1924-07-14

TORONTO VIADUCT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider certain resolutions respecting the construction of a viaduct and other works in the city of Toronto.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General having been made acquainted with the subject matter of these resolutions, recommends them to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution: Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Montreal Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1894, and to provide,-
1.	That the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal may build, own, maintain and operate a bridge, for general traffic including tramways across the River St. Lawrence from a point in the City of Montreal to a
279h
point on the South shore of the sajd River to be
determined by the said Corporation, with all necessary or useful appurtenances or accessories.
2.	That the plans of such bridge shall be submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council before beginning the construction thereof, and the Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, charge and recover tolls for the use of or passage on such bridge.
3.	That the Corporation may, for the above purposes, and from time to time, borrow money or issue and sell or pledge bonds for such amounts, at such rate of interest, and on such terms and conditions as it may determine, and it may secure such bonds or loans by a mortgage or hypothec on the said bridge and by a charge on the tolls and revenues thereof.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General having been made acquainted with the suibject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:-
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Canada Shipping Act, and to provide that any foreign built vessel captured or seized during the war 1914-1919 by British forces or nationals and condemned as prize of war or ceded by enemy states to Great Britain or British nationals by the Reparations Commission under the Peace Treaties following the war, and placed on British registry, shall for the purposes of Part XVI of the Act and of The Customs Tariff be regarded as a British built ship and as entitled to engage in the Coasting Trade.
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. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with the notice of motion standing in my name, may I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to revert to "Motions" in order to enable the chairman of the committee on Pensions and Reestablishment to move concurrence in the report which he submitted to the House two or three days ago?


Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent
the House will now revert to "Motions."
And " Motions " having been called:
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette): I move that the second report of the special com-
Pensions

mittee oa Pensions, Insurance and Reestablishment of returned soldiers be now concurred in.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I would ask the hon. member to tell us the effect of the motion.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: I had not intended at this juncture to discuss this motion, because it simply relates to amendments to the Pension Act, and these amendments will be submitted to the House in the form of a bill. I will, however, on a later occasion, when the final report of the committee on Pensions, Insurance and Re-establishment is placed before the House, make a detailed statement of the activities of the department and also of the work done by our committee in the course of the present session. For the time being, having regard to the fact that this report refers purely and simply to amendments to the Pension Act, and also a minor amendment to the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment Act, I do not think I should go any further into the matter.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I am not rising to make any objection to the contents of the report of the Pensions and Re-establishment committee, but to make objection to the matter coming before us in this form and the House being asked on what we have before us to finally dispose of the whole principle involved. The report evidently recommends changes in the law, and I presume the changes which the report recommends are foreshadowed in the resolution appearing on page 9 of the order paper, and now about to be given notice of for reading tomorrow. Under these circumstances it appears to me that the best practice would be not to deal with the report of the committee at all. The report is in our possession, and I presume the evidence is printed and in our possession too. Why finally decide the matter and then proceed, after it is decided, to consider the resolution, the second reading of the resolution, the details of the resolution in committee, the first reading of a bill, the second reading of a bill, review of the bill in committee, and to all these other stages, after we have tied our hands by accepting the report? Inasmuch as the report itself provides for legislation, why not let the report lie and let us proceed as expeditiously as we can with the legislation contemplated?


Henri Sévérin Béland: 
Hewitt Bostock: The motion stands as a notice.
On the motion of Mr. Beland, the House reverted to the order of "Government Notices of Motions ".



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Pension Act and amendments, and to provide,-
1.	For pension not being awarded when the death
or disability of the member of the forces was duo to improper conduct, but that the Commission may, when the applicant is in a dependent condition, award such pension as it deems fit in the circumstances; except when the death has occurred on service prior to the coming into force of the Pension Act; and an exmember of the forces suffering from venereal disease who saw service in a theatre of actual war may be awarded a pension for total disability at the time of discharge.	_
2.	For the period of delay during which applications for pensions may be made, and for cases which appear to be specially meritorious.
3.	For the conditions under which dependent parents and the widow of a pensioner may be awarded s pension.
4.	For the awarding or refusal of a pension to a widow of a pensioner, taking into consideration his condition at the time of marriage, and under what conditions pensions may be paid to prospective widowed mothers.
5.	For the payment of certain sums of money pending consideration of a claim for pension.
6.	For the restoration in certain cases of pensions previously awarded to a woman who has been married or remarried, and for increased pensions to mothers whose husbands are physically helpless or in a dependent condition.
7.	1''or what the final payment will be in cases of disability between five and fourteen per cent, and what conditions may affect such final payments.

Indian Act
8. For the amendment of the schedules to the Act in such a manner as to make pension equal to the actual rate plus bonus.
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.
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Burrard):: I point out to the minister that paragraph 2 of the resolution dealing with meritorious cases should not be linked with other provisions of an entirely different character. I remind him that last year a clause dealing with meritorious cases was put through in that form. The minister was advised that in consequence the meritorious clause would be ineffective, and such turned out to be the case. I simply rise to ask the minister to see that in this year's legislation the clause dealing with meritorious cases shall appear as a substantive clause, not linked with some other clause. While I am on my feet I ask the minister when we may expect the report upon which the contemplated legislation has been based to be printed and distributed?


Mr. BEL  AND@: The object of coupling up the meritorious clause in the manner indicated was to make the resolution as brief as possible. I agree with my hon. friend that a special clause should be drafted to provide for meritorious cases, and the bill to be introduced will have such a clause. The report to which my hon. friend alludes appears in the Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :: Is not the committee which dealt with this matter still sitting?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 172, to amend the Indian Act, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil)
(Superintendent General of Indian Affairs): To prevent misunderstanding I have had the bill reprinted. A number of copies of the bill in its present form have been tabled and will be distributed. Perhaps it would be well to indicate the clauses to which exception was taken when the bill was previously before the committee. First of all exception was taken to our assuming absolute control of the Eskimos. In sub-section 2 of section 1 we now simply say
that the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs shall have charge of Eskimo affairs, and that he will grant such relief to the Eskimos as may be necessary from time to time. Then objection was taken to section 3 in that it did not clearly define what was meant by " widow." We have inserted the word " such " so the section as amended will read:
In case any Indian dies intestate without issue, leaving a widow of good moral character, all his property of whatever kind shall devolve upon her, and if he leaves no such widow the same shall devolve upon the nearest of kin to the deceased.
This change, I think, will make the clause much more intelligible. In the case of clause 4 dealing with cancellation very serious objection was taken. Accordingly the first paragraph of the clause has been divided, the first subsection dealing with the date when cancellation shall become effective, and the second covering the matter of signatures to cancellation notices and to the service of such notices. Clause 8 has been deleted entirely. That was the clause dealing with the responsibility of the purchaser from the Indians of hay, stone, or other material removed from a reserve. The act. very clearly specifies that the Indian who is guilty of an offence of that character can be punished. But we were going somewhat further in asking that the purchaser should be punished as well. That is the provision which has been omitted. I think these changes cover the chief objections that were raised to the bill when it was previously considered.
Arthur Meighen: The changes which have been made entirely remove nearly all, if indeed not all, of the objections which I felt the bill as introduced contained. I am not sure from recollection what clauses were passed, or what the clauses are that should now be given attention. I am very pleased the minister has made these alterations. They meet the objections which the House raised.


Mr. SHAW:: Has the Justice department passed on the question as to whether or not Eskimos are Indians, and consequently come within the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: No, Eskimos are not Indians. While they may be of a somewhat similar character, they are not looked upon as Indians in the real sense of the word.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Under what authority does the minister assume jurisdiction to take charge of their affairs?
Indian Act


Charles A. Stewart: For the
simple reason that, in common with other bands-and they may properly be described as of a similar character-sometimes it is necessary that the government have some authority to protect these people. We propose licensing traders and exercising jurisdiction and control over the area inhabited by the Eskimos. They are living in Canadian territory, and all we are asking is that one particular department of the government be delegated to deal with the bands of Eskimos, rather than having it left indiscriminately to the departments or to the Governor in Council. We are desirous of establishing which department shall be responsible for any dealing which may take place between the Eskimo and the government of Canada, and make the recommendation.


Arthur Meighen: What is in the mind of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) is the constitutional jurisdiction.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I do not doubt at all that if the Eskimos are in any particular province this act would not give the minister any control ; but I think they are all in the territories. As the law stood before, I think the Minister of the Interior, having charge of the territories, had charge of the Eskimos. This gives the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs charge in the territory instead of the Minister of the Interior, and, as they are the same person under the Act, it really leaves the law as it was.


Mr. GOULD:: Unfortunately I was not in the House when the bill was discussed previously, but in connection with section 3 I have wondered if, where the Indian has property at his death, and no heirs, providing he owes debts outside of the reservation for articles he has purchased, those holding these claims should not have priority of rights.


Charles A. Stewart: They would have just exactly the same claim as against the estate of a white person. They are all advertised. These claimants are always taken care of in cases of this kind. This provides a method of dealing with such heirs as exist, but claims against the estate are always taken care of.


Oliver Robert Gould: I was referring to cases where there are no heirs and no wife. If the individual owned property and had to purchase materials outside the reservation, should those from whom he purchased now
[Mr. RhawJ
have a prior claim? The minister at the present time recognizes that the individuals have no claim against the Indians, and the Indians themselves, possibly with the assistance of the Indian agents, have taken advantage of that circumstance; the Indian agents may have persuaded the Indians to go out and purchase things. Even the agents themselves, in cases I know of, have signed papers advising individuals to sell to certain Indians. They are not in any way responsible, but the individuals who furnished the materials, horses, implements and such things, have been taken advantage of.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
conceive that there would be any difference between that condition of affairs and the condition prevailing in the case of a white person. Legitimate claims against an estate in any case would have to be settled, if the estate were worth the claim. There is no doubt about that.


Mr. FORKE:: Does the minister feel sure of that? I rather think you cannot sue an Indian for debt.


