1923-06-15

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Some little time ago the government received from the preference and common shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada a memorial setting forth certain representations of which they desire the government to take cognizance. The reply of the government to this memorial has been forwarded, and I understand it is being distributed this afternoon, or will be distributed to-night. So I beg to lay on the Table of the House a copy of the memorial and the reply thereto.



PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 207 (from the Senate), for the relief of Abraham Brooks.-Mr. Baxter.
Bill No. 208 (from the Senate), for the relief of Jane Edna Near.-Mr. Baxter.
Bill No. 209 (from the Senate), for the relief of Clara Welleena Bristol.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 210 (from the Senate), for the relief of Emma Jean Walker.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 211 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ella Maude Gee.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 212 (from the Senate), for the relief of Enid Louise MacDonald.-Mr. Porter.
Bill No. 213 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mary Theresa Maclsaac.'-Mr. German.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and
Commerce) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider a certain proposed resolution with respect to freight rates for the carriage of grain by lake and river navigation.

Adulteration oj Canadian Grain
He said: I desire to state that the subject matter of this resolution has been communicated to His Excellency the Governor General, who has been pleased to recommend it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution: Resolved, that it is expedient to repeal section 958 of the Canada Shipping Act, as enacted by chapter sixty-four of the statutes of 1908, and to enact in lieu thereof that the Governor in Council may, from time to time, by order in council declare that the foregoing provisions of this Part shall not, for the period specified in such order in council, apply, either throughout Canada or in any specified waters of Canada, to the ships or vessels, or to any specified, ascertained or ascertainable class or number of the ships or vessels, of any foreign country.
He said: I desire to state that the subject matter of this resolution has been communicated to His Excellency the Governor General, who has been pleased to recommend it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (For the Minister of Railways) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider a certain proposed resolution respecting the construction of Canadian National railway lines.
He said: In the absence of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) I desire to state that the subject matter of this resolution has been communicated to His Excellency the Governor General, who has been pleased to recommend it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture), moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider a certain proposed resolution in favour of amending the Dairy Industry Act, 1914.
He said:	The subject matter of this resolution has been communicated to His Excellency the Governor General, who has been pleased to recommend it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. R. A. HOEY (Springfield):: On
June 8th a question was put to the government by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) with regard to the adulteration of Canadian grain in American ports. I understand from the answer given by the minister on that occasion that an inquiry, or at least a kind of semi-inquiry, was held. The people of western Canada are deeply interested in this matter and I should like to know from the government whether they intend to submit to the House further information in connection with it; and, if not, where such information may be obtained. In other words, is it likely that a report of that inquiry will be published in the immediate future?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The government have nothing
to add to the reply made a few days ago, for the reason that there was only a verbal report from the officers of the department. After the return of the grain commissioners and the inspector from visits to the ports of New York, Baltimore and Philadelphia, they came to Ottawa and made a verbal report of conditions as they had found them. We now have overseas the Chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners, and the Chief Grain Inspector at Winnipeg. We hope they will return early next month. They will advise the government as to the condition of grain as they find it on its arrival in England shipped from Canadian as well as United States ports. I have only to add that if Canadian shippers persist in putting grain through by way of the United States they run the risk because the Canadian government has no control over grain once it leaves our own boundaries. My hon. friend, I think, will understand that. Let me say to him and to the House what I said to the members of the London Corn Exchange,- that the grain goes through the United States in bond for the protection of the American people, to make certain that it is not sold. If we sold our grain to Liverpool and subsequently Liverpool sold it to France and France came back with a complaint against the inspection of that grain, surely my hon. friend will understand that we cannot follow it so far, once it has gone into another elevator and broken bulk.


Robert Alexander Hoey: The people are anxious to
know the extent to which there has been adulteration.

Inquiry for Returns-C.N.R.


James Alexander Robb: There has been adulteration
to a very limited extent; it was limited to one port. I may say that we had no real complaint against the port of New York.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is it the
practice of the minister's department, or of the government generally, to accept verbal reports as a result of inquiries held in the various departments? It seems an extraordinary procedure.


James Alexander Robb: These gentlemen were officers of the department, and every day such officers come into the ministers' offices and advise them of conditions prevailing in their particular branches.


Edward Joseph Garland: But this
was a special inquiry.


James Alexander Robb: No, it was conducted by
officers of the department.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I had occasion some two weeks ago to refer to failures to bring down orders of the House included among which was one that was passed on the 12th February -I am sure I have the right date-for the production of correspondence which, in the order as passed, was divided into three different catalogues: A, between the members of the government and officials of the Canadian National Railways; B, between members of parliament and the Canadian National Railways, and between certain dates set out in the order; and C, correspondence specially referring to the removal of the late directors and general manager. The government some time ago commenced to bring down this return by instalments, beginning with the portion referring to "correspondence between members of the government and officials." I think it is quite clear the order meant between members of the government and officers of the government and the company. But in filling the order the government has included all manner of trifling correspondence between one agent here and another agent there until a pile of lumber about a foot thick has been brought down. I use the phrase "pile of lumber" advisedly; I do not think the government could have imagined that any such correspondence was called for by the order. I think what should have been brought down is the correspondence between members of the government and leading officials of the
(Mr. Meitjhen.]
company itself. Indeed, the order did not say between any minor officials or officers of the various companies. Consequently, I wish to say that obviously this was not called for, and I think it is only brought down as a method of delaying what the order really calls for. The B and C catalogues have not been started, although we are now four months and more from the passing of the order. These could have been brought down at once, for they cover correspondence between the government and the company relating to the resignation- removal, really-of the directors, which evidently could not be very lengthy but is of importance. I do not think there is any excuse for four months' delay in bringing that correspondence down, but if there is any excuse the worst possible one is the searching out of correspondence between a station agent and some other minor agent of another company relating to a culvert, as if any such thing was called for by the terms of the order itself. I must ask that the substance of the order, and particularly the two B and C catalogues which could easily be complied with, be complied with now, and that the waste of money along the line at present being pursued be stopped.
Secondly, on May 14th an order was passed for a return showing orders for rolling stock and equipment given since October 4, 1922. This order has not been complied with, and certainly only a comparatively brief return would be necessary. I know of no reason for the delay. There are other orders as well, but I am emphasizing these two at the moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is the
first time I have heard my hon. friend complain of getting too much information.


Arthur Meighen: Of getting too little.
I am getting the information blocked.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. I think the officers have noticed the frequency with which my hon. friend draws attention to any slight omission, and they have tried to avoid anything of the kind happening in this case. However, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) is not in the House at the moment. I will bring the representations of my hon. friend to his attention as soon as he comes back. What is the date of the last order?


Arthur Meighen: The 14th May. The
first one was on motion of my hon. friend to my left (Sir Henry Drayton). It was dated in February; I have not the exact date, but it was close to the 14th.

Three Rivers Harbour



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I desire to make
this motion, not with the intention of introducing any new matter, but merely that the committee may have the opportunity of reporting the' resolutions agreed upon last evening so I may introduce the bills founded thereon.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
['We yield.\nProgress reported.\n\nCanada Shipping Act']
Mr. FIELDING:: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the two resolutions concerning bounties and the resolution concerning the customs tariff be reported.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 214, respecting payment of bounties on petroleum.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 215, respecting payment of bounties to certain manufacturers of hemp.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 216, to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Ernest Lapointe, (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to make provision for the improvement and management of the harbour of Three Rivers, in the province of Quebec, and to provide:
1.	That the commissioners appointed under this Act shall be incorporaited under the name of the "Three Rivers Hartxmr Commissioners".
2.	That boundaries of the harbour be defined; harbour commissioners and a harbour master, a deputy harbour master and other officers be appointed; and rules and regulations, and a tariff of rates and dues be made.
3.	That the jurisdiction of the commissioners be defined, as well as their powers as to expropriation of lands and the making of by-laws, the collection of rents, and the borrowing of money.
4.	That the commissioners shall expend the moneys collected, after payment of the salary of the harbour master and the necessary expenses of maintenance of the harbour, in improving the harbour and its appurtenances according to plans to be approved by the minister.
5.	That regulations as to seizures, penalties, the application of the same and the general administration of the harbour be established.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Will the minister tell us how much the port of Three Rivers has improved as to importance, sailings, and so on? Perhaps he can give us the history of the port; it ought to be very interesting.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: There has been a misconception on the part of some hon. members that by this proposed legislation it was sought to create a new commission. The harbour commission of Three Rivers was created by statute as far back as 1882. Some of the provisions of that statute are inadequate, and the main changes now proposed are these: The harbour commissions were formerly composed of manjr members- representatives of the board of trade, of the city council, and so on. It has been thought that that arrangement is too cumbersome. So the Three Rivers Commission will henceforth be composed of three members as in the case of the other important harbour commissions. The boundaries of the harbour are better defined than they were before. We have followed almost word for word the provisions of the enactment-the latest of its kind-creating a commission for the harbour of Vancouver.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The only change, Ihen, is a better definition of the boundaries and a reduction of the number of commissioners from an unmentioned number to three?


Mr. BUREAU:: Five to three.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any other change?


Ernest Lapointe: There are many other changes. I have said that we have followed the same lines as in the case of the bill for Vancouver.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the Three Rivers commission the same, generally speaking, as the other commissions? For example, has the harbour been taken over by the Dominion authority, or are the commissioners local commissioners? Is it the municipality
Three Rivers Harbour

or the Dominion that is financing the harbour?


Jacques Bureau: The harbour commission of Three Rivers was created by statute in 1882. At that time we had no docks except those of Canada Steamship Lines. Permission was obtained to borrow $82,000, which was advanced by the Minister of Finance. The harbour commission consisted of three men appointed by the government, together with the mayor of the city and the president of the board of trade. In 1892 an amendment to the act creating the harbour commission was adopted; owing to the increase of trade and the general expansion which had taken place, permission was given to the harbour commission to borrow $190,000 for the building of docks. A cement dock was built by the Dominion government and turned over to the commission for administration. The commission administer the whole of the harbour. They make all charges for harbour dues, wharfage, dockage, and so on; they draw up the schedule for fees or tolls to be paid. Exerything they do has to be submitted to the Governor in Council for approval. Their powers are practically those of the other harbour commissions. But, so as to bring about uniformity, I have asked, in accordance with requests made to me, that the lines followed be the same as those laid down in the case of the other large commissions, particularly the Vancouver commission, which is the latest and most modem. There is a change in the limits of the harbour of Three Rivers. The old limits were, west, a prolongation of the divisional line between the parish and the city of Three Rivers across the river, including the south shore, and east a prolongation of a line-


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend need not give the details.


