1924-07-04

OFFICIAL REPORT


Volume I:: Pages 1-1020 Volume III: Pages 2013-3040 Volume V: Pages 4037-4877



VOLUMES

Volume II:: Pages 1021-2012 Volume IV: Pages 3041-4035 Volume VI: Index



VOLUME CLXIV


[Stage Direction]
House of
Commons Sebates
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 4, 1924.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. VIEN (Translation) presented the twelfth report of the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.
Your committee recommend that the government should study and consider the practicability of laying before parliament at a subsequent date the establishment in the chartered banks of Canada, of an additional class of savings accounts whereby all holders of deposits, who may place their money in such class of accounts, in any one bank or branch thereof, shall be protected against loss up to the sum of $3,000 by the establishment of a fund on an insurance basis, the premiums of which will be contributed by the depositor and the bank in such proportion as may be determined and that the government work out the details and actuarial data necessary for the establishment of the said proposal and upon conference with the banking institutions of Canada, that legislation may be enacted to carry out the results of the said conference and such scheme as may be evolved.

[Stage Direction]
Right, Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): I beg to lay on the Table a copy of a Convention of Commerce between Canada and the Economic Union of Belgium and Luxembourg, signed at Ottawa on the third day of July, 1924.
I move that 1,000 copies of the Convention of Commerce between Canada and the Economic Union of Belgium and Luxembourg, signed at Ottawa on the third day of July, 1924, be printed forthwith, and that rule 74 in relation thereto be suspended.
Mr. SPEAKER:: The Convention is in both languages. Therefore it is not necessary to print 1,000 copies in each language.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 220 (from the Senate), for the relief of Malcolm Middleton-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 221 (from the Senate), for the relief of Clara Louise Kinnear.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 222 (from the Senate), for the relief of Allan Thomas Easson.-Mr. Speakman.
Bill No. 223 (from the Senate), for the relief of Henry Irwin Claxton.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 224 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Henry Smith.-Mr. Duncan.
Bill No. 225 (from the Senate), for the relief of Bertha May Roy.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 226 (from the Senate, for the relief of Lunetta E'lmina Hay.-Mr. Boys.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Fisheries Act, 1914, and to provide:
1.	Except as otherwise provided in the act, no one shall engage in the manufacture of fish meal, fertilizer, oil, glue or products of a similar character fr^m fish, fish offal or marine animals, except under license from the minister.
2.	That the annual fee on a license for the operation of an establishment for dry-salting herring in British Columbia shall be twenty-five cents on each ton or fraction thereof of dry-salted herring put up in the establishment during the season.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: I would like to ask whether the government can give any information to the House as to when we may expect the appointment of a tariff board as intimated by the Prime Minister in his speech on the budget?


Mr. BUREAU:: Tariff board? Never.


William Daum Euler: Yes, something of that nature.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I think what my hon.
friend refers to is the appointment of certain advisers to the Minister of Finance with respect to tariff matters. The government contemplates making appointments after an appropriation has passed parliament for the purpose. The appointments will be made after the session.

Inter-Allied Conference



INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE ON DAWES REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: Is it true, as reported in the press, that the government has received an invitation to send a delegate to the Inter-Allied Conference which is being called to deal with the Dawes report. If so, has the Acting Minister of Finance been selected to represent Canada? Will he take the House into his confidence before he attends? And will an opportunity be afforded for discussion by this House?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: (Prime Minister):	The government has not
received an invitation to send a delegate to the conference but it has received a request to have a representative at a preliminary conference which is to be held in London next week to consider the matter of representation at the forthcoming conference which opens, 1 understand, on the 16th. The government is considering at the moment whom it will ask to represent Canada at the preliminary conference, which is a conference between His Majesty's government of Great Britain and representatives of the several self-governing Dominions and India.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MORNING SITTINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Is the government in a position to
give any information as to when morning sittings will be held?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope it may be possible by Monday to bring before the House the Redistribution Bill and also to place on the Table the Supplementary Estimates. If that hope is realized I should like on Monday to suggest that the House begin morning sittings on Tuesday. The suggestion will be contingent on both the matters referred to.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Will the government have all their proposed legislation down by Monday, including the Supplementary Estimates? If not it will be very objectionable to hold morning sittings.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have already intimated the legislation the government contemplates bringing down. There may be other legislation that at the moment is unforeseen, but I do not think I can make any intimation further than that already made.


Arthur Meighen: It is not an intimation
I am speaking of. Will the actual legislation be down by Monday, because it should be presented to the House before morning sittings are undertaken?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend realizes that if legislation is likely to arise out of the reports of committees of the Flouse the government will have to wait until those committees have reported. Do I understand that my right hon. friend is taking exception to morning sittings before that?


Arthur Meighen: I know that if we go
through the formality of referring matters to committees first, the government will likely have to wait until those committees report. Until they do report-if such action be necessary-and the government's legislation is down, we should not be asked to sit in the mornings.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
should like to ask the government if it would not be wise to refrain from holding morning sittings until the committees of the House have finished their business. I know the Banking and Commerce committee has several important sessions ahead of it, and many of its members would like to be present in the House when some of the subjects mentioned by the Prime Minister are being discussed. I would therefore ask the government not to have morning sittings until the work of the committees is finished.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government will be pleased to consider what my hon. friend has said. Perhaps on Monday I shall be able to make a fuller statement in regard to the matter.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. GOOD
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: Two days ago I made an observation in the House that might seem to reflect on the conduct of one of the hon. members of the Upper Chamber, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to be afforded the opportunity of making an explanation and an apology. Have I your permission, Mr. Speaker?


Hewitt Bostock: It is quite open to the
hon. member to rise to a question of privilege.


William Charles Good: The words I used, and which will be found on page 3948 of Hansard are as follows:
And the hon. gentleman in the other House who was responsible for writing this pamphlet was granted an honorarium of $10,000.

CJV.R. Branch Lines
Now while there may be differing interpretations of the words "was responsible for" I wish to state that my understanding at the time was that the gentleman in question did write this pamphlet. I have since discovered that such is not the fact. I may say that the pamphlet in question, which I now hold in my hand, is entitled "Banks and Banking." It was issued last year with the compliments of the Canadian Bankers' Association but the author's name does not appear. However, I was told by a newspaper man from western Canada about that time that it was written by the Hon. Smeaton White, but during the last twenty-four hours I have learned that this is erroneous. The facts of the situation are these and they will probably enable the House to realize just how the mistake has occurred. The full name of the hon. member of the other House is Richard Smeaton White, Senator, and, I believe, proprietor of the Montreal Gazette. The editor of the Montreal Gazette is Robert Smeaton White, a cousin of the proprietor, I understand, and it appears that the honorarium of $10,000 was granted to the editor and not to the proprietor. A confusion in the names is responsible for the misunderstanding. It now appears that it is Robert Smeaton White who wrote the pamphlet and secured the honorarium, and that the Hon. Senator White is quite guiltless in the matter.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- BRANCH LINES GRANDE FRESNIERE-RINFRET JUNCTION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 31, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line between Grande Fresniere and Rin-fret Junction, in the province of Quebec.
He said: The amendment is merely an addition to the provision in the bill which requires information to be furnished to parliament. It calls for any other information that the minister may require.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 41, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Peebles southerly in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.
256i

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 42, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line extending the Gravelbourg Branch to Neidpath, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM, moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 43, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line extending the Ste. Rose du Lac branch to Rorketon, in the province of Manitoba.
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of and concurrence in. the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 51, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Prince Albert to near Paddock-wood in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 52, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line between Eyre, in the province of Saskatchewan, and Acadia Valley, in the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 53, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line between Eston and White Bear, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 55, respecting the
C.N.R. Branch Lines
[Stage Direction]
construction of a Canadian National Railway line from St. Paul, in the province of Alberta, southeasterly 21 miles.
Henry Elvins Spencer: May I ask what the amendment is?


Mr. GRAHAM:: The amendment has been included on all these bills. In the original bill there was provision for information to be given to the House at each session. This is merely to add the words:	"And all other
information as the minister may direct."
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.



COWICHAN BAY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 34, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line to Cowichan Bay, on Vancouver Island.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 35, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line to Mile 100 Vancouver Island.
He said: There are two amendments to this bill, the one just referred to, which was placed in the other bills, and the other one is an amendment to the schedule which I believe shortens the mileage. The mileage previously was to Mile 100. This substitutes for Mile 100 the name Cottonwood Creek.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: It cute the
mileage in two. The old mileage was 20 miles and the new mileage would be 10 miles. As I read the amendment the railway is given a little more money.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



PINE FALLS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 62, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line to Pine Falls, in the province of Manitoba.
He said: The amendments to this bill are more extensive. They provide that a certain contingency must occur namely, the construction of a pulp mill, before the company will be authorized to build a line. Then the mileage direction, I think is somewhat
[Mr. Graham.1
changed, to make it more direct. I would lather have had the original bill, but if we cannot have it, I prefer accepting the amendment.
Henry Lumley Drayton: The more important part of the amendment is to reduce to writing the wishes of the management. The management did not desire to undertake the construction of this line unless this pulp mill was built. There would be no business there unless the pulp mill was constructed, and the Senate made the erection of the pulp mill conditional on the building of the line. By this amendment they are merely giving effect to the representations of the management itself. And the Senate has gone a little further; it provides that if the pulp mill be not built out at the country point where it was thought it would be built, but in Winnipeg or at a point near Winnipeg, the line may nevertheless be built, the idea doubtless being that the line would bring in the raw materials to the pulp mill in Winnipeg. The whole effect of the amendment is to reduce to concrete form the business proposition of the management.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time, and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 63, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line between Lockeport Station and the town of Lockeport, in the province of Nova Scotia.
He said: There are two amendments to this bill. One of them is stated in all the other bills, and the other is an amendment to the schedule which provides that this line is to be constructed to Lockeport for freight purposes only. I am inclined to ask the House to accept the amendment. If it is found that there is a probability of developing a passenger traffic, it will not be difficult to come back and get an amendment to the bill.
Henry Lumley Drayton: In this instance, it is again, as I understand the matter, supplementing the wishes of the management. The situation was that the line stopped short of Lockeport and the management, recognizing that a great deal of teaming had to be done in order to carry goods to and from the station, thought that was an unfair burden upon the business interests of Lockeport. On the other hand, if passenger facilities were to be extended to that point, that would mean another station, another agent and a great

Customs Act
deal of expense without getting any business at all, and the management thought this was the proper thing to do. This is merely putting into black and white what was thought to be the business solution of the question.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



HANNA-WARDEN

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 44, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line between Hanna and Warden, in the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by 'the Senate to Bill No. 45, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Loverna weste rly in the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 49, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line between Dunblane and Mawer or a point west thereof, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 61, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line, being a joint section from Rosedale southeasterly in the province of Alberta.
Henry Elvins Spencer: I notice that 26 railway
bills passed this House and only sixteen are coming back from the Senate. What has been the fate of the balance?


George Perry Graham: One cannot yet tell as
to them all. Several of them have been rejected by the Senate. The others are still under consideration.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JACQUES BUREAU (Minister of Customs and Excise) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Customs Act, Revised Statutes, 1906, chapter 48, by providing that in estimating the damage by breakage upon brittle goods, such as crockery, china, glass and glassware, under the provisions of the said act, such allowance or damage shall only be made and allowed for the amount of loss in excess of fifteen per cent of the whole quantity damaged, and a period of fourteen days from date of entry or arrival of such goods shall be allowed within which to diaim abatement for damage.
He said:	In the Customs Act there is a
provision for abatement of duty on imported goods damaged in transit. I do not know the reason, but as regards all goods imported except perishable goods, fourteen days are allowed in which claims can be made. Section 79 of the Customs Act reads:
An allowance may be made for deterioration by natural decay during the voyage of importation upon perishable articles, such as green fruits and vegetables, imported into Canada; but in assessing the same and in estimating the damage-
Then all of a sudden you come upon:
-by breakage upon brittle goods, such as crockery, china, glass and glassware.
We have had representations made that glass importations especially are very bulky. Sometimes large cases of plate glass are at the back of the shed and it is five or six days before the cases can be got at. If they find a breakage, they have to go to the treasury board and make an application for a refund This takes a long while. We are putting crockery and glassware in the same category as other goods as regards which fourteen days are allowed to bring in the appraiser and make application for abatement of duty when any damage is done.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Henry Lumley Drayton: As I understand from the minister we are doing two things in connection with the proposed change, we are putting crockery and other fragile articles in the same class as articles perishable per se-


Jacques Bureau: No; we are taking them
away from that class, because as regards goods in that class only three days are al-* lowed for making claims, whereas as regards all the others, fourteen days are allowed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are putting them in the general class as regards
Customs Act

which fourteen days are allowed, and we are also making it a matter that the Customs department can deal with instead of making the application for a rebate go through the Treasury Board.


Jacques Bureau: We are not making it.
They generally do it through the board.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would become a matter of customs administration and would be sent to the Treasury Board?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That, I think,
would be a good thing. I do not understand this question of "15 per cent of the whole quantity". How can we have a loss greater than the whole?


Jacques Bureau: That is the law as it
stands now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It may be, but I was asking how that can be.


Jacques Bureau: I did not go into the
reasons for that being inserted, but it is the law as it stands now. All I wanted to do by this was to extend the period, within which the whole procedure that my hon. friend speaks about could be gone through, to fourteen days instead of three days.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How is it that a shipper can collect damages to an amount 15 per cent greater than the whole? Why should there be a premium on breaking crockery? Do you get $1.15 for a dollar's worth if you break the goods?


Jacques Bureau: No. That means that if
there is only 20 per cent of a loss, the shipper will get 5 per cent. The section reads:
Such allowance or damage shall only be made and allowed for the amount of loss in excess of 15 per cent of the whole quantity damaged.
If the damage amounts to 18 per cent, the importer will be given credit for 3 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understand it now. In other words, the country has the benefit of 15 per cent free breakage, so to speak.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, and that has been the provision of the law for some time.
, Sir HENRY DRAYTON: That is not what it looks like at first blush.


Jacques Bureau: This is the existing language and I dare not touch it lest my grammar and my knowledge of English be unequal to the task.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I don't know about that.


Mr. COOTE:: Why should the importer not be given some allowance if the damage amounts to, say, 14 per cent? It seems to me you are treating the importers rather harshly in giving them credit for damage only above 15 per cent. I would point out to the minister that damage up to that percentage is a very serious item in the cost of the goods to the importer.


Jacques Bureau: As I have just explained to the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), this has been the law for years and there has been no petition nor request to the department to change it. All that we have been asked to do is to remove from the class of perishable goods, such as fruits and vegetables, such articles as brittle ware, crockery, glassware, and so on.


George Gibson Coote: Does the 15 per cent apply to perishable goods as well as to breakable articles?


Jacques Bureau: It applies to all goods.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bureau thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 236 to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Jacques Bureau: I move that the bill be
read the second time. We shall go into committee at the next sitting.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JACQUES BUREAU (Minister of Customs) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend The Department of Customs and Excise Act and to place the administration of The Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, and amendments, and The Income War Tax Act, 1917, and amendments, under the Department of Customs and Excise, and to provide for the constitution of an Advisory Board to investigate and study various modes of taxation with a view to simplifying and improving the existing systems.
He said: The bill seeks to do three things. We are amending the Customs and Excise Act, Chapter 26. XI and XII George V.. and we propose in the first amendment to substitute the words "deputy minister" for the word "commissioner" in order to designate the position which corresponds to that of the deputy

Customs and Excise Act
minister in the Department of Customs and Excise. So that, instead of saying "Commissioner of Customs" and "Assistant Commissioner of Customs," the bill will use the terms "Deputy Minister of Customs" and "Assistant Deputy Minister of Customs." With regard to the second amendment, in the schedule to the act respecting the Department of Customs and Excise-the act relating to the two departments of Inland Revenue and of Customs after their fusion-it is provided that the Department of Customs and Excise should, under the various acts concerning taxation, assume the control and management of the collection of customs duties as well as the control of all matters incident thereto. These various matters comprise the collection of the duties of excise and stamp duties, the preparation and issue of stamps and stamp papers, except postage stamps, and all internal taxes, not including income tax. We are asking now that the words "not including income tax" be stricken from the schedule so that henceforth all internal taxes shall be collected by the Department of Customs and Excise. Of course, all taxes having reference to postage, such as the stamps that are put on letters or post cards, are collected by the Post Office Department. The 1 per cent on circulation is collected by the Department of Finance and could not very well come under our control; and the same thing applies to insurance, which is collected by the Department of Insurance, which is a branch of the Finance department. If I remember rightly, the trust and loan companies are also under the control of the Department of Finance. The object of this legislation is to obtain if possible the same results that were achieved when the departments of Customs and Inland Revenue were merged. Before the fusion of these two departments there were in every port two distinct sets of officers: There were a Collector of Customs and a Collector of Inland Revenue and a Deputy Collector of Customs and a Deputy Collector of Inland Revenue. The change was inaugurated in 1921, and it was only -last year or possibly this year that the machinery has begun to run smoothly. It is hoped, not without good reason as I believe, that a considerable economy will be effected.
The income tax and the war profits tax-the latter is no longer in operation but there is a lot of money to be collected yet under it- are different propositions, as I shall explain. Let us take for convenience sake the ports in the province of Quebec, which province is better known to me. In the province of Quebec we pay income tax at two centres. The
province is divided into the eastern and the western sections, and from the St. Maurice river or Three Rivers, the district I have the honour to represent in this House, we pay in Montreal, while east of the St. Maurice all payments are made in Quebec city. Let us take the St. Maurice region including Three Rivers; there is a port at Three Rivers itself, one at Shawinigan Falls and one at the city of Grand Mere. The idea is to train the customs and excise officers in these places, -just as we have already trained the inland revenue men-in the inland revenue business, and vice versa; the object being to subdivide the work and so make it more economical. We want these officers also to become better acquainted with the people who are infringing or attempting to infringe the law. It seemed to me when discussing the matter with the officials of the department that men residing at Three Rivers would naturally have a better knowledge of the income which any man would enjoy at that place than could men who were employed in either Quebec or Montreal and who would not know local conditions.
The Department of Customs and Excise has auditors who go around and examine the books of those who are liable to sales tax to ascertain whether or not they have paid the tax. The Department of Finance also has auditors who go around and examine the books of men who pay income tax to ascertain whether or not they are paying their full share of the tax. We think that one set of auditors could do this work.
Third, we seek the creation of a board, the purpose of which will be to act as advisers and as investigators to try to simplify, if possible, the system of taxation and the system of collecting taxation. Until the war the taxes we paid were not visualized as they are to-day, when we have to write out a cheque for sales tax or income tax. In those days we paid our taxation by way of customs duties collected at the border and included in the price of the goods we purchased; similarly excise duties on spirits or tobacco were paid at the bonded warehouse and included in the selling price of the article. But since the war we have to pay the stamp tax, the sales tax, the income tax, the business profits tax, and so on. We are constantly receiving complaints from taxpayers who think that wa are not following the proper principle in imposing and collecting these taxes that have been imposed to meet the war debt. We propose to have this board inquire into all systems of taxation, to make a study of how taxes affec-t the individual, industry and the
Customs and Excise Act
[Stage Direction]
country generally, and to advise the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs the best way of taxation and the best way of collection, so that the least inconvenience may be caused to the citizen and to business generally in Canada.
Mr. 0. R. GOULD (Assiniboia): I suggest to the minister that the whole question of taxation has been decided by the people of Canada, and the question to-day is whether the principle of direct or of indirect taxation is the better. I think it would be wise for the government themselves to make a positive declaration that they believe in the principle of direct taxation. To my mind, there is no question whatever that it is much more expensive to collect indirect taxes. I do not believe in throwing my hat in the air for the abolition of the sales tax that its place may be taken by an indirect tax in the perpetuation of tariff duties. I am very strongly in favour of direct taxation, for I want to know the amount of taxes I am paying, and if the princi-' pie is wrong I think the people may be trusted to find it out and protest against it in good time. I do not wish to oppose the creation of an advisory board, but I should like to see it composed of men who are not biased to begin with. I think the government might consult with the various groups in this House as to the constitution of the board, not merely as to its number but as to its personnel. I have come to the conclusion that men who collect taxes in the form of customs duties have lived in an atmosphere of protection for such a long period that they are sometimes biased as to the form which taxation should take. From an advisory board such as is suggested I am sure these officers would receive proper instruction, provided the members of the board were of the right type, that is, men with an open mind with respect to the relative merits of direct and indirect taxation.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if the proposed board will be empowered to investigate and study only existing systems of taxation, or all systems, with a view to the application of the best possible system to Canada?
Hewitt Bostock: I do not wish to curtail
the discussion, but in order to give the minister in charge of the bill an opportunity to speak more than once, it will be better if the motion be facilitated so that the resolution^ may be considered in committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? f.Mr. Bureau.]
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.


