra sewerage outlet, which I think is about a mile and a half, some considerable distance at all events. They feel that the government is fully responsible and should bear that cost. Is the minister prepared to abide by what I understood to be his undertaking before, which I never thought he would have varied, save by reason of the intimation that since has been given to the city council. Has the minister's undertaking been in any way varied?


Mr. LEADER:: I am sorry I was not in at the opening of this discussion, but evidently the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Meighen) is discussing matters pertaining to Portage la Prairie. About two weeks ago, while I was out of the House temporarily, word was sent to me that he was also discussing Portage la Prairie. He was finished when I got in; but on reading Hansard I noticed that he said he should apologize. I would like to accept the apology, but I am afraid he is unrepentant. As hon. members no doubt are aware, I am fully conversant with matters pertaining to Portage la Prairie. I have worked in connection with this matter; I have done all I possibly could, and I may say that the government have met our request in a favourable mood. I think they have offered to do what I believe is the square thing. They have offered to take care of the sewage system in Portage la Prairie and replace it, put it back where they found

Supply-Public Works
it. I do not think you could ask the government to do anything further than that, and I do not believe the people of Canada, much as I respect my constituents and all that, could be expected to take care of the sewage system of Portage la Prairie forever.
If the government will assume responsibility for the situation which has developed there, if they will go so far as to put the situation back as they found it, they cannot be expected to go further than that, and the citizens of Portage la Prairie would consider that they were only doing their duty in that regard. The Minister of Public Works speaks of a letter that the hon. member for Grenville sent to the Portage la Prairie Graphic.
I am responsible for handing that paper to the minister, and to show that the hon. member for Grenville is a third-rate politician. I would be glad if the minister would read that letter to the committee to-night.


Arthur Meighen: I wish to pursue the subject just a little further. If the minister will state that the undertaking is as stated by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, I am quite content. That will suit me exactly. If the government is really in the position that it is prepared to put the city as it was, from which place it was dislodged by the action of the former government, of course a Liberal government, that is quite satisfactory to me, and I am prepared to accept that wholly.


John Warwick King: This matter seems to be of very considerable interest to my right hon. friend, and it has been pursued to some extent. I am going to take occasion just now to make a reference to the hon. member who represents Portage la Prairie. He has given us valuable assistance. Last summer, during the harvest season, when he was busily engaged in his home work, he left the fields, took the train hurriedly, made a trip to Ottawa and laid this whole matter before the government or the Department of Public Works. He also brought up the question of certain river bank protection. We have had investigations made since then, and w'e have carefully followed the matter. Why my right hon. friend should want to pursue this matter to-night when the item is not under discussion, when a little later on, as he knows, Supplementary Estimates will be up, and this subject will be up for discussion, and to have me reaffirm the statement I made some two or three weeks ago, I cannot understand, except that I am advised that the mayor representing the city council of Portage la Prairie is now on his way to Ottawa, in order that he may further pursue this subject. The department's mind is made up; it
was freely expressed to my right hon. friend and to members of the committee not long ago. We have not changed our minds, and my right hon. friend, who has recently perused the files, knows from his perusal that there is a letter setting forth to the mayor of Portage la Prairie the undertaking which the government are prepared to make in that matter. Why we should be pressed to reiterate a statement to-night, I cannot for the life of me see. It may be the desire of the right hon. gentleman to make representations at this time, before the mayor who is now on his way here at the expense of the citizens of Portage la Prairie has an opportunity of making his representations.


Arthur Meighen: I knew the matter was
discussed as to the mayor coming down. I did not know that it had been decided that he should come.' I was anxious for the reaffirmation, for Only one reason as I explained, because the letter of the minister was not strictly in accord with the undertaking as I understood it. He now says that the government has not changed its mind. That is satisfactory to me, and I am glad to have an intimation that the subject is to be taken care of in the Supplementary Estimates.


Harry Leader: If I am in order I should
like to say another word.


George Newcombe Gordon: The discussion has been all out of order for the last hour.


Harry Leader: I should like to ask the
minister if he has anything more to offer the mayor and the solicitor who are coming down to Ottawa than he has already offered to the representative for Portage la Prairie?


John Warwick King: We will be very glad to hear the representations of the mayor and the solicitor of Portage la Prairie. The department are prepared to deal fairly in this matter. If the government of Canada or if the department have made a mistake, we realize that we should try to remedy it, and there should be no great worry if that is done. The disposition of the department was explained early in our dealings, and we are prepared to carry through on that basis.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-chargeable to collection of revenue-graving docks, locks and dams, etc., working expenses, etc.
Graving docks	 $145,800
Harbour and river works, etc	 61.000
Collection of public works revenues.. ..	5,000
Arthur Meighen: Where are these works?

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: The first item
deals with the Champlain graving dock and the Lome graving dock in Quebec. The Esqui-malt dock is the old dock at Esquimalt, Vancouver Island.


Arthur Meighen: That is, two docks at
Quebec and one at Vancouver Island.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: In what way is the
money being spent-for repairs, emergencies or extensions of the docks?


John Warwick King: This is for salaries, repairs, maintenance and operation.


Arthur Meighen: Why is there an increasi this year?


John Warwick King: There are three
items in connection with the Champlain docks:
Scraping and painting of two casings of gate,.. $7,200
Fire hose and reels	 5,475
Incidentals and contingencies, repairs	 1,000
In connection with the Lome graving dock this amount of $51,800 is required to provide for the staff, maintenance and repairs:
Requirement for 1923-24 compared with previous year
1922-23	1923-24
Staff		$13,975	25	$13,285	25
Materials, supplies, tools, sun-				
dries, etc., for operation and				
maintenance of dockyard, shops,				
buildings and dry-dock proper	4.892	94	4.500	00
Materials, supplies, tools sun-				
dries, etc., for the qpera-				
tion and maintenance of steam-				
hydraulic mechanical equipment	1,870	50	1.500	00Purchase of electric energy..	600	00	780	00Water service	600	00	600	00Diver's service	100	00	100	00Repair works	4^897	00	9^959	33Fire pump	3.200	00	Fire hose	1,500	00Incidentals, unforeseen and con-	t'.ngencies. r	900	00	1,000	00Rebuilding coal shed	4,168	00Repairs to rolling caisson, en-	trance gates, etc	8,200	00Total	$37,193 69	$51,847 58Say	
37,200 00	51,800 00
The expenditure on the Esquimalt dock is the same.