Jacques Bureau: We have taken the natural boundary lines, making an increase east as well as an increase west. To the north it is the same, being co-extensive with the limits of the city of Three Rivers. The change of the harbour limits is necessary owing to the cropping up of new industries along the water front of the St. Lawrence and the St. Maurice rivers. The object is to enable the exercise of some control as to how these things shall be done, and also to provide for the collection of harbour dues for the raising of a revenue to maintain the docks, and so on. The interest due on the debentures of the harbour commission is regularly paid; there is also a sinking fund into which amounts have regularfSir Henry Drayton.]
ly been placed, except for a period during the war. Everything has been conducted legally and in due form; it is just to modernize the harbour that we are asking for this legislation.


Arthur Meighen: I am sure the House will be glad to assist the hon. member in modernizing Three Rivers if possible.


Jacques Bureau: It is the harbour we want to modernize.


Arthur Meighen: About when were the
present commissioners appointed?


Jacques Bureau: I do not remember the
exact date-since we have come into power. I recommended that the three commissioners appointed by the former government be replaced by the three who now hold office.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose that was the process of modernizing?


Jacques Bureau: Yes, that was the beginning of the modernizing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hope it will not be the beginning of failure to pay interest or to conduct the board on a proper business basis. My hon. friend says that everything had been properly done; the interest has been paid, and so on,. I do not know whether that was the reason for the replacing of the former commissioners. What is to be done in the way of improvements?


Jacques Bureau: There is no programme yet. A coal dock which was built by the Department of Public Works has not been turned over to the commission-it is still under the department-but as the other docks were built they were turned over by the department to the harbour commission. As I say, no definite scheme of improvement has yet been adopted, but I hope something in that line will be done before long.


Arthur Meighen: What salaries are paid the commissioners?


Jacques Bureau: They are not paid any salaries at all.


Arthur Meighen: They get no remuneration?


Jacques Bureau: No remuneration.


Ernest Lapointe: That is why nobody complained about being dismissed.


Mr. BAXTER:: I would like to ask whether paragraph 4 of the resolution intends a change or not. Under it the commissioners are to expend the moneys collected, after payment of the salary of the harbour master and the neces-


IS, 1923
[Stage Direction]
Three Rivers Harbour
sary expenses of maintenance of the harbour, improving the harbour and its appurtenances according to plans to be approved by the minister. There is no provision there for the payment of interest or sinking fund. Will that be in the bill?
Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: It is in the bill.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 217, respecting the Three Rivers Harbour Commission.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe, the bill was lead the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 3-Interpretation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would ask my hon. friend whether this interpretation clause is the standard clause, to be found, for example, in such a bill as the one respecting the Vancouver Harbour Board. Are there any changes made here beyond changes of names?


Ernest Lapointe: I think it is the same absolutely.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon. friend can tell me that is the fact I am quite content to take his word.


Jacques Bureau: It is the same thing.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps the clause had better stand. My deputy will be here in a moment.
Section stands.
On section 4-Harbour limits defined.


Jacques Bureau: This is just as shown on the chart. ,


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Commissioner.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a change made here apparently. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) told us I think that the commissioners were not paid any salary.


Jacques Bureau: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But under this bill it is now proposed to pay them a salary.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, under the control of the Governor in Council.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is an express clause here to the effect that for their services the president and the other commissioners may be paid out of the revenues of the harbour such remuneration as the Governor in Council may determine. I rather understood from my hon. friend that there was to be no change in that regard. Apparently there is to be a change.


Jacques Bureau: If my hon. friend understood that, I never intended to give such an impression. The harbour of Three Rivers is increasing in importance every day, and the development of the port requires, like the ports of Montreal and Quebec, men who will give their whole time to the work. It would not be fair to ask them to give their full time to this work without remuneration. I would point out that this bill has no retroactive effect, and this provision is made in anticipation of the development of the harbour at Three Rivers and of the St. Maurice region, which is developing very fast. We have not got the accommodation we ought to have now to take care of the traffic. This clause is to provide that when conditions justify it the commissioners shall be paid a salary which will be determined by the Governor in Council.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course the bill is not made retroactive. If it was, perhaps somebody would say that it was being done to help the commissioners whose heads are being cut off.


Jacques Bureau: Leave it to me not to help them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is happening under this bill is this. The commissioners who have carried on the work properly and made a first-rate financial showing-


Jacques Bureau: Do not insist too much upon that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am only taking what my hon. friend from Three Rivers said a few moments ago. He said-


Jacques Bureau: They were paying the
interests and sinking fund except for a period during the war.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought everything had gone on all right afterwards. That is doing pretty well to keep things paid up and not to be a charge on the government at all. While that was done under these commissioners who served without salary-


Jacques Bureau: It is being done now.
Three Rivers Harbour


Henry Lumley Drayton: Apparently one of the real motives behind this bill is that the three friends whom my hon. friend has put in to modernize the commission are to be paid.


Jacques Bureau: The three men who are
there now do not want the money first. They are all men of great ability. I can tell my hon. friend what their business is. One of them is the managing director of the St. Maurice Lumber Company, which is a subsidiary of the international company which has mills in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia too, if I am not mistaken. They have a paper mill in Three Rivers, which some of my friends in the House had occasion to visit a short time ago when they were in Three Rivers. It is the largest paper mill, I think, on this side of the line. Another of the gentlemen is a hardware merchant who has made a success of his business; and the other is a wholesale drygoods man. Every one of them can live without a salary as commissioner, but if we are going to pass an act to incorporate a commission we must look ahead to the future development of the port, and I am satisfied, in view of the development of the St. Maurice region, that before many years the harbour of Three Rivers will require a staff of engineers and men who will have to devote their whole time to the interests of the harbour. We have power galore, and more is being developed; we have also a fine water front. There is no reason at all why the port should not develop and take care of all the manufactured products which are made in that district as far up as La Tuque. I would not ask parliament to pass a bill to pay some friends of mine. My hon. friend may rest assured I shall never do that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no doubt from what my hon. friend says that thes-e commissioners can get along very well without the salary. I have no doubt, further, in view of what he says, that it is not a question of salary first with them at all, nor do I think in view again of what he says, that it is a question of money coming afterwards.


Jacques Bureau: Afterwards?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Afterwards, yes.


Jacques Bureau: In the future.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So far as these gentlemen are concerned I am quite sure they do not want any salary.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know why my hon. friend is insisting on it.
I Mr. Bureau. 1


Jacques Bureau: For the future.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Unless it is that, while we now have three first rate commissioners, as my hon. friend tells us, in the near future these gentlemen are to give up their jobs and somebody is to be appointed who wants the salary.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is what
my hon. friend says.


Jacques Bureau: To the pure all things
are pure.


Ernest Lapointe: This is exactly the
same provision as in the statutes concerning the Vancouver Harbour Commission, the Quebec Harbour Commission, and the Montreal Harbour Commission. Why should we strike out this clause because it refers to Three Rivers?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The only reason I was referring to it at all is that, while we were told that no salaries whatever were to be paid to the commissioners, yet it will be possible in this case to render these offices, offices of emolument.


Ernest Lapointe: There was no salary formerly, and I do not know whether there will ever be one; it all depends upon the development of the harbour. Why should we make an exception in the case of Three Rivers and strike out that clause in this bill which is in the other statutes?


Arthur Meighen: The minister says there are salaries in the case of certain other harbour commissioners.


Ernest Lapointe: In the case of Montreal, Quebec and Vancouver there are.


Arthur Meighen: What about Hamilton
and Toronto?


Ernest Lapointe: There is no salary.


Arthur Meighen: No provision for it? It would have been well for the minister to have said that in this case so that the House would know the facts. The truth is that in case of large harbours where the commissioners have to give all their time the House has provided that salaries may be paid; in the case of the smaller harbours it has not. There is no desire on the part of a single individual in this House to discriminate against Three Rivers; but I was a little doubtful whether the government were going to the trouble of introducing a bill to reduce the number of commissioners and for no other purpose. I wondered when the truth was going to come out.

Three Rivers Harbour


Jacques Bureau: We want to enlarge the
limits of the harbour.


Arthur Meighen: If salaries are paid I
do not think there will be any further bill to reduce the number of harbour commissioners.


Jacques Bureau: You think we will increase them?


Arthur Meighen: If the harbour is on a par with Vancouver and Montreal, and- what is the other one?


Jacques Bureau: Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: Those are the three
that are on a par. There is no objection to these appointments provided they are not made as they were in Hamilton. I certainly would not urge that. I would like to have the opinion of some members of the government as to the value to the country of the changes that were made in Hamilton, for example. I hope there will be no provision to introduce salaries in the Hamilton case. I understand, they took the recommendation of the president of the Liberal Association and because the recommendation was so outrageous, one or two of the men appointed being in his employ, there was such an explosion in the Liberal Association that the president was removed from office. This was all due to the awful character of the recommendation which, of course, coming from the president of the association, the government accepted. That is what was done in Hamilton. I hope the minister will not carry that precedent any further, and, that in cases where he has submitted to patronage exploitation so fully as in the Hamilton case he will not go on and pay salaries there too.


Ernest Lapointe: That is an interesting
bit of history that I was not acquainted with at all.


Arthur Meighen: The minister was overseas when the explosion occurred.


Jacques Bureau: The ex-Minister of Finance did not represent correctly what I said. Talking about the commission as organized under the statutes of 1882, he asked me if the commissioners were paid, and I said, "No." That was the five commissioners. I did not say that they would not be paid hereafter, but I made the statement that this clause was copied from the Vancouver bill. I know there is' a future for the harbour of Three Rivers. This is a tidewater port, not an inland port, and there are always two or three ocean vessels there. My hon. friends who visited Three Rivers a short time ago will remember that there were a couple of ocean
ships at the dock on that occasion, but with present conditions it is not necessary that the commissioners should devote their whole time to the work. As I said, I hope parliament will, before long, acknowledge the necessity of increasing the facilities in the harbour of Three Rivers on account of the development of the back country. The region of the St. Lawrence alone now produces 1,500 tons a day of pulp and paper, and other paper mills and other industries are going up. I think that part of the country-of course some of my hon. friends may smile at the prediction-will, within a quarter of a century, be the industrial centre of Canada.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Yes, we smile.


Jacques Bureau: I want my prediction to go on Hansard. Nature has provided Three Rivers with a splendid harbour. We have a tidewater port, the finest on the St. Lawrence. And I say, with all due consideration for my Montreal and Quebec
4 p.m. friends, we have no tide. I think Three Rivers is the only tidewater port in the world that has no tide.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jacques Bureau: The current never changes, it flows down twelve months in the year. There may be a backing up of six or seven inches in the height of the tide but it always flows the same way. There is depth of water galore, there is power galore, and a splendid field for labour. Some of the younger generation in this House will live to see remarkable developments at Three Rivers. I am afraid the Quebec harbour will be put in the shade as compared with Three Rivers.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Ernest Lapointe: We might perhaps revert to section 3. I might answer my hon. friend now by saying that the interpretation clause is practically the same as in the Vancouver Act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Exactly the same except that in the latter case the word "Vancouver" appears?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Officers etc.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this the same form as in the Vancouver Act?


