1924-07-07

ROYAL GRAIN COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways):	I beg to lay on the Table a copy
of the interim report of the Royal Grain Commission. I move:
That one thousand copies (in English and five hundred copies in French of the report of the Royal Grain Commission be printed forthwith, and that rule 74 in relation thereto be suspended.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the portion of resolution passed in this House on June 26, 1923, for concurrence in the seventh
report of the Special Committee to inquire into Agricultural Conditions recommending " that the Orders of Reference, reports, proceedings and the evidence given before the committee, together with a suitable synoptic index, to be prepared by the Clerk of the Committee, be subdivided under the subjects of:-
(a)	Production;
(b)	Transportation, Distributing and Marketing;
(c)	Rural Credits;
(d)	Relation of Prices obtained by the Agriculturists as Producers and paid by them as Consumers;
and printed in blue-book form for distribution," be rescinded.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. COPP (for the Minister of Justice) moved the first reading of Bill No. 228 (from the Senate), to amend the Bankruptcy Act (Employment of Solicitors by trustee).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary): Can the Prime Minister tell me if the personnel of the parliamentary delegation which is going to visit the Wembley exhibition has yet been agreed upon, and if so, would the Prime Minister furnish the names to the House?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, the personnel has
been agreed on. It includes the chief whip, Mr. Kyte; the assistant chief whip, Mr. Papineau, the whip of the Progressive party, Mr. Johnston, and the whip of the Conservative party, Mr. Boys. These gentlemen have been named commissioners to represent the government of Canada at the British Empire Exposition.


Mr. BOYS:: Lest there should be a misunderstanding, I informed the ministry that I regretted my inability to go; I should add, for personal reasons. Certain alterations are being made in my home in the town of Barrie.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I
think it is but fair that I should notify the government, after the statement in reply to the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), that on the third reading of the Supply Bill I intend to move that it be referred back to the committee with a view to decreasing item 62 by $20,000.
Incomplete Returns



ALTERNATIVE VOTE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Is
the government now in a position to state when Bill No. 128, dealing with the Alternative Vote, will be before the House?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is before the House
now. I cannot say when the next stage will be taken. That depends on the progress made with other measures.



INCOMPLETE RETURNS NEW BRUNSWICK LOBSTER FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I desire to call the
attention of the government, and through the government the attention of the House, to the character of certain returns which the government has submitted to parliament. On the 24th of March, this year, the following order was passed:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and any person, persons or corporations, relative to the enforcement of the lobster fisheries regulations in New Brunswick, during the years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 and up to February 29, 1924.
The House will know how specific and restricted was the return moved for and passed by the House. The return was brought down on the 19th of June in answer to this order, but it is obviously defective, it is not a compliance with the order of the House in any sense. A letter dated 17th January, 1923, from the Department of Marine and Fisheries to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is missing from the return. It is one of the most important letters that should have appeared on the file. The reason I know of the letter is that it is referred to in the subsequent reply by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which reply is on the file. It is very hard to explain why this very important letter should be omitted. Then, further, an order in council, which evidently was passed, making New Brunswick a separate district with respect to the enforcement of the lobster fisheries regulations, is also missing. Further, in relation to the same return, certain correspondence took place-a copy of a portion of which I have seen- with one Selime Robi-chaud, of Kent county, New Brunswick, and this correspondence is entirely missing. It relates to the remission of a fine imposed upon

Robichaud for breach of the regulations. I need not add that a return of this sort is merely contempt of parliament. There should be no objection to bringing down the return, but if there were any objection it should be taken before the motion passed.



J. B. LEVESQUE

Arthur Meighen: On the 19th of March
last the following order was passed by the House:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and J. Bte. Levesque of Trois Pistoles, Quebec, during the year 1923, and also correspondence between the government and any department of the government of Quebec with respect to the said Levesque.
A letter from Mr. Levesque addressed to the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) by registered mail dated the 6th of October, respecting this subject, was omitted from the file.



ST. GEDEON POSTMASTERSHIP

Arthur Meighen: On the 14th of April
the following order was passed:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Postmaster General or the government of Canada, the Civil Service Commission or its employees, and all other persons since the 1st January, 1922, to date, on the subject of the dismissal of Thomas Lavoie, postmaster at St. Gedeon, Chicoutimi county, and the nomination of a new postmaster at St. Gedeon. Also copies of the investigation that was held on the said Thomas Lavoie, and of the report of the investigators, as well as copies of applications made to the Civil Service Commission for the position of postmaster at St. Gedeon, and all petitions and certificates given in favour of or against, any of the applicants.
The correspondence brought down itself shows that there are certain missing features.
It shows that on investigation Epicier Coulond was reported as in class "C" in respect of qualifications, but character and integrity good. He was -reported to the inspector as such. The inspector, after some intervening period, reported "character and integrity bad," but the correspondence that intervened showing why the change occurred is missing from the file. Other returns are in the same position, but when the explanation is given I will call the attention of the House to the remainder.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil):: (Acting Postmaster General):	Will my hon.
friend give me a memo of the return by the Post Office Department, in order that I may look into the matter of the missing letter in the return?

Private Bills


Arthur Meighen: If there is anything
that I could usefully add to what will appear in Hansard of my remarks to-day, I will supply it.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I will gladly read
the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition in regard to the return from my department and will do the best I can to put matters right.



KOOTENAY FLATS

Mr. L. W. HUMPHREY (West Kootenay) :: On the 26th of May the following order of the House was issued:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, orders in council, and other documents in the possession or under the control of the government of Canada or any department thereof, of date subsequent to April 12, 1922, relating to the proposed reclamation of the area in the province of British Columbia and the state of Idaho known as the Kootenay Flats.


Charles A. Stewart: I will make inquiry and see what is causing the delay in bringing down the correspondence.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
The House in committee on Bill No. 199, to incorporate Shantung Christian University.-Mr. Ryckman.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not see the hon.
member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman). The other day I noticed there was a query made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), whether somebody could give the explanations.


Arthur Meighen: In this case I can give
them myself.
On motion of Mr. Meighen the House went into committee on the bill, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 11

Affiliation.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I asked the other
day if we could have some further information with regard to the bill.


Arthur Meighen: I asked also for a statement from the Department of Justice why the bill, from a constitutional or legal standpoint, was necessary and whether it did not transcend our powers. I have not had any statement from the department, but I do not think there is in the bill anything transcending our powers. I think it just corresponds to an act of parliament in relation to commercial enterprises which are contemplated to operate in other countries. The necessity arises, I believe, from this fact, that this university has been conducted for some years by various religious denominations acting together. Other universities there are in a better position, though, inasmuch as they enjoy the advantage that flows from corporate entity. This advantage is desired in this case. A more specific reason for the necessity of this legislation is that under the law of China an alien cannot hold real estate, but a corporation may. It is impossible for the university authorities to hold real estate essential for the prosecution of the work until they place their activities in corporate form. These are the basic reasons for the bill. I understand that the university itself is a highly creditable one; that the professors of the faculty are drawn from the strongest universities of the world; and that the degrees are very carefully supervised.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If a university is
incorporated in Canada is such incorporation recognized for the purpose of holding property in China?


Arthur Meighen: I understand that to be
the law.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 229 (from the Senate), to incorporate L'lnstitut des Freres de Samt-Gabriel au Canada.-Mr. Casgrain.
Bill	No.	230	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Eva Laura Bell.

Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 231 (from the Senate), for the relief of Peter Alexander Fawcett.-Mr. Duff.
Bill	No.	232	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of James Henry Cooke.-Mr. Duff.
Bill	No.	233	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Beatrice Ella Mastron.-Mr. Martell.
Bill	No.	234	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Herman Kleinsteuber.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill	No.	235	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
releef of Mary Ann Hastings.-Mr. Hocken.

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

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

Mr. HANSON:: 1.	On what date was the lot of land in Middleton, Nova Scotia, designed as a site for a public building, leased to A. W. Phinney and for how long a term is the said lot leased?
2.	What amount has been paid by Mr. Phinney as rental for the said site and how much is now due the department from him?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1. On June 8, 1922, permission was given to Mr. I. Phinney, of Middleton, to erect a small building on the site for the proposed public building at Middleton, said building to be used as an ice cream and fruit stand, rental to be at the rate of $5 per month. This was reduced on June 22nd to $3 per month. In May, 1923, Mr. Phinney wrote that he had not yet erected the building for the reason that the lot in question was used as a dumping ground for rubbish, etc., and asked permission to erect a fence around the property. This permission was granted on June 14, 1923. On November 14, 1923, the Collector of Revenue asked Mr. Phinney the date on which he had taken occupation of the public building site and the latter replied in December stating: "Owing to sickness I was not able to take charge of the permission referred to as I was seized with rheumatism. I had all arrangements made to close the lot and erect the building but to date have done nothing." On June 16, 1924, the Collector of Revenue asked Mr. Phinney if he hqd been in occupation of the public building site at Middleton and to this Mr. Phinney replied on June 20, 1924: "I purpose to occupy the lot in question July 1, 1924-sickness and other matters over which I have no control prevented me from occupying same sooner."
2. None.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-GLOBE NEWSPAPER
Mr. CHAPLIN:: What amount was paid by the Canadian National Railways to the Globe Newspaper Company for a full page advertisement that appeared in that paper during the month of December, 1923, or the month of January, 1924?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: (Mr. Meighen.]


MAIL SUBSIDIES AND STEAMSHIP SUBVENTIONS
Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: What is the total amount paid by the Dominion government since confederation for mail subsidies and steamship subventions on:	(a) Routes between Canadian ports Quebec and Maritime provinces; (b) Routes between Canadian and other ports?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: (a) Routes between Canadian ports, Quebec and Maritime provinces-British Columbia included as a maritime province-$6,409,504.43; (b) Routes between Canadian and other ports-$32,714,901.92. The dates covered by the above figures are commencing in. and including the fiscal year 1892-3, terminating on March 31, 1924.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. McCREA:: 1.	What was the total revenue of Canada from all sources for the year ending March 31st, 1923, also year ending March 31st, 1924, giving each year separately and each source of revenue of all kinds separately?
2.	How much of this revenue was contributed by each one of the nine provinces separately, giving every source of revenue separately?


CONVENTION WITH BELGIUM
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to .provide that a certain convention of commerce dated the third day of July, 1924, entered into at Ottawa by the plenipotentiaries appointed by His Majesty and by His Majesty the King of the Belgians, be approved, and to give effect to the provisions of the said convention.
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]
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend The Civil Service Act, 1918, t-o provide for the granting o-f an annual retiring allowance to any Civil Service Commissioner who has served as a commissioner for fifteen years or upwards or who has become disabled or otherwise incapable of performing the duties of his office, such allowance to be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Industrial Disputes Investigation
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.

Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move:
That a message ,be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House disagrees to their amendment to Bill No. 7, an act to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, for reason that the said amendment would complicate rather than simplify procedure.
In explanation I would state that the amending bill passed the House of Commons without change. The bill has been returned, with the amendments passed by this House approved, but amendment to section 8 respecting the appointment of a chairman has been inserted. The amendment proposed by the upper House with regard to section 8 introduces a new feature. I should point out that this same amendment was proposed last session by the upper House in dealing with Bill No. 84. This House in its wisdom declined to accept the amendment. I can only repeat now what I stated to the House on that occasion; I will quote from Hansard exactly what was said with reference to this particular proposed amendment at last session of parliament. The following is to be found at pages 4508-09 of Hansard, 1923:
The statute as it stands provides for the selection of a ch a Inman by joint agreement when possible of the other two members of a conciliation board, and requires that, where no agreement is reached, the minister shall make the necessary appointment. In about one-half of several hundred boards which have been established a chairman has been secured by agreement. It had beome a general though not invariable practice for the Minister of Labour, when called upon to appoint a chairman, to select a judge, but this practice ceased when two or three years ago the Judges' Act was so amended as to prohibit the acceptance by a judge of the fees ordinarily payable to a chairman or member of a conciliation board. It is true that the Minister of Labour is not under the Judges' Ast, as it has been amended, prohibited from asking a judge to act as a chairman, nor is a judge apparently prohibited from accepting a chairmanship; but since fees are no longer payable in such circumstances to a judge, it has not been thought reasonable as a rule to request a judge to undertake the duties involved in a chairmanship; such duties, it will be understood, are frequently of a severe and arduous nature and in nearly all cases are of the highest moment to employers and to large numbers of workmen, as well as frequently to the public. In two cases since the amendment of the Judges' Act, judges
have been, however, appointed, once by the Minister of Labour of the late administration and once by the present Minister of Labour, but in the latter case the appointment was made on the joint recommendation of the other board members. In both cases the judges concerned accepted from a sense of public duty; no fees were of course paid them. It may be said that there is every advantage in a chairman being secured by joint agreement and the Minister of Labour appoints a chairman with reluctance. Inquiry shows that this has been the case with most previous ministers. The chances of an agreement are manifestly increased when a chairman is secured by joint request of other board members. The method or system, however, under which different Ministers of Labour have made appointments has not been the subject of any known criticism, and certainly the files contain no communications requesting or suggesting a change in the present practice.
The objections to the system laid down in the Senate amendment are obvious. In the first place, the appointment of a chairman by a Chief Justice, whether the Chief Justice of a province or of the Supreme Court of Canada, would entail inevitable delay. Such delays would be particularly unfortunate since, despite every effort under present procedure, one side or other of the disputing parties is sometimes disposed to object to the time necessarily occupied in procedure. In the second place, a Chief Justice or other judge cannot possibly be as intimately seized of the nature of the dispute involved and of the particular type therefore of man wanted for the chairmanship as would be the Minister of Labour, who has established the board and has been in touch with details of procedure from its inception. It would be impossible to convey to a judge at a distant point by correspondence, which would of necessity be as a rule by telegraph with consequent serious expenditure and some danger of inaccuracy, all the particulars which should be property at hand to enable the judge to reach a correct conclusion as to the type of person apparently best suited for the important duties involved. The judge would exercise his best judgment and the appointment might or might not prove to be a good one. In any case the minister who is charged with the administration of the statute would be freed from responsibility on this most vital aspect of administration and the judges would become involved in the technicalities of departmental procedure. Since a considerable proportion of the disputes dealt with under the statute extend to two or more provinces, the task of naming the chairman of conciliation boards would under the proposed Senate amendment fall most frequently to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who from the nature of his functions may be presumed to be furthest removed from contact with industrial disputes and necessarily therefore the more dependent on the advice of others as to the type of person best suited for a chairman in a particular case. Despite the high legal and other attainments which a Chief Justice would undoubtedly possess, it is submitted that, in addition to the complication and delays in procedure which the proposed system of appointing chairmen would entail, the suggested change would be highly detrimental to the successful administration of the statute.
I would therefore move that the amendment proposed by the Senate to Bill No. 7 be not concurred in.


Arthur Meighen: Is it correct that these
amendments have no bearing on any of the original purposes of the bill? I do not see any clause in the bill itself which has relation to section 8.
4094	COMMONS
Industrial Disputes Investigation


James Murdock: Neither last session nor this session have we put forward the amendment to section 8 now proposed by the Senate. Last session the Senate accepted the amending bill, but returned it with a similar amendment to this section.


Arthur Meighen: It would appear to me,
Mr. Speaker, that probably upon proper representations to the upper House the amendments which they suggest could be treated best on their merits in a separate bill, and that the original bill should not be defeated merely because of amendments which are not akin to the bill itself.


James Murdock: My hope was that the
Senate would leave this amendment, which originated in their own House, to one side for the time being.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Murdock moves,
seconded by Mr. King (Kootenay):
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House disagrees to their amendment to Bill No. 7. an act to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, for reason that the said amendment would complicate rather than simplify procedure.
In explanation I would state that the amending bill passed the House of Commons without change. The bill has been returned with the amendments passed by this House approved, but an amendment to section 8 respecting the appointment of a chairman has been inserted. The amendment proposed by the upper House with regard to section 8 introduces a new feature.
I should point out that this same amendment was proposed last session by the upper House in dealing with Bill No. 84. This House in its wisdom declined to accept the amendment. I can only repeat at this time what I stated to the House then; I will quote from Hansard, Vol. LVIII, No. 93, pp. 450809:
Shall I read the quotation?


Arthur Meighen: It occurs to me that a
mere address on the subject is not what is intended by the rule. The rule contemplates a succinct statement in proper form by the House of its reasons for non-concurrence.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the
hon. minister will re-draft his motion stating the reasons for non-concurrence in the name of the House rather than in his own name. I would invite him to look at form No. 58, page 232 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. The motion will stand.


James Murdock: Mr. Speaker, this motion is in exactly the same form as that which I moved last session.
[Mr. Meighen.l


Arthur Meighen: It cannot be.


Hewitt Bostock: That may be so, but probably business was rushed towards the end of the session. I would advise the hon. minister to re-draft his motion in accordance with rule 58.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps it
might be understood that the clerk will draft the motion in proper form for presentation later on to-day.


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House.


Arthur Meighen: Let us wait until we come to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At a later hour to-day, then.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion stands until
a later hour to-day.


FEEDING STUFFS ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Argrieulture) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolutions:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Feeding Stuffs Act, and to provide,-
1.	That any commercial feeding stuff which does not contain as ' ingredients any screenings, scourings, scalpings, oat hulls, oat feed, buckwheat hulls, peanut hulls or shells, cottonseed hulls, peat or moss, or any other material of low feeding value, which the minister shall have power to designate by regulation, may contain a maximum of fifty per cent by weight of bran, shorts, middlings, or feed flour, singly or combined ;
2.	That wheat flour sold for feeding purposes shall be deemed to be feed flour:
3.	That any material, including the scourings or scalpings in addition to all or part of the mill screenings, which has been removed from wheat in preparing such wheat for the processes employed in flour extraction, and which material contains more than eight per cent crude fibre, may be registered and sold as a commercial feeding stuff under the name " Mill Scalpings "; or, if the material has been graded by a grain inspector operating under The Canada Grain Act, it may be sold under such other name as such grain inspector may designate on his certificate of inspection.
Mr. J. W. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont):: Before the House goes into
comlmittee on these resolutions, Mr. Speaker, will the minister explain what he hopes to accomplish by clause 3?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I had better refer for a moment to the amendment of last session, the primary purpose of which was to secure to the purchaser mill feeds in their absolute purity. That has been accomplished. But in the administration of the act by the Seed branch we found that the thirty or forty , manufacturers of feedstuffs throughout the country were in

Feeding Stuffs Act
doubt as to whether they had a right under the amended act to incorporate bran and shorts in such mill feeds. The point was submitted to the Department of Justice, and they decided against the right of mixing. As a result, a number of deputations from these manufacturers asked for a change in the law to permit them to do as they had done in the past in regard to poultry and calf meals and other similar feeds. To grant them such permission is the purpose of the proposed amendment. But in no sense is it intended to interfere in the least degree with the right of buyers to obtain mill feeds in their absolute purity as they have been doing during the past year.
In order to have a thorough discussion of section 3, I am going to ask the House, after the bill founded on this resolution is given second reading, to refer it to the committee on Agriculture and Colonization, so that the officers of my department may be questioned in detail as to the exact meaning of this section. We do not want to make the mistake that we made last year of going further than the House intended. It is my desire that the matter be minutely examined into, because it is not my intention in any way to interfere with the right of the purchaser of feed stuffs to get it in its absolute purity. On the other hand I think it is a mistake to go so far as to prohibit the mixing of bran and shorts up to fifty per cent by manufacturers of feed stuffs who have been doing it in the past to the advantage of the users of those feed stuffs. The provision with regard to mill scalpings was not in the act before, but there is very good feed in much of these scalpings that is, not the screenings, but the over-run of the sieves, such as wild oats, tame oats, or even some wheat.


John Wilfred Kennedy: The minister's explanation of paragraphs 1 and 2 is quite adequate, but he did not explain at all what he hopes to accomplish by paragraph 3. I do not wish to hold up the resolution or his proposed amendment to the act, but I would just like to express dissent from what I think is the purpose of paragraph 3. If the minister is willing that the matter be discussed in the committee on Agriculture and Colonization, I will agree, but I want to register my dissent from that part of his resolution.


William Richard Motherwell: I am quite agreeable to that. In fact, I do not like the look of it any too well myself.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, this appears to be
a hardy annual; it would be a remarkable thing if a session of parliament should pass without some tinkering with this act. I am a little surprised at the explanation the minister has given for introducing this measure. He admits that the act that went through last year accomplished a little more than it was expected to do, and has resulted in the feeders of this country being able to secure a feed stuff that is unadulterated; consequently he is going to endeavour to enable somebody to take advantage of the old process of mixing an inferior article with the standard article. That is really what the resolution means, if I read it correctly. In view of the lateness of the session and of the legislation that has yet to be dealt with by parliament, I think the minister would be well advised to allow this act to remain in force for at least another year. I had the pleasure of paying the minister a compliment a short time ago, namely that he had done something beneficial by introducing this measure last session. He was complaining that I could never see any good in anything that he did, and I frankly gave him credit in this connection for having done something that was in the interests of agriculture throughout this Dominion. The minister now comes forward at this late stage of the session and intimates that he is anxious to undo what I claim was a very meritorious act indeed, although I remarked at the time that I thought it was going to accomplish a little more than he expected. It has done that, and for the first time in many years the farmers of this country can purchase mill feed and be assured of getting what they think they are paying for. I do not see any reason for the introduction of a resolution of this kind, and I must protest against proceeding with it any further.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) had read this resolution a little more carefully he would never have made the unfair criticism he has. I cannot agree with him that this is a retro-
4 p.m. grade step on the part of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell. The hon. member (Mr. Sutherland) claims that the object of this amendment is to permit the adulteration that went on in previous years, and he makes a great point of the benefit we received as farmers during the past year through the operation of the act. If he had studied the act or read the amendment with any degree of care at all, and if
Feeding Stuffs Act

lie were not animated by a desire to make partisan capital against the Minister of Agriculture, he would have seen the real meaning of this amendment, which is as much in the interests of the farmers-


Donald Sutherland: I rise to a point of
order. I do not think it is fair for any member to impute motives of that kind to any other member of the House.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not think a point
of order can be maintained in respect to a statement made by an hon. member that there has been an attempt to make partisan capital in connection with a discussion in the House. We all know that there are parties in the House and members of those parties by their very names are partisans. I do not think any reflection upon the character of the hon. member is involved in the statement with regard to making partisan capital.


Donald Sutherland: The rule is very
clear in that respect, that no member has the right to impute wrong motives to any other member of this House. The motive the hon. member attributed to me was a desire to make party capital out of this measure rather than a desire to maintain good legislation.


Hewitt Bostock: I am sure the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) will accept the word of the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) that he is not making partisan capital.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the difficulty
would be solved by the minister, who does not believe in this bill, handing it over to the member who does.