Charles A. Stewart: No, that is quite true; but you can get your claim registered through the agency of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs; and in the case of death the claim against the deceased Indian, if he has certain property in his own right, are not shut out. You may be denied it of course, but your claim is there just the same as it would be in any case.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Is there any considerable number of Eskimo outside of the territory living in some of the provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: I imagine there are in Ungava, but this only applies to the other bands.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister take
the ground that, after the death of an Indian, claims that could not have been prosecuted against the Indian in his lifetime can be prosecuted against his estate? What the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) has in his mind is this: Here are the claims, some of which were referred to by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) which arose from the sale of property to Indians, a sale apparently on the authorization of the Indian agent. Now the Indian agent acted without authority, and consequently the department does not recognize the sale and does not recognize the agent. The Indian in person is shielded from all legal action by virtue of his

Indian Act
wardship. Suppose the Indian dies, are these claims valid against his estate, if he leaves an estate? Or does the estate go, under this section, to the widow if living and qualified, or if not to the next of kin, irrespective of the debts?


Charles A. Stewart: As I understand it the situation is a little complicated. My hon. friend (Mr. Millar) gives us one case in which he says the Indian agent issued orders without instructions. I confess that is a point that has given me some considerable worry. I know that the claim has been raised that the agent issued instructions for purchases, but without authority. I do not know just how far that contention might be carried in a contested case, because after all the Indian agent is an agent of the government. It is very clear that the Indian himself cannot be sued, but I think it is the clear duty of the government to assist in the collection of these accounts, notwithstanding the fact that action cannot be taken against the Indian himself and judgment rendered against him; but I have never taken the ground that the government could escape some responsibility through their agent in these matters, on the mere ground that the agent had given orders without authority. But in many cases orders cannot be produced at all; these are the difficult cases. We are trying to clear up as rapidly as possible the other cases, and we are warning the agents, giving them very definite instructions that it is only in case of relief and of dire necessity that they should issue these orders, and not for the purpose of indiscriminately purchasing implements, horses, harness, supplies, wagons and so forth, which has been going on heretofore, and which often end in difficulties, because when bad crops come the band are unable to liquidate their debts. I have in the estimates I may say, a request that I be granted sums of money that were provided out of the Greater Production programme, entered into by the previous government, that I wish to use for the purpose of assisting Indians who are starting up, and to avoid this issue of orders for the purpose of purchasing such supplies as I have mentioned.
But, dealing now specifically with the particular case mentioned, I do not see how we are barring the right of a creditor who has a perfect right to apply if he can substantiate his claim, even in the event of the death of the Indian who purchased from him. If supplies were legitimately furnished under authority of the order of the agent, I feel quite certain that the department would be willing, if the estate was worth it, to recognize the claim against an individual Indian. Although, after all, the communal interest always arises in these cases. The situation is rather difficult to handle, and one of the things I am determined to stop is the issuing of these orders and the securing of credit on the authority of the agent for the articles that I have indicated.


Mr. LADNER:: In connection with advances made to Indians out of this fund by way of help, there is a case in Alberta of a man who now lives in Vancouver and who, at the request of and under the written guarantee of the Indian agent, sold some three or four thousand dollars' worth of horses and other things to Indians for which he was not paid. Is it not possible, when the department through its agent officially stands behind a purchase of that kind and when the Indian receives the advantage of the goods, to provide some relief?


Charles A. Stewart: Did the
sale take place in Alberta?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: What is the agency? The case has not come to my notice.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have communicated with the department about it. The Indian agent guaranteed the payment. The Indians received the articles but never made payment. The Indian agent is now unable to stand behind his guarantee and the department apparently has not been willing to make any settlement.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
knowledge of that case. I fancy he must be wrong about the province. The hon. member must bear in mind the fact that we have had Indian agents who are human like other people, who have gone wrong, and without any authority whatever from the commissioner or anyone else, have obligated by order the band with a heavy indebtedness of this character. A case of that kind is most difficult to settle. Sometimes I even feel that the vendor was cognizant of the fact that the transaction was not a strictly bona fide one.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In this case it was.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
accusing my hon. friend, but too often that sort of thing happens and we have difficulty
Indian Act

in settling such claims. On the other hand, many legitimate claims are entered into in good faith by vendors when they have the signed orders of the agent on copies specially prepared by the department. These are produced and there is every evidence that the sale is a legitimate one. In such cases, of course, there cannot be any dispute about the matter, and the obligation is one that must be straightened out in some manner.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How is the debt settled?


Charles A. Stewart: We have to resort to many way3 of making adjustments -borrowing from band funds, for instance. In some cases w'e have to liquidate the debt. We try to investigate every one of them on its merits. When the responsibility of the government appears to be proven, we endeavour to adopt the best method possible of adjusting such claims. This, however, is a condition of affairs that Cannot continue. Invariably, when distress strikes the Indian, as it strikes the white man, he is unable to pay, and unfortunately as the years drag on he becomes frequently unwilling to pay. We try, in the best way we can, to recover the sums of money from Indians who have incurred the liability, but the task is pretty difficult at times.


Oliver Robert Gould: The minister states that the practice is to be stopped. I would infer from that that the department or the government realize that they have assumed a responsibility through the medium of their agents to the people with whom these Indians have done business. The minister also mentioned that they were going to endeavour to assist in collecting these moneys and stated that they might borrow from the Indian fund. But I should like a more definite statement of what methods might be employed to secure these funds immediately for the men to whom the moneys are owing. The minister knows that I have a case which I have taken up with him. I am not satisfied that I can tell my people at home that I have been assured of any recourse.


Charles A. Stewart: Personally, I am willing to do the best I can to collect these claims, but the vendor must accept some responsibility. Dealing by ,note with an Indian always has been and will be a dangerous practice under any circumstance. When someone can persuade a crowd of Indians, even with the guarantee of the agent, to purchase a number of horses or to sign a note for twelve months in connection with some purchase, he is engaging in a

dangerous venture, and I do not think the government should. assume all the responsibility of seeing that man out of his difficulties when he gets into them. True, he says, your agent gave authority. The agent will frequently say that he was persuaded to do this. That is an evidence of weakness on his part, I will admit, and I have admitted that he is the agent of the government. But to say that the government are responsible for every act that happens and ought to provide money for every mistake that is made, is going a long way. The best advice that hon. members can give to. their constituents is that when they contemplate dealing with Indians on the basis of a note coming due twelve months hence, they had better consider the matter twice. W'hen actual difficulties arise and there is distress which requires relief, the agent is entitled to give that relief under his signature immediately. But .to give the agent a free hand any longer to sign orders that, will consummate a deal on the basis of long-term credit is something that will not be sanctioned by me. In the two years during which I have been in office we have liquidated many of these debts. Unfortunately they are not all liquidated and we have incurred some more. We have a rather serious case in Saskatchewan, but that is the case where an agent went wrong entirely. Nevertheless, I think it is the duty of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, so far as it is humanly possible for him, to assist in securing the payment of those notes and debts that are incurred by Indians, particularly where they have been incurred under the authority of the agent.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If an agent specifically guarantees on the proper legal form the payment of a debt-a different thing from signing an order

and the Indian receives the goods, does the minister not think the government has some responsibility for a transaction of that kind?


Charles A. Stewart: What is
the name of that case? I have no knowledge of it. So far I have not come across a case where the agent guaranteed the debt.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have in mind a case where the agent specifically guarantees the debt and the Indian receives the horses or goods. Does the minister not think that the government should either pay the debt or adjust the matter in some way instead of

C .N R .-Branch Lines
leaving the creditor in the position of being unable to collect the debt although the Indian retains the articles?


Charles A. Stewart: The hon. member mentioned the case of an agent guaranteeing the debt, but no such case has ever come to my attention. What is done is this: There is authorized an order for purchase and that order is signed, but it carries no guarantee with it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But I have seen the guarantee-" I hereby guarantee the payment of the debt," or something like that.
Mr. STEW'ART (Argenteuil):	Who -was
the particular agent?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have forgotten the name, but I can supply the full particulars to the minister. In fact, the department, I am sure, has all the information.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to be understood as making any special request in the premises as regards the creditors except to say that whatever policy is adopted it should be general and that there should be no discretionary . power in the minister. Where . an agent has stood behind the debt by either guarantee or recommendation, if there is to be payment in one case there should be payment in all. There cannot be any respecting of persons in a matter of this kind, nor can there be any difference in the conduct of the government in respect of the Indians and their creditors as between one agent and another. The agent may have been good or he may have been bad, but the government's conduct should be based upon a principle, and if they are going to acknowledge certain debts and clean them up they should clean them all up. I would suggest that the minister make public, so that it would be generally known throughout the Dominion, just what authority the agent has. An agent is an agent, it is true, but he is not an agent to incur debts; and I have no doubt whatever that if the matter came into the Exchequer court, where alone it could come, the court would hold that there was no authority in any agent to incur these debts. At the same time, however, the minister says that frequently the department has to authorize the agents specially to incur such debts. Well, the minister should make known to the whole country clearly that people must investigate the direct authority of the agent for the specific purchase; they should call upon the agent to show his authority from the department, and unless this can be done these people should
not allow themselves to be vendors to the Indians at all. The question which I thought the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) raised was as to whether the creditor had any better claim in law after the death of the Indian than before; and referring to this clause particularly he wanted to know whether the widow and the next of kin were going to come in ahead of the creditors. I do not think the minister answered that question and perhaps he should not be expected to. But the estate is exactly in the same position as the Indian was; the Indian and his property were under the minister, who was guardian before the Indian's death, and the property and the heirs are under the minister afterwards. It is the minister as guardian who determines what comes in against the estate, and the creditor, is not in the least better position after the Indian dies than before.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: What is going to be done in regard to section 8?


Charles A. Stewart: As I mentioned, section 8 has been deleted in the reprint of the bill; it was dropped.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS - KAMLOOPS-KELOWNA CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 33, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line, Kamloops-Kelowna division, province of British Columbia.
He said: This is an amendment inserted in all the bills in connection with section 8 with regard to "further information as the minister may direct".
Arthur Meighen: There is no need for abolishing the Senate on account of this amendment?


