1923-04-09

REPORTS PRESENTED

[Stage Direction]
General Rules and Orders of the Supreme Court.-Hon. Mr. Copp.
Eighteenth Annual Report, for the year ended December 31st, 1922, of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.-Hon. Mr. Graham.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr, Lapointe) if he can give us any information as to when the report on the investigation into the wreck of the steamer Alaskan is likely to be brought down. The investigation took place more than two months ago, and the report is not likely to be voluminous. I may point out that apart from this investigation, sufficient has been brought out in connection with the wreck of the Alaskan and three other wrecks which have unfortunately occurred since then, two of them with loss of life, to show that the representations made by myself and by many public bodies in the West are well founded, namely, that the life-saving appliances or provisions out there are not adequate. I would like to ask the minister what steps he is taking or contemplates taking to deal with this matter. Time is slipping away; the session will soon be over, and this is a very important matter to the people on the coast of British Columbia.

Imprisonment- J. H. Roberts


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The report of the Wreck Commissioner who investigated the wreck of the Alaskan has not yet been received. My information is that the stenographer who took the evidence had been ill and was unable to transcribe his notes; then, the commissioner himself has been ill. But we are informed that the report will be submitted in the course of a few days. Meanwhile, this matter has been brought to my attention on several occasions by my hon. friend himself and by various bodies in British Columbia, and I think that something should be done to improve the conditions there. I have decided, in fact, that something should be done this year, first, by establishing small wireless telephone stations in the various lighthouses so that communication may be had at any time with the life saving stations at Bamfield and Tofino. It has also been decided that the department shall have a station at Bamfield during the winter months and a ship suitable for the work which shall be equipped with all the necessary life-saving appliances and be in communication with all the lighthouses. As I have already said, we have in the Fisheries department two or three boats any one of which I think would serve the purpose.
I am glad to congratulate my hon. friend from Battleford (Mr. McConica) on his reappearance in this House.
It is also intended to place notice boards alongside the telegraph lines running along the shore to indicate the nearest place where survivors from a wreck can find food and shelter.
My hon. friend has suggested to me at various times that boats over one hundred tons register should be subject to the same inspection as boats of one hundred and fifty tons and over, and that the Shipping Act be amended accordingly. That matter is engaging the attention of the department.



PRIVILEGE-MR. SUTHERLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: As a member of the special committee to whom was referred Bill No. 15 to readjust the representation of the House of Commons, I take this the first opportunity afforded to refer to some newspaper articles which appeared on March 29 regarding this matter and referring particularly to myself. One of these articles purports to be based on a letter received from the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Hammell) wherein he states that I am the one man who is responsible for holding up the work of the

Redistribution committee. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read one paragraph from an article in the Brace-bridge Gazette of March 29, 1923, dealing with this matter, and which I want to characterize as absolutely false and without any foundation in every particular. This is what purports to have been received by the Brace-bridge Gazette from the hon. member for Muskoka:
As to Donald Sutherland, he is the one man who i* now holding up the work of the Redistribution committee. At a former meeting of the sub-committee to work out the salvation of Ontario, . Sutherland agreed to nine members for the city of Toronto, which would have meant very few changes in other parts of the province. But, at the meeting of the same sub-committee again to-day, after he had been censored by his Conservative friends, he backs up or swallows himself and now wants fifteen members for Toronto, which if they get them, will most certainly interfere with Muskoka.
As I said before, I wish to characterize that statement as absolutely false in every particular.



IMPRISONMENT OF J. H. ROBERTS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I should like to ask if the government has received a petition asking for the disallowance of special legislation which led to the imprisonment of Mr. J. H. Roberts, and what is proposed to be done with the case.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I might say to my hon. friend that I understand communications have been received asking that the matter of disallowance to which he refers be looked into, and that at the present time it is receiving the attention of the Minister of Justice.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Will the Prime Minister say that the statutes have been returned in the regular way to the government from the province of Quebec? I was not aware that they had been. Have the statutes of last session of the province of Quebec as yet been transmitted to the Department of Justice in accordance with the constitutional procedure?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think they have. I was answering the question my hon. friend asked as to whether any communications had been received asking that this matter be looked into, and I mentioned that they had.



SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day;
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is it the intention of the government to introduce

Questions
legislation this session looking to the establishment of the single transferable vote?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That matter is under consideration at the present time. Any amendment of the character which my hon. friend has just mentioned would be an amendment to the Dominion Elections Act. There will be a number of amendments possibly to that act which the govenment will wish to present to the House for consideration, but whether it would be wise to bring them down at the present session will depend upon the progress we make now and in the next month 6? two.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 34, an act respecting the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation.-Mr. White.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 92 (from the Senate), for the relief of Emily Margery Chrimes.-Mr. McQuarrie.
Bill No. 93 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lyle Johnson-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 94 (from the Senate), for the relief of Annie Belle Wilson.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 95 (from the Senate), for the relief of Henry John Burden.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 96 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ethel Olmsted.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 97 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edward Lewis Britton.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 98 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ruby Minnie Stallworthy.-Mr. Porter.
Bill No. 99 (from the Senate), for the relief of Christopher Campkin.-Mr. Maybee.
Bill No 100 (from the Senate), for the relief of Andrew George Suffel.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 101 (from the Senate), for the relief of Joseph Ross Wallace.-Mr. Church.

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

Mr. BENOIT:: 1.	Was Mr. W. N. Tilley, ICC., of Toronto, retained by the government to conduct different cases on behalf of the government, between the years 1911-1921?
2.	Is it true that the said Mr. W. N. Tilley has represented the government in the arbitration of the C.N.R. stock?
3.	Is it tiue that the said W. N. Tilley has represented the government in the case of Sir Charles Ross against the government?
4.	What amounts of money have been paid by the government to the said W. N. Tilley from the year 1911 to 1921, inclusively?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of Justice-
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	$1,000.00.
Department of Labour-
1,	2, & 3. No information.
4.
Services and expenses as mem-Fiscal year	ber of Conciliation
1913-14... Services and expenses a3 member of Conciliation Board, Canadian Pacific Railway Company and Maintenance of Way Employees	$100 00
1917-	18... Services and expenses as
member of Conciliation Board, Canadian Pacific Railway Company and Railroad Telegraphers.. 140 00
1918-	19... Services and expenses as
member of Conciliation Board, Canadian Pacific Railway Company and Commercial Telegraph-
Total	$524 33
Department of the Secretary of State-
1.	Yes. One case.
2 & 3. No. information.
4. $750.


DOCKAGES ON GRAIN
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What was the total amount of dockages on all grain received at Port Arthur and Fort William by regular public terminal elevators for calendar year 1922 and for crop year ending August 31st, 1922?
2. What was the weekly average price paid the producer for dockages from public terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur from 1st September to 31st December, 1922?
3.	What was the total amount of dockages on all grain received at Fort William by the government elevator for calendar year 1922, and for crop year ending August 31st, 1922?
4. What were the weekly average prices paid the producer for dockages from government elevator, Fort William, from 1st September to 31st December, 1922?
5.	What was the total amount of revenue received by the government elevator at Fort William for screenings for crop year 1922?
6.	What is the information as applied to public terminal elevators and the government elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur:-(a) Total amount of wheat scalpings shipped from same; (b) Total amount of oats scalpings shipped from same; (c) Total amount of second recleaned scalpings shipped from same; (d) Total amount of elevator scalpings shipped from same; (e) Total amount of elevator
Questions

screenings shipped from same; (f) Total amount of second recleaned scalpings received in crop 1922 at regular terminal elevators; (g) Total amount of elevator screenings received in crop 1922 at regular terminal elevators; (h) total amount of oats scalpings received in crop 1922 at regular terminal elevators; (i) Total amount of wheat scalpings received in crop 1922 at regular terminal elevators; (j) Total amount of elevator scalpings received in crop 1922 at regular terminal elevators ?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Crop year 1921-22, 71,861 tons; calendar year 1922, 101,204 tons.
2.	The board has no record as to the average price paid to the producer for dockages.
3.	Crop year 1921-22, 5,643 tons; calendar year 1922, 7,200 tons.
4.	September 1-7, 75 cents; 8-15, 75 cents; 16-23, 65 cents; 24-30, 50 cents, October 1-7, 75 cents; 8-15, 75 cents; 16-23, 75 cents; 24-31, $1.00. November 1-7, $1.00; 8-15 $1.56; 16-23, $2.50; 24-31, $3. December 1-7, $2; 8-15, $2; 16-23, $4; 24-31, $4.
5.	Gross revenue, $21,877.50.
6.	(a) & (b) The board is unable to furnish the amount of wheat or oat scalpings shipped or received as they are included in the records of the board as elevator scalpings. In consequence no separate record is available showing the composition or quantities of either wheat or oat scalpings handled by terminal elevators.
(c)	Shipments of standard recleaned screenings crop year 1921-22.
From public terminal elevators, 3,705 tons; from government elevator, 633 tons.
(d)	From public terminal elevators, 7,309 tons; from government elevator, 740 tons.
(e)	From public terminal elevators, 44,062 tons; from government elevator, 3,760 tons.
(f)	Receipts of standard recleaned screenings from western points in cars as such, crop year 1921-22, 59 tons.
(g)	Receipts of elevator screenings, from western points in cars as such, crop year 192122, 3,349 tons.
(h)	& (i) The board is unable to furnish the amount of wheat or oat scalpings shipped or received as they are included in the records of the board as elevajtor scalpings.
(j) Receipts of elevator scalpings from western points in cars as such, crop year 192122, 2,049 tons.


TRUSTS AND COMBINES
Mr. CHURCH:: How many inquiries or prosecutions were there in Canada from 1905 to 1922 against trusts, and combines and combinations in restraint of trade by the government of Canada and with what results?


Arthur Bliss Copp: (a)	Action has been taken in one case, namely, that relating to the United Shoe Machinery Company of Canada. In this case a board of investigation was, on the order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Cannon, a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Province of Quebec, established on February 25, 1911, under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. The inquiry took place in due course and the findings of the Board of Investigation were received on October 21, 1912, the findings declaring the United Shoe Machinery Company to be a combine within the meaning of the Combines Investigation Act.
(b)	The United Shoe Machinery Company, in a communication addressed to the Honourable T. W. Crothers, then Minister of Labour, under date of August 21, 1913, reported that, to meet the situation created by the findings of the Combines Investigation Board, the company had changed its form of lease, and the evil alleged by the Combines Investigation Board.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- WESTERN TERMINI
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	Was it decided at any meeting of the Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railway that Brockville and Cochrane should be the western termini of the maritime region or division of the Canadian National Railway? If so, when was such meeting held?
2.	Did said board at any other time change such western termini to Montreal? If so, when?
3.	Did the said board at any other time change such terminus to Riviere du Loup?
4.	When were each of said meetings held and who were present and acting at each of such meetings?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: The reasons for the selection of Riviere du Loup as the western terminus of the maritime division of the Canadian National Railways have already been brought down. It is not considered to be in the interest of the successful management of the National Railways to make public the proceedings of the board.


YUKON TELEGRAPH SYSTEM
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	What was the cost of maintaining Yukon telegraph system within Yukon territory, from and including Whitehorse north to and including Forty Mile, Yukon territory, during the year ending March 31, 1922, including salaries and all expenses but not including the superintendent's office at Vancouver, British Columbia, or any expense in connection therewith, or of any office or part of the line south of Whitehorse, Yukon territory ?
2.	What was the cost of maintaining Yukon telegraph system, main line only, from Ashcroft, British Columbia, to Whitehorse, Yukon territory, during the same period ?