Mr. SHAW:: May I now address my question to the minister?


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend wants to
know if the proposed investigation will apply only to the existing system of taxation in Canada. No. The idea is that the board shall make a world-wide investigation in an effort to simplify and improve our system of taxation and our system of col-4 p.m. lection; that is, as to how taxation can be levied with the least inconvenience both to industry and to the citizen. If the purpose of the proposed board was only to investigate the existing system, I think we could handle the matter ourselves. But complaints come to us from various quarters, and these will be dealt with by the board, for our officials hardly have the necessary time to take such complaints into consideration and investigate them fully. And the board will have authority to investigate and study any system of taxation with a view to finding those that bear with the least hardship on the taxpayer.


William Charles Good: Mr. Chairman, I am very
favourably and forcibly impressed by this resolution. Of course, I do not know just what the bill will contain, or what the personnel of the board will be, but it strikes me that in the two matters dealt with the proposal is a very excellent one indeed. I take it that the first proposal looks to the coordination, to a greater extent than has been attempted in the past, of the various revenuecollecting agencies. This is very desirable.
I think hon. members will recall the series of articles that were published in MacLean's Magazine some time ago, written by one of the men in the press gallery, dealing with the waste in the Civil Service, and one of the suggestions he made was the consolidation of some of our departments or sub-departments. This is something in that direction, and it does seem to me logical and desirable that the various methods of collecting revenue should, so far as is practicable and feasible, be centralized and consolidated. I think that part of the resolution is entirely proper and wise.
The second part, which has to do with the appointment of an advisory board to study various modes of taxation, seems to me to be of far-reaching importance. As hon. members know, I have striven to bring before the House on several occasions the desirability of

Customs and Excise Act
looking into very different systems of taxation from those we have been following in the past, and as I now understand the minister to state most distinctly, that this board is not to confine its efforts and its studies to existing systems alone, but is to study all systems that may be in force in various parts of the world or that may be suggested, with a view to securing and applying to Canada the very best possible systems of taxation, it does appeal to me as being one of the most important and useful steps that could possibly be taken. Everything will depend, of course, upon the constitution of this board. It is possible that the board will be selected so that its findings, I was going to say will be a foregone conclusion. I hope not.


Jacques Bureau: It is hardly fair to insinuate >that.


William Charles Good: I am not making any insinuations, Mr. Chairman. I am simply saying there is a danger of that happening. I think that sort of thing has happened in the past, and I only wish to point out the danger in order that we may all take precautions against it. I certainly do not wish to insinuate that the Minister of Customs has it in his mind to appoint to this board certain persons with certain definite views, but I do think that past history has indicated very clearly the danger of selecting people whose minds are closed to the reception of new ideas in matters of this sort, and imy only thought in mentioning the matter is to emphasize the need of getting people of an open mind, people who perhaps are representative of different types. It has been said in respect to some of the suggestions that I have made from time to time-it was suggested last year in the Banking and Commerce committee when I recommended that a certain witness be called: Oh, this man is not a practical man, he has only an academic knowledge. That is just the point I want to raise, as to whether ini the constitution of a board of this sort it would not be wise to get people who have different points of view, so that we would have a really representative board to study this matter. I think the suggestion in that respect made by the hon. member for Assiniboda (Mr. Gould) is entirely in order. I do not wish to say anything further at the moment, Mr. Chairman, but to commend the resolution very highly indeed in its general principles.


Mr. GOULD:: The investigational board
which will be erected as a result of this legislation will, I presume, be a permanent board.
Will the board have an annual programme provided, different phases of taxation to work on annually?


Jacques Bureau: The only qualifications
that we have discussed so far is that the man shall have the best possible knowledge of different systems of taxation. We want the best man we can get. I do not believe the group method will suit me at all. I want a broad-minded man who understands business conditions, who knows something about taxation in other countries, and who can alleviate the present burden of taxation by suggesting better taxation methods and better ways of collection.
My hon. friends need not worry about my creating a job for a friend. I have nobody in mind, and I think that to get a man with the qualifications I should like him to have we shall have to look around quite a bit, because I suppose these men to-day have worldwide obligations and occupations. The object of the government, as suggested by the department, is to get the best possible man, the man who in the judgment of the government will be best able to fill the position.


William Charles Good: Does the minister suggest
the appointment of a single man?


George Perry Graham: He might be married.


William Charles Good: Is the board' to be composed of one man?


Jacques Bureau: If the hon. gentleman
will allow me to amend my phrase I will use the word "men" instead of "man."


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know
that I have anything to say in connection with the first part of this resolution, that is, the change of the name "commissioner" to "deputy minister." There is no reason in the world why that should not be done.
There are some features of the present situation which recommend to me very strongly the adoption of the second part of the resolution. We had a query the other day in connection with the bill as to employment at sea, whether the term "children at sea" would apply to the government. It was not exactly admitted, although there was no strong dissent to the suggestion. I admit that so far as taxation and the present mess we are in is concerned, the government very sadly require advice, and I suppose the only advice they would take would be from an advisory board of their own manufacture. But, never mind where it comes from, I entirely agree that the government are sadly in need of advice, and that an advisory board could be given very useful functions.
Customs and Excise Act

I am going to point out what I mean as to the necessity of something being done. I am going to point to the multiplicity of rulings and the confusion that to-day exists in connection, for example, with the stamps on cheques the spectacle that the House has seen of ministers in charge of portfolios not knowing what their own laws mean. I do not blame them. We have some thirty-five different rulings as to when stamps are and are not to be put on cheques. There is a very useful field at once for an advisory board to try to see that the incidence of that particular taxation is understood by everybody , and that the law is made so that a man of ordinary intelligence can understand what is meant, and certainly so that a cabinet minister making the law can understand what it means.
We have the same position in connection with the sales tax. Why, during the present session of the House it is within the immediate recollection of every gentleman present that the hon. minister ipresenting the budget could not answer a simple question as to what the regulation read to him in connection with the sales tax meant. He said it would need an expert in lumber to understand it, and he was right. It is perfectly ridiculous to have our taxation laws in such shape. We need an advisory board. The government needs one badly, and I would like to help the government in getting some information.
Of course, an awful lot depends upon bow the advisory board is chosen. The government has within its immediate control now men in the service who are pretty well posted on the collection of taxes, the machinery for taxation, and the like. They would be useful; at least, I think they would be useful if they were given an opportunity to go ahead and deal with the thing apart from apolitical considerations, not wondering whether this particular class of the comfmunity would object, or whether that particular class would oe pleased. If that were done we might get some simplification of these different laws. But we shall not accomplish very much if the appointments to this board are of a purely political nature. If a lot of outsiders, possibly erstwhile politicians, such as we had to investigate ocean rates, are called in, it will mean the expenditure of a lot of money without any good being accomplished.
I point out to the government that they are now creating another board which will mean getting rid of further sums of money. If they are wise they will not make use of the board for any such purpose. I point out 
to them that they were eleven millions behind last year and that expenses are creeping up. And while the expenditures are growing the revenue is falling. Therefore I suggest to the government, with great humility, that there should be a recognition even though tardy, of the rights of the taxpayers here, and that this shall not be made an expensive board. I hope it is not going to be a travelling board. I hope this board will not be utilized as an excuse for junketing trips here there and everywhere. It ought to be an administrative board, and its work ought to be done in its office very largely. At present we have the grain board, running around the country and taking evidence, with expensive counsel, and other employees. As a result of that we shall have a big bill to pay but we shall not get any practical results. I submit to the government that it should be made clear what this board is going to cost. My hon. friend now proposes to amalgamate the income tax and the business war profits tax machinery with the Customs department. That may be a good thing, and then again it may be a very bad thing. If he pursues the course adopted by the former administration in connection with customs and excise, if he cuts out a department, if he prevents duplication of service, this policy is going to be a good thing. If, however, he does what was professed to be done in connection with the elimination of the navy it will be something very different;-there was no elimination in that case so far as the staff was concerned. The so-called elimination did not effect the reduction of one minister, it brought about practically no reduction of the expenditure upon office staff. It is true that some action was taken with respect to the navy and we are now down to three trawlers, but so far as die office expenditure is concerned there has been no saving at all.


George Perry Graham: There is only one deputy now and formerly there were two.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon.
friend right in that? There were two.


George Perry Graham: There is only one deputy now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I am
wrong in so far as the deputy is concerned. When did that change take effect? I know that at one time Mr. Desbarats was taken over and made another deputy.


George Perry Graham: No, Mr. Desbarats was
made controller of the department and acting deputy minister until the retirement of General Fiset took effect. Since that time Mr. JULY 4, 1924
Customs and Excise Act
Desbarats has been made the Deputy Minister of the Department of National Defence.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then my hon.
friend is right. We have only got one deputy, and it is a good thing to that extent. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) ought to get some practical results out of a close co-operation between the officials that collect the income tax and those that collect the sales tax. On the other hand a large amount of money can be thrown away if he multiplies the income tax machinery all over the country. There are a great many customs ports throughout Canada. If my hon. friend's idea is to turn every single customs port into a place where income taxes are to be collected I tell him frankly he will be making a very great mistake. It is a difficult task to collect these taxes-to arrive at the amount and get the money in. My hon. friend will have a great deal of educational work training his officials and even then the collecting will not be properly done. If the duties in connection with taxation were coordinated in such a way that there would be a common knowledge which would be applied in the case of both the income tax and the sales tax it would be very helpful. The Income Tax department to-day could save the Sales Tax Collection department a tremendous amount of money immediately. They know, or practically ought to know, the approximate amount which should be paid in sales taxes. They know this from the information which is contained in the income tax return, and that information has always been available. If it were made use of, it would be quite possible for us to know what the arrears were, what the rebates were, and the like. When we had the discussion on the question of the sales tax it was pointed out that the House could not get this information because the department had not got it. But when we have the two branches working together there ought to be co-ordination with the most satisfactory results.


Oliver Robert Gould: In the Speech from the Throne the creation of a board of this kind was announced, but I had inferred that its operations would be much wider in scope than is likely to be the case. Furthermore, during the budget debate we gathered the impression from a statement made by the Acting Minister of Finance that through this board investigations might be made of watered stock, in connection with industrial enterprises. From my reading of the present resolution I doubt very much whether this board could conduct investigations of that
nature and yet there is involved a very close relation to the principle of taxation. Like my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) I believe that we should not set up a board1 that is going to be unduly expensive to the country. And yet if that board, by its investigations, vindicates the hopes we entertain with respect to it the expense may well be justified. While the hon. member for West York was enlarging on the subject of expenditure and warning the government against plunging into costly undertakings there occurred to my mind certain expenditures which he himself was largely responsible for. There was, for example, the Tariff commission under the late government which cost Canada a considerable amount of money.
I am also thinking at the present moment of the Price-Waterhouse report, which came in at the same time, which was likewise almost pigeon-holed. So that I do not know whether we need fear any more about this government spending money recklessly. We have likewise the charge that the present Royal Grain Inquiry Commission will not bring in a report that will be beneficial to the people. It is my firm belief that if the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission make their report they will not get across the floor of the House quite as easily as did the Price-Waterhouse report, which was brought in during the regime of my hon. friend. I am fully in favour of this board, but I do not think it should be composed of one individual, it should be composed of at least three; and the members of the board should be appointed with the consent of the whole of parliament, and not by the government alone. I simply make that recommendation and hope that when the bill is presented to the House it will incorporate some of these provisions.


Mr. HOEY:: How many members will there be on the board?


Jacques Bureau: Three. That is the intention now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the board be appointed through the Civil Service Commission?


Jacques Bureau: The bill will provide that the board shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act to the contrary. That is my idea. This board may require the services of expert men for a week, or two or three weeks; and it seems to me that if we have to wait six weeks or six months before you can get them together, it will hardly be

Customs and Excise Aci
doing justice to the board and will not contribute to the effectiveness or efficiency of the board.


William Charles Good: Is it the minister's plan or suggestion that this board should be employed continuously, or that they should be employed for stated periods only?


Jacques Bureau: As long as they are efficient, and their services are required. There is not in the bill that will be presented to the House any limit of time.


William Charles Good: They are to give their full time to the work?


Jacques Bureau: Absolutely.


Mr. MANION:: Will this board be something akin to the Advisory Tariff Commission of the United States?


Jacques Bureau: They will receive instruction and will act under the directions of the Governor General in Council, and will have all the necessary powers given to them. These matters can be discussed in committee. It is the intention to get the best men available, men with a knowledge of taxation, who can suggest or advise, and they themselves may suggest what they think they ought properly to do, subject always to the regulations of the Governor in Council. That will be in the bill.


Robert James Manion: Has the government decided as to the personnel of the board, assuming tha't the bill goes through? Have they decided as to the qualifications necessary for the personnel? For example, have they decided that they might have one manufacturer, one farmer and one labour man appointed? Perhaps the minister will say that they have not decided on the personnel.


Jacques Bureau: I have no one in sight, and my colleagues have not suggested anyone. We want men with the proper qualifications and whether a man is a manufacturer, a farmer, a Grit, a Tory or Progressive, will not weigh in the balance at all. My hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) may laugh. Of course, we are always apt to measure others by our own yardstick; but that is my intention, and I am going to carry it out. Produce the man, and if he is qualified he will get the position.


Robert James Manion: The reason I ask is that in 1912 a resolution was brought into the House, I think by one of the late finance ministers.


Jacques Bureau: Sir Thomas White. That was the tariff board.


Robert James Manion: Yes. My hon. friend is not guilty in that matter. The resolution was passed by this House and turned down in the Upper Chamber.


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Personally I have on two
or three occasions in speeches on the budget supported the idea of an advisory tariff commission to thoroughly look into the tariff question with regard to each individual industry, and to advise the government; but since that time I have been told by some of those who supported the appointment of the board that later they changed their minds on the ground that when this board was suggested, there was a demand from so many different classes of people, urging that they be represented on the board, that it was thought the board would become practically useless. They said that the farmers and the manufacturers and the labour people all claimed that they must have a representative. So that, instead of having members appointed who would thoroughly go into the tariff question, or who are capable and able from their natural ability to go into the whole matter, they were requested to appoint a class board, if I might use that term. That is why I asked as to class representation on that board. If it be finally decided by the House that the board should be appointed and the government finally appoint a board, I think the best men from the standpoint of knowledge should be appointed, if possible. We require not only men who have had political training- that might even be forgotten-but we want men who have had training in tariff matters and questions of taxation.


Jacques Bureau: Generally such men have
no strong political leanings.


Robert James Manion: I agree with that. I think that if the appointments are finally made, these appointments should be based more on the ability of the men than on any consideration of their political leanings or of their class.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, solely and absolutely.


William Charles Good: If this board is to become a
board to sit in judgment upon the claims of various industrial classes for special privileges,
I think they will soon get lost in a hopeless morass. I would be very much opposed to any board that would confine itself largely to the consideration of such matters. I do not think it is the intention of the government to constitute a board of that kind. Incidentally I suppose they might consider the

Customs and Excise Act
claims of certain large classes of industry as certain systems of taxation affect such classes, but to constitute a tariff board such as has been discussed to deal with tariff schedules I think would be a great mistake.


Jacques Bureau: There is no question of
a tariff board. That is not contemplated at all. I have stated my case and it is before the House.


William Charles Good: I am glad to have this assurance. I only wanted to make sure the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) was not in the mind of the government. I am very glad now the minister has given us this assurance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not remember any such suggestion from my hon. friend from Fort William. I thought it was merely a question. The minister says it is not a tariff board. It is just the same board, as it strikes me, as the board recommended by Sir Thomas White, which was voted against by my hon. friend, with this addition: That besides being a board, advising on one method of taxation, this board is also going to advise as to sales tax, stamp taxes, bank taxes and all the rest of it. Surely this board will have every power in connection with the field of taxation, that the advisory board of Sir Thomas White had. Could my hon. friend point out any difference?


Jacques Bureau: Yes. I will tell my hon.
friend why I voted against that board. When the question came before the House, if I remember correctly the question came, up as suggested by an hon. member from this side of the House-and my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) will remember the circumstance-"Who are you going to appoint on the board? Your political friends?" The answer was, "They shall be given a fair chance and more than a fair chance." That is quite different from the answer I give, "If you produce men of ability, let them come forward." I objected at the time the former board was appointed, because I thought it was a party question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister is very disingenuous. Is there any distinction, except in name, between the tariff board now proposed and the tariff board proposed by Sir Thomas White, with this exception: that the former tariff board was to advise upon the one question which was our only measure of taxation, but as the field of taxation has been now increased, this tariff board covers more ground,-is there any other difference?


William Charles Good: Why call it a tariff board?


Jacques Bureau: I do not call it a tariff
board.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON Then call it a taxation board-any name you like; the name does not make the slightest difference as to what their duties are. My hon. friend gives me the assurance about politics. I am afraid nothing in the world would ever convince my hon. friend that a mere Tory or a promising Progressive ever knew anything which would entitle either one of them to an appointment.


Jacques Bureau: That is not based on facts as regards my1 past conduct. Whenever I have had a chance to favour a Liberal on even chances, I have done it and I will do it again-conditions being even.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is like the fact and we know it. I do not blame my hon. friend. He was not himself when a moment ago he was giving voice to the "paper" sentiments he did. He tells us now what the real truth is.


Jacques Bureau: Conditions being even, I
said.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He would get
the best of it all.


Jacques Bureau: No, he would not; he
would not get more than a fair chance.


Mr. BOYS:: Will the minister promise us
one out of three?


Jacques Bureau: Not even that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That would
never do. How much of the appropriation is for salaries and how much is the whole appropriation to be?


Jacques Bureau: I cannot tell offhand.
The salary of the chairman will not be over $10,000, and the salaries of the members will not be over $7,500. I think the whole appropriation for the board for the eight or nine months after it is appointed-because July will be well gone and we might be here in August-will be $28,000-I am speaking subject to correction.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Is it the intention of the government to hold a joint conference with the provinces this year to study the whole subject of taxation, and if so, at what time do they propose to hold that conference?


Jacques Bureau: I do not know that this
would bring up that question.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I do not think it does, but I
should like to have the information.
Customs and Excise Act


Jacques Bureau: I have not heard any discussion about it and I would not be in a position to answer my hon. friend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is some correspondence between the federal and provincial governments on this proposal. If the board is appointed under this legislation, the chances are that we would wait until the board was appointed before holding a conference.