Mr. GRAHAM:: We accept it.
Motion agreed to; amendment
12 noon, read the second time and concurred in.



FISHERIES ACT, 1914, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine Fisheries) moved that the House go into Committee on Bill No. 248, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1914.
Fisheries Act
[Stage Direction]
l ;	'
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-License for manufacturing fish meal, etc.
Mr. CARDIN:: Under the law as it stands the manufacture of oil and other commercial products from fish has been limited to certain kinds of fish, namely, sea lions, hair seals, sharks and grayfish. We propose by the amendment to allow the manufacture of oil or other commercial products from all varieties of fish. We want to cover by license, and so obtain control over, the manufacture of oil and other commercial products from all kinds of fish.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister think that we should go on with this boll in the absence of the member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) and the member for Victoria and Carle-ton (Mr. Caldwell)? I am sure they would have something to say on a subject of this kind. I understand the design of the bill is to give the minister some control over the manufacture of fish meal, fertilizer, oil, glue products, and so forth, from fish and fish offal.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Why does the minister want to exercise that control?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is a rapidly growing demand for these products and we think it advisable to have control over the manufacturing establishments in order that we may supervise them, and grant licenses only to persons deserving of such privileges. The matter was discussed the other day when the members to whom my right hon. friend refers were present, and no objection was taken by them.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that the bill is objectionable or that it is not. The purpose seems to be to make the government responsible for the character of fish meal as well as of fertilizer, oil, glue, and these other products. Have there been cases of spurious or deleterious products coming to the attention of the minister?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Arthur Meighen: For example, under the Department of Agriculture we have taken control of feeds, and I have no doubt for a good purpose, but only after years of experience had proven that unless we exercised such supervision imposition was made upon the public, particularly farmers, who were being sold spurious feeds. Have similar rep-

resentations been made to the minister regarding these fish products? Because, otherwise, it is only a means of giving the minister a sort of political control over anybody who wants to do business in this way. I think very great care should be exercised before we attempt to superintend everything manufactured in this country.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At present we have no control over the manufacture of these products, but this bill would give us some control, and although it may not be complete, yet it would enable us to judge of the qualifications of those who make requisition for licenses and restrict their grant to men of good character. The present law was passed in 1917, and we are seeking to amend it in order to cover the manufacture of oil and other commercial products from all kinds of fish.


Mr. NEILL:: These reduction planta are mostly in the district that I represent, and I do not think there will be any objection to this clause. For a number of years past it has been necessary to obtain a license for such plants, and the amendment simply extends the scope of the supervision. I do not think there is any danger of political control because the licenses will not be limited; anybody can get a license on making application.


Arthur Meighen: Will the member tell us what earthly good this amendment will accomplish? It may be that any object served in British Columbia should be served throughout the Dominion, but apparently there is no control exercised over the product; the licensees can make whatever stuff they like.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Then what do we care what they make so long as we do not bother with the product?


Alan Webster Neill: It has been held desirable
to have control over all fish licenses by the Fisheries Act. We have always exercised control in regard to the product manufactured. Perhaps the operation of the works or the time they shall be conducted, as for certain runs of fish, might be regulated.


Arthur Meighen: But unless that is done what can be the purpose?


Alan Webster Neill: It is to give the department power to impose conditions.


Arthur Meighen: The minister says a
man must have a license to fish. That is to

Research Council Act
give the department control of the quantity of fish taken in a certain area so that we may preserve our fish; but no such object could be served in regard to fish meal because the fish are there now. Unless we intend to superintend the product in the public interest, I am really at a loss to know why we are doing this. Does the minister know? There must have been some purpose in British Columbia or the act would not have been passed in 1917. I do not remember its being enacted. Apparently in 1917 a law was passed under which in British Columbia no one may engage in the manufacture of oil or other commercial products from sea-lions, hair-seals, sharks or grayfish except under license from the minister. Such license is not to foe granted until the minister has approved of the site of the reduction works on which it is proposed to carry on such manufacture. Now this is being changed and made applicable to the whole Dominion. Really I should like to know what it is for.


Alan Webster Neill: Under the old act such license was not to be granted until the minister had approved of the site. There is need for such regulation, for a man might want to start a reduction plant in the middle of a small town, which would be obnoxious. This bill gives the minister power to regulate the industry.


Arthur Meighen: We have no control
over those things unless under the trade and commerce provisions of the British North America Act. It is under those provisions that we presume to act in the case of the Department of Agriculture. We may be challenged there some day. But we cannot say to the owner of a plant: You must not open your plant in the middle of a town. We have no right in the world to say that.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Following these questions,
I would suggest to the minister that perhaps one of the reasons for exercising jurisdiction of this kind arose in connection with the manufacture of fish meal and fertilizer in district No. 3 of British Columbia. Is there anybody manufacturing the articles specified in section 9 who will be affected by this legislation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think this will
interfere with any existing legislation. We are simply asking that the power we now have of requiring a license from manufacturers of oil and other commercial products shall be extended to manufacturers of all kinds of fish products.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Why do you wish to extend it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Because, since the law has been in operation we have discovered that there is a certain number of manufacturers who are manufacturing, without a license, oil and other products from other kinds of fish than those mentioned in the law.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Are there any of them in district No. 3, British Columbia?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I could not say at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Penalty.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is only to correct a
clerical error. In the last line of article 61A the word "sixty" is in error; it should be " eighty ".


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of
the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 241, to amend the Research Council Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 3-Advisory council.
Arthur Meighen: What is this?
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) The amendment to the act is simply to increase the number on the board. It is hoped that this will extend interest in the council's work.


Arthur Meighen: Where is that amendment?


Charles A. Stewart: In section
4.


Arthur Meighen: Is not this whole thing
a mistake? The act is entitled " An act to amend the Research Council Act." Then it
goes on and says:
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
1. This act may be cited as the Research Council Act, 1924.
Well, if it is, it is not an amendment to the Research Council Act. Then it proceeds as if it was an original bill and apparently is so, all the way through.
Research Council Act


Charles A. Stewart: No, it adopts many clauses of the old act.


Arthur Meighen: My point is this: It is not an act to amend the Research Council Act.


Charles A. Stewart: The original act of 1917 is entitled "An act relating to the Honorary Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research".


Arthur Meighen: The title of this act is wrong. It should be called "An act respecting the Research Council." It is not an act to amend any other act at all; that is my point.


Charles A. Stewart: I confess I do not follow my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: If this were an act to amend the Research Council Act, the bill would read: "His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, of Canada, enacts as follows:

Section so and so is hereby amended to
read as follows." The minister sees it is not such an act at all. This is a new act. It does not take the old act and amend it, but builds a new act from the ground up. There has been an error; there is not a single section in this bill that amends.


Charles A. Stewart: Does not section 4 do that?


Arthur Meighen: It might be entitled, "An act respecting the Research Council." It repeals the old act and makes a new act.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my hon. friend suggest that instead of using the word "amend" we should say "enact"?


Arthur Meighen: The title of the bill is now "An act to amend the Research Council Act." When we come to the title we can consider how it should be amended. It is not right now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Appointment of council.
Arthur Meighen: This will mean added expense, will it not?


Charles A. Stewart: The hope is that by enlarging the board a greater interest will be taken in the council's work. I do not think there is any objection to increasing the number. The council is doing a very important work, and the wider the interest that is taken in it the better.


Arthur Meighen: Clause 4 does not read right to me. In the first place, I question the wisdom of having so large a council. I am afraid it will dissipate the wisdom of each. Furthermore, it will undoubtedly be more expensive, because we pay all the expenses. Passing from that point does the minister notice how the clause reads. I may be wrong but just reading it hurriedly it seems to me not to be rightly worded:
The members of the council, with the exception of the president, shall hold office for a period of three years, and not less than four members shall retire each year-
That is all right. Now, then, in the next line:
-provided that of the members first appointed under this act, nor more than five shall each be appointed-
Should it not be " not more than five?" It is a misprint I suppose.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. WTe will change it.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Section 4, subsection 3-Reappointment.


Arthur Meighen: Was a retiring member
not eligible before?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
recollect; I think they were reappointed. I think Mr. Cronyn was reappointed. This is to place the question beyond doubt.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-President of the Council.


Donald Sutherland: What salary does
the president of the council receive? I notice here a provision that the Governor in Council shall have authority to deal with the matter of salaries.


Charles A. Stewart: No salary
is being paid at the moment, but it is deemed advisable to make this provision in the event of a permanent president being appointed who will devote all his time to the work. The government have contemplated the possibility of having some person undertake this work permanently and, of course, if he gave up all his time to it it would be necessary to pay him.


Arthur Meighen: As everybody knows the real power behind the throne in connection with the advisory council has been Mr. Hume Cronyn, of London. He has given his time unstintedly to this work, indeed in a sense it has been one of the ambitions of his life.

Research Council Act
I earnestly hope Mr. Cronyn is taking the same interest in it that he always has. I have no doubt he will. I do not think anything in the world will ever rob him of that interest. I think the initial president was Dr. McCallum and upon his becoming Professor in McGill university, Dr. Adams took the presidency. Evidently it is proposed now to have a salaried president giving all his time to these duties. I presume this is recommended by the council. May I ask the minister is it recommended by Mr. Cronyn?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Cronyn was consulted. I understand that he is fully cognizant of all that is going on; he still takes a very active interest in the council. Dr. Tory drafted these amending clauses under the supervision, of course, of the council. Mr. Cronyn and he are working very closely on all matters pertaining to scientific research. I should just like to add to what the right hon. leader of the opposition has said with respect to the services of Mr. Hume Cronyn. Mr. Cronyn has given a great deal of thought to this question and is worthy of laudatory mention in connection with it, it is very important work and means a great deal to Canada.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to raise
objection to the president being a salaried man if the council, and especially Mr. Cronyn, have thoroughly considered the subject and recommended accordingly. But I do express some doubts as to whether it is not going to change the whole character of the enterprise. It has never been on a salaried basis before; it has been the labour of scientific men whose efforts have been handicapped and restricted, because we have never been able to give the council local habitation and a name. Until we build it a home it will be a sort of creature of the wilds. Therefore, how the president is going to occupy all his time in this service I am at a loss to understand. Certainly if a man is to give all his time the salary will have to be large. The minister must prepare himself for that eventuality, because he will not get a man who will be of any service in that sphere to give all his time to the work and get him for a small salary-he cannot do it. Once he secures a large-salaried man then to have that man's time really count and have him earn his money there will have to be a circle of subordinates; because no man worth say five, ten or twelve thousand a year can earn his money unless he has others in his service. It is the only way a man can earn a large amount, anyway. Does the minister
really give the Research Council that status prior to our going about the work in a scientific and business way and providing all the necessary apparatus? Does he really feel he is going to make it pay this country to have a future president on a large salary, and earning his salary by having under him an entourage of very considerable extent and very considerable cost.