Arthur Meighen: I do not understand why these items should be separated from the votes for harbours and rivers of the different provinces. Doubtless they have been done before, but why is it done?	.


John Warwick King: Many of these works are revenue producers and they are kept separate on that account. This has always been done.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest that it would be much better for every purpose, while they may be kept separate by reason of their producing revenue, for them to be put under the votes for the different provinces so that we may see just how much is being devoted to these specific purposes in each part of the country,


John Warwick King: This is the usual practice, and I can see the wisdom of it. For instance, there is a vote of $7,500 for the Burlington channel bridge; that is an operating cost. In connection with French river dam the cost of operation is $3,500, but there is also a revenue account in this case. There is no revenue from the Kingston bridge which was built some years ago, but the cost of operation and maintenance is $12,000. The expenditure on St. Andrew's rapids, lock and dam, is $27,000; and there is a revenue from the Selkirk repair slip.


Robert James Manion: The costs are for caretakers, etc.?


John Warwick King: Yes, and for the operating staff.


William Findlay Maclean: Has the minister had any communication from the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario in regard to the question' of damming some of the waters of the St. Lawrence with the idea of developing waterpower on the St. Lawrence and in that way affording the commission an opportunity of developing a large amount of power which could be used for industry in eastern Ontario and in a portion of Quebec? I believe the question has been under consideration, but I do not know whether the government has been in touch with the Hydro Electric Commission or not.


John Warwick King: No proposals have been made to the Public Works department, but I understand that the matter has been before the Department of Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone lines-Prince Edward Island and Mainland, $7,000.
Arthur Meighen: Presuming that this vote is for the maintenance of the lines, can the minister give the committee information as to what revenue has been derived from them, say for last year? Evidently we spent $7,000 last year.


John Warwick King: I am sorry I have not the revenue in my notes. These are operating costs. The cost of staff and maintenance will follow closely the figures of last year.

Supply-Public Works


Arthur Meighen: What was spent last year?


John Warwick King: The total vote was expended.


Murray MacLaren: What is the difference between the government telegraph lines and the telegraph lines operated in connection with the railways?


John Warwick King: The telegraph and telephone service of the- government has been largely a pioneer service. These lines have been built to remote places that have not been attractive enough for private capital. The lines have served a very useful purpose. There is a marked difference between our telegraph lines and those of the railways. As I have said, we reach remote places whereas the railway telegraph lines serve those territories tributary to the railways. We are now trying to unload certain of this work in territories served by the railways which have recently been acquired, and there has been co-operation between the railways and the Dominion telegraph service.


Robert James Manion: What department, undertakes the collection of the revenue from these lines?


John Warwick King: The work is done by our department.


Robert James Manion: I see that the expenditure on the whole of this item No. 360 is somewhat less than it was last year. Would he tell the committee how much revenue came from the whole of these different lines of telephone?


John Warwick King: I am sorry I have not that information. In this detailed statement of expend'tures the revenue collected apparently is not taken into account. I shall be pleased to give my hon. friend that information at an early date.


Robert James Manion: Could the minister give a rough estimate?


John Warwick King: I would hesitate to do so, but I can inform my hon. friend that the service is being run at a loss.


Robert James Manion: I took it for granted. Of course, I know a great deal of this work is being done for the benefit of sections of the country which are non-revenue producing to a great extent, but it would be interesting to know in a general way if we are losing 50 per cent, 25 per cent, or what percentage on such an item.


John Warwick King: In the printed annual report of the Public Works department the required particulars will be found.


Mr. EVANS:: Between what points are these lines run in Saskatchewan that entail this expenditure?


John Warwick King: In Saskatchewan, Qu'Appelle-Onion Lake section, 63 miles; Battleford-Isle La Grosse section, 298 miles; Moose Jaw-Willow Bunch section, 212 miles, making a total ot 573 miles. The department is arranging to abandon certain lines in that area. There will be a considerable expenditure incurred in taking down the pole lines and salvaging the material, but eventually a saving of $10,000 or $12,000 a year will be effected.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Are these lines built entirely at the expense of the Dominion, or is there any contribution towards their cost by the provinces and the municipalities?


John Warwick King: I do not think there are any contributions from the provinces or the municipalities. Occasionally an individual or groups of individuals will undertake to furnish the poles or do a certain amount of labour for the convenience given by these lines. The department takes advantage of such offers, but generally speaking the expenditure is made directly by the Dominion government.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Are any extensions proposed this year?


John Warwick King: There will be some minor extensions. These will appear in the supplementary votes probably. They usually come up from year to year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This item is entirely for maintenance?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Land and cable telegraph lines, lower St. Lawrence and Maritime provinces, including working expenses of vessels required for cable service	$233,500	00Saskatchewan	
61,900	00Alberta	
113,700	00British Columbia-Mainland	
111,200	00British Columbia-Vancouver Island district. 136,900	00Yukon System (Ashcroft-Dawson)	
277,000	00
Telegraph and telephone service-generally. 10,000 00
Robert James Manion: Do these items embrace all the different telegraph and telephone lines of the government outside those used by the railways?


John Warwick King: I think so.
Supply-Public Works


Robert James Manion: Do any of the other departments-the Department of Marine and Fisheries, for instance-control lines of this kind, or are they all handled by the Public Works department?


John Warwick King: The Interior department maintain certain telephone lines in connection with their Forestry branch.


Robert James Manion: Just short local lines?


John Warwick King: Yes. The Marina department carry on radio-telegraphic work on the coast; that is distinct from the lines controlled by the Public Works department.