William Richard Motherwell: That is not quite
fair, now. With regard to paragraph 3 of the resolution, I want it to be thoroughly understood that my desire is that it shall be subject to the closest possible scrutiny in the presence of the opposition, and if there is anything even suspicious about it I would be the first one to throw it on the scrap-heap. But it seems to me ridiculous that manufacturers of feed stuffs should not be allowed to mix bran and shorts in the least degree. That was not the intention of the act last year and never was thought of. But that is the decision of the Minister of Justice and his officers; they say that that is the meaning of the act, no matter what was intended, and that is what we have to go by. If we have a section in there that some of us may not quite understand-because the diaftsman-ship of our officers is sometimes hard to understand-I want to understand it just as well as

the right hon. leader of the opposition, and I do not think he would undertake to say exactly what it means. But we will get at the bottom of that meaning and if it is found that there is anything to interfere with the ability to secure bran and shorts in the pure state, I shall be the first to cast it out.


Hewitt Bostock: I hope hon. members
will live up to the rule that no member may speak twice on the same subject. If the House would go into committee the discussion could of course proceed without the application of that rule.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has
already spoken.


Alan Webster Neill: No, I was interrupted; there
have been so many points of order raised that I have been forgotten. The hon. Minister of Agriculture was speaking on a point of order also, I thought; at least, he started on that. If it will facilitate the work of the session and soothe the feelings of the hon. member for South Oxford I will withdraw the obnoxious expression, which so accurately represented the situation. I think it is just as unfair to make the statement that the Minister of Agriculture is bringing in a measure which is intended, he says, to upset what the great bulk of the farmers of Canada want, and I rose chiefly to contradict that. No one is more determined than myself to combat any suggestion that last year's act should be upset. But the situation is this: It was found last year, by a legal interpretation rather than a common sense one on the part of the Justice department, that this provision which said that you must sell pure bran and pure shorts would prevent stock owners and stock feed manufacturers who put up poultry feeds-poultry mashes, they are called, [DOT]-from putting bran and shorts into them. Now, the poultry people are just as anxious as any farmer could be to have a law passed by which they could get pure bran and pure shorts; let there be no doubt about that. I am told they cannot do this owing to the interpretation by the Justice department arising out of the technicalities in the law. Consequently the poultry men are very seriously affected when they cannot get their poultry mashes made. It might not affect the poultrymen in some parts of the country, but in British Columbia, where there is a large poultry industry, it affects them very acutely. The bigger poultry men, perhaps, are in a position to mix up their own mashes but the smaller men are not; and if you recall the fact that a hen, according to the

Feeding Stuffs Act
scientific theorists, has to have an exact balanced ration and that the ingredients which form that 'ration have to be contained in a table spoon for each meal you can understand the difficulty. It will not do to scatter the ingredients on a barn floor and mix them with a shovel; the preparation of the ration must be carried out very carefully and very exactly. The feed merchants have machinery which is adapted for the purpose, and it is much more convenient for the smaller poultrymen to buy the feed mixed. The formula is not a secret one and is printed by the agricultural colleges in their literature on the subject of poultry. Difficulty arose when it was found, according to the legal interpretation, that bran and shorts could not be put in these mashes. What was to be done when mashes of this kind could no longer be made and sold? That was the question that was asked. It was suggested that the same ingredients might be arrived at by grinding inferior wheat and mixing it, but it was found that it would not give the same proportion of bran and shorts that was required in the poultry formulas referred to. Consequently the poultry business was practically at a standstill. Under the first of the two clauses proposed here the mixing of pure bran and pure shorts in this poultry mash up to the extent of fifty per cent will be permitted. The mixing in calf-meal of pure bran and shorts will also be permitted. All that is being done by the proposed legislation is to permit pure bran and shorts in these poultry mashes and also calf-meal which the law at present does not allow. There is no suggestion of changing the law against the adulteration of bran and shorts which the government enacted last year and to which I have no doubt they will adhere. I think the farmers will be perfectly safe in allowing this matter to go before the committee on Agriculture where an opportunity will be afforded for threshing the matter out thoroughly.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On paragraph 1-Providing commercial feeding stuffs may contain a maximum of fifty per cent by weight of bran, shorts, middlings or feed flour, singly or combined.


Donald Sutherland: May I ask the
minister whether he does not consider this provision to mean that bran and shorts can be adulterated up to the extent of fifty per cent and sold under some other name?


William Richard Motherwell: It does not mean
that at all. It means that the manufacturer of these feeds may use bran and shorts to that extent. However, the percentage is a
matter for the committee on Agriculture to decide-as to whether fifty per cent is too much or too little; that percentage is not an arbitrary amount, possibly twenty-five per cent may be found to be sufficient. I wish to inform my hon. friend however that there is no question of adulteration involved. The resolution recognizes the principle of a balanced ration which is accepted by the feeders of live stock. However, it is not proposed to settle the question now. Before my hon. friend rose I was going to ask that hon. members, between now and the time when the committee on Agriculture will take the subject up, to think over the fifty per cent provision and consider whether the ingredients mixed in that proportion would make a properly balanced ration for the purposes desired.


Donald Sutherland: I do not see anything in the resolution which indicates that it is to be confined to the class of poultry feed manufacturers the minister refers to. I think that any miller or any one else, could mix up to the proportions mentioned-fifty per cent-if he saw fit to do so. The proposed legislation is not to be confined to any particular class. I am inclined to think that this request has come from the millers-
Mr, MOTHERWELL:	No.


Donald Sutherland: -in a very large
degree and not altogether from the class to whom the minister refers.


William Richard Motherwell: I may correct my
hon. friend there.


Donald Sutherland: So far as I know
there are very few of these manufacturers in the country. The minister intimated, I think, that there were thirty or forty of them but I do not know that their business operations are very extensive. I ask the minister if any one has been prosecuted for the violation of this act? .


William Richard Motherwell: I may say that a
number of them have desisted altogether from using bran and shorts; they are using, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) said, ground wheat which was so much more expensive that they had to give it up altogether. Without either bran or shorts, or ground wheat, the mixture is much less costly but is not so valuable as a feed by reason of these deficiencies. So far as I know there has not been a single request from any of the millers for these changes. The demand has come partly from the users of these feeds, and partly from the manufacturers of them-that
Feeding Stuffs Act

is the manufacturers of feeding stuffs of which there are something like thirty or forty. The manufacturers cannot prepare these feeding stuffs without first taking out a license, and under the present law they cannot be licensed unless they desist from the practice in question. So far as I know there have been no prosecutions for infractions of the law.


John Wilfred Kennedy: What section of the act last year
was submitted to the Department of Justice and pronounced upon by them?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
that any particular section of the act forbade the practice in question but taking the whole act one section with another the department :ame to that conclusion.


Mr. MILLAR:: What organizations in Canada have placed themselves on record as favouring the act as it now stands? I do not happen to have the information myself and that is why I ask the question. I know that meetings were held where this matter was fully discussed and very thoroughly threshed out and where those concerned placed themselves on record as in favour of the present law. The minister, no doubt, has the information asked for and is willing to give it to the committee.


William Richard Motherwell: In my earlier remarks I intimated that I had received a number of deputations from the manufacturers of these feeds. I do not think I have any representations from poultry associations. Here is the situation: These feeds were coming out without the ingredients referred to and the fact had not come to the general knowledge that they were deficient in these respects. The result is that until quite recently there had not been any protest or dissent in regard to this feed going out for bran and shorts; but as time went on they found the difficulty, and expressed it in correspondence with myself. They had no objections to bran and shorts, but rather approved of them going into the feed stuffs, provided it was made quite clear that there would be no going back to the mixing by the mills of screenings and other refuse into bran and shorts, or into any other mill food. That is what they were afraid of. The question is, can we not secure to the farmer the absolute purity of the mill feeds, without going to the other extreme, and prohibiting thirty or forty mill owners in Canada from using a spoonful of screenings in these feeds. I think the preparing of balanced rations for farmers to use in feeding their stock is a legitimate 
business; surely that business can go on without lending itself to the abuses practised by the mills in connection with bran and shorts.


John Millar: The minister has not answered my question. Perhaps he has not the information; and I am sure that I have positive knowledge that an important convention

and I believe more than one-took up the matter and threshed it out fully and decided that they were in favour of retaining the act as it now is. Has the minister not knowledge of such conventions that came to such conclusions?


William Richard Motherwell: When the act came out first everybody interested in it had both hands up for the act, because the abuses had been practised so long that the people were glad to get rid of them. But when they found the act went much further than they thought they modified their views. All these matters can come before the committee, and it *was to expedite matters that I proposed to bring it before the committee and not take up the time of the House now. All those engaged in agriculture are interested in this matter. We will have our officers and our files before the committee, and all the information could be given. Representatives not only of poultry men but of all men that were interested in the buying of cattle feeds congratulated us on the act, but not only they but ourselves did not know all the effect of the law until we got the full interpretation of it by the Justice department.


John Millar: I will let the matter stand
until it comes before the committee.


Mr. LEADER:: Has the minister any requests from any elevator companies or any milling concerns that this amendment be placed in the act?


William Richard Motherwell: Not that I know
of.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Why has the minister
limited bran and shorts to this fifty per cent? We all recognize the necessity of balanced rations, not only for poultry feeding, but for the daily cow. As long as these mills confine this mixing to the pure feed stuff I can see no serious objection. In fact, it is a tremendous advantage to the man who is feeding large herds of cattle to have that material mixed by machinery and properly balanced; and it is also greatly to the advantage of dairy cattle. After all, when you get down to the feeding stuff, the active ingredients that are used are protein and carbo hydrates and fat, and these can be better balanced by a man who

Feeding Stuffs Act
has the proper machines for weighing out these different things. He is in a very much better position to mix that feed properly than is the farmer on his own premises. If the farmer is dealing with reliable men who are being closely inspected by government officers, I think there is considerable advantage in having the work done in the mill instead of on the farm. After the act was passed last year, and an attempt was made to carry it out jn the proper way, it was found, I understand, that these men could not make pure feeds with bran and shorts mixed up in this way. Why is it limited to fifty per cent?


William Richard Motherwell: Some amount had
to be mentioned. You could not say one hundred per cent, because that would be pure bran or shorts, as the case might be; it would not be feeding stuff, it would be mill feed. The idea was, I think, to show that it was a mixture or a compound. The idea of mixing anything more than half, or even up to half, in a balanced ration, would not seem to indicate that it was primarily a balanced ration or a properly mixed feed. I think the reason was to convince people that they were not professing to sell 95 per cent of bran and shorts, when they were trying to work in an ingredient half bran and shorts. I think there was enough done in the old days to create suspicion. It is to allay these suspicions whether well founded or not, that we are making these provisions. I think there should be a fixed percentage and what it is to be must e decided arbitrarily-you cannot maintain a logical argument in favour of any percentage as against all others.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: You require these ingredients, protein, carbo hydrates and fat. In bran you have an article very rich in protein; in cornmeal you have another article that is very rich in hydro-carbon-why do you put the limit at fifty per cent?


William Richard Motherwell: We will have our
chemist from the Experimental Farm here, and he will explain the matter better than I can. With reference to the percentage, we might say 45 per cent just as well as any other figure. It has to be something between 1 and 100 per cent.


Mr. EVANS:: In the past it has been almost impossible to get pure bran and shorts from the mill; and unless something occurs which this resolution does not indicate, it will throw the door wide open again for the mills to do just what they choose. These manufacturers of balanced rations for calf and
poultry meal have been around this House since this session began, and I learned from them that they are quite content with the act as it is, and I think it would be a mistake at this time to alter it.


William Richard Motherwell: Does the hon
gentleman mean the manufacturers?


John Evans: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, no.


John Wilfred Kennedy: The discussion thus far would indicate to me that the minister himself has not a complete group of what he intends to accomplish by paragraphs 1 and 2.


William Richard Motherwell: I think I have.


John Wilfred Kennedy: Does it apply to the balancing of rations for feeding of dairy cattle, or beef cattle, or poultry? If it does, then there is no object -in limiting the amounts of bran, shorts and -middlings, and so forth, to fifty per cent? Frequently larger amounts than fifty per cent must be used in order to properly balance the rations. I am of the opinion that, the question of balancing rations for ordinary feeding does not enter into this question at all. I rather think that the minister asked to have this fifty per cent inserted here for the simple reason that the manufacturers of stock feeds which are special feeds and not ordinary feeds, asked permission to use up to fifty per cent; that they themselves used that arbitrary line of demarcation. Poultry mashes, -feeds that contain special chemical ingredients and herbs of a medicinal nature which are used not generally, but only in limited quantities and which sell at high prices from $15 to $18 per hundred pounds, are the feeds which the minister is attempting to get at. The manufacturers of those feeds want to be able to use the by-products of wheat as a base in the manufacture of those special feeds. I do not think the question of balancing ordinary rations enters into this.


William Richard Motherwell: No; it applies more particularly to feed for poultry and calves, not to ordinary live stock feed.


Harry Leader: I think the minister would be well advised to withdraw this resolution and give the legislation passed last year one more year's trial anyway. One phase which he brought out is that under the old law millers were able to mix bran and shorts with a considerable quantity of black seeds and other small weed seeds that are practically
Feeding Stuffs Act

worthless for feeding purposes and to sell the mixture as bran and shorts. The law of last year stopped that practice. If this resolution goes through, they will be able to mix bran and shorts with the same almost valueless by-products, refuse from screenings and so on, and sell it under some other name, thus accomplishing the same purpose. A farmer or someone else may come in for half a ton of shorts; he may want bran and shorts and the answer will be: "We have no bran and shorts"-of course that must be pure- " but we have a commercial feed that has 75 per cent of bran and shorts mixed with it, and it is as good a feed if not better." They will sell it under a different label, thus getting sale for the worthless seeds.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Leader) that the proposed amendment reads:
That any commercial feeding stuff-may contain a maximum of 50 per cent by weight of bran, shorts
And so on. But he should pay attention to the words that go in between:
That any commercial feeding stuff which does not contain as ingredients any screenings-
That absolutely and by name prohibits any screenings, and so forth from being included in any commercial feeding stuff which contains bran and shorts. I do not think language could be plainer than that. That is the reason why the resolution is worded in that way. But it says outside of that:
That any commercial feeding stuff-may contain a maximum of 50 per cent.
That fifty per cent is put in to prevent the very thing the hon. member suggests, that someone may say: "We have no pure bran and shorts, but we have something just as good," the idea being that they will put in 95 per cent of bran and shorts and 5 per cent of something else and then charge $15 more than it is worth for the combination. That is to prevent the farmer from being gouged. It has been ascertained that fifty per cent abundantly covers the case of the calf feed and poultry feed. I am not talking about patent foods such as horse appetizer and such things; I am speaking about just the various brands of poultry mashes and calf meal.


Harry Leader: I would suggest that it might open the door for something else. One portion of the amendment reads:
Or any other material of low feeding value, which the minister shall have power to designate by regulation.


Alan Webster Neill: That again is included, as one might say, in the brackets. The resolution reads:
Any commercial feeding stuff which does not contain as ingredients, any screenings, scourings, scalp-ings, oat hulls, oat feed, buckwheat hulls-
And so on.
-peat or moss-
And then their imagination is exhausted, and to cover the thing generally, they say:
-or any other material of low feeding value, which the minister shall have power to designate by regulation.
It may be sawdust. He has power to prevent that. He can put in there the name of any obnoxious stuff, refuse or something, which might be used in these mixtures. The prohibition is not limited to the things that are named, but it takes in anything else which may crop up -which the minister shall designate. It does not say something else which the minister designates may be included; it says that it shall be excluded.


Donald Sutherland: The legislation which this resolution is intended to amend gives the minister power to appoint an advisory board:
To make regulations prescribing the maximum amount of the whole or ground weed or other seeds and other materials which may be allowed in any grain or other ingredients used for the manufacture of feeding stuffs, without affecting the right to describe it as clean within the meaning of this act.
(c) To make regulations establishing a standard of quality and contents for, and fixing the limits of variability permissible in, any feeding stuff or ingredient or constituent thereof.
On page 13 of the act, among the regulations is one which I think would cover the matter complained of and sought to be remedied by this resolution:
When the feeding stuff consists of one ingredient only the brand or trade name of the feeding stuff shall include ' the name of that ingredient;
(b) When the feeding stuff consists of or is made by mixing two or more ingredients, the brand or trade name of the feeding stuff shall not include the name of any one of the ingredients unless the names of all the ingredients are included.
This is an act of Some 22 pages, and I do not believe you would find two lawyers in the Dominion of Canada who would agree on the same interpretation of the act. I am satisfied that the result of this resolution or of a bill drafted along these lines will be to make the act much more unintelligible than it is at present. The minister admits that there is no possibility now of evading the provisions contained in the act, that is as to having mill feeds absolutely pure. A distinction is made between the terms " bran and shorts " and "middlings," and low grade flour which is

Feeding Stuffs Act
termed "feedstuffs." If there is any other mixture of these commodities, weed seeds or anything of that kind, or a mixture of the two, that can be called commercial feedstuffs. A little further on a section is to be found which states that feedstuffs are commercial feedstuffs. Feedstuff 'legislation has been a source of annoyance and discouragement to the farmers of this country for many years. The practice which has been going on has resulted in losses to agriculture that would more than offset all the money that has been spent by the Department of Agriculture in this Dominion for the advancement	of agriculture.	When this
matter was before the House a few years ago, I quoted from an investigation that had been made by Mr. H. B. Sifton in charge of germination and microscopic analysis in the Seed branch. He	emphasized the tremendous
losses that were being sustained by the farmers of this country as a result of the practice that had been going on at that time. I think it was in 1919 when new legislation was passed and it was torn to pieces the following session. I predicted what the result would be, namely that you would not be able to purchase the pure article, but that all these commercial feeding-stuffs would be on the market. The legislation of last year has stopped the practice, and now legislation is being introduced which I think will destroy the act of last session. This is what Mr. Sifton said on that occasion1 .
For several years the Seed department has been receiving from farmers and from other branches of the Department of Agriculture samples of ground feeding stuffs, with requests for botanical analyses.
They have usually been accompanied by complaints that stock refused the feed, or that they became ill, in some cases dying as a result of eating it.

A case has recently been brought to our notice which corroborates this. A sample of shorts was sent in for analysis, the farmer complaining that, as a result of feeding it, two of his pigs had died. Large quantities of finely ground mustard seeds were found in the sample.

A sample of shorts was received at the laboratory from a farmer. He and his neighbour had bought some from the same lot and each had given one feed to their pigs. The meal was eaten, and in a few hours all the pigs

eight belonging to one man and ten to 'the other-were dead. An analysis of the sample showed 1.7 per cent by weight of whole worm-seed mustard seeds in addition to those which had been ground.
The Dominion Analyst, Dr. McGill, furnished a report in 1918 covering the inspection which has been made in regard to the output of all mills in the country, and it was found that the large mills were the greatest offenders in this respect. The minister is empowered to deal with this matter and he has an advis-260
ory board. I asked a short time ago whether the request had come from the farmers or whether it had not really come from the millers. I wnuld point out that the farmers are not very well represented on the board while unquestionably the milling companies are, and my information is that it is the millers who are back of this movement; they are urging certain people to make representations to the department with a view to restoring the conditions that have prevailed in the past. I would warn hon. members that if they allow any amendment to be made to the act such as was passed a few years ago we shall have the old state of things again. We hear a great deal about the need of a balanced ration for the Canadian hen; as it will accomplish tremendous results. Well, I should not be surprised to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) himself get up and emphasize the necessity for such a balanced ration for the purpose of producing a standard sized egg. We are wasting thousands of dollars in sending inspectors all over the country to deal with the Canadian egg product and now the minister proposes a balanced ration for the Canadian hen, regardless of what the effect will be on the live stock industry of the country. The feeding of our live stock is one of the most important matters with which we could deal, because the success of agriculture in Canada is more dependent on live stock than on anything else, and it is only by encouraging that industry that we shall obtain the best results from our farms. And when I speak of the live stock industry I have in mind beef cattle, hogs, sheep and so on. It is true that the production of eggs is a very important industry in Canada, but as hon. gentlemen no doubt know there is no more discriminating creature to be found anywhere than the hen; you can feed her with all the screenings you have available, including poison seeds and all the rest of it, and you may rest assured that she will distinguish between the poison and the wholesome feed. There is therefore no danger so far as that goes, and I do not think that the minister at this stage of the session, during this very hot weather, should put the House to the trouble of dealing with a matter which in my opinion will only again injure the live stock industry of Canada. The question will be referred to the committee on Agriculture, where it will possibly be dealt with for days, and then it will come back to this House to take the time of parliament. Surely, if the government is anxious to proceed with the business of the session, this is no time for the introduction of legislation of this kind. It is claimed that

Feeding Stuffs Act

this legislation is based upon a desire to produce a balanced ration for the Canadian hen, but personally I think we can afford to let the matter stand at least for another year; I do not think that any harm will be done in the meantime, and if the poultry industry is put out of business before parliament meets again the minister will be entitled to say, "I told you so." But I am absolutely sure that nothing of the kind will happen. The minister knows as well as does any other hon. gentleman that there is no crying demand for this legislation. It may be that a few are anxious to get something of the kind done, but I venture to say that 90 per cent of these so-called balanced rations only constitute a means of extorting money from the people who do not understand the business. I think that those who are engaged in agriculture in this country have a pretty good idea as to what they should use in the way of feed; we have agricultural experts all over the Dominion whose advice is available, and bulletins are published dealing with all these things. I do not see why we should grant permission to someone, who we cannot, be sure is reliable, to take the by-products of the milling of flour and mix them for sale to dispose of at exorbitant prices. I am satisfied that the committee as well as those who are engaged in agriculture must fully realize that as things are there is no pressing need whatever for any legislation of this kind; and I cannot understand why the minister during these sweltering days should try to force through parliament something for which there is no demand. If he insists, he will have to take the consequences.


William Richard Motherwell: The resolution has
been on the order paper for weeks, and it was my intention that this discussion should in any event take place before the committee on Agriculture where it could be more thoroughly gone into than in this House. Before that committee there would appear those who are prepared to show cause, and if they could not substantiate the claims that are made I would be one of the first to reject the measure.. Before the committee on Agriculture every word could be scrutinized so that the exact intent of the legislation might be established. I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Sutherland) that it is unwise at this stage to take up the time of the whole House discussing the matter, and that is precisely why I want to have it referred to the committee. If the committee is not satisfied with it then I shall be one of the first to put an end to it. But let the committee satisfy itself as to the wisdom or otherwise of the legislation.


Alan Webster Neill: I am in accord with the
idea that this matter should be referred at once to the committee on Agriculture, but I do not want the debate to cease without putting on record in Hansard, as the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland) will appear there, a direct contradiction of the suggestion that there is some one here who is behind the movement, in the interests of the millers. As I have taken a prominent part in the matter I wish to emphatically repudiate the idea that I am in any sense associated with or acting as agent for the millers. Let us get down to the facts.