Charles A. Stewart: I am very glad the right hon. leader of the opposition has brought the matter up in this way. There is considerable objection to the establishment of a research institute, and all that it would involve, as my right hon. friend has pointed out, at this stage in our history. But in all the universities throughout Canada an earnest effort is being made along some line or otheT of research work. In the university of Alberta they have been making special studies in ,two or three directions. In Saskatchewan, as Saskatchewan members well know, they have been doing splendid work with respect to the testing of field crops and solving the problems that arise in connection with the agricultural industry. In the Manitoba universities they are also carrying on a variety of experiments.
I am extremely anxious that this research work should be encouraged. In connection with the Department of Mines in Ottawa experimental work has been going on with respect to road material, coal, oils; in fact there are a dozen different experiments in progress under the direction of the deputy minister. In British Columbia they are doing some research work in connection with the separation of metals, but throughout Canada there is a lack of co-ordinated effort in research activities, and there is, in many cases, duplication of effort. I am convinced that a council of this character, with the aid of men such as Mr. Hume Cronyn and others who have been identified with the board, men of force of character who are intensely interested in the work, can co-OTdinate all these varied activities to the great benefit of the manufacturers, the farmers, and all concerned. As has been frequently mentioned, no one can estimate what the result was of the breeding of Marquis wheat at the experimental station at Ottawa. Just at the moment there is need of co-ordinated activity in connection with the research work dealing with the matter of rust which creates terrible devastation in our wheat fields of Canada. In the industrial fields there are a hundred and one different processes that can be improved upon, and research problems to be settled by some-
Research Council Act

one who is vitally interested, and these men who are willing to give up their time to this work are in my opinion the proper body to decide on the scope and activity of the research work and co-ordinate the work, bringing into cohesion all these efforts that are being put forward throughout Canada along these lines. No one can estimate what it will mean to industry and agriculture if proper methods are pursued and problems of this character solved. I agree that perhaps the time has not arrived when we can set up at Ottawa an expensive building, expensively equipped, as my hon. friend points out, to warrant the employment of the high-priced officials to do this work. But I do not know any more enthusiastic worker in Canada than the present chairman, Dr. Tory. I do not think he would consider leaving his present position, but he has taken hold of the matter with a great deal of vigour, and is intensely interested in every phase of scientific work, and believes, as many of us believe, that if Canada and the Canadian people are to hold their place, it will largely be because of concentrated effort upon scientific and industrial research. This work assists in ways we have not yet thought of, in my opinion, and I think it extremely important that we should have this council. The question of the payment of the chairman is before us; I do not look upon that matter as the highly important feature of the bill, but I do believe that we will have to pay someone who will devote a considerable portion of his time to the coordination of this work. The council, it is true, cannot travel all over Canada to do the work. Someone will have to do it, and I think the chairman is the proper person for it.


Robert Forke: I would like to express my apreoiation of the work done by the Research Council. I sympathize with some of the ideas expressed by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen); we want to be rather careful in starting out on a new departure. I can readily see, from the little experience I have gained in the House, [DOT]that it is much easier starting a thing than stopping it, and I want to be very cautious in regard to new expenditures. But every member in the House has had a report from the Research Council, and I think we all recognize the tremendous importance of the Work that can be done by such an agency. As a farmer, I may say that we are anxious to find some way of meeting the terrible ravages that have been wrought upon the wheat by the rust. We have 'had no cure 
for it yet. We have had nothing from the Research Council and other scientists beyond an elaborate explanation as to what rust really is; no cure has been offered us. I would like to see everything done to encourage inquiry along scientific lines in the farm, the field, the mines, and our industrial activities; I believe great work ean be done by investigation into scientific methods of production even in our industries. I hope nothing will be done to throw cold water on this movement. Whether it is necessary at the present time to have a salaried officer engaged all the year or not is a question that ma.y be worth considering. I have risen principally to express my appreciation of the splendid work that is being done by those *gentlemen voluntarily at the present time and of the great service they are rendering Canada in the work .they are undertaking. Perhaps we may sometimes think the ordinary farmer has not his eyes open to research and investigation of this kind, but we are anxiously watching the endeavours made by these men to do something that will help the farmer to meet some of the difficulties he has to contend with.


Donald Sutherland: Scientific research is a work of unlimited possibilities. I understand the minister's idea is to co-ordinate the forces of those who are carrying on this work in the various departments of the government. I am not too sure as to whether that would be any improvement over what might be carried on in the respective departments. This is an age where people specialize rather than cover a wide range in anything, and it is only by the closest application and the study of a lifetime that the best results can be obtained. The minister mentioned the matter of rust, and what has been accomplished in the discovery of the Marquis wheat. These things appertain to the Department of Agriculture. The agricultural colleges of our country are devoting their best efforts to obtaining information with regard to these matters, and I cannot see how it would be any advantage to take from the Department of Agriculture the experienced men who are conducting that work, purely a work pertaining to agriculture. The same thing might be said with regard to the ravages of insect pests in connection with our forests.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry if I was not understood by my hon. friend. It is not the intention to interfere in any way with the departments, but I will put it
in this way: Here is a clearing house, if you

Research Council Act
will, for all activities and endeavours, to prevent overlapping. It does not mean that these men shall be removed from their positions, or that anything shall be taken away from them. Their work will go on in their several departments. Nor is it the intention to bring these men all into one place, except perhaps once a year, for the purpose of consultation. They will work where they are working now, in the universities, in the department of Agriculture, or wherever they are carrying on research activities.


Donald Sutherland: I understand that
the number is to be increased from eleven to fifteen, and that it is the intention of the minister to utilize the services of those who are already in the departments carrying on this work, rather than to appoint men who are not in the departments.


Charles A. Stewart: Those men
who are on the council are not employed as experts. They are men who are enthusiastic in scientific work. Mr. Hume Cronyn. for example is not a chemist, and is not engaged in actual investigational work, he is actuated purely by enthusiasm for the work itself and what it will produce.


Donald Sutherland: It would appear that when the president of this board is appointed at a salary, he will naturally have to surround himself, as the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) says, with a staff, if the work is going to be effective. If he is going to apply the services of those who are already in the department in addition to those of the others already chosen, I question very much whether any particular benefit will be obtained by diffusing the efforts of those in the Department of Agriculture, for instance-which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good)-over the work on which they now are centering all their activities and the work of some other branch as well, I do not think the minister has intimated very clearly to the House the full intentions of the government with regard to this matter. The term "co-ordination" is a very loose term to use regarding the activities of the scientific men of the various branches of the departments. If it is an intereference with the work which they are carrying on, I am afraid it was not what was intended when this council was first appointed.


Charles A. Stewart: I confess
I have become interested very much in this work. I was interested in it before I came to
Ottawa, through the efforts put forth in the university of Alberta, largely in research along one or two lines. But I wish to assure my hon. friend that my hope in connection with this matter is, at least, that every man who develops special qualities for a particular line of work will be encouraged to the limit. In the Mines branch highly important work is and has been going on for years, and no one knows very much about it except the men who are directly interested. We know about the success of Dr. Saunders because it was spread broadcast throughout Canada. The research work that has been going on in the various departments for years is very important and the services that these men are rendering is frequently not known to the public generally. That, however, is not the most important matter after all. A man whose temperament is so adjusted that he likes that kind of work is usually not looking for honour out of it; he is anxious to solve a problem and he devotes his energies towards solving it. I may mention the case of a young man who came into the service of the department three or four years ago and who died the other day as a result of investigational work in connection with gas. This man persisted in sticking to his post because he had a problem which he wanted to solve, and I believe that by doing so, instead of resting, he contributed very largely to his death. I do not believe, that we as laymen, appreciate enough the services of this large body of men who, from year to year, are going into scientific and research work throughout Canada generally, giving up what they might have attained through their splendid intellect and high training, and devoting their time to the solving of some problem directly in the interest of the public. My hon. friend mentioned the fact that they have not discovered a cure for rust. I remember that twenty-five years ago we were cutting down barberry bushes in Ontario because we thought that was the cause of rust, but we have since found out that there must be other causes. We know, only too well, the effect of rust, but it will probably be a period of years before we discover its actual cause and. the means of prevention. I mention that because it is such an important question and we realize the importance of it, but it is only one question in the midst of a thousand, practically as important, on which these men are working.
I mention co-ordination for this reason. My hon. friend will agree with me that it will be well that the activities of these highly trained scientific men be engaged in
Research Council Act

the particular line of work for which they are best adapted or which they desire to engage in to the exclusion of other lines. He will also agree with me that it does not matter what particular problem of research is under discussion, it is important that the chemical mind that is trained, for example, in solving agricultural problems should come into communion with other trained minds working in other directions, because their communion will assist very materially in solving some problem. . If a body of these men sit down to discuss a problem til at they are not working on at all, their life work is along those lines and very frequently they will greatly assist in solving a problem that, for the moment, is baffling to the particular one .that is engaged on it. I believe, in this research council, we have a medium by which great service can be rendered, not in establishing an elaborate building with extensive equipment, bult in utilizing simply the forces that we have at work to-day. I am confident a great deal of work can be done without going into the larger field or the establishment of an institution at Ottawa or in some other part of Canada and the employment of a number of men working exclusively along those lines.
We have to-day, in the Wood Products Laboratory in operation at Montreal in the grounds of McGill university, tests going on with respect to the manufacture of pulp, paper and other wood products. The manufacturers themselves are intensely interested in those experiments and they make us the offer of money to assist ius in carrying on and in widening the scope of these experiments. We are not able to accept that money because, as a government institution, we do not feel that we are entitled to take outside money for that purpose. If we did take it. our men being all engaged on a basis of a monthly or yearly salary, the situation would be rather difficult. We might take into the service some one designated by these manufacturers who would be given the use of the plant to carry out the experiments which they are desirous of having us maike. This council steps into the breach at this point; it is prepared to accept and to utilize donations, and if necessary to employ experts to carry out those experiments that are desired by the Pulp and Paper Manufacturers' Association. There is no desire on our part to employ or to give positions to men, if men can be found in the service for those pressing problems of scientific research which industry generally in Canada is desirous of 
having investigated. The desire is rather to prevent overlapping in the work on these serious problems that affect us so much. That is all that is involved in this legislation.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The general purpose of
the research council is undoubtedly to be commended in the highest possible terms. In the case of existing research work, I happen to know something about forest pathology, the study of the protection of trees from diseases. In British Columbia we are much interested in that question. Will that research work continue under the mechanical branch of the Department of Agriculture, or will it be transferred to the control of the Research Council with respect to both direction and general organization?