Robert James Manion: But there are no lines of any extent outside those handled by the Public Works department?


John Warwick King: I think not. In regard to revenue, I find in the annual report of March 31st, 1922, the total revenue was $290,131.34.


Robert James Manion: Is that for these lines we are discussing?


John Warwick King: Yes, but for the year 1922.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government-Public Works-salaries, $639,300; contingencies, $75,000.
Robert James Manion: What is the increase in this item?


John Warwick King: The increase is caused by the making permanent of 38 employees, the consequent transfer from other appropriations to civil government, and the reestablishment of a vacancy in the Telegraph branch, less 8 positions dropped, due to retirement or resignation. The statutory increases account for $13,100. There are 38 transfers from other appropriations, seven from Works salaries, sixteen from Engineering salaries, fourteen contingencies and one Ottawa building repair appropriation, making a total of $63,300. There has been a decrease due to six resignations, eight retirements, two deaths, and four transfers, three from civil government and one to civil government. The total decrease amounts to $20,115. There is a net increase of $61,265. As a matter of fact the pay-roll of the department is less this year than last.


Robert James Manion: That is including temporary and permanent employees?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Robert James Manion: I do not know what the policy in the past was, but I notice this session the same reply has been given in regard

to various other departments-that the increase in salaries is because a number of temporary employees have been made permanent. Is that a new policy, or has the government decided upon this procedure for all the departments?


John Warwick King: It had been the practice in the government service for a man who got a position to be appointed temporarily, on probation, and as time passed he either got a position in the permanent service or did not. In the blanketing-in lists recently adopted in my department there were men who had held important positions in the service for quite long periods of time. One was an engineer who had been in the service some twenty years. In the case of persons holding positions of a permanent character, doing work which is of value in the service, there has been a disposition to make them permanent. This is carrying out a policy adopted by the late government following the reclassification and rearrangement of the service It makes the estimate before us look larger, but where this item has been increased others have been reduced. The employees concerned are merely transferred from one pay roll to another.


Robert James Manion: I entirely agree that when a man has been for some years in a temporary position he might well be put on the permanent list. But has there been any systematic policy under which a man is transferred to the permanent staff after having been on the temporary list a certain length of time?


John Warwick King: No definite policy.


Robert James Manion: Was there no method by which a man would be automatically transferred to the permanent staff after having been on the temporary list, say, two or three or four years?


John Warwick King: I understand that those who were brought in by order in council were considered permanent employees; others remained on the temporary list. But since 1919, after the reclassification, there has been a disposition to place on a permanent basis persons who have been in the service many year's and are performing important duties.


Robert James Manion: I think that is a proper policy. The minister mentions the case of an engineer who had been twenty years on the temporary staff. It seems a ridiculous thing that a man like that, apparently a capable employee, should work so long and only at the end of the twentieth year be placed on the permanent list. I suggest that it would be

Supply-Public Works
worth the minister's consideration and the time of some of his colleagues to endeavour to work out some scheme whereby a person listed as temporary who had given efficient service and performed necessary duties for a given length of time should be transferred to the permanent staff.


John Warwick King: As appointments
are made now, they are given by the Commission either permanent or temporary standing; they enter the service on that definite basis. At present, therefore, there is not so much difficulty on that score.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Can the minister say how many temporary employees there still are-in other words, how many have not been transferred to the permanent staff?


John Warwick King: I have not that list here, but it has been worked out in the department. There is a very large number of employees who are not on the permanent list-caretakers, elevator attendants, firemen, engineers, and so on. Many of them work at prevailing rates. Under this vote we show thirty-eight employees as having been brought in and classed as permanent.


William F. Carroll: Thirty-eight temporary
employees?


John Warwick King: Clerical and technical temporary employees who
10 p.m. have been in the department for some years and whose services are
necessary.


William F. Carroll: What are the occasions which necessitate appointments to temporary positions in the department?


John Warwick King: Pressure of work. Years ago appointments were made to important positions and permanent standing might not be given for a considerable length of time. When extra work makes temporary appointments necessary, the commission now issues a certificate designating the appointment as temporary.


William F. Carroll: These employees, I
assume, would know that their appointment was temporary and that their services might be dispensed with at any time?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Murray MacLaren: How does the personnel compare in number with that of the previous year?


John Warwick King: There is a decrease of twenty from last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Monument on Connaught place, $10,000.
John Warwick King: When we were in committee before, this item was held up at the request of one or two members, who had some hesitancy about voting an expenditure of 810,000 in connection with the building of a national monument on Connaught place. I am rather sorry the Prime Minister is not in his seat because he would express more felicitously the desire of the government in this matter than I can. It has been felt by the government that we should erect something in the nature of a national monument in the capital city of Canada to commemorate the deeds of our men overseas, a monument of a national character such as would express the sentiment of the nation in that regard. As I say some objection was taken when the vote was brought forward but I do not think it is at all unreasonable-in view of the fact that we have undertaken the expenditure of a very large sum of money in France to erect fitting memorials to the heroism and endurance of our soldiers in the Great War-that we should ask for a small expenditure at this time in order that plans and designs might be prepared for the erection of a permanent memorial in Ottawa to indicate to the world Canada's opinion of the gallant part Canadians played in that struggle. The opinion of competent authorities will be sought in choosing a suitable design, and we are asking for the present amount in order that the work may be started and carried to a successful completion.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the present amount cover the cost of preparing plans?


John Warwick King: It is just a preliminary amount.