Donald Sutherland: I hope the hon.
member is not inferring from anything that I said that I was casting any reflection at all on the members of this House; I was speaking of those who were asking for the privilege of mixing feedstuffs.


Alan Webster Neill: I have here a letter from a
Creamery Association in my district, which reads:
There is no doubt that a very valuable step was taken when screenings were not permitted to be sold with bran and shorts, or rather we should say that bran and shorts were not allowed to be adulterated with screenings. The Progressive members may have the satisfaction of knowing that they have the thanks of the farmers and poultrymen although thejr have no doubt displeased the millers.
Now with regard to poultry mash, we were about to register a mixture for poultry, approved of by the Department of Agriculture and the university, but the registration is being held over on account of the agitation started by the millers. We have carefully gone into the matter of using ground inferior wheat, but while this is possible, it is not always convenient, and there may be a time when inferior wheat cannot be purchased readily, or that the price may not be advantageous as compared with shorts.
A petition is being circulated to the Honourable W. R. Motherwell, and we enclose a copy as presented to ourselves. You will notice that we have added at the foot the words, " provided that no screenings be used in any form of mixed feeds offered for sale."
That is the opinion of this creamery association.
We note what you say-
This was addressed to myself.
-with regard to the millers' combine being strong and powerful, and the danger of tinkering with the act. Could not this be obliterated by absolutely prohibiting the sale of screenings in any form but as "screenings"? If poultry mashes are not allowed to be used with bran or shorts, the danger is that poultrymen unfamiliar with all the details will be induced to sign petitions without knowing that the millers are using them to strengthen their own hands.
Now, that is a frank letter written to me by a creamery association composed entirely of farmers and not likely to be acting in the interests of the millers or anyone associated

Feeding Stuffs Act
with them. You will notice how emphatically they take the position that they do not want any tinkering with the act regarding the purity of bran and shorts. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) asked if some poultry association had not said that they would rather have the present act. Yes, but with this qualification. Some of the poultry associations when presented with this petition which I hold in my hand, and which was circulated by the millers with the idea that they might be able to convince the poultry men of the desirability of their being allowed to go back to the old act which allowed the adulteration of bran and shorts, recognized the absolute necessity of being allowed to use bran and shorts in their mashes, but they added, "Rather than go back to the old act permitting adulterated bran and shorts we perfer to have the amendment of last year continued." My hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) may be assured that although a hen is capable of discriminating between weeds and wheat, it is not possible for her to distinguish between the good and the bad in the ground mixture, and the poultry man is not able to distinguish whether he is buying ground screenings or not. And above all things poultry men do not want ground screenings for their flocks; they want pure bran and pure shorts. I have letters from poultry men who are not in the pay of the millers in any shape or form, but I will not delay the House by reading them at this stage. I would suggest that we allow the bill to go to the Agricultural committee, where this matter can be threshed out.


Arthur Meighen: There is one feature
which is really for us and not for the Agricultural committee to deal with. I should like to understand what I am doing before we proceed further. Will the minister be good enough to repeat what the Justice department has ruled in this connection? I have bad the advantage of reading last year's act, and am not clear yet as to why this amendment is necessary.


William Richard Motherwell: The Justice department ruled that bran and shorts could not be mixed and put on the market for sale. I anticipate that it would not be against the law for a farmer to buy the ingredients and mix them at home for feeding to his stock.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister know if that ruling is based on subsection (a) or subsection (b) of new section 6? I am not clear why it is the ruling under either, but there would be more reason for it, I fancy, under (b), which says:
No person shall import into, manufacture, sell, offer, expose or have in possession for sale in Canada any flour mill by-product resulting from the cleaning and milling of wheat for the production of flour by the usual commercial processes, unless-
(b) any bran, shorts, middlings or feed flour is free from any mixture of any foreign materials, including the screenings or semirings that may have been removed in preparing the wheat for the processes employed in flour extraction.
That is to say, it compels any flour mill by-product to be free, in case it is bran or shorts or middlings or feed flour, from any admixture of foreign materials.


William Richard Motherwell: That is right.


Arthur Meighen: I think that must be the section which the Justice department have in mind. Well, are we not repealing sub-clause (b) altogether if we put the resolution through? We say in this resolution:
Any commercial feeding stuff which does not contain as ingredients any screenings, scourings, scalp-ings, oat hulls, oat feed, buckwheat hulls-
And all this other trash.
-or any other material of low feeding value which the minister shall have power to designate by regulation, may contain a maximum of 50 per cent by weight of bran, shorts, middlings or feed flour, singly or combined.
That is to say, a man may take his bran, shorts and middlings and mix any other flour mill product with them, but he cannot mix the rubbish mentioned here.


William Richard Motherwell: That is the point, but they can mix alfalfa meal and similar compounds.


Arthur Meighen: The result will be this, you can mix as freely as you like all flour mill by-products for the purpose of making a feeding stuff, as long as you do not use the different tilings mentioned in the first part.


William Richard Motherwell: That is right.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know very much about the merits of the legislation, but I think I understand it now. The objection, of the member is perfectly sound. Why not say definitely that this stuff which is recited here cannot be used, and let the other be used in any proportions in which the people want to buy it? For myself, I know when I had something to do with cattle and dairying we never bought any feeding mixture, we always mixed our own; and it seems to me there is not very much need to protect people who do not know enough to mix their own feed.
Paragraph 1 agreed to.
Feeding Stuffs Act

On paragraph 2:


Donald Sutherland: The confusion which arises in the mind of anyone who attempts to read this bill is such that if there are to be any amendments I think they are necessary to simplify the law rather than to complicate it. Will the minister inform the committee the names of the members of the advisory board whose advice is at his disposal?


William Richard Motherwell: I have not the list here. As I remember, Mr. Stonehouse represented the Eastern Dairymen's Association; Mr. Brethour represented the Swine Breeders' Association; and there were two or three other members representing other live stock associations. Mr. Kay, 'who was appointed chairman of the Agricultural committee stated:
I was appointed 4o represent the committee on Agriculture on that board. Dr. Grisdale was also there, Dr. Shutt, Mr. Archibald, Mr. White, all of the Department of Agriculture; and Mr. Clark, the Seed Commissioner, was the chairman.
Twelve or fifteen gentlemen were present, none of whom I knew except Mr. Stonehouse. These are some of the gentlemen whom Mr. Kay mentioned when we were discussing the amendments last session. All phases of the business were represented, particularly the live stock people.


Donald Sutherland: I might add to the
number mentioned by the minister. There is Mr. J. C. Gage, Grain Exchange, Winnipeg; Mr. H. H. Chisholm, the Chisholm Milling Company, Limited, Toronto; Mr. W. H. McCarthy, of the Maple Leaf Milling Company; and Mr. C. B. Watts, of the Dominion Millens' Association. These men are all members of the minister's advisory board, and judging from the fact that some of them were here interviewing members of the House I should think they are very much interested in having this amendment pass and that the greatest pressure is coming not from the poultry raisers but from the milling association. Under the old conditions the milling association contended that they bought wheat with these things in it and that they were entitled to put them back with the byproducts of flour. They attempted to justify what they had been doing all these years, and when a bill is put through which prevented their doing that, they commenced an agitation to have the bill torn to pieces. I do not think the minister has intimated to the committee where the pressure came from, at least in sufficient degree to justify our going on with this resolution.
rMr. Meighen.]


William Richard Motherwell: I had not a single
representation from a miller or a grain man or a grain exchange member or any other representative of the grain interests. If I had there would have been nothing amiss about it, but as it happened, I had .not. I have indicated "where most of the representations came from. But we will bring all -the correspondence down and go into it thoroughly before the Agriculture committee. I think we can satisfy my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) with regard to paragraphs 1 and 2; as to paragraph 3, I have indicated where I have some doubts about the advisability of it. I think, however, it would be advisable to send it also -to the committee.
Paragraph 2 agreed to.
On paragraph 3:


William Richard Motherwell: This is the clause
I do not like, and that I think the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Kennedy) does not like. It says:
That any material, including the scourings or scalpings in addition to all or part of the mill screenings-
The'scalpings is what goes over the sieves; the screenings is what goes through the screen. They are two entirely different things. The idea of the legislation last year and of this resolution is to eliminate those screenings and keep them by themselves, because we recognize -that if they are recleaned they make a very good feed product, but if -they are not -recleaned there is material in them .that is not only offensive to live stock but sometimes brings about their 5 p.m. death. I think, however, it would be better to leave it as it is and let it go to the committee. If it were, not going to the committee I would suggest that it be cut out.


Mr. SALES:: All of paragraph 3?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, but it does
not look -the part of wisdom to do that. Let it go to the committee and let those who want it there show cause why it should be there.


Donald Sutherland: There are many
committees meeting and a good many members of the Agriculture committee will have to be absent when this matter is discussed. It can be just as quickly decided in the House here as in the committee. It is not fair to ask those who cannot attend the Agriculture committee to submit to the findings of a few *who may be able to attend. This last section is certainly very objectionable. There
JULY 7, 1&24
Feeding Stuffs Act
is objection also to the other sections. Section 2 brings wheat flour under the Feeding Stuffs Act, which was not the case before. As to section 3, I would point out that the country to-day is infested with noxious weeds and something must be done to eradicate this evil if we are not to have many more abandoned farms than we have to-day. Instead of the department doing something along that line there is now an attempt to undo a measure that tended towards that end.


Arthur Meighen: 
William Richard Motherwell: Some of these
screenings are so small that it is almost impossible to grind them sufficiently to prevent them from germinating.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I have not said anything on this resolution-though I have some objection to section 1 as well as to section 3-because I shall be content to say what I have to say when it goes to the committee. In section 3 it seems to me there is a wish to have mill screenings sold under some fancy name. We provided last year that if mill screenings were sold they should be sold as mill screenings, and I think we had better stick to that. I would advise the minister to cut out clause 3 at once and not send it to the committee at all.


William Richard Motherwell: I think it would
be well to let it all go.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I cannot see that any
good purpose can be served by section 3; indeed, I see great danger in it. However, if the minister will give us the assurance that the Agriculture committee will be called when no other committees are sitting I will say nothing further at this stage; otherwise I shall have some comments to make.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member
for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) is the chairman of the committee. I do not think he is here yet, but he will be here this evening. He is very anxious to get the committee going; he has been pleading with me this last week to get the matter forward before morning sessions begin. The first open morning will be taken advantage of.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I want to be present
when this matter is discussed, and I think every member of the committee ought to be there. We should have some guarantee that the committee will be called at a time when no other committees are sitting so that all members of the Agriculture committee may attend. Many of the other committees are preparing their reports, and all members interested in them, particularly those who desire to offer amendments, want to attend the meetings, so that if the Agriculture committee is called when other committees are sitting many of its members would be unable to attend.


William Richard Motherwell: I will see that the
chairman of the committee notifies my hon. friend of the date and the hour.


Donald Sutherland: I think the minister might give the assurance that the committee will be called when no other committees are sitting of which members of this committee are members.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
surely does not think this is going to be a star chamber proceeding. If there is no quorum I presume there will be nothing done. I have been most candid with regard to this matter. The only reason I think it should be left as it is is because we are leaving it to the committee, and we can then have all the interested parties before us. We shall have our chemist from the Central Experimental Farm there, we shall have the hon. member for South Oxford, and other hon. members there. We shall make special endeavours to see that my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) is there and that he gets a hearing.


Donald Sutherland: I hope the minister
will not think that I am a little too critical and skeptical in regard to his desire to play fair with the House. But events that have transpired in former years-


William Richard Motherwell: Not in my time.
Mr. SUTHERLAND-in connection with this very matter have rendered me dubious. My hon. friend (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) who is sitting on the right of the Minister of Agriculture may recollect that last year I expressed some doubt as to whether the minister would '[DOT]ecognize his bill after it came from the committee, and apparently he has been surprised to find that it accomplished the purpose for which we have been agitating all these years-it has cleaned up the mess the farmers had to contend with by reason of the production of adulterated mill feed. Now the
Feeding Stuffs Act

minister is contending-and expects us to believe that he is entirely serious-for a well balanced ration for the Canadian hen and he brings forward a resolution of this character even though it should have the effect of delaying the session for a day or two. I am afraid I shall have to withdraw the compliment I paid the minister a few weeks ago.


William Richard Motherwell: I ask my hon. friend not to do that.


Donald Sutherland: It was in the face of some opposition and I was called to order. I was expressing the hope the minister would not get the idea that during the years he has been at the head of the Department of Agriculture he had not passed something in the interest of the farmers, and I gave him credit for what he had done in this instance. But he comes along to-day and wants to undo what I gave him credit for. Surely the minister does not wish us to take him seriously in this matter. I have seen a bill on feedstuffs go to the committee on Agriculture and be put through by a majority of one in spite of the attitude of the chairman. It then came back to the House and was forced through and became law. The very next session it was amended and destroyed. There is still a fragment of that law on the statute book but it has never been brought into effect. It is now proposed to refer this matter to a committee, the committee on Agriculture, although the minister knows that a number of other important com-mit.tes are meeting so that it will be absolutely impossible for one-half of the hon. gentlemen interested in this matter to attend this particular committee.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 238, to amend the Feeding Stuffs Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times and referred to the select standing committee on Agriculture.



INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


James Murdock: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House disagrees to their amendment to Bill No. 7, an act to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, for the reasons: That the said amendment introduces a new feature in the said bill and would complicate rather than simplify procedure.
[Mr Sutherland.!


Arthur Meighen: I have no objection to the motion, but I think the reason given is inadequate; it should be made more specific. If there are other reasons for non-concurrence, and the speech the minister made did include some other reasons, they should be embodied in the message, otherwise we shall be only giving the other House a vague assertion as the reason for objecting to the amendment.


James Murdock: I gave the reasons for this motion a short time ago and I presume they will appear on Hansard. If it is the desire of the right hon. leader of the opposition the reasons can be repeated. They are couched in exactly the same language as were the reasons given last year.


Arthur Meighen: I have no desire to be a stickler for trivialities, but in a matter which concerns negotiations between this House and the other Chamber we should adhere to the prescribed form pretty closely. It was the form of the previous proposal of the minister that I took exception to. What I take exception to now is not the form but the fact that the resolution contains no reasons for the action of this House. We owe it to the upper Chamber to express to them in intelligent form the reasons for not concurring in their amendment. I would suggest to the minister-not that I want to delay this particular matter-that the calling of this order be deferred until the reasons for non-concurrence are embodied in the form now before the Chair.


James Murdock: I am quite willing to express the same objections that were assigned last year and were repeated this afternoon. I am quite willing to do that again.


Hewitt Bostock: I would suggest to the hon. Minister of Labour that he take the grounds mentioned in his speech of this afternoon and base thereon his reasons for non-concurrence in the Senate amendment. A motion similar to the present one was moved at the close of last session, and the reason for non-concurrence in the amendment of the Senate given at that time was the following:
That the said amendments defeat the objects aimed at in the bill and would complicate rather than simplify procedure.
According to rule No. 58 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 232, specific reasons must be enumerated in a message of this character to the upper House. It is most desirable that specific reasons rather than mere generalities should De given by this House in messages of this character.

Industrial Disputes Investigation


Mr. LAPOINTE:: A new procedure is being suggested which would create a precedent. The form adopted in this motion is according to the practice in the past. It is almost word for word the motion made last year on the very same bill. Why should we change our procedure and give the substance of the bill in a motion which should be as simple as possible?


Arthur Meighen: The minister has not
caught the point of my remarks or of the remarks of Mr. Speaker. I am not taking exception to the form, at all. The form is right now. What I say is by way of suggestion to the government that the reasons should be all the reasons and that they should not be just a general indication of one reason, so general indeed that it carries no meaning to the upper House at all. The reasons should be stated as specifically as they were, at least, in the speech made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock).


Hewitt Bostock: The suggestion is that
the motion should be redrafted and the specific reasons given, 1, 2, 3. I refer to rule 58, page 232, of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, where I find the following form given as an example:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House disagrees to their amendment to Bill No. 66, an act to amend the Judges Act, for the following reasons:
Because the amendment is not relevant to the bill which is only to provide the salaries for two additional judges, to restrict in certain cases the travelling expenses of judges, and to extend certain provisions of the act now applying to county court judges to the circuit court of the district of Montreal Because, though it may be advisable to modify the pensions at present provided with respect to future appointments, it is not in the public interest that the remuneration or pensions of judges now on the bench should be changed to their prejudice.
In the present motion it is only generality, while I think, in justice to the upper Chamber specific reasons ought to be given.


Mr. MANION:: May I offer a suggestion
to simplify the matter. We could have had the whole thing re-drafted in the time we have taken to discuss it. I suggest-and I think it would carry out the idea of the leader of the opposition-that we simply add to the form already presented the words "for the following reasons."


James Murdock: If my hon. friend will
read Hansard as it will appear to-morrow he will find that is exactly what has been done this afternoon.


Robert James Manion: The minister simply incorporated his speech in the first motion. The motion before the House at the present moment takes out the arguments and numbers them 1, 2, 3 and 4. It would simply mean adding ten or fifteen lines to the motion.


Ernest Lapointe: I have before me a
motion made last session by the Minister of Labour which reads:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House disagrees to their amendments to the said bill for the reasons " That the said amendments defeat the objects aimed at in the bill and would complicate rather than simplify procedure."
That motion was debated by Your Honour and by this House. I do not know why we could be so generous as to give all details to the Senate when we do not concur with that body. They are not overwhelmingly generous in their conduct towards us. They merely say they do not concur, without giving one single reason. That is the way the Senate is proceeding, so far as these matters are concerned, when they do not agree with us.
I do not know why we should be so delicate in our dealings with them, and give the whole speech in the motion in which we signify to them that we do not agree with them.


Arthur Meighen: The matter is really of
some importance, and I am surprised that the minister should object to it. I understood the form used by the Minister of Labour last year was the same as the form proposed to-day. The Minister of Justice has read from the journals the form used last year and it is the same as the form now proposed. The form he proposes is right. We have a perfect right to take this action if we wish, but it does not seem to me an expedient or dignified thing to do. It is not stating the reasons. The real reasons were stated in the speech of the minister, but we cannot ask them to look to that speech. We are supposed to state the reasons which actuate us in the motion itself as a part and portion of the motion. The Senate has the right to expect us to state our reasons for the motion. Let us place ourselves in an understandable and intelligent position. I have no objection to the form, but I would not like to support it. I have no reason to complain of any discourtesy on the part of the Senate. If the Senate does not adopt the proper form that is no reason why we should not do so. If we do better they may do better. Taking
Convention with Finland

the form adopted by us last year, I do not wonder that the Senate never met us, because there is nothing in it to make them change their view. The form to my mind is right but I think the procedure would be much improved and far more desirable and dignified on the part of parliament.
Motion agreed to on division.



CONVENTION WITH FINLAND

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that goods produced or manufactured in Finland shall receive treatment as favourable as that accorded to goods produced or manufactured in any foreign country so long as goods produced or manufactured in Canada enjoy in Finland the same treatment as is enjoyed by similar goods produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom, as set out in Article 23 of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Finland, made at Helsingfors the 14th day December, 1923.
Arthur Meighen: Will the minister explain?


Mr. ROBB:: Article 5 of the United Kingdom-Finland treaty provides that articles the pioduce or manufacture of the territories of the other, from whatever place arriving, shall not be subject to other or higher duties or charges than those paid on the like articles, the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country.
That particular phrase "from whatever place arriving" does not suit Canada. We are accepting article 23, which reads:
Article 23 provides that goods produced or manufactured in India or any of His Britannic Majesty's self-governing dominions, colonies, possessions or protectorates shall enjoy in Finland the same treatment as would be enjoyed by similar goods if produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom, so long as goods produced or manufactured in Finland are accorded in India or such self-governing dominion, colony, possession or protectorate, treatment as favourable as that accorded to goods produced or manufactured in any other foreign country.
So that we are giving Finland the benefit of our most favoured nation treaty. Under the Finland treaty the general tariff on passenger motor cars is 20 per cent, and if we accepted this proposal it would be 8f per cent.


Arthur Meighen: Are there any good roads there?
rWr. Meighen.]


James Alexander Robb: Yes. The rates are as follows:
Conventional General Tariff Tariff
Passenger motor cars . Minimum duty- Weighing not more	than	20 per cent 8f per cent Per kilog markkas	900 kilo-grammes.. Weighing more than	900	3.50	1.81kilo -grammes.. ..	5.00	2.18Motor lorries	10 per cent	but not less than	per	markkas	kilogramme	2.50	Wheels	20 per cent	8^ per cent
The trade between Canada and Finland is as follows:
Imported for consumption into Canada during the fiscal year ended 31st March, 1924:
Value
Cereal foods prepared	 $ 192
Manufactures of wood, n.o.p	 100
Paper	 5,153
Books	  420
Other articles	 225
Total	 $6,090
Our exports to Finland in the same period amounted to 81,754,279. My hon. friend asked me about good roads a moment ago. We exported $13,523 worth of automobiles, so that my hon. friend will observe that the export of automobiles alone was double the importations.


Arthur Meighen: We evidently sold them
about three cars.


James Alexander Robb: I am not speaking about the number of cars, but about the value and advantage of the market. The exports consisted of:
Value
Kye	 $ 173,600
Oatmeal and rolled oats	 63,690
Flour of wheat	 1,322,501
Lard	 67,425
Tires	 7,219
Pipe and tubing	 37,341
Mowing machines	 28,283
Cultivators	 1,510
Ploughs	 2,526
Other agricultural tools and implements,	699
Adding machines	 19,125
Other machinery	 7,820
Automobiles	 *. ..	13,523
Other vehicles	 3,200
Other articles	 5,817

Hon. gentlemen will observe that the balance of trade is very largely in favour of Canada.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that I
fully grasped the minister's explanation. I

Convention with Finland
understand a treaty has been made between Great Britain and Finland, the treaty referred to in the resolution.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I would gather also that
there is in this treaty a provision enabling any dominion to avail itself of the privileges of article 23.	,


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Article 23 is a provision
whereby the goods of Finland will be admitted to the country so acting on the same terms that the goods of Finland are admitted into Great Britain. That is to say if we take this action, there will be a change from the present position to another. The present position is this, that Finnish goods come in under our general tariff, and our goods go into Finland under their general tariff. The other position which will come about will be this, that Finnish goods will come into Canada under the most favoured nation tariff.


James Alexander Robb: The intermediate tariff.


Arthur Meighen: It is the one that applies to the most favoured nation.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, the same as Italy.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and about eleven
other countries. Our goods will go into Finland on the same terms as goods from Great Britain.


James Alexander Robb: Under their most favoured
nation treatment.