Questions
3. What was the cost of maintaining Yukon telegraph system, main line only, from Vancouver, British Columbia, to Ashcroft, British Columbia, including superintendent's office at Vancouver and all expenses on that section during the same period?
4. What was the cost of maintaining each branch line from Yukon telegraph main line, including branch lines from Hazelton to Prince Rupert, British Columbia, Port Simpson and Port Essington, British Columbia, from Quesnel, to Barkerville, British Columbia, from Williams Lake to Quesnel Forks, British Columbia, from Williams Lake to Bella Coola, British Columbia, from the main line in British Columbia to Lillooet, British Columbia, and of each other branch line, if any, included in the system referred to by the government as Yukon system, during the same period?
5.	What was the cost of maintaining Yukon telegraph system from the point at which it intersects the telegraph line of Grand Trunk Pacific at or near Fort Fraser, British Columbia, and parallels said Grand Trunk Pacific line to Prince Rupert, British Columbia, during the same period?
6.	What was the total cost of maintaining Yukon telegraph system outside the boundaries of Yukon territory, including main line and all branch lines and offices included in that system outside of Yukon territory, during the same period?
7.	What is the length in miles of Yukon telegraph system, main line only, from Vancouver, British Columbia, to Forty Mile, Yukon territory?
8.	What is the length in miles of Yukon telegraph system, main line, from Whitehorse, Yukon territory, to Forty Mile, Yukon territory?
9.	What is the length in miles of each branch line from said main line, naming them?
10.	What distance in miles does Yukon telegraph system parallel the Grand Trunk line from at or near Fort Fraser, British Columbia, to Prince Rupert, British Columbia?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	S40.599.83.
2.	$128,027.57.
3.	$14,560.23.
4.	and 9.
Mainten-Miles	ance
Ashcroft-Highland Valley, B.C.	28
Ashcroft-McKennais, B.C		13
Asheroft-Savona, B.C	33	89.12Ashcroft-Lilloet, B.C	
60	2,924.89Lillooet-Lytton, B.C	49	430.00Lillooet-Bridge River, B.C..	72	13.41Clinton-Gang Ranch, B.C....	57	637.66
100 Mile House-Canim Lake,
B.C	 23
150 Mile House-Bella Coola,
B.C	 362	7,366.37
150 Mile House-Quesnel Forks,
B.C	'	
66	251.62Quesnel-Barkerville, B.C.. ..	59	1,593.55Vanderhoof, B.C	
12	992.23Stuart lake, B.C	_ 41	83.50
Burns Lake-Francois lake-
Ootsa, B.C	 573	84.62
North Bulkley-Ootsa lake,
B.C		24	50.29
New Hazelton-Skeena Crsn'g,
B.C	 19
	Miles	Mainten- ance
New Hazeltoii-Silver Standard, B.C		8	
Queen Charlotte line, B.C.	113	9,896.45Hazelton-Prince Rupert, B.C.	189|	34,770.30Prince Rupert-Port Simpson, B.C	30	1,190.29Prince Rupert-Digby Island, B.C	4	Terraee-Stewart, B.C	171	19,097.1CTagish-Carcross, Y.T	25	1,653.1CHootalinqua-Livingston creek, Y.T	35	6.71
l,551i $81,131.66
5.	$47,135.93.
6.	$223,719.46.
7.	1,737 miles from Ashcroft to Forty Mile; The line from Vancouver to Ashcroft is owned by the C.P.R. Telegraphs.
8.	511 miles.
10. 1594 miles.


NEW ELEVATOR, MONTREAL
Mr. BOYS:: 1.	Are the harbour commissioners of Montreal calling for tenders for a new grain elevator to be erected in the vicinity of Tarte pier, Montreal?
2.	If so, will tenders of all companies operating under Dominion or provincial charters receive consideration?
3.	Is there any truth in the report that tenders which may be received from companies with headquarters outside of Montreal will not be considered?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TORONTO OFFICES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is there any truth in the announcement made by Director Gough of the Canadian National Railway and by J. E. Dalrymple, vice-president, in Toronto evening papers, Friday, March 23rd, that the Canadian National Railways is to erect the largest skyscraper in the British Empire on the corner of King and Yonge streets, Toronto, for regional headquarters, and have the National Railways under the existing legislation the power to erect such a building without the consent of parliament and by what statute?
2.	What will be the cost of said building, how will the money be provided, and will parliament have to pass on the money for this item?
3.	Is it intended that the building of this skyscraper shall have priority and take precedence over the contract the city has with the government for the building of the following long delayed essentials and the carrying out of the contracts herein, viz.:-
(a)	A post office,
(b)	A customs house,
(c)	Completion of the new Union Railway Station,
(d)	The viaduct,
(e)	Harbour improvement?
Questions

4.	Why are the Canadian National Railways expropriating this property when private ownership was ready to build a similar building on this site, and was not the new Union Station erected for this required accommodation if at present needed at all, and is not the new station the logical site for headquarters?
5.	Is the erection of said building not a violation of the station and viaduct agreement, 1913, by which headquarters were to be in the new depot?
6.	Who recommended this construction to the government, and why?
' Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:	.
1.	If such a statement were made in Toronto, it was without authority. The property has been expropriated largely for ticket office purposes and to protect the interests of the Canadian National Railways in its uptown location. An amicable arrangement in the matter has been reached with the owners.
2.	Plans for the utilization of the property have not yet been decided upon. When they ire, whatever requisite authority is required will be obtained.
3.	The necessity to protect the railways' interests uptown does not interfere with any other public improvement required at Toronto.
4.	The lease of the Grand Trunk for the location in question was expiring, and no other suitable site was available.
5.	No violation of said agreement is involved.
6.	The Railway Management recommended the expropriation for the purpose already referred to.


DRY DOCK, PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. LADNER:: 1.	What is the tonnage capacity of the dry dock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, or the Canadian National Railway, at Prince Rupert, British Columbia, for vessels?
2.	What is the total investment in the said dry dock?
3.	How many main sections comprise the complete dry dock ?
4.	How many of such section, or sections, of dry dock are used at present, and what class of vessels, and how many of such vessels, have been repaired in the dry dock during the year 1922, and up to the end of March, 1923?
5.	What is the tonnage of the largest vessel repaired in said dry dock between the 1st of June, 1922, and the 28th February, 1923?
0. Would the government, or the Canadian National Railway, be willing to move a portion of such dry dock to Vancouver under reasonable terms and conditions?
7.	Is the government, or the Canadian National Railway, or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, or whoever has the legal authority in that behalf, willing, under reasonable terms, to lease certain sections of said dry dock as are capable of being moved to Vancouver, in order to provide dry dock facilities for the vessels entering and leaving Vancouver?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	20,000 tons.
2.	$2,940,000.
3.	Three.
4.	All sections have been used from time
to time and all classes of vessels up to 17,600 tons displacement. During the year 1922, dockings totalled 182, and from beginning of January to end of March, 1923, total dockings 37, mostly small vessels.	%
5.	8,000 tons D.W.
6	and 7. So far as the government is aware the question of moving any part of the Prince Rupert drydock has not been considered.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, orders in council, and all other documents, relating to the lifting of the steel on portions of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern railway between Edmonton and the western boundary of the province of Alberta.



SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE BONUS

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King that the House go into Committee of Supply :
Mr. SHAW:: Before this motion is put, I wish to say that I have just received a copy of the Supplementary Estimates, indicating that it is proposed to vote a sum of $5,500,000 to cover provisional bonus allowances for the inside and outside Civil Service. I take this opportunity of indicating the difficulties from which many civil servants suffered last year owing to the fact that this bonus was not voted until, I think, the month of June. The civil servants consequently found it necessary to get along without that bonus, which many of them needed, until the vote was passed by parliament. I simply rise to call the attention of the government to the necessity of having this matter disposed of as early as possible in order that there may be no interregnum whatsoever in the payment of the bonus allowance to civil servants this year.



SUPPLY-GRATUITIES TO GRAND TRUNK OFFICIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King that the House go into Committee of Supply:
['Consideration is given to those figures, I understand, in compiling the analysis.\nProgress reported.']
Arthur Meighen: I may as well take this opportunity as any other to call attention to an official statement that I see

1GC5
Gratuities-G.T.R. Officials
in the press, authorized by the government, I believe by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the effect that a royal commission has been appointed, presumably under the Inquiries Act, to make inquiry into certain payments made by the former Board of Directors of the Grand Trunk in London, England, by way of gratuities, first of all to themselves, and secondly to others of their officers who still continue in their employment. I wish to ask: Is it the fact that a royal commission is to inquire into this matter? If so, what is there that is dark or misunderstood about it? In a word, what is there that is not known? What is the phase of it that still needs the light? Is it contemplated that this royal commission will proceed to England and have a trip over that portion of the world, and after they get there, how are they to be given such powers as will enable inquiry in England? In short, what is the general purview and what is the specific purpose of this inquiry? Anent this, it would be interesting to know who are in line for these positions, and how many? What is the proposed remuneration, besides the trip?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Acting Minister of Railways) :My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has soared into the realm of unknowable details. I am not giving any new information to the House when I say that when the fact became known that certain grants were made by the London Board of Directors to their own members as well as to officials of the Grand Trunk, it caused considerable uneasiness throughout the country as to just how far these grants went, whaat authority there was for making the grants, and if other grants were made the details of which have not yet become known. I want to make it clear that the suggestion of a royal commission, is no reflection on any person, but the conditions surrounding the making of these grants ought to be made quite clear to the public in Canada who now own the property out of which, at least, a proportion of these grants came, as the assets of the Grand Trunk Railway Company were less when they came into the possession of the Dominion of Canada than they would have been had these grants not been made, without casting a reflection on any person, but merely with a desire to get at the real situation, so that the Canadian National Railway may be started on its career from now on without any cloud or suspicion hanging over it in regard to any of these transactions, the government thought it advisable to ask some independent body or person to act as a royal commission, to get the
facts as briefly and succinctly as could be done, so that they might be given to the public.
A letter was written if I remember correctly-and I am speaking from memory now -in October, 1919, by a legal representative of the government of that date in reference to a proposed agreement for taking over the Grand Trunk Railway. That agreement, although its provisions I believe were outlined in this letter, was not executed and did not become operative till the following March. There was one clause in that agreement, if I am correctly informed, which stated that after the execution of the agreement the Grand Trunk could not dispose of any of its assets without the consent of the government of Canada. In December, 1919, midway between the letter of October and the bringing into operation of the agreement, the board of directors met and passed a resolution giving gratuities to certain officers.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: May I ask, was the resolution made public at that time?