Murray MacLaren: I notice on the central pillar at the entrance to these buildings an inscription denoting that it has been erected in recognition, among other things, of the valour of our men who went overseas?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Murray MacLaren: It is now proposed to have a second memorial? In what respect does the present memorial fall short of its purpose?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I
might say a word as to what the government had in mind in making this proposal. In every country in the world the spirit of the nation has found some expression in regard to great events in the form of permanent monuments if the occasions have been sufficiently worthy of such recognition from the national point of view. The government felt that a
Supply-Public Works

monument should be erected in the capital of Canada expressive of the feelings of the Canadian people as a whole to the memory of those who had participated in the Great War and had lost their lives in the service of humanity. The thought was that the most appropriate centre in the capital should be chosen for such a monument. I may say, without suggesting any finality in the matter, the idea was that something in the nature of a great column erected in the triangle just opposite the post office, which is the very centre of the city of Ottawa, would be the most suitable form of monument and locality. My hon. friend (Mr. MacLaren) has referred to the column in the parliament buildings; I think he has reference to the central pillar in the main entrance. That column has an inscription on it commemorative of the services of our men in the Great War. I do not think it is intended as a national monument in any sense of the word. The same column contains a commemorative reference to confederation. Indeed, I think the pillar is more or less symbolical of our relations with the British Empire as a whole; the column arising out of a symbolical sea being representative of the British Isles and the dominions whereas the columns on each side are symbolical of the various provinces of the Dominion. I believe the architect's whole plan is more or less symbolical of these ideas. But the monument to be erected to commemorate the deeds and services of those who participated in the Great War is intended to be a national monument in the national capital. There are in many Canadian cities monuments which those cities themselves have erected; but there is, as yet, no monument of a national character in the capital of the Dominion. The government has received representations from different quarters that such a monument was rather expected on the part of the Canadian people. Even if such representations had not been received the government would have felt that having regard to the events of the past, the part which Canada took in the war, and the valour of her sons, something of the kind commemorative of their heroism, sacrifice and service, should be erected in the capital of our country.


Mr. KNOX:: W'hat is the estimate of the total cost?


John Warwick King: That will largely depend on the design that is accepted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the custom, in most cases of this kind, is to ad-
vertise the purposes in view and call for designs from architects and sculptors, leaving to a committee the choice of a suitable design and to fix the maximum of expenditure.


Andrew Knox: I should think the government would have in mind some maximum of expenditure for a monument of this kind.


John Warwick King: I would say offhand $50,000 or $75,000 but I am speaking without any knowledge of the nature of the design and what may be recommended. We must, if we decide to erect a monument, make a start. Designs having been received, it will be the duty of those who have to make the choice to make a suitable selection. Then we can come to parliament and ask for a sufficient vote to carry the proposition out.


Mr. WOODSWORTII:: It seems to me that at this time a protest ought to be made against the government going on with a work of this character and that on several grounds. First of all we should not be asked to make a preliminary grant without having some very definite idea as to the actual expenditure involved. If this $10,000 is spent on plans we shall probably have the government coming next year w-ith a very elaborate scheme and one of the pleas for a larger expenditure will be that this vote has been spent and it ought not to be spent in vain. At this time when we are trying to save money, and restricting departmental expenditures which could render necessary services and desirable to the people, I think we might very well economize on such a project as this. There are people all over this country who are struggling to meet the enormous burdens of debt that we are now carrying. We are adding, this year, we were told only this afternoon, $50,000,000 more of debt. I speak for at least one section of the people when I say that, however desirable it may be to add works of art to the capital, we ought not at this particular time, with the people burdened with debt as they are, to incur any more expense than is absolutely essential. Further than that, there are a great many of those who went overseas who are not fully provided for at the present time. This government cannot see its way to provide anything for the unemployed, and there are thousands of men who spent several years overseas who are to-day suffering and vrhose families are suffering. In connection with the proposed monument, I had a rather bitter letter sent me from a woman in the West, whom I know very well.
I think I shall read it, because it reveals the feeling, not of the few, but of hundreds of re-

Supply-Public Works
turned men and of their wives. I have hundreds of them in my own constituency, and in this regard I speak for the returned men themselves This woman, whose husband was out of work, had to put her children away for a time in order that she might work and try to keep things going. The letter reads:
May I suggest that instead of spending money on the fallen, they spend the money for the clothing, feeding and sheltering of the men who had the great misfortune to return to Canada with their lives. It is no fault of theirs if they are not among the so-called "glorious dead". Had these men returned they would be in the same category as their living comrades-in the bread line and the recipients of old clothes (by appeals in the press), doles, poverty, Hastings Park, etc. Canada has already forgotten those men who served Canada for the profiteer, and saved poverty and misery for themselves. Yes, our children will remember when they see their fathers and brothers who did come back, sick, miserable and in want. We are told there is no money to provide decent constructive work. No, but they could find money for war and for the destruction of life, but nothing to conserve life.
Thinking people are tired of this hypocritical cant about the dead, let us attend to the living. We dress up the dead with cenotaphs, etc., and we refuse the living bread.
I am not accusing the government, in attempting to erect a monument, of forgetting the living, but I do say that until there can be fuller provision made for the living, we ought to hesitate about erecting a monument in marble. One other thing which I think ought to be said is this: that in commemorating the war there ought to be the utmost care exercised as to the character ol that commemoration. No man of this generation is likely to forget the Great War. It has touched too many of our homes. We are struggling beneath an enormous national debt because of this great war. The whole world to-day is upside down to a large extent because of the war, and I for one want to protest once more that, however we may accord the utmost sympathy to the men who risked their lives and the many who gave their lives at the front, we must be very careful lest in any sense whatever we glorify war or militarism. If there is any monument erected at all, whilst it might contain some tribute to the men who gave their lives, it also ought to point out that, after all, war is, from the beginning to the end, a miserable failure. The monument ought to commemorate the failure cf the war to obtain one of the slightest things for which we went to war. In saying this I speak not merely from the standpoint of a few individuals, but for a very large section of the working class, and, in addition to that, for a large section of the people of Canada, who as a rule [DOT]do not get their opinions before the public. I feel that I could not let this opportunity 171
pass without protesting against the erection of a monument of this kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am surprised at the remarks of my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). If he assumes the government has any desire to glorify war he is entirely mistaken. There is a great difference between glorifying war and glorifying patriotism or glorifying sacrifice, the greatest patriotism and the greatest sacrifice which the country has ever known. That is what the government seeks to glorify in the monument, and what I believe the nation hopes to see glorified. When my hon. friend speaks about caring for the poor and the hungry, I think it is not unfair to remind him of a reference or two that might appropriately be made at this time. There is a saying which my hon. friend will recall, to the effect that man does not live by bread alone.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Man cannot live
very well without bread.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, and he
cannot live without the other. If it is a choice between living without bread and living without a spirit that is ready for sacrifice, I think the majority of men would prefer the spirit of sacrifice to bread. It is the spirit of heroism, the spirit of self-sacrifice, the spirit of all that is noble and great, that was exemplified in the lives of those sacrificed in the Great War, and the services rendered by the men and women who went overseas; and the nation will be dead the minute it loses that vision. It is that vision which the government wishes to keep alive in erecting a monument of this kind. Every point my hon. friend has urged might have been put forward by the Pharisee and his associates who rebuked the woman who broke the alabaster box of ointment over her Saviour. Why, they said, it was a waste. It was all thrown away. Its contents might have been sold and given to the poor. They were unable to appreciate the spirit of sacrifice and understanding that really accounts for all that is noblest and best by way of inspiration in the world. Everything in life is not to be measured by its mere utility value. There is a side of life loftier than that of the mere material satisfaction of daily physical needs. I do not think I need emphasize that point with my hon. friend. I think he appreciates it as well as any one, but what I am protesting against is his venturing to assert, in the name of labour or any group in the community, that the government should not seek to perpetuate in the minds of our own and future generations in this country the greatest service, the greatest