Arthur Meighen: Of course it matters very little, I presume, as regards their goods coming to Canada, even if there is a change of duty, when they send us only $6,000 worth. But we get the Finnish rate which affects us to some extent on automobiles, motor lorries and two or three other things which the minister cited. They are really very trivial.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will observe
that we have a large trade with Finland and there is a possibility that we might increase it.


Arthur Meighen: We have a large trade,
but it is not mainly in goods affected by the treaty.


James Alexander Robb: But the millers were afraid
that they might put a duty on flour.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Can the minister give us the existing position as to Finland's rates, whether she has any special trade treaty, how many tariffs she has. I suppose
she has a general tariff and a tariff which we would get the benefit of under this treaty. It would be interesting to know how the percentages of the new tariff will compare with the percentages of the existing tariff.


James Alexander Robb: Finland has a general tariff
and a conventional tariff. On her general tariff, the duty on automobiles, passenger motor oars, is 20 per cent. Under the conventional tariff, the duty which we shall obtain is 8f per cent. In addition to that there seems to be a duty as regards the weight of the machine:
Weighing not more 000 kilogrammes.. .	than	General Tariff per kilog 3.50	Conventional Tariff markkas 1.81Weighing not more 900 kilogrammes.. .	than	5.00	2.18Motor lorries	10 per cent	but not less than kilogramme.. ..	per	markkas 2.50	Wheels	20 per cent	8| per centminimum per gramme	kilo-	markkas 5.00	2.18Preserved anchovies, dines and other per kilogramme.. ,	star- fish,	20	11Phonographs, etc. kilog	per	150.	112.50


Henry Lumley Drayton: Under which tariff do importations from the United States enter?


James Alexander Robb: I cannot answer that question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Have the United States a separate treaty with Finland?


James Alexander Robb: They have, I believe, because the commissioner tells me that the people most urgent for the acceptance of this treaty are the Canadian flour millers who do a considerable business with Finland, and they fear that the United States will get an advantage over them with their treaty. They anticipate a change in the duty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would be interesting to know whether we are getting the same rate or a better rate or a rate not quite as good.


James Alexander Robb: We are getting the most
favoured nation tariff. There are only two.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister will see that there may be a separate trade treaty between the United States and Finland providing for specific duties. I suppose we were not represented in the negotiations in this matter?


James Alexander Robb: No.
Convention with Finland


Henry Lumley Drayton: No representation on behalf of Canada as to the class of goods that we were chiefly interested in getting into Finland under the low tariff?


James Alexander Robb: I will read my hon friend the clause that we come under and he will see that the United States will not be treated any better than ourselves. Article 23 reads:
Article 23 provides that goods produced or manufactured in India or any of His Britannic Majesty's self-governing dominions, colonies, possessions or protectorates shall enjoy in Finland the same treatment as would he enjoyed fby simitar goods if produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom, so long as goods produced or manufactured in Finland are accorded in India or such self-governing dominion, colony possession or protectorate, treatment as favourable as that accorded to goods produced or manufactured in any other foreign country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How did the
matter come to the attention of the government?


James Alexander Robb: I think it was brought before us primarily by our representatives who were over at the Colonial Conference last year, and then representations were made to us by the different milling associations throughout Canada that they had an excellent trade in that market, and that as there was some discussion about changing the tariff in Finland, they wanted us to get in there so that we would be able to maintain that market.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 239 respecting Trade between Canada and Finland.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BANK ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution.:
That it is expedient to amend the Bank Act and to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of the costs incident to a system of government inspection of banks, with provision for the recoupment of such expenses by assessment upon the chartered banks.
He said:	This resolution and the bill
which will be presented afterwards have already been discussed before the committee on Banking and Commerce. The legislation provides for an Inspector General of Banks who shall be authorized under the present Bank Act to make a careful examination of banks. It is intended that he shall make use of the reports of the auditors and in-

spectors who now work under the Bank Act and that in addition he shall have power to go into any head office or branch bank at discretion to make a thorough examination of the affairs of any particular bank. He will be paid out of the public funds and at the end of the year the banks will be assessed to meet the cost along the same lines as we now assess the insurance companies.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What will be
the real functions of the inspector? We have had considerable dispute in regard to the banks, having had complaints to the effect that credit has not been sufficiently available in Canada and, on the contrary, complaints, very different in character but very loud and insistent, that credit has been too generous and that the banks have failed. by reason	of such credits having been itmprovidently supplied. It will be interesting to know what the particular function of the inspector will be in connection wtih this matter of credit. I suppose that every one realizes that around the question of credit most of his activities will turn. His activities certainly will not be necessary in so far as the mere compilation of accounts is concerned; with the amendments that have been made to the Bank Act the audit provisions are complete. Is it the intention of the government that this new official shall merely supplement the audit? Or, on the other hand, is he to be put in such a position as to be able to prevent direct credit? Shall he be in a position to say for example that such and such a firm is to get no credit at all or, if it already has credit, is he to say that there shall be no extension? Further, is he to be in a position to say to the banks that this or that account shall be liquidated and that the firm whose account is in question may no longer look for any banking facilities in Canada? In a word, are we now getting in the banking world a sort of Judge Landis who will have the right to pass upon the deliberations of the directors and those who have to do with the extending of credit in the banks, or is he merely to be a decorative and highly expensive addition to the present audit system?


James Alexander Robb: I do not know where my
hon. friend gathered the idea that the bank inspector would have anything to do with the controlling of credits or the giving out of greater credits to the customers of the banks. I know there was considerable discussion in the committee of that particular

Bank Act
feature, but the inspector's duties are largely defined in the committee's recommendations * between sections 6 and 10. Perhaps I can do no better than read the provisions:
The inspector, from time to time, but not less frequently than once in each calendar year shall make, or cause to be made, such examination and inquiry into the affairs or business of each bank as he may deem to be necessary or expedient, and for such purposes to take charge off the assets of the bank or any portion thereof, if the need should arise, for the purpose of satisfying himself that the provisions of this act having reference to the safety of the creditors and shareholders of each such bank are being duly observed and that the bank is in a sound financial condition. The inspector at the conclusion of each such examination and inquiry shall report thereon to the minister.
A copy off all reports made by the auditors of a bank to the general manager and to the directors under the next preceding section shall be transmitted or delivered to the minister by the auditors at the same time as such reports are transmitted or delivered to the general manager and directors.
My hon. friend will remember that the Bank Act at present compels two accredited auditors to send to each director of the bank a statement of their audit. We are now obliging them to send that report to the inspector also, and we are doing that to avoid duplication and also for the purposes of economy. These auditors, at (present, although elected by the shareholders, are approved by the minister.
The inspector, or person acting under his direction, shall have a right of access to the books and accounts, documents, vouchers and securities of the bank, and shall be entitled to require and receive from the directors, officers and auditors of the bank such information and explanation as he may deem necessary for the performance of his duties.
The inspector shall have all the powers conferred upon a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act for the purpose of obtaining evidence under oath, and may delegate such powers as occasion may require. Any person who refuses to give such evidence or to produce any book or document material thereto when required so to do shall be guilty of an offence against this act.
Whenever the inspector is satisfied that a bank is insolvent he shall report fully on the bank s condition to the minister and the minister may, without waiting for the bank to suspend payment in specie or Dominion notes of any of its liabilities as they accrue, request the association or the president of the association to appoint a curator to supervise the affairs of such bank, and such request shall have the same effect as if the bank had suspended payment in specie or Dominion notes of any of its liabilities as they accrued, and a curator shall forthwith be appointed as provided in section 117 of this act.
I think that defines the duties of the inspector.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I confess that I am still somewhat in the dark as to what the bill really means. I have no doubt that something useful is desired to be accomplished, but I do not think the information throws
any light on what it is. My hon. friend refers to what took place in the Banking committee. Well, as I was a witness in the Home Bank inquiry and was told by the minister that my conduct in connection with the bank was to be inquired into by the Banking committee, I deemed it more fitting that I should absent myself from its meetings during the remainder of the session.


Mr. CAHILL:: You are thin skinned.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member for Pontiac says I am thin skinned. I dio not think so. I wanted to do nothing which would influence the committee one way or the other, and in absenting myself from its meetings I think I merely observed the honourable and proper course-although perhaps my conduct does not commend itself to the hon. member. I do not know whether the inspector is to be a glorified auditor, or whether he is expected to take such a stand in connection with the administration of banks as will amount to absolute control. From what my hon. friend said I should have thought the proposal goes a good deal further in connection with credits and the like, because I observe that the inspector is to be given a very drastic function, a function which I should think would be given for a specific purpose. Without finding a bank insolvent, authority is given the inspector to take over its assets. Does my hon. friend seriously think that any bank could remain solvent after its assets had been taken over under proposed legislation? That provision is divorced from the provision as to insolvency, which gives the inspector the right to take over the assets of a bank if he wants to. Is there any control as to " wants to "; how is it to be worked out? My hon. friend can surely see that in the hands of some gentlemen this country would soon be left with but very few banks. It may be all right to grant this tremendous power, but I am asking for information in regard to it. What has to happen before the inspector has the right to take over the assets? And what is the position of the bank when he does take them over? Does his action under those circumstances connote, as one naturally would think it would, governmental responsibility?


James Alexander Robb: The bill distinctly says no.
Sir HENRY' DRAYTON: The bill might say that black was white and white was black, but black still would not be white. We cannot get away from the ordinary results of our actions simply because we say there is to be no resultant responsibility. On the other
Bank Act

hand, supposing there is no responsibility on the government, is it fair to the depositors and the shareholders that a government official should have the right to interfere drastically, as he certainly would by taking over the assets of the institution, without any governmental responsibility? Surely the minister can tell us exactly under what conditions and circumstances he would expect such action to be taken.


James Alexander Robb: Had my hon. friend been present at the meetings of the committee he would have learned that this clause was modified. The intention is that when the inspector goes into the head office of a bank he informs the president or general manager, "All the assets are in my charge while I am here making my inspection." That is all it means. If an inspector goes into a branch bank he immediately takes over from the manager possession of the assets.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is always admitted. But my hon. friend has not yet told us what is the real underlying idea. Is it to make more certain the provisions of audit, or is the inspector to act, as I put it shortly, as a general umpire in the banking business? There ought to be some real object to be served by the appointment of a general inspector. If he is to implement the present audit system, what defects has the minister found in it? If the defects be as to credit, and if this official is merely to look after the audit, how are we really helping ourselves?


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps I could not answer
my hon. friend better than by replying to his inquiry as to what defects we have discovered.
I am bound to say that the audit and inspection system as adopted last session, is very much better, as my hon. friend knows, than the system then prevailing. But that system, as he is aware, led to a campaign throughout the country that there should be better bank inspection. Having looked into this, the government concluded that in the interest of the banks themselves, the shareholders of the banks and the depositors, there should be a more accurate and complete system of bank inspection. My hon. friend asks me to give him an example of where this might be useful. I will give him an example that the newspapers have been full of for the last twelve months. When it was reported to Sir Thomas White, then Minister of Finance, that the Home Bank had made certain loans on certain securities, Sir Thomas White, acting as best he could under the act of that day, asked a solicitor in Toronto to look into it, and sub-
sequently he asked two of the directors of the bank to make some inquiry as to the value of the securities upon which certain loans in British Columbia had been made. The directors reported that the security was ample; the records go to show that. The government think there should be in charge a bank inspector, a man of banking exoerience, who in cases of that kind will go in and put a valuation on the loans in question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has entirely missed the point. I agree with him that we have a very much better system of auditing than we had; the amendment of last year went a long way. What I asked was whether he had found our present auditing provisions in any way faulty, and if so in what direction should they be improved.


James Alexander Robb: The proof that we recognize
the value of the present audit system is that we propose to take the reports of those auditors and have them sent in to this inspector. But some person must take these reports up when they reach the department. Having all the reports of the different banks before him-I am talking now of the different head banks-he has a yardstick whereby to measure the value of the different securities upon which they are making loans. If it occurs to him that bank A is making a larger percentage of loans on certain security than bank B and that bank C is making a much lower percentage, then he will look into the matter; he will have the authority to measure the value of those loans and report accordingly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now my hon.
friend is getting to what I said in the first place:	Does he not think he is passing on
credits and the policy of the directorate as to credits?


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend think it
would be a very bad thing, in view of the experience of the past, that some person should at least be there so that the banks may be warned that somebody will pass on the matter?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not said that anything is a bad thing; I am simply trying to find out what this legislation is to do, and I have not been having very much luck in that respect. I inquired whether we were going into the question of credits; the minister said there would be none of that; now we know there will be.


James Alexander Robb: What I thought my hon. friend had in mind was that the bank inspector would say whether or not certain persons or institutions would get credits.

Public Service Retirement


Henry Lumley Drayton: In order to do
what the minister has just referred to, will the inspector not have the right to cut off bank A, where bank A is away up on certain loans while bank B and bank C are away down? I just wanted to know what was intended; I wanted to get the information.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 240 to amend the Bank Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PUBLIC SERVICE RETIREMENT ACT
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 227, to amend the Public Service Retirement Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Operation of act extended, Act shall not be deemed to have expired.
Mr. STEVENS:: I think we ought to have some explanation from the minister regarding this bill. It will run concurrently with the Superannuation bill.


James Alexander Robb: We propose that this bill shall run concurrently with the Superannuation bill. The members of the Civil Service will be afforded an opportunity of making their election as to which system they will come under.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What puzzles me is that
the new bill does not cover all the provisions that have been temporarily adopted in the present bill. If the new bill is going into force, as I understand it will why should we prolong the life of the present measure which has been brought in more or less as a temporary measure? Surely we ought to incorporate in the Superannuation bill any advantageous features that the present bill may possess so that there shall be only one superannuation system in force. I know there are civil servants who have been in the government employ a great length of time and have asked for-perhaps I should say have been anxiously waiting for-the passing of the new and the definite measure. To me it appears rather an unwise thing to continue the provisions
of the Retirement Act into the first period of operation of the new legislation. Next year when the Retirement Act again expires shall we be faced with the same conditions which call for its renewal to-day? That is the point which has been impressed on my own mind. If there are any grievances, if there are any things that have been overlooked under the new legislation, they should be adjusted at this time and the difficulties ironed out. If I am not mistaken this act was extended last year on the ground of the absence of a permanent superannuation system dealing with civil servants. That reason does not exist to-day, and it seems to me the two measures should be combined so as to completely eliminate any causes for grievance that may exist.


James Alexander Robb: There is a great deal of
truth in what my hon. friend has said. However, the Superannuation bill was fairly well discussed before a special committee of the House when all parties were represented and it was pretty well threshed out in the House.' It provides in a fair way for the civil servant. It was passed in advance of the present measure and has gone over to the Senate. It was thought advisable to renew the present measure in case the Superannuation bill should meet any obstacles in the Upper House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I remember rightly
we made provision in the Superannuation bill for certain cases. I was certainly under the impression that in that bill we had covered all the needs of the service.


James Alexander Robb: I think so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: While I do not wish to
interfere with the rights of any civil servant 

far be it from me to do that; I want any retirement or pension bill we pass to be applicable and satisfactory to all-I think the bill that has just gone through this House will be fairly satisfactory to the civil service as a whole if it is approved by the Upper Chamber.


Mr. McBRIDE:: In my opinion no measure that ever came before the House received more consideration than did the Superannuation bill. The committee to whom the bill was referred considered the matter very carefully and very exhaustively. They were in session over it night after night, sometimes until one o'clock in the morning. Members of the Civil Service Commission came before us and expressed their views; and we obtained the opinion of the leaders of the different organizations in the public service. The measure was finally passed unanimously by
Public Service Retirement

the committee, there not being a dissenting voice from any member present. The committee's reason for recommending the extension of the Calder Act for a further period of six months was that there might be a means of providing for retirement in the event of the Superannuation bill failing to carry in the Upper Chamber.


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister say
whether it is intended that a man in the service, whether his condition demands it or not, must necessarily elect to be under the new act and subject to all its provisions, or else take retirement under the present measure?


James Alexander Robb: He cannot take retirement
under this act after it has lapsed. Until this act lapses he will have the choice as to which of the two he will accept. That is my understanding of it.


Arthur Meighen: Suppose he does not
choose to say "I will come under the new act," but simply says nothing at all; in that case would he come under the new act?


James Alexander Robb: I would not answer that question without going into the matter. We discussed that pretty carefully the other day when I had the new act before me.


Arthur Meighen: It is very important and I have some cases in mind. Suppose a man was appointed seven or eight years ago; he is approaching the age of seventy and is filling his post thoroughly well. Is there any course he can take that will avoid his coming under the new act and being automatically retired at the age of seventy years?


James Alexander Robb: I think provision is made in
the other act for extending the time for the further period of five years.


Arthur Meighen: That is up to a maximum of seventy?


James Alexander Robb: On the recommendation of the leputy minister.


Arthur Meighen: Up to a maximum of
seventy?


James Alexander Robb: I think for ten years from the date of the act coming in force-and I am speaking from memory-on the recommendation of the deputy minister the time may be extended for a further period of five years. Well, it may be five years from the date of the coming into force of the act. It is a fixed period, and after that period the civil servant retires automatically at the age of seventy.


Mr. LOGAN:: I think the ten-year period
was cut out, and it was left so that on the recommendation of the deputy minister the time could be extended for five years.


Arthur Meighen: That is to say, a man
retires, unless the deputy minister certifies, that he may continue five years more?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I have always been
opposed to this habit we have got into of late years of considering every man's usefulness over at the age of seventy or seventy-five.


James Alexander Robb: I would not like to admit it
myself.


Arthur Meighen: I think it is not only
nonsense, but it is loading on the country a superannuation list under which-well, it would take a very strong country indeed to maintain itself. We are getting a list of superannuated servants in this country which is simply insufferable? I know men who have gone out on the retired list since we left the department-and I am not speaking in a partisan sense, because we had laws that forced men out too soon when we were in office ourselves-who were just as fit to work as I am, just as good as they ever were and who had only matured their experience; now they are walking the streets of Ottawa, or driving automobiles at our expense, doing nothing for the rest of their lives. This provision for virtually allowing a deputy minister to let a man out at seventy years of age, if he thinks that a man is necessary at all, does not seem to me to be in the public interest. Personally I never had any enthusiasm, indeed I never had any support, for the clause which was inserted in the Judges' Act which compelled judges to retire at seventy-five years of age. I have known judges compelled to retire at that age, who are now eighty-three and just as good as they ever were, and we have been paying them their full salary for eight years, while they were walking the streets or playing golf in California. I have such cases in mind at this minute. We could not do that, fortunately, under the constitution, with judges of the High court and Supreme court; otherwise I would not doubt that we might have retired them at seventy. Gladstone was Prime Minister of England when well on the way to the nineties. I do not believe in fixed ages for retirement. I believe in some system by which a man will be kept in service and earning his money until he cannot give service any

Public Service Retirement
longer, and you cannot tell the time at which the period of usefulness ends, except by examination of the individual case. I know these remarks would be more appropriate on the Superannuation Act; but really I almost tremble when I think what is going to be the result of that act. It is going to load upon the backs of the taxpayers of Canada a tremendous and increasing burden as years go on, a burden in very many instances entailed in the support of people who are thoroughly able to work for their living.


James Alexander Robb: There is very much in what
my hon. friend says. I stated that I thought some arrangement for the extension of the period had been made. The extension will be for a period of five years, and in the original bill as presented that privilege was only granted for a period running from ten years from the date of the coming into force of the act. That has been amended, so that it may be extended for the further period of five years, on the recommendation of the deputy minister, approved by the Treasury Board. In my experience I have never had a deputy minister yet who would recommend the retirement of a man because he was aged; indeed, quite the reverse. I can recall deputy ministers saying "Now this man is of such an age, but he is the best man around; he has grown up with the business and understands all the details and is very useful." To that extent I agree with my hon. friend. As to the charge that it places upon the taxpayer, it is true there will be some additional charge, but as an economic measure it is better than the Calder Act, because the civil servant himself is contributing something. He contributes five per cent. We have discovered in recent months that many of the civil servants thought the Calder Act was going to lapse. There were innumerable cases coming before the Treasury Board where the parties were eligible for retirement. They figured it out in this way, "We would get so much under the act and go out and get another job."


Arthur Meighen: They did not retire.


James Alexander Robb: They did not retire from
work.


Arthur Meighen: The government does
not need to retire them.


James Alexander Robb: The government refused many of the applications.


James Alexander Robb: And we have not added to
our popularity by refusing many cases that came before us.


Arthur Meighen: The minister should
not be concerned about popularity.


James Alexander Robb: No, we have not been. That is why we have refused them. As the two acts come in and are running concurrently, if this act goes to the Upper Chamber, we might consider a modification of the date as suggested by my hon. friend.


Hance James Logan: I think, apart from the
question of increasing the burden of the country, many injustices are bound to occur under this act. It is perhaps a good idea to leave this matter entirely in the hands of the deputy ministers. However, there might be mistakes. I have in my mind at the present time a gentleman who occupied a position in the outside service, not far from Ottawa, and I was surprised to receive a letter from him the other day saying that he would be seventy years of age next year. He is so active that I had not any idea that he was even sixty years of age. I consider him a better man to-day than he ever was. He is getting a salary of over S4.000 to-day and next year he will be practically thrown on the street in a way, because his superannuation will amount to, I think, between SI,300 and SI.400. Certainly, it is an injustice to this man who has given good service, that he should be placed under those conditions. As the leader of the opposition says, he is a better man than ever he was and probably would be an efficient officer for at least the next five years, probably ten years. But this man will find himself without any option whatever unless the deputy minister comes to his rescue-and that may be doubtful. He is put out with an amount to live on of about one-third of what he is receiving to-day.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Can the minister tell me if I am correct in assuming that under the Calder Act a man may retire receiving an allowance according to the number of years he has served and also receiving the amount at present to his credit in the retirement fund plus 5 per cent interest? If that be the case, has this man any opportunity under this superannuation measure of drawing the amount at present to his credit in the retirement fund?


James Alexander Robb: I could not answer my hon.
friend offhand without going through the bill very carefully. We discussed the Superannuation bill in committee a few days ago.


Arthur Meighen: Under the Calder Act?
Public Service Retirement


James Arthurs: It has a distinct bearing upon this measure. This man would have no option after July 1 unless this measure passes.


James Alexander Robb: We are extending this act
so as to give the civil servant an opportunity of deciding which of the two he will accept.