Charles A. Stewart: There is no desire to increase the staff or the service-or rather, I should say, the staff, because we are always anxious to extend the service as far as possible.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am not speaking about
the staff, because I think that it is, if anything, too small. What I want to know is the authority, control or relationship that will exist between the Research Council and the Department of Agriculture in respect, for example, of forest pathology which has so far been under the Botanical branch of the Department of Agriculture. Will that work be transferred to the control of the council?


Charles A. Stewart: Whenever
a problem of this kind arises the first duty of the council is to acertain whether it is not possible to carry on the work of investigation either with the different staffs of the federal government or in the various universities throughout the Dominion, the idea being to offer whatever assistance is required. First of all however the important thing is to ascertain whether or not there is already in existence adequate means for tackling the problem.


Leon Johnson Ladner: As a matter of fact there is research work of this kind going on in the Department of Agriculture, and I have taken the question of forest pathology as a concrete example. There is work of importance to the country generally being carried on in this respect and I know that the staff is much too small. When this research council is established will it assume control of that particular line of inquiry or will the subject remain under the Department of Agriculture?

Research Council Act


Arthur Meighen: There is already a research council. This is not a new idea; it is merely bringing about a few alterations in the scheme.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Oliver Robert Gould: I think it would be wise on the part of the minister to look into the question of salaries, not because we have not men in the Dominion who will devote their best energies to finding ways and means to advance science, but I think the minister will agree with me that the results which have been achieved in the past by our scientific men might have been still greater had they been under the direct supervision of the government. I suggest there should be provision for a nominal salary to the members of the council. I have in mind particularly men of the calibre of Dr. Saunders, Dr. Seager Wheeler, the late Mr. A. P. Stevenson, of Morden, Manitoba, and Mr. Larcombe, of Birtle, Manitoba. The second last named gentleman did a great deal to advance fruit growing on the prairies. I do not think these men could afford to give their time to scientific research without some remuneration, but they should not be overlooked in the formation of an advisory council when we remember their valuable contributions to scientific agriculture in the Dominion. I merely advance this as a suggestion for the minister's consideration.


Arthur Meighen: I thought it was generally understood that this bill is not any new departure; the new departures of this government are of an entirely different character. This is merely a reprinting of the old act with certain changes, notably an increase in the number of the council and the giving to the council power to receive donations. The government, unfortunately for itself, has not that power-not that it is not in dire need of the power. Unfortunately the time has not yet arrived when we can afford to more highly organize this venture, to give it a home and the necessary equipment for doing its work, and until then we are not justified in having a highly salaried head. However, I am inclined to feel in line with the minister's suggestion in that respect. I remember the first head we had did have a salary; I do not think any has drawn a salary since. There would be no object in giving a salary to the other members of the board; in fact, it would detract from the general character of the organi-2S0
zation if such were done. We have to keep abreast of scientific advance, but we cannot afford to go into work on as big a scale as other countries. We get the advantage, it must be remembered, of what other countries do, but chiefly we get the more immediate advantage of United States activities, because their scientific problems are virtually the same as ours, especially in agriculture. Personally, I have more hope of the rust problem being solved by American scientific men than by our own. They have been at it longer, they have far better apparatus and far greater breadth of experience, and a great many more of them are engaged in the work. I should be proud if Canada had the honour, but I know Canada cannot afford to launch into this scientific toil and enterprise as fully and vigorously as wealthier countries. But we must be active; it would never do for us to remain stagnant. And I add my word of praise to those who have given so much of their time and energy, very often under great discouragements, to prosecute Canada's end to the extent that it has been prosecuted. I do not know, if I were engaged directly in agriculture, that I would be so very enthusiastic about what the probable results of science will be upon that profession in the future.


Robert Forke: I would interrupt the right
hon. gentleman to point out that nearly all the greatest things in the world have been accomplished by small countries.


Arthur Meighen: As I live in a comparatively young country, I will not tarry on the road to dispute the point with my hon. friend. One thing we know, though-a small country never can accomplish much by getting into water beyond its depth. I have some tremors for my friends to my left when I think of what the possible scientific triumphs of the future may be. Reading a highly learned publication written by a member of one of Britain's finest families, a nephew of the present Lord Chancellor, I find he confidently predicts that the progress of synthetic chemistry will be such that the food products which to-day are the outgrowth of the soil or the bounty of animal life, will soon-within the lifetime of this generation-be the product of the factory and the laboratory. Already, I believe, the best of milk is produced by synthesis. This process, Mr. Haldane very confidently predicts, will now go on so rapidly that in the course of a very few years farming will be a lost occupation;-
Mr. F0RJG2: I hope so!

Research Council Act


Arthur Meighen: -it will be nothing more than the outdoor indulgence of the nature lover, and the farm itself will become just the playground of the plutocrat. Of course, long before that period the Progressive party will be no more. I will not raise their fears by any further digression.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I would like to
mention one question to which the council might devote itself, and from which a great revenue might be derived for Canada, and that is in connection with steel. It is a matter I have brought up in this House before. Canada to-day, so far as the world knows, has absolute control of the nickel deposits of all the world, and the greatest steel is nickel steel. It is essential to get from Canada the nickel to make that steel, but so far, for some reason or other, nickel has been controlled outside of Canada and is as controlled to-day, except for one factory in Ontario. This nickel of ours is going to other countries to be made into nickel steel. Canada could have a monoply of probably the greatest industiy in the world in connection with nickel steel, if we would but encourage the development of this industry at home. At present practically all our nickel goes to England where it is refined by the Mond interests, and the rest of it goes over to the United States. Some day there may be disclosures as to where Germany got her nickel during the war; I think that is near at hand, but in the meantime we have control of the world's nickel supply, and the world wants our nickel. The nickel steel industry would be a greater industry than that of pulpwood, of which we also own the greatest supply. We ought to have a government commission investigating this question. Canada wants to know why it is that our nickel ore goes to the United States when we could refine it ourselves, and in that way control the nickel steel industry of the world.
Let me point out to the minister another thing. There have been published in a Winnipeg paper this week four articles dealing with what is called the pre-Cambrian shield, the greatest deposit of mineral wealth of the world, and all but five per cent of that belt is in Canada. One little portion of it runs into the United States and makes the country immediately south of lake Superior in the United States the greatest producer of iron in the world. There is more iron produced south of lake Superior in the United States than in any other country in the world, and the material comes from the one little
[Mr. F-ke.l
piece of the pre-Cambrian shield that is outside of Canada. If that little piece in the United States is so productive, what about our own portion of the shield? We have the greatest gold mines in the world, and we have only begun to explore them; we have the greatest silver mines in the world, and we have only begun to explore them. And our great wealth of nickel lies in an area of from six to eight square miles in Ontario, right around Sudbury, and it is owned by people outside of Canada who have not yet disclosed to this country what the precious metal content of these ores may be. Now somebody is playing a game on Canada. They are taking the ore outside of Canada, and are treating it outside of Canada. We ought to keep it here, and if we did that, we would develop the greatest steel industry in the world in the production of nickel steel. We ought to put this research council at work on this problem, but it will be a long while before you see that arrive, because these investigations have been stalled for years past. But three will be an exposure of it some day. I have had a good deal to suffer because I challenged where our nickel went during the war, and it is still going out of our country. Germany came in here [DOT]*er rs before anybody else heard of nickel steel, and got control of our nickel, and they control it through England in one way and another to-day, and they will stop our production of nickel steel. The articles I refer to in the Winnipeg Free Press say there is a hope for new nickel fields being found in Canada in this preCambrian mat or rug which contains the richest store of metals in all the world. There is the place for the minister to put his commission at work, to find out the story of that pre-Cambrian shield with its immense potentialities of mineral wealth. There is no such belt of minerals in the world to-day, and only from two to five per cent of that shield is outside of Canada. Canada, having that, is to-day potentially the richest country in the world. If hon. gentlemen wish to freshen up their memories, let them read the four articles to which I have referred.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Council incorporated.
Mr. GOOD:: I should like to ask a little
more definitely as to the purpose of incorporation. What is the direct need of incorporation?


Charles A. Stewart: This is to
enable them to receive grants. One of the difficulties that we have met with in research

Research Council Act
work is that there is no organization, no particular department of the government which is enabled to accept grants and bequests for the purpose of carrying on research work. The council, under this amendment, will be permitted to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Remuneration.
Arthur Meighen: Is this the same as in
the old act?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Powers cf council.
Arthur Meighen: Is this the same as in the old act?
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil). It is practically the same as in the act passed by this House in 1921. It defines a little more elaborately the work of the council.


Arthur Meighen: There is nothing underlined; I do not know if there is anything new or not.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
nothing new, except that the council is given power to accept grants.