Supply-Public Works

sacrifice ever rendered by the nation in a cause which was the greatest the world has known in the history of human freedom.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I wish to dissociate myself, in any apparent criticism of this item, from the remarks of my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth). He has spoken of the debt which we in Canada owe. It is a large sum we all know, but we are able to pay it. We owe a debt to the soldiers who have gone overseas and made the supreme sacrifice, and this is one way in which we are able to pay part of it, and one way which I hope, we will not overlook or neglect. My only object in asking the minister for information-and I sincerely hope the item will be carried-is to ensure that the most careful and thorough investigation will be made by the government, that suitable plans will be prepared and procured that this item will not be lost sight of in the pressure of the many other items and important business of this country. I quite agree with the remarks of the Prime Minister, and I sincerely hope that we will soon have erected a monument somewhat iD keeping with the sacifice and the service which our soldiers have given overseas.


Mr. MILLAR:: I am very anxious to see eeonomy practised, but I could not oppose this motion. I believe, with the member for Centre Winnipeg, that it is wise that we should educate our people against war. Nevertheless, after they have made the sacrifices that were absolutely necessary during the recent Great War, I think it is well we should commemorate those sacrifices. With the hou. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox), I too would like very much if we could know at the present time more nearly what this monument, is going to cost, and if it would be possible to get plans without the expenditure of even the sum of $10,000. I do not know whether that is possible or not; but as has been said after $10,000 has been expended one feels, well, that we do not like to waste the $10,000, and even though the monument may cost a sum that we do not feel like expending just yet, that expenditure may be used as a leverage to go on. The necessity for money and for relief from the burden of taxation at the present time is at present very great, but I hope that, at least in a few years a monument will be erected to commemorate the great sacrifices of our soldiers at the front. As I said before, I am anxious for economy. In fact, while I have not criticized the expenditures that we have just passed at the instance of the Minister of Public Works, if I

had the opportunity of using the knife on them, I would cut out quite a goodly numbe-where expenditures are made on harbours for merely local traffic. When the case is one of through traffic, I can see the reasonableness of spending money from the Dominion treasury; but where it is only for local traffic, merely a local affiair, I cannot see any reason why it should not be left to the provinces or even to the towns and cities to construct their own harbours. As regards this appropriation if the plans cannot be secured for a less amount than that, I am willing to support it.


Robert James Manion: As regards another section of this item, the National Gallery of Canada, I notice that the expenditure has increased by 100 per cent, from $50,000 to $100,000. Can the minister explain what that increase means?


John Warwick King: That appropriation was discussed and passed some time ago.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Marcil):: These items under "Miscellaneous" are all carried except the last one.


Robert James Manion: I thought the whole item No. 168 went together.


John Warwick King: They are all passed except the last, the National monument.


Robert James Manion: I understand, however, that even when one item is left, we can discuss the others.


John Warwick King: This matter was discussed at the time, and my hon. friend will find in Hansard of that date a full explanation why the additional amount was granted.
Mr. MaeLAREN: I quite undertsand, regarding the estimate for the National monument, that the amount should be indefinite: but I think any such sum as is mentioned, $50,000 or $75,000, will not in any way provide the memorial that the Canadian people would wish to have. I would suggest to the government that if delay is not material, when a monument is erected, it should be put up in accord with the ideals of our people, and that would involve a much larger sum than the one suggested. If a monument is to be erected, as I think one should be, it should be done on somewhat of a grand style.


Mr. IRVINE:: I was very much interested in the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as regards this question.
I was also interested in what was said by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). Perhaps there is a little confusion of mind between the Prime Minister