Robert James Manion: I should like to associate
myself with the remarks of preceding speakers opposing the retiring of men at a certain age. As I lock back over the list of men who have accomplished big things, I can easily think of many men, even in our country who have been prominent figures at an advanced age. Our Liberal friends need not go very fai back to remember their great leader who was a prominent figure in this House after seventy years of age. In England, Asquith and Balfour, prominent figures in political life, are well past seventy years of age and are still doing able work.
There is another aspect of the case I wish to point out because I think the government should give a little more consideration to the question before fixing a certain age cf retirement as the absolute law of the county. To retire men who have been engaged for thirty or forty years in a particular line of work, unless they have something else to do, is the most ridiculous act anyone can perform, because it is a known fact that a large proportion of men who have been working for a great number of years at one occupation and who give it up without having any other work to do go to pieces. The government, because of all the different reasons advanced b3r different speakers, should seriously consider not fixing absolutely the age of retirement. I have in mind a civil servant who retired within the last few years. I do not remember whether his retirement took place under this government or the last. I understand from correspondence that he did not wish to retire at all; but the only opportunity he had of taking advantage of the superannuation allowance which he would get was to retire at once. He had been carrying on his work as a civil servant for many years, and he did not desire to retire because the superannuation allowance was not sufficient for him to live on, but unless he retired he ran the risk of not getting the superannuation allowance at all. He is finding life very dull; time hangs heavily upon his hands; he would be much better back at work, and that would be an advantage to him as well as to the country, because the country at present is paying two salaries instead of one as in the past. The 
minister should consider the matter well before having legislation passed definitely fixing the age of retirement in the Civil Service.


James Alexander Robb: I can assure the hon. member that the government is not desirous of retiring any public servants who are domg their work well.


Arthur Meighen: But the government has taken this action, and that is what I object to. I admit this discussion would be more appropriate on the other bill, but I was not present when that was under review. This legislation, however, is very much akin to it. The government has fixed a limit of seventy years with an option only of five years. I object to any limit at all and I think every case should be decided upon its merits. To retire a man compulsorily at seventy-five is not a good principle. I can give the minister a name right now. I do not know the age of Dr. Deville, head of the survey services of the government, but I presume under that act he will very soon have to retire. The government cannot replace him in Canada. He is at the head of his profession in this Dominion; he is as good as he ever was, and to all appearances he will be for another ten years. What utter nonsense it is, because of a statute which we passed deliberately and withoujt sufficient thought to be compelled to pay him a salary in retirement when he would probably far rather be where he is, although I have never spoken to him about the matter, and then to get some other man to take his place, likely at an advanced salary, because in all probability the government will come to parliament and say:	We find that we cannot
get a man at this salary; to get the best man in the country we have to pay him $15,000 a year, or something like that. This is the position we are getting into by retiring in obedience to an arbitrary law, men who are capable, who have gained their experience in the service, who have, by virtue of their own talents, walked right to the front. In my judgment, the salary list of Canada to-day, especially the retirement list, the judicial retirement list in particular, is enhanced out of all proportion to the necessities, just by breach of this principle, just by fixing this arbitrary age limit and requiring men to retire at that age irrespective wholly of their capacity to carry on. I really tremble when I think of what this Superannuation Act is going to put upon us in addition to certain acts of similar character that are now on the statute books.

Public Service Retirement


Mr. MARTELL:: I quite agree with the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) that there should be no arbitrary age at which a man must retire. There are times when a man should retire long before he does, but there should be discretion as between himself and the Governor in Council after a thorough investigation as to when he should retire. A judge on the bench often becomes very deaf, and it is hard for a solicitor or a counsel to try cases before him. He probably gets deaf when he is sixty-five years of age and he is not quite competent to carry on. But there are cases of men, seventy-five, seventy-six or seventy-seven years of age, who are really just at their best. I know cases in my constituency, and I am quite frank about the matter. The county court judge for the counties of Hants, Colchester and Kings, His Honour Judge Barclay Webster was appointed some seven or eight years ago. He is seventy-five years of age and he is bound to retire from the bench this fall. Any person who has ever practised before Judge Webster knows that he is a thorough gentleman and that he makes an excellent county court judge, I do not think Judge Webster washes to retire at the present time, and it is hard to say to him that he must retire, particularly at a time when he knows his circuit well and when every solicitor who practises before him feels that he is eminently qualified and fair. That is the fault of having an arbitrary age limit.
Some of us might be looking to be county court judges. I happen not to be one, but I am saying this to-day simply in fairness to the public service of this country. Some men, probably through no fault of their own, but through physical infirmity, should be retired vdien they are fifty-five or sixty years of age. But when a man reaches a certain age and is thoroughly qualified to carry on the work in which he is engaged, it is not fair for the people of this country to say that that man must be arbitrarily retired. As the leader of the opposition said, we are creating in this country a civilian pension list that will load the people with burdens grievous to be borne. The time has come when we must cease doing that sort of thing. I am one of those who believe that the state has a right to help out a public servant who has given good service to the country and who, through no fault of his own is unable to carry on his work. But it certainly is not in the interests of the country for parliament to set an age limit of 65 or 70 years at which civil servants shall 261
be compelled to retire whether or not they are longer fit to render satisfactory service. What will the people outside say? The average man in the country receives no pension; he has to provide for his own old age. If he earns, say, two or three dollars a day he is bound to make provision in some way or other out of those wages for a rainy day, and if through disease or sickness of any kind he dies, his wife and children are not provided for by the state. Now, men enter the Civil Service, not because the Civil Service asks them to do so, but because they want the job. There is no compulsion on anybody to enter the public service of this country, and when any man does take up a position under the government he knows just what to expect. Civil servants therefore in my opinion have just as much right to provide for their own old age as has anybody else in the country. I do not anticipate a lengthy carreer as a member of parliament, for the average country lawyer of modest means cannot afford to spend the greater portion of his life in parliament. And if I, as an ordinary country solicitor, should unfortunately pass into the beyond I certainly do not look to the state to make good any deficiencies in my fortune; the state is not going to say, "Martell, you have been a member of parliament and you served the country well in that capacity; the state will therefore provide for your wife and children." No; to the best of my ability I must provide for my family by insurance or in some other way in keeping with my means. And why should not the average man who enters the Civil Service be under the necessity of doing the same? If people would live within their means they would be able to make provision against the future; but I certainly do not think that the state should out of its bounty render people dependent upon the taxpayers of the country in this way. People cannot expect to live in Bacchanalian fashion, eating, drinking and being merry, "for to-morrow we die," and have the state provide for their old age and for the comfort of their families. That is not in the interest of the taxpayer; and anything of the kind will, I believe, be resented by the people.


Mr. LEWIS:: I rise to a point of order.
This discussion would be relevant under Bill No. 122, section 10, but I do not think it is in order now.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Notwithstanding my hon. friend who has become a parliamentary authority I hold that I am entirely in order.

Public Service Retirement


Arthur John Lewis: I urge the point of order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: To come back to my
point.


The CHAIRMAN:: The point of order
must first be disposed of.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I contend that I am in
order.


George Newcombe Gordon: The subject before the Chair has reference to retirements under the Public Service Retirement Act and as the question of age is in issue I rule that any discussion in regard thereto is in order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: In conclusion I emphasize that there should be no arbitrary age limit fixed for the retirement of public servants. Some men at 75 or 80 are better than younger fellows of 30; they have the experience of age and so long as a man has all his faculties about him and is evidently qualified to carry on there is no reason why he should be compelled to retire at the suggestion of any one.


Mr. WOODS:: I want to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member (Mr. Mar-tell) and also by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). I think we are drifting into a serious mistake when we provide for retiring allowances and for the retirement of men before they are incapacitated and unfit for further public service. In other walks of life there are hundreds of thousands of men who have laboured and toiled for many years without prospect of a retiring allowance in their declining years; they are forced to labour on so long as they are physically fit, and in order to provide for their families and those whom they leave behind they must economize to meet insurance or in other ways to provide against misfortune. On general principle therefore I am opposed to retirement allowances. In some cases I believe that a superannuation allowance might possibly be justified to provide for civil servants, men or women, who have struggled and served the public for a number of years on a very small salary which might not be more than sufficient to keep them comfortably in existence and to clothe them properly. But the highly paid officials, those who receive high salaries in the government service, are in an entirely different position, and it seems to me it is a mistake to provide abundantly for them in their old age. This sort of thing tends to develop the spirit of the spendthrift; people who are so provided for are apt to feel that they may go the limit, in the knowledge that the government will provide for
[Mr. Martell.J
them and their dependants later on. I want to emphasize the one ideal which has been so strenuously put forward and -that is the unwisdom of fixing an age limit. As has been stated, there are some individuals who should be retired possibly at 50 or 60; but there are those who are quite energetic and efficient at 75 and upwards, and who indeed sometimes are better fitted by reason of experience to discharge their duties than they were at an earlier age. I think therefore that the government is making a very serious mistake in fixing the age limit for retiring public servants at from 65 to 70. I am opposed to this, and I also object to retiring allowances for civil servants or government employees who have received a substantial and remunerative salary during the period of their service.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it within the power
of the minister to oblige civil servants to apply for retirement under the Calder Act?


James Alexander Robb: I do not think it is in the
power of the minister to do that, but in the past I think civil servants have been offered the advantages of the Calder Act under all governments which have been in office since that act was passed. I can remember very well that when M-r. Calder was a member of this House he said that it would be a matter of economy and would enable the government to dispense with the services of any who were not required.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it fair to give the
minister the power to say to a civil servant, "Here is the Calder Act; I want you to retire, and if you don't you will be dismissed"? If this act is to be extended, or if any provision of this kind is to be carried on the Statute books, I believe that the individual to whom it is to apply should1 have some right of appeal, some consideration, some hearing given him; whereas as the act now stands it is within the power, as I interpret it, and has been the practice for a minister who wants to get rid of a civil servant because he has a grudge against him, or desires for some other reason to be relieved of his presence, to bring him to retirement under this act.


James Alexander Robb: My understanding is that
unless this bill goes through the Calder Act is as dead as Pharaoh, and I do not propose, at this stage of the session, having a desire to effect some economy, to sit here very long trying to put this measure through. In recent months it has not been a case of ministers

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
trying to impose the Calder Act upon civil servants, but rather there has been a stampede of civil servants to take advantage of its provisions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not seeking to
obstruct the minister's bill, I am merely asking what I consider a very civil and pertinent question in connection with this bill. It is not fair to the civil servant to put him in that position.


Charles A. Stewart: It appears
to me that the Calder Act is being taken advantage of. If a civil servant remains until he is seventy years of age, I am inclined to think the Superannuation Act will be a great improvement over the Calder Act, because under present conditions after ten years' service a civil servant can take the benefits of the Calder Act. You can, of course, refuse to allow him to retire, but you are not going to get very good service out of him under such circumstances. For that reason I am rather in favour of the Superannuation Act. It must not be forgotten that there are very many people in the service to-day who, if they continue until they are seventy-five years of age, will practically, under their 5 per cent contribution, have provided for their retirement; but under the Calder Act on retirement they take out all they have paid in, plus usually a gratuity, and they leave the service without having contributed anything to carry them in their old age.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is it not a fact that
under the proposed Superannuation Act, if a civil servant should die his wife and children get the benefit of the 5 per cent that he has paid into the fund?


Charles A. Stewart: Up to a
certain period that is true.


Lewis Herbert Martell: But does the labouring
man's wife and children get the same consideration ?


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
arguing that point at all. I think in fairness to the civil servant that that is one part of the discussion which has been lost sight of.


Lewis Herbert Martell: We are too fair to civil
servants.


Charles A. Stewart: That may
be. As to what my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has stated, the fact is not that there has been a desire to retire these people, but rather that there has 261 i
been a rush on their part to be retired under the provisions of the Calder Act. There should be some time given to straighten this matter out. Therefore I am in favour of extending the act for a reasonable length of time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall said bill be
read a third time?
Some hon. MEMJ3ERS:	At the next
sitting of the House.



PUBLIC WORKS-HARBOURS AND RIVERS

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Harbours and rivers-Quebec-Chicoutimi basin- wharf repairs, $4,800.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Apparently $6,000 was
spent last year, and we have an expenditure of $4,800 this year. Is this work to be done by day labour or by contract? And what is it for?


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Public Works):: This is expenditure requested by
the district engineer to rebuild 109 feet of the wharf between the slips. There was an appropriation last year and an expenditure of $6,132. The work is required for the maintenance of the structure in good condition. The traffic on this wharf is quite heavy, consisting principally of a ferry steamer crossing to Ste. Anne de Chicoutimi every half hour, of another steamer making four trips weekly to Riviere aux Vases and of many schooners calling occasionally. Not less than 1,200 to 1,300 passengers, 360 vehicles and 100 tons of freight are transported weekly. The work will be done by day labour.


Robert James Manion: How much was spent last year?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: We spent $6,132.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Last year we
voted $6,000 for repairs. Now we have a further vote of $4,800. Is this work interrelated with the old?


John Warwick King: This is to rebuild a portion of the wharf that was not provided for last year, and for further repairs.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will anything be needed next year?
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: Not to my knowledge. This is expected to complete the wharf.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will this leave the wharf in good shape?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cross point-wharf extension, $3,600.
John Warwick King: This is to extend the easterly outer wing of the wharf 50 feet in length by 30 feet in width and 16 feet in height. The work is recommended by the district engineer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fa>bre-wharf repairs, $1,350.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
explanation here? We spent $600 on this wharf last year.


John Warwick King: This work is requested by the district engineer to renew some 2,000 square feet of three-inch flooring, to rebuild a slip, to replace floor stringers, to replace 8 waling pieces, to rebuild a section of riprap approach 32 feet long damaged by ice shove and action of waves during high water period in 1923, and to cover walls of freight shed with corrugated iron sheeting. These repairs are required for the proper maintenance of the wharf to accommodate regular traffic.


Robert James Manion: Has the minister at hand
the cost of these wharves originally? I am curious to know the percentage of maintenance cost.


John Warwick King: The original cost was $21,881 and there has been expended on repairs $7,757.


Robert James Manion: Over what period?


John Warwick King: From 1905 to
date.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fauvel-repairs to breakwater-wharf, $1,000.
John Warwick King: This is to renew flooring and stringers to the extent of 300 feet.


Robert James Manion: Is there any stated average percentage of cost of repairs or upkeep of these wharves? I have noticed since I came into the House that whether under this government or the late government there have always been a number of items of this kind.


John Warwick King: The percentage
would vary a good deal, according to the circumstances.


Robert James Manion: Would it be 5 per cent,
10 per cent or 20 per cent?


John Warwick King: Probably about 5
or 10 per cent, depending on the character of the structure, its location and the use to which it is put.


Arthur Meighen: What county is this in?


John Warwick King: Bonaventure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fort William-wharf repairs, $1,000.
John Warwick King: This is for renewing 2,500 square feet of flooring in the landing head and approach, replacing window panes and protecting glass with screens. It is recommended by the engineer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
$950 spent for last year?


John Warwick King: Replacing pile
caps on ice breaker, shackling pile caps to piles and renewing sheeting; replacing 3,500 feet board measure 3-inch flooring on approach, patching flooring on landing head, temporarily reinforcing stringers, and minor repairs to freight shed.


Robert James Manion: The minister mentioned
minor repairs to freight shed. Do we keep up freight sheds?


John Warwick King: Yes, for the storing of freight. This, of course, is Fort William, Quebec.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I was asking the
question generally. Do any government boats run up there?


John Warwick King: No.


Robert James Manion: All the freight sheds at the head of the lakes, for instance, are kept up by private corporations. The Canadian Pacific have some; the Northern Navigation Company have some, and the same applies to the other concerns. It is true we have some for the Canadian National Railways, but under circumstances of this kind why should the government be keeping up the freight shed?


John Warwick King: These are small
communities, and unless they were co-operative societies they could not have a shed of that character. It is to give the accommodation to the public in small localities.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Gaspe Basin (Sandy Beach)-wharf repairs, $7,450.
Arthur John Lewis: Will the minister explain
this item?
Mr. KING (Kootena30 :	This is to fill in
and level the approach with earth material; to fill in and level with earth material the spaces between north face of the 9 p.m. wharf and shed and south face of the wharf and shed; to lay a concrete surface over the area included between northerly, southerly, and easterly faces of crib work construction; to make general repairs to shed located on wharf and to place hardwood fenders 25 by 10 feet by 12 inches and 600 lineal feet of hardwood walings 10 by 12 inches along the southerly face of wharf starting from outer or easterly face towards the shore.


Robert James Manion: What was the original cost of that wharf?


John Warwick King: 


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the
dimensions of the wharf?


John Warwick King: It is composed of an approach 296 by 15; of a first crib 144 by 45, and of the main wharf, 725 feet long by 75 feet wide, built from 1910 to 1914.


Arthur Meighen: How much business is
done per year at that point?


John Warwick King: A good deal of
pulp manufactured by the St. Lawrence Pulp Company at Chandler goes over this wharf, the output being over 100 tons a day. Some 80,000 tons of coal are also unloaded on this wharf, and many thousand cords of pulpwood are shipped. [DOT]


Arthur Meighen: It would appear to be a wharf just for the St. Lawrence Pulp Company; I presume the coal is theirs. We have spent $300,000 odd on it, and it took last year $5,500 to keep it in shape and this year $7,500. What is it going to cost next year?


John Warwick King: I imagine the
pulp industry is the industry of that district. The wharf undoubtedly is a great accommodation to the industry and to the people associated with it. There is a very large district round about which is served by this wharf. It is the main deep water wharf for the shipping in that district.


Arthur Meighen: How many people live
in the village?


John Warwick King: I have not the
figures, but I am informed there are about
1,500 people living in the vicinity. Gaspe is the terminus of the A. W. and W. Railway, that connects over 202 miles of rails with the Intercolonial Railway at Matapedia west of Gaspe, serving a large section of country.


Arthur Meighen: It does seem to me
that some policy might be adopted of having large industries which really get the whole benefit of wharf construction and maintenance to contribute something toward that maintenance. If that industry were somewhere else it would have to supply its own facilities for access to the railway. Why should all these: facilities be provided and maintained for it?' Fifteen hundred people would not be more than enough to sustain a pulp mill producing 100 tons of pulp a day. The people of the district would not be served at all because they are not exporting any products. I would: not think they would likely use it very much; it is really a pulp mill wharf, and the cost of it is very great. Are there any cases where individual corporations using wharves contribute to their maintenance?


John Warwick King: The work at
Matane is being contributed to by a corporation who are paying practically 50 per cent of the expenditure there. The other night we passed a vote where a brick company was paying one-third of the cost. I think that is fair. This pulp company is not, I understand, operating directly at the wharf site but they ship their pulp down and it goes over the wharf, and they pay the Marine department certain wharfage dues.


Arthur Meighen: It does seem to me too bad that a different department is collecting the revenue from the one that- is spending the money. I asked the minister what the . revenue was from this wharf and he told me he did not know; that the collection was in another department. I am going to see whether I am right or wrong. What do we get out of this wharf?


John Warwick King: In 1916-17, $150 was collected. In 1918-19 the collections amounted to $1,000. In 1922 the sum of $190 was collected. That is all the information I have.


Arthur Meighen: Cannot the minister give the information for subsequent years?


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose nothing at all is being collected now.	.


John Warwick King: I imagine some
revenue is being collected.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Arthur Meighen: It is funny we have no
information up to date as to the Matane wharf. In my opinion I think it is an outrage to be contributing a dollar. The wharf instead of being an advantage to the country is a disadvantage. It may be an advantage to the company to get pulpwood out of the Dominion, but why we should put up $100,000 to denude our forests for the advantage of the United States and United States Corporations is a mystery to me. However, we will get to that later on. Why is it that in cases where it is a commercial enterprise, where it is part of a plant of a commercial enterprise, there is not a system of maintenance, of dues that will sustain it? Can the minister give any reason why there is not such a system in operation?


John Warwick King: No, we have followed what seems to have been the practice here. I quite agree with my right hon. friend, and I am making representations along those lines-that where there is any development, a large pulp industry or otherwise, and there is a large expenditure of money, these people should include that as part of their capital investment. However, that has not been the practice in the past. I do not think this wharf is used entirely by the pulpwood concern. The district is a large one and this wharf is the only high level wharf in that section. If it did not exist the people of the district would not have that accommodation which is so essential to the fishermen and others who earn their livelihood in the neighbourhood.


Arthur Meighen: On what basis is the
revenue contributed?


John Warwick King: I understand the rates are fixed from time to time by order in council-so much per ton of material, so much per head of stock, and so on. I do not imagine the rates are unduly high; they cannot be with the collections that have been made. However, the Public Works department does not collect these revenues.


Arthur Meighen: They would not pay
the salary of the wharfingers.


John Warwick King: I would think
not.


Mr. PARENT:: As a matter of fact I do not think any government has tried to collect dues of the kind, either the government of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition or the preceding administration. It would cost more to collect dues than would be derived in revenue. These wharves are built for the special purpose of encouraging [Mr. J. H. King.}
the agricultural community and bringing about the development of our forests. Were it not for these facilities neither those engaged in farming nor in lumber wrould benefit; and the forest would be left to become the prey of the devouring element which has brought so much destruction to our timber in the past.


Arthur Meighen: I entirely approve of the policy of constructing wharves that are necessary. It is just on the same basis as the construction of railways, in order to take care of the needs of the population for transport; and the country should manifest just the same interest in it and provide facilities on just as generous a scale for the one as for the other. But on the same basis it would appear to me that there should be something like equality in support. We at least pretend to follow the principle-we do not always manage to live up to it,-that when a railway is built the tolls must take care of the cost of operating that railway and interest on the construction.


Georges Parent: There is no railway down
there.


Arthur Meighen: We have not always
done it I know but we try to do it. That is what we aim at. We cannot do that perhaps in the case of wharves but we should at least lay that down as the cardinal principle of policy and seek to live up to it. I am not claiming that any different policy was adopted under the late government. I just call attention to instances like these where we have assumed a responsibility for a corporation when it is not ours at all. Why should we be supplying the capital for maintenance purposes when they are only exporting pulp; when they are not even making paper?


Mr. POWER:: Why should there be discrimination against this particular company, and the fishermen compelled to pay who are too poor to incur that liability?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know a single
thing about the company.


Charles Gavan Power: Neither do I. It is just
establishing a principle as I understand it. We allow the use of these wharves without payment of toll because in a large number of cases, particularly on the north shore, the fishermen and farmers are not in a position to pay. In this particular case a pulpwood company is using the wharf. Would the right hon. gentleman have us charge the company and not charge their neighbours who are not in a position to pay?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Mr. LUCAS:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Charles Gavan Power: I am not arguing this matter, I am asking the leader of the opposition to answer my question.


William Thomas Lucas: The bon. gentleman made
a statement that the farmers and fishermen of that part of Quebec are not able to pay tolls for the use of these wharves.


Charles Gavan Power: We are not so wealthy as
the western farmers.


William Thomas Lucas: Is it not a fact that those
people have to pay freight rates when they ship anything over the railways?