George Perry Graham: I do not think so. It was made public a few days ago, as far as I know. In addition to that, that money was taken out of the fund set aside for fire insurance purposes. True, that fire insurance fund belonged to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, but it never was set aside for the purpose of giving gratuities, and the public would like to have cleared up the details surrounding the decision in regard, not so much to the giving of the gratuities, as to taking them out of the fire insurance fund which had been set apart for other purposes; because to the extent that these gratuities were taken out of the fire insurance fund, that fund was reduced when the Grand Trunk system came to the Dominion of Canada.
Then a resolution was passed by the board of directors, giving themselves a gratuity of five years' salary on account of the disappearance of the Grand Trunk and, consequently, the disappearance of the board of directors. I might say, in justice to the board of directors, first, that I believe that, under the Railway Act of Great Britain, gratuities of that kind are given to directors under similar conditions, and that, while the company may not have been chartered under that act, yet they were living in the shadow of it, and this resolution would be passed under conditions similar to those * existing in Great Britain.
But in addition to that, it is said in the resolution that these funds payable to the directors came out of another fund, contributed by the holders of the guaranteed se-
166G
Gratuities-G.T.R. Officials

curities, debentures and stock of the Grand Trunk. The holders of these securities are the men who have value, or to put the matter plainly, who do not lose by the transference of the Grand Trunk to the Dominion of Canada or to the Canadian National Railways. Just why a resolution of the board of directors ought to be necessary to dispose of privately contributed funds is a question that ought to be cleared up. I want to be fair to every person, and this might be the situation As I understand the matter, the holders of these securities contributed certain funds for the purpose of protecting their interests or the interests of the shareholders before the board of arbitration, and this fund may have been so contributed that the board of directors had the power to use it even for the purpose of giving themselves the five-year gratuities. Everything that has taken place may be perfectly explainable; but there are surrounding the payments of these gratuities to officers in Canada, conditions which, to my mind, make it essential, in order that the people of this country who now own these properties may have the utmost confidence in them, that this should be cleared up.
One thing which has come to my attention is this. These funds were paid out of the fire insurance fund; but when the officials signed the receipts for their gratuities, they found that those receipts stated distinctly that the contributions were gifts from the shareholders to them for long and contiued service. There are as regards the vouchers which were originally presented, details which, I think, require a good deal of investigation, and it would be in the interest of the public that some independent body-the government suggests a royal commission-should be named to make this investigation and to give to the people of Canada who own this property, a clean slate as to what has occurred, so that we shall all know through what vicissitudes our property has come before it has reached us. I think this is fair to the officials, fair to the British board as well as fair to the various Canadian boards.
I need not go into details. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has asked me who was in line for the position of commissioner. If we take the men who are able, the line would be long; but up to the present time the personnel of the commission has been a secondary matter. Our sole purpose is to clear the air of whatever clouds may surround the transference of the Grand Trunk to the Dominion of Canada, and we believe it is in the public interest that this should be done. It may be necessary to have one commissioner; it may be necessary to have more. The

government has not even discussed the question of the personnel of the commission. My right hon. friend has asked:	Shall he or
they have power to go to England? If it be found in the early stages of the investigation in Canada that it is in the interest of the public that the commissioner or commissioners should go to England, he or they should have the power to do so in order that the people of Canada may have the fullest information as regards this the greatest undertaking which the Canadian people have ever had on their hands.
The government had first thought of a Parliamentary committee; but they are unanimously of opinion that owing to' the lateness of the session and the peculiar conditions surrounding this tranfer, the interests of the public would be better and more speedily served by having a royal commission.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Can the minister tell us why this matter has been covered up, so to speak, since 1919, over three years? Is it that it was left to a member of the Farmers' party to bring this thing to light? I am sure it would be appreciated by the members of this party and the people of the country if the minister could give us some light on that point.


George Perry Graham: If I might be permitted, I am not sure that the Farmers' party has brought much light to the subject. The light was forced upon it. The question that was asked was whether the gratuities were given in perfect order to Mr. Hanna and Mr. Mitchell; but having just received other information, I thought it was wise that parliament should have that also. I am glad my hon. friend brought this matter up. As regards Mr. Hanna, it is well known that it is the custom of large railway corporations to give gratuities or superannuations to old and tried employees. The House will pardon me if I point out that the situation in Mr. Hanna's Case was delicate, and that Mr. Hanna coincided and fell in line with what was done as explained to him by the late Minister of Railways. Let me say this on behalf of Mr. Hanna. Mr. Hanna was not retired because he is not an able man. The government thought-and I am free to confess that as the days and weeks and months have gone on that the judgment was sound-that it would be next to impossible, for reasons that I need not explain, to amalgamate these two great systems with the head of either one at the head of the amalgamated system. I can assure the House that the difficulties that have arisen day by bay in welding together

Gratuities-G.T.R. Officials
these two systems with the official staff of each, have convinced me that, it would have been practically impossible to have done this with the head of either one of the separate systems at the head of the amalgamated system. Mr. Hanna, understanding the situation, sent in his resignation.


Arthur Meighen: I have not the right to speak again, so I shall have to put this in the form of'a question.


George Perry Graham: I do not know that I have the right either.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister wish to intimate to the House that Mr. Hanna acquiesced in the resignation; that it was not a virtual dismissal of Mr. Hanna? If so, will the minister undertake to bring down the correspondence in connection with Mr. Hanna's resignation?


George Perry Graham: Any correspondence that is public, parliament has a right to have at any time it wants it. I do not know whether there was any correspondence.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, there was.


George Perry Graham: I am speaking only from what I know. If the leader of the Opposition has other information, he can give it to the House.


Arthur Meighen: I have none that the minister has not.


George Perry Graham: I am speaking from the facts as I understand them. Mr. Hanna resigned, and Mr. Hanna, from that day to this, has acted in connection with the Canadian National Railways, as a man who is interested in the success of that system. There was no superannuation in the old Canadian Northern. Had Mr. Hanna and Mr. Mitchell retired without some consideration, they would therefore have had no benefit of any superannuation. For the benefit, however, of the railway men, something of that kind will be established before very long. It will be remembered that the late Minister or Railways himself, in speaking in this House last year, informed the members of parliament and the country that when any of these old and tried officials were retired, they would have the benefit of superannuation. I imagine he had in mind at that time, not exactly superannuation, but that they would be treated generously. There is nothing secret about the gratuities handed to Mr. Hanna and Mr. Mitchell. This was done publicly, wide open. The late board of directors did not act in any underhand way in connection with this
matter. When they decided to do this, I knew they were going to do it, and I informed the government. So the circumstances are altogether different, and I am prepared to say that the gratuities given to Mr. Hanna and Mr. Mitchell, under all the circumstances, were not more than those to which they were entitled. The country from a practical standpoint is the gainer instead of the loser by the generous treatment accorded these two officials, as any hon. gentleman would admit had he been in the Railway department or been associated with the railway amalgamation during the last six months.
As regards the question asked by my hon, friend, as to why the matter of the othei gratituties was kept hidden, I do not know that there has been any effort to conceal it. The facts are in the minutes of the old Grand Trunk Company, although as a matter of fact they did not come to the notice of the department until a few weeks ago. They are, however, recorded in the minutes of the old Grand Trunk Company in London, and it may be that the board of arbitration took recognizance of these gratuities and other expenditures when making the award. That being the case, it is all the more necessary that we should have an independent commissioner or body of commissioners to place all the facts before us so that the air may be cleared and we may start the new year knowing just where we are at.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the reference /which will be made to the commission include the letter published a day or two ago by certain officials who did receive gratuities of this kind from the Grand Trunk and who are now in the service of the National Railways?


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Certain gratuities were
given by the Grand Trunk directors to employees who are still in the service of the Canadian National Railways. Are these men going to be allowed to keep these gratuities, or will there be a refund of the amounts paid to them? Will they be told whether it is right or wrong for them to keep the money seeing that they have not lost their positions? What is going to be done in the matter?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has not
seen the morning papers.


James Dew Chaplin: We do not always believe what is in the morning papers.


George Perry Graham: That may be wise.


James Dew Chaplin: We would sooner have a
statement from the minister.

Gratuities-G.T.R. Ojjicials


George Perry Graham: Those gentlemen who were given these gratuities under the impression that they were a gift from the shareholders for services they had rendered, when they discovered the peculiar conditions under which the money was given and the source from which the funds had come, informed the president of the Canadian National Railways that they would refund every cent they had received. That is a brief answer but I think it is a complete statement of the case.


William Findlay Maclean: I wanted to know whether the letter written a few days ago would be referred to the commission.


George Perry Graham: Everything in connection
with the gratuities will be placed before the commission.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have allowed these various questions, on the assumption that there was no objection on the part of the House, because the matter is one of considerable importance. But I must remind hon. members that this free discussion is irregular as the House is not yet in committee. There is a motion before the Chair, and hon. members will have an opportunity to discuss the subject fully when the Hopse is in Committee of Supply.


Arthur Meighen: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that everything has been regular until this moment, for I admit that my rising now is out of order. I would ask that no objection be raised to my speaking on the subject at this stage; otherwise I should not have the right to proceed. I have only one word to say. My own view of the action of the board I have already made public. I consider the action of the old Grand Trunk Board as wholly indefensible from every standpoint. It was the taking advantage of an interregnum, which could not be avoided, between the date as of which the valuation was to be made and -the date of the government's possession, and that advantage was taken for the benefit of themselves and of those of their staff to whom they wished to proffer favour, and at the ultimate expense of the people of this country, for whom they were not trustees. While it may be that some thought was given to the fact of the gratuity by the board of arbitration, I am of the opinion that, as the date as of which the value was to be fixed was prior to the grant, the board was not legally competent to take into account the facts of the grant. That makes all the more reprehensible the conduct of the board of directors. But that done, I do not see what there is to inquire into beyond possibly some legal phase which the Justice department is amply competent to deal with. I do not myself know

whether the government can have any doubts as to the legality of the grants, but if it has such doubts the Justice department can deal with the matter. There is nothing in the world mysterious about it. The facts are all in the government's possession. The company is in the government's possession, and the records, the minutes and every-
4 p.m. thing else are all there. There is nothing in the way of fact that remains disputed or that would remain disputed if looked into by an officer of the Justice department, without any powers under the Inquiries Act at all. So much for that. Now, if the government is doubtful as to whether or not someone else got money that is not yet revealed, that will all appear from the auditor's report which is in the government's possession. For the life of me, therefore, I see no reason for a royal commission, except the reason that is only too often in evidence, namely, for the benefit of the royal commission rather than of the country.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
Labour-salaries, contingencies, $277,235.
Arthur Meighen: From what I can glean from the estimates, the Minister of Labour has been called upon to so contract, if not to demolish his department, as to make up for the extravagance of many of the others. In the process, though, it appears he is going to remove-according to report-his deputy minister, and put him in the position of King's Printer, a position for which I suppose he knows as little as anjr living man and in respect of which he has had no experience at all. He has had, I should say from memory, about fifteen years' experience as Deputy Minister of Labour. He is to go in, as I understand it-if I am wrong I hope the minister will correct me-over the present Director of Printing, who is by trade and by experience, a qualified printing man, making two directors of printing at salaries of about $6,000 and about $5,000 respectively. I presume the minister contemplates then bringing someone else in as Deputy Minister of Labour. Is that information correct, and if not, what is the minister's intention as to changing the personnel of his department and of the Printing bureau?


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: The Deputy Minister of Labour for some years past, having been appointed as such by the late government, has been King's Printer.

Supply-Labour-Printing


Arthur Meighen: The Deputy Minister of Labour was appointed by the Laurier government not by the late government. Recently the duties of King's Printer were added to his duties.


James Murdock: My right hon. friend misunderstood me. I will repeat: The Deputy Minister of Labour has been for some time the King's Printer. He was appointed by the late government as King's Printer, and he has since been nominally filling the position, so far as the statute requires.


Arthur Meighen: The minister knows that the position is only nominal; in fact he himself used the word "nominal." The real head of the Printing bureau has been Mr. Draper.


James Murdock: The word "nominal" applies more specifically to the question of salary. Mr. Acland has received no salary as King's Printer. There is now a proposal before the committee in the civil government estimates of the Printing bureau to have the King's Printer paid a salary. As to who is to be deputy minister and who is to be King's Printer, that matter has not been decided. What my right hon. friend has seen in the press is largely, if not entirely, supposition.