Oliver Robert Gould: Would the government
obligate themselves to lay the report of this board before the House within fifteen days after the opening of parliament?


Jacques Bureau: I will not obligate myself
or the government to anything that is not in the bill or anywhere else. We do not know whether the board will make any report. They may make suggestions. They will have meetings with the Minister of Finance and his advisers, and the same as regards the Department of Customs. The resolution will be supplemented by legislation. If my hon. friends have anything to add to or to strike out of the bill, the proper time to do so will be when the bill is before the House. If they object to the principle of the resolution, all right; let us discuss it, and if they still object to it, let us take a vote and see whether the House wants it.


Arthur Meighen: I have not been able
to hear all the discussion, and no doubt there is a difference of view as to the wisdom of appointing this new advisory board, I note the government has rather shifted its term from "commission" to "board." The "commission" term was played out; it got so common that the public were somewhat nauseated witlh it, so that the word "board" is now more appropriate. I see, also that the word "advisory" is used instead of "tariff." I am not enthusiastic as to the whole proposal, but I think what the government really has in mind is a tariff commission. Remembering, however, as they do, how the whole party fought it tooth and nail in 1912, denouncing it as merely a method of making permanent the protective system-a bulwark of protection -to see that the big privileged interests were always privileged, always secure against attack -they decided to seek security in a new name, and they devised this scheme of "advisory board."
I believe thoroughly in having tariff decisions reached on a business basis. Until we are old and strong enough to do that, we are not going to have very much of a country. Until the United States learned their lesson, the Democratic party as well as the other,
fMr. Hoev.]
and admitted in action as well as in speech the soundness of the protective principle there, they did not get very far. For many years they have framed their tariff upon this, taking the advice of experts, the best advice they could get, used their committees and put their tariff on what they believed to be a business basis.
The government intends to use this new board as a shield to maintain the protective system while advocating something else. That is really what the government has in mind. They want always to be able to hold up the opinions and the report of this advisory board as confirming them in what they are doing and shielding them from attack much in the same fashion as tihe Civil Service Commission is used to-day. I do not know that they have anybody particularly in mind for the appointment. So far as I know all their closest friends are now provided for. What they really want is something to stand between them and this constant attack for failure in office to implement the doctrines preached in opposition, and the advisory board is to serve that purpose. They also hope that it will be something in the nature of a consolation to those business interests of the country who are now much disturbed, who have utterly lost faith in them, who took their promises and found they were, broken reeds. They hope by this advisory board they will stir up, as it were, once again the flickering flame of confidence in the administration that even after two or three years they are now coming back to fidelity to those more or less secret pledges by which they secured the support of the business interests in our country. That is what the government has in mind, so that it is not very much wonder that I am not very enthusiastic about it. I suppose, however, we ought to abandon all consideration of what is really moving the government in the matter and resit in the hope that, if they get a tariff board, at least we shall have something steadier in the country in the way of tariff policy even though we have nothing steadier in the way of tariff profession.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want to take up the time of the committee by adding anything to the discussion that has taken place, but I do not think I ought to let pass the remarks of my right hon. friend creating the implication that this is intended as a tariff board. It is not intended as anything of the kind. It is expected to be precisely what the resolution states, a board to investigate and study various modes of

Customs and Excise Act
taxation with a view to simplifying and improving existing systems. As hon. members know, since the war the amount that has to be raised in taxation has vastly increased, and any government that is in office in this country will find it difficult to know what methods are best to raise the revenues necessary to carry on the business of the country. Direct taxation is being resorted to in a larger measure than ever before. It ought to be possible, out of the experience of different countries in the world, to get something that would be of real value to our country in throwing light on methods of taxation, simplifying existing methods, suggesting new methods, and, with respect to methods that we have already, suggesting possible modifications.


Arthur Meighen: Is it intended that this
board shall advise on tariff schedules?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; this board is not intended to do that. The government intends to appoint, in connection with the Department of Finance which has to do with tariff matters, one or two expert advisers to the minister of that department to deal with tariff questions. This has relation to modes of taxation. I think my right hon. friend has had in mind the other suggestion that has been made, and has assumed that this board relates thereto. That is not so; the present board is to deal with modes of taxation and to study methods of simplifying and improving the existing system.


Arthur Meighen: My enthusiasm is waning rapidly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I thought so.


Jacques Bureau: It naturally would.


Arthur Meighen: I thought at first that
this was what was promised in the budget ' debate but I see there is to be another board to carry that out.


Jacques Bureau: It was promised in the
Speech from the Throne.


Arthur Meighen: It seems to me that we
are going to be so "boarded" in that we shall not be able to live.


Jacques Bureau: We want to have at least some boards that will enable the country to expand.


Arthur Meighen: We shall not expand
much by paying so many ten-thousand-dollar salaries. These boards and commissions and what not are multiplying rapidly and every existing institution is adding to the burden
it already imposes upon the country. Why in the world should we need a board to delve into taxation systems of other countries for the purpose of seeing whether we cannot find further means of taxing the people here?
I cannot see any reason for this board. The Minister of Finance with the assistants around him who have grown up in the department should constitute just about as good a protection in this matter as the country could have, and as good a leadership too. I had mot heard the debate and possibly I might have got other information if I had. But I do not know of any country which has a board headed by ten-thousand-dollar officials advising departments of government as to how to tax. I know of countries which have boards on expert matters such as tariff schedules and which offer advice as to the incidence and the effect of tariff taxation; but a general advisory board advising as to how to tax the people, and looking into taxation methods in other countries and that sort of thing, is something I cannot understand. Why, $28,000 will be a bagatelle; it will be merely a little nest egg out of which an awful brood will grow. If the minister stays in the department

I understand he does not intend to, but if he does -he will find himself providing in the estimates before very long a tremendous sum to keep up some of the new institutions which have been created and which are of very doubtful value. My judgment upon this matter is that the board is unnecessary; I do not see the necessity for it. And when we do come to the tariff board I hope that hon. gentlemen to my left will not become too intoxicated with the prospects, for I venture to warn them that there will not be very many of their tariff profession who will obtain well-paying jobs on that board.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We learn now
that we are to have two more experts appointed; the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been kind enough to tell us that. These men I understand will do the same work for the Minister of Finance as this advisory board is to do for the Minister of Customs. The underlying principle of this resolution was to bring together the different taxing and collecting departments of government, but we are acting absolutely at variance with that principle if we have one set of people to advise the Minister of Customs as to how to extract the maximum amount of money with the minimum of pain and as quietly as possible from the pockets of the taxpayers, and another set to advise the Minister of Finance
Customs and Excise Act

as to how he can make the operation just as pleasant as possible. Why have we not got the two soporific agencies together? If the idea is to have unification of service why can we not have some unification of experts? Of all the ridiculous ideas that have been mooted this seems to be the richest; we are going to do something that is indeed absurd. Here we have two branches of taxation which, according to the ministers, neither of them, confessedly, can look after; they both need instruction and advice. And we are to have a separate set of experts for each. Is it the policy of the government, I should like to know, to appoint experts, let us say, to advise the Minister of Trade and Commerce how to carry on?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Possibly, says
the Prime Minister; and I think that answer is appropriate, for to-day anything is possible. It seems that any proposition is possible from the government benches so long as it involves the expenditure of money. Of course, it is possible for the government to admit candidly that its ministers are inefficient; they need experts to enter the departments and tell them what to do and be well paid for giving that advice. But I think we should get some idea of the cost. What for example is to be the cost of two experts in the Department of Finance?


Jacques Bureau: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) apparently fails to distinguish between the board here suggested and a tariff commission. He declares that I am anxious to have a tariff commission, which I deny. The object of this board has been explained, but hon. gentlemen opposite, if we are to judge by the remarks they have made, simply want to put up a line of straw men for the pleasure of knocking them down. That is all right, but do not let us get away from the point; this is not a tariff commission and much as I should like to please my right hon. friend, I do not see how anybody can regard it as such. This is a taxation board, the object of which is not to touch by any means the duties that existed before the war, but to deal with new taxes which, in the economy of my hon. friends opposite when they were in power, were brought into being. We have to meet the situation as it exists now and we must find ways of paying the public debt. And, as my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) suggests, naturally we desire that the method shall be as painless as possible to the taxpayer who is bearing the burden. Hon. gentlemen opposite may call us fools if they like,

or they may dilate upon our ignorance. But that has nothing to do with the matter. To the best of my ability I am going to try to reach the goal that is before us in spite of anything which my hon. friends may do to deter us. Whether I am ridiculed or belittled, or not, I am going to go ahead if I feel that I am right, as I think I am; I intend to carry the thing through and obtain results-to the great disappointment of hon. gentlemen. I should be glad to please my hon. friends, but I certainly do not want to do so at the expense of increased suffering to the taxpayers of the country.


Arthur Meighen: I wish to go on record as opposed to the proposal. I did not know that what the minister had in mind was a new advisory board as to taxation and another advisory board in regard to the tariff.


Jacques Bureau: It must be a new board
since we are asking for permission to create it.


Arthur Meighen: I did not know that until recently in the debate. I do not think that this board is at all necessary; I do not believe that with all the advisory boards possible at salaries of $10,000 we should have been able to avoid one error which we have not avoided up to now in taking care of our financial obligations. One must learn by experience, and the experience of one country necessarily differs from that of another, inasmuch as there is a difference in geography, in occupation and in many physical characteristics. These advisory boards may pretend to be very busy and may have bulletins, reports to parliament, blue books, and all the rest of it; but all the good which will accrue to the country can be held in the hollow of your hand.


Jacques Bureau: That is your opinion.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it is decidedly my
opinion; my opinion is that we are overboarded now with one commission after another. We were over-boarded when this government came in and now it is worse. You will not pay the debt of the country by any accumulation of boards; you will not pay the debt incurred for war by any new debt incurred for places.


Mr. EVANS:: Without reading the resolution I took it that this was a tariff commission purely and simply, but according to the last explanation of the minister, it is to be a new board, and I cannot see what purpose it will serve; it is not worth while. We have been collecting war taxes for some years now and the experts in the department should surely be capable of advising the minister concern-

Customs and Excise Act
ing the business. In view of the last explanation the minister has made I cannot see any place for this advisory board; in fact I think it is an unnecessary expense entirely.


William Charles Good: I spoke some time ago strongly in favour of this resolution, but in view of the objections expressed by my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) and of the remarks just made by the member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) I deem it desirable to add to what I then stated.
I do not suppose many will agree with me, but I think the main advantage of such a board would be that it would study the systems of taxation that we now have or that we may have, and try to work out the application of a system which would be less onerous to the country and less objectionable to industry generally than is our present system of taxation. As hon. members are aware, I have on two occasions presented to the House the desirability of taxation of land values, which I think is an absolutely fundamental and just system of taxation. I presume that such a matter would come under the consideration of this board. While I object as much as anybody to the expenditure of money uselessly, I do think that at the present time there is need for a board of investigation to look into this particular matter. I endorse the proposition because it will not concern itself with tariff schedules, but, so far as I am informed, will concern itself with the more fundamental matters of taxation-as to whether or not, for instance, the tariff system is preferable to some other system of taxation. I might remark to my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) that if this board is composed of really first-class people, it may eventually result in the total, or almost total, abolition of customs and tariff boards. I have always looked on that beautiful building on the other side of the Chateau Laurier as a horrible waste of money, as at present used, for it is occupied by numerous officials laboriously collecting revenue under a bad system. I hope to see the time when that building will be given over to other purposes entirely, and when nearly all our customs machinery may be discarded. I suppose it will be some time before we reach that desirable state of affairs, and I must not be too hopeful. But this proposition appeals to me because I have at least some hope that the government will appoint really first-class people to the board. I think the minister said he would suggest three members.


Jacques Bureau: That is what the bill will provide for.



REVISED

William Charles Good: It occurred to me, when the
minister made that statement, that we might appoint a representative of the tax-collecting officials, a representative of the ordinary taxpayers, and an economist, a man who has made a study of the subject from the standpoint of political economy. Then you would have a fairly well rounded out board. That is only a suggestion which occurred to me on the spur of the moment, and possibly it might be better to have the board somewhat differently constituted. I sincerely hope that the objection raised, very naturally, by my hon. friend from Saskatoon will be withdrawn, at all events until we get a little further on with the bill.


Robert James Manion: I expressed a few'opinions before the Prime Minister came into the House, but I must confess that he has given a different interpretation to the whole proposition. I took it for granted that the board was to be mainly a tariff board. The Prime Minister states that it is to be a board to investigate different metlmds of taxation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I draw
my hon. friend's attention to a clause in the Speech from the Throne relating to this very matter? It is this:
Legislation will be introduced making provision for consolidation of the revenue collecting services of the government under one administrative head. With a
view to simplifying and improving the existing system, it is also proposed to constitute a board to investigate and study the various modes of taxation.
This bill is for the purpose of implementing that clause.


Robert James Manion: I must confess that I had forgotten what the Speech from the Throne said. I had drawn the conclusion, which I think most- members had, until the Prime Minister spoke, that this was to be an advisory board to deal with tariff as well as other forms of taxation. Although probably I do not agree altogether with my right hon. leader in this, I have for a long time felt that a tariff board to advise what-5 p.m. ever government is in power as to the necessity for so much or so little duty upon certain lines of goods, similar to the tariff board in the United States, would be a very good thing. However, the idea of appointing a permanent board to investigate taxation is something which I do not understand. It might not be unreasonable to appoint a board for five or six months to make a thorough investigation of the various methods of taxation in different



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Customs and Excise Act
[Stage Direction]
countries, but it would not appear to me to be necessary to make the appointment permanent.
Jacques Bureau: I explained just now that
the duration of the board would be limited by the order in council.


Robert James Manion: I did not hear the minister explain that. I think the time should be very limited, because if we appoint a board to look into the various methods of taxation it should be for only a limited period of time, six months at the utmost. Certainly I do not see any reason to appoint a permanent board for this purpose. I have not heard of any country in the world attempting such a thing. We have the experience of various countries as to taxation, and we as well as they have made mistakes because the conditions of today have never been upon the world before. But I do not see any reason for appointing a board to go into matters of taxation, and then appoint as well a tariff board from the Finance department. If this method is to be adopted the minister should state the length of time for which these men will be appointed and when they will be expected to make their report.


Jacques Bureau: It would be rather presumptuous for me to state the length of time. I do not know how long such a board will take to do its work. We want the work done thoroughly. The length of time will be regulated by the order in council.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend has given
the salaries by the year; therefore the board is apparently going to be in existence for some years at any rate. If it was to be a board, we will say, such as the travelling pensions board, or the pulpwood board, the appointment would be temporary. I do not think we pay the members of those boards by the year.


Jacques Bureau: It may have to become a permanent board for all I know. It will depend on how matters develop. I may say $10,000 here, but that does not mean that the board will continue for ten years. The members will be paid for the time that their services are required.


Mr. LADNER:: The appointment of a
new board means an additional expense to the country, whether considered provincially or federally. For many years past it has been noticeable that one government after another has continued to add to its employees, to its commissions and to its boards, until the expense is accumulating to an alarming ex-
[Mr. ManionJ
tent. We are over-commissioned, and they say we are over-governed. In view of the obligations that face .this country at the present time, no matter what the merit of this proposal may be, i.t seems to me that this experiment could be deferred until some other time. This is not the time for the government with one hand to create ten-thousand-dollar jobs while with the other they cut down the salaries of government employees in various portions of the country. The public do not understand the need for that. Since the time of confederation we have been raising our revenue, devising ways and means of taxation from our experience, with the help of highly paid officials in the department, who come in actual contact with the public and the business interests of the country, and with boards of trade and other public bodies, giving their best efforts to the study of this question. It seems to me that if, with the employees and the facilities which we have had in this country for so many years we have been able to reach this point without adding to our overhead, we could very well at this particular moment, in view of our financial position, defer until some later day this experimenting with new ideas, involving an increase of expenditure and ten-thousand-dollar jobs. As one member from the West, who has seen something of the work of commissions under provincial governments, and knows something of public opinion, especially as reflected in the press- may I say that one of our local papers, the Vancouver Sun, wrote a very forceful editorial on government by commission, aiming its advice at the present government, and I think that advice could very well be taken at the present moment-as one of the far-western members, without any feeling in the matter, and considering solely the merits of this proposal and the conditions which face the country, I think the government is taking a step here which will not commend itself to the public nor be to the advantage of the taxpayer.


Mr. CHURCH:: of taxation in the recess between the provinces, the Dominion and municipalities so that the various phases or systems of taxation now in vogue throughout the country would be taken up, considered and co-ordinated with a view to seeing what could be continued and what should be eliminated. I do not see of what value such a proposed conference will be if the government now appoint an advisory board. I have this to say about the present Minister of Customs and Excise. The business men of Toronto tell me that he is a roost zealous and faithful administrator and has always given satisfaction when complaints were made by the board of trade or other interests. I give the minister credit for that; I believe that when he has received complaints he has looked into them very carefully and the same remarks equally apply to the acting finance minister. But it is time that we made a change so far as our methods of taxation are concerned. We ought to try and , copy the example of the people in England, France and the United States-who are paying a far greater amount of war taxation than we are-in reducing expenditure and eliminating unnecessary methods of war taxation. The board proposed to be appointed here are to investigate and study taxation matters with a view to simplifying and improving the existing systems. I have my own idea of what will result from this. I venture to say that when the report of that board comes before us next session it will be found to have evolved new means and new ways of imposing additional taxes upon the people of this country who are overburdened as it is. Something should be done to free the working classes of the burdens they now labour under; something should be done, as between the Dominion and the vlarious legislatures, to co-ordinate systems of taxation and abolish certain burdensome and vexatious forms of taxation. Why do we not follow the example of the United States Congress and cut down the taxation? Under the Mellon plan there has been a great reduction in income and other forms of taxation, in fact a reduction of taxation all along the line on the city and town man who pays most of the taxes in this country. We should be acting very wisely if we followed the example of the United Slates.


Mr. WOODS:: The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) has told us there is a great demand for the abolition of the income tax, the business profits tax, and other taxes of the kind. That remark may be true as regards the large moneyed interests in the [Mr. Church.1
great cities; it cannot be said of the constituents of hon. gentlemen who sit in this quarter of the House. So far as I am aware no farmers are demanding the abolition of the income tax, the business profits tax or the amusement tax. This is attributable to three good and sufficient reasons. The first is that farmers do not earn sufficient income to be taxed, speaking as a general rule. In the second place their operations are not sufficiently extensive to bring them under the operations of the business profits tax. As regards amusement quite frequently we derive our amusement from forking hay, gripping the plough handles, and engaging in manual labour of various descriptions. I have heard no demand from the farmers whatever for the abolition of these taxes.