Arthur Meighen: That is in section 7; I
am referring to section 10. The explanatory note does not say that there is any change, but it does not say it is the same as the old act, as in the case of sections 6, 8 and 9.
M.. STEWART (Argenteuil): I have not the amendments of 1921 before me, but I have the act of 1917, and this just defines a little more elaborately the work of the council. I do not think there is anything here my hon. friend can take exception to.


Arthur Meighen: Now that we have got to the work of the council, will the minister tell us what salary the government has in mind to pay under section 5 to the president?


Charles A. Stewart: The government does not contemplate paying any salary except to some one who was willing to give his whole time to this work.


Arthur Meighen: Assuming that, what
would the minister's idea be?


Charles A. Stewart: If it was a man who was capable of doing this work and the duties occupied the whole of his time I should think $10,000. I am simply voicing my own opinion; the matter has not yet come 280J
before the government. But I will be very frank in saying that I think a man capable of carrying on this work could easily secure that salary in other lines of activity.


Arthur Meighen: That is about the government's minimum salary nowadays anyway. I do not say that it is excessive for this work, I do not know that it would be, providing the government is certain the man is going to have facilities with which he can earn the money. That is what I am in very great doubt about; -that he is going to be pretty much of a traveller, moving about from place to place, looking wise, and delivering Canadian Club addresses. Is the minister confident that he really has work for such a man to do?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I am
more than confident, that if we get the right man he will earn ten times his salary for Canada. My experience here at Ottawa and my knowledge of the work done by our Mines branch in co-operation with the Mines branch in the United States has convinced me of that As my right hon. friend mentioned a few moments ago many important discoveries have been made over there, and we have worked in close association with their men, If these activities are carried out thoroughly no one can calculate the value that will result to Canada. On the other hand money can be very easily -wasted or frittered away, but I take it that those who will compose the Reseaicii Council will be men who are intensely interested in the solution of research problems and the practical application of the information obtained. If I did not think so I would not advocate this measure. I am convinced, however, from the two years' experience that I have had here, that the Research Council can be efficiently organized under the control of a president who has the proper perspective as to the success which can be made oi research work. After all, if the results are achieved that some of us hope for the salary itself will not be a very disturbing factor. Apart altogether from the establishment of a research institute there already exists throughout Canada a wealth of material which might be brought together and utilized under a proper system of co ordination. At present there is sufficient alo.'.g that line alone to afford occupation for one person. As to the reference of my right hon friend to Canadian clubs, I think that a judicious use of these organizations can be made [DOT] connection with the education of business insj to a realization of their opportunities that will result from research work, and I am confident that much has been done along this line in
Research Council Act

the past four years. Our good friend Mr. Cronyn has played a very important part in bringing this question to the front. For example, no one can estimate what the Mellon Institute in the United States has accomplished in the way of enlightening the American people, and of course this institute is very largely maintained by industrialists themselves. We cannot hope to imitate them in Canada in that respect. I am not desirous of entailing a heavy expenditure, but I do wish to start and send this movement well on its way. When we can afford it a home of a proper character should be provided for the institute but as yet we have not arrived at that stage. My chief desire at the present time is to amend the act in such a way that it will give the council power to do a little more than they have been doing in the pasi and provide for possible development.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Is it proposed to
change in any way the relations netween the council and the universities where already much reseach work is being done?


Charles A. Stewart: No, 1
thought I had already made that very clear.


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister will
excuse me, but I was not present when he made his explanation.


Charles A. Stewart: It is not
intended to disturb the work now being carried on in the universities but rather to assist it as much as possible by co-ordinating the methods and bringing together the scientists now doing the work. There is no desire to remove any investigator from his particular field of work, but rather to devise methods w'-ch will prevent overlapping.


Arthur Edward Ross: Then I gather it
is not proposed to interfere with the awarding of scholarships at the university which has been such a source of encouragement to research work?
Mr. MARCH. (Bona venture): I avail myself of this opportunity to draw the attention of the Research Council to the requirements of agriculture in the older parts of Canada. Apart from the questions of transportation and markets, the basis of success in the pursuit of agriculture in the older districts of Canada rests very largely upon the fertilization of the land. The shores of the old parishes along the St. 1 awrence and in the Baie des Chaleurs are flooded every spring, as they were last spring, with immense quantities of herring. The farmers in those districts still employ the primitive method of

gathering these herring, and spreading them on their fields as a fertilizer. This method results in some measure of success, but if the aid of science was enlisted the fields would be enriched to a greater extent and more bountiful harvests would follow. In the parishes to which I have reference commercial fertilizers cannot be obtained except at a very high price, to which must be added the cost of transportation. If, therefore, the Research Council could take this question up and recommend a more modem and efficient way of using this harvest of the sea it would be most advantageous to the farmers not only along the St. Lawrence and the Baie des Chaleurs but also upon the coasts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member wants
the government to direct the efforts of the Research Council toward the utilizing of herring and other fish for fertilizer. I should inform him that the last bill which went through the House was a measure to prevent companies utilizing fish for fertilizer unless they first got a license from the minister of Marine. The art of extracting oil from these fish as a fertilizer seems to have progressed so far that the government has made up its mind to check it, but they were not able to give any reason therefor. Possibly my hon. friend could find out; I failed to do so.


Charles Marcil: I understand the object of the Department of Marine and Fisheries is to regulate this work. I have no objection, and I do not think the leader of the opposition should have either, to the issuing of a license in order to ensure that the work will be properly carried out. But I think the Research Council should consider the question, and see if some better results could not be obtained from these deposits of herring which have been thrown up on the shore, instead of continuing the system which has so long prevailed of the farmers mixing these herrings with fertilizer. It is for that reason I think the Research Council might look into this question, and if they can encourage the farmers of the district to use the fertilizer, the greatest good could be done.


Oliver Robert Gould: Under (1) of section 10 I
find the following:
To promote the utilization of the natural resources of Canada.
That opens up a very broad question of course, and I have wondered if, after this commission has been appointed, we may expect them to report very early on the feasibility of the Hudson bay route.

Research Council Act


Charles A. Stewart: The whole
Research Council are dealing with the natural resources of Canada throughout the whole Dominion. Scientific research involves research in the matter of materials used in the process of manufacture or being manufactured. So that it has nothing to do with the matter my hon. friend suggests.


Oliver Robert Gould: I have thought that, on
account of the suggestion that Hudson bay and the country tributary to it contain many minerals, we might reasonably expect to obtain some real scientific information concerning Hudson straits and the various ports of that district and its natural resources. The right hon. leader of the opposition has mentioned that these gentlemen would do much travelling. That would mean of course, by land, by sea, and by air, and they could bring very valuable information to the minister in a very short time.


Mr. EULER:: Does my hon. friend mean
to indicate by his remarks that he has abandoned all idea of using the Hudson bay route for transportation of grain, and that he confines it merely to mineral resources?


Oliver Robert Gould: This is a subsidiary question, and gentlemen who have paid much attention to the Hudson bay project will readily understand that the mineral resources of that district are simply subsidiary to the main question for which we have always pleaded. Concerning the straits themselves, it is not necessary to advise any one who now lives in the West, but in the case of hon. gentlemen who are unacquainted with the real facts pertaining to the question this commission might perhaps bring in the last vestige of information which might eventually persuade those who do not now know of the practicability and feasibility of that route. Hudson bay being a large inland sea, it seems to me if we are going to have a diversified personnel on the commission we might have two or three members devoting their time to obtaining information on that subject, and two or three devoting their time to agriculture, and two or three engaged on the problem of mines and minerals and various other things. The board might be composed of fifteen members. They would meet in council and find out what the consensus of opinion would be, then submit it to the minister, the minister would submit it to the Governor in Council and the Governor in Council would submit it to parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Discoveries and inventions, control of.
Arthur Meighen: Might I ask the minister what his opinion is of section 11. What is the difference between this clause and the other.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry I have not the details of this before me, but there is no provision, in the case of a discovery made by an individual who is drawing funds from the council for investigational work, preventing the discoverer from claiming the rights in his invention. All the rights with respect to discoveries, under section 11 will go to the council.


Arthur Meighen: This is very important.


Mr. STANSELL:: Does that mean that,
when you have employed a man at about $10,000 a year, and he has done some work and discovered something, he is to be paid a royalty for doing that work?


Charles A. Stewart: No, exactly the reverse, the hon. gentleman misunderstood me if he got that impression. Take a concrete case. Professor Boyle, for example, is employed by the Research Council at the moment on a very important piece of work, namely the development and invention of an instrument used inside the hull of a ship, which is so intricate, and nevertheless so accurate, that in a fog they can definitely locate other vessels or icebergs in their vicinity. The point is that whatever Professor Boyle may invent or discover will be th*e property of the council rather than his own. That is the meaning of section 11.


Mr. MANION:: Should it not be left to the Research Council, with the approval of parliament? Suppose some man made a discovery of some value, such as Marquis wheat, it seems to me the matter should be left to parliament rather than to the Governor in Council.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no very fixed opinion about this. It was given to me by the council, but it appears to me that if a man is in the employ of the government or the board, being paid for his services, working on a problem given to him to work out, it is eminently fair that if he makes a discovery, it should belong to the board.


Robert James Manion: I do not object to that,but I object to it being left to the Governor in Council. Let parliament deal with the recommendation. I only suggest that.
Research Co-uncil Act


Charles A. Stewart: I do not see very much difference. The discoverer of insulin, for example, was recognized.


Robert James Manion: By parliament.


Charles A. Stewart: And in any case he would have to be recognized. The Governor in Council would not have power to give it to him, but parliament would have the power.


Robert James Manion: The section reads:
The council with the approval of the Governor in Council may pay to its technical officers-
And so on.
I should think it would be for the council to recommend to parliament, and if parliament choose let them pay him.