Supply-Public Works
and the hon. member for Winnipeg. I do not suppose that the latter meant to convey any idea that he was opposed to memorializing the heroism of our Canadian soldiers. I do not think anybody is opposed to that. But this is a matter worthy of much more thought than this House is giving to it, and, perhaps, worthy of more thought than the government has given to it so far. I am just wondering if to build a heap of stone is, after all, the best way of memorializing greatness. I think we shall all be willing to concede the great courage which the Canadian soldiers manifested, and we shall be willing to erect a monument, whether in stone or in some other form, that will express in the best possible way our appreciation of that courage. But if we are seeking to express our appreciation of heroism, would it not be well if it took a little heroism to do that? Can we not find a way of expressing our appreciation of the greatness and heroism of our soldiers that will take a little heroism on the part of legislatures and of Canada? For instance, could we not memorialize them with a statute or, if necessary, more than one statute that would give a shred of reflection of the liberty for which they ched, that would be an embodiment of a shadow of the ideal for which they poured out their blood? I do not object to your building a monument that will reach to the stars, if you will, and then it would not express their greatness. But surely there is something deeper, more beautiful, of greater utility tnan that, and that could be found, perhaps, in legislation, in such an alteration of the economic system under which their brothers are spared to live, under which their children will grow %up, that will be a nobler monument than a heap of marble or of rock. So I would suggest that before we hastily decide to follow precedent, to follow the ancient countries that have built their memorials to war, we would seek if haply, we might not find a better way of expressing our appreciation of the greatness of the Canadian soldiers who died in a way that was supposed to end all wars, and who died thinking to bring liberty and peace-and all such words that we have been so fond of mouthing.
One more thought. It looks a little incongruous that we should convert into marble or rock, actual material that seems to be needed by those who happen to have been spared from the great conflict. If we are going to beautify Canada, or Ottawa, or any other city, or any part of the world for that matter, as a means of expressing our respect for our dead, it might be well to wait until we
171i
can do that without suffering, if indeed we are so pinched as a nation. That, of course, I do not believe; I do not believe in this miserable prating about economy, and I am prepared to vote against economy of the kind that we have been talking about. But seeing that the government and the people and the House think so, then let us wait until we can do this without a man standing aside and wondering at a dead soldier getting more than a living one. I should like to see a memorial built when the living soldiers can say: "We are not suffering because of that." That is all I think my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg meant to convey, and I would submit that as a thought to the government. There is no hurry. Perhaps this is not the best way of commemorating the dead; but when we do this, let us do it in the best possible way, and I do not know that this would be best expressed in a monument of rock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I doubt very much whether he or the hon. member to whom he has alluded would have the privilege of speaking in this House to-night the words of liberty which they are professing to utter, but for the sacrifices of the men whose heroism the government is seeking to commemorate in this simple way? The least the nation can do is to erect in its capital some memorial that will be worthy, in its appearance, in its symbolism, in the greatness of its noble position, structure, proportion and beauty, of the spirit that was exemplified in that great sacrifice. My hon. friend has referred to labour. Where do all the great works of art come from? They have been for the most part contributed by those who, bom amid humble surroundings through years of struggle and toil, assisted here and there by such bits of inspiration and aid as the nation could give them, have come through their art to be numbered among the country's greatest. When a nation loses what is signified by its art it loses its own spirit, and when it loses the remembrance of the sacrifices and heroism by which it has gained the liberty it enjoys, it loses all the vision that makes a people great.


William Irvine: I do not want to take up too much of the time of the committee, but I do not wish the implication of the Prime Minister to go unchallenged. There was nothing in what I said that would not express just as much gratitude to the soldiers of Canada as the Prime Minister has expressed; neither have I suggested that we should not build a monument. That is not the point.

Supply-Public Works
The question I raised was whether the proposed monument was the best form in which we could express our gratitude to the soldiers; and in the second place I wondered whether we could not undertake this work at a time when we were economically in a better position to do so. I still think that this perhaps is not the best way, and also that there are other things more necessary to be done at this time. So that in my view it would be well for us to wait a little longer in order that we might carry out in a much better way what is now intended. That is all I said and it is not necessary to throw out the suggestion that anyone is failing to appreciate the sacrifices of the Canadian soldiers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-Quebec-Terrebonne-New public building (Governor General's warrant, December 19, 1922), $26,000.
John Warwick King: During the recent unfortunate fire in this community the Dominion public building was destroyed. A desire was expressed by the citizens that the building should be immediately restored, and owing to the fact that a great many of the people in the community belong to the labouring class it was suggested that it would be of greater advantage to them if the restoration could be undertaken almost at once in order to provide labour for those who had suffered so severely from the fire. The government asked for the Governor General's warrant to undertake the work, and this vote is to confirm the warrant.


Mr. JELLIFF:: What is the character of the building?


John Warwick King: It is a post office and customs building.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the total cost of the building?


John Warwick King: About $35,000.


Arthur Meighen: I understood the minister's reason for the warrant to be that there were certain persons out of work because of the fire. I do not object to the building being restored, but what was the reason for the warrant?


John Warwick King: A public building was suddenly destroyed by fire and there was no way of providing money for its restoration except either to wait until parliament met or to ask for the Governor General's warrant The latter course was followed. My explanation I think is a fair one. The town of Terrebonne is composed largely of labouring people

and after the fire many of them who had lost their properties were in distress.


Arthur Meighen: The fire, then, extended beyond the public building?


John Warwick King: Yes, practically the whole town was burnt.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, that is different.


John Warwick King: It was felt that some measure of relief could be given by undertaking the immediate restoration of the public building.


Arthur Meighen: That explains the matter, and it seems to be the proper thing to do.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers, Ontario-Owen Sound, wharf construction-further amount required, 11,320.05.
Arthur Meighen: What is the five cents for?


John Warwick King: Tins item is to complete the payment on the final estimate of a contract amounting to $97,470. There has been paid $96,150, and the vote is to meet the balance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Elgin-alterations to breakwater-further amount required, $960.
Arthur Meighen: Does this complete the work?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: What is meant by "alterations to breakwater?"


John Warwick King: It was necessary to open up a portion of the breakwater to make a vent.


Arthur Meighen: For vessels?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sheguiandah-wharf reconstruction-further amount required, $1,300.
Arthur Meighen: How much has been spent on this reconstruction so far, and does this complete the work?


John Warwick King: This amount of $1,300 is required to complete payments on a contract for the reconstruction in cribwork of the superstructure of the wharf of Sheguiandah, which is 225 feet long, 125 feet being 20 feet wide and 100 feet being 40 feet wide, and to repaint the warehouse. The amount of the

Supply-House oj Commons
contract was $5,496.44. I find that the appropriation is so far reduced that ic will only be possible to pay at present to the extent of $4,240, leaving still to pay 8 balance of $1,256.44.