Ernest Lapointe: Just the same.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Jurisdiction.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this the same as Vancouver?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Three Rivers Harbour
[Stage Direction]
On section 8-Powers as to property required for harbour.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this the same as in the case of Vancouver?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Motive power, tracks, plant, etc.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I would not
think there was any necessity for a marine railway at Three Rivers any more than at Quebec?


Jacques Bureau: The clause does not necessarily mean a marine railway. It says:
The corporation may own and operate by any motive power, all kinds of tracks, appliances, apparatus, plant and machinery for the purpose of increasing the usefulness of the harbour or facilitating traffic therein.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are the present rails owned by the commissioners, or by the company?


Jacques Bureau: There is an agreement between the commission and the Canadian Pacific Railway. I think the commission leases the ground to the company, or the company leases their tracks, I could not tell which it is, I have not looked at the agreement for a long time; but it is either one or the other. The company are obliged to let anyone that comes use the tracks. I am speaking from memory, but I think the tracks are practically public tracks controlled by the commission.


Mr. FORKE:: Has this bill been printed?


The CHAIRMAN:: Yes.


Robert Forke: We have no copies of it.


Jacques Bureau: I have not a copy-except a typewritten copy.


Ernest Lapointe: There are eighteen miles of railway in the harbour of Quebec.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec run a marine railway. I think they use rather the company power. My recollection is-you can correct me if I am wrong-that those tracks were put down by the railway company, and not by the commission, and the railway company operates them.


Ernest Lapointe: They are owned and operated by the commission.


Jacques Bureau: Not in Three Rivers. In Three Rivers there is an agreement between the railway company and the harbour commissioners.


Robert Forke: I object to the bill going through without copies being furnished. What chance have I to say anything about a bill when I do not know anything about it?


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend objects, of course I cannot proceed any further.


George Newcombe Gordon: The objection should have been raised on the motion to go into committee. Objection can be raised to the clauses in committee, but not to the bill being considered in committee.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am not objecting, but 1 think it puts us at a disadvantage. I am particularly interested in this subject from the standpoint of the city of St. John, which, I hope, some day will put itself in a position to take advantage of the harbour commission legislation. I was anxious to follow this bill for the purpose of seeing how certain problems that would affect St. John might be dealt with. I have not made an objection because I did not wish to hold up the business of the House, but I think it might Le arranged that there should be a proper distribution of bills before we are called upon to consider them. I know that in much smaller establishments than this it is impossible to get a bill which is not printed dealt with, except by specially asking unanimous consent to do so. The rule of this House seems to be different, and this House proceeds unless somebody stops it.


George Newcombe Gordon: The bill is always distributed among members of the House, except when the resolution is put through the House on the same day as the bill is introduced. We have only two or three of these bills printed this afternoon, or rather we have the proof sheets. This resolution was introduced this afternoon and got its second reading, and the House went into committee. That is the reason the bill is not distributed.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the Chairman's interpretation is quite correct. It is true a bill of this kind can only follow a resolution, and nothing else can go on, except by unanimous consent. But I do not think it is correct to say that the House is competent to go into committee on a bill until the English and French copies have been distributed. I have never seen it done, and I have not seen unanimous consent asked for it. I think it would be a very grave irregularity, and a bad precedent on the part of anybody at any stage, to put through a bill copies of which bon. members have not in their possession.


Jacques Bureau: We yield.
Progress reported.

Canada Shipping Act



PETROLEUM AND NAPHTHA INSPECTION ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Committee of the Whole-The following proposed
resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act, chapter eighty-six of the Revised Statutes, 1906, by providing that the Governor in Council may make special regulations as to the sale of naphtha and its use for illuminating purposes, and that, subject to regulations made by the Governor in Council under authority of section three of the Act, naphtha shall not be sold or offered for sale in Canada for illuminating purposes, except for the uses prescribed in section fourteen thereof.-The Minister of Customs and Excise.
Jacques Bureau: I move that this Order of the Day be discharged. It was put in by error. They thought it was a matter of trade and commerce, but it is not.


Arthur Meighen: Is the parliamentary
counsel again to be held responsible?


Jacques Bureau: I do not know. I went tc the parliamentary counsel and talked the matter over with him, and we came to the conclusion that it was not necessary. I do not know who did it. I do not want to throw the blame on anyone. I suppose I must assume the blame, as my name appears at the end of the resolution.
Motion agreed to and order discharged.



INLAND REVENUE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
In Committee of the Whole-The following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Inland Revenue Act, chapter fifty-one of the Revised Statutes, 1906, by providing for the inclusion of certain employees as departmental analysts; that the certificate of departmental or provincial analysts shall be accepted as evidence in all prosecutions under the Act; that a penalty be prescribed for deodorizing or clarifying denatured alcohol or specially denatured alcohol; and that a cultivator of tobacco for private use may sell the surplus tobacco grown by him after paying to the nearest officer of Inland Revenue the duty of twenty cents per pound.-The Minister of Customs an Excise.
Jacques Bureau: This is in the same position as the other resolution. The last part is surplusage and should not have been placed there, and that is the only part that would affect the revenue. I move that this resolution be discharged.


Arthur Meighen: I think we ought to agree to this, to help to modernize the government.


Jacques Bureau: Does the hon. member not think it is too modern?
Motion agreed to and order discharged.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr, ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Petroleum Shipping Act, chapter one hundred and thirteen of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and to provide that the minister may pay, out of moneys applicable to the relief of distressed seamen and appropriated by parliament for that purpose, such sums as are deemed necessary for the relief of shipwrecked or destitute seamen who are not entitled to relief under any of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts; also pay any reasonable expenses incurred in any British possession or any foreign country on account of subsistence or transport of such seamen who have been domiciled twelve months in Canada; and to provide f urther that in the case of passenger steam-sh.ps registered in Canada, the Governor in Council shall have power to authorize the acceptance of passenger steamboat certificates issued by the Imperial government or by the government of a British possession; and further to provide that, in the case of seagoing ships, the Governor in Council shall have power to authorize the acceptance of survey or inspection made by an exclusive surveyor to an approved society or association for the classification and registry of shipping, in lieu of Canadian government inspection.
He said. Both this resolution and resolution No. 54 are embodied in the one bill, and I ask that they be considered at the same time.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the hon. minister would explain the effect of the combination.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no effect resulting from the combination. This resolution was placed on the order paper a few weeks ago, and since it was placed there the necessity arose for other amendments of the Shipping Act, and the second resolution had to be placed on the order paper. But everything contained in both resolutions is included in one bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the present law? It seems that a good deal of what is before us is embodied in the present statute.


Ernest Lapointe: A good deal of it is. Of course it will be much easier to discuss the provisions of the resolution when the bill is before the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister might tell us what is new.


Ernest Lapointe: In the first part the only change will be that the responsibility of the government of paying for the transportation and help of distressed seamen will be limited to those serving in ships registered
Canada Shipping Act


Mr. MacLAREN:: Does this resolution propose to give to the Marine department authority to pay the expenses of distressed seamen landed on our shores, in order to take them to their homes?


Ernest Lapointe: It applies only to Canadian seamen in distress outside of Canada.


Murray MacLaren: Would it not be possible to make an arrangement for the benefit of distressed seamen left in Canadian ports?


Ernest Lapointe: Such seamen are taken care of. There is provision for Canadian seamen in distress in Canadian ports.


Murray MacLaren: In what way are they dealt with? I have inquired on this point of people who are interested in marine matters, particularly at St. John, and it is

stated, in reference to this question, that in the past years the port of St. John has had large numbers of distressed seamen landed there without any provision for their transportation-


Ernest Lapointe: For their transportation in Canada?


Murray MacLaren: -except where they were furnished with a DLLS, certificate. I do not know what those letters stand for; perhaps the minister can tell us.


Ernest Lapointe: They mean "distressed
British seamen."


Murray MacLaren: This condition involves the Seamen's Mission, the Navy League and the city of St. John in a lot of trouble and expense to care for these men and secure their transportation to their Canadian destinations. The resolution which is now being discussed I sent to these people for their criticism.


Mr. DUFF:: Were these seamen landed in a foreign port, or were they local seamen who were discharged?


Murray MacLaren: Let me complete the
statement I was making. It is understood that this resolution, if carried into law, will give to the Marine department the authority to send such seamen to their destinations. Is that a correct interpretation of it?


Ernest Lapointe: We have been paying, for seamen sent back to Canada, not only their ocean expenses but the cost of their transportation to their Canadian homes. We have done this in many instances. If my hon. friend will send to the department the communication to which he has been referring we shall be pleased to consider it.


Murray MacLaren: I shall be pleased to do so. I understood that seamen landing in Canada who live outside of the port in which they are discharged have not been providec with any means of getting to their homes, unless with local financial assistance. That I understood to be the present condition and. if it is, it is rather a tax on the communities who have to care for such men.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is perfectly right in this respect, that the board of trade is reimbursed only for the ocean transportation of the men. But an amount is voted every year to enable the department to help these seamen to any extent it thinks proper. The responsibility, if it is a responsibility, is not limited merely to provision fo-their sea passage, for in a great number o:

Canada Shipping Act
oases we have paid to send them to their homes in this country, if they are bona fide Canadians and their residences can be ascertained.


Murray MacLaren: Then I understand that the matter is already provided for. It appears that provision is made for the return of seamen landing in Canadian ports to their homes in Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: There is an item in the estimates of the Marine department every year to reimburse the board of trade for whatever is spent for the repatriation of seamen. But the vote is not limited to that purpose alone; help can be extended to the men to take them back to their homes.


Murray MacLaren: There is evidently some difficulty in reference to this matter because, as I said, I am informed that the Seamen's Mission, which is a philanthropic organization, and the Navy League are called upon to meet these expenses.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will
understand that the department tries to have the owners pay, but ultimately in many cases we have to pay the expenses ourselves.


Murray MacLaren: Of course, the difficulty is that these men cannot be detained until the dispute is settled. I presume claims can be submitted to the department in these cases?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Murray MacLaren: I have received the
following communication on the latter portion of the resolution:
The clause with reference to passenger steamboat certificates seems to meet with approval-
That is to say, the approval of the local marine people.
in so far as the Imperial government and the governments of British possessions are concerned; but the further provision authorizing the acceptance of survey or of inspection by an exclusive surveyor to an approved society or association in lieu of Canadian government inspection is not very highly favoured.
There are no specific reasons given for that, simply the general statement.