Arthur Meighen: This is a very important matter. Heretofore if any man in the employ of the government made a discovery, that discovery belonged to the department. For example, take Mr. Stewart in the Water Powers branch of the minister's department, who for some time has been engaged in purely scientific research work with very good results: If he succeeded in the development of his oxo-hydrogen proposition for instance, and made a discovery of tremendous scientific import, that discovery belongs to the department. With this section going through, as I understand the scope of the commission's power and jurisdiction, Mr. Stewart would be under the commission in just the same sense as anybody else would be. It is true he is employed by the Interior department, but his scientific work is, as the minister says, coordinated by the commission; at least if he is not under the commission, for the life of me I do not know what the commission is going to do under the new arrangement. All these investigating agencies are working on more or less scientific subjects. I can mention half a dozen of them. The minister has one of them working on ore flotation. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has three or four himself looking into various processes to overcome farm blights. In the Forestry branch there are those working on the bud worm, and so forth. According to the minister, all these are, in the sense intended by section 11, going to be under this Research Council; the Research Council is going to co-ordinate their efforts. How can it do so unless they are under it? I do not know. Assume, then, that they come under it and this section goes through; assume that they are to-day under it, in the sense of this section. Then hereafter the man who makes any scientific discovery becomes himself personally the proprietor of that
l Mr. Manion.]
discovery. It may be that he cannot exploit it except under the survey of the minister, but once this section passes, the moral right of that man to his discovery is established just the same as if he had discovered it when he was outside the employment of the government altogether. The country binds itself to make a fair and equitable arrangement with him as to his share of the royalty. I am not saying that there are not arguments in its favour, but it is a very radical and rather serious departure, and I hope the minister has very carefully considered its consequences.


Charles A. Stewart: I confess
I do not see the difficulties that my right hon. friend has raised. The object may not be very well worded, but it was to retain men who were working directly under the control of the Research Council. If they made an important discovery, the benefit of that discovery should primarily belong to the Research Council, and as it acts under the control of the government, that would mean that the benefit of the discovery would primarily be under the control of the government-


Arthur Meighen: Read the second clause.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
nothing obligatory about that. The matter is left entirely to the Governor in Council. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) has raised the question whether that ought not to be left to parliament. I do not think that is so important.


Robert James Manion: In the case of Dr. Banting the matter was dealt with by parliament.
Mr.STEWART (Argenteuil): I quite agree. A gratuity was paid to Dr. Banting by a rather grateful people through parliament. I cannot see the difficulty raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen).


Arthur Meighen: It is a recognition of the proprietary right of an inventor to his invention. It may be that what he is paid for it is left to the Governor in Council; but if this section goes through, it seems to me, the Governor in Council would be obliged to give that man such royalty as he could have obtained if he had been carrying on in private life, unless some proviso is inserted.
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil). There is another element that perhaps my right hon. friend is losing sight of. In this case somebody-the Governor in Council-has reserved the right to say what shall be done in the case of an important discovery. But, after all, as I said early in this debate, there is not much

Civil Service Commissioners
incentive to men engaged in research work. Surely there is no incentive in the mere salary that they get for their labours. You must, therefore, hold out some incentive to men who are tied down to a salary year in and year out, working in the interest of the public, because after all, that is what they are doing. They have an expensive education to secure before they can be of any real value to the country, and I think some flexibility should be permitted in dealing with a man who has, through his efforts and concentration, contributed something of real value to either science or industry. I went over this fairly carefully with Dr. Tory because I saw that it involved a little change. After all, the Governor in Council would not undertake to do things for any individual that he felt parliament would not back him up in doing. Naturally, in the case of very important discoveries, the matter would be referred to parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the title.
Charles A. Stewart: My right
hon. friend has raised objection to the title, but it is in accordance with the act of 1921, when the act was passed before under almost similar conditions. In fairness, I should point out, that in 1921 there was an embodiment of a research institute which was struck out by the Senate on that occasion.


Arthur Meighen: The 1921 act was an
amendment, this is not an amendment, that is the point. I am however, quite satisfied having called the matter to the attention of the minister. I do not think the Senate was right. The minister will see at a glance that he is repealing the whole act. How can he be amending it?


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

Hon. A. B. OOPP (Secretary of State):: moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, to provide for the granting of 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.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The resolution provides that
a commissioner who has served fifteen years or upwards or who has become disabled or otherwise incapable of performing the duties of his office, shall be given an annual retiring allowance. The bill which will be founded on this resolution is composed of one section only, which is simply in the words of the resolution and setting out that the retiring allowance payable for life shall be equal to two-thirds of his salary at the time of his retirement. In 1923 a similar suggestion was made to the special committee which at that time was inquiring into the operation of the Civil Service Act, but nothing was done in the matter. When the Superannuation bill was before parliament the Civil Service Commissioners drew to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government the fact that there was no arrangement under that legislation for the superannuation of members of the commission. So that the committee may have before it as concisely as possible the representations of the commissioners I shall read the letter which they addressed to the Prime Minister on the subject:
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF CANADA Ottawa, May 19, 1924.
Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie Kino, P.C., C.M.G., LL.D.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,-As the government contemplates the passing of a superannuation measure applicable to certain classes of the Public Service, the undersigned respectfully request your favourable consideration of such an amendment to the Civil Service Act as would provide for the superannuation of the present Civil Service Commissioners.
The reasons for this request may be briefly stated as follows:-
1.	The present commissioners have the same tenure of office as members of the judiciary, viz., during good behaviour, and are only removable by the Governor General, on address of the Senate and House of Commons-future appointees holding office but for ten years.
2.	The duties of the commissioners are of a semijudicial character, involving as they do the interpretation of the Civil Service Act and Regulations, of the organic acts of the different departments, and other acts dealing with questions of domicile, of naturalization, retirement of public servants, etc.
3.	Since their appointment the responsibilities of the commissioners have been extended to the Outside Service, the reorganization of the departments, the reclassification of the public service, the revision of salary schedules, transfers, leaves of absence, suspensions, etc., their duties having so been increased tenfold.
4.	No adequate provision can be conveniently made for the commissioners in the contemplated Superannuation Act without differentiating sharply between the commissioners and those other employees in the service who do not perform comparable duties or possess the same status and tenure of office.
It is respectfully submitted that the provision to be made should be the same as that provided by the Judges' Act for members of the judiciary.

Civil Service Commissioners
The following is submitted as a draft of the proposed amendment, the wording being substantially that of section 19, chapter 138 R.S. Canada.
" The Civil Service Act, 1918 as amended, is hereby further amended by adding the following:-
54. If any Civil Service Commissioner of Canada appointed under chapter 15, 7-8 Edward VII * The Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908 ' or under chapter 1-2 George V, ' An Act to Amend the Civil Service Act ' who has continued in office of Civil Service Commissioner of Canada for fifteen years or upwards, or who becomes afflicted with some permanent infirmity, disabling him from due exercise of his office, resigns from office, His Majesty may by Letters Patent under the great seal of Canada, reciting such period of office or such infirmity, grant unto such Civil Service Commissioner an annuity of two-thirds of the salary annexed to the office he held at the time of his resignation, to commence immediately after his resignation and to continue thenceforth during his natural life, and such annuity shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada."
The foregoing letter was submitted to the special committee to which was referred the Superannuation bill. There was read to the committee a letter from the Prime Minister's secretary enclosing the letter I have just quoted, and one of the Civil Service Commissioners appeared in person before the committee as well. In reply to that communication the following statement was made by the chairman of the committee:
There was also read by me to the committee a letter received from Mr. McGregor, enclosing a letter from the Civil Service Commission, suggesting certain salary revisions and amendments to section 54 of the Civil Service Act to make provision for the superannuation of the commissioners.
Mr. Clarence Jameson, one of the commissioners, was present at our meeting, assisting us with the re-drafting of various amendments to the bill, and he was asked to offer a further explanation to the letter which he did to the entire satisfaction of the committee.
The committee fully discussed the representations made to you by the members of the commission as contained in the letter to you of June 4, but it was held by the majority of the committee that the request of the commissioners, asking for an amendment to the Civil Service Act of 1918 to meet the injustices outlined in that letter, could not be dealt with.
The reference to the committee from the House was for consideration of Superannuation Bill 122 and the committee held it could not under its reference amend the bill to comply with the request of the commissioners for an amendment to the Civil Service Act of Canada, and, further, that as the Civil Service Act of Canada is not within the scope of reference, the committee could suggest no amendments thereto.
The committee, however, was most sympathetic to the views expressed by the commissioners and the following motion was unanimously carried by the members present:
" That in view of the representations from the Civil Service Commissioners, contained in letter to the Prime Minister dated June 4, 1924, and the further representations made by Commissioner Jameson to the committee, this committee hereby refers the matter to the government with the suggestion that favourable consideration be given to the request of the commissioners by the suggested amendments to the Civil Service Act of. 1918."

Under the circumstances, and after careful consideration, the government decided that it was only proper and just to the commissioners that legislation of this nature should be passed, and it is for that purpose that the present resolution is before the committee.


Arthur Meighen: Does the bill alter the
clause which. makes the commissioners life-holders of their posts, or until disabled? Does it put that in any way in the hands of the government?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Let me read the section:
1. The Civil Service Act, 1918, is amended by inserting after section 3 thereof the following section.
" 3 A. (1) If any member of the commission who has *continued in office as a commissioner for fifteen years or upwards, or who has become disabled or otherwise incapable of performing the duties of. his office, resigns his office, the Governor in Council may grant unto such commissioner on retirement, in lieu of any allowance to which he might otherwise become entitled under the provisions of The Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924, an annual allowance payable throughout life equal to two-thirds of his salary at the date of his retirement.
(2)	Any payment under this section shall be made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund."


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is there a similar provision for the members of other boards or commissions, such as the Board of Railway Commissioners, for example?


Arthur Bliss Copp: This legislation provides only for members of the Civil Service Commission.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Why should this particular commission be especially provided for in this respect? Perhaps it is intended next year to bring down similar legislation in regard to other commissions?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Civil Service Commissioners in their representations to the government pointed out that as their duties were of a semi-judicial character it was only reasonable that they should be given treatment similar to that of the judges, whose appointment is the same as theirs inasmuch as the tenure of office in both cases depends upon the same conditions. The government decided that there was justice in the claim and are therefore asking parliament to pass this legislation. Other commissioners, I may point out, are not appointed for life.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is not the work of the Civil Service Commissioners administrative rather than judicial?