Charles Gavan Power: In some cases they pay
freight rates but they also have to contribute their share judging from the estimates, towards the cost of operation of the National Railways. I cannot for the life of me see the distinction between a contribution towards a wharf, costing perhaps a thousand dollars, and a contribution towards meeting a deficit of fifty or sixty million dollars on railway operations.


John Millar: I am always in better humour when we get over the estimates for these wharves. Strung along the Atlantic coast and the St. Lawrence are wharves by the hundreds. I cannot help thinking that the construction of these wharves grew up in former years-


An hon. MEMBER:: Through corruption.


John Millar: Yes through corruption,
and it has become a long standing abuse. When I listen to the discussion of these estimates I wonder if there was ever an attempt to make an equal distribution of money from the federal treasury as between the provinces. Here are millions of dollars spent in some provinces and not a cent expended for the same purpose in other parts of the country. If this expenditure was more on a parity throughout the country then there would be less reason to object. We are voting for expenditure after expenditure where large sums of money are spent in some of the provinces and none in the other provinces whatsoever. In the city of Toronto we find that $7,000,000 was spent for the harbour in a number of years, and I believe I am correct in saying that not one cent has been received in interest, or very, very little. Reference has been made to money expended in building railways. Of course railways are expected to charge a rate that will return the money invested in them, as well as the expense of running them. Reference has also been made
to the fact that if those wharves were not built there would be no settlement there. The people are not able to build them themselves. The same thing could be said of the prairie provinces and the same could be said in regard to the elevators; and yet there is not one cent expended by the government or the companies. The charges made are sufficient to meet all expenditures. Possibly the government may build a terminal elevator in the wrong place and it will not pay the charges, but other elevators are sufficiently remunerative to make up the difference. The prairie provinces are not getting fair consideration in the expenditure of this money. There is no expenditure in those provinces to offset the expenditure in the other districts-none whatever. Every cent of expenditure incurred in the handling of grain, of cattle, and of incoming freight is returned; and this traffic pays its own way. Those who receive and those who ship bear all that expense.


Georges Parent: We do the same in Quebec. We pay our own way.


John Millar: Do you pay for your
wharves?


Georges Parent: They are for the general
benefit of Canada.


John Millar: So are the elevators, but
we do not get the money for them. We have to pay the money.


Georges Parent: Like any other factory.


John Millar: In the case of scores of
these wharves not one cent of interest is received. The minister gave some items showing returns, but they were so small I thought I could see the minister smiling. He thought it was a good joke himself, because they were very small. There are other expenditures where the same thing occurs, which I will refer to later. There is a great deal of injustice being done, and I certainly would like to see the time come when the government will adopt a policy that is fair to all. I am sure the trade will not warrant many of those expenditures, and there is no justification for them. The people living in those constituencies have been favoured with the expenditure in past years, they look for it, they trust they will receive it, and they get it; but I must raise my voice in protest against those expenditures. I know that many of them are not justified.


Robert James Manion: There is another aspect of the case, I am not bringing it up with the desire to differ from my hon. friend, and I am not defending these expenditures. I simply
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

refer to it without any desire for controversy. While it is true that in the prairie provinces no money to amount to anything is spent on wharves, dredging and that sort of thing, at the same time the tens of millions of dollars that have been spent at the head of the lakes, on the Welland canal, on the Soo canal, and on the deepening of the St. Lawrence must tend to lower freight rates, and indirectly benefit to a great extent the prairie provinces. I think my hon. friend will agree with that.


John Millar: Yes.


Robert James Manion: And there is no charge for that. At the head of the lakes $13,000,000 has been spent. Practically very little of that, perhaps $3,000,000, has been spent for more or less private corporations-I mean for elevator companies and so forth-to permit the boats to get to the sides of the elevators; but $10,000,000 of that sum I think has been spent for the general harbour improvement, which indirectly benefits to a great extent the prairie farmer, because it gives him an advantage in shipping his wheat. The same is true of the Vancouver expenditures. Once the Welland canal is put into commission, as it ultimately will be probably by the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway, all those millions of dollars which have been spent on harbours will give to the prairie farmer an indirect advantage which perhaps will make up to a very large extent for the amounts spent in small wharves in the farming and fishing sections of the country. I point that out as a justification of the expenditure but not with any desire to start a controversy on it. I think my statement is correct to a very great extent.


John Millar: Is it not a fact that the
grain handled through the terminal elevators pays the entire cost of construction and handling?


Robert James Manion: Yes, of course. I was not discussing elevators. I was discussing harbour improvements, which have nothing to do with the elevators, I was referring to the building of harbours and breakwaters to permit ships to come up to them and handle the grain of the West.


John Millar: But that is not an expenditure for the prairie provinces exclusively.


Robert James Manion: The expenditure is not
exclusively for them, because it benefits the manufacturer; but it does benefit the prairie

provinces because the boats could not handle the wheat without the facilities which are given by the millions of dollars of expenditure.


Mr. WARNER:: Is it not a fact that they
do business enough to justify the outlay?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grand Entree (M.I.)-'breakwater extension, $1,500.
John Warwick King: This is in Gaspd county and completes the construction of the western breakwater, 400 feet long, commenced in 1923-24.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grand Entree (M.I.)-wharf repairs, improvements and extension, $3,700.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a new item?


John Warwick King: This expenditure is requested by District Engineer Amiot to raise and level the wharf in places, to raise the freight shed three feet, to repair and replace the roof of the freight shed, to enlarge the wharf by 15 feet along the 45 foot frontage and 15 feet along the 40 foot south east side and to surround the whole with sheet piling.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it all being done by
day labour the same as the rest?


John Warwick King: This will be done by day labour.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Keeping up the new extravagant practice?


John Warwick King: No, we are saving money.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grand Piles-Freight shed, $2,300.
John Warwick King: This item is for the construction of a freight shed 300 feet long by 30 feet wide.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why should this not be
done by contract?


John Warwick King: It might be. It
would depend on the report of the engineers. It can be let by contract if there are contractors in that vicinity who can handle it.


Mr. BOL  S@: Who owns the land on which
the freight shed is to be constructed?


John Warwick King: The property has been transferred to the Crown free of charge.


William Alves Boys: We have the title to the land on which it is to be erected?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Robert James Manion: How many people are tributary to the freight shed which is to be built?


John Warwick King: The population
is not given. It is the terminus of the Canadian Pacific branch line and is the starting point between Grandes Piles and La Tuque, a distance of seventy-five miles. All goods, materials, outfits, and so forth, for shanties and people living along the St. Maurice river, are unloaded at- Grandes Piles to be distributed by boats. This traffic is considerable during the summer season and there is no shed to shelter the merchandise which has to be left in freight cars while waiting to be shipped by boats. Besides many others, two regular line steamers and scows ply twice a week during navigation season between Grandes Piles and La Tuque with passengers and freight. Apparently, this is for supplies tributary to the whole district.


Arthur John Lewis: This particular item seems
to lend itself pretty well to contracting although it is under 15,000. This is for a new building and as the specifications can be clearly given, a contract should be brought into play.


John Warwick King: This place is
some distance away from the centre of population and contractors are not going to move out for a small job of that kind. It could not be done by contract unless there was a local contractor.


Arthur John Lewis: Are all the engineers who
look after this kind of work familiar with the rule as to all work over 15,000?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Mr. HALBERT:: Does the government
keep a supply of men under an overseer the same as the railway companies going around repairing these wharves?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to point
out to the minister, because a little conversation that has just passed between him and the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) will be cited as an authority for establishing the desirability of, doing work under $5,000 by day labour, that is not the intention of the arrangement at all. The intention is that in extraordinary cases the minister may, up to $5,000, do the work by day labour. What I want to insist upon, as I did the other day, is that this work should
be done by contract wherever possible. This is a shed and it ought to be done by contract. This is a little village, and to have competition between local carpenters would be a very healthy way of doing the work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grindstone (MI.)-waiting room and wharf im-proveinents, $3,250.
John Warwick King: This is to construct a waiting room on stone foundation some 100 feet away from freight shed and fifty feet away from any timber works and a timber breast work of 130 feet from outside rock cape to pier opposite east end of freight shed, with 6,800 superficial feet of back filling for a height of twelve feet. It is recommended by the district engineer.


William Alves Boys: Is this another case in which
we have title?


John Warwick King: We have title.


William Alves Boys: When was it acquired?


John Warwick King: The property
where this shed will be located has been in the Crown for a number of years. It adjoins the wharf property.


William Alves Boys: Is the property on which the
wharf is constructed also in the Crown?


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Do any railways use the freight shed?


John Warwick King: No.


William Alves Boys: It is just for the benefit of
the people?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grondines wharf, $35,000.
John Warwick King: This is a revote
required towards the continuation of the construction of a wharf 1,125 feet long. It is proposed to continue another section of this wharf, and the construction of this section will make it possible for ships and boats to land at all heights of water and will probably meet conditions for the present at that point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the total amount of the contract?


John Warwick King: We have not contracted yet, but there will be a contract this year for an estimated expenditure of between $35,000 and $40,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What was the amount of last year's contract?
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: 


Henry Herbert Stevens: For what class of work?


John Warwick King: The construction
of the first section.


Arthur John Lewis: Will this item complete the
work?


John Warwick King: It. is the second
section of the wharf 400 feet long. It is concrete construction.


William Alves Boys: Is there any revenue in connection with this wharf?


John Warwick King: It is not being
utilized as yet.


William Alves Boys: Why is it that there is a
revenue in some cases and not in others?


John Warwick King: I think it is a
matter of practice. In small communities where the tonnage is very light and the wharf is for the benefit of the people directly, probably no charge is made. In larger settlements of towns where the importers are merchants, people who are handling goods for profit, a charge is made. At Grondines, the work is not yet in a position to earn a revenue. It is an uncompleted structure. It is not yet at the point at which the wharf would be handed over eventually to the Marine department for administration and collection of revenue.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought the
minister said this was an extension of an existing wharf?


John Warwick King: It is a new wharf.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We embarked
on a new wharf last year.


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grosse Roche-wharf repairs, $1,250.
John Warwick King: This is to renew
the longitudinals, stringers, flooring and railing for a length* of 65 feet at the inner end of the wharf. It is recommended by the district engineer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much was spent last year and how much has been spent on this altogether?


John Warwick King: Last year, $3,016. The total expenditure on this wharf to date is $21,727.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
CMr. Stevens.]
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $75,000.
Arthur John Lewis: WTas the full amount of $75,000 spent last year?


John Warwick King: $62,778.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
He Verte-wharf reconstruction, $3,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: We had one reconstruction last year and apparently we have another this year.


John Warwick King: This is to rebuild on four feet in height the superstructure of the outer end of the wharf 139 feet 9 inches by 41 feet; replacing cap-piece, flooring, stringers and two rows of cross and longitudinal ties. Last year we rebuilt the shore end portion of the wharf upon 285 feet by the width of the wharf and upon a height varying from three to six feet; and rebuilt entirely another portion 178 feet in length by the width of the wharf. The appropriation last year was $4,500 and the amount expended was $4,505. This work is additional to that of last year.


William Alves Boys: When was it originally constructed?


John Warwick King: In 1886.


Henry Lumley Drayton: One bit of the
wharf was fixed up last year at a cost of $4,500 and we are repairing the shore end this year for $3,500. What about the middle? Shall we have to fix that up next year?


John Warwick King: This will put the wharf in order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This finishes it?


John Warwick King: Yes, for the time being.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Apart from
storms; we are out of the stormy neighbourhood in this case?


John Warwick King: There might be
ice jams.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lachine-reconstruction of G.T.E. wharf, $25,000.
Arthur John Lewis: This item relates to the railways. Why is it among these votes?


John Warwick King: The Grand Trunk maintained a wharf at Lachine years ago but they are not using it now and it is out of repair. There is a tremendous traffic at this point in connection with the highway leading into the city of Montreal and the government

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
are leasing this wharf from the railways with a view to effecting a considerable economy. We are reconstructing a portion of it to give the service required.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Grand
Trunk did not maintain this merely as a highway wharf.


John Warwick King: I did not say
that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was a part of their system.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister give the facts? Perhaps there is a report on the matter.


John Warwick King: The construction
of a public wharf at this point was considered some years ago and a wharf site was purchased at a considerable cost. To make it suitable for landing purposes an expenditure of $156,516 would be necessary. That work has not been proceeded with although the wharf site was secured. In utilizing the old Grand Trunk pier the expenditure of $25,000 which we are now asking the committee to vote will be sufficient to give suitable accommodation. The report of the chief engineer reads:
The Grand Trunk wharf at Lachine is in a very dilapidated condition, indeed, owing to the fact that no money has been spent in its repair and that in its dilapidated condition it has allowed the ice shoves in the spring, at high water, to destroy its utility as a wharf.
The wharf may foe considered to consist in two parts separated by a culvert, which is used to prevent water in the basin on the south west side of the wharf becoming stagnant	
Since the advent of the automobiles and the improvement of highways, the ferry service between Caughnawaga and Lachine has been greatly improved. At Caughnawaga, the ferry lands at the government wharf, and the department has so improved facilities at the ferry that the two boats used on this service are able to run almost continuously the traffic demanding that they commence in the early hours in the morning and continue until late at night	
This wharf is adjoining [DOT] the Department of Marine wharf at Lachine, and rebuilt as proposed will accommodate the traffic of the place, which is now very much handicapped by the absence of good wharf accommodation.
The Grand Trunk Railway wharf is to-day in an absolutely dilapidated condition, the cribwork has been torn down by the last spring ice-shoves, and what was left in places is rotten.
Rebuilt as proposed, this wharf will accommodate the general traffic of the place for many years to come	
In 1921, when there was only one steamboat, the "Hebron" making the ferry service, the traffic was as follows:
Passengers, 16.800.
Automobiles, 10,500.
Market vehicles, 15,750, and merchandise of all sort# more than 2,000 tons.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did that traffic bear
revenue?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is there any information
on that?


John Warwick King: I do not think
so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister has not given the report under which the government assumed responsibility for the cost of the structure and got title to it. That is what I want.


John Warwick King: Negotiations are
now in progress with the Grand Trunk but the lease is not yet completed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The negotiations are still going on?


John Warwick King: Yes; they have
been going on for some time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know
why we should build a wharf when the negotiations have not been completed.


John Warwick King: We are dealing
with the Canadian National Railways and I think it is safe to do that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I daresay it may be safe; it entirely depends on who is looking after the book-keeping. It might be possible however sometimes to put these things on a business basis. Is the Grand Trunk trying to sell that wharf to the government?


John Warwick King: No.
Sir HENRY' DRAY TON: Then what are the terms of the present negotiations?


John Warwick King: A twenty year
lease is being negotiated.


William Alves Boys: I suppose the site is now owned by the Canadian National Railways?


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Alves Boys: I understand that some site
was previously acquired, I believe the minister said, at a considerable cost, and it is the intention to abandon that and reconstruct this dock to take its place.


John Warwick King: That is right.


William Alves Boys: What wras paid for the site
which is to be adandoned?


John Warwick King: In 1914 the government bought from the Payeur Brothers a site at a cost of $14,233. That site was not in navigable water and as a matter of fact I do not think it would be possible to approach
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

it at all. It would necessitate a tremendous amount of dredging at a cost of $156,000 and we are not going on with that work as originally intended. Instead we are utilising this wharf which is now the property of the Canadian National Railways and we hope to lease it at a dollar a year and construct the work we have in mind for 125,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is being
done now with the other site? Property there has increased very much in value and I should think something would be done with that.


John Warwick King: In 1917 an order
in council was passed authorizing the lease of the wharf site purchased in 1914 to the city, to be used as a public park or playground at a nominal rental, the lease to be during pleasure, subject to the condition of the city assuming any liability for damage to property.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is going to be done with the property now?


John Warwick King: We will try to
sell it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What value does the government put on it as real estate?


John Warwick King: I do not know. Item agreed to.
La Motte-wharf, $4,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is new.


John Warwick King: Yes. We propose to build a wharf lllj feet long, drawing 6 feet high at landing head, 48 by 48, built 6 feet above low water level, with approach 16 feet wide by 63i feet long. A freight shed, 16 by 12 feet, on pile work foundation, is also provided for. This is in the district of Pontiac and is for the accommodation of the people in the municipality of La Motte West, a farming community 23 miles south of Amos on the west side of the Harricana river. It had a population of 600 in June 1921. It is a new community that is growing rapidly. The territory is tributary to the Canadian National Railway.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this entirely new?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What other
wharves have we on the Harricana river?


John Warwick King: No others.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
engineering report justifying this commencement?


John Warwick King: The municipality of La Motte West is a farming community 23 miles south of Amos, on the west side of the Harricana river with a population of 600 in June 1921. The district is growing rapidly apparently, for five years ago there v/as only one family in the locality; they now have a store, a school and a post office.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the in-lustry there?


John Warwick King: The village is
about 1J miles from the proposed wharf site at the foot of a public roadway in Lizotte bay. On the opposite side of the river there are two saw mills which are said to cut approximately four million feet of lumber per season.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will they use this wharf from the other side?


John Warwick King: Only to unload
their merchandise.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
reason for the increase of population?


John Warwick King: It is the centre
for that farming community.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There was only one family there a few years ago; some industry must have been started.


John Warwick King: The country is
being settled very rapidly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There must be
some local reason. Who owns the land on which this wharf is to be built?


William Alves Boys: The chief reason given by
the minister for the construction of a wharf at this point is apparently a population of 600 people. Is it the policy of the department to construct wharves wherever there happen to be 500 or 600 people? If so, the minister will be deluged with applications. How close is the nearest wharf to this proposed structure, and how far is it from the junction of the river in question with the Ottawa, into which it flows, I suppose?


John Warwick King: It is not the
policy of the department to build wharves for every 500 or 600 people. A wharf is being built here because this is a new section which is being developed very rapidly. It is 23 miles from railway transportation. There is apparently quite a settlement within the vicinity and a well settled district round about. As these newer sections are opened up there will have to be expenditures of this character.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will this work be done
by contract or by day labour?


John Warwick King: By contract. We are going to call for tenders.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is a ray of sunshine.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend did not give me the name of the owner of the land, nor did he say how much he is paying for it.


John Warwick King: It is a transfer
from the Quebec government to the Dominion government free of charge.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Accompanied
with a bonus for building the wharf?


John Warwick King: I think not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
La Reine-wharf, $4,200.
John Warwick King: This is to construct a cribwork wharf extending out 68 feet, to consist of three open face round timber cribs 13 feet by 33 feet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where is it? In Pontiac?


John Warwick King: In Pontiac. The
population of the village is now 1,250: This place has been growing steadily. The chief industries consist of lumbering and farming. There are now five saw-mills operating in the village and two on lake Abitibi. There are now ten merchants at La Reine who are doing business with settlers along the river, and last season some 2,000 tons of general merchandise was handled by boat.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How is it
landed now?


John Warwick King: They are doing
the best they can without any accommodation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the engineer say anything else?


John Warwick King: Yes. He states
that the following boats navigate the Okikodosik river and lake Abitibi:	The
Abitibi Power and Paper Company has 4 alligators, 50 to 80 feet in length, draught 4.5 feet, 2 large scows and 4 gasoline launches; the fishing interests operate a steamboat 85 feet long, 10-foot beam, 5-foot draught, 5 power boats and 2 scows; Mr. Marchand's steamboat, 50 feet long, 15-foot beam, 4-foot
draught; Mr. Goulet's steamboat, 35 feet long, 11-foot beam, 4-foot draught; Mr. Joseph Duserault's steamboat, 31 feet long, 8-foot beam, 4-foot draught; there are, in addition, 45 to 50 gasoline launches used by settlers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Apparently this is quite a steamboat place. Where do they get their wharf accommodation now?


Mr. BUREAU:: They beach their boats.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How do we get the land here, is it under the same arrangement as at La Motte?


John Warwick King: It is in the right of the province.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are we to get
the land for nothing?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lavaltrie-reconstruction of wharf approach, $5,800.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Last year we
started reconstructing this wharf. Perhaps the minister will give us the details.


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Chairman, I beg to
move that the wording of this item be amended to read. " Reconstruction of wharf and approach."


Henry Lumley Drayton: What will this
work consist of?


John Warwick King: Removing old
crib structure along downstream side of approach, north and east faces of headblock; building a concrete wall at the same place; building concrete steps on the north face of wharf for small craft; completing stone filling of headblock; laying a concrete flooring on the whole surface of same and building a new freight shed 16 by 30 feet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Apparently we
thought we were making a complete job of it last year, yet we have another appropriation this year.


Jacques Bureau: It is hard to make a complete job with any dock on the St. Lawrence river. It all depends on the way the ice comes down. If the water rises and shoves the ice on the shores the docks are bound to be injured, especially the old crib work; the ice gets into the logs and the filling works out.


William Alves Boys: Are we to understand that
$2,300 was voted last year to take care of this work and that owing to ice jams we now have to spend $5,800 more?
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Jacques Bureau: You never know what you have to spend.


William Alves Boys: There must be a large amount of business there.


John Warwick King: Early in the
spring there was a tremendous ice shove which caused very considerable damage and the vote of last year was not sufficient to do the work. That is why we are asking this additional sum.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Les Eboulements-wharf repairs, $1,800.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is this for?


John Warwick King: Ordinary repairs
-to renew face timbers, coping, sheathing, 14 fenders, hinges and fastenings of movable slip and 200 cubic yards of gravel surface.


Charles Gavan Power: Is there any revenue from
that wharf?


John Warwick King: I have no record
of any revenue being collected.


Charles Gavan Power: Is that the wharf at which
the boats of the Canada Steamship Company stop?


John Warwick King: Yes, I think so.


Charles Gavan Power: Do the Canada Steamships
Limited not pay anything to the government for the use of the wharf?


John Warwick King: I believe they
do. I would not be sure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What has been the total
cost of this work?


John Warwick King: The total expenditure to March 31, 1923, was $134,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Les Esconmains-wharf repairs, $3,700.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this a new item?


John Warwick King: This amount is
required for urgent repairs to the flooring of the remaining inner end of the wharf.


William Alves Boys: If these ice jams, of which
I have just been shown some photographs, are to occur from year to year the only thing to do, it seems to me, will be to build fewer wharves and make them more permanent in their character. Is this another case of repairs being needed owing to flow of ice in the spring?


John Warwick King: The department
are adopting the practice of building the more important works with concrete. The outer

end of this wharf was demolished by severe storms in 1914 and this damage was increased in 1920. An estimate has been made for rebuilding, but as the cost would be considerable the department are simply holding the work together to make it serve the purpose without expending too large an amount.


Robert James Manion: What was the original
cost?


John Warwick King: $40,777.


William Alves Boys: What is the population?


John Warwick King: About 986, according to the 1921 census.


William Alves Boys: What business can there be
there to justify the expenditure of $40,000? I do not care what government was in office- it may have been the government I supported -it does seem to me that this is a large amount to spend where there is a population of only 900.