Arthur Meighen: But something must bo intended, because heretofore the organization has been this: The late government abolished the separate position of King's Printer and the separate salary for it, but as the statute provided for a King's Printer, the Deputy Minister of Labour was nominated as such. He had, of course, only the one salary, $6,000. Mr. Acland has been Deputy Minister of Labour since some time in the regime of the Laurier administration. Mr. Draper was the active head of the Printing bureau, with the title of Director of Printing. Now the minister proposes to give a salary to the King's Printer. He certainly does not intend that the present Deputy Minister of Labour shall draw two salaries. Is he going to make somebody else King's Printer, and if so how does he justify providing an additional salary of $6,000 when the work is being satisfactorily done under the present arrangement? If he intends to have that as the salary of Mr. Acland, then he should tell us, so that we may know what he purposes doing. Does he intend to bring in some new man to take the post of Deputy Minister of Labour?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend why, if Mr. Draper was the head of the department, his government did not make him King's Printer? Why did they make Mr. Acland King's Printer?
106J


Arthur Meighen: Well, we saved some money by it, and I think that should be quite sufficient. We would have had to give him $6,000 if we made him King's Printer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was that the reason?


Arthur Meighen: I am not aware that there was any other. Senator Roberston was Minister of Labour; he would know. Anyway, the work has been done all right under that arrangement. It is now proposed to add another $6,000 to the expenditure. What is the reason and what is the intention to justify that?


James Murdock: As to the saving suggested by my right hon. friend, he will admit that there was an additional expenditure of something like $8,400 or $9,000 a year for an editorial committee, the functions of which should normally and consistently be carried out by the King's Printer. I was sorry indeed to hear my right hon. friend suggest a lack of experience on the part of the-Deputy Minister of Labour. Does my right hon. friend not know that the Deputy Minister of Labour has had an experience of thirty years as a printer, as well as in editorial and publishing work? Does he not know that the deputy minister came to the department a number of years ago with a splendid experience in these capacities?


Mr MEIGHEN:: As a printer?


James Murdock: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Is the minister sure of that?


James Murdock: Yes. I am quite sure of it.


Arthur Meighen: He has been an editor; I never knew he was a printer.


James Murdock: I am quite sure of it. As a matter of fact, the law provides that he could not be considered as King's Printer unless he were. But the question as to what arrangement is to be made, I can truthfully tell my right hon. friend, has not been decided.


Arthur Meighen: But it is intended to put Mr. Acland in as King's Printer?.


James Murdock: Mr. Acland, as I have said, was appointed by my right hon. friend's government as King's Printer. Whether that arrangement will be changed I cannot say.


Arthur Meighen: But the minister is asking for $6,000 more.
Supply-Labour-Printing


James Murdock: For a King's Printer.


Arthur Meighen: Then if he puts Mr. Acland there he intends to pay him $6,000 extra; that is, he intends to pay him $12,000?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


James Murdock: Would my right hon. friend object if Mr. Acland continued as Deputy Minister of Labour, a position he has so ably filled for a number of years?


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


James Murdock: Well, is there anything in these civil government estimates to indicate that that is not going to be the case?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly there is. An extra $6,000 is asked for.


James Murdock: For a King's Printer.


Arthur Meighen: The minister cannot get away from it; he must tell us what his intention is. He may not have decided upon the names, but he must tell us whether he intends to have a King's Printer and a separate Deputy Minister of Labour.


James Murdock: I thought I had stated that on several occasions. Most certainly that is the proposal that is before the committee.


Arthur Meighen: But he does not know whether or not he will put Mr. Acland in as King's Printer?


James Murdock: That will be a matter for consideration.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister tell us how the department has suffered by the saving of this $6,000.


James Murdock: I would not be before the committee for a moment with a proposal for increased expenditure. On the contrary, I think it can be shown that a decreased expenditure is proposed. Hon. members will note that there is no provision in the estimates this year to continue the Editorial Committee. It is believed that the businesslike arrangement of maintaining timely supervision over government publications could be very well co-ordinated and regarded as part of the duties of the King's Printer, and that ?the King's Printer, if properly qualified to perform the functions of King's Printer as de-tfined in the law, could do the work in a supervisory way, or a large portion of it, that is mow performed by the Editorial Committee. So in the final analysis, and having regard to the Editorial Committee, which I hope my hon. friends will bear in mind, there is no increase contemplated whatever in this pariMr. Meighen.]
ticular item. There appears to be a slight increase when you come to create an entirely new position, but my right hon. friend I am sure will take into consideration the various rearrangements that have been made, as a result of which a considerable number of positions have been eliminated entirely


Arthur Meighen: The minister's long explanation amounts really to this: He purposes that the new King's Printer, whoever he may be, will do the work of the Editorial Committee.


James Murdock: Partly.


Arthur Meighen: That is the only thing he said in the course of his long sentence round. Well now, that is to be examined into. Is the King's Printer really going to do the work of the Editorial Committee? The Editorial Committee was appointed about four years ago, I think. It was a committee representative of the different classes of departments and of men intimately associated with all the printing work of each. Because it was representative of the various departments and of officers of them, and particularly of the experienced men in that line, it carried an authority with it toward which all bowed, and as a consequence that Editorial Committee succeeded in reducing the printing liabilities of the country by very many hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think I would have been safe in saying millions of dollars, but undoubtedly I would be safe in saying over one million dollars.
The minister shakes his head. Has the minister the report of the committee there? I think he has likely heard of the work of the committee through some poisoned channel. Of the work of that committee I have some knowledge myself. I had to do with its appointment. If there has been one source of waste in the administration of this country more prolific and more persistent than another, it has been the constant printing at the behest of ambitious officers of various departments who want everything in which they are interested and everything they do scattered to the length and breadth of the world so long as it is at the country's expense.


Mr VIEN:: Is the hon. member aware that most of the saving came from the elimination of the French publications?


Arthur Meighen: I am not aware of that, and I am quite confident it is not the fact. I have no doubt there would be saving there, and I have no doubt there would be equal saving and far more, in the English publica-

Supply-Labour-Printing
tions. I never saw it divided, and I never took the slightest interest in the division. The question was whether the country was getting any return for the printing, and if the country was not, the instructions of the committee were to eliminate, to cut it down, not so that there would be any curtailment of printing in anything so long as there was appreciation of it, so long as there were those who were going to read it, but to prevent the piling and stacking in heaps in all corners of these buildings of blue books and government publications which no one looked at from one year's end to another or from one decade to another. The Editorial Committee set to work at that. At first it was under cabinet supervision, I think. I am not quite certain of that, but I know that it did report to the cabinet. Its work was thoroughly reviewed, any objections made were taken into account, and very great savings were made to the country as a result of that committee's work.
Now if that can be done by a deputy minister known as the King's Printer, all well and good; but in my judgment it cannot, and I will say why. We have had a King's Printer ever since we have had a country, or since very shortly afterward, and that was the duty of the King's Printer, but that duty he never performed'. He never had sufficient authority to perform it. He had not that authority spreading over the other departments that a representative committee would have, and as a consequence we had the waste going on year after year. We never had the curtailment. The minister will find just the same result if he reverts to the old system. It depends, of course, in some degree who the King's Printer is; that is true, but get the best King's Printer he will, and that King's Printer will be stampeded and the old waste will be revived. I think he should have a representative committee, and he should have that committee in such association with the cabinet that its decisions will carry weight, or he is simply going to go back down the hill that we have been travelling up for these last few years.


Mr. GOOD:: I understand the late editor
of the Labour Gazette is going to be dismissed. May I ask who is going to take over his duties?


James Murdock: The Deputy Minister of Labour is editor of the Labour Gazette. He has an assistant deputy minister, who is also associated with the deputy in the editorship of the Labour Gazette. While there was a gentleman classified as editor, it was thought that the duties could be properly performed by the Deputy Minister of Labour and his assistant
deputy, and in that way save the salary of a special individual acting as editor.


William Charles Good: May I ask if the person mentioned here as deputy minister drawing this $6,000 is to be paid henceforth out of the money appropriated for the Printing bureau?


James Murdock: No. There are civil
government estimates for the Labour department, and separate estimates for the Printing bureau. If my hon. friend will look at page 84 of the estimates, he will find the Department of Labour civil government estimates above, and below that the estimates for the Printing and Stationery branch.


Mr. BOYS:: I notice that in last year's
list there was a total of 124 employees. That number has been reduced to 97, a reduction of 27. Would the minister tell us whether the services of these men have been dispensed with, or have they merely been transferred from this department to some other?


James Murdock: Ten statistical clerks
were transferred from this department to the Bureau of Statistics several months ago. They had been carried on the Labour department payroll and paid out of the Labour appropriation, but having regard to the discussion in the House last year, and particularly to the remarks of the then leader of the Progressive party, arrangements were made to transfer these ten clerks to the Bureau of Statistics. In many cases the positions were not required. There were seven rather important positions in that class. Then there have been other rearrangements, and as a result of all these changes it has been possible to reduce the permanent staff from 124 to 97, as my hon. friend says.


William Alves Boys: The minister says that seven are not required. Not required by this department, for which reason they have been relieved entirely of their duties?


James Murdock: Yes.


William Alves Boys: And not transferred to any
other department?


James Murdock: No.


William Alves Boys: Then the actual change in
employees so far as the government is concerned is seven?


James Murdock: Oh, no.


William Alves Boys: So far as the government is
concerned, I say, not the department.


James Murdock: All of the 27 except the ten who were transferred would be out of the service of the government.
Suppl y-La hour-A nnuities


William Alves Boys: I thought the minister said they were transferred.


James Murdock: Ten were transferred, and the services of the others were dispensed with.


William Alves Boys: Is it correct then to say that seventeen have been relieved of office and are not in the service of the government in any department?


James Murdock: Some of those seventeen may have found positions elsewhere; if not it is a great misfortune. A number of them are very valuable employees; but it is unfortunate that in the government service it is not always open to us to transfer a known and capable employee from one department to another excepting under certain restrictions.


William Alves Boys: I am not criticizing the minister at all; I merely want to get the facts. I cannot say that I am at all sure of them yet. The minister says that some of these employees may have secured other positions. All may have done so as far as that is concerned. I was trying to find out if the minister can tell me-if he cannot I will have to be satisfied-whether any of these seventeen employees have found positions elsewhere.


James Murdock: There is no desire on my part to be in any way evasive. We are trying to do all we can to assist in having some of these employees transferred to other departments. A number of these cases are under consideration in the hope that that can properly be done, but so far as the Labour department are concerned these men are through there and are under retiring allowance, whatever it may amount to.


William Alves Boys: Were any of these seventeen permanent employees?


James Murdock: They were all permanent. In addition there were a great number of temporaries whose services have also been discontinued.	[DOT]


James Dew Chaplin: If the minister will refer to page 35 of the reprinted civil government estimates he will find that the number of employees last year is represented as 124. Now, I have under my hand last year's estimates and the total number of employees given there is 117. Will the minister be kind enough to explain how the discrepancy occurs?


James Murdock: I am glad my hon. friend asked that question. Last year when these estimates were before the House the Annuities branch was not in the Labour department. A little later that branch, having a total of thirteen employees-one of whom resigned-was transferred to the department under my con-

trol. The estimates presented this year make provision for the employees of the Labour department and the Annuities branch, and the reduced figure of 97 shows the number of employees in the two branches as consolidated.