Ernest Lapointe: This change has been
urged upon the department for a long time.
I may instance a case. Take the Empress boats which ply from Vancouver to the Orient; suppose one of those boats has to go in dock at Hong Kong for an extensive survey and inspection, which is certified, would it be fair to require her to go in dock
again when she reaches Vancouver for a similar survey and inspection at considerable cost? I think that really the change is desirable.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Does not the minister think it would be advisable to endeavour to have such work done in Canada rather than in the Orient?


Ernest Lapointe: Surely, but there are
cases where a boat has to go in dock in a foreign country.


William Garland McQuarrie: Such cases could be
provided for. But I understand shipowners try to get this work done in the Orient because of the cheaper labour there. I do not think the practice should be encouraged.
_ Mr. LAPOINTE:	I cited that as one
instance only. It would apply as well to boats going in dock in Great Britain and British possessions.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to mention a matter of another character in connection with this act in the hope that if the minister sees fit to adopt my suggestion he may introduce the necessary amendment. It is a matter in which considerable injustice has been done to shipping masters and mates, I believe more or less inadvertently. It has been brought to a head. by a recent ruling of a supreme court judge in the West, and I think his ruling is due to a mistake in the wording of the act.
Section 96 of the Canada Shipping A.ct provides that steamers "going" from one port to another in Canada or on any coasting voyage shall carry certificated masters. But that section does not provide any penalty for nonobservance of this law. The section which does prescribe a penalty is section 120, which provides that any master or mate engaged in such a vessel which goes on any voyage"-that is the way it is worded, "goes on any voyage," and that is what the decision hangs on- shall be subject to a penalty, and so forth.
Some years later it appears to have been thought advisable to change this section, and in 1908 the act was amended by chapter 65. So far as I can understand it, the intention of the amendment was not only to put a penalty and a responsibility upon the master of the vessel who went from one place to another uncertificated, but also to provide a penalty for the owners. I think that was the intention of the amendment to the act, but unfortunately it was worded somewhat differently, and instead of using the words "going from one place to another," the amendment reads "any ship trading" from one point to another or on inland waters, as the case may be.
Canada Shipping Act

A test case was taken before the courts in Vancouver last year, when the Merchant Seamen's Guild prosecuted a man who was taking a boat on the coast without any certificate whatever. But it appeared that the boat contained only goods belonging to the owner of the vessel, and the decision went against the guild. An appeal was taken to the supreme court, but the judge there also decided against the guild on the ground that the boat in question was not "trading" ' within the meaning of the act. It was perfectly clear that they had been engaged in going from one port to another, but they had not been engaged in trading in the opinion of the judge because they were carrying only the goods of the owner. Now, it is easy for this House to see that the danger of a boat being in charge of an uncertificated man is equally great whether the goods on that boat belong to its owner or to somebody else. It is an absurdity to say that it is correct and safe for a man uncertificated to be in charge of a boat if the goods belong to the owner of the boat, but that it is all wrong and dangerous if the goods belong to someone else. I think that only needs to be stated to show its absurdity. There is also the sense of responsibility on the part of the master or mate to be taken into account. A certificated master or mate who takes a chance and runs his boat on the rocks or has a collision loses his certificate and therefore his livelihood; but an uncertificated man has no such scruples, he can afford to take a chance and if he does wreck his boat he can go out and get another if somebody is foolish enough to employ him.
There is no question of cost because I am informed that a considerable number of these certificated men are willing Jo work for the wages given to the uncertificated men. How the former came to be ousted from their positions is that during the war they went on ships engaged in the war and when they came back they found their old positions taken by uncertificated men perhaps unavoidably because no others could be obtained at the time. But those conditions no longer exist and it is perfectly just and proper that these certificated men should now be restored to their former positions both for their own benefit and for the safety of the public.
I may quote one sentence regarding the decision of the judge. It is as follows:
The new section says "trading.'' His Lordship held that parliament must have had some reason for making the ohange, and that the word "trading'' was deliberately substituted for "going".
The learned judge evidently was never in this parliament, or he would have known that we often do things without any particular
[Mr. Neill.j
reason, and that words drawn up by someone somewhat unfamiliar with the circumstances sometimes slip into our legislation. Besides, for some ten years this section has never been called in question. It was taken to mean that trading did cover the conditions I have mentioned. But now that this judge has ruled in the opposite direction, I submit it is desirable to go back to the old rendering of section 120 dealing with the point, so the word "trading" will be altered to mean as in the original act, namely, a boat going from one port to another.
I have the details of the particular case before me, and I shall be glad to furnish them to the minister's officers if they wish to go into it.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is making a case which appears very strong and which favourably impresses me, at any rate. But as I told him some time ago, it is the intention of the department and of the government to revise the whole Shipping Act next session if at all possible. The object of the present amendment is merely to deal with questions of procedure and to harmonize the law in some points with the board of trade regulations in England. No important changes are made. I would ask my hon. friend to leave the matter for the present. Speaking from the first view I have of it, I think there is no reason for making the differentiation that he has pointed out; I think the word "going" would be a better word there than the word "trading." However, I promise him that the matter will engage my consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: The next resolution is as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Canada Shipping Act, chapter one hundred and thirteen of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, by providing:-
1.	That no registrar shall register any ship purchased or otherwise acquired from a foreign subject or corporation where any bill of sale or other document under or by virtue of which the ship became vested in the applicant for registry contains any provision express, implied or constructive, restricting the use of the vessel or imputing any measure of continued control thereof by the government of a foreign country.
2.	That where in the opinion of the minister any person who applies to be registered as owner of a ship has not sufficient assets in Canada, other than the ship itself, to reimburse His Majesty for any expenses His Majesty may subsequently incur in connection with such ship, her master or a member of her crew, the minister may prohibit a registrar from registering such person as owner until security for such expenses, in such form and such amount as the minister may decide, shall have been furnished.
3.	That the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the manner in which grain cargoes shall be loaded at ports in Canada on ships bound to ports outside of Canada not within the limits of inland navigation, and for the imposition of penalties for breach of any such regulations.

Canada Shipping Act
4.	That the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the manner in which the port warden shall perform his duties, and giving him such additional duties as he may from time to time see fit.
5.	That annual returns shall be made by surveyors, and that provision be made for calculating tonnage.


Mr. CARROLL:: Some ships have been
bought in the United States by Canadians during the last year, and the department has refused in some cases to give register on the ground that a condition was imposed on the registration by a foreign government. Will ships that have already been bought be debarred from registry by this act, or has the department made a special ruling in respect to them?


Ernest Lapointe: We had practically made a ruling, but upon consultation with the Department of Justice we have come to the conclusion that the law was not absolutely clear in that respect, and that is why we are now amending it. We are now making it certain that the registrar shall have the right to refuse the registry of such ships under such conditions. But I think the ships which have been acquired prior to the passing of this law will have to be accepted as to registry.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 218, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the bill was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Has this bill been
printed, Mr. Chairman?


George Newcombe Gordon: The printer's proof is ready, but the bill has not been distributed. The resolution has been introduced only this afternoon.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have no objection. The bill follows the lines of the resolution?


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Security to be given by applicant if assets in Canada not sufficient.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would like some information about this clause. One would think that the ship itself would be fairly good security. If the minister would state what difficulties have arisen we would be better able to appreciate the necessity for this legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: It is to cover the case where a company is incorporated solely for the purpose of owning and operating a single ship, and where they have no other visible assets in Canada. It is to ensure that any expenses incurred by the government in connection with such ship-the removal of obstructions in navigable waters, and so on- shall be reimbursed. In such cases we require a bond so that we may be protected.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Have such cases actually arisen?


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, yes. That is why we are asking for this legislation.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I know of cases in St.
John-for instance, what is popularly called the Battle Line-where ships which apparently operate under one line are separately owned by companies incorporated in each case to operate a single ship. That line operated at first with great success, but latterly with less. I fancy, however, that nothing of this character ever occurred with respect to that line. I only cite this because it is such a common way of dealing with vessels. If you have a company incorporated it is certainly all right, but it seems rather a strange thing to require a bond that will have to run as long as the life of the ship that is being built. There is no way of getting rid of it. The liability will always be there. The facts will continue just the same until the ship is eventually sold or broken up. I do not know what kind of bond you could get unless you get some indemnity company or some individuals belonging to the corporation which owns the ship to give a bond and try to get some indemnity themselves, perhaps by security on the ships. I would have thought that ordinarily speaking,-I may be wrong but I think I am right-if you have a preferred lien on the vessel it would seem enough without putting the owners to the possible expense of getting some company to identify them.


Ernest Lapointe: The trouble in many
cases is that the ship itself is lost. Where seamen are in distress it is very often because the ship is lost, and in that case we have nothing to reimburse the department. We have been confronted with cases of that kind in the past.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Have you any method of getting a claim on the insurance of the vessel lost?


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: I think it is
very proper that the government should take power to assume the responsibility of retum-

Biological Board Act

ing to Canada any. Canadian seamen shipwrecked abroad. I have always thought, however, that possibly the government should assume that responsibility entirely and not have recourse against the ship. I think there is some fund to which ships contribute; I forget what it is called, but I think it always shows a surplus.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The Sick Mariners' Fund.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That fund always shows a surplus I believe, and I would suggest to the minister the propriety,-I do not ask him to amend his bill-of taking out of that fund all sums necessary for the subsistence and transportation to their homes of Canadian seamen wrecked abroad. It is sometimes very difficult to collect these claims against the ship for the reason the minister mentions. The ship may have been lost and the owners of the ship have nothing coming to them whatever. All their assets are gone. It would not amount to a great deal in the run of a year if the government assumed the whole responsibility, and I would ask the minister to consider this suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Regulations as to loading of grain cargo.
Mr. COOTE:: I want to protest against
carrying clauses that we have not seen and of which we do not know the wording. We have not the printed bill before us, and the Chairman will not take the trouble to read the clauses as they are called.


George Newcombe Gordon: The Chairman does
not take the trouble to read the clause. The marginal notes are sufficient in committee.


George Gibson Coote: Might I ask, Mr. Chairman, if it is in order for us to put this bill through when the bill has not been printed and is not in the hands of hon. members?


George Newcombe Gordon: The bill is now in
committee. A motion was made to that effect and was carried.


Ernest Lapointe: I might explain that this clause is to enable us to adopt the British Board of Trade regulations respecting the loading of grain cargoes. The law as it is now is rather vague in that regard. We want to have the right to impose compulsory regulations, and the intention of the department is to accept the British regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
tMr. A. K. Maclean.]

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 206 to amend the Biological Board Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Constitution of Board.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: What universities are represented on this board now?