Mr. FORKE:: With the right hon. leader
of the opposition I view with some suspicion the multiplication of boards of inquiry into various matters. However there may possibly be room for some inquiry in the direction contemplated. It seems to me, though, that if we knew the personnel of this board, what its true position would be, and the period over which its operations were to extend we could come to a better conclusion as to the propriety of its creation. I feel that the resolution should be allowed to pass, but that when the bill which is to be based on it comes down we ought to carefully scrutinize its provisions. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) almost made an argument in favour of appointing a board of this kind because he, spoke of the many methods of taxation and the many changes that are being made. That would seem to indicate the necessity for an inquiry. In Manitoba a few years ago-perhaps six or seven years ago-a board of this kind was created to inquire into provincial methods of taxation. I happened to be a member of that board, and its personnel was not highly paid, but it functioned intermittently for about two years. I think that any one who examines that report carefully will admit that the 'board did good work in connection with assessments and taxation in the province of Manitoba. I think there is a field of inquiry for this board if the investigation were properly undertaken. Of course, there is a possibility of abuses happening in connection with suclh a board. On the other hand, so many difficulties arise in connection with taxation matters-for example the hon. member for North Toronto referred to the overlapping which occurs in connection with Dominion, provincial and municipal taxation-that there

Customs and Excise Act
seems to be many matters which should be carefully looked into and examined, and something along this line ought to be done in tlhe very near future. The Prime Minister stated that this board will have nothing to do with the tariff. I do not see how any board, if it is to investigate taxation in this country, can avoid looking into the tariff question. We derive a large amount of our revenue from the tariff, and! consequently the matter is one that would come under the scrutiny and examination of a board such as this. Taxation is becoming very heavy in the respective spheres of the Dominion, the provinces and the municipalities. But the taxes have got to be .paid and money for this purpose must be raised. It is very necessary at this time that those, should pay who are able to pay. Probably a board such as is proposed may be able to give us some light on this matter. Although I cannot regard the proposition y*i'th any grealt enthusiasm I am willing to wait until I can examine the provisions of the bill before I come to a determination. I can only hope that some good may result from the government's proposition. Froim. the 'personnel of the board we can in some degree gauge the probable measure of its success. For instance if a member from this part of the House and a member from hon. gentlemen to my right were appointed to this board the opinion in regard to it might be entirely different.


Robert James Manion: What about hon. gentlemen opposite?


Robert Forke: As to that I do not know
exactly.


Arthur Meighen: No one knows what their opinions are.


Robert Forke: I would not go the length
of saying that, but I think everyone will admit that the personnel of the board will have a great deal to do with the advice which will be given the government in regard to matters of taxation. However, I aim willing to wait until the bill is brought down and we have a further opportunity of discussing this matter.


Arthur Meighen: I am going to make a
last appeal to the minister to drop this thing. Really there is nothing in it, and I know that if he ponders over the matter long enough he will come to the same conclusion. It is not the province of a permanent commission to advise as to taxation; that is the work of the parliament of Canada. That is distinctly and fundamentally our work, and why should we always be farming out what we ought to do ourselves?


Robert Alexander Hoey: That argument would apply
to a tariff commission.


Arthur Meighen: I will come to that: It
is not pertinent just now. The province of a department is administrative; its duty is not to determine the policy or the principle. Its work is administrative and administrative alone. Does anybody imagine, for example, that the report of any commission, if it lived a hundred years and delved into every phase of economics and brought down a report to this House as to whether we ought to have a protective tariff or not, would have the slightest influence on the determination of a policy in Canada? It would not have any. Now, we in this Dominion have tried out our taxation methods. We nave had to devise new ones, and devise them pretty rapidly to meet the exigencies of a world situation unprecedented in history. In devising new ones we necessarily made errors. If we had a hundred commissions to advise us we would in my judgment make just a hundred times the errors. The commissions could not possibly have been of any assistance to us at all. The errors were cured in the main by experience. I do not think the people of Canada to-day are greatly agitated because of the nature of our taxation. I do not think for example that there is any strong body of sentiment against an income tax or against the system of income tax which we have, nor is there any great body of sentiment against our sales tax or our tariff tax. There is none as to the principle which any commission on earth will ever solve. What sentiment in Canada is ranged against is the amount of the tax. The people of Canada want it cut down just as rapidly as possible, but they are not at all worried because there may be some other tax that will by some alchemy, or some unknown system of science, extract the money from us easier than any we have today, and if there were, they would expect the parliament of Canada to find it out, and not appoint commissions at tens of thousands a year to do the work of parliament. Go to the United States: where is the taxation commission there advising the government of the United States on taxation? It does not exist.


Robert Forke: They have state boards. They had one in Wisconsin.


Arthur Meighen: They may have a state
investigation into some specific question of taxation. That is all they have anywhere. But the United States government is the great taxing power of the United States. They have 110 million people. They have twenty-five times the wealth of this country, but their
Customs and Excise Act

legislative bodies do that work. They do not call in an expensive commission to try to do it for them. Look at Great Britain; where is the taxation commission over there? The parliament of Great Britain is burdened down with labours far and beyond any that we have to suffer; that parliament has to do the work of our provincial and federal governments, and has to do it multiplied many times over because the responsibilities of that country are infinitely greater than ours and yet that parliament does the work of taxation without the assistance of a taxation commission. Why are we, sitting here responsible for a tax which is peculiarly our own, putting our hand in the treasury and paying other people to tell us how to do it? The advising on questions of policy, the framing of principles, the determination of the amount we take in taxation are the problems of parliament. They are not matters for any permanent commission; nor is there any field at the present time for even a temporary commission on that subject. When you come to the tariff it is different, and I will venture to say a few words on that when we come to it. In that matter the function of a commission would be administrative. I will say a word on that now, so that I will not be charged with evading anything. The function of a commission would be necessarily administrative; that is the function of any department of the government or of any government. But it is for parliament itself to determine the principle upon which we are going to act. Let parliament determine the protective principle or some other principle, then the commission can decide as to the working out of that principle, as to how the incidence of taxation on the protective principle here will affect this industry or that industry. That is the proper function of a commission. I do not say that I am enthusiastic as to the government appointing a commission on tariff taxation which professes to be against the protective principle. I cannot see much sense in it. But assuming the principle, I can see work for a commission.


Robert Forke: There is a great deal of
difference as to the field of taxation having reference to provincial, Dominion and municipal taxation, succession duties and income tax. Does the hon. member not think a commission might give advice in this direction?


Arthur Meighen: I am glad the hon.
member has mentioned that matter, because I had it in mind to speak of that but almost forgot it. Necessarily, or rather unfortunately, under our constitution, the division of taxation powers is not distinct, nor is the power of 
taxation in any field confined to the Dominion alone or to the provinces alone. There is overlapping and there is, by reason of that overlapping, difficulty, but what in the world a commission could do to solve it I do not know. We all know the facts. We know what, the provinces can do. We know what we can do. We know what the province is doing, and we know what we are doing; and if you have a commission, I do n'ot care if you pay them at the rate of Rockefeller's income, they will only report to us that that is a matter to be solved by a change of the constitution, or by an arrangement with the provinces. Now I wonder whether the members of any commission are better able to arrange with the provinces than the government of Canada. Will they not be dealing with the governments of the provinces? Can the governments of the provinces be asked to negotiate with a commission acting for us while they negotiate with us? If this is ever to be solved, it is to be solved by getting together of the heads of the governments of the provinces on the one hand and the Dominion on the other with a conciliatory spirit on both sides; and then by joint representations securing amendment to the constitution accordingly. By that means and that alone can there ever be a permanent solution, and I see very little value in a temporary solution. To imagine that along that line lies any work for a commission seems to me purely visionary. There is exactly a field where a commission would be utterly powerless.


William Charles Good: I would like to dissent very
definitely from what my right hon. friend has said as to the people of Canada being chiefly concerned with the amount of taxation, and not with the incidence. I contend that it is just the reverse-that it is not the amount but the incidence of taxation that concerns us. If the people of Canada do not hold to my view, they will soon find it is the incidence of taxation rather than the amount which is the vital matter.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman
aware that the only new method he suggested or new incidence was a land tax?


William Charles Good: Not a land tax.


Arthur Meighen: The commission to which the leader of the Progressive party referred, on which he served, investigated the subject and reported against any land tax.


William Charles Good: This is not the time to discuss the taxation of land-values or a land

Customs and Excise Act
tax, or any other tax. I mentioned the former only by way of illustration, but I do want to point out and emphasize that it is the incidence of taxation at the present time in Canada which I think is wrong, and that is a matter the investigating commission ought to attend to.


Arthur Meighen: What are we here for?


William Charles Good: To sit in judgment, it may be upon a report of an investigating commission and to decide; but we are not necessarily here to make all original investigations. I contend that, after all, democracy has got to make use of experts in all kinds of directions. We do it individually. We go to the doctor and to the lawyer and others who make particular studies in special fields, and I think the people collectively have to do the same thing. It has been said that we are shirking responsibility. Let me give a bit of history. Last year the government appointed Dr. Tory of the University of Alberta to make a special study of the rural credit situation, and he did so. He gathered together a lot of interesting information that it would have been very difficult for each of us to have gathered independently, and would have entailed a lot of work. Of course if we had the time it would be profitable to us. Some of us have made independent study along that particular line. But Dr. Tory gathered that information in a convenient form and presented it to hon. members, and we have it before us. Now we can decide on the basis of the information supplied to us by experts, and that is what I would expect this commission to do. It would not be a commission to determine policy, but a commission to obtain information and to submit information to us in a convenient and accessible form, and then it would be up to parliament to decide as to policy. I think perhaps the term "investigating" would be a little better than "advisory," but I am willing to let it stand, and I contend that this commission could be of great service if the personnel were right. As to the permanency of the board, that raises a very large question. I think, perhaps, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) is right in intimating that it might not be necessary to have this a permanent board. But why raise the question now? We do not know exactly how long the work will take. If the appropriation is made for one year, the work might be done at the end of the first year or it might take a second year. Therefore, this question can well be left in abeyance until we get at least the first report from the proposed board.


Mr. ANDERSON:: 1 should think it was
not necessary to appoint a board to look after taxation. I think we have the experts in the department.


William Charles Good: No.


Robert King Anderson: We should have the
experts in the Department of Finance and in the Department of Customs and Excise, and if there is in Canada anybody who should know about taxation, it should be those experts. The Minister of Customs and Excise is at the head of his department with his experts to look after taxation. More expense is being placed upon this country by appointing an outside commission that may not know anything more about taxation than the experts already in the departments. If the minister himself and his experts in the department are not expert enough to revise the forms of taxation that we have in this country, he and his departmental heads should resign and the proposed board be put in their place so that this extra expense may not. be placed upon the country.


Jacques Bureau: I will submit my hon.
friend's suggestion to the heads of the departments that they should resign, and then I will consider what I shall do.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bureau thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 237, to amend the Department of Customs and Excise Act-
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 122, to provide for the superannuation of civil servants.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 195, to amend the Immigration Act.
Arthur Meighen: I would ask the government to hold this until Monday. It is not on the list of those mentioned for to-day.
Motion stands.



PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
Supply-Harbours and. Rivers
[Stage Direction]
Public Works chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia-Yarmouth harbour dredging, $22,000.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Mareil, Bonaven-ture):: The whole list of harbours and rivers
for Nova Scotia included in this item has been passed with the exception of the last item, Yarmouth harbour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As regards "appropriations not required for 1924-25, $338,134.60," how much of that represents work done and how much represents lapsed votes?
Hon, J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works):	$273,973 represents work
done.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What do the
appropriations consist of for work not dome?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I will hand the
list to my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I want to see
what lapses there have been, because it is really necessary that we should have that information if we are to study the effect of the estimates. My hon. friend gives me a list of harbours in Nova Scotia chargeable to income and that list shows the amount of expenditure and the amount of appropriation. It is a long list and the best thing would be to put it on Hansard, but. I hestiate to do so. Take for instance Portugese Cove; there was an appropriation of $5,000 for a breakwater there and only $10.50 was spent. I take it that the work was abandoned.


John Warwick King: I presume that
the work was abandoned and the expenditure was therefore unnecessary. I shall inquire.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I just wanted to find out why only $10.50 was spent, but the obvious inference is that the work was abandoned. In the other instances I presume the difference between the expenditure and the amount voted is a mere matter of valuation. Take Bear River for instance: there was an appropriation of $13,350 for the rebuilding of a warping pier and only $7,313.68 was spent. What is the explanation of the difference?


John Warwick King: The sum of $7,000 odd was spent in rebuilding warping piers at the highway bridge both upstream and down and the difference is due to a decrease in the cost of material and the fact that the work was not as extensive as had been anticipated.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then take the
next item, Chimney Corner, where there was an appropriation of $13,400 for the completion of a wharf. Only $11,885.39 was spent.
Mr. Meighen.]


John Warwick King: We had a better
tender than we expected .


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the
work that was destroyed by the storm?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And we are
doing it over this year?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How do you
account for the difference between $15,100 of an appropriation and $11,157.22 expended in dredging at Digby?


John Warwick King: There was less
earth excavated than was anticipated. The estimated extent of the excavation involved was 13,000 cubic yards whereas the actual quantity removed was 10,522.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are not
going to do that this year?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The next item
is "Ecum Secum-Completing wharf and building road." We appropriated $6,100 and no expenditure has been made. I take it that the work was found unnecessary.


John Warwick King: The question has
not been decided as to the proper location for the wharf and no expenditure has been made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: At Point Aconi for the breakwater there was an appropriation of $10,000 but only $39.55 was spent. We cannot build a breakwater for $39. I suppose it was found that this was all they would spend for the time being.


John Warwick King: The price of
material was too high and no expenditure was made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And no vote is asked for this year?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: At Ship Harbour for wharf repairs' we voted $4,200. That item has been dropped. Has that been otherwise looked after or is it dropped altogether in this year's estimates?


John Warwick King: As I stated the other night, there was an error in the wording of the vote last year, but the minister in explaining the estimate to the House indicated what it was for. However, the Auditor General took exception to the wording of the vote, and that is why we are now asking for a revote.

United Church of Canada


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have several
times been trying to make these figures jibe- I am not merely speaking of votes of the hon. minister's department, but of other departments too-as to the expenditures on the one hand which we vote and lapsed votes on the other. As a matter of fact, we have an item of $4,200 for Ship Harbour in this year's estimates, yet the appropriation last year of $4,100 is treated as lapsed. If this be the case it seems to me there should only be $100 here and not $4,200, in order to make this jibe.


John Warwick King: As I have tried
to explain, when this vote was before the House last session there was an error in the wording, but the minister in explaining the estimate to the committee indicated what the vote was for. The department went on and constructed the work. The Auditor General took exception to our having spent the money on that work, and we are asking for a vote this year. The money has not been paid, although it is owing on the work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understand
that. But what I point out-and perhaps it is just the result of what the Auditor General has done there-we have in our list of moneys not required $3,338 of this vote of $4,200, while as a matter of fact it is required. It should be all down as a re-vote if we are going to keep proper track of our estimates.


John Warwick King: It has to be a
new item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
wording?


John Warwick King: Last year, wharf
repairs; this year, wharf.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us take another one. South Lake, we had a vote of $5,000 with an expenditure of $401.09, which made practically an appropriation lapse of $4,600. What has become of that?


John Warwick King: The amount expended is $401.09. This appropriation was made for a 130-foot extension to the southern breakwater, but as it was subsequently discovered that beach protection would better accomplish the desired purpose the project of building the extension was abandoned. The expenditure shown above was made for emergent repairs to the southern breakwater, embracing the renewal of the covering for a distance of 70 feet from the outer end inwards and the replacing of 10 cubic yards of ballast.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That would be perfectly right, for there we have the whole
vote, we have $401.09 outwards and the balance lapses for the reasons given by the minister, that the work could be done in a cheaper way by letting nature do it.


George Perry Graham: Let nature take its course.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If we could let nature work a little more for us instead of her taking away these works it would be all the more to the credit side.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. A. HOEY (Springfield) (for Mr. Forke) moved the third reading of Bill No. 47, ito incorporate the United Church of Canada.
Mr. FRED STORK (Skeena) I move:
That the said bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House to amend section 2 as passed by the Committee of the Whole House on June 17th, by adding the following words immediately after the words " the 10th of December, 1924," the following :
Provided that as respects the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the provisions of this act shall apply only when all doubt has been removed as to the power of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, under its constitution and rules, to agree to a union of the Presbyterian Church in Canada with the Methodist and Congregational churches upon the basis of union as set out in Schedule " A " of this act; provided further, that this question shall be submitted for decision to the Supreme Court of Canada by a reference by the Minister of Justice,
Amendment negatived, on division.
Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
main motion.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg):: move:
That the said bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of making the following amendment:
By striking out of section 10 (a) the words " of the persons present at such meeting and entitled to vote thereat " in lines 32 and 33, and by substituting therefor the words " of the persons entitled to vote in such congregation by a vote taken by ballot under the provisions of Schedule " D ," and further amend the said bill by adding thereto as Schedule " D " the following:
Schedule " D "
Regulations for vote by Ballot provided for in section 9 (a):
1.	The ballot to be used in taking the vote provided for by section 10 (a) and following of the act shall be printed in black type on white paper of good quality at the diligence of the Clerk of Session or Recording
United Church of Canada

Steward of the Quarterly Board, or should there be no such official in office then by the minister for the time being in charge of the congregation.
2.	The ballot shall be in the form following or to the same general effect:-
Presbyterian Church The (or as the case may be)
Are you in favour of this Yes.
Congregation entering the

United Church of Canada?
N.B.-Voter should mark an X opposite the answer which he or she wishes to give to the question submitted and sign this ballot in the presence of a witness .and return to the Clerk of Session (or as the case may be) on or before the	day
of	,	19	, when the vote will be
closed.
W'tnesis	 Signature	
3.	The said Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister of any Congregation in which a vote is to be held shall personally deliver a copy of said ballot to each member of said Congregation entitled to vote, or shall mail a copy of such ballot to each such member, postage prepaid, and addressed to the last known post office address of such member at least two weeks before the day for the closing, of said vote, and the said Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister shall keep an accurate list of the names of all persons to whom such ballots are delivered and of the names and addresses of all persons to whom such ballots are mailed, and shall verify the accuracy of said list by solemn declaration.
4.	The said Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister shall likewise deliver or mail at the same time to each said voter an envelope addressed to himself in which the said ballot may be returned to him and upon which the words " ballot paper " shall be printed for purposes of identification.
5.	Should any person entitled to vote not receive his ballot in due course he shall be entitled to personally require the said Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister to deliver him a ballot at any time before the close of said poll.
6.	Should any ballot of a voter or the envelope for the return thereof be lost, defaced or destroyed before having been deposited, the voter, on establishing said fact by affidavit or solemn declaration, shall be entitled to a new ballot or envelope at any time before the closing of said vote.
7.	The said ballots shall be signed by those entitled to vote in the presence of a witness, and shall thereupon be returned in the envelope aforesaid properly sealed to the said Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister either by personal delivery or by mail with postage prepaid.
8.	At 8 o'clock in the evening of the day mentioned on said ballot, which shall be not sooner than two weeks from the said date of mailing or delivery, the said vote by ballot shall be closed and the Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister shall thereupon cause to be summoned a meeting of said Session or Quarterly Board without delay for the purpose of verifying the result of said vote.
9.	To this meeting of Session or Quarterly Board when convened the said Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister shall produce all said envelopes containing the ballots received by him before the closing of the vote and shall verify the accuracy of this fact by solemn declaration.
10.	At said meeting of Session or Quarterly Board the said Session or Quarter!}' Board or a sub-committee thereof of not less than five members appointed for the purpose shall open the said envelopes and verify

and count the said ballots, and shall determine and declare the result of said vote, and shall prepare a list containing the names of all voters who may have cast a vote upon said ballot and showing whether said voters have answered the questions submitted Yes or No.
11.	The result of said vote by ballot as so determined shall thereupon be certified by the Minister in charge and by the Clerk of Session or Recording Steward of the Quarterly Board (if any) of said Congregation, and any person who may have cast a ballot upon said vote shall be entitled to obtain upon request from said officers a copy of said certificate.
12.	On the two Sabbaths following the verification of the result of said vote by ballot as aforesaid the Minister presiding at all diets of worship then held shall announce from the Pulpit the result of said vote, and a copy of the certificate of the result of said vote as aforesaid shall be posted at or near the entrance to the church edifice, and a copy of said certificate shall be forthwith deposited with the Clerk of Presbytery or Secretary of the Conference having jurisdiction over such Congregation, and also to the Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada or to the Secretary of the General Conference of the Methodist Church or to the Secretary of the Congregational Union and/or to the Secretary of the General Council of the United Church as the case may be.
13.	All ballots cast upon said vote shall be retained in the possession of the said Clerk of Session or Recording Steward or Minister, as the case may be, for one month following the close of said vote, and the said ballots and/or the list of votes cast may be examined in the presence of said officers by any member who may have cast or been qualified to cast a ballot upon said vote.
14.	Failure or omission to strictly observe any of the detailed requirements of these regulations shall not entail the nullity of the vote in the congregation in question, provided that the Superior or County Court of the Province having jurisdiction over such congregation shall decide, if appealed to within thirty days from the first public declaration of the result of said vote, that said vote has been taken substantially in accordance with these regulations and that no such failure or omission has materially affected the result of such vote.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
amendment.


Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton):: Before you put the amendment,
Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I submit that the amendment is not in order as the House has already voted on an amendment having the same purpose as this one.


William Duff: The point of order is not well taken.


Hewitt Bostock: The amendment differs
from the previous one but, in my judgment, not materially, though I think in justice to the minority they should have the right to test the feeling of the House.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Have the
rules of the House been complied with in the matter of giving notice?


Hewitt Bostock: I notice there is a clause
in the amendment that it be referred back to

Shantung Christian University
the committee. It could not be so referred without giving notice. The hon. member will have to delete the clause calling for a reference back to the committee.


George Perry Graham: Let us vote on the amendment.


William Duff: Is it desired to keep the discussion going until nine o'clock?


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Decidely the nays have
it. I declare the amendment lost on division. The question now is on the third reading of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Duff: Carried on division.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion is carried on
division. Moved by Mr. Forke, seconded by Mr. Brown, that the said bill do now pass and that the title be as on the order paper.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried on division.



PRIVATE BILLS SHANTUNG CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 199 to incorporate 'Shantung Christian University.- Mr. Ryokman.
Arthur Meighen: Whose bill is this?


The CHAIRMAN:: The bill is in the name of Mr. Rydkman.


Arthur Meighen: It is not a government
order then?
On section 2-Authority for university in China.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the clause carry?


Arthur Meighen: We have not had time
to get to China yet.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Has the bill been
printed and distributed?


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes.


Mr. NEILL:: I do not think the bill has
been printed. It certainly has not been distributed.


George Newcombe Gordon: It was distributed some weeks ago.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask if the Justice department has been looking into the bill? There is no representative of the Justice department here so I will appeal to the legal lore of the Secretary of State. I draw his attention to section 2 just to see if this is within the purview of the government. It establishes a university in the republic of China.


Mr. COPP:: I have no knowledge of the
bill whatever. My hon. friend from East Toronto (iMr. Ryckman) is the promoter of the bill. I cannot say whether it has been submitted to the Department of Justice or not.


Arthur Meighen: Does anyone know
whether the bill has passed the Justice department?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Granting of degrees.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
ask for information. We are giving power to confer degrees. Are these degrees given in China or are they given in Canada? Is this a Canadian university or is it a Chinese university? I think there ought to be some further information given as to what it involves.


George Newcombe Gordon: According to clause 10 the degrees are to be in accordance with the laws of China.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We do not know
what the laws of China are. It seems to me there should be some explanation as to what relation this university will bear to our Canadian universities.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is there any objection
to clause 10?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we should
know something further about this matter It is an unprecedented thing that Canada should incorporate a university in China. We do not know whether the university is incorporated under the laws of China or not; we do not know whether or not these people will pass examinations in China, and we do not know whether they would have degrees which would be recognized in Canada.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Section 2 does not give any
direct authority to this parliament. It is put conditionally in this way:
The university may, in so far as authority from the parliament of Canada deems requisite for such purpose.
It does not say we have the power. We are not confirming anything.
Shantung Christian University


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
know how far we have power to establish a university in China.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am not in charge of the bill, nor am I the promoter of it; but we are not doing anything which we have not power to do. We are passing this measure just so far as our power goes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We should hold
this section until some hon. member is present who can tell us something about it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Affiliation.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I object to passing this clause which deals with a matter concerning which we have no information whatever. We need not be over zealous in regard to Canadian universities or institutions; but here we are chartering an institution that undoubtedly will have a certain standing in Canada, as soon as it is given a charter. We have no information as to the academic standing they propose to maintain. I remember about a year ago an institution in Canada called the Frontier College came to this parliament asking for a charter which would give it university standing. The bill was referred to the Private Bills committee, and the request was refused after a very full discussion. Here we have an institution concerning which we know very little and which seems to be in rather an anomalous position.


Alan Webster Neill: Unless some hon. member
will sponsor the bill, I will move, if the hon. member will second it, that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Arthur Meighen: I think a member of the Justice department should be here to assure us that the bill has passed the department, in so far as the competence of parliament is concerned. With respect to the abjection raised by the hon. melmber, speaking only within my own experience and information, it is not uncommon for the parliament of Canada to incorporate institutions to carry on their labours or their enterprises in other countries. Canada indeed has toi-day business companies who are carrying on great undertakings in South America, Mexico and even in Spain, I believe. It is not an unusual thing. As to incorporating a university for purposes of work mainly in China, I presume it is merely for the purpose of putting into concrete form the activities of these religious bodies in respect to missionary and educational work in China. It merely gives them
'Mr. Copp.l
the advantage of a corporate body here as their means of organization in this country. Beyond this purpose I do not know of any purpose that is served. Consequently, I see no reason why the bill should not proceed; but I think someone should be here to assure us that in all respects it has passed the Justice department.
Progress reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Gordon Ailing-ham.-Mr. Chew.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Alfred Edward Briggs.-Mr. Simpson.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Louisa Elizabeth Smith.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Annie Thirde. -Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Florence
Castle.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Francis Hadenka.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Louis Powell. -Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Margaret Johnston.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Hilda Girdler. -Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Janet Ferguson.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Charles Whittaker.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Arthur Robert Ascough.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Albert Joseph Phillips.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Patience Oldfield,-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of Elizabeth Atkinson,-Mr. Duff.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Gerald Arthur Johnson,-Mr. Chew.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Public works-Yarmouth harbour-Dredging, $22,000.
Mr. STEVENS:: Will the minister explain this item?


John Warwick King: This is to complete the removal of 14,251 cubic yards at a cost of $1.45 a yard and it is the completion of a contract entered into a year ago.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was any work done last year?


John Warwick King: Yes. The expenditure last year was $64,364 and we are revoting $22,000.


Robert James Manion: Will this complete the
work?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Prince Edward Island, $84,100.
George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the items in this vote be taken individually?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


John Warwick King: It might be convenient if that were done.
Alberton-Wharf repairs, $1,100.


Mr. LEWIS:: Perhaps the minister would
sa've trouble by giving some information in regard to each item.


John Warwick King: Most of the items in this vote are for repairs. These works have been reported upon by the district engineer and his recommendations are now before the committee for consideration. There are one or two items which may require further explanation and I shall be glad to give the information in regard to any to which my attention is called.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Beach Point-Wharf, $9,300.
Henry Herbert Stevens: An hon. member has already asked the minister to be good enough to give us a brief statement in regard to each item.


John Warwick King: This is for the
construction of a cribwork wharf of 238 feet, with an approach of 208 feet, the structure being 20 feet wide with a head block 30 feet square. The work is under contract with H. J. Phillips, of Charlottetown.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was it let last year?


John Warwick King: It was let in
October, 1923.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Belle River-Breakwater extension, $9,000.
Arthur John Lewis: Was any work done under
this item last year?


John Warwick King: No. It is proposed to construct an extension of 204 feet by 15 feet to the southern breakwater. This
is under contract with Messrs. Compton & Ross of Elat River, Prince Edward Island. The amount of the contract is $7,828 and the contract was let on September 29, 1923.


Arthur John Lewis: No work has been commenced yet?


John Warwick King: No; it is under
way now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How many tenders
were called for?


John Warwick King: There were two
tenders, one from William Compton and Alexander J. Ross, and the second from Henry J. Phillips.
. Mr- STEVENS:	This is Belle River but
it is not the same Belle River which we had under discussion on a previous occasion. In connection with the vote for Belle River, Ontario, I understand tha/t the government has under contemplation the expenditure of a considerable sum in dredging there supplementary to the construction of a $30,000 wharf or something of that kind. What is the programme?


John Warwick King: We are dredging
the channel and an expenditure of $30,000 is contemplated. The work is under way now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is that being done by
contract? I understood the department was limited to $5,000.


John Warwick King: The work is being done by departmental plant.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it contemplated that
the total expenditure to make that channel navigable for the class of vessels mentioned m the original presentation of the case will cost in the neighbourhood of $100,000? I am referring to the dredging of the channel which is necessary to make it suitable for navigation by boats such as it was reported would run from Detroit and Windsor to the place where this $30,000 wharf or breakwater, or whatever it may be, is being built.


John Warwick King: That situation
was thoroughly canvassed a few nights ago when I stated that it was not the intention of the government to suggest further expenditures at the present time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Some information has
come to me directly quite recently that in order to carry out the intentions of the government in regard to the channel, which would warrant the construction of this $30,000 work, it would be necessary to expend

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
some $100,000 on dredging. While the government may not intend to do this at present is this a programme which will be carried out next year, the year following, or at some future time.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
is not properly instructed. There was a suggestion from the engineering department that to secure the channel it would be wise to build another retaining wall on the other side of the harbour. It is not our purpose to go on with that at the present time. We hope that with the dredging now being done the present retaining wall will give sufficient accommodation.


Robert King Anderson: What are the dimensions of the breakwater?


John Warwick King: It is about 600
feet in length. This is an extension 204 feet long by 15 feet wide.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Georgetown-Reconstruction of Canadian National Railway wharf, $15,000.
Arthur John Lewis: What is the reason for the
increase in expenditure?


John Warwick King: We are taking
over a wharf which was formerly owned by the Railway department. Last year we expended $11,000 odd in repairs. This vote is io complete the work.


Robert King Anderson: What is the policy of
the department in letting contracts of this nature?


John Warwick King: It depends largely on the character of the work. Very often the engineering department will advise that repair work be done under competent officials of the department rather than by tender. My hon. friend will understand that it is very difficult to prepare specifications for repairs to an old structure, especially structures of this kind1; one does not know just how extensive the repairs will be until the work is begun.


Robert King Anderson: Is any provision made for employment of local labour when the government does the work under its own engineer?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-Repairs and improvements, $10,000.
Arthur John Lewis: Is this a general estimate
of small repairs?
IMr. Stevens.]


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What will be done in
regard to that vote generally?


John Warwick King: It is very difficult to say. This is a vote which the departmental official will use from time to time as he finds necessary. We have no requests for expenditures out of this vote at present, but I have no doubt that as the season advances and inspections are made there will be local repairs made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kier's Shore-Wharf repairs, $7,000.
Mr. DOUCET:: What is the need for the
increase this year?


John Warwick King: We spent $1,468
last year in repairs. This year it is proposed to reconstruct the upper portion of the approach for a length of 900 feet by 20 to 24 feet in width; also to repair and strengthen the pierhead, 125 feet long by 40 feet wide.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Will that be let by contract?


John Warwick King: No, it will probably be done under the supervision of the departmental officers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Naufrage harbour-Repairs to breakwaters, $3,600.
John Warwick King: To re-ballast the
outer 150 feet of north breakwater, repair the stringers and covering on both the north and south breakwaters and make up settlement at inner end of beach protection for a length of about 50 feet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a new item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rustico harbour-Breakwater and beach protection, repairs and reconstruction, $7,000.
Robert King Anderson: How many harbours
are there in Prince Edward Island?


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Five hundred.
Mr. King (Kootenay):	I have no information.


Robert King Anderson: They are all here?


John Warwick King: No, I think not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this work to be done
by tender or by the department?


John Warwick King: It is recommended that the work be done by day labour. It is to reconstruct the beach protection, 544 feet long by 10 feet wide, and to repair and strengthen the inner end of the breakwaters.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The general understanding is that a maximum of $5,000 shall be allowed for

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
work done by the department; that is, it is not obligatory on the department to do the work by day labour when the expenditure does not exceed that maximum, but if it is thought in rare cases that it can be done more conveniently or expeditiously by day labour, then the minister may, up to $5,000, make such arrangements. But it would appear to me that the tendency is to do as much as possible by day labour. I would deprecate such a tendency for I think it is an error in policy, whether it be done by this or any other government.
I think the department itself as a matter of -continuity of practice should be
9 p.m. kept as closely as possible to the contract system. We have just passed two or three of these votes in the last few' minutes indicating a tendency to do the work by day labour. It may be that the minister is spending only a part of (this particular vote, but all we have before us is this item of $7,000 to be spent by day labour. If the minister can make some further explanation which will correct that impression, we will be glad to receive it.


John Warwick King: My explanation
will be the same as for the previous item. In the repairing of these structures-and most members have a knowledge of their character -we find that as a matter of practice it is very difficult to prepare specifications unless the structure is in ruins and has to be removed and reconstructed; but where the engineer finds timbers decayed here and there he makes up his mind that for, say, $7,000 or $8,000 he can effect the necessary repairs, the work is carried on by day labour. The experience of the department is that it is more economical to do such work under the direction of its officials rather than call for tenders and pay the contractor's profit. A contractor figuring on work of this character will fully protect himself in regard to his price. He will take into consideration every contingency that may occur, and his price will be one that he thinks will pay the cost of reconstruction and give him a profit. Now that is saved under a proper organization, and we have officials in the various districts who are carrying on very properly. It has been the experience of the department that the work can be done more economically in this way.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I appreciate the minister's explanation, but I do not agree with him, and I will explain why. I am going to discuss the question of policy; I think we might as well have a frank discussion of that, matter. Let me just draw the minister's attention to the item. I have not before me, of course, as he has, exactly what is required for this
*work, but it is for a breakwater, beach protection, repairs and reconstruction. The breakwater, for instance, may require the bringing into place of scowloads of rock; I presume it would. Now my point is this: Where a job like that is required to be done, tenders should be called for if that portion of the work costs only one or two thousand dollars out of the seven. The work will also require a considerable amount of piling to be driven. You should get a crew there with a piledriver to do that work, but when you have men doing the work by day labour, they are going to drive very few piles. If you give a couple of contractors the chance to tender for the driving of one or two hundred piles-I am merely taking that figure because 1 have not before me just what is required, but it will apply in a general way-they will drive those piles far more cheaply than will the day crew hired by the department, and my point is that- the department is exhibiting a tendency to drift away from the very sound policy of competitive bids.
Another point which I wish to bring to the attention of the minister and the committee is this:	Wherever it is thought desirable to
do the work by day labour or on the estimate of the department's engineer, I think the engineer ou^ht to bid against the contractor, on his own estimate. That is a course that is followed very often in connection with very large works in municipalities. It is followed in the city of Vancouver. The engineer bids against the contractors, and if he does not come within his own estimate he would be subject ;to reprimand or possibly dismissal for incompetence. Now it is no protection to the government, it is no protection to the party who pays out the money, whether it is the government or a private individual, merely to say to the engineer: Here is a job; do the best you can with it. There ought to be some check, some safeguard on the expenditure of these funds. I have had some experience on this class of business, and I know from my experience that you can waste more time on this particular class of work than perhaps on any other class of construction and not have it discovered, not be able to bring it home to anyone. Let the engineer of the department, no matter how efficient he may be, but turn his back and the work will slow up. A good deal of it is under water, and the engineer may have a general idea of what is going on, but he is not able to put his finger on the weak spot. So I again point out that, to my mind, at least, we should have a rigid adherence to the policy of asking for tenders for every conceivable piece of work where it
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

is at all possible to do so, restricting the privilege to letting the work by day labour up to $5,000 only to cases where the conditions are extraordinary.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: I might explain to the committee that the theory of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre would apply very well in provinces where contracts are let for larger works, but when you look over the list for repair works that are necessary around the province of Prince Edward Island, you will see that the highest is only $9,000, and when you call for tenders for repairs of those works you get so little competition that in almost every case you have to pay about twice as much as it would cost to do it by day labour. While it is said that the work is done by day labour, I might point out to the committee that under this system the district engineer is authorized by the minister to take quotations and let out different classes of the work by contract. Contracts are given for piecework on different classes of construction, and in that way you can save about one-half of what it would cost if you let the whole work by contract, for the simple reason that we have very few people taking large contracts of this kind around the shores.
In regard to this special item, Rustico breakwater and beach protection, they are two different works in the same harbour. The breakwater is situated a little differently from the beach protection, so they are really two different works in the same place. We are suffering by not having had the estimates passed earlier in the session. The people of the locality can supply the timber, providing they have sufficient notice to get it out before their spring work begins, and to delay the estimate has a tendency to increase a little bit the cost of supplying the timber. North Rustico is a very important fishing station. I think it is one of the two most important harbours on the north side of the province. There are about sixty fishing boats going in and out between the port and the fishing grounds every day during the whole summer season. It is very important that this work be done during the present season, and I feel sure that if the conditions were known, to the committee they would readily realize that the method followed by the department saves a considerable amount of what would be exipemded if contracts were insisted on for the whole work.


Arthur Meighen: Does it not seem very
strange to the minister that with as much work going on as is provided here in the

estimates, there would not be enough people in that province to make a good competitive tender? The minister would take a long while to convince me of that.


John Ewen Sinclair: I did not say
that it was for lack of a number of people.


Arthur Meighen: It is not work that requires a tremendous plant, and, I would have thought the people there would have been very glad to tender on this work. The people of Prince Ediward Island are certainly alble and enterprising, and why they should not be ready to tender for $84,000 worth of work provided for in the main estimates, to say nothing of provincial works, and to say nothing of competitive tenders from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, only a very short distance away, I cannot see. There is no reason why a separate system should be applied to Prince Edward Island. Does nobody in Nova Sootia come over and take business in Prince Edward Island? I do not think thejr 'hold each other in such reverence as that.


John Ewen Sinclair: The further
they come the more they will have to get for doing the work. The point I made was that if the department followed the principle of letting the work by tender, it would cost about double as much as when you give the engineer the right of taking quotations and dividing the work into smaller contracts, and getting the work done by the people in the district.


Arthur Meighen: I think the "twice" is the other way about. I have never yet seen the other way fail. I have tried it myself and seen it tried by the government. These excuses for getting away from the tender system always arouse in my mind a very large interrogation point.


John Warwick King: My right hon.
friend says there will be no tenders called for. In order that there may be no misunderstanding let me say that in this work a very considerable proportion of the expenditure, in fact the largest portion, will be for lumber, and the district engineer will, call for tenders. There are 250 team loads of brush needed. That may be done by day labour or by contract. I am not sure as to that; it will depend upon what the engineer thinks best. Then there is the yardage of ballast or stone. That may be contracted for locally. In all works of this character, renewals and repairs, or at any rate in many cases, where you are uncertain as to the extent of the repairs necessary the best policy is to act upon the engineer's recommendation. If that is done the department saves money.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid ray hon.
friend is pushing the tender system overboard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Peters Bay-Breakwater and beach protection, repairs and reconstruction, $4,800.
Arthur Meighen: This is new work too; what is the estimated cost? Was there anything in last year's estimates? What is the reason for the work this year? Economy?


John Warwick King: This is to reconstruct the middle section of the breakwater for a length of 104 feet from 20 to 24 feet wide, and strengthen the seaward side 111 feet long with piling. Also to reconstruct cribwork protection 230 feet in length and 7 feet in width adjoining inner end of breakwater. This is recommended by the district engineer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is another item of $4,800. It is a case of day labour again, I
suppose?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I so protest because this is evidence to me of a departure.