James Dew Chaplin: The explanation of the
minister means that last year, under the appropriation granted by the House, he was entitled to employ 117 persons but actually employed 124. I think it would only have been fair for him to have so stated in his estimates for this year. Instead of taking credit for a reduction from 124, the reduction should be from 117 to the lower figure. I might also point out to the minister that under last year's estimates he was granted $195,000 and he spent in the department something like $202,000.


James Murdock: I am not altogether clear as to what information my hon. friend wants; I do not know what particular thing I am being criticized for just now. I will be glad indeed to give my hon. friends any information possible if they wrill only let me know precisely what they want.


Mr. IRVINE:: Would the minister explain how he has been able to reduce the staff by twenty-seven?


James Murdock: First of all there were ten employees transferred to the Statistical department. It was contended, I think, last year by the leader of the Progressive party, and by a number of other hon. gentlemen that the Statistical department should, as far as possible, have charge of the compilation of all government statistics. That arrangement was carried out and ten employees were transferred from the Labour department to the Bureau of Statistics. Then during the year the director of the employment service of Canada resigned rather hurriedly and left for another and better paying position. At that time we had two superintendents of the federal employment service. We believed that one superintendent was amply sufficient and that for the future the director of employment service could discharge the duties of one of these superintendents. There were a number of other positions which we thought could very well be eliminated. For instance, we had five fair wage investigators and we found that with the adoption of a very definite fair wage policy-which was agreed to by all the departments of the government as the proper thing to carry out-it was unnecessary to have as many as five fair wage investigators looking into these matters, that three such officers would answer for the next fiscal year. Accordingly the services of two fair wage investi-

Supply-Labour
gators were dispensed with. Then we had what is known as an employment specialist. A very capable individual filled this position, and he was also known as the juvenile employment specialist. Our opinion was that if the federal government's activities were properly regulated no need existed for an employment specialist, and so it was decided to discontinue the position. At a former sitting I explained to the committee what happened in the matter of the editor of the Labour Gazette; we concluded that the duties of this office could very well be handled by the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister. Furthermore, in the case of two clearance officers in connection with our employment service-one at Ottawa and one at Halifax-it was thought that these two positions could very well be discontinued-and the work formerly attaching to them handled by the director of employment service, the superintendent and the remaining staff of the employment service. Again, we had a publicity agent. Some hon. gentlemen asked me last year what the publicity agent was for. I did not know then and I do not know yet. We decided that we could get along without a publicity agent. And so I might go on in the case of a number of other positions of minor importance. In all these changes in the staff an effort has been made to see that no part of the work, or the functions, of the Labour department, would suffer in any way. We have taken the stand that an employee not very busy in a particular position for the time being, might properly be called upon to help out in some other office, and in pursuance of that policy the reductions in the staff have been made as I have indicated.


James Dew Chaplin: I want to go back to the question I asked the minister a few minutes ago. He did not give a very clear answer to my question. There were last year, when the estimates were passed, 117 employees in this branch, with an expenditure of $195,000. I find, on referring to the second column of the present estimates, the figures now read 124, and the amount for the service is $203,000. I would like to know how the employees came to be added.


James Murdock: I have before me a memo in which the matter is very clearly outlined, and which I shall read:
Two points roust be specially borne in mind in considering the civil government estimates for 1923-24 and comparing them with those for 1922-23: (1) the reduction by $15,000 made by parliament in the estimates as submitted, and (2) the addition to the department from the beginning of the fiscal year 1922-23 of the Annuities branch, though the figures for this branch were not included in the printed
estimates for the Department of Labour for 1922-23. The civil government figures for 1922-23 as submitted by the minister provided for 117 positions at a cost of $195,040. In addition an estimate for the Annuities branch, at that time associated with the Post Office * Department, provided for 13 positions at a cost of $22,320 a total of $217,360. The estimates of the department were reduced by $15,000 and the total voted for the department including the Annuities branch, thus became $202,360. Similarly as to numbers of positions, the positions in the Department of Labour estimate numbered 117, and those in the Annuities branch estimate numbered 13, a total of 130. Owing, hewever, to the $15,000 reduction in the estimates it became necessary to abandon 6 positions intended for purposes of adjustment, etc., and the salaries for which totalled somewhat less than the figure named, thus leaving at 124 the number of positions actually provided for in the estimates of 1922-23.
Does that answer the hon. member's question?


James Dew Chaplin: Yes.


William Irvine: The minister explained by a process of elimination how he got rid of seven employees. If he would continue that process of elimination I wonder if he could successfully do away with the Labour department entirely, and have these matters dealt with by some other department of the government, and thereby save the country a considerable sum of monejr. For instance, one official who has been eliminated is the employment specialist who is, perhaps, one of the most important officials of the Labour department. It might be wise to re-establish that one particular individual and do away with all the other departments of the Labour administration.


James Murdock: In answer to my hon. friend I would say no, I do not think we can do away with the Labour department entirely. I would oppose any movement of that kind just as strongly as my hon. friend would. Referring to the employment specialist, I would be very glad indeed to have my hon. friend from Calgary come to the Labour department some time and show me wherein we could properly, under any existing regulations, utilize the services of such a valued employee. The chief functions of this employment specialist, as I understood, were to secure the names of various individuals graduating from the different colleges of Canada, with a view to placing them in positions of responsibility and proper remuneration after they had graduated. I do not know whether it is intended that we should pay out the money voted by parliament for employment service purposes in that way, and there did not appear to be any opportunity for us to utilize, in accordance with what we understood to be the requirements of parliament,
Supply-Labour

or of continuing to utilize, the services of this very valuable and capable employee. There was simply no work of importance, as my hon. friend can ascertain if he cares to do so, being accomplished by him so far as I know, in that particular branch.


William Irvine: The minister has just told
us of 27 men that were let out from the Labour department. Would it not have been wise to have used this employment specialist first of all to find employment for those 27 men, and then engage him to find work for all the rest of the unemployed now in Canada?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will the
minister tell the committee just what services' the employment officers have been rendering to the country, and how he is decreasing that service, and why?


James Murdock: My hon. friend will
understand that employment service in the various provinces is under the direction and control of the provincial governments. They open the offices and appoint the employees. They are in charge, but they enter into an agreement with the federal government whereby we pay not more than 50 per cent of the cost of handling those employment offices in the various provinces, and in that work it is necessary for the Labour department to maintain a supervisory federal body, composed of a director of the employment service, in touch with all the provincial superintendents and officers to some extent, some 70 or more in Canada, and a superintendent of employment service, who is located at Winnipeg, and certain other officers and staff in different parts of Canada. But the employment service generally, as I think my hon. friend understands, is under the direction of the provincial government and we simply co-operate or maintain, shall I say, supervision over what is being done under certain regulations clearly set out and defined by order in council.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Any decrease, therefore, in that service is wholly done by the provincial administration?


James Murdock: We have not a thing to do with the increases that the provincial governments might want to make in those offices. For example one hon. gentleman came to me the other day and wanted to know whether an office could not be opened in a certain specified town, and I said that was a matter we would have to take up with the provincial government. If they found an office was necessary, they would no doubt proceed to put one there, and if they did we would
(Mr. Murdock.]
assume 50 per cent-not more than 50 per cent-of the cost of maintenance, they appointing those in charge of the particular office.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I notice the minister has here an item for purchasing agent. Are the purchases for the department being made through the Purchasing Commission?


James Murdock: That is for the Printing bureau, and it comes a little further on. That is not in the Labour department.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Then are
those purchases for the Printing bureau being made through the Purchasing Commission?


James Murdock: That question was asked as to all departments of government, and I think an answer was laid on the Table today. I would prefer if my hon. friend would get the information from that answer, so that there would be no misunderstanding.


James Dew Chaplin: I notice there is in the estimates an account for a director of technical education. In view of the fact that the provincial governments are taking charge of technical education, why do we need this expenditure?


James Murdock: For the reason, as my hon. friend, I am Bure, will appreciate, that the federal government authorizes by statute the expenditure of SI,100,000 for the present fiscal year, and will do so for each fiscal year until, 1929. The money is to be expended under certain regulations defined in the Technical Education Act, and we want to have somebody here who, on behalf of the federal government, will see that the various provinces are receiving their proportion of the money as a result of spending it in a proper way and in accordance with the act.


William Irvine: 
William Charles Good: I am not quite clear yet as to the duties of the deputy minister. I understand Mr. Acland is deputy minister at the present time, and it is proposed that he and the assistant deputy shall perform what duties they have performed in the past and also the editorial duties in connection with the Labour Gazette. I understand also that Mr. Acland is to assume some real responsibilities in the position of King s Printer which he has had nominally in the past. It would appear, therefore, that in respect to both the King's Printer's work and the Labour Gazette, these two gentlemen, the deputy minister and the assistant deputy, are to do very much more in the future than they have done in the past. Is that correct?


James Murdock: There will, possibly, be slightly more to do, only to the extent, though, of the additional work, whatever that may amount to, that the editing of the Labour Gazette will place upon them. As a matter of fact, as the executive head and the assistant executive head of the department, they were required heretofore to be responsible for that work; they had to go over it; O.K, it, see that it was in proper form. It is thought that without any great additional hardship, that work can still be performed by the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister.


William Charles Good: The deputy minister is also to assume real duties in connection with the position of King's Printer. Is that right?


James Murdock: No. We are asking parliament to provide for a King's Printer in fact, under salary, to devote his time to the work of King's Printer in a supervisory capacity as provided for in the law and as it may be necessary to provide for by order in council defining his duties, as I think was suggested by my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) a little while ago. It is not intended that the one person shall handle the two positions.


Arthur Meighen: The minister mentioned, a moment ago, that he was saving money by abolishing the Editorial Committee. I do not know what money he refers to. The Editorial Committee was composed of officers of different departments. Mr. Lynch, of the Natural Resources branch, Interior department, Mr. Cook and Mr. Tache were the committee when I had to do with them directly. Mr. Tache having gone into the Library, somebody would take his place. They received no extra salary at all over what they were drawing in their respective positions. Any other expense-and I do not think there was a great deal

would be incidental to the work, no matter by whom it was done. Therefore, I do not see where the saving will come in, and this House will be confronted, year after year, with increased expenditures in this connection if the minister takes this view.


James Murdock: My right hon. friend will remember that the Editorial Committee had a separate office in a separate building, with a staff, and I think an expenditure of $8,400 was provided for last year. I do not want to be understood as saying that there is going to be an actual reduction. I do not know just how the proposed increased expenditure of $6,000 for a King's Printer will work out with the expenditure for rent, additional office space and staff that there has been in the past; but it is thought in the final analysis, there will be a real saving and a better business arrangement.