Ernest Lapointe: The University of New Brunswick, University of Manitoba, Laval, Toronto, Dalhousie, Queen's and McGill.


Arthur Edward Ross: What other universities will possibly be represented on the board?


Ernest Lapointe: Any university which carries on biological research and applies for representation. The minister appoints the scientists these universities recommend.


Arthur Meighen: Who appointed them before?


Ernest Lapointe: They were appointed in just the same way. The only change brought about by this bill is that there will be three additional members appointed by the government. One will be an officer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and the two others will be representatives of the fisheries industry, probably one in the East and one in the West. The object is to have these men work with the scientists and impress upon them what are the most immediate needs of the industry. I may say that the work of these gentlemen is rather of a voluntary nature. They do not receive any salary. They are all scientists and the only thing we pay is their expenses.


Arthur Meighen: On a per diem basis?


Ernest Lapointe: No, their actual expenses.


Arthur Edward Ross: The university representatives are generally recommended or suggested by the university.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: In the case of
Queen's university the representative is the man engaged in biological work.


Ernest Lapointe: It is Professor MacClem-ent.


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

Militia Pension Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou, Acting Minister of National Defence) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, (1) that is is expedient to amend the provisions of the Militia Pension Act by providing that the period of service entitling officers, retired compulsorily, to pension, shall be twenty years; and that any officer so retired, who served on active service during the Great War and was appointed to the Force on or after the 1st January, 1919, and prior to 31st December, 1921, and since such appointment has served continuously in the Force for not less than ten years, shall be entitled to pension as provided in section four of the said act.
2. That the period of service required of every militiaman to entitle him to pension shall be twenty years, or fifteen years if incapacitated for duty by infirmity of mind or body, and he shall be subject to return to service if he ceases to be incapacitated, and if he has completed fifteen but less than twenty years service, his pension shall be an annual sum equal to one-fiftieth of his annual pay and allowances for every completed year of service.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Explain.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: The purpose of this resolution is to bring the situation in regard to militia pensions back to where it was previous to the legislation of 1919. Under the original provisions of the Militia Pension Act, which has been in force in this country for a great number of years, an officer could be compulsorily retired at the end of twenty years, and on retirement, if his record was good, he was entitled to receive a certain amount of pension. At the end of twenty-five years he could retire voluntarily and receive a pension. Previous to 1919, so far as the officers were concerned, they contributed every year a certain percentage out of their salary to the pension fund, and the fund was self sustaining. Non-commissioned officers and men made no contribution to the fund but were entitled to receive a pension after twenty years' service with good conduct. In 1919, after the war, an amendment was made which provided for the reduction of the period of service, as regards the officers, from twenty years to ten, and a similar reduction in the time of service was made in the case of the men. The result of the change has been a very large increase in the amount paid in pensions. Thus in the year 1919-20 the amount of pensions paid to officers and men amounted to only $225,000 whereas, as a result of the amendment shortening the period of service, the amount so paid in 1922-23 reached the total of $550,000-pension payments were actually doubled. The object of the amendment of 1919 was to look after quite a number of competent officers who had seen service during the war but who after-
253i
wards came into the department and were attached to the permanent force. Since that time there has been quite a retirement of officers, which accounts for the large increase in the amount of pensions. Altogether 369 officers and warrant officers have been retired since July 7, 1919, and in the case of noncommissioned officers and men the retirements number 295. The result has been that the cost of pensions has increased very materially. There is no further reason why the short period of service should be continued any longer. It is the view of the officers of the department that we should revert to the twenty-year period, to qualify for a pension. As regards those officers who came in between 1919 and last year, who were veterans of the war and enlisted on the faith of the ten years' service, it is provided that the ten-year provision should still apply to them. In all other respects it is proposed to revert to the twenty-year period as regards all the officers and men connected with the department. There have been a large number of withdrawals by non-commissioned officers and men who have served less than twenty years. The applications for withdrawal have become so numerous that it was felt it would not be wise to continue the pension at great cost to the country for mere service in the ranks for a period of ten years without any contribution to the fund on the part of the men.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On clause 2.


Murray MacLaren: What percentage of
pay is deducted per year for the fund?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: One fiftieth.


Murray MacLaren: In the case of both
officers and men?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not
at hand the exact amount contributed but I would be glad to get the information for my hon. friend at a later stage.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think the minister should consider the case of non-commissioned officers who have to revert to junior rank owing to the reduction of the forces, and the fact that on a further reduction some of them are let out. This has made quite a difference in the pension to which they are entitled. I do not think the number involved is very large, so that it would not cost much to deal more generously with these
5 p.m. men. I would like the minister to look up the communications in regard to this matter and treat with fairness

Militia Pension Act
the men in question. And treat them fairly. The reduction of the forces has made quite a difference, and in some cases they are dropping out, because they would not continue in the very junior rank proposed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will look into the matter. The whole thing is dealt with by statute.


Arthur Meighen: I wish to take this opportunity to refer to a matter connected with the militia, but not connected with this bill- if I do not take it up now I shall not have another opportunity. . My information is that the local militia-perhaps not all but many of them-have been ordered to report at Petawawa, and they are required to leave for Petawawa on the 24th of this month. The provincial election is to be held the next day, and this order simply means the disfranchisement of all those members of the local militia, if the order is respected. I ask the government to see that the date is postponed till the 25th.


Mr. POWER:: Is that not covered by the advanced poll?


Arthur Meighen: No, I think not.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I have the very same complaint.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is the first time the matter has been called to my attention. I was not aware of the date the militia was going to Petawawa. The whole matter was dealt with by the officers in charge. I shall take the matter up with them. It seems to me these men should have the opportunity of voting, and I am glad the hon. leader of the Opposition has brought the matter to my attention.


Arthur Meighen: I know the difficulty of making an immediate commitment, but this difficulty seems so manifest, I think it would be a good thing if the minister would take the matter up at once, so that it could be made known that arrangements will be made so that these men can vote. I feel sure that they cannot vote, under the advanced polling provision, or I would not have received the message I have. If the minister would do this, it would still the agitation in the country.


Mr. STEWART (Hamilton):: There are a great many of these men in my constituency, and they would not like to be deprived of the privilege of voting. I hope some arrangement will be made whereby they can vote. It would be too bad if they were deprived of this privilege. I hope the minister will do all he can in the matter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This order does not apply, of course, to the infantry, because they go into camp elsewhere. I sympathize with the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this matter, and I will communicate with the officer in charge and see if the matter cannot be arranged.


Arthur Meighen: Could the hon. member not report to the House after eight o'clock?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, I will let my hon. friend know what can be done.


Mr. MACLEAN (Prince):: We had a similar request regarding the calling out of the militia in Prince Edward Island. The season is exceptionally late in that province and the seeding has been delayed. A request came from the farmers and others that the date of the calling out of the militia be changed from the 18th of June to the 25th. A large number of farmers' sons have been called out, and the farmers feel it is a hardship to be called out on the 18th. I brought the matter to the attention of the minister on a previous occasion, and I would like to know if anything definite has been done.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall also take that matter up with the chief of staff, and see if a remedy can be found. I will let the hon. member know after dinner.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Macdonald (Pictou) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 219 to amend the Militia Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Macdonald (Pictou), the bill was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


George Newcombe Gordon: The bill has not been distributed, as we simply have the proofs. The resolution went through this afternoon. Is there any objection to proceeding?


Arthur Meighen: I understand it, and I have no objection whatever of the bill going through. I do not like however putting bills through without hon. members having copies in their possession.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If there is any objection I will move that the committee report progress.
On section 1-Proviso as to officers who have served after the war and have been on forces for not less than ten years since appointment.

Public Service Retirement Act


Henry Lumley Drayton: As we have not the bill before us, perhaps the Chairman will read the clauses, so we will know what they contain.


James Arthurs: What is the object of the clause?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is to provide for officers in other classes.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 191 to amend the Public Service Retirement Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Operation of act extended for one year.
William Stevens Fielding: This bill simply extends
for one year the temporary superannuation act commonly known as the Calder Act. When the matter was before the House on a previous occasion the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) asked for some information regarding the number of persons retired. I sent a memorandum to the right hon. gentleman, and I have not a copy with me.


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

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 184 to amend the Insurance Act, 1917, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Newcombe Gordon: The committee has
passed sections 1 and 2. Section 3 is under consideration.
On section 3, subsection (1)-Conditions of license for automobile insurance.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member for
South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) was quite interested in this bill, but the Superintendent of Insurance has since discussed the matter with him, and I think that if he were here he would offer no objection. What he was particularly interested in was the question as to whether every applicant should not be given a copy of the application at the time the transaction takes place. According to the present custom a copy of the application is attached to the policy. If the change suggested by my hon. friend were a desirable one it would probably apply properly to all insurance policies. However, if the matter is worth very careful consideration, when we are having a general consolidation of the insurance acts there may be something in the hon gentleman's proposal. I do not say that he -S a consenting party to this section of the bill, but I do not think he would object if he were here, the Superintendent of Insurance having explained the matter to him.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would call the minister's attention to a provision that seems to be usual in modern insurance acts and which I do not think has been included in this bill, although I may observe that I ran over the bill hastily, my attention having been called to it only to-day. I have looked up the Insurance Act of New Brunswick and I know that it is the same in effect, and I think the wording is also the same, as in many of the western provinces. As I read this bill, while I think it is intended to a certain extent to help the insured, yet there are some difficulties that may arise. At least there are some forms of protection given by the ordinary fire insurance acts that do not seem to be extended to the insured in this case. Let me quote from the New Brunswick statute:
In any one of the following cases:
(a)	Where, by reason of necessity, accident or mistake, the conditions of any contract of fire insurance on property in this province as to the proof to be given to the insurer after the occurrence of a fire, have not been strictly complied with; or
(b)	Where, after a statement	or	proof of loss	hasbeen given in good faith by	or	on behalf	of	theassured in pursuance of any proviso or condition of such contract, the insurer, through its agent or otherwise, objects to the loss upon other grounds than for imperfect compliance with such conditions or does not, within a reasonable time after receiving such statement or proof, notify the assured in writing that such statement or proof is objected	to,	and what	are	theparticulars in which the same	is	alleged to	be	defective, and so from time to time; or
And this is the important one:
(c)	Where, for any other reason, the court or judge before whom a question relating to such insurance is tried or inquired into, considers it inequitable that the insurance should be deemed void or forfeited by reason of imperfect compliance with such conditions, no objection to the sufficiency of such statement or proof or amended or supplemental statements or proof (as the case may be) shall, in any such cases, be allowed as a discharge of the liability of the company on such contract of insurance wherever entered into.
It is a little difficult to follow these sections as one reads them, but the provisions they contain have been given effect to, and amplified if anything in the interpretation of them by the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not want to delay the bill, but I should like the Superintendent of Insurance to consider the sections I have read, which pro-
Insurance Act

bahly have not been called to his attention, lie might give some thought to the expediency of including them in this bill and so putting the insurance of automobiles on a parity with insurance in other cases.