John Warwick King: It is not a departure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
believe it is a sound one. I believe further that it is impossible-whether it is a municipal government or the federal government that is concerned-to get the work done as cheaply and as efficiently by day labour. That has been proven, I think, from experience, and it is a mere waste of time to give reasons or to argue about it. That has been demonstrated often, and I am very critical of the tendency of the department and of the minister to pass item after item without that understanding. I protest as heartily as I can against it.


Mr. HUGHES:: The hon. member has told us that he has had very considerable experience in work of this kind but I think I shall have to doubt the hon. gentleman's word.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not care whether my hon. friend doubts my word or not; it is a matter of supreme indifference to me.


James Joseph Hughes: I am quite convinced from the remarks of my hon. friend that he has had no experience in this class of work. Now to begin with, it would be very difficult indeed for any engineer to tel'l what repairs are needed until the old part of the work is taken down. He must take down part of the structure in order to draw the plans, so that the contractor could 'work from these plans. He has to do the best he can, looking at the work, to estimate the extent of the injury. When the money is voted he has to employ men to open up the work and he may find it will require less repairs than he expected. He may find more work in good condition than he anticipated or he may find himself obliged to make more entensive repairs than at first appeared necessary. My hon. friend will agree with me in that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I never even affirmed
anything different from what the hon. member has stated. I stated that where there was work of this character requiring different operations, such as the teaming of rock, the making of brush mattresses and the driving of piles, they should call for tenders for these different things. I have not the specification oefore me, but I might mention several things that are necessary in connection with wharves and breakwaters.


James Joseph Hughes: To show the fallacy of the method suggested by the hon. gentleman, I have just to mention that in the province of Prince Edward Island and along the sea coast last autumn we had an unprecedented storm, which did a great deal of damage to breakwaters and wharves. These repairs must

be made before the fall season this year, or there is great danger of the storms taking structures away altogether. The money is only being voted to-day. If we called for tenders it would be at least two months before those tenders could be let. The time for doing the work would be past. It could not be done in the fall of the year when storms are frequent. It must be done at this season of the year or not at all. The whole scheme outlined by the member for Vancouver Centre would be impracticable. The resident engineer who knows the conditions and the circumstances under which the contractor has to work has recommended this method, because he could not recommend anything else, and the statement made by the hon. member that the members from the province of Prince Edward Island approached the department, approached the minister and approached the engineers, to influence them to have the work done this way, is a pure assumption, a pure fabrication, and has no foundation in fact. I have not spoken to the engineer in regard to any method he might follow in regard to this work, and I think I can say the same for the other members from Prince Edward Island. I have not spoken to the minister in regard to any method that should be followed, and I am quite sure that the other members from Prince Edward Island have not done so. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre says that the work could be done by putting it into several divisions, and tenders could be asked for each small part of the work. Well, well, that statement of itself is sufficient to show that the hon. member does not understand it at all.


Arthur Meighen: The minister just stated he was doing it that way.


James Joseph Hughes: If the minister sees fit
he can do it by asking tenders from the local people.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the engineer not
know what he was talking about?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, and it is left entirely to his discretion and judgment. Being a capable man he sees that he gets value for the work performed and if more discretion were left to the engineer better results would be obtained. There is too much red tape in the letting of contracts, particularly in the matter of repairs. Engineers are too much tied down. In the olden days, when there was more latitude and competent engineers were on these jobs, better and cheaper work was done. The material was purchased at

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
the proper time. Years ago the engineers were allowed to purchase ahead materials that they thought they might require; they would get it at a time of year when it was cheap, and store it up for future use. They cannot do that to-day. They are more hampered by restrictions, and in consequence the country is paying more.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. gentleman is
certainly working himself into an excited condition and an awkward position. He says that here is certain work, and if it is not started almost immediately and something done in connection with it there will be great losses possibly on account of the fall storms. He tells us that he has not said a word about it-


James Joseph Hughes: Not a word in regard to
the method in which the work was to be done.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know that he and his
colleagues have been sitting in this House for four months and have never opened their mouths about the precarious condition in Prince Edward Island. Now he comes before the committee and says, "Oh you must let this work at once, willy nilly, any way you like; get it done at once, because if you do not you are going to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars by the destruction of work elsewhere". The position is preposterous. The minister has been before the committee three months with his estimates. We passed numerous estimates presented by the minister which he has no notion of using this year; in some cases he tel'ls us the work will not go on this year, but he is providing for contingencies in the future. Why did not the hon. gentleman point out that these works in question were in jeopardy? Why did he not ask the minister and the committee to provide for this work? If he can show that there is an emergent situation calling for prompt action to save public property, he will find a very willing supporter in me in getting the estimates passed. The hon. member and his colleagues from that province have been attending this session for four months and have never opened their months, never said a word about this matter, and now, about the last week of the session, he asks us to recklessly endorse a policy which is a complete departure from that towards which we have been working for years. The minister shakes his head. What position is he in? The hon. member says that the policy of letting the contract by tenders takes too long and should be departed from. The minister shakes his head and says no. I suggest that they get together and settle that difference themselves. So far 258i	[DOT]
as I am concerned I am going to tell my hon. friend, whether it is agreeable to him or not, that I stand for the principle of calling for tenders. Let me repeat what I said a moment ago-


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh no, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will go over it again,
and the hon. member for Belle River is not going to make me depart from it. We will give him a session on Belle River, Ontario if he is not very careful about it.	.


Mr. HEALY:: I will go through with it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will use Belle River, Ontario, as an illustration in this matter.


Charles Marcil: I think we had better limit ourselves to the item under discussion.


Mr. LEADER:: I rise to a point of order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We could use Belle River as an illustration, but I am not going into that just now.


Harry Leader: I hope we can avoid a
political controversy to-night.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to thank my
hon. friend for his pious interjection.


Harry Leader: I hope it will do the hon. member good.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I might have a retort,
but I do not want to be unkind. Sometimes it is well to suppress these things. By the way, seeing that we are talking about revetment work and rivers and protections, my hon. friend would not have called it a waste of time discussing the difficulties that arose-at Portage la Prairie last year or the year before. On that occasion floods occurred calling for an emergent action, and he was very willing to have it discussed.


Harry Leader: We got over that difficulty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He delayed the committee of the House, and quite properly so, but here to-night we have an emergency condition arising. The hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes) tells us that a large extent of public property down there is about to be wiped out of existence if we do not act to-night. I am going back to where I was a moment ago when I do not think he was in his seat.
I pointed out that we have passed in Prince Edward Island alone a dozen items and in other provinces many more, where the minister is going to do the work by day labour without calling for tenders. I pointed out .

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
to the committee-and I am going to do so again-that a limitation of $5,000 was fixed by order in council, if I am not mistaken. That has been adopted for years as a policy and as the limit to which we should go in doing public work by day labour. Now the minister tells the committee in connection with item after item that he is going to do the work by day labour. I have just cited one for $7,000 which I protested against. There was another item above that for $7,000. I protested against that or the hon. member to my left did, and I protested against this one of $4,800. I am not going to be diverted from doing my duty, because it is a duty devolving upon hon. members, by the criticisms and small sneers of [DOT] the hon. member for Kings. The minister is going back to an old system where an engineer, in conjunction with those who may influence the government to undertake the work, will go to a district and say: Here, we are going to repair this wharf; we do not know what it is going to cost until we tear it down; but we are going to tear it down; we want you to haul bru^h, haul rocks, drive piles and so on, and we are going to do the work by day labour. Will anybody suggest for a moment that that system is better than the system which I have been advocating of calling for public tenders for these works? My hon. friend cannnot escape by simply saying that he discovers evidence of ignorance on my part of this class of work. I am not here nor am I called upon to give credentials to my hon. friend on that score. I am willing to assume my responsibility in that regard. I insist again on protesting against this departure from the long adopted policy of this country.


Harry Leader: I do not contend that I
know anything about repairing or building wharves, nor do I rise to take issue particularly with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). But I should like to say a word in support of day labour under certain conditions and in certain circumstances.
I have had a little experience in municipal work on a very small scale and have found that it was better done by day labour in many cases. Because there is an old tradition that parliament must call for tenders for any work costing over $5,000 seems to me no reason why we should retain it if it is not a proper way to expend public money. As an instance,
I might cite a local condition in my riding where we repaired the dykes on the Assiniboine iver. The estimate of the department was forty cents a yard for this work, but the government did it by day labour and I believe the job was well done for at least half that

estimate. I should like to take this occasion to say that under certain circumstances I believe it is a proper course to follow to perform this work by day labour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
South Rustico (Oyster bed bridge)-Wharf reconstruction, 32,500.
Mr. MURDOCK:: I move that this item
be struck out.


Arthur Meighen: I welcome the support of the Minister of Labour. I am glad there is a check on the minister from some quarter anyway.


George Perry Graham: Is anybody going to retard this motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Tignish harbour-Repairs to breakwaters, $7,400.
Alexandre Joseph Doucet: How is it that there was
an item of $2,700 last year for repairs and this year an item of $7,400 for repairs?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this the extra because
of day labour?


John Warwick King: Some two thousand dollars odd were expended last year on urgent repairs, and a further sum is required this year to repair the north breakwater, consisting of renewal of flooring, stringers and covering, also strengthening channel face with piling. It will also be necessary to rebuild the top portion of the south breakwater a length of a hundred feet. The damage that is to be repaired this year was caused by the storm of last October.


Arthur John Lewis: Is this to be done by contract?


John Warwick King: No, by day labour.
I tried to make clear to the committee a few moments ago that on an item like this more than two-thirds of the expenditure will be for materials which will be obtained by competitive bids. The suggestion that the department are adopting new methods is not right, or at least I am so advised by my officials. The policy that is being carried on to-day is the 'policy that has been carried on for years in this department. A large portion of the expenditure is for lumber in one form or another, and competitive bids are asked for in connection with that material.


Arthur Meighen: How are the competitive bids asked for? Who supplies the names? The secretary of the Liberal Association?
Mr. KING . (Kootenay):	No, I think not.
The specifications are sent by the engineer

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
to Ottawa and the purchasing agent asks for bids from dealers in that locality.


Arthur Meighen: From a list?


John Warwick King: The thing may be advertised or the names may be taken from a list depending upon the extent of the work.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Who is the purchasing agent
to whom the minister refers?


John Warwick King: The purchasing
agent of the department.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Does the Public Works department have a separate purchasing subdivision or does it come under the committee of the cabinet that has to do with purchasing?


John Warwick King: Under the committee of the cabinet, but we have an organization within the department.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I understand from the minister that they call for tenders for the material, and then have the balance of the work done by day labour?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: In my opinion, as far as possible tenders should be called for covering the entire work, because it is not susceptible to any improper action in that event.


John Warwick King: I agree with my
hon. friend that for new work that is quite proper.


Arthur Meighen: The minister thoroughly
agrees with the principle so long as he never puts it into practice.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I want it put into practice.


Arthur Meighen: The glories of the day
labour system came out in the minister's last reply. The system he follows is this: Here is $10,400 worth of work to be done; our engineer is sent down there; he is in charge of engaging the men; his instructions we can take for granted as to whom he employs, whose advice he takes as to whom he employs and who are his superintendents. Then tenders or rather competitive bids are asked for to supply the lumber. The patronage list in the department is used to see where the competitive bids are to come from.


George Perry Graham: Do you expect us to use
the one that was there?


Arthur Meighen: The minister would have a hard job to find it. Then the work proceeds. If a by-election comes along, as at Portage la Prairie at the time that notorious work was done that cost $65,000 or $70,000 to repair the damage-


James Joseph Hughes: The right hon. member is
thinking of the dry dock at Victoria.


Arthur Meighen: The superintendent keeps the men well corralled, bringing them up in closed caravans to vote and so forth. These are all the fruits of the day labour system, and the penalty, of course, the taxpayer ultimately pays. There is all the difference in the world between it and the tender system, and the minister knows it. You can apply the tender system to almost anything; and of course, on the other hand, you can find an excuse for not applying it, and usually as well the excuser. But the strong minister applies the tender system and he does not find it necessary to offer very many excuses.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New Brunswick-Bay du Vin-Wharf repairs, $1,600.
Arthur Meighen: This is a new repair; is it due to the October storm?


John Warwick King: No; it is to rebuild decayed stringers, flooring and caps for that part of the wharf between the earth-filled approach and the pier head itself. It consists of 4 blocks of spans of a total length of 194 feet.


Arthur Meighen: What county?


John Warwick King: Northumberland.


Arthur Meighen: How many wharves are there in Northumberland?


John Warwick King: I do not know.


Arthur Meighen: The deputy can tell.


John Warwick King: I do not think so.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister no adding machines? From whom did the representations come that the wharf needed repairs?


John Warwick King: From the district engineer.


Arthur Meighen: Who is he?


John Warwick King: Mr. Stead.


Arthur Meighen: Where is he stationed?


John Warwick King: St. John, New
Brunswick.


Arthur Meighen: How would he know
about the wharf at this particular place?


John Warwick King: That is his business.


Arthur Meighen: He travels around?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: It is his business to
travel around inspecting wharves?
4074	^	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: When did he report on this?


John Warwick King: In the months of October and November last when the annual reports were being made up.


Arthur Meighen: When was the work
repaired last?


John Warwick King: I have not the information.


Arthur Meighen: How much has been spent on it to date?


John Warwick King: The sum of $18,790.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister any information as to how much traffic is carried over that wharf annually and what it consists of?


John Warwick King: The wharf serves a population of 120 families and a number of transient summer people. The annual value of the fish catch is about $30,000 or $40,000, the production consisting of salmon, bass, herring, and so forth. In addition there is about $50,000 worth of merchandise and $2,000 in farm produce. All this traffic passes over the wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bayside-Wharf repairs, $1,250.
Arthur Meighen: Where is this wharf?


John Warwick King: In Charlotte
county.


Mr. GRIMMER:: Is this wharf under the
control of the government?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: How much has it cost
to date?


John Warwick King: So far, $650. This wharf was transferred to the department in September of last year.


Arthur Meighen: From whom?


John Warwick King: From the Bayside Wharf Company.


Arthur Meighen: Under what policy did
the government take it over?


John Warwick King: Upon request of
the residents of Bayside.


Arthur Meighen: What is the general
policy of the government regarding the taking-over of wharves? Are they always taken over when request comes to the government?
(Mr. Meighen.]


John Warwick King: No. If the public interest is to be served and it is thought necessary the wharf is taken over.


Arthur Meighen: They have not always
been taken over. Towns and cities used to have wharves of their own, and business institutions maintained wharves. Some of the larger ones doing a considerable business were taken over on certain terms. What is the department's policy now as to taking over wharves either from municipalities or from private owners?
Mr. KING (Kootenay: Each case is dealt with on its merits, Sometimes it is more economical to take over a wharf than to construct a new one and the policy followed depends upon the recommendations of the engineer who has seen the conditions. It depends too of course on the decision that a public wharf is required at the particular point.


Oliver Robert Gould: Is this company engaged in
wharf construction in various places in the province?


John Warwick King: No, it is not a
construction company.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Black's Harbour-Reconstruction of wharf approach, $3,500.
Arthur Meighen: Where is this?


John Warwick King: This is in Charlotte county.


Arthur Meighen: How long has the government had this wharf?


Robert Watson Grimmer: What is the nature
of reconstruction work here?


John Warwick King: This item is for
the construction of a cribwork approach to the pier head, 149 feet by 16 feet.


Robert Watson Grimmer: There was nothing in
the estimates last year in regard to this?


John Warwick King: There was no
special vote last year but there was an expenditure from the general vote of $809.


Robert Watson Grimmer: This wharf I believe is used in the handling of the sardines which are packed by the factory at that place. I want to call the attention of the minister to certain representations I made last year. During the election campaign of 1921 several promises were made by representatives of the Liberal party to the effect that if they were returned to power they would proceed immediately with the construction of breakwaters

and other necessary works which were being asked for by the people on the island of Grand Manan, and at Campobello and Deer island. Then I asked the minister as to whether any representations had been made by the people for any works on these islands.
A few days later he informed me that certain representations had been made to the department for the construction of breakwaters at Cummings Cove, Stuart Town (Deer Island), Eairhaven (Deer Island), Castalia, Ingall's Head, Grand Harbour, Woodwards Cove (Grand Manan Island) and Gull Cove and Whitehead Cove (Whitehead Island). Now I ask, do the government propose to pay the price and undertake any of the works that were promised to the people at the last election and keep faith with those who worked so earnestly in their behalf?
Mr. ROSS (Kingston) When was money last spent on this?


John Warwick King: We expended $809 last year.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston) :: Was there not a
contract for the wharf extension?


John Warwick King: No, it was just repairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cape Bald-Breakwater repairs, $3,200.
Alexandre Joseph Doucet: This is also a re-vote. Last year the vote was $6,500, and this year there is another item of $3,200. Is this for a continuation of the same work?


John Warwick King: No, the storm of last October did considerable damage to the structure, and this vote is for the necessary
repairs.


Arthur Meighen: Did it damage the new work?


John Warwick King: During the storm practically all the covering was washed away from the breakwater. It is proposed to replace that by this expenditure.


Arthur Meighen: Was that covering work done last year?


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Meighen: What was done last year with the $6,500?


John Warwick King: A section of the inner face of the breakwater, 360 feet long by 10 feet high, was covered with gunite, the surface first being prepared by chipping off the old bad material and placing wire rein-
4, 1924	.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
forcement. A space 7 feet wide and 20 feet long behind No. 5 caisson outside the pierhead was refilled with stone and capped with cement. One large caisson, 20 feet long and 5 to 8 feet wide and 10 feet high was built, and it, together with one built in 1921-22, was placed at the northeast comer of the pierhead to protect the breakwater.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Caraquet-Rebuilding wharf, $27,500.
Arthur John Lewis: Is this being done by contract?


John Warwick King: Yes, it is contracted for now.


Robert King Anderson: Did the minister call
for tenders for the expenditure of this money?


John Warwick King: Yes, and the lowest tender was accepted.


Robert King Anderson: How many tenders were received?


John Warwick King: Seven.


Arthur John Lewis: Advertised?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Is this a new wharf, or
an old wharf taken over from some friends?


John Warwick King: This is to rebuild the approach to the wharf formerly owned by the provincial government.


Arthur Meighen: I thought that was it.
How did the provincial government persuade this government to take over the wharf and spend all this money?


John Warwick King: Each province
should be treated in the same manner in the matter of wharf construction.


Arthur Meighen: Are you going to take
over all provincial wharves?


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Meighen: This is a provincial
wharf.


John Warwick King: I know, and it has been maintained by the provincial government. We are doing here what was done in British Columbia at the time the government of my right hon. friend was in power. The government of that day took over wharves which were owned by the provincial government.


Arthur Meighen: What wharves?
Mr. KING (Kootenay)' Many of them in British Columbia.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister give
us the name of any one of those wharves?


John Warwick King: Yes, a dozen. All the wharves on the Okanagan lakes, practically all the wharves on the coast line on the various islands out of Victoria-thirty or forty in all I would say. We are doing the same with New Brunswick. The wharves in Prince Edward Island are owned and maintained by the Dominion to-day, the same is true of Nova Scotia, of Quebec and of Ontario, but in New Brunswick and British Columbia that has not been the case, and we are now treating those two provinces in the same way as the others have been treated.


Arthur Meighen: How much have we
spent on this wharf up to date? And what river is it on?


John Warwick King: This wharf is in
Caraquet. harbour on the bay of Chaleur. This is our first expenditure, the contract having been let this spring.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know anything about this wharf, but when I was driving through there my attention was repeatedly drawn to wharves which I was told were built in 1905, 1909, 1910 and there 10 p.m. had never been any boats docked at them up to that time. So I would think that under such conditions the minister should be slow in relieving others of wharves which they have been maintaining.