Arthur Meighen: There will be a saving only by neglecting the work. If the staff is necessary to the Editorial Committee, it will be necessary to the King's Printer for the same work. So, the only way in which money can be saved will be by neglecting the work-unless the staff is unnecessary. Thus, as far as any specific information goes, there is no saving at all; this is just an extra $6,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my right hon. friend agrees; in fact I have heard him say at different times, that it was not advisable to have members in one position in the Civil Service giving time to other work. This invariably results in these officers expecting extra remuneration for the services they give apart from their regular positions. As regards the Editorial Committee, the gentlemen who have been serving on it have made representations to the government that they should receive something in the way of additional remuneration for the services they have been rendering. It is unfair to expect any member
Supply-Labour-Printing

of the Civil Service to devote all his regular time to the work of the department to which he has been appointed, and then to give extra time to the country without additional remuneration. It he has enough time to do other work than that for which he is regularly appointed, there is something wrong in the way in which government business is being carried on. We have been trying, in an effort to effect economies, to do away with this system of having officers of one department doing part of the work of another department. More than that, we have been trying to fix responsibility in a way that will, we trust, ensure more accurate and careful supervision. No better illustration could be taken than this very matter of the King's Printer. This is a most important branch of the public service. As my right hon. friend has said, ever since we have had a government service it has been thought necessary to have a King's Printer. Well, if that position has been required all along it stands to reason that the man who was to be held responsible as King's Printer should give his entire time to that work, it should not be left to the Deputy Minister of the Department of Labour or the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce or of any other department. A person who is filling any one of these positions is doing more than he can attend to properly if he gives his whole time to it. While my hon. friend was in office, for some reason best known to himself, it was decided to do away with a permanent deputy head as King's Printer who would be held responsible for the position, with all the duties that naturally go with the office of a deputy head, and with the salary attached to it. But the responsibility was left to an officer of another department who has ever since been responsible for the position of King's Printer. I think we ought to make it a separate position, where we can fix the responsibility and do away with this overlapping of different departments; and that is what the government has in view in the matter.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot be expected to acquiesce when it is said that I have always been against an officer of one department having anything to do beyond the immediate duties assigned to him in that department. I am, however, opposed to officers getting extra remuneration under different designations for work done, whether within or outside of their particular departments. The salary an officer gets is paid to him for all his time to the country, and he ought to be prepared for that salary to do anything which the government feels he is fitted to do. There is some advantage to an officer in getting the [Mr. Mackenzie King.)
opportunity of service such as comes to a man who goes on the Editorial Committee. It is first of all an indication that he is a man of special capacity. For example, Mr. Lynch was head of the Natural Resources branch of the Interior department. He was chosen by myself as the one officer of the whole Interior department most likely to render effi-cent service on the Editorial Committee. I knew something of his ability and the character of his work, and his designation gave him at least that additional status, so that in the event of promotion in the future his services there would be of great value to him. Mr. Lynch may have joined with the others in a request for more salary; most men are ready to do that. If he did so when I was there I opposed it, as I opposed the request, so far as all the rest were concerned. There are certain tasks that can be performed by representative committees better than by any single officer, no matter of what department, and these are tasks that appertain generally throughout the whole service and that affect the moneys spent in all. The fact is established, if by nothing else than the work of the Editorial Committee, that we have always had a King's Printer. But the work was never done. He never had the authority to carry it out, and only one minister was affected. When we appointed the Editorial Committee, gathered from the various departments, and brought that committee in direct contact with Council, we succeeded in getting the work done and saving the country hundreds of thousands of dollars. The minister thinks that the work is better done the other way, but I do not think he will save anything. He only takes a chance of its being done better, but I think the probabilities are that it will be done a lot worse. Rather, I should say, it will cease to be done at all.


James Murdock: My right hon. friend will understand that the government has given the matter a great deal of consideration and has decided that this will be the best plan. It is not just the personal position of the minister.


Arthur Meighen: That adds rather to my argument.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are the duties of the director of employment service, and why is the salary for this office reduced?


James Murdock: The following is the definition of this; position as given by the Civil Service Commission's reclassification:
Under direction to have charge of employment service of the Department of Labour, to supervise operations of the provincial labour clearing houses and pro-

Supply-Labour-Annuities
vincial employment offices, to co-operate with provincial employment services, to supervise expenditure of moneys voted by the Dominion government, and to perform other related work as required.
The salary is S320, $335, S355, per month graduated up. As I said some time ago, and as my hon. friend will recall, the director of employment sendee resigned on July 7th last, his resignation to be effective from the first day of August, and it was necessary to have another director appointed. The Civil Service Commission appointed one of the superintendents located at Winnipeg and brought him to Ottawa as director, and he receives the minimum salary for the first year. He will, of course, work up to the maximum.


Edward Joseph Garland: Do the
duties of this position necessitate general travelling throughout the country?


James Murdock: They do, considerably.
Quite frequently this officer is required to take a trip to the West to inspect the office at Winnipeg and to get in touch with the superintendent of provincial employment service in each of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia; and he also is required to visit the East. He makes these trips about once a year when he meets all the superintendents.


Edward Joseph Garland: How much was paid out last year in addition to salary in connection with this position?


James Murdock: I cannot give that information at the moment but I can get it for my hon. friend.


Edward Joseph Garland: It would be just as well if we had that information, but we can pass this point for the moment. What are the duties of the superintendent of Dominion government annuities?


James Murdock: I was going to quote the classification, but I find it is not here. The superintendent is in general charge of the handling of the Dominion Government Annuities branch. He maintains supervision over the office staff and determines under the regulations the functions of the branch. Briefly, without reference to the specific classification, those are his duties.


Edward Joseph Garland: The increase is statutory?


James Murdock: Yes. I may add that
the salary was slightly increased within the last few months by the Civil Service Commission who considered the responsibilities of the office as entitling him to that increase.


James Dew Chaplin: Inasmuch as we have a
Statistical branch, what is the need for a statistician in the minister's department? What is the need also for an annuities actuary and an actuarial assistant? It seems 5 p.m. as though the minister were running a big business, and I think he might take a leaf out of last year's book and reduce these estimates by another $15,000 or $20,000.


James Murdock: The minister will give
careful consideration to that suggestion, although I am sure that my hon. friend must have noted, from another quarter of the chamber, the view that I was cutting down to such an extent as to render the Labour department useless. I am not sure that my hon. friend is not right and that there can be further reductions without impeding the progress of the Labour department in any way whatever.


James Dew Chaplin: I certainly did not construe the remarks of the member for Calgary (Mr. Irvine) as the minister has construed them.


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: Was the work of the Dominion Government Annuities branch efficiently performed last year?


James Murdock: Yes. I may say that several hon. members asked for information the other day respecting the Annuities branch which I could not answer at the time. I have the information now and I shall be glad to place it on record if the committee so desires.


Charles Wallace Stewart: The minister has stated that the staff of the Annuities branch has been reduced by practically fifty per cent, and that the work is nevertheless efficiently done. That would bear out the contention that has been made that the minister might well make staff reductions-or the committee might force him to make them, as it did last year-in certain other branches.


James Murdock: There is only one less employee in the Annuities branch, due to one employee having left voluntarily.


Charles Wallace Stewart: Then I will have to ask the minister to explain all over again the answer that he gave to that question why the figure showing 124 for last year is not 130.


James Murdock: The civil government estimates for 1922-23 provided for 117 positions in the Labour department at a cost of $195,040. In addition, the estimate for the Annuities branch, at that time associated with the Post Office Department, provided for 13 positions at a cost of $22,320, a total of $217,-
Supply-Labour-Annuities

360. The estimates of the department were reduced by $15,000 in the committee, and the total voted, including the appropriation voted for the Annuities branch, thus became $202,360. As to the number of positions, there were 117 in the Department of Labour and 13 in the Annuities branch, a total of 130. Owing, however, to the $15,000 reduction in the estimates it became necessary'to abandon six positions in the Labour department-not in the Annuities branch-leaving the number at 124.


James Dew Chaplin: How many are employed in the Annuities branch now?


James Murdock: Twelve.


James Dew Chaplin: On the fifth line of the
details we have provision for "Superintendent, Dominion Government Annuities." A little further down we have "Annuities Actuary," and still further down we have an "Actuarial Assistant." It seems to me that there are three men doing practically the same work, and the minister, as he himself has suggested, might effect a saving there. Then we have a "Senior Wage Investigator;" two lines below there is provision for another wage investigator, and six lines down we have a "Junior Wage Investigator." It looks to me as if the minister might cut out one or two of these and save some money.


James Murdock: I have already pointed out that last year we had five wage investigators; we have eliminated two, leaving three. My hon. friend may be right; we may be able next year to get along with two.


James Dew Chaplin: Are these men fully employed?


James Murdock: Yes, the three are pretty well employed. The five were not altogether as fully employed as I thought they might be.


Mr. LADNER:: This vote is quite a large one, and the point arises whether there is any correlation of activities between the Dominion Labour department and provincial departments of labour. I have specific reference to Cases in British Columbia, particularly in South Vancouver, which would indicate that there was not always the degree of co-operation between the two that would seem to be possible.


James Murdock: Our desire is to have
as much co-operation as possible between provincial departments of labour and the federal government. The Progressive government in Alberta the other day decided upon the 
adoption of the fair wage provisions of the federal government as defined by our fair wage investigators; that is an indication of cooperation. Of course we cannot suggest to a provincial department that it do this or do that, but there is undoubtedly a certain amount of co-operation between federal and provincial labour departments.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is not exactly the information that I wanted. Is there any considered plan whereby the officials of the provincial labour departments meet in consultation with the officials of the federal Labour department so that they do not cover the same spheres of activity, and thereby the public, which after all bears the expense whether it is paid out of the federal or provincial treasuries, will get the maximum advantage with the minimum of expense?


James Murdock: There have been various conferences held. For instance, we had a conference on the uniformity of labour legislation. Another conference was held here in Ottawa in September last. There is another conference proposed which I think will be held within the next couple of months. Then the director of the employment service of Canada meets with the superintendents of the provincial employment services and discusses ways and means for co-operating to the best advantage and for uniformity in carrying on the work of the employment service, So my hon. friend will see that there is consultation whenever there is any possibility for co-operation. Within the next day or two I might mention that two officers of the federal Labour department' are going to a certain province for the purpose of discussing with the deputy minister and his assistant deputy and other officers certain matters of joint interest. That is the plan that is followed all the time so far as is possible.


William Irvine: Arising out of the explanation given by the minister I would like to ask if it has yet been decided whether the municipal, the provincial or Dominion authorities are responsible for the unemployment situation?


James Murdock: There has been no change in that respect from the position taken by the federal government as outlined in the following telegram dated December 22, 1922, which was sent to the Premier of Manitoba. A similar telegram was sent on or about the same date to the Premier of British Columbia, and the same information was conveyed to the mayors of a number of western cities. The telegram reads in part:
With regard to the question of federal assistance to municipalities on the same basis as assistance was

Supply-Labour
granted during the winter of last year or otherwise, it is necessary to state that neither the present federal administration nor, so far as can be gathered from the records on fyle, the late administration had at any time contemplated that the action taken during the last two years by way of relief to municipalities and in some cases to provincial governments on account of unorganized districts should be regarded as a precedent for federal participation in the responsibilities of municipal and provincial authorities, save under conditions comparable to those existing during the winters of nineteen twenty, twenty-one, and nineteen twenty-one, twenty-two, when, over the larger part of the Dominion, unemployment existed on a wholly unprecedented scale. Information reaching the federal government does not lead to the view that any situation exists at the present time which is at all comparable to that prevailing during the two last preceding winters, but is on the contrary to the effect that industrial conditions generally show great improvement and large sections of Canada are reaping the benefit of a harvest of unprecedented bounty. The situation, therefore, as it appears to the federal authorities, is not one which justifies action on their part in assuming at present any portion of the obligations falling customarily to the municipal and provincial authorities, and the conditions you indicate as existing in certain municipalities of your province cannot be regarded as ground for departing from this principle.
That was the position taken by this government on the 22nd of December last, and we have seen no reason whatever to change the view as then expressed.