John Warwick King: Apparently there
is a deposit of mica in this vicinity that is being developed. The Laurentide Pulp and Paper Company are also operating large saw mills. At present they are transferring their lumber from small boats to larger boats anchored out in the deep water. They ship annually 10,000 cords of pulpwood and about 2,000,000 feet of sawn lumber. They also import a considerable quantity of stock and provisions.


William Alves Boys: When was the wharf constructed?


John Warwick King: In 1904.


William Alves Boys: I was wondering to what extent this wharf had stood up to the 10 p.m. ice jams. How much money has been spent on it since its construction?


John Warwick King: The other twothirds of the wharf have been practically destroyed by the ice; we are maintaining one-third. The total amount spent to date is $48,980.


Robert James Manion: I have no quarrel with
items of this kind where there is a fair settlement and where there is no railway connection. But take, for example, this expenditure of $40,000. As the hon. member, (Mr. Boys) has said, I do not know what government made the original expenditure and I am not specially criticising it. But in my own constituency there is a section at Cloud Bay where there are some hundreds of people- I do not know the exact population,-who are without railway connection of any kind and

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
are badly in need of a wharf. The estimate of the engineers for the construction of a wharf there was about S7,000, I believe. I have laid this matter before the minister this year, and I assume that it is now too late to get an amount in the supplementary estimates. But I give the minister a year's notice that next year when items of this kind are up I am going to! raise a row if Cloud Bay is neglected altogether while we spend on repairs for wharves, where the population is no greater, an amount that would build the whole wharf required at Cloud Bay. Because it is a group of farmers that are concerned here, and by the way they did not vote for me at the last election. Perhaps they will next time if I succeed in getting this wharf for them; I am sure the minister will see fit to help me out. However, speaking seriously I am not objecting to works of this character. Sections like this where groups of farmers or fishermen are located have to be served, and I am one of those who believe in service. At the same time we should endeavour to carry out such works in the most economical way possible. But certainly eases such as I have mentioned, where a group of farmers have gone in to a point about thirty or forty miles from the town of Fort William and have no way of getting out except by a poor wagon road deserve consideration. I hope the minister will remember my words and when he is introducing his estimates next year will see that these farmers get the wharf they stand so much in need.


Mr. SAVARD (Translation) :: Mr. Chairman, The parish of Escoumains is an important one in the county of Saguenay. Quite a large industry is established in that place; there are to be found farmers, numerous *workmen, fishermen and many sailors. The Saguenay Lumber Company carries on lumbering in that part of the country. Goods are imported and lumber is exported yearly in large quantities. Moreover, there exists a regular boat service between Les Escoumains and the south shore. This wharf is therefore of great importance for that part of the Saguenay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
L'Islet-wharf repairs, $12,600.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a large item. Last year the sum of $23,500 was spent, and now we are called upon to vote $12,600. Will the minister tell us whether any contract was let, and the nature of the expenditure?


John Warwick King: This amount of $12,600 is required to complete the repairs to this wharf commenced in 1923-24. The work
remaining to be done consists of the removal of the flooring and face timbers of the head-block. The work was done last year by day labour.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not at all surprised at the minister giving us such meagre information on this item. Here we have $23,500 that has been spent on day labour without any tenders and without any contract. The government surely are not serious in insisting on this method of doing business. The other evening when we had this matter under discussion it was claimed that in the case of small sums ranging around three, or four or five thousand dollars the system was justifiable. I questioned it then and I question it now. In many of these cases I doubt the advisability of these small sums being spent on day labour; I think the work can be much more efficiently and economically done under contract. But when you have expenditures such as $23,500 last year and an additional expenditure of $12,600 this year, making in all $36,100 spent on day labour without tender or without competition, a very complete explanation ought to be given. We ought to have the fullest possible information about the nature of these repairs. I heard what the minister said about the flooring and repairs to the headblock on the outer end of the wharf but the same routine explanation has been given for item after item and it really does not justify this large expenditure. I should like the minister to give some further explanation.


John Warwick King: I do not know
that I can add anything to what I have said. In the repair or renewal of these old timber structures it has been found that the work can be done more economically under the practice adopted. The expenditure on the work last year amounted to $23,500. My hon. friend complains that no tenders were invited. I understand that in this work large quantities of timber were used, and tenders were called for the timber. Last year the engineers invited and received tenders from no less than ten lumber concerns. Those tenders varied from $13,190 up to $18,857, so that the major portion of the material was secured on competitive bids. As far as labour is concerned there is no doubt the department is pursuing the correct course in repairs of this character.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister be
good enough to tell us what was paid for this lumber? Which one of the tenders was accepted?
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: The lowest tender was that of Mr. E. Cloutier. His tender was as follows:
233,000 f.b.m. dimension timber at $43-$49.. $10,524
80,000 f.b.m. 3" deals at $33	 2,666
Total	 $13,190


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has accounted for $13,190 out of a total cost of $23,500. What staff did the department employ there, what rate of wages was paid?


John Warwick King: The foreman was paid $5 per day and the wage for labour in that vicinity was about $2.50. I have not the full details with me.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can my hon.
friend say what it cost to handle this lumber per thousand because the rate paid seems to be a pretty high figure?


John Warwick King: I would be glad
to get that information for my hon. friend; I do not happen to have it here.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Unless my hon. friend happens to have the unit of cost in each case I do not see how he can figure out which was the cheapest. If I understand correctly an order in council ought to have been passed when the contract system was discarded and day labour resorted to. That was not done. Was there any estimate filed with council as to what the cost by day labour would be?


John Warwick King: Yes, the engineer's estimate as to the cost was before the committee last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, that is not what I want. It simply refers to what the probable cost of the work will be. If we have that, as a usual thing we have at least some attempt at advertising the work. Then again it is a question for council as to whether the work will go on. In this particular case part of the work is covered, namely the amount of the material. Certainly that would have to be brought before council.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And at that
time, when the amount of the material is fixed, council would be in a position, I should have thought, to exercise its judgment in connection with day labour and the cost. Do I understand my hon. friend to say that a contract of this size has been gone on with by day labour, without any action by council at all?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend I think knows, and it is not necessary to repeat again, that in the judgment of the department this work could be done more economically by day labour than by contract, and that being the advice of the departmental officials, that is the policy that was followed in regard to this work. That policy is sound and proper.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not what I asked, and I thought my hon. friend would know it. Was this work gone on with irrespective of any authority from council?


John Warwick King: I said so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wanted to
make sure of it. Very well, I think there will be more work for the auditor.


John Warwick King: If the item is
carried in the House, it becomes a departmental matter. In regard to the supply of timber tenders were called for, and those tenders were accepted by order in council. The other expenditure, the matter of employment of men by day labour, is a matter of administration within the department where it is carried on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is exactly as I pointed out the other evening; the government has abandoned the policy of doing work by tender, so far as it is possible for them to do so, and adopted the policy of doing it by day labour.


John Warwick King: That is not quite right. There has been no change of policy.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend must admit that in 90 per cent of the cases in regard to which I asked questions last Friday and to-day, day labour has been employed.


John Warwick King: That is true.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Even in this item of $36,000.


John Warwick King: Ninety or ninety-five per cent of the work is repairs.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In case after case it was
a new building, a simple form of construction and suitable for tender. In case after case it was a new decking for a wharf down to the piling-caps, joists and decking, and would be suitable for a contract. I would admit that we occasionally run across a job in which it is not possible to ascertain, until you tear the structure down, how much work there is to do. I agree with that. That will apply to crib work and work below water. In most of those instances, if the minister will run his finger back in his book, he will

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
discover that it is either decking or new caps and such like, which is of a character suitable for tender, and I join with the hon. member for West York in protesting against this method.


William Alves Boys: The minister says tenders
were called for the material and I think the lowest was $12,000.


John Warwick King: 


William Alves Boys: How many tenders were received and what were the names of the tenderers?


John Warwick King: There were ten in all, as follows:	E. Clothier, Victor Industrial Corporation, E. T. Nesbitt, James Shearer and Company, Montreal, Auger and Son, Gravel Lumber Company, Knox Brothers, C. H. Jackson and Company, J. A. Boulay and James Shearer and Company, Quebec.


William Alves Boys: Where was the advertisement
inserted?


John Warwick King: I am not sure,
but the purchasing commission would probably circularize the trade.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is not any purchasing commission.


John Warwick King: There was last
year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Levesque-wharf, $3,040.
William Alves Boys: This is a new one and we
should hear about it.


John Warwick King: The work will
consist in building a headblock 50 feet long by 25 feet wide, 13 feet high, standing in 5 feet of water at low water level, and united to shore by an approach 16 feet wide, 30 feet long, the headblock and approach to be of open cribwork construction, filled with stone with an incline ice breaker in 1 slope, the full length of the upstream side of the work. I think that gives you the history of the structure and what it is proposed to do.


William Alves Boys: What is the population?


John Warwick King: I do not know. I have not the population here.


William Alves Boys: Pursuant to whose persuasion
was it undertaken?


Georges Parent: Natural affection.


William Alves Boys: I think we would be very lax indeed if we let this pass. As I glance through the list I fail to find any of these repairs in constituencies of hon. members of this side of the House.


An hon. MEMBER:: They got theirs before.


William Alves Boys: No. I would like to ask the minister, if we get busy between now and January, will he listen to our persuasion?


Henry Lumley Drayton: What county is this in?


John Warwick King: Champlain.


George Perry Graham: What representative upon that side of the House is from Champlain?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lotbiniere-wharf reconstruction, $30,450.
Robert James Manion: What constituency is that in?


Georges Parent: The member for Lotbiniere.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps the minister would give us an explanation. Last year there was a vote of $15,000 of which about $2,500 apparently was spent. Was the $15,000 last year intended to do the whole job, and why has it been increased to $30,450?


Mr. VIEN (Translation):: Mr. Chairman,
allow me to furnish the hon. member with all the particulars which he may desire in order to justify this expenditure.
The parish of Lotbiniere is one of the most beautiful and picturesque and also one of the first to be settled in our region. Although well populated and admirably built, it is situated at a distance of eighteen miles from the nearest railway station and nearly forty miles away from the city of Quebec which is its natural outlet. It has no other access to this market than through the use of said wharf. The latter was built a great number of years ago and requires immediate repairs. Would the government prefer to let it fall entirely to pieces so as to rebuild it completely? Is it not better to spend yearly the necessary amounts in order to keep it in good repair?
The parish of Lotbiniere is entitled without any doubt to the amount the government places at its disposal to-day to carry out these repairs, for this wharf is not only an outlet for the parish of Lotbiniere, but also for all the surrounding parishes whose people embark at said wharf in order to reach the market where they sell their products.



Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Henry Herbert Stevens: If there was such ail immediate and great necessity for this work, why was it that last year the vote was only $15,000 and that now it is increased to $30,000?


John Warwick King: The amount asked for this year is to complete the contract entered into amounting to $13,226. Of the total contract of last year only some $2,450 was expended. It is also proposed to let a further contract for a further extension amounting to about $16,900.


William Alves Boys: Would the minister mind repeating in English what my hon. friend lias just said in French?


John Warwick King: That might delay the committee.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for Lot-biniere should thank the committee for the opportunity of delivering his eloquent speech on that very fine county of his.


Thomas Vien: I would thank the committee much more if they would let the item pass.


Robert James Manion: We shall in a minute. We should like to hear a little more about it. I have heard more about it in the last few minutes than I have for some time.


Thomas Vien: I took occasion to urge my eloquence on the Minister of Public Works before.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When this $30,000 is spent, will the wharf be completed?


John Warwick King: That will complete the work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that depends upon the eloquence of the hon. member. He has managed to get another section since last year. Is there any arrangement between the minister and the hon. member whereby he will restrain himself in the future and let the wharf stand with this last $16,000 section?


Thomas Vien: During the ten years of office of the previous government this wharf was allowed to go almost to destruction. I had to wait patiently until the new administration came into power to get this wharf repaired. I remember that during the last administration I urged the very same reasons before the then Ministers of Public Works, but they were so busy fulfilling the promises they had made to hon. members sitting behind them that they had no ears for any demand coming from the province of Quebec.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is very
interesting. Will the hon. gentleman give us particulars of those promises?


Ernest Lapointe: The dry dock at Victoria.


Thomas Vien: The piers at Halifax, Courtenay bay improvements.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Courtenay
bay improvements started with my hon. friend's former government. What is the use of talking about the Victoria dry dock when the present Minister of Public Works was there only last year and said that the only pity was that it had been delayed at all. We shall not get on very fast with the business of the House with this sort of stuff, but I am content to go on with it if my hon. friends want it.


William Alves Boys: The minister will not criticise
the Victoria dry dock.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He praises it.


Thomas Vien: Was my hon. friend ever in
the county of Lotbiniere? Did he visit the wharf? Does he know the important district served by that wharf and the condition that wharf is in? Does he know that the government is saving money by repairing it now instead of spending twice or three times as much in a few years to come?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend kindly give me a list of these questions-there were so many of them? I think he was rather qualifying for a military department when he got off a barrage like that. He is on wrong premises. I have not said anything against this item. I am looking for information and I want to see what we can do about the future. Apparently we got off last year with one new section which cost us $15,000. Then the hon. member, filled with his burning eloquence, turns that barrage on the minister and twists that $15,000 into $30,000. I was in hopes that perhaps we would have an agreement that this would be the last section my hon. friend wants, because if he goes and talks again to the minister, that $30,000 will be turned into $60,000. I simply want to get finality in this matter.


Thomas Vien: My finality is the good repair of the wharf. One section of it was repaired last year; this item is to cover the repairs to the other section, and I think the wharf will be in a good state of repair after this item is voted and the repairs made under it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there a third section?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Thomas Vien: No. There are only two halves to that wharf.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This will finish the work?


Thomas Vien: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marsouins pier, $2,500.
John Warwick King: This is to construct a triangular cribwork pier 75 feet in length by a width of 15 feet and a height of 20 feet. It is in the county of Gaspe on the west shore of the river Marsouins. This is a small lumbering place with three stores and three sawmills. It has a population of 300 that fluctuates according to the operations carried on by the firms that operate on the outlet of the river.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Matane harbour improvements, $75,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is an item that
requires full and complete explanation, not only how the money is to be expended and for what purpose, but why the expenditure should be made at all in view of what will result from it. I understand that a large pulp concern is exporting pulp, a great deal, if not all of which has been handled over the Canadian National Railways. The government apparently spent $25,000 last year and it is proposing to spend another $75,000 for the purpose of putting in a wharf to enable this pulpwood production concern to ship its pulpwood over this government wharf by water, thus depleting the railway's freight earnings and encouraging and facilitating the export of pulpwood in a raw state out of Canada. If these facts are as stated, I can see no logical reason for this large expenditure at this time when we are seeking for economy. It may be argued that a portion of this expenditure will be made by the company. That of course is to be expected. But it is a very questionable action to expend $100,000 of the people's money to build a wharf to enable a company to export pulpwood the result being a serious loss of revenue to the Canadian National Railways in the way of freight. What is the explanation for the arrangement with this particular concern whereby this huge sum is to be expended?


John Warwick King: A very lengthy
explanation was made when this matter was under consideration last year. It is true that the Hammermill Paper Company are contributing $100,000 to the cost of the work inasmuch as they have an interest in it;
they have very large timber concessions at that point from which they are to-day cutting and taking timber to their paper mill. No doubt by an improvement of the harbour they will secure better facilities. But it must also be remembered that Matane is an old harbour on the river St. Lawrence where the government have for many years maintained harbour works. It is a place of refuge on the coast line, a small town with a population of 3,500 or, taking into account the people scattered in the vicinity, 7,000. There are lumbering operations in the district, besides the Hammermill Company Messrs. Price Brothers carry on an extensive pulp and paper business.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is the
Hammermill Company's plant?


John Warwick King: They make their
paper at Erie, Pennsylvania. Matane is situated between Rimouski and Gaspe, which is a distance of 150 miles. The coast is very bleak and it is important that there should be maintained a harbour of refuge along that coast line. We have important harbour works there and a very considerable amount of shipping is always moving both in and out of the harbour. When the suggestion was made by the Hammermill Company for a further expenditure they were informed that, as the leader of the opposition has said, in large undertakings of this kind there should be a contribution from the company interested. On that basis we have undertaken the work; we have an agreement from them to put up their portion. As a matter of fact the money spent at Matane to date has come largely from the company. The work to be carried on there consists in the construction of training piers for protection purposes in addition to a very considerable amount of dredging.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the government own the property on which these piers rest?


John Warwick King: Yes. The whole work has been carefully inquired into by the board of engineers and has been reported on. Contracts have been let for the construction of the piers and also for the dredging.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the engineer's
report?


John Warwick King: The report reads:
Matane is a large and ambitious village situated on the south shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence, 60 miles east from Rimouski. It is the shiretown of Matane county and the industrial and the business centre of the portion of county located along the gulf shore. The Canada Gulf Terminal Railway, which joins the Canadian National Railway at Mont-Joli, has its

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
terminus and main offices in Matane. The population of the village itself is 3,500 inhabitants; with the parish and ranges, it is approximately 7,000.
The main industry is lumber milling. The Price Bros. Co. has a 15,000,000 feet board measure yearly capacity mill operating at that place; the Hammermill Paper Co. of Erie, Penn., which has bought, a year ago, the timber holdings formerly operated by the Canada Gulf Terminal Railway, is also operating a saw-mill and more particularly a pulp wood plant of an approximate yearly capacity of 25.000 cords.
Outside of these two larger concerns, there are five or six lumber mills, of which the total output should be approximately 10,000,000 feet per year; the lumber from these smaller mills is generally used locally and a small portion bought by jobbers and exported. ^
The lumber which is shipped from Matane, mainly by Price Bros. Co., Ltd., is loaded on lighters which carry it to steamers anchored in deep water, or as more generally done in latter years shipped to Quebec on board small steamers and motor schooners; the Price Bros. Co., Ltd., has quite a flotilla of these and several large tugs to lighter lumber on board steamers. The registered tonnage of these steamers, tugs, etc., varies between 50 and 320 tons.
The Matane harbour has become the shipping and distribution centre for the many lumber, logging and cutting camps, and saw-mills which are operated on the north shore from Bersimis down to Moisie. All the lumber men and saw-mill labourers are gathered at Matane. All supplies, provisions, machinery, etc., are brought by cars to Matane and transhipped by water to north shore through small steamers and motor schooners plying several times a week between Matane and north shore for this special purpose.
The two most important concerns located on the north shore, which are using Matane as their importation centre, are the Franklin Lumber Co., operating limits along the River Becsie, Godbout and Des Rochers: and the Gulf Pulp and Paper Co. of Clarke City.


Mr. HANSON:: Is the whole 25,000 cords
of pulp wood which is to be shipped over this proposed wharf to be transported by water to Pennsylvania?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the Canadian National railway run immediately through that locality, and will the effect of building this wharf be to draw away from that railway the carriage of that 25,000 cords of pulpwood?


John Warwick King: No. The freight
is of such a nature that they cannot ship it by rail; they have been shipping it by water and this will improve their facilities.


Richard Burpee Hanson: For that matter, there are many people who ship pulpwood by rail; thousands of cords are shipped by rail from New Brunswick. It seems to me that the effect of building this wharf will be to facilitate the company in taking raw material out of this country to be manufactured in a foreign country, and this government is assisting in that purpose while it is penalizing the Canadian National Railways which otherwise would haul that raw material.


Charles Gavan Power: The railway which runs
through these lands is a private railway. It is true, it connects with the Canadian National, but it is a private road.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The freight is all turned
over to the Canadian National which would have the long haul.


Charles Gavan Power: My information is that they charge exorbitant rates on this particular railway and that is one of the reasons why the company wishes to ship by water.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The private road connects with the Canadian National at Mont Joli and runs from there to Matane. My recollection is that the distance is 30 miles-a nice little traffic collector for the Canadian National. I do not altogether agree with what the minister says as to Matane being a bleak and inhospitable place; it is a beautiful spot and I do not think the minister could have been there or he would not run it down. It is an important place that should have a future; it is one of the prettiest spots on the south shore of the St. Lawrence. Before some people spoiled the fishing it was one of the best salmon rivers we could boast. This particular structure is a peculiar crime against Matane. Matane is well situated at the end of the railway, it has first rate lumber resources and a fine country behind it, and it has one of the most industrious and hardworking peoples in the world to look after its natural resources. But they are not to be allowed to look after these resources. Any hope that that part of the St. Lawrence has of ever becoming an industrial centre is to be taken away by this government making it cheap and easy for the raw material to be exported that ought to go to the support of the people of that district.


Georges Parent: It has been there for many
years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is true the
trees were there many hundreds of years before we knew we could make paper out of wood. Yes, and it is not so many hundred years ago, in fact we can get down to the fifties, when there was no reason why the American manufacturers should be using our raw material. At that time they had any amount of their own, and were saying just what the hon, gentleman says now, "There is lots of it; it has been there for years." But it is not there now.


Georges Parent: It is there still.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not in the
States. They are depending, among other

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
sources of supply, on the wood from this district. And instead of doing anything to help the province, instead of doing anything to afford the people of Matane more labour at more remunerative wages, what does the government do? It puts another twist on the Canadian taxpayer in order that this mill down in Erie, Pennsylvania, may get its Canadian raw materials just a little cheaper.


Charles Gavan Power: What has the hon. gentleman got in mind when he says that the government could afford to provide more labour at Matane?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly, by
not building that wharf. If what has been said on the floor of the House from my hon. friend's side this afternoon is true, that the railway rates are so high that this company could not export the raw material to their mills, it means that the plants would have to be just where they ought to be-where that timber is growing. It means we would have paper mills there.


Charles Gavan Power: How would the hon. gentleman operate paper mills where there is no water power?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend need not for one minute try to make me think-


Charles Gavan Power: I am only asking for information. We do not know how to do it in Quebec.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -that the great province of Quebec is without water-powers.


Charles Gavan Power: It is without water-power
in that district.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it necessary
to rely on local water-power?


Charles Gavan Power: Very good, then the wood
would be exported from Matane, and whether it goes to Erie, Pennsylvania, to Abitibi or to Thorold, Ontario, is immaterial to the prosperity of this beautiful little village so eloquently described by my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But my hon.
friend is forgetting something.


James Dew Chaplin: Is there a water-power
at Erie?


Georges Parent: I do not know.


James Dew Chaplin: The hon. gentleman could easily find out. As a matter of fact there is no water-power there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But that is not what I was going to draw my hon. friend's attention to. We know that in lots of places in the States they have not waterpower. We know we have surplus waterpower right in the province of Quebec and that this government has been asked to grant licenses for the export of that power. We know that electrical power can be transmitted tremendous distances at very low rates. We also know that there is power available at Grande Decharge.