Arthur Meighen: Does this finish the work?


John Warwick King: Yes.



[Stage Direction]
Legislation-House of Commons-salaries (including H. P. Arsenault as Chief Translator-Bluebooks-at an initial salary of $3,480, from 1 April, 1923, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or amendments thereto), $236,545.
Hewitt Bostock: In explanation of this item, Mr. Chairman, I may say that the staff of translators was short of two or three men last year, and as Mr. Desaulniers, was chief of the Blue Books branch, was superannuated, the question came up of replacing him. There were several men competent for the position, but I had to make a choice which would justify itself not only on the point of professional ability, but also on the point of discipline and administration, and out of the several candidates who were mentioned the name of Mr. Arsenault seemed to me to be the one which would be best favoured by the staff because of his administrative ability and official authority. He is not a newcomer, he has been ten years on the staff. I may say that those who were competitors for the position were agreeable to his election.


Robert James Manion: Have we not divided the staff into two p&rts really, and put Mr. Arsenault in charge of one part and someone else in charge of the other?


Hewitt Bostock: We have abolished the position of assistant chief. We have appointed Mr. Arsenault as chief of the Blue Books and Mr. Paradis as chief of the Law Branch translation. They are two very important positions because the reports are read in Europe not only in France but in other countries where the French language is most familiar, and consequently we must have excellent translations.


Arthur Meighen: Why is it necessary to name the official? Does it not come under the Civil Service Act ordinarily, and is not this an appointment outside of the provisions of . the act?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes, and no. The Civil
Service Commission have an examination, of course, but all these appointments would have to come before the committee anyway, because the organization of its staff is under the purview of the House of Commons. But when the competition took place before the
Civil Service Commission there were, I think, three or four candidates, of whom two were most prominent, Mr. Arsenault and Mr. Keliher? Mr. Keliher himelf came to see me at the time and said he preferred to be in the Hansard branch where we had a vacancy. So we appointed Mr. Arsenault. But as the commission declared that Mr. Keliher should be in Mr. Arsenault's place, we had to come before the committee and word the item as it appears in the estimates.


Arthur Meighen: In view of Mr. Keliher's attitude towards the question, could not the commission have changed their nomination?


Hewitt Bostock: That is what I intended, but it was done during my absence in Europe, and I found the estimates as they are. At all events, I would have to come before the committee with the name of Mr. Arsenault in the estimates.


Arthur Meighen: I understand Mr. Keliher is quite agreeable?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes, he came to see me and said he was quite willing to go to the Hansard branch.


Arthur Meighen: Does anyone feel that he has been passed over?


Hewitt Bostock: No.


Arthur Meighen: The reason I ask is that I heard from some source, I cannot remember which at the moment, that there was some disappointment in relation to the appointment.


Hewitt Bostock: Oh, no.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses of committees, extra sessional
clerk etc	$ 77,050 00
Contingencies	
46,385	00Publishing Debates	
60,000	00Estimates of Sergeant-at-Arms	
177,442	50
Hewitt Bostock: The committee will notice quite a substantial decrease. We intend to make a further decrease this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Library of parliament-salaries, 143,660.
James Shaver Woodsworth: We have no details whatever given us with regard to the Department of the Sergeant-at-Arms.


Hewitt Bostock: I may say to the hon. gentleman that this year there is a total decrease in the expenditure of this branch of nearly $2,000, although we had to increase the number of cleaners because of the much larger area to be looked after. The committee will realize that it is quite a job to super-

Supply-House of Commons
intend this immense building, but notwithstanding the amount of work involved I am sure the committee will notice with pleasure that there has been the decrease in expenditure that I mentioned and a decrease in the staff of five.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I notice in connection with this vote one or two items that should hardly go unchallenged, especially as under them members would seem to be more or less the beneficiaries. I notice the salary of the manager of the joint restaurant is $2,520, and the maintenance of the restaurant $20,000. I cannot understand why such a large sum should be set apart for this purpose.


Charles Marcil: The details will be found on page 20.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As the restaurant is supplied with space, light, heat, furnishing and equipment of all kinds free, it should not cost the country such a large sum as this. I believe that someone has figured it out at about $100 for each person who is entitled to use the restaurant. If the charge for meals is too low, it should be increased. I cannot think we are justified before the country in putting on it a heavy account like this for what is after all simply a convenience for members.


Hewitt Bostock: The restaurant is under the direction of a joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate. It so happens that we had a meeting at the beginning of the week. This salary of the manager of the restaurant was fixed at the meeting which was held during last session. It is a committee which has been in existence since confederation, and I may say as an old member -in fact, looking around me, as the oldest member of the House-that in all my parliamentary life we have never had a restaurant which gave more satisfaction than the present one. It must be borne in mind that not only the members but their wives share in the benefits afforded by the restaurant, and that we must have a man there who is familiar with restaurant management. We are very fortunate in having Mr. George. I am sure if he were manager of the Chateau Laurier, here, or the Ritz Carlton in Montreal, or any other large hotel, he would receive a much larger salary than that which is paid to him as manager of our restaurant. I have this to say for Mr. George: he came here, I think, as a page; he has been here thirty-five or,forty years, and as we say in common parlance, he "knows the ropes." He is diligent; he is sober-naturally; he is very intelligent, and 
gives excellent service. As I have said, this increased salary has been fixed by the joint commitijee on the restaurant, comprising members of both Houses. If my horn friend will think of what is paid to managers of large hotels and even to restaurants in cities and towns, he will realize that this amount is not excessive.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not objecting
to the manager's salary in any sense whatever; I have been quite misunderstood. I see in the estimate one item for the manager's salary, $2,520; maintenance, $20,000; and, in the supplementary estimates, a further sum of $7,500. That is a total of $30,000 for the maintenance of this institution. I do not criticize the salary of the manager; I presume it is none too high. I am not criticising in any sense the service rendered by the restaurant. But it does seem to me that from the standpoint of the public at large, $30,000 is a very large sum to pay over and above the granting of a room with free light, heat and equipment. I doubt whether we are justified in asking the public to put up that $30,000, which after all, we know must be paid from the taxes of the people.