John Warwick King: We are making
a very careful selection.


Arthur Meighen: Of course, where new
country is opening up wharves have to be provided to accommodate trade as it develops.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cocagne Cape-Wharf, $14,000.
Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Part of this is a re-vote of last year. Has the minister called for tenders?


John Warwick King: Tenders were
called for and a contract let.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: How many tenders were
received?


John Warwick King: Four in all.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Who were the tenderers
and what were their figures?


John Warwick King: The lowest tender was $12,910 and was received from John W. McManus Co., Ltd. The highest tender was J. H. King.]
$17,107.50. The other tenderers were Bruce L. Simmons, F. L. Boone-G. S. Macdonald, and James E. Kane.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: The contract was awarded
last fall?


Mr. KIN  G@Kootenay: December 26,
1923.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: The vote of course was
put through in June. This is a much needed wharf, and it is unfortunate that the money voted last year could not have been expended before now. That wharf was not built. This session we have passed estimates that could very well have waited until later on ^ in the session, while the Public Works estimates were not brought down until last week. I quite realize that if the estimates go through only in the last week of June or the first week of July, it is very difficult for the department to get out their plans and specifications, call for tenders, award the contract, and get the work done before the fall. The estimates for these very necessary works, to my mind, should be the very first to be brought down in the House, and at the very beginning of the session. We had a very severe storm in October, 1923. and very much of the repair work now needed in Prince Edward Island is due to that storm. If we do not get the estimates through until the last week in June or the first week in July it is very doubtful if the work can be completed' before the fall storm is again upon us in October. If the work is not completed by that time, we may be subject to a recurrence of what has already taken place in many parts of Cape Breton, which was visited by a severe storm last October that washed away much of the work under construction. I submit that the estimates of the Public Works department, in so far as they relate to repairs to breakwaters and wharves occasioned by damage done in the former season, should be put through the House in the early part, of the session, so that the work can be gone on with and completed before we have the fall storm again upon us.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this a new work? It
merely says: " wharf."


John Warwick King: It. is a new work, to construct a wharf 610 feet long and 16 to 50 feet wide, consisting of an earth embankment 180 feet long, and 16 feet wide on top.
A contract for this work was let in December of last year. I would be surprised if the work is not pretty well advanced by now.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it going on now?
One-third of the vote has already been passed.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Yes, the work is proceeding, but I do not think it is very far advanced as yet. Would the minister explain why the contract was not awarded before November when the vote was put through in the second or third week of June of last year? Was the contract awarded in November because of a certain happening in that locality?


John Warwick King: Each district engineer prepares his plans as the work is required, and these are sent forward. In the case of new work, plans and specifications are prepared and tenders called for. I imagine this work was like many others. It arrived at the stage when tenders were called for in August, September, October or November, depending, of course, upon when the plans were ready.


Arthur Meighen: But in view of the byelection November would be a very good time to have the tenders received. I must confess that more progress was made after their reception than was made in the case of the Halifax elevator.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dipper Harbour-Breakwater repairs, $4,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is this for?


John Warwick King: This is to reconstruct the outer face of the breakwater, approximately 65 feet long and 8 to 14 feet high.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What has been spent on
this up to date, and what is the estimate for completion?


John Warwick King: This is the estimate for the work under construction now. The expenditure up to date amounts to $106.545.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister qualifies his statement, I notice, with the words "up to date". We may reasonably infer that in future there may be some very, very large expenditures contemplated. I noticed in connection with the famous Belle river item, the minister persisted in using the qualifying words "at present", and I think he was very wise in doing so, because if later on further demands are made, justifying our criticism, he will then be able to say "I pointed out this vote was only for the present". I suppose we can say the same about this vote. There has
been expended already $106,000, and there is a vote of $4,000 this year. What we would like to know in connection with this and other works is what the ultimate expenditure will be. Will the minister be good enough to tell us that?


John Warwick King: Dipper Harbour is a very old settlement, and apparently there has been a harbour work at that point for many years. The expenditure for construction amounts to about $80,000, and for dredging $26,000. That is the total expenditure up to the present.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is there much traffic there?


John Warwick King: It is a fishing harbour, and harbour of refuge on the bay of Pundy, 22 miles west of St. John and 3 miles east of Point Lepreaux. The population engaged in fishing is 140. In addition, it serves the surrounding territory.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Only 140 people?


John Warwick King: That is the number of fishermen at that point, but Dipper Harbour serves a larger community than that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have spent $106,000
at a point where there are only 140 people.


John Warwick King: The work has
been going on for a number of years


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gage town-Wharf repairs, $1,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is this for?


John Warwick King: This is for repairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-Repairs and improvements, $45,000.
Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Would the minister tell
us if there has been any work done at Kouchi-bouguac, in Kent county?


John Warwick King: I have no record of any expenditure there last year. There was nothing in the general vote evidently.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: While I have not the sup-plementaries here for last year, I believe there was a vote in the supplementaries, but no expenditure has been made, and I was wondering why the vote had been dropped.


John Warwick King: I do not think
there was any vote last year.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Not in the supplementaries?


John Warwick King: I think not. I
have no record of it here.
4078	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers *


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I can take that matter up with the minister again. During the term of my predecessor I know it was intended to put a vote in for work at this point, and if it was justified last year there would not be any excuse for dropping the vote this year, unless it was an oversight on the part, of the department.
Has the minister seriously considered the representations that were made to Mm as to a construction at Maillet's Gully, Buc-touche bay? The matter has been under consideration for a number of year's and representations with respect to it have been made to the minister on various occasions. I believe the minister is anxious to place a sum in the supplementary estimates for the purpose of carrying out this improvement at Maillet Gully, and in order to strengthen his hands I shall lay before the committee some facts that were gathered from the local population and from the assistant engineer who went there and collected information himself. Maillet Gully is seven miles north of Buctouche and nine miles south of Rich-ibucto, and there is no place of shelter convenient in this long distance of sixteen miles. About fifty families are located within a radius of about two miles around Maillet Gully and derive their support from the fishing industry. Over forty large gasoline boats are employed in working for the seven lobster canneries located in that section of the country, the work being performed in the fall of the year. In the spring there are forty small boats engaged in the herring fishing industry. I may say that the operations in connection with the seven lobster canneries represent an expenditure of something like $50,000 a year. The catches in the herring industry represent between five and six thousand barrels of herring annually. In the interval between the herring and lobster season the cod fishing industry occupies the attention of the fishermen. During the fall of 1921, fifteen of the larger boats were damaged or destroyed owing to a fall storm; and in the severe storm which occurred on the first and second days of October, 1923, practically all the boats operating within the radius of two miles which I have mentioned -boats owned by the fifteen families alluded to whose sole means of occupation i3 the fishing industry-were damaged. I submit that it is of the utmost importance in the interest of the preservation of that fishing fleet and in order to enable those fishermen to earn a livelihood, that something should be done to give them protection. The necessaiy work will not require a very large

amount of money. The minister is already in possession of the report of the engineer. I believe he also has an estimate of what the required protective works would cost. I trust that after this explanation and in view of the correspondence with the department the minister will see his way clear to place an item in the supplementaries to give the protection which is so badly needed at Maillet Gully. I may say that my predecessor at successive sessions in 1921, 1922 and 1923 urged upon the government the importance of carrying out this work. I have no doubt that had he been spared to represent the county at the present session he would have made further recommendations on the matter.


Charles Marcil: Shall the item carry?


Arthur Meighen: Surely the minister will not leave the hon. member's recommendations unanswered.	'	.


John Warwick King: I will be very glad to give the matter consideration.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I urge the minister to consider it seriously.


John Warwick King: Yes, serious consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscou Harbour-Wharf reconstruction, $5,500.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister please give an explanation? This is a new item which should be explained.


John Warwick King: This vote is for the purpose of reconstructing the wharf by removing the cap, covering, stringers and three tiers of face-timbers from the inner section, 418 feet long, of the block and span wharf; filling in eight spans with cribwork; rebuilding the tops of the blocks; and completing the section from the shore to the ninth span-420 feet-with an earth and gravel covering. Beyond this one block is to be retopped and two spans replaced, and a new cap is to be placed over the whole of the old section of the wharf, 875 feet long. The completed work will be 1.5 feet lower than its present height.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this work all to be done by day labour?


John Warwick King: Yes, on the
recommendation of the chief engineer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish to record again my former objection to this, and numerous other works, being carried out without tenders. It

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
is simply nothing short of a distribution of patronage. That is, I think, putting it pretty mildly.


John Warwick King: I think my hon. friend's statement is unfair. The work is being done in this way on the recommendation and advice of the departmental officers who consider day labour to be the proper method to pursue in such a case. It is a system that has been followed in the department for years. I think I have given a fair explanation, and I am sure those members of the committee who have knowledge and experience of this class of work will admit that it can be better done in this way.
iMr. STEVENS: I have already covered the ground two or three times, and I do not wish to repeat my criticisms, but I cannot accept the minister's explanation. It would be satisfactory if it were only being done in one or two cases or in response to an emergency, but what I am trying to impress upon the minister is that it is the preponderating number of such cases that I am objecting to. It is an indication of a change of policy, a retrograde movement back to what we have been fighting for years to get away from. I appreciate the difficulties the minister has to face, and the pressure he is subjected to, but that does not alter the facts of the case, nor does not lessen the objection to this departure from a well recognized policy.


Arthur Meighen: There is a great difference between the reconstruction of a wharf and its repair. Were these only trivial repairs one might justify the employment of day labour, but when it is the reconstruction of a wharf what justification is there? Can the minister give us any?


John Warwick King: I have already given an explanation of these items and repeated them a great many times. In this case I read the information as set out in the report of the officials of the department.


Arthur Meighen: In this case?


John Warwick King: Yes. I have explained that it was to reconstruct this wharf by removing the cap, covering, stringers and three tiers of face timbers from the inner section, and so on.


Arthur Meighen: Does not the minister see that there is more or less of a specification in that very statement? What is to hinder tenders being called for there?


Henry Herbert Stevens: A moment ago when the
minister was replying to me on the item of
$4,800 he said it was a breakwater and repairs. The minister argued again that in connection with repairs it was impossible to get sufficiently definite specifications to call for tenders, but he says in constructing new work or reconstruction-


John Warwick King: Yes, where the
old work is being demolished.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We come to an item
calling for wharf reconstruction, and now he argues in the same way as in the previous item.


John Warwick King: In reconstruction,
where the old work was demolished and the new work was going to be built, but it does not apply to this case. There is reconstruction in certain portions of the work.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He has taken off the
top of the wharf, the caps and the piling, he is going to put on a new cap and new piling, so that it is a new job so far as it goes.


John Warwick King: No, not piling.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is down to the caps.
I know what caps are. Down to the caps it is new work.


John Warwick King: As the work goes
on they may find some stringers which it is not necessary to remove at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pointe du Chene-Repairs to breakwaters, $2,400.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this a new item?


John Warwick King: No, this item is
for rebuilding from high water up, the north face of the protecting block at the northeast corner of the breakwater; recovering the same with 4 inch plank; placing large stone blocks on the old breakwater where the stringers and covering have been washed off; filling the north face of the wharf with stone ballast to replace that recently washed out and driving 15 piles across this face. This was necessitated on account of the damage done to the wharf last fall by the severe storms.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to compliment the engineer on the exactness of the specifications, showing how convenient it would be to call for tenders in many of these items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Robichaud's (Savoy's) Landing-Wharf, $11,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a large vote. Will the minister give an explanation of it?


John Warwick King: This is to construct a cribwork wharf 310 feet in length consisting of an approach 211 feet long and 15

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
feet wide and a pierhead 99 feet long and 13 feet to 25 feet wide, with ferry slip and a single guard pier. It is under contract. The contract was made in April, 1924.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister tell
us the number of tenders received, the price, and the contractor?


John Warwick King: There were eight tenders in all. The successful tenderers were Arcade Landry and Frank T. Landry, $9,814. The tenders varied from that figure up to $18,123.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much is spent and
what is the additional money?


John Warwick King: Our tenders fortunately are lower than the estimate as prepared and placed in the estimates on the advice of the engineer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You could reduce the estimate.


John Warwick King: No, I do not think so.
Shediac island-Wharf repairs. $1,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is that?


John Warwick King: Rebuilding, from
half tide up, three blocks displaced by the storm of October 1, 1923; and placing a strip of 2 inch plank 9 feet wide along the centre of the covering, which is decayed and is in places dangerous.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Shippigan Gully-Repairs to breakwaters, $1,000.
Alexandre Joseph Doucet: There was a vote in 192223 of $4,000 for this work, a vote of $1,000 last year, and this is a different vote of $1,000. Could the minister give us an explanation of what work is being done, or if it is necessary to have the repairs carried on?


John Warwick King: This is for close
piling the channel side of a section of the east breakwater 70 feet long; placing a quantity of brush in the breast work east of this breakwater; and placing a bulkhead of close piles across the west breakwater at the end of the ell or inside extension.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Stonehaven-Rebuilding protection block, $1,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Before these items are
disposed of, I want to ask a general question about all the items of this vote. We have a vote of $123,850. Last year there was a vote of $249,900. Can the minister inform us how

much of the $249,900 has been expended, and give us in a brief and concise form the disposition of the vote of last year?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
would like a detailed statement of the amounts expended, or the total?


Henry Herbert Stevens: What was expended?


John Warwick King: The amount was, $41,993.97.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quoted the wrong
figure. I see it was about $40,000.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I point out, not in
criticism of the items, but in regard to the amounts; we have a vote now passed, or about to be passed finally, of $123,000 as against $40,000 last year. This is a very substantial increase, about 300 per cent. Does the minister consider that the needs warrant this large increase? This is only typical of some other votes.


Arthur John Lewis: How does the minister explain the statement that only $41,000 was spent when there was this $249,000 voted last year; and only this small amount to be revoted.


John Warwick King: We were very
careful in our expenditures last year, and I hope we will be careful this year. The vote asked for last year was $249,000, and this year we are asking for $123,850, being a very considerable reduction on the amount asked for last year. I do not think we should put in a less amount, with the information we have.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister agree tc the suggestion that perhaps there might be an election in sight; and in consequence the estimates show a large number of Christmas gifts, which might have a valuable and sustaining influence in favour of government condidates. My hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) appreciates the wisdom of this suggestion. There is an increase from $40,000 to $123,000. I know the political intent of the Minister of Customs leads him at once to recognize the value of it. Of course, the Minister of Public Works perhaps did not notice it when these items were pressed upon him. Would the minister agree that that would be the explanation?


John Warwick King: No, I would not
agree.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Harbours and rivers-Quebec-Anse h Beaufils- Repairs to jetties, $2,250.
Arthur Meighen: Were the jetties in the
storm too?


John Warwick King: This is to complete the rebuilding of the east berth for a length of 135 feet, to renew the six-inch spreaders on the easterly face of the east jetty and to replace 100 yards of ballast on the west jetty. It is recommended by the engineer in charge.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to,
Anse a la Barbe-Breakwaters, $1,500.
Arthur John Lewis: If the minister would just
give us a little information about each item as it comes along, that would save a great deal of questioning.


John Warwick King: This is to build
two small breakwaters, one on each side of the mouth of the river, 145 and 150 feet in length by a width of 12 feet, of round timber, ballasted with stone. It is recommended by the engineer. This is an important fishing station and these breakwaters are required for the protection of the fishing fleet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Anse au Griffon-Wharf extension, $2,200.	'
John Warwick King: This is an expenditure to complete the construction of the open face crib work extension of round timber 100 feet long by 20 feet wide, well ballasted with stone and sheathed with deal. It is recommended by the engineer.


Arthur John Lewis: Is the deterioration in this
woodwork due to the action of the water or storms or decay?


John Warwick King: It is due to
storms and decay.


Arthur John Lewis: Is the lumber creosoted on
all repairs?


John Warwick King: We use native
timber there.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Was the wharf of considerable value in its original construction?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur John Lewis: It seems to me, considering
that we are passing items year after year for repair work in connection with deterioration, it would be a good policy for the government to adopt that all timber work should be creosoted before it is placed on any wharf or embankment.


John Warwick King: That would be
pretty expensive.


Arthur John Lewis: But it is not so expensive
as deterioration and having the work repaired every year or two.


John Warwick King: In fresh water, the native timber stands pretty well for many years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is not affected by the teredo insect.


John Warwick King: I understand not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course, where the
teredo is, piling or crib work lasts sometimes less than a year. I have known it to decay completely in six months, being eaten away -a most extraordinary condition. This is a completely new work, just like a new wharf. Is this to be done by tender or day labour?


John Warwick King: I have not the
recommendation before me, but the amount is comparatively small. The question whether the work will be done by day labour or contract will probably come up later.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the minister's
opinion on this?


John Warwick King: This is a very
small work. I do not know whether there are capable contractors in the vicinity. If it can be contracted for and competitive prices received, I would be in favour of contracting.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Anse St. Jean-Wharf repairs, $3,300.
John Warwick King: This is to improve the slip and hoisting apparatus, renewing ten by twelve stringers and ten by ten cross-ties, and three-inch flooring, 15,000 feet. These repairs are required for the maintenance of the structure in good condition. Boats of the Canada Steamship line are scheduled to call four times weekly, but they have passed many times without stopping on account of the wharf being too small for their accommodation. Small schooners call there occasionally.	*


Leon Johnson Ladner: Were any improvements
made last year?


John Warwick King: I think not.


Arthur Edward Ross: When was the
last money spent on this?


John Warwick King: I have not the
information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Bagotville (St. Alphonse)-Wharf repairs and improvements, $1,850.
John Warwick King: This is for urgent renewals to cribwork face-timbers, cross-ties, stringers and flooring, and to complete a new freight shed.


Arthur John Lewis: Is that completing the work that was done last year?


John Warwick King: Yes, practically.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Was the appropriation of
last year supposed to cover the entire repairs and improvements?


John Warwick King: No.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What work was deferred?


John Warwick King: Last year's work
consisted of construction of freight shed and renewing part of crib work under the old shed to a height of four feet.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is this in the nature of
extension?


John Warwick King: It will be a continuation. It might be said to be new repair work. Then there is some expenditure to complete the work on the shed that was undertaken last year.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Was the work
last year done by contract or day labour?


John Warwick King: I should think
it would be day labour, yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Last year?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Here we have a striking
example bearing out the criticisms I have been offering. Last year parliament passed a vote of $8,500 in good faith thinking that it would be used to do certain work. The minister builds a warehouse for the housing of goods landed at a wharf-one of the most suitable things for a contract that one can imagine. A simple contract with a carpenter, any number of whom can be found in any neighbourhood, could have accomplished this work; it is carpentering of the simplest sort. The minister however comes back this year and asks for $1,850 more. What does he want that extra money for? Last year his engineers told him that the work could be done for $8,500 but he says now that no tenders were called for. This is bearing out my criticism that the department has been departing from a general principle which it is most desirable that the government should scrupulously observe. I am not at all criticis-'ng the item; I am not suggesting that it is
[Mr. J. H. King.3
unnecessary nor that the work should not be done. But I do insist that this is a matter which should seriously engage the attention of the committee. We are now in the last days of the session and hon. members are all anxious to get the work of parliament completed. And in this period of rush we are being asked to put the stamp of approval on a violation of principle to which I am positively opposed, as I am sure the committee and parliament would be also if the matter were given proper consideration. The minister at least owes it to the committee to explain this particular item. Invariably these votes include contingencies; I would call to witness the item of $11,000 passed a few minutes ago in a previous vote. In that instance the minister told us that he required only $9,000 of the $11,000 and when I suggested, not very vigorously I admit, that the vote should be reduced the minister replied that he did not think it would be desirable to reduce it inasmuch as it was always necessary to provide against contingencies. I agree with him in that respect; I certainly think that contingencies should be taken into account. But that was the very reason why we voted $8,500 last year; I remember that that sum was represented as covering contingencies. Instead of calling for tenders however for an ordinary piece of work like this, the minister has had it done by day labour under the control of the officers of the department; and he comes back to us now to have another vote of $1,800 passed. If we wanted any proof of the folly of departing from the principle of tenders and contract work, we have it right here. I want an explanation from the minister. As a matter of fact there is no explanation that can remedy the thing, but the minister might make some statement approaching an argument to justify a course which the government apparently is bent on pursuing. The vote last year was for $8,500, and I would remind the committee of the principle which has been respected for so many years of regarding $5,000 as the absolute limit up to which work of this nature might be done without contract. That principle has been ignored in this case.