Georges Parent: Does my hon. friend know the distance firom Matane to Grande Decharge?


Henry Lumley Drayton: About 400 miles.


Georges Parent: The distance is 700 or
800 miles. Quebec is a big province.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon.
friend want to say that there are no water-powers available in his province to-day not 400 miles from Matane?


Georges Parent: Not on the south shore of
the St. Lawrence.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It does not make any difference which side of the river the power is on, you can handle it very, very cheaply by cable.


Charles Gavan Power: There is no power available for 400 miles.


Georges Parent: The proprietors of the
railroad are the owners of the timber limits. They were wealthy men and quite anxious to develop this country, but they never had an opportunity to take a single piece of wood oil their limits, and they sold their property to the mill.


Arthur Meighen: Likely enough when this country bonuses them to carry it away.


Georges Parent: There is nothing to compel these people to send their wood over to the States. If the Canadian mills were able to pay a sufficient price for the cut there is no reason at all why they should not get it.


Arthur Meighen: WThy should we bonus those people to help them continue sending their wood to the States?


Georges Parent: That is putting the question in the wrong way.


Arthur Meighen: As pulpwood gets scarcer undoubtedly the advantages of building mills in this country will grow, but just in proportion as we bonus people with hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the treasury

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
to ship our pulpwood to the States, that much longer will we defer getting the advantage of manufacture ourselves. If ever there was a waste of money not to the advantage of the people of Canada, surely it is this Matane wharf. It is notorious over the whole Dominion. It is money spent for the benefit of an American company with headquarters at Erie, Pensylvania, against the interests of Matane, against the interests of the province of Quebec, and against the interests of the Dominion. We are simply paying out our own money to injure ourselves. To the extent that the pulpwood will be shipped raw, we are paying the money out to injure our road; but still worse, we are paying it out in assisting to postpone the day when we will make paper out of our pulpwood here. To-day this raw material is shipped down to Erie, wrhere they have to bring in power from some distance, I do not know just how far; they have no power there any more than has Matane. This is the policy of the administration.


Charles Gavan Power: Will not the right hon. gentleman admit that there is room for a difference of opinion with regard to an embargo on pulpwood, and that even some hon. members supporting him do not share his views on the subject?


Arthur Meighen: There may be room for a difference of opinion on the embargo, but there is no room for a difference of opinion about paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars to bonus shipping out this pulpwood.


Charles Gavan Power: If it is a legitimate trade, as up to the present it is, I see no reason why we should not spend money to ship out pulpwood, just the same as we spend money to ship out our grain, our fish, or any other natural product.


John Warwick King: I think my hon. friend is overlooking an important point, namely, that although this company is deriving some advantage, it is paying for the advantage in its contribution to the work. There are other industries at Matane, and there is a large settlement which requires service of this mature. We have taken advantage of the fact that a foreign concern wants certain facilities and was ready to subscribe to the cost of providing them. My hon. friend would lead the committee to think that all the money is being spent by the government. Be fair in the matter. It is a fair arrangement so far as the department is concerned.
[Mr. MeifihenJ


Arthur Meighen: There is enough money
being spent by the government; we do not need to make it any more than it is. There is a railroad into Matane. All this talk about its being necessary for other purposes, the minister knows, is just camouflage. The wharf is for this company which is shipping our pulpwood to be made into paper at Erie, and the government are handing the company $100,000 one year and some more in another in order to help the company in this work, which all injures this Dominion and does not help Matane in the least.


Mr. JACOBS:: I fancy the American company pay the market price for the pulpwood.


Arthur Meighen: They do not pay anything; they own it. Until ihey got it all pressure was futile to get this wharf built, but once they get it and own it the government come in and generously help them to get the pulpwood out of Canada.


Mr. PEDLETIER:: Evidently my hon.
friends are misinformed. This is not a new work but we have had to do the dredging in order to be in a position to accommodate the people on the north shore as well. The name of Price Brothers was mentioned, but we have five or six other mills up the river all of which ship their wood by this harbour. Millions of feet of lumber go out in this way,


Arthur Meighen: Are Price Brothers contributing to the cost of this wharf?


Mr. PELLETIER:: No.


Arthur Meighen: Why not?


Charles Gavan Power: They do not contribute to
anything.


Georges Parent: Except to funds.


Charles Gavan Power: Except to party funds.


François Jean Pelletier: There is a population
of between nine and ten thousand at Matane and the immediate vicinity. We also have a transient population on the north shore. In September men go to work in the bush on the north shore for the different companies operating there. The vessels navigate until the latter part of December. Last year the vessel St. Regis left Matane on the 31st of December for Godbout. Between 1,800 and 2,000 or more men go across every year to spend the winter in the bush, and they have no outlet to the world except through Matane. When navigation opens they all go through there and in the fall when the different companies

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
are about to begin operations they all get on board and go across. So far as the embargo is concerned, the Hammermill people are not much interested in it; they are preparing-


Arthur Meighen: What are they going to
do in the event of an embargo?


François Jean Pelletier: They will sell their
pulpwood in Canada. We are figuring on having another company establish a pulp mill at Matane. It was stated a little while ago that we had no other power. It is a fact that we have none, but arrangements are being made with the Lower St. Lawrence Power Company to furnish the power from below Priceville.


Arthur Meighen: How far away is the
power?


François Jean Pelletier: It is about 32 miles
from Matane. I hope my hon. friends do not want to put up a back fence around Matane and the surrounding district. Some of these days they might have a representative from that district, but if the back fence is up he will not be able to jump over it.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member knows that the government feel they have made a tremendous concession to him rather than to his county in making this grant to Matane. He remembers how the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) the other day told him that after getting that money for Matane he should never ask for anything 11 p.m. more. I do not know how he did it. It is not that anybody denies anything to Matane. It is a beautiful district; I have been there, and the information I have as to the effect of this expenditure on Matane is from Matane people. They would like to have some industry there; they do not see very much value in shipping out to Erie in its raw state, one of the greatest resources they have, and they do not especially like contributing their own taxes to help to do it. With the power only 32 miles away it is really a humiliation to this country to see the shipments going on at all. It is a humiliation; we ought to wear sackcloth and ashes that we let our raw material go across instead of taking care of it in Canada with the power so near at hand. And then to have the government come along, put its hand into the treasury of a country already burdened with taxation and put out $100,000 one year- at least that was the vote last year-and then this vote this year in continuation of its folly -it is unspeakable.


Georges Parent: In regard to the statement I made a little while ago that there was no power available in the surrounding district, I still persist in my statement to the effect that there is not enough power there to justify the operation of a mill capable of producing 100 or 150 tons a day.


Robert James Manion: How much water-power
is available?


Mr. TOBIN:: It is so small it is almost
unknown.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there not water-power
in the county of Bonaventure tributary to the Matapedia river?


Georges Parent: I should think so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And on the Cascapedia
river? I am satisfied that these streams could be harnessed.


Georges Parent: It is not the same district.


Arthur Meighen: The water-power is much closer and much more abundant than at Erie where this wood is actually manufactured. Now, the hon. member knows that is correct.


Georges Parent: I think so.


Arthur Meighen: I commend the hon.
member (M.r. Parent) for his frankness. There is water-power more abundant and closer to Matane where the wood is than there is to Erie after it is carried there, and we contribute $100,000 odd to carry it there rather than do anything to see it manufactured here.


Georges Parent: The hon. gentleman would rather see the forests destroyed by fire.


Arthur Meighen: That is nonsense. If
that is the policy of my hon. friend then we might as well ship everything out for fear we shall be fools enough to bum it. How are we ever going to make a country that way? Sometimes the government may be guilty of lassitude, of negligence, of lack of courage, in not carrying out a policy that makes use of our resources, but as to a government that actually puts its hand in the treasury of a staggering country and bonuses the export of the country's raw resources, what is to be said in proper description of its folly?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister mentions
Price Brothers' mill, the mill of the Hammer-mill people and three or four others. I presume these mills all have their own wharves over which they ship their lumber?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


François Jean Pelletier: They ship over the main wharf.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do Price Brothers ship
over an existing government wharf?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the need for further facilities if these mills are now shipping over a government wharf?


François Jean Pelletier: Larger vessels are used, therefore it is necessary to connect the western breakwater with the main government wharf.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That simply aggravates
the whole situation.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have been aghast at the statements made by my right hon. leader, but the admission of the hon. member simply aggravates the situation. What is it? The present existing facilities apparently are quite sufficient to handle the products of an ordinary Canadian saw-mill-


François Jean Pelletier: They are not sufficient and I pointed that fact out. Price Brothers are shipping and their barges always have to wait for the high tide. Their barges are loaded hours before they are in a position to go out.


Henry Herbert Stevens: To complete my sentence
but not for an American paper concern, the Hammermill, and this company puts up $100,000 whilst the government puts up an equal amount. What for? To so increase the facilities that larger lake and river steamers can come in and load raw material on a more extensive scale than was formerly the case. That is really the whole story, bearing out exactly what my right hon. leader has emphasized-that what we are really doing is not spending $100,000 to develop trade but to facilitate and actually bonus the export of raw material. Now, let us look at the matter from a slightly different angle. The Hammermill people apparently built a mill in Erie, Pennsylvania. No doubt that mill was built, there when there was raw material in the district more or less contiguous to the mill. All that has gone. Now they certainly have the advantage over a new Canadian mill; for instance the mill my hon. friend (Mr. Pelletier) wants to see built at Matane. The Hammermill mill is there in Erie but the local resources are exhausted. Well, anything they can get out of that mill to-day is salvage. Consequently they can pay more in carriage to take the raw material to that 
mill than can possibly be paid by a Canadian concern at Matane. Surely my hon. friend must see that that is actually injuring his own community. If this agreement was not made with the Hammermill people the result undoubtedly would be the bringing of a new mill to that locality which, in the course of a very short time, would develop to an extent that it could successfully compete with this foreign mill, because the latter is merely working out-what shall I say?- the fag end of its existence. The reason for its existence in Erie has long since gone, but rather than scrap the mill they will- as long as they can get people who are foolish enough to give them this facility, this bonus -haul their raw material to that point. I venture to say that had this bonus of $100,000, not been given to them by the government, they would have made every effort to develop a mill at that spot, although a comparatively small mill perhaps. I am well aware of that from the experience we have had on the Pacific coast, and from what I see all up and down Ontario and Quebec, where mills are going up everywhere for the utilization of Canadian pulpwood. One of the finest industries we have to-day is the Canadian pulp and paper industry. It is one of the most valuable, one of the most profitable, and why the government should actually be co-operating with a foreign concern merely to enable it to secure the salvage of this out-of-date mill in Erie-out-of-date as far as resources are concerned-is a thing beyond my comprehension.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If this wharf were not
built how would these 25,000 cords of pulp-wood be shipped? Could they not be shipped over the Canadian National Railways?


John Warwick King: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How is the pulpwood being shipped now?


John Warwick King: Shipped by boat
just as lumber is being shipped out from there. At the present time they are lightering, carrying the product out in scows and barges and putting it on the larger steamers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are lightering it now?


John Warwick King: Yes, they are
lightering it now. The improvement in the harbour at Matane is not only for the American company, who are contributing one-half the cost; it will also serve Price Brothers who are operating at Matane and taking pulpwood for their own mills from that point. My hon. friends opposite have been stressing the fact

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
rr fnrmnTO A f tllO TlSfl sh of "NjnilVGll6. St.
that this expenditure is being made in the interest of an American company, overlooking the fact that the government have required them to pay a portion of the expense. Had not this contribution been made by the company it would have been necessary to construct certain works there entirely at the government's expense.


Richard Burpee Hanson: [DOT] But not nearly as extensive.


John Warwick King: Not as extensive.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not nearly as extensive.
On what principle does the minister justify such extensive works as he is now carrying out in order to facilitate the exportation of pulpwood?


John Warwick King: It is not the point at issue.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All along the south shore
of the St. Lawrence the work is done by lightering. On the north shore of New Brunswick in many cases, they have to lighter. It is not an unusual thing in the lumber business at all events, and I have never known of a case-except in the harbour of Bathurst, New Brunswick-where the government put in works to obviate lightering. In that case it was not for the purpose of shipping material out of the country; but to facilitate the shipment of the finished product. I still think that one of the main objections to this grant is that it will deprive the Canadian National Railways of traffic. I believe that is a very vital point, and I do not think that any one department of the government ought to be spending the public money, without any possible provision for a return, to the detriment of the Canadian National Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miguasha-wharf extension and slip, $9,000.
William Alves Boys: What is the explanation for
this vote? It is a new item?


John Warwick King: This is to construct a slip 50 feet long by 20 feet wide at the outer end of existing wharf with a crib-work extension on either side of the slip, each 100 feet long and 20 feet wide, at an estimated cost of $9,000. The district engineer states that a wffiarf was built at this point by the department in 1904-05. It is a stopping place for the boat plying bi-weekly between Dal-housie, St. Omer and Carleton. During last summer-1923-the ferry service between Miguasha and Dalhousie was resumed for the accommodation of the freight and passenger traffic which is done between the two shores
Omer, and of the immediate vicinity of the Miguasha wharf market their farm produce in Dalhousie. This produce marketing constitutes practically the only means of revenue for the local inhabitants, and it is estimated that approximately $15,000 or $20,000 worth of produce are thus handled on the Miguasha wharf.


Arthur Meighen: What county is Miguasha in?


Thomas Vien: Bonaventure county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montmajny-Repairs to wharf, $800.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister give us
a little explanation on this item?


John Warwick King: It is for repairs
to the roadway approach, renewal of stringers, flooring and filling, to remove the oil house, and enlarge entrance to the approach of the outer wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Notre Dame du Lac-Wharf repairs, 41,050.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Can the minister tell how much has been spent on this?


John Warwick King: This is for repairs necessary to keep the wharf in condition every year, to renew the flooring and part of the railing and stringers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much has been spent on this altogether?


John Warwick King: 


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is this?


Ernest Lapointe: Temiscouata.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the St. Lawrence?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Arthur Meighen: How many wharves are
there in the county of Temiscouata? We have had several here to-dav.


Ernest Lapointe: There is only one on that lake. The others are on the St. Lawrence river.


Arthur Meighen: How many altogether?


John Warwick King: I am informed
that there would be seven or eight wharves.


Arthur Meighen: Maintained by the government?


John Warwick King: Yes.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Mr. GOULD:: Some few nights ago I
asked why cement was not poured into the wharves and breakwaters in Nova Scotia, and the reply was, "because it was salt water and cement would not last." I would like to ask the minister the same question where we have fresh water constructions. Has he considered the advisability of using cement?


Ernest Lapointe: My 'hon. friend does not know the St. Lawrence river if he thinks there is fresh water at Temiscouata. We have fresh water only from L'Islet up a certain distance where the salt water commences. We have salt water at Temiscouata, Gaspe, and other places.


Oliver Robert Gould: Why is it that where fresh
water does obtain cement has not been poured into the wharves?


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot say.


Oliver Robert Gould: When I was young and going to school, we were told about a ship-wrecked crew at sea three hundred miles from the mouth of the Amazon. The story goes that these people were told to let their pails down and that the water would be fresh. I think the same would be true of the St. Lawrence where these wharves are.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Oliver Robert Gould: Has the minister thought of pouring cement into these wharves to make them permanent structures?


John Warwick King: As I have already stated, in reconstructing new wharves, the more important work is being done in concrete to-day, but in the case of many of the small works it would not pay. I do not know whether it would be practical or not to pour concrete into these wharves.


Arthur John Lewis: It would be far more expensive in cement.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Oliver Robert Gould: I challenge the statement of
the hon. member for Swift Current. If we are going to take this as a perpetual expenditure,
I think I have had experience enough to know that in the end cement is the cheapest and I ask the minister if his department has taken into consideration the advisability of using cement and making all the work permanent, or whether this work is going to be continuous or everlasting-something that goes on forever and ever.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Paspebiac East (Portage)-wharf repairs, $3,200.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a new item.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is on the Gaspe coast.


John Warwick King: It is Bonaventure county. This item is to replace twenty 25-foot sheathing piles at head of wharf, to rebuild 400 feet of superstructure of wharf to a mean depth of 2 feet and the width of the wharf, to be done by day labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much has been spent on Paspebiac since confederation?


John Warwick King: A total expenditure of $15,932.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On this particular wharf?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How long does that cover?


John Warwick King: Since 1908.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was not the time of confederation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pierreville-repairs to wharf and roadway, $3,300.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This includes some roadwork. Will you give us an explanation of that?


John Warwick King: This is to repair
the roadway hill leading to the wharf and to
renew flooring and stringers.
The figures are:
Repairs to road, resetting rip-rap and ditching
on each side of the road	 $ S60
Renewing flooring, stringers, repairing ice breaker and protecting corner of same with steel plates	 2,440

Contingencies	 300


Robert James Manion: What was the original expenditure for this?


John Warwick King: Expenditure to March 31, 1924, $53,632.45.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What county?


John Warwick King: Yamaska county.
Pointe au Pic (Murray Bay)-wharf repairs, $7,300.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a large expenditure. There was $18,000 spent last year. WTas that by contract or day labour?


John Warwick King: There was a contract last year. The amount of the contract was $15,047.35. The work this year is repairs, the details consisting of putting in a movable

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
slip, flooring, fenders, sheathing, new railing, repairs to shed, and other renewals, making a total expenditure $6,624.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Any revenue from this
wharf?


John Warwick King: It is a very important place, I think. Important steamers call there, and many people are moving back and forth-an important structure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is an important structure. Is there any revenue there?


John Warwick King: I have not any
knowledge of the revenue. There is no revenue to the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Canada Steamship lines land at the wharf every day in the summer and sometimes twice a day. Does the government run a boat across the river?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: There used to be a steamboat crossing from the north shore to the south shore. Murray Bay is a very important point, I would say the most important on the north shore, outside of Quebec, and in the summer months from May to November it is open to all boats, not only the Canada Steamship boats, but any kind of boats. It is the leading summer resort in the province of Quebec, and I do not think there should be objection to the vote.


Robert James Manion: We are not objecting, but
I happen to know something about the steamship service across. At the present time to get across the river one has to go up to Quebec. You have first to go from Riviere du Loup to Levis and then cross over to Quebec. Some pressure ought to be put as far as possible by the government upon the steamship company to make calls on the south shore wherever they have good docks, because I remember a few years ago one could get across-I have crossed there myself -but at the present time no one can. I shall be glad to support the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in an effort to prevail upon them to call on the south shore.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: My hon. friend is preaching economy very often. In order to bring about what he suggests, we should have to insert another item in the estimates, perhaps in the steamship subsidies, and as hon. members of the opposition are always criticising new expenditures, I do not think it would be profitable and advantageous to do that at the present time. The steamboat service from the north shore to the south shore was removed in order, as it was said, to practise
economy. That was the reason advanced by the former administration a few years ago. They said:	Now there is a railway being
operated from Quebec to Murray Bay and you do not need the ferry boat from Murray Bay to the south shore which was established to provide facilities for the people of the north shore. Because we have suppressed that service, we will also suppress the service of the seven miles of railway operated by the Intercolonial from Riviere Ouelle to St. Denis in the county of Kamouraska. I do not think at the present time the people suffer so much. The time taken to go from Murray Bay to Quebec is about 34 hours at the outside and they have sufficient facilities to reach the south shore. The people of the south shore have equal facilities to reach Quebec. I have never heard that people were complaining so much as regards crossing from the north to the south shore. What the people complain about at the present time is that in the winter after the Canada Steamship line ceases its operations until it resumes in the spring, the people below Murray Bay, where there is no railway being operated have no communication between these different places and Quebec. That is the only reason why they are complaining, and why I have urged upon the present administration and the previous one that in the winter months there should be a boat service from Murray Bay to Tadoussac.


Robert James Manion: I am sorry that it is
necessary for a member from western Ontario to rise and speak in support of the people on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, and I am sorry to hear the hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmorency taking the attitude that the people on the south shore do not require some sort of a ferry to get across to the north shore.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They do not trade so
much with the north shore. They do not suffer at all.


Robert James Manion: When the time comes I
am sure we shall make the best use of that we can and we will tell these people that their chief support came from members from western Ontario.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree with the hon.
member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), but I do not disagree with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmorency. The only thing is to have the boats of the Canada Steamship Company going to Murray Bay, Tadoussac and Chicoutimi cross the river as they did formerly. I think that is the best scheme to adopt. The government can-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
not do much along that line, but if my hon. friend and myself would join together and exert some pressure on the company, perhaps we might be successful.


Robert James Manion: I am glad to find there is one member from the province of Quebec who is ready to rise and support me in the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port au Persil-wharf, $9,000.
John Warwick King: This is to complete a contract entered into in 1923 by Mr. Maltais for the construction of a wharf and approach at the southeastern end of the bay formed at the outlet of the river au Persil. The amount of the contract is $10,248.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ranouski-wharf reconstruction, $27,000.
John Warwick King: This is a revote to carry on a contract amounting to $29,468. It is a reconstruction of the easterly wing of the wharf which was destroyed by storm during September, 1922.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ilimouaki river-'breakwater wharf reconstruction, $11,600.
John Warwick King: This is to rebuild the upper portion of the whole construction upon a height of five feet by a width of thirty feet. This is the wharf that serves the town of Rimouski. It is not the deep water terminus.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will this be done by
contract and public tender?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roberval-wharf improvements, $21,100.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a new item. Perhaps we might have an explanation.


John Warwick King: This is required
to complete the reconstruction of the railway trestle commenced in 1923-24-174 feet remaining to be done-by means of a concrete wall with earth filling and gravel surface between the trestle and the wharf proper; and to extend the freight shed ten feet and construct a new shelter 24 feet square. Tenders will be called for.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this a railway terminus?


John Warwick King: The Quebec and Lake St. John Railway terminus. They use this pier.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

St. Antoine de Tilily-wharf repairs, $6,900.
Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister has been
telling us quite truthfully, no doubt, that most of these repairs are necessary because of ice and so forth and that repairs are needed immediately. This was apparently needed immediately last year but no expenditure was made.


John Warwick King: The contract
for this work was let in October, 1923, and it was too late for any construction last year. This contract is being proceeded with.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Emelie-dredging, $12,500.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a large item.
What is the explanation?


John Warwick King: This is to complete the contract that has been already entered into.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sorel-reconstruction of high level wharf, $30,800.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I have been talking the matter over with hon. gentlemen and we have gone over the list carefully, but we want to keep one item open. Suppose we let this item stand.


Jacques Bureau: I thought it had been
agreed that " Trois Rivieres " would stand.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Just as hon. gentlemen please; I do not suppose it makes much difference which item stands. I would suggest however that this item stand.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 1924-25

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1925, was presented by Hon. J. A. Robb1 (Acting Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the committee of Supply.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
Tuesday, July 8, 1924