William Stevens Fielding: I should not care to
answer my hon. friend at once; it would be necessary for me to consult the Superintendent of Insurance about the matter. I suggest that the bill be allowed to pass; before the third reading is moved I will have the m liter inquired into and either have the Superintendent of Insurance consult my hon. friend, or in some other way see that what is suggested be given due attention.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That will be quite satisfactory, so far as I am concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 1 (f)-No liability if drivers under age limit, under 16 years, or intoxicated.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is not that perhaps just a little severe? If the intoxicated person were the owner of the automobile it would be quite fair, but he cannot be sure of the sobriety of his chauffeur under all possible circumstances. I would suggest the propriety of omitting the words "or by an intoxicated person."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), perhaps the objection of my hon. friend could be met on the third reading.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am quite willing.
Subsection 1 (f) agreed to.
On subsection 1 (g)-No liability unless stated in policy, for loss or damage by earthquake, etc.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: These, I think, follow the
statutory provisions.
Subsection 1 (g) agreed to.
On subsection 1	(j)

Accidents to other
persons or property. Notice to company with full particulars.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: We will all agree that the insured ought to give the company the benefit of all information he has or can reasonably obtain, but this part of the section:
-and that every writ, letter, document or advice received by the insured from or on behalf of any claimant shall be immediately forwarded to the company.
I think goes too far. This is something by which the insurance company may escape liability if a single scrap of paper received

by the insured has not been transmitted by him not only with due diligence but immediately, I can foresee the danger of an argument of that kind being made for the purpose of defeating a fair claim. I want to see reasonable protection afforded to the company, but I also want to see that the insured is reasonably protected. I think the word " promptly " as in the earlier part of this subsection, or some other word that would not require such acute action as implied by "immediately," would more likely result in fairness in the end.


William Stevens Fielding: I should not like to
change the word without consulting the superintendent, Mr. Chairman, although I might suggest "forthwith." I will consult him before the third reading, and have his attention drawn to this point also.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am quite content. v


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think this is
in a little different position to the other objections raised by my hon. friend from St. John and there does not seem to be much necessity for consultation with the superintendent. This is not technical, it is perfectly clear. I would suggest that the word "promptly" would meet the case, and then perhaps my hon. friend will not have to open the bill again.


Mr FIELDING:: If that will settle the
matter and the 'bill can be disposed of, I will accept the word "promptly" and take a chance. Then the bill will go through without any further discussion?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I will not bother about the words "or by an intoxicated person" which I called attention to under subsection one (/), but when the minister was out I spoke of the addition of three clauses which I think are very important.


William Stevens Fielding: This bill has, I think,
been the subject of some conferences between representatives of insurance companies and the department, and it is just possible they may attach some importance to those clauses. I think on the whole I would let the bill remain in committee, and perhaps later in the evening I may have an opportunity to consult the superintendent.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I quite see the trouble, in fact I suspected it. I am not attributing any improper motives, but I suspected the bill was the production of the insurance companies, modified perhaps by such views as the officers of the department might have. The viewpoint cf the people insured needs to be considered, and it is only to this end that I suggest these

Dry Dock Subsidies Act
amendments. We have a pretty well settled jurisprudence in all the provinces respecting fire insurance, and where this bill substantially departs from, or fails to comprehend things that are useful in that jurisprudence, I think that in the interests of people insuring those clauses should be inserted. I hope the minister will talk it over with the superintendent and perhaps it would be well for him not to bring the bill forward again to-night


William Stevens Fielding: I have no doubt the superintendent has conferred with the insurance companies or their representatives, but I should not like this to convey the implication that only the interests of the insurance companies have been considered. I am quite sure that the Superintendent of Insurance represents the public in the broadest sense and would not recommend a bill that did not, in his judgment, take due account of the public interest. However, I prefer that the bill remain in committee until Monday, and in the meantime I will have the superintendent consider what has been said here


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not want my hoc. friend to think that I am criticizing the Superintendent of Insurance as not having looked after the public interests. He has done so probably as far as he knows, but if half a dozen other people look at the bill there might be half a dozen different points of view presented, and some members here may think of points which did not occur to the superintendent. It is only to assist him to put the popular view in the bill that I am sugesting these amendments.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



DRY DOCK SUBSIDIES ACT 1910 AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Dry-dock Subsides Act, 1910, and amending acts, and to provid' that when the amount expended for the work ar.d materials upon a dock of the first or second class shall have equalled seventy-five per cent of the cost thereof, and the Chief Engineer of the Department 01 Public Works shall have certified thereto, half yearly payments at the rate of four and one-half per cent per annum may be made on ninety per cent of the cost of the work done and materials provided at the time of such payment.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second tirr, and concurred in. Mr. King (Kootenay) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 220, to amend the Dry Dock Subsidies Act, 1910.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first, time
On motion of Mr. King (Kootenay) the bill was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Advances during construction on first class docks.
George Gibson Coote: Will the minister explain
what the changes are?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: The amendment
deals with those sections which have to do with the payment of progress subsidy during the construction. Previous to 1917 subsidies were not paid until the dock was completed. In 1917 there was an amendment to the act which provided that in the case of first class docks, whether floating or graving docks, process subsidy might be paid during the construction, and provision was made that when it had been established to the satisfaction of the minister that not less than $1,000,000 had been spent on the work and the material used in the construction of the dock, a subsidy of 41 per cent might be paid cm 75 per cent of the cost of the work done and material provided at the time of such payment. In 1919 an amendment to the act made similar provision in the case of second class dry docks and floating docks when mot less than $500,000 had been expended. This left a percentage of 25 per cent of the cost of the work done and materials provided, as a drawback or increasing guarantee as the work proceeded to its ultimate completion.
The present amendment provides that when either a graving or floating dock of the first or second class is three-quarters or 75 per cent, completed, subsidy at the rate of 4| per cent may be paid on 90 per cent of the cost of work done and materials provided, thus decreasing the 25 per cent drawback to ten per cent, which is ample for a work which is three-quarters done. In ordinary contract? ten per cent is ail that is requested as security in the first place, and in the case of larger works running into million? of dohars, five per cent is all that it has been the practice to ask. Then as the work proceeded undpr these contracts, it has been the practice tc, return portions of the security and drawback.
To give a simple illustration of how this works out, assume the cost :>f the dock to be
Dry Dock Subsidies Act

$1,000. When the dock is three-quarters completed, or $750 has been spent, the largest progress subsidy the contractors could get would be 4J per cent on three-quarters of $750. That leaves $187.50 worth of work on which no subsidy is allowed as the department's guarantee. It is considered that after the three-quarters completion stage has been reached, 25 per cent is too large a drawback to retain and it is proposed to pay a subsidy on 90 per cent of the work done. To illustrate : When $900 worth of work has been done under the amendment now proposed, subsidy may be paid on $810, which still leaves $90 value of work done as a guarantee for the performance of the remaining $100 worth of work to complete the dock, when the entire subsidy would be payable.
I think the amendment is a fair one. It does not increase the subsidy or the liability at all, but merely increases the amount of subsidy that may be paid as the dock nears completion, increasing the amount from 75 to 90 per cent of the work done.


George Gibson Coote: I just want to draw the attention of the minister to a case that was brought to light in this House last year, that of the construction of two ships at Prince Rupert. Payments had been made as the work on these boats progressed, and then when the contractors failed to complete their contract it was found that it cost a good deal more than the difference between what they had been paid and the amount of their contract for the government to have the ships completed. I do not think the minister has given us a very good reason for making this change. The amount which he is going to retain under this amendment seems to me very small, and I would like the minister to state whether some concrete case has come before his department which has led him tc think this change is necessary or advisable, having in mind the conditions which were brought to light last year in regard to the construction of these ships at Prince Rupert. In that case, if I remember rightly, the department had a bond to cover default on the part of the contracting parties, but the department never collected that amount from the bond company. Would the minister tell us whether some concrete case has come before his department which has made him think it is necessary or wise to make this change?	.


John Warwick King: I might point out that the amendment proposed would apply to only the two dry docks which are now being built, one at St. John, New Brunswick, and the other at Vancouver. The St. John dry 	! J 3X1
dock has reached a stage of over three-fourths completion, and there was a request from the promoters of that work that this amendment should be made. We have canvassed the situation very carefully. The cost of the dock for subsidy purposes was $5,500,000. In December of 1922 the engineers certified that $4,049,980 worth ot work had been done, leaving a balance at that time of $1,450,000 to complete. Since that I am advised that $750,000 worth of work has been done, leaving only a balance of $700,000 to complete the dock. The total bond issue authorized under the subsidy agreement on completion of the dock is $3,826,272. Ponds have been issued to date to the amount of $2,113,422 leaving a balance of $1,712,000.
My hon. friend will appreciate that this work now is very considerably over three-fourths completed. As far as the department is concerned we have canvassed the situation very carefully and we feel satisfied that by retaining ten per cent and allowing them to issue up to ninety per cent the department will be fully protected. The case at Prince Rupert to which my hon. friend refers is not in line with the building that is going on at St. John. In the case to which he refers these were force account contracts, as I understand it, and there was great difficulty and eventually failure to complete. The work at St. John, on the other hand, is going on satisfactorily and it is felt that there will be no danger in allowing them to issue bonds up to 90 per cent.


Mr GOOTE:: Just one word more. I expect that in the case of the construction of the ships at Prince Rupert to which I referred the Department of Marine and Fisheries thought they were quite safe in advancing the percentage that they did, but on account of poor service, poor inspection, it seems to me in that department, there was a considerable loss sustained by the treasury of this country. I cannot but feel that the minister in this case is making a mistake in changing the regulations to the extent he proposes here.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the cases were the same, if the principle of the subsidy was the same as in the case of these unfortunate boats that were being built, the hon. member would be absolutely right, but it is not the same. We are not putting up money here at all. All we do is to put up 4^ per cent of the money that has been put into the undertaking; in other words, we are not risking capital one way or the other in this subsidy. In the other case my hon. friend is quite right.


John Warwick King: I might say that in addition to the 10 per cent retained, the

Immigration Act
government have also cash security of $72,372 v.-hich the company has put up since the inception of the work.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil. Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 136, to amend the Immigration Act.
Henry Lumley Drayton: May I ask the
minister to tell us what changes are made by these amendments?