John Warwick King: The point is not
well taken. The hon. gentleman says that this shed should have been built by contract. Well, we are not only constructing a new shed but we are taking care of the crib-work of the old structure; we are renewing some of the cross ties, the stringers, the flooring and so on. In other words, you have a partial renewal with a new construction.

4083	[DOT]
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Mr. STEVEN'S:	What has the new shed
cost?


John Warwick King: I cannot state
that definitely; it is not set out. To complete the shed this year there will be required altogether $150.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely the minister can
give us the information in regard to the vote of last year. I complimented his engineer a moment ago on having given us the details, and that is a splendid thing. Surely he must have the information in regard to the $8,500.


John Warwick King: I have not the
details here. It has not been the custom to bring in the explanations of items passed the previous year. I have just the totals showing the expenditures, but I shall be glad to supply the details later.	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the minister will admit the principle I have stated I can dispense with the details. But in the absence of that information he attempts to justify the build1-ing of this shed by day labour. Will he not admit that a shed which must be superimposed on a wharf and is not necessarily a part of that structure is something that could be done by tender?


John Warwick King: There is heavy
traffic over the wharf and as the foundation would unquestionably be disturbed I can quite understand the engineer advising that the work be done by the department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That, <hen, would apply
to all these things.


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Apparently it would
apply to every item I have touched.


Arthur John Lewis: This discussion comes up
every little while and probably rightly so; but if the minister could tell us what the policy is in regard to these particular works the one explanation would be sufficient to cover all cases. Before I came to this country I was a building expert and I have been employed by the government in connection with certain buildings. My experience in the Old Land may be entirely different from the experience of builders here, but I know that we found that on repair work contractors were very cautious where the work could not be seen or was not clearly specified. Under these conditions we always found it much better to do the work departmentally, and the same thing may possibly be true in regard1 to the present and similar cases.
If, however, there is a recognized principle that works of over $5,000 should be done by contract there would seem to be some necessity for an explanation- from the engineer or from the minister as to why the rule has not been observed in this case. If that explanation were given it would obviate detailed discussion upon each item of this nature. Is the work done in this particular way in consequence of some report from the engineers that it could be more satisfactorily and efficiently performed by day labour?


John Warwick King: That is the
recommendation, yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: How much was
spent last year on the wharf?


John Warwick King: In 1923-24 there
was an expenditure of $8,693.80.


Arthur Edward Ross: What was spent
the year before?


John Warwick King: I have not that
information.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have been following half a dozen of these cases and- I do not find in the Auditor General's report in any instance the same figures as given by the minister. Every second year there seems to be a difference of between $2,000 and $3,000.


Jacques Bureau: Would it not be 1922-23?


Arthur Edward Ross: It is for the year
before.


Jacques Bureau: The Auditor General's report would not cover the period up to March 31, 1924.


Arthur Edward Ross: That is what I
am saying. Every year there is expenditure on this wharf.


John Warwick King: It is a large work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Baie des Rochers-Wharf improvements, $2,300.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is this new
work?


John Warwick King: It is to construct an extension 50 feet by 40 feet joining the inner side of the headblock with the shore, and to close up the span between the head-block and the approach with cribwork 25 feet by 12 feet, and some minor repairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Baie St. Paul-Wharf, $12,200.
John Warwick King: This is required to provide for the contract for construction of a

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
wharf having a frontage of 320 feet, consisting of cribwork 320 feet long by 8 feet wide at top, with back filling behind and rubble stone at each end. The amount of the contract is $11,068, inspection and contingencies, $1,131.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How much has been
spent?


John Warwick King: Last year we expended $640.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Was there anything in the nature of a wharf at this place before?


John Warwick King: Oh yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What is giving service in
the meantime?


John Warwick King: No service is
being given; it is new construction.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How does the need arise
now for a $12,000 wharf?


John Warwick King: The necessity of the proposed work is well proved. In fact the traffic which is done at present on a private wharf belonging to the Baie St. Paul Lumber Company is relatively heavy. It consists of three schooners calling regularly each week and many others calling occasionally. The imports consist of general merchandise, provisions and farm implements amounting in value to $60,000, and the exports consist of pulpwood, firewood, spindle wood, lumber, potatoes and hay to a value of $125,800.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How have these things
been handled in the past?


John Warwick King: Over the company's wharf.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What was wrong with that wharf?


John Warwick King: I	suppose it
could not accommodate the traffic.


Leon Johnson Ladner: This is duplicating the service.


John Warwick King: No,	we are
giving government service instead of leaving the people to pay tolls to the company.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Has the minister any
report?


John Warwick King: The	report I
have is that it is necessary to have a public wharf at this place.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The government quite
often proceeds to build a wharf where there IMr. J. H. King.]
is already a private wharf. Apparently in this case the private wharf was quite satisfactory.


Jacques Bureau: A private wharf is quite
satisfactory provided the owner does not extort money from the poor devil who is using it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is no reason why the taxpayers should be burdened. Has the minister any record of objections to the private wharf?


John Warwick King: I will go further in my explanation:	As previously
stated, all this freight is handled cm the company's wharf, an old slab construction which is rapidly worn by the traffic. The present government wharf at Cap au Corbeau, one and three-quarters miles distant, being in a yery bad condition cannot be used. It is exposed ' to the strong seas, it is about four miles distant from the town by land, and the road connecting the two is almost impassable on account of steep hills. Therefore the people of Baie St. Paul have no other shipping facility by water than the Baie St. Paul Lumber Company's wharf,. the use of which can be refused at any time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think we are entitled
to an explanation of the expenditure. The minister says $600 was spent, and he is asking for a re-vote of $12,200; the vote last year was $15,250; which leaves $3,000 of expenditure unaccounted for.


John Warwick King: We have spent
only $640 of last gear's vote. The amount you speak of will lapse.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are lessening the vote by $3,000?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Boischatel-Wharf repairs, $15,000.
Mr. ROBB:: I beg to move that this item be amended by striking out the word "repairs." This is a new wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Warwick King: This vote is required to complete the contract for the construction of a crib and span wharf 500 feet long by 20 feet wide, including an open faced cribwork headblock 100 feet long by 25 feet wide and 18 feet high at outer end. The amount of the contract is $20,053. The con-_ tract was let in November 1923.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much was spent out of last year's vote?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: We spent $2,506.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much has been spent altogether?


John Warwick King: Our expenditure
will be $22,000 altogether.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There has been $2,500 spent, and the minister is asking for $15,000 this year, or a total of $17,500, while the contract is $22,000. Why should this work be extended over three years?


John Warwick King: The Citadel Brick Company is paying a portion of the contract.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then the government's share is not $22,000?


John Warwick King: No, that will be
the total cost.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Have there been wharf
facilities in this locality before?


John Warwick King: No. There is a
very considerable industry there, and it is developing. The government are constructing the wharf and the Citadel Brick Company is contributing a portion of the cost.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Are there any other industries?


John Warwick King: I think that is the main industry.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What other purpose would the wharf serve?


John Warwick King: They are shipping about 12,000,000 brick annually. The local settlement would be served as well.
11 p.m. About 12,000 cords of pulpwood is shipped out, and a very considerable amount of coal and merchandise is shipped in.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How was this handled before?


John Warwick King: I imagine it was
not handled at all.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Has the business all originated since 1923?


John Warwick King: I do not think
so. Last year it was considered necessary to construct this wharf in the interests of the community.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But the volume of traffic
mentioned by the minister surely did not originate in a few weeks or months; it must have been handled in some other way before.


John Warwick King: I do not claim
that the traffic originated this year or last year; it has been there for years. The company have been operating, and finally a public request was made for a wharf. Upon investigation a wharf was considered necessary.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The point is, were there
not wharf facilities there before to handle the existing business?


John Warwick King: No.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Then how was it handled?


Jacques Bureau: By gangways up to the
schooners and wheelbarrows.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Was pulpwood handled in
that way?


Jacques Bureau: They go alongside the
schooner with small rafts. My hon. friend does not understand the situation there. These industries have settled around the coast, and at the start they had very primitive ways of handling their stuff. The schooner would lie there, and at low tide they would load the stuff on to the ship with wheelbarrows and carts, with a great deal of difficulty and at great loss to the shippers. That is a great handicap to the brickyard.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the minister state
that pulpwood and bricks are loaded by wheelbarrows on to the ship?


Jacques Bureau: On the schooner. I have
seen them.


John Warwick King: The company
found they could not carry on their business successfully without better accommodation. It is a large industry, producing about 100,000 bricks per day. With this accommodation they expect to increase their capacity by 50 per cent, and to export brick by water to the American market.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Then if it were not for
the brick company the wharf would not be built?


John Warwick King: I would not think so. It is a large local industry.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Actually the government
is building the wharf for the brick company.


John Warwick King: I think my hon. friend is unfair.


James Alexander Robb: Who are we building wharves for in Vancouver?


Leon Johnson Ladner: For a large number of
people and the public generally. I observe that when Vancouver South wants public



Supply-Harbours and Rivers
works they remain under consideration for a very long time, although I am certain that many of them are far more urgent than the building of a new wharf at this place, to facilitate the business of one private enterprise.


Mr. PARENT:: For the information of my hon. friend, I may tell him that for a number of years I have represented the constituency in which this particular wharf is situated. It was then in the county of Montmorency. For years I have made representations to the government at the request of the electors of this constituencjr, and particularly the people of this parish, recommending the construction of a wharf there for various purposes, the main one being for the accommodation of the smaller craft and sail boats which come there from all parts of the north shore of the St. Lawrence and which would have appreciated a shelter of some kind.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is this the same wharf as
mentioned here?


Georges Parent: Yes. It is also necessary
to accommodate the shipping of pulpwood, which comes away back from the mountains in the seigniory belonging to the Seminary of Quebec.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How long has that been
going on?


Georges Parent: Right up until the war
started. The war was given as a reason for not going on with this wharf. Another reason given was that there was not sufficient industry in the district to justify its construction. Since then a big industry has started in that parish, employing about one hundred and fifty men, making high-grade bricks, and the people naturally want to see this industry developed. The industry undertook that if a wharf was built at this point they would increase their production by at least 50 per cent, and on the strength of this undertaking the government consented to build a wharf, provided the company would pay one-third of the cost. That has been done and construction is now being proceeded with. The wharf is pretty nearly completed now. Such is the information I have as a member representing an adjoining constituency.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: Is the government proposing to take up more estimates to-night? This is Friday night, and we have sat late every night this week. fMr. Ladner.]


John Warwick King: Could we not
clear up these few items?


Arthur Meighen: We have carried an
awful lot to-night.


John Warwick King: We are not making very much progress.


Arthur Meighen: We have done a page
and a half since private bills.


John Warwick King: Perhaps we can
get through the Quebec items. They are mostly small repairs.


Arthur Meighen: There is one here for


John Warwick King: That is for
general repairs. It is the only large item, I think.


Arthur Meighen: There is all the next
page.


John Warwick King: There has been
a very substantial reduction in the vote this year.


Arthur Meighen: On the next page there
is an increase of about $75,000.


John Warwick King: Oh no, there is
a considerable decrease.


Arthur Meighen: I beg the minister's
pardon. The totals are $623,000 as against $551,000 last year.


John Warwick King: You are wrong.


Arthur Meighen: Look at the bottom of
page 39.


John Warwick King: The total is
$626,000 this year as against $1,027,000 last year.


Arthur Meighen: That is on the following page again.


John Warwick King: There is nearly
$400,000 less this year.


Arthur Meighen: I have heard some
rather startling rumours about supplement-aries, but we will come to that later.


James Alexander Robb: I can give my hon. friend
the assurance now that the supplementaries will not be-


Arthur Meighen: Will not be what?


James Alexander Robb: Will not be large compared
with the supplementaries my hon. friend himself brought down.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is qualifying now. Is the minister not going to accede

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
to the request? I do not know how he expects us to sit to midnight again.


John Warwick King: We shall be
through soon. It is only eleven o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: The minister will not
be through soon. He can make up his mind to that.


John Warwick King: I think we ought to get these estimates through. My hon. friend was complaining a few minutes ago that we had not gone on with these estimates.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all. The point
was raised that the minister had not time to call for tenders now, and we wanted to know why these estimates were not brought up long ago, instead of all sorts of material that certainly was in no hurry, and most of which had better not have been brought before the House at all.


John Warwick King: Could we not run through these few and let the rest stand?


Arthur Meighen: Which few?


John Warwick King: The items pertaining to harbours and rivers, Quebec.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend would consent to going through the Quebec items-


Arthur Meighen: The minister wants to
drive us past midnight every night. Last week we had two nights till nearly four o'clock. We have put through province after province, and the minister now wants to run through items totalling thousands of dollars at the end of the week, keeping us here past an hour when we should normally adjourn. There is no use being reasonable with the government if that is the'attitude they assume.


James Alexander Robb: I admit we have worked very hard this week, but I am sure my hon. friend is as desirous as we all are to get through some time. We threshed out all these items in council, and spent two months getting them chopped down.


Jacques Bureau: It is very unfortunate the
axe should fall on Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: Last time the minister
rose in his seat it was to move that "repairs" should be struck out. The government had evidently put it in hoping that nobody behind would get jealous, and it turned out not to be repairs at all.


James Alexander Robb: We moved that the title of
the item be changed.


Arthur Meighen: It was not repairs at all. I am prepared to meet the government by proceeding to the bottom of the page.
Cacouna-Wharf repairs, $1,875.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the total expended on this up to date?


John Warwick King: $56,133. This is
to lay a platform in 2 inch flooring for a length of 650 feet by 12 feet in width, and a platform in 3 inch flooring for a length of 50 feet by 15 feet.


Jacques Bureau: It is one of the most
fashionable watering places on the St. Lawrence.


Arthur Meighen: What county is it in?


John Warwick King: Temiscouata.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cannes des Roches-Breakwater extension, $3,500.
John Warwick King: This is in Gaspe county. It is a revote required to complete the contract for the construction of an openfaced cribwork extension 100 feet long by 20 feet wide.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a contract?


John Warwick King: Yes.
Cap a l'Aigle-Wharf improvements, $2,050.


Arthur Meighen: This is an entirelj aew item, what is the reason for it.


John Warwick King: The vote is to
renew the frame work of the hoisting apparatus, renew the movable slip, repair the coping and the steel plate at the southwest comer and construct a waiting room in the freight shed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the minister consider that this item will finish what he haa outlined, or is it simply the beginning- just to edge it in like a previous item of $1,875 where $56,000 has been already spent.


John Warwick King: That expenditure was from the date of the commencement of the work up to the present.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this starting something new or is the vote for the purpose of completing the work?


John Warwick King: I have already
given the information as to what is to be done. The vote is to carry out the work I have described.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Cap Sante-Wharf repairs, $2,500.
John Warwick King: This is to renew the stringers, cap timber, flooring, and sheathing on all the surface of the wharf.


Arthur Meighen: What county is Cap
Sante in?


Georges Parent: In Portneuf county. It is about thirty miles from Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: This is new work too?


John Warwick King: No. It is to renew the stringers and cap timbers, flooring and sheathing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cap St. Ignace-Wharf repairs, $2,300.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What work is to be done here?


John Warwick King: The vote is required to renew the flooring and stringers of the head 'block.


Arthur Meighen: What was last year's
vote for?


John Warwick King: We renewed a
portion of the flooring and most of the stringers on an area of 5,000 square feet.


Arthur Meighen: Are the floors and
stringers on this work renewed every year?


John Warwick King: No, this year's
7ote is to renew the flooring and stringers of the head block, that is the outer portion of the wharf.


Arthur Meighen: Shall we require any next year?


John Warwick King: That will depend upon whether any repairs are necessary.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The method adopted is
to get somebody employed there and then [DOT]each year give them a 'little work.


John Warwick King: I think not. I
consider that remark of my hon. friend is also unfair.	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very unfair!


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, now, that is too bad. I am very sorry. I tender my most sincere apologies to the government for my misjudging. Far be it from them to keep any of the people there employed on the job. I have a shrewd suspicion though, borne of a good many years' experience, as to the ingenuity of individuals in supplying themselves with a job and keeping themselves in it. I believe that 
these items we have here, so neatly explained by the minister, to put in a block here and shore up a head block somewhere else, oil up a slip somewhere else, put in a drift pin at one place and a new cap at some other place, mean that someone is on the job all the time who must have something which can be characterized as an occupation. I want to call the attention of the Minister of Customs, who is deeply interested, to this:	If you look
back to the preceding year, and even to the year before that, you will find the same men on the same job. I venture to say that if we traced back to confederation we would find that the members of that man's family-his father, his grandfather, and his great grandfather-had been all on that job down through all the years with possibly the variation of a Grit or a Tory.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, no, they have too much of a spirit of adventure to stay on such a little bit of work.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am very skeptical of the explanation of the minister.


Jacques Bureau: I find that some of them
even go out to Vancouver.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If ever they get out to
the Pacific coast they stay there, that is true.


Jacques Bureau: No, some of them come
back.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Carleton-Wharf repairs, $1,025.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is this for?


John Warwick King: For driving the
sheet piling on both sides of the shore end of the wharf. This is an important point and these repairs are essential.


Arthur Meighen: What county is it in?


John Warwick King: It is in Bonaventure county.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The amount in this case
is quite small, and I want to compliment the Chairman on the fact that he did not have the hardihood to insist on this work being done by day labour. The Chairman ought to be selected for the commendation of this committee because this is evidence that he at least does not unduly press for patronage.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Caughnawaga-Wharf improvement, $2,500.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is this for?


John Warwick King: For rip-rapping
on the east side of the approach.

40S9
British Empire Exhibition


Henry Herbert Stevens: Last year the fellow employed here was content with $875. Now we hare him going up to $2,500.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend knows that Caughnawaga wharf is used by the tourists who come from the United States into the province of Quebec by Trout River and Malone. And if the tourist comes from Ottawa to Montreal he must pass through Caughnawaga and facilities must be provided for him. The wharf is in a very bad state of repair, and it needs to be put into good condition owing to the great amount of traffic.


Arthur Meighen: What county is it in?


Jacques Bureau: Laprairie.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Why should there be this
increase from $875 to $2,500?


John Warwick King: As I have already explained it is for rip rapping along the east side of the approach.


Arthur Meighen: The member for Laprairie has been minding his own business here.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the minister collect
any wharfage in connection with these numerous wharves?


John Warwick King: The Department
of Public Works does not collect much wharfage. In some cases if there is wharfage collected the matter is handed over to the Marine department and they do the collecting. Generally speaking the Department of Public Works does not do much of that.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 11.22 p.m.
Monday, July 7, 1924