Hewitt Bostock: It must be remembered
that in the carrying on of the restaurant we must have a personnel which is not employed the whole year round, and my hon. friend knows that you cannot get servants, domestics, as cheaply to-day as you could some years ago. The food is excellent; there has been no complaint in that respect. Of course it costs a little money, but it is a matter that is in the hands of the legislators. If it is the desire to abolish the restaurant, hon. members have only to say so, but as long as we maintain it for the members, the senators and the principal employees, we must expect to have to pay something. But I made an examination of the accounts the other day, and I am pleased to be able to say that for the first time we shall be able out of the profits-because the restaurant is now a profit-making institution-to apply something in abatement of the expenditure involved in maintenance. So that if under Mr. George the restaurant continues to be well managed, I am sure my hon. friend will next year find that figure for maintenance much decreased.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Library of parliament-
Salaries	 $43,660	00
Books for the General Library, including
binding	
18,000	00Books for the Library	of	American	History	1,000	00Contingencies	
12,500	00To provide for	the	cost	of	printing	reports	1,000	00
[Stage Direction]
Supply-House of Commons
Arthur Meighen: I have no objection to the resolution carrying, but I have been impressed, as one who has now got to be a pretty old member of the House, by the fact that there is a great deal of money wasted in the library. Although I use it about as much as the average member, if not more-
I am sorry to say, not as much in recent years as formerly-I am sure there is a great deal of stuff bought for the library that I do not think anyone sees from one year's end to the other. I think it would be well to bring home to the librarians the wisdom of revising the whole purchase programme to see if economies could not be effected by curtailing some of the things for which we now vote very considerable sums. The library also is getting cluttered up, and there is scarcely room to get around. I know it has been rearranged lately and very much improved in that respect, but I would think that something should be done to
11 p.m. bring the reading matter that is in the library more in conformity with the actual needs of members of parliament. It seems to me it now spreads into too large a field and that much that is there is not worth the room it occupies.


Hewitt Bostock: The right hon. gentleman is quite right. Last year there was a meeting of the joint committee on the Library of Parliament, which is composed, as in the case of the restaurant committee, of members of both houses, and on that occasion we decided to remove to the Archives building many of the files of old papers that were accumulating in the library. I agree that a better choice of books might be made. The trouble with the library is that it is at present in a transient stage. As the right hon. gentleman knows, when the construction of this building was decided upon, plans were made to extend the library, but in view of the extra cost involved it was decided to postpone these suggested changes. The result is that many valuable books were never seen on the shelves but are stored away below the Senate lobby and in an area extending nearly up to our portion of the building. The purchase of books, reviews, encyclopaedias, etc., might be a little more judicious than it has been. The librarian of to-day, or to express myself more correctly the up-to-date librarian, differs totally from the librarian of yesterday. To-day the conduct of the library amounts to a science. The library of congress at Washington is a magnificient library. They have there probably the most elaborate organization I have seen in that regard. Over there the management of libraries has developed into a science
and in the universities lectures have been given on the art of becoming an efficient librarian. So far we have not enjoyed that advantage in Canada but our institutions of this character are developing. We now possess libraries, thanks to the munificence of Carnegie and other benefactors of humanity. For the future I believe we certainly ought to adopt the views of the right hon. gentleman and see to it that our parliamentary library is especially adapted to the needs of parliament.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I ain glad that the Speaker has called attention to the modem scientific libraries. It would appear that with the immense amount that is being spent on our library, and with the large number of books we already possess, there ought to be some better arrangement for caring for them than exists at present. I fhink anyone who knows anything about libraries will recognize there is a handicap our librarians suffer from that cannot very well be overcome. I refer to the lack of stock room. Undoubtedly that is a very great inconvenience. The books are packed into a space that is really not sufficient for more than a quarter of their number. Not only is the arrangement bad, but the structure is far from being modern. I wonder sometimes whether, until such times as we have a suitable library building, the library could not be departmentalized and certain sections of it placed in other parts of the building, making it more available than it is to-day. Further, I should like to suggest that although the librarians are kindness itself we ought to have some more modem system of indexing and cataloguing than prevails at the present time.
The hon. the Speaker has referred to the congressional library. At Washington, they have worked out a system of cataloguing and indexing that might be very well applied to our library here. The system is being adopted in many small libraries throughout the country and is proving a very great convenience to anyone wanting to consult the institution. Further than that, it would be a very great advantage to all the members if some system were adopted for filing clippings, magazine articles and legislative material dealing particularly with topics that concern us in parliament,. I remember a few years ago visiting the state library in Wisconsin where Mr. Charles McCarthy, who was rather a genius and tremendously interested in this work, had evolved a veiy valuable scheme for making available to all the members of the state legislature the information that existed

Supply-House of Commons
with regard to any subject that was likely to come before the members of the House. Although I happen to be a comparatively new member, I would respectfully suggest that the system that was worked out with regard to the legislative department of the Wisconsin state library might very well be investigated by some of our departmental heads with a view to adopting it or adapting it. with possibly some modifications, for oui use in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Senate-salaries and contingent expenses, $162,040.
Robert James Manion: I was going to suggest that as we have passed a great many items and it is now after eleven o'clock it would be a good idea to call it a day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there is any objection to this item I will agree to its consideration being delayed. However, I have looked over the items pretty carefully and I think that on the whole there is a considerable reduction in the amount. What there is in the way of increases appears to be simply increases that would be permitted by statute. I doubt whether there is any particular point in regard to the estimates that hon. members would wish to discuss before they are passed. They are adopted, I believe, pretty much as a matter of form in this House.


Arthur Meighen: Then they would not take much time to pass when they are next considered. I do not know whether any particular objection is entertained in regard to them or not, but if we get as much done every day as we have done to-day, we will not be here long.
Item stands.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.08 p.m.
Monday, May 14, 1923