Charles A. Stewart: The bill itself was an amendment to the Immigration Act. There was considerable discussion in the House of Commons over the amendment made to section 41. We repealed section 41 of the existing act and substituted a new section 41. When the bill went to the Senate the new section 41 was struck out. I may say that the new section was inserted in the amended bill for the purpose of removing some objectionable features contained in the old section 41 with respect to the powers the minister had in connection with deportation and the class of citizens he might deport.
The other amendment made by the Senate is to section 8 of the bill. They have amended subclause (6) by inserting after the word "master" in line 20 of page 3 of the bill the words "or responsible agent or owner in Canada of the vessel." So that it will read:
(6) In case any officer, seaman or other member of the crew, or other person employed on any vessel deserts the vessel while in any Canadian port, such vessel shall not be granted clearance until the master or responsible agent or owner in Canada of the vessel has deposited with the officer-in-charge such sum.
And so forth.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There could be no objection to that.


Charles A. Stewart: Then in line 26. "the amount of such deposit shall be returned to the master," they strike oul the words "to the master." So that it will read "the amount of such deposit shall be returned less any expenses for detention" and so forth. Those are the only amendments.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think it would have been better to have left it "shall be
returned to the master or responsible agent or owner in Canada of the vessel." but I do not suppose it is worth while wasting time on that.


Charles A. Stewart: I assume inasmuch as the distinction is clearly defined in a previous line-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it that b quite right.


Charles A. Stewart: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that section 41 has been a contentious section. Personally I am not offering any objection to the amendments from the Senate.


Robert Forke: Section 41 is struck out altogether?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, we revert to the old section 41.


Alan Webster Neill: I would ask the minister if he is not disposed to press his amended section 41 on the Senate. This is a very important amendment to this act made by this House alter a great deal of consideration. Is the minister going to. take back-water from the Senate without any consideration at all?


Charles A. Stewart: I rather expected, but perhaps it is not fair to say so, that we would meet with some amendments to this section in the Senate. Section 41 is practically the whole amended bill, and I want to point out to hon. members that if we lose the new section 41 we lose the force of all the amendments contained in the bill. But if we insist on section 41 standing in the bill and it goes back to the Senate, we shall probably lose the whole bill.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Carried.


George Gibson Coote: I would urge upon the minister that he might at least let this stand until after eight o'clock. I think a lot of hon. members are interested in this bill, but they are not in the House at the moment not expecting that it would come up this afternoon. I do not think it is right to have the Senate amendments concurred in without further consideration.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is
rather late in raising objection. The motion was declared carried.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.
Dominion Lands Act



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Minister of the Interior) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Dominion Lands Act, chapter twenty of the statutes, of 1908, and to provide that the original valuation of the homestead inspector may be revised, if necessary; that authority be given for the granting of second homesteads to settlers within a definite district covering the southern portions of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta; that further provisions regarding the issue of patents in the event of the death or insanity of the entrant, and respecting sections reserved for school lands, and permits to cut timber on Dominion lands, be enacted; and that the Governor in Council may make grants not exceeding in any case the sum of two hundred and forty dollars in cash in satisfaction of claims of halfbreeds arising out of the extinguishment of the Indian title.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: Will the minister give
us a little light on this matter?


Charles A. Stewart: It is proposed to make several changes in the Dominion Lands Act. One of them relates to inspectional work as to which a decision has been rendered by the court. Probably I had better take a concrete case. For example, where a homestead has been abandoned after certain improvements have been made on it, the new entrant makes application and fixes the value that, in his opinion, should properly be paid for the improvements of the previous entrant. We make an inspection and that inspection is disputed. That is to say, the homestead inspector fixes a value beyond what the second entrant thinks is the real value. It has been held by the court that we have not the power to ask for a subsequent inspection by another inspector, and I am simply taking the. power to have our inspection confirmed or rejected by another homestead inspector.
Under an amendment to section 11 of the act it is provided that a second homestead may be granted to a man who has failed. It is pretty clearly set out in the section itself that he has failed in the district south of township 31, in the area that is known as the pre-emption area and if he produces a certificate from the provincial government that in their opinion it is wise to allow him another chance, the opportunity is given him to take a new homestead, 160 acres in extent, in some of the homestead areas in other parts of the province.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is there any arrangement made regarding the liabilities of the

man? I understood there was some dispute between the department and the provincial government regarding his former liabilities.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resinned at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Biil No. 193 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lillian Beryl Brayman-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 194 (from the Senate), for the relief of Roland Bergeron-Mr. Carruthers.
Bill No. 195 (from the Senate), for the relief of Florence Cohn.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 196 (from the Senate), for the relief of Cecilia Maria Taylor.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill No. 197 (from the Senate), for the relief of William August Kruger.-Mr.	Garland
(Carleton).
Bill No. 198 (from the Senate), for the relief of Thomas Benjamin Brown.-Mr. Carruthers.
Bill No. 199 (from the Senate), for the relief of Elva Burnside.-Mr. McKay.
Bill No. 200 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alfred Thomas Candy.-Mr. Duff.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Gordon, amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 105 respecting the Canadian Order of Woodmen of the World were read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend The Dominion Lands Act, chapter twenty of the statutes of 1908, and to provide that the original valuation, of the homestead inspector may be revised, if necessary; that authority be given for the granting of second homesteads to settlers within a definite district covering the southern portions of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta; that further provisions regarding the issue of patents in the event of the death or insanity of the entrant, and respecting sections reserved for school lands, and permits to cut timber on Dominion lands, be enacted; and that the Governor in Council may make grants not exceeding in any case the sum of two hundred and forty dollars in cash in satisfaction of claims of halfbreeds arising out of the extinguishment of the Indian title.
Milton Neil Campbell: I understood that there was apparently some difficulty between the Dominion and the provincial authorities in legard to the proposal to cancel the debts

Naturalization Acts
39S3
of these people or to put them through the bankruptcy court before they moved to the homesteads, so that they might be able to retain those homesteads notwithstanding that their assets before might not have been sufficient to meet their liabilities.


Charles A. Stewart: There was a possible difficulty in this connection but we decided not to press to a conclusion our contention in the matter, feeling that after all the province was as much interested in these lands as were the Dominion authorities. We therefore leave it entirely to their discretion as to whom they will recomend for a second homestead. All we say is that the regulations shall apply to that portion of the pre-emption area south of township 31.


Milton Neil Campbell: Have any regulations been made to protect homesteads from seizure in case these people's former liabilities have not been met?


Charles A. Stewart: There are just the ordinary homestead regulations.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil) thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 222 to amend the Dominion Lands Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Robert Forke: Has this bill been printed?


George Newcombe Gordon: It has not been distributed.


Robert Forke: So far as the West is concerned the bill is of importance and hon. members desire to have it before them before it is discussed.


Charles A. Stewart: I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
NATURALIZATION ACTS, 1914 and 1920, AMENDMENT
House again in committee on Bill No. 85 to amend the Naturalization Acts, 1914 and 1920, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


George Newcombe Gordon: The committee has under consideration section 4.
On section 4-Repeal.


Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):: When the bill was before the committee a week or two ago there was some objection to section 4 with regard to changes in connection with the administration of the act. Section 4, as originally submitted to the committee, had
for its purpose a change in the method of making application for naturalization before judges. It proposed, instead, to have such application made direct to the Secretary of State. There was considerable opposition with respect to this point at that time. I have given the matter careful consideration in the hope of being able to devise some other system which would expedite the administration of the act, and at the same time surround it with every possible safeguard. I have not been able to do so, and to save the time of the House I have decided to withdraw those sections of the bill regarding administration and leave the act as it stood originally. I therefore desire, Mr. Chairman, to amend section 4 by striking out all the words before the word "and" in the twenty-first line and deleting the word "are" in the'twenty-second line and inserting between the figures 1920 and the word "repealed" the following' "10 and 11 George V, Chap. 59 is hereby." Section 4 will then be in this form:
Section 7 of the Naturalization Act 1920, 10 and 11 George V, chapter 59 is hereby repealed.
That refers entirely to the amendment passed in 1920 requiring ten years' residence prior to naturalization. The change I am now suggesting simply makes the law as it was up to 1920, which required only five years' residence for naturalization.


Milton Neil Campbell: I rather regret that the minister has seen fit to amend this section. I find it very hard to blame him, because there certainly was opposition from every section of the House, and I think it arose first from his own benches, the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) challenging the section on the ground that it would take away business from the lawyers and encourage more red tape in the department. I believe, however, that many hon. members opposed the section not knowing just how it affected us in some of the newer districts in the West, and possibly in northern Ontario as well. In these new districts the settlers, who are largely foreign-speaking people, find it a very considerable hardship to go before a judge at some place involving a four or five days' absence from home, to say nothing of the travelling expenses incidental thereto and lawyers' fees, because, although it is not absolutely necessary for them to engage a lawyer, they do not understand our institutions very well and very few of them care to appear in court and speak on their own behalf. I am inclined to think that a good deal of the opposition to this section came from men of the legal fraternity because it
Naturalization Acts

meant a loss of business, and I was very sorry to see that attitude on their part.
I have in mind the case of a man in my own constituency, a very fine type of citizen, who appeared before the judge in April last at considerable expense, for he had to be away from home about five days. For some reason or other the judge deferred action at that time. In October last the man was notified to appear again, but this was impossible as he was just in the middle of his threshing, and his non-appearance meant the cancellation of his application. Now, he has to begin all over again and incur further travelling expenses and court fees. That man thinks an injustice has been done him. When I saw him last he pointed out to me that some of his neighbours had settled down quite peaceably and contentedly and were not particularly anxious whether they took on the responsibilities of citizenship or not. He reminded me what this meant in case of another war- that his neighbours would not be citizens, even though they had been in the country twenty years, and their boys might not be conscripted, while his would be. He was prepared to accept the responsibilities of citizenship, but the government of the country apparently put various stumbling blocks in his way.
After all, a judge's examination in these cases does not amount to a great deal. He asks a few questions of the applicant, but he has no opportunity of knowing whether the man is a desirable citizen or not; whereas under the other system the examination was left largely to the mounted police, and I think they undoubtedly did get a good deal of valuable information. I think a valuable service could be done both to the country and to applicants for naturalization by leaving the examination to the mounted police, and I hope at some future time the minister will see fit to introduce an amendment to this end.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: As I understand the minister, the amendment is simply a restoration of the qualifications as they were before the change, with the adoption of the provisions of the Imperial Act?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Five years' residence.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I congratulate the minister upon the decision he has come to. I thought, and still think, that something might be done between now and another session to get rid of the difficulty which has been spoken of by my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) and yet not give us the mounted police in the Maritime fMr. Campbell.]
provinces and the other settled parts of the Dominion. I believe this can be done in a better way than was originally proposed under this bill.