William Irvine: If the government continues with its immigration policy as announced by the Minister of Immigration and the result next year is that we have increased unemployment because of it, will the present government now promise to assume responsibility for all such unemployed?


James Murdock: I am sure that the present government will next winter take carefully into consideration the conditions which then exist, and certainly will not indicate by a promise now what it would do in advance.


William Irvine: I have another question. Is it the intention of the department to grant to the relief board at Calgary one-third of the amount, as the statute calls for, of the money expended on unemployed returned soldiers?


James Murdock: My understanding is
that there is no body composed in Calgary properly qualified under the provisions of P.C. 220 to receive from the federal government any assistance in the relief which they may have expended during the present winter. That is my understanding of the situation in regard to Calgary.


Leon Johnson Ladner: With reference to the telegram which the minister read, this is rather an important matter to the people of the various provinces, because they do not seem to be clear as to where the primary or constitutional responsibility rests with reference
to the unemployment question. I would ask the minister if I state the policy of the government correctly when I say that they now take the position that primarily the handling of the unemployment question is a provincial matter and that until the situation gets of a nation-wide character the federal government, as a matter of policy, does not propose to deal with the problem. Is that a short statement of the position? The telegram is rather lengthy and not quite so specific.


James Murdock: The position that was taken by the previous government and the position that has been taken by this government is that responsibility primarily rests with the municipalities and the provinces. There has been no variation from that position. * In the telegram which I read a few moments ago it was indicated that during the two winters previous to this one there were abnormal conditions with unemployment general throughout the country, and under such conditions it it as thought desirable and consistent that the federal government should come in a certain degree to the assistance of the municipalities and the provinces.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That was a war problem, was it not? Detaching the question from the
war,	how would the minister regard it then?


James Murdock: Detaching it from the conditions that existed during the two preceding winters, no matter what the condition
was,	no matter whether it was a post-war condition or brought about by some other cause, we can leave all that to one side. The position taken is that dealing with unemployment is primarily a matter of municipal and provincial concern, but during the last two winters unemployment reached such an acute stage, and was so generally prevalent all over the Dominion that it became absolutely necessary for the federal government, without committing itself to any such policy for the future, to come to the assistance of the municipalities and the provinces.


William Irvine: What court decided that the responsibility for dealing with unemployment fell upon the municipal and provincial authorities?


James Murdock: The previous government so decided and enunciated the policy in order in council which it issued. This government did likewise on that particular point.


William Irvine: I am very sorry that the present government should have followed the previous administration in this or any other regard.	.
16S0

Supply-Labour


James Murdock: We were more liberal. Owing to the abnormal conditions of unemployment which prevailed we were more generous in some of our allowances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In answer to my hon. friend for Calgary East (Mr. Irvine) I may say that the rights of the federal government and the provinces, as respects many important subjects, are determined by the British North America Act. The matter of property and civil rights, according to that act, is assigned to the provinces. The provinces have all along claimed, and I think rightly, that under that provision factory legislation, matters of employment, questions relating to master and servant and the like, come within their jurisdiction and not within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Such, in my opinion, is a sound and proper interpretation of that section of the act. if dealing with employment is part of the duty of the provinces, action regarding unemployment would also seem to fall within the same category. The view this government has taken has been that any such relief granted by it in the past has been by reason of a national emergency arising out of the war. Such aid was not given because of an obligation imposed upon the federal government by the British North America Act; it was to meet an emergency national in its character. Now the time has come when it is necessary to draw the line. I want to point out to my hon. friend-and I think it is well worth pointing out to hon. gentlemen as a whole-that during the period of the war the debt of the federal government was increased enormously; some two billions of dollars were added to the national debt, and this government has now to ask parliament for an appropriation of 8140,000,000 to meet the interest on that debt alone. On the other hand the provinces, during the period of the war, added virtually nothing to their public debt as a consequence of that great struggle; the whole burden fell on the federal treasuiy which is now having difficulty in raising the money needed for the purposes of the nation. Moreover the provinces, or some of them at least, are beginning to have surpluses instead of deficits, and we feel, and I think the House will agree, that if this government is to be expected to carry out the obligations that clearly fall upon it we ought to tell the provinces that where they can reasonably find the means of dealing with those matters that come within their particular jurisdiction they should make an effort to do so.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The Prime Minister has furnished the information which I sought to get in my questions to the minister, namely, that the question of unemployment is pri-' manly one that rests upon the provincial governments and that it is only under unusual conditions, such, for example, as those which ariSe out of war, that the federal government has any responsibility. So that we ma; assume from the statements of the Prime Minister and the minister that henceforth the attitude of the federal government on the question of unemployment will be a negative one excepting in cases of national emergency arising out .of war


William Lyon Mackenzie King: National emergency of any kind.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I cannot conceive that there would be any other national emergency except such as stated, and therefore action on the part of the federal parliament would be confined to what I might call a war emergency. I get letters all the time from people saying, "Why don't you get after the government, they are not doing anything for unemployment?" I frankly confess that I agree with the attitude assumed by the government -that this is a provincial problem, not a federal problem; and the sooner the public learn where they stand the quicker they will be able to seek and enforce a remedy. I am therefore glad the Prime Minister has made this statement because it tends to make clear something which has been shrouded in mystery in the past. I presume that henceforth-excepting as regards situations growing out of war-we may conclude that the federal government has finished with the question of unemployment.


William Irvine: I appreciate the position of the federal government with regard to unemployment, and I am certainly glad that the Prime Minister has given us this explanation. We shall now, as provinces and municipalities, know that there is very little hope of expecting anything in the way of relief from the Dominion government except in extreme cases. However, I would like just to add this: While the Prime Minister has no doubt given us the proper interpretation of the act, nevertheless I would submit it is not a satisfactory one. If the act has been correctly interpreted by the Prime Minister I think it will have to be changed. For surely it is not fair that the Dominion government-possessing the power by its fiscal policy pretty well to regulate the industrial life of the country, and the power also by its immigration policies to flood this

Supply-Labour
country with labour that cannot be employed -should pass on the unemployment burden to the provincial and municipal authorities. I would suggest that if this course is going to be continued the provinces be granted the right to map out their own tariff and immigration policies so as to be able to meet the emergency confronting them.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I want to ask the minister a question in connection with a statement he made in answer to the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Irvine) about the refusal of his department, if such it be, to pay to the city of Calgary the sum of approximately 81,800 because, as he suggests, no proper body has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of Privy Council Order No. 220. I do not know what the terms of this order in council are, but I do know that the city of Calgary has a regularly constituted and responsible organization to deal with the matter of unemployment, and that there is a responsible official in charge of the office. Returned soldiers have received relief during the past winter to the amount of something over 85,000, and acting and relying on the previous attitude of the government, and the former governments, the city of Calgary had a right to expect that approximately 81,800 of that amount would be borne by the federal government. If a mere technicality stands in the way surely the minister is not going to take advantage of it in order to deprive the city of Calgary of this not inconsiderable amount which has been expended for the relief of returned soldiers. I would therefore like to know from the minister what limitations stand in the way of carrying out my suggestion and if the department proposes to rely upon those limitations or whether, regardless of non-compliance with the terms of the order in council referred to, an adequate amount will be placed in the Supplementary Estimates to cover this item.


James Murdock: I will read Privy Council Order No. 220 to the committee, and then ask my hon. friend to suggest whether, in his judgment, the Minister of Labour-who is subject to criticism when he does not do things according to instructions-is permitted to recognize any bills of the kind presented by the city of Calgary.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Is there any dispute as to whether or not the city of Qalgary has properly expended this sum for unemployment?


James Murdock: No, none whatever. The city of Calgary, in an orderly way and in due
course, as it was necessary, and as the bills were presented, paid the amount without any federal grant, and thereby obviated the necessity of the Dominion government in any way, under order in council 220, coming to their assistance. This order No. 220 was not issued for the purpose of coming to the assistance of any municipality that accepted, dealt with and paid bills of the kind, but I still would like to read the order in council to my hon. friend as the point has been raised, and then ask him for his own version of it. The order in council reads:
The committeethe Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 30th January, 1923, from the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, submitting that, while employment conditions generally have improved since the winter of 1921-22, unemployment still exists, particularly in the larger centres of population, to an extent necessitating the provision of relief by municipalities and charitable organizations.
The minister states that representations have been received indicating that certain of those reduced to a condition of distress in consequence of unemployment are former members of the Forces, including some suffering from disabilities which, although not attributable to war service, and therefore not pensionable, place the men concerned in most cases under a handicap in competing in the general labour market; such men not being, however, eligible to receive assistance extended by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment to men whose disabilities are attributable to their services with the Forces during the war.
Previous federal regulations with respect to federal co-operation with local authorities in the relief of un-ployment have properly emphasized the principle that the matter of caring for unemployed persons is fundamentally a responsibility of the local authorities, and that the federal authorities are justified in undertaking any share of the obligation arising only under abnormal conditions. It is, however, submitted that the situation above indicated is one which justified and requires federal action by way of co-operation in the relief of unemployed ex-service men of the class described.
Information received shows that in certain municipalities central bodies, composed of representatives of the municipality and of the various charitable and veteran organizations, have been formed for the administration of relief to ex-service men unable to procure work and in necessitous circumstances, and such organizations are regarded as serving excellent purpose.
The minister accordingly recommends that where any organization composed as above, has, since January 1st, 1923, made disbursements in relief of the necessities of ex-service men of the class indicated in paragraph 2 as above, the federal authorities will reimburse such relief bodies to the extent of one-third of such disbursements incurred since that date; provided that no grant shall be payable by the federal authorities save when the accounts submitted for payment have been approved by the Minister of Labour and Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment; the grants in question to be paid, the Minister of Labour concurring, from the appropriation for the relief of unemployment for the present fiscal year and administered under the authority of the Minister of Labour.
And it is duly signed. Therefore I call the attention of my hon. friend from Calgarv to the fact that the 81,800 that he is interested in securing for the city of Calgary was paid by the municipality through its
Supply-Labour

relief department alone, and without any consideration or recognition of this order in council, and it is only proper to say that I do not think that, by any stretch of imagination, sympathetic or otherwise, I could indicate that under this order in council the city of Calgary qualifies to be reimbursed the $1,800.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The minister must certainly realize that, while the letter of the law has not perhaps been complied with the spirit of the law has been. Is it not possible for him, under those circumstances, to put in the supplementary estimates an amount sufficient to cover this particulaf item?


James Murdock: Would my hon. friend be surprised to know that if I said yes, which I have no right to do, it would mean the presentation of bills very much greater in amount from various places from which we have not heard one word so far. Where It means $1,800 in the case of Calgary, I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that, in different parts of Canada, several thousand dollars would be claimed in the same way, although the money had been paid out in the ordinary course of business, and had been regarded having been properly paid by the relief departments of the various municipalities.


William Irvine: I would like to point out that there is a slight difference between the case of Calgary and that of any other supposed case to which the minister has alluded. For instance, I inquired from the Minister of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment for his interpretation of this particular order in council . which the Minister of Labour has just read, and according to the interpretation given me by the minister of the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment, the federal government was liable for one-third of the amount of money expended by the relief board of Calgary.' I communicated this information to Mr. H. B. Adshead, who is the administrator of the department of municipal service in Calgary. That statement was published in the public press and the people of Calgary had been relying on the government to recoup them that amount of money. So that there is a slight difference between this case and any supposed case that might come before the minister. Therefore I would urge the Minister of Labour to consider the appeal of Calgary in this regard, set aside what, after all, is only a technicality and grant this request.