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: In the light
of the conditions that have been explained to him by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) does the minister propose to take any steps to make it easier for those who desire to obtain citizenship by arranging for the judge to meet them in centres more convenient than the judicial centre of the district?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I realize as fully as anyone in this House that it does seem inadvisable to leave it to one individual to say whether an applicant may become naturalized or not, and in the amendments I introduced I was only trying to g6t an easy method, surrounded with all the safeguards possible, to enable men to become naturalized. As I have withdrawn the sections regarding administration,
I propose to have my department take up the question with the various judges to see if we cannot get more hearty co-operation in dealing with applications for naturalization. I hope as a result we will have a little more ' activity and assistance in this regard. We hope during the recess to be able to work out some scheme to facilitate naturalization, surrounded at all times, of course, by all the necessary safeguards.


Mr. FORTIER:: As I understand the minister, we now revert to the old law. I certainly think that a judge is in the best position to decide whether or not an applicant is fit for naturalization and should have power to issue the certificate. I am not in favour of the former amendments by virtue of which the judge only has power to make an investigation. I really think that naturalization should be completely in the hands of the judge or of the Secretary of State. As a practising lawyer, I do not think that naturalization can be regarded as a judicial proceeding, and where the application is not contested I am of opinion that a lawyer would not be entitled to charge any fee for the preparation of the papers. In my view the bill as it was first presented, providing that application should be made directly to the Secretary of State, was certainly preferable to the former procedure, and I am sorry the minister has seen fit to withdraw those sections.
I hope after he has had an opportunity to study the matter further he will during next session introduce another bill embodying the provisions which are now withdrawn.

Supply-State


Mr. MILLAR:: I am glad to hear the minister say that he proposes to take this matter up with the judges. I would ask him not to overlook the great convenience which would accrue to applicants for naturalization if he could arrange for special sittings to be held at various places easy of access. This has been done in the past by some judges, but others have not been willing to go among these people. Frequently one will find a community of thirty or forty people living at quite a distance from the centre of the judicial district, and if it could be arranged for a judge to hold special sittings, and to simplify the process as much as possible without sacrificing any of the necessary safeguards, and so enable these people to dispense with legal assistance,-which it seems to me is unnecessary in most cases-they would be encouraged to apply for naturalization, and the responsibilities of citizenship would have a good effect in the community.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: Concerning expenses, in
the province of Quebec, at all events, an applicant for naturalization must pay fees to the clerk of the court for lodging his petition , and copies of his application. Although these fees are not very heavy, I do not think the applicant for naturalization should have to incur them.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In answer to my hon. friend
(Mr. Millar), I realize that the greatest difficulties surrounding the administration of the Naturalization Act occur in the western provinces, and as I do not know where the judges hold their regular sittings, if hon. members from the West will be good enough to communicate with me and suggest where special sittings should be held at intervals, I shall be glad to convey the information to the judges of the various districts and see if such sittings can be arranged.


Edward Joseph Garland: With regard to the status of those who have applied in the past for naturalization but were refused because they were of alien enemy birth, I have in mind a particular case of a gentleman whose father emigrated from Germany to the United States in 1885. In the winter of 1909 his young son came to Canada and bought land, and in 1910 took up residence. He was only four years old when he accompanied his father from Germany and he lived in Chicago up to the time of migrating to this country. In 1914 he applied for naturalization and was rejected. He applied again in the spring of 1919, appeared before Judge Simmons, who accepted the application and forwarded it to Ottawa, but the Secretary of State at that time did not find it within his
discretion to grant naturalization. This applicant-I can speak for him personally-is a splendid type of citizen. He is anxious to become naturalized, but cannot undergo the expense of a third application. I have two or three cases of this kind. If a man wishes to become a Canadian citizen, but cannot afford the expense, is there any provision made in this bill to permit of his naturalization without further application?


Arthur Bliss Copp: There is no provision in the
bill now before the committee. If I followed my hon. friend correctly, this man was refused naturalization because the act then required ten years' residence?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am repealing that section
of the act and making the qualification five years. Whether or not the former application would be available at the present time I cannot say without giving the matter consideration. It might be possible for the judge before whom the man went to now certify to the applicant's qualifications, but I will look into, the matter. Maybe under the regulations we can do something.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
strongly recommend the minister to consider that suggestion very favourably because a wholly unnecessary hardship is being worked on these men who reside a long distance from the judges.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Main Estimates, 1923-24 - miscellaneous - Public Archives, $73,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: We have just
passed item 26 in the Main Estimates for salaries for the Department of Public Archives. What is this for?


Arthur Bliss Copp: This vote is to cover the expenses in connection with the archives in London and Paris. The item my hon. friend refers to was for civil government salaries in Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Further Supplementary Estimates, 1922-23-Archives -further amount required to pay Francis Edwards, The Museum Book Store and A. H. Brook for manuscript plans and paintings, $3,600.
Milton Neil Campbell: This is a new vote altogether. Is it an addition to item 332 for
Supply-State

public archives, the one we have just passed? Is this a still further increase in that vote, which already shows an increase over last year of $2,430?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The increase of $2,430 is
accounted for by the regular statutory increases. The item we are discussing now is a further supplementary estimate for the year ending March 31, 1923.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Main Estimates, 1923-24-civil government-Civil Service Commission-salaries, $188,305; contingencies. $80,000.
John Millar: Would the minister explain the increase in this item?


Arthur Bliss Copp: There has been a reduction in the number of employees and the increase in salaries is accounted for entirely by the statutory increases and reclassification. My hon. friend will see that the contingencies vote has been reduced from $130,000 to $80,000 or, a reduction of $50,000. The net decrease in the whole appropriation amounts to $44,090. The salary increases are entirely statutory.


Mr. LUCAS:: How many employees are
there under the Civil Service Commission?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Last year there were 134 employees. They are being reduced to 127.


Murray MacLaren: What sum was expended out of the $130,000 voted for contingencies last year? [DOT]


Mr COPP:: I cannot tell my hon. friend. The Secretary of the Commission is attending a meeting upstairs and I have not got that information here. The amount has been reduced from $130,000 last year to 880,00 this year.


Murray MacLaren: That does not necessarily mean a reduction unless the large : art of the $130,000 was expended?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I will have to ask my ion. friend to wait until I can get the information. I do not happen to have it before me.
Mr. FOtiKE: Does this vote include the staff of the Civil Service Commission?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Everything.


Robert Forke: It does not include the salaries of the commissioners?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Oh, no, not the salaries of the commissioners just the staff.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The staff and con tingeneie;.


Milton Neil Campbell: There is a very considerable reduction in the amount required to meet the cost of holding examinations. Does that mean that there are not so many examinations being held, or has there been some change in the system?


Arthur Bliss Copp: As I understand the situation, examinations were held very frequently during the first few years of the operations of the Civil Service Commission. Now, pretty lengthy lists of eligible candidates are on file and there is not the same necessity for holding examinations that there was formerly. That is the information I have received.


Milton Neil Campbell: I wonder if the minister could tell us what procedure is followed in regard to these examinations. I have been given to understand that a man is sometimes appointed as a temporary employee and that he will remain in the office for six months during which time he becomes thoroughly familiar with the details of the work. At the end of the six months an examination will be called for and other men who, perhaps, have had just as much experience in clerical work as this particular man, are not in a position to compete with him because there are technical details connected with 'he work of the office with which he is more familiar, and this gives him an unfair advantage. The assumption, of course, is that if the commission want to retain a man in such a position all they have to do is to appoint him temporarily and then it will be comparatively easy for him to pass the examination over the heads of other men who are just as competent as he is in other respects. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the exact procedure is in such cases?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am afraid it will not be possible for me to describe in any detailed way the operation- of the commission. If my hon. friend reouires information of that character I will secure the attendance of the secretary who is engaged before a committee upstairs. In the case of a temporary position, a temporary appointment is made. When it is desired to fill the position permanently public notice is given that an examination will be held at certain centres and candidates are required to appear there and present themselves for examination. The temporary employee, of course, has the same privilege of appearing there as other applicants have. If the experience this employee has gained while holding the position temporarily gives him an advantage I suppose he would be entitled to it with this one exception: I have no doubt

Supply-Finance
39S7
the Civil Service Commission would see to it, as far as they could, that no particular person enjoyed an advantage over his competitors. I am only speaking in a very general way, because I could not for a moment attempt to describe in detail the administration of the act.


Robert Forke: I understand we are to have a report from the parliamentary committee that is inquiring into the Civil Service, and we will therefore have an opportunity of discussing such matters as this when that report has been submitted to the House.


Milton Neil Campbell: We will have an opportunity of discussing the report, but we would not have an opportunity of questioning the staff of the commission. I have no desire to delay the passage of these estimates, but if the minister could secure the presence of the secretary of the commission and let us find out just what procedure is followed under the circumstances to which I have referred it would help us a good deal.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have sent for the secretary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Finance Department, charges of management, $1,085,550.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There is just one thing I would like to bring to the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. I have gone through the statement and I think there is a clerical error in connection with the appointment of Walter Duncan.
9 p.m. I think the addition is S500 too much.
He is apponted at a salary of $2,550 and the same item provides for "a further sum of $2,500." which would make a total of $5,050, while the vote is for $5,550.


William Stevens Fielding: I think that is correct. Mr. Duncan was formerly connected with the Justice department, where his chief duty lay. He is now assigned to the Finance department and we are accordingly asking for this vote. We might carry the vote subject to the correction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Subject to $500 being taken off?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Auditor General's Office-salaries including Auditor General at $1,000 additional to 7-8 Edward VII, chap. 6, $257,790; contingencies $54,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I desire to ask the minister whether we can hope for some action in connection with the Auditor General's office this year? It is a matter I have discussed often not only publicly but with my
hon. friend, and if he can hold out some hope of having the office put in something like working order, I would be glad to hear it.


William Stevens Fielding: It is my intenth n to propose to the House in a day or two a measure designed to create an audit board. I do not mean a board for the ordinary purposes of audit, but I propose that a board of audit shall be constituted, to inquire into the whole system of audit, not to audit any particular account, but to review our whole system of audit, and to see what suggestions can be offered in the direction my hon. friend has suggested for a general improvement in the system. I intend to put a resolution of that kind on the order paper within a day or two, and I am quite sure my hon. friend will find it satisfactory.


William Thomas Lucas: Is the increase in this vote just the regular statutory increase?


William Stevens Fielding: I think there is no special vote that I can recall.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The numbers
are just the same. It is 170 each year. There is no change in the employees.


William Stevens Fielding: There is nothing but the statutory increase. There is no special vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Insurance-
Salaries, including Superintendent of Insurance, $1,000 additional to salary authorized by 7-8 Edward VII, chap.
69	 $67,745