James Dew Chaplin: Some time ago I asked the minister a question relative to the statistics of the department. I find, besides the names that I have mentioned, that there are 20

clerks in this department interested in the compilation of statistics. It seems to me that the minister can use the pooling method to great advantage there.


James Murdock: Although a number of statistical clerks were transferred to the regular statistical department, it is still necessary, and has been held so, even by the chief of the Bureau of Statistics to have in the Labour department a considerable number of employees especially qualified to look after the compilation of labour statistics. It is for that purpose that a Statistical branch is still being maintained in the Labour department, and in that branch th6re are sixteen employees altogether.


James Dew Chaplin: I can count twenty. If
the minister will look down the list, he will find one chief statistician, one head statistical clerk, three principal statistical clerks, a little further down he will find six senior statistical clerks. A little further down, eight statistical clerks, and still further down, one junior statistical clerk, making in all twenty.


James Murdock: My hon. friend is quite right. There is the Statistical branch for the purpose of compiling labour organization figures and matters in connection with that. Then there is the Employment Service branch which has also certain statistical clerk employees, and which deals with the compilation of figures that we receive from the various provinces. Thus, there are two branches of the Labour department, a Statistical branch and an Employment Service branch, in which there are a number of statistical clerks, compiling and handling figures that we could not get, I understand, through the regular statistical department of the government under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Donald Sutherland: What are the special matters referring to labour for which these statistics are being compiled?


James Murdock: Hours of employment,
wage rates, cost of living in its various classifications, rentals which have an important bearing on the cost of living and all such items as that. These are all matters that it has been regarded as necessary to maintain as reasonably as possible accurate figures on.


William Alves Boys: Possibly this question would
come more appropriately at this moment. What I was-going to ask was about the Annuities branch information that the minister was kind enough to offer about half an hour ago and which was asked for before the Easter recess.

Supply-Labour-Annuities


James Murdock: I have just got the information that I think was asked for from several sections of the House the other night.
From the 1st September, 1908, the date of the inception of the Annuities branch, up to and inclusive of the 31st March, 1923, the total number of annuity contracts issued was 5,643. Of the purchasers of these contracts, 513 have been removed by death, leaving in force on the 31st March ultimo, 5,130 contracts. The total amount of purchase money received during the same period was $6,688,760.19. The following statement gives the details:
	Number of	Purchase
Sept. 1,-March 31,	Annuitants	money1908 to 1909	... 66	$ 50,391 32March 31,-March 31, 1909 to 1910	... 566	434,490 891910 to 1911	. .. 1,069	393,441 401911 to 1912	. .. 1,032	441,600 601912 to 1913	... 373	417,136 101913 to 1914	. .. 318	390,886 711914 to 1915	... 264	314,459 291915 to 1916	... 325	441,696 091916 to 1917	,. .. 285	432,272 401917 to 1918	... 187	332,792 011918 to 1919	... 147	322,154 231919 to 1920	.. .. 204	408,718 781920 to 1921	,. .. 195	531,800 451921 to 1922	,. .. 277	748,159 733922 to 1923	,. .. 335	1,028,760 19Total	. .. 5,643	$6,688,760 19
For a portion of the years 1909, 1910, 1911 and prior to 31st March, 1912, twelve lecturers or outside representatives, six in Ontario, three in Quebec, two in New Brunswick and one in Nova Scotia, were employed.


William Alves Boys: Could the minister say what proportion of that money was received upon a 3 per cent basis, what proportion upon a 4 per cent basis, and what the disbursements were for the same periods?


James Murdock: I am afraid I could not give my hon. friend that information. I could get it, of course, but I do not have it here.


William Alves Boys: Can the minister give the total receipts and total disbursements irrespective of the variation in the 3 and 4 per cent calculations?


James Murdock: I have the occupations of the various annuitants, covering 176 occupations, and then certain other information in answer to questions asked the other night, but I have not the information for which my hon. friend now asks. My recollection is that the 4 per cent basis was adopted about 1911. Prior to that time the basis, I think from recollection, was 3 per cent. It started off at 3 per cent.


William Alves Boys: The minister will appreciate why I want the information. As I understand the matter, when this venture was Started, there was no thought of making money, and after the experiment for, perhaps, three years on a 3 per cent basis, the calculation was then made on a 4 per cent basis. I was rather anxious to find out what the experience of the department had been on the 4 per cent basis, whether or not considerable money had been made, and if so, whether or not we might in the near future, perhaps, get on a 5 per cent basis, which, I understood, when we were considering the matter before the Easter recess, the minister said was under consideration. I should think the manifest way of reaching a conclusion would be to see what the receipts and the disbursements were, now that the scheme has been in operation for a [DOT]sufficient length of time, in order to get down to a working basis.


James Murdock: I will get that information for my hon. friend. He will have noticed that in 1910 there were only 566 contracts, the number in 1911 being 1,069, in the following year 1,032 and in 1913, 373.


William Alves Boys: The decline was due to lack of publicity.


James Murdock: Lack of publicity and information.


William Alves Boys: I do not desire to delay the item. I do not know whether the House generally wants the information but I should like to have it myself, and if the minister can promise to let me have it I do not care whether I get it privately or in the House.


James Murdock: I will get that information. 1 appreciate the interest my hon. friend has shown in the matter, because I think it is worth boosting.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I did not gather from the minister whether or not he has given a definite refusal to the claim of the city of Calgary, or whether he is prepared to reconsider the position already taken.


James Murdock: My recollection is that a letter was forwarded to Calgary stating that they were not within the law. Of course, that being the case, I would not have the authority as Minister of Labour to reverse the decision, although I would not for a moment suggest that there could be no possibility of reversing it. The decision was based on the circumstances, and the money was expended by the city of Calgary without any drawback from the federal govem-ment under any regulations in effect. They were so informed, and that is the situation.

Supply-Labour


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I take it then that the minister definitely refuses, either under order in council or by way of supplementary estimates, to make provision for that amount.


James Murdock: I am sure my hon. friend would not want to put me in the position of definitely refusing to determine what the [DOT] government shall do. If he so desires, I shall be glad to bring to the attention of the government his specific claim on behalf of Calgary, which in effect is just the same as might be made by many other municipalities throughout Canada. If he wants me to do so I will promise to ask the government to say whether the claim on behalf of the city of Calgary for $1,800 shall be reconsidered.


Donald Sutherland: The minister says
that one feature of the statistics that are being compiled relates to the cost of living. I would infer from the discussion that took place a few nights ago that a good deal of the information is sent in from those who are paid a very small sum in outlying districts. During the war, I believe, it was required of those handling meat and produce of all kinds to file a monthly statement with the department regarding the prices at which these commodities were being sold. Is this practice still in vogue, or has this matter been turned over to the Bureau of Statistics?


James Murdock: The duties of the statistical branch relate, first, to prices and the cost of living; secondly, to wages and hours of labour, including industrial agreements; and thirdly, to strikes and lockouts. With regard to the first, there is published, monthly, information concerning retail and wholesale prices in Canada and other countries; and so far as wages and hours of labour are concerned, there appears monthly in the Labour Gazette a summary analysis of recent industrial agreements, schedules of wages, and so forth; and information is also given as to strikes and lockouts.


Donald Sutherland: 
James Murdock: Is that a Labour department form that my hon. friend is referring to?


Donald Sutherland: It is from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


James Murdock: That has nothing to do with my department, although I believe that some information of the kind goes to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I do not think that information is collected by the Department of Labour, but we probably get from the Bureau of Statistics an analysis of the results that may be secured through this questionnaire.


Donald Sutherland: The information sent out through the Labour Gazette is compiled from the statistics arrived at in this way.


James Murdock: The department maintains also some 60 or more correspondents to check up on the figures obtained in the various towns.


Arthur Meighen: I see by the statistics which the Professor of Economics of McMas-ter University has been compiling for some years, that the cost of living has been rising for several months now. Is that the same verdict as the officers of the department find?


James Murdock: The figures of the Labour department are in evidence for my right hon. friend to see.. I do not recall what they show.	*

Sv. pply-Labour-Annuities


Arthur Meighen: The minister is not so interested on this subject as he was a year and a half ago.


James Murdock: He is yet quite as interested.


Arthur Meighen: He does not know what the results of his own department are as to the cost of living. I was asking whether the department's figures agreed in tendency with those of the Professor of Economics of Mc-Master University showing an increase in the cost of living.


James Murdock: The figures did show a slight seasonal rise as we have found in all winters in Canada in the past.


Arthur Meighen: What is the minister going to do to bring the cost down? He has been failing in all his pledges in that regard.


James Murdock: We are working nicely in that direction if you will keep out of the road.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is working all right, but the results are exactly the opposite of what he is working for.


James Murdock: We are doing nicely, thank you.


Arthur Meighen: I know that the minister is drawing his salary, but the cost of living keeps going up. The minister made terrible strictures on the late government, and promised to devote his tremendous abilities to the reduction of the cost of living. That was to be his ambition in public life. That was what he set his heart upon; he was going to relieve the poor.


James Murdock: Some job.


Arthur Meighen: Some job! Yes, now that my hon. friend is in the department he finds that it is "some job." The cost of living, which went down 24 points in the official scale in 1921 from what it was 12 months before, is now higher than it was when the minister took office. It is going the wrong way. Does the minister not think it is time for him to give place to somebody else?


James Murdock: I suggest that my right hon. friend read Babson instead of the pessimists that he has been reading.


Arthur Meighen: I am not criticizing Babson at all-I have been reading the hon. minister. He should judge his conduct by his own standard. I am asking him in what state of mind is he now, having not. only failed to carry on the good work instituted by
107i
the previous government that he criticized, but having reversed the process altogether.


James Murdock: We are doing very nicely, thank you.


Arthur Meighen: Individually he is doing very nicely, I admit that, but those for whom he is trustee are doing very badly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before the Easter recess the minister said he would be able to give us some statistics with regard to the value of the time lost on account of unemployment. There are statistics with regard to the amount lost through strikes and that kind of thing, and I think the minister said he could get us information from the point of view of unemployment.


James Murdock: That was held in abeyance under vote No. 263. I am anxious to go on with the discussion on that vote when hon. gentlemen on the other side are ready to proceed with it. In the meantime, however, we are dealing with another matter.


Donald Sutherland: Before this item carries I would like to have some definite assurance from the minister that the list which I hold in my hand is not the list upon which the opinions of the department with regard to the cost of living are based.


James Murdock: I assure my hon. friend that they are not entirely based on that list. The analysis is made on the basis of the figures thus secured as well as of other information.


Donald Sutherland: The minister says, "the figures thus secured."


James Murdock: Consideration is given to those figures, I understand, in compiling the analysis.
Progress reported.


ADJOURNMENT-ADDRESS OF LORD ROBERT CECIL
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the House.
He said: It had been the hope of the government and of hon. members generally that there might be an opportunity to hear Lord Robert Cecil during his stay in Ottawa, possibly in the Railway committee room of the House of Commons. We have learned, however, that that will not be possible, and tonight will be the only opportunity that members of the House will have to hear his address on the League of Nations. Under the circumstances the suggestion has come from a number of sources that it might be advisable to ad-
Imperial Conference
[Stage Direction]
joum the House this evening so as to afford hon. members the privilege of hearing Lord Robert at the Collegiate Institute. I have spoken with my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition and I think he shares with me the view that the circumstances would warrant the adjournment of the House for that purpose.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 6.10 p.m.
Tuesday, April 10, 1923