Arthur Bliss Copp: There is a good deal of work of a judicial nature that is done by the commission. In the case of other commissions the appointment is only for ten years, but the present Civil Service Commissioners were appointed for life.

Civil Service Commissioners


Mr. MARTELL:: The present Civil Service Commissioners hold their appointment during good behaviour; but it is provided, I understand, that their successors shall be appointed for ten years only. Why should the bill not be amended so that succeeding commissioners may be provided for as well to some extent at least?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It would hardly be wise to provide pensions for men appointed for a period of ten years.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I object to the principle of the resolution. It is special legislation and apparently is intended only for the benefit of those who at present hold office, because if that had not been the intention future appointees would have been provided for so that they would receive a certain superannuation at the expiration or their term of ten years. As my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth) suggests, there are many other officials appointed for ten years, notably in the case of the Railway Commission, a body exercising judicial functions, but no effort is made to include those officials within the scope of the act.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The cases are different; appointments to the Board of Railway Commissioners are only for ten years. And those who succeed the present Civil Service Commissioners will be appointed only for that period.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I know that; under the Civil Service Act the Civil Service Commissioners have the status of deputy ministers. What provision is made for other deputy 4 p.m. ministers under this act? Absolutely none. Why should the Civil Service Commissioners be singled out from all the employees of the government service to receive this special benefit over and above what they would be entitled to under the Superannuation Act? I also object to this legislation for the reason that the Civil Service Commissioners are appointed to see that the merit principle is applied to the public service- that no special favours are granted to anyone; but here the commissioners themselves are asking for special favours. I think they should be content with their position under the Superannuation Act. I have not any doubt that within a very short time after the passage of the bill every one of these commissioners will take advantage of its provisions and a new regime will be installed to administer the Civil Service Act. I find that Dr. Roche, the chairman, is 65, Mr. Jameson is only 52 and Mr. Larochelle is 57 years of age. I understand that Mr. Larochelle has already more than fifteen years' service to his credit,
and that both Dr. Roche and Mr. Jameson have been in office since 1918, so these two commissioners have already served six years. One can readily see that in a few years they will be able to retire under the Superannuation Act at about S3,000 per annum; but under this provision for their special benefit they would each get considerably in excess of that sum. I do not think it is right for the Civil Service Commissioners to ask parliament for this special legislation, especially when we bear in mind the functions which they are supposed to fulfil under the Civil Service Act.


Arthur Bliss Copp: These commissioners were
appointed for life and do not come under the Superannuation Act the same as deputy ministers and other civil servants.


Mr. HALBERT:: What are the present
salaries?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The chairman gets $7,000 and the other two commissioners $6,000 each.


Robert Henry Halbert: The idea is to give them two-thirds of their salary by way of superannuation?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Robert Henry Halbert: Does not the minister
think that we will soon have one-half of the people paying superannuation to the other half?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Three more would go a very
short distance toward constituting half the population.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I noticed the other day that the Old Age Pensions committee recommended a very small annuity to the people generally who have been earning very small wages during their working years, but so far we have had no indication whatever that the government is prepared to carry out that recommendation. It seems to me that a measure of this kind might very well stand over until the government is prepared to make adequate provision for the old age pensions generally.


Donald Sutherland: Has the government any serious intention of bringing in a measure later on to superannuate the pulp-wood commissioners?


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is not under consideration.


George Perry Graham: They will soon have it
by length of service.


Mr. HANSON:: What is to be the annual retiring allowance?
Pensions-Canteen Funds


Arthur Bliss Copp: Two-thirds of their present salaries.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Copp thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 252, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1018.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENSIONS COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the distribution of the canteen funds by distributing the same as follows:-
(1)	The sum of $20,000 to be held for payment of any outstanding accounts;
(2)	The sum of $100,000 to be paid to a central board of three trustees appointed by the Governor in Council, without remuneration, to be used in such amounts and such manner as it may deem best for the maintenance and assistance of an adjustment service and bureau for the benefit of ex-service men and their dependents;
(3)	The sum of $50,000 to be paid to the United Services Fund of Great Britain, and the sum of $50,000 to be paid to the American Red Cross, to be used by them, respectively, in such manner as they deem proper for assistance in specially meritorious cases of ex-members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who have served in France or England, and their dependents, resident in Great Britain or the United States, as the case may be, and who are in genuine distress;
(4)	The residue of the canteen fund to be divided into nine provincial allotments in the proportion indicated by the following percentages:-
Per cent
Alberta	 7.346
British Columbia	and the Yukon	 10.286
Manitoba	 10.702
New Brunswick	 4.203
Nova Scotia	 6.439
Ontario	 41.641
Prince Edward Island	857
Quebec	 12.718
Saskatchewan	 5.808
100.000
(5)	The provincial allotments to be made to a provincial board of trustees appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council in each province without remuneration empowered to receive and hold the provincial allotment and to ascertain the wishes of those interested and residing in the province concerning the disposition of such allotment and to determine the object to which the allotment should be devoted, and to administer the same for such object or to provide for such administration by others, and to do such other things as may be indicated in the order in council appointing them. The expenses in connection with the trust to be a charge on the allotment.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
Robert James Manion: Whose scheme is this and how is it worked out? Has it the approval of the soldiers generally?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The resolution as submitted to the House to-day is the result of recommendations made by the Ralston commission, after a prolonged investigation of conditions regarding returned soldiers in Canada. I shall in a few moments give the exact amount of the funds which it is now proposed to distribute, but I answer now the question asked by my hon. friend as to how these percentages have been arrived at. The percentages are an average of three figures for each province, one figure being that of enlistments in the province, second, the number of discharges in the province, and third, the number of pensioners in the province. These three figures are pretty close to each other in every case, although they vary slightly. In British Columbia, for instance, there are more pensioners in proportion to the number of enlistments and discharges than in any other province. Climatic conditions, I presume, would be responsible for the difference.
Now as to the amount itself, I asked the Department of Finance to prepare for me a statement of the amounts which constitute the canteen funds which it is now proposed to dispose of. There are three main funds:	One
is called the canteen fund proper, the other is the cinematograph fund, and the third is the regimental fund. The principal of these three amounts to $2,030,403.25, and on the 31st of March, 1924, interest upon these moneys had accrued to an amount of $266,532.81, making a grand total of $2,296,936.06, which it is proposed to distribute.
The question has been very often approached during the last four or five years as to what should be done with what is commonly known as the canteen fund. In 1921,
I think it was, a plebiscite was held in Canada, and as many as 450,000 ballots were distributed amongst the men. On the ballots I think were set out four specific questions, and any man who felt that he could not recommend any one of the four schemes there set out was at liberty to suggest something else. Out of the 450,000 ballots, opinions were received from only 22,000, which was such a small proportion as not to warrant any government taking any definite action. Moreover, amongst these 22,000 voters the opinions were widely divergent. The one question which accumulated the most votes did not get more than 5,000, and taking into consideration the fact that there are in Canada
450,000	returned men, in round figures, 5,000

Pensions-Canteen Funds
votes in favour of any particular scheme is not sufficiently large to warrant any final disposition of the total amount. Many times since I have been at the head of this department I have been requested by the returned men individually and through their associations to take steps to ascertain what the wishes of the men were, and also to introduce legislation for the purpose of disposing of the funds. At the time of the appointment of the commission on soldiers' problems, commonly known as the Ralston commission, the order in council appointing them set out that a part of their work should be to investigate and report on the use that could be made of these moneys. The final report of the commission is not yet in, but in view of the impending end of the session I asked them to supply me with an advance report on the canteen funds in order to enable parliament to adopt some kind of legislation in connection therewith. They have done that three or four days ago, and the resolution which is now in your hands, Mr. Chairman, carries out to the remotest detail the recommendations of that commission. Repeating what any one can read:	First, it provides for the holding of
$20,000 here in the Department of Finance to pay any outstanding accounts. The National Defence department have submitted occasionally to the Finance department small accounts for payment. What these accounts are exactly I am not quite in a position to say, but I might suggest that they are accounts from trustees of former regimental units. Be that as it may, these account' must be passed upon by the National Defence department and approved by the Finance department. As late as 1923 the Finance department has paid out on these accounts an amount of $2,000. The commission recommend that $20,000 'be retained for this purpose, and I presume that if any balance should be left of this amount of $20,000 after a certain delay has elapsed, it would ultimately be distributed amongst the provinces on the pro rata scale mentioned.
In the second place, it is suggested that:
The sum of $100,000 to be paid to a central board of three trustees appointed by the Governor in Council, without remuneration, to be used in such amounts and such manner as it may deem best for the maintenance and assistance of an adjustment service and bureau for the benefit of ex-service men and their dependents.
I am not aware that any great divergence of opinion exists regarding the maintenance of an adjustment board here at headquarters for the benefit of ex-service men. The report of the Ralston commission, which everybody will shortly be in a position to read, explains fully what the reasons are for the
maintenance of such a bureau. Earlier in the year, or at any rate during the course of 1923, I had a correspondence on this subject with the former commander of Canadian forces in Europe, Sir Arthur Currie. Sir Arthur expressed the view that an adjustment bureau at headquarters was not only desirable but necessary. The manner in which it should be supported was another question, and on that point Sir Arthur would not definitely commit himself. He suggested,
I think, at some time that it should be supported by public funds; on another occasion,
I think, he was inclined to favour taking moneys from the disablement fund for the purpose. At any rate the idea of a central bureau in Ottawa for the benefit of the men has been generally recognized. I shall not take up time in reading what the commission has said on this particular phase of the question unless I am requested to do so.


Robert James Manion: Before the minister passes from that subject will he explain, in just a few words, what the duties of an adjustment board would be?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think I could best
answer that question by reading what the report of the Ralston commission says in that regard:
Representations have been made that before there is any distribution of this fund, care should be taken to see that machinery is maintained for the active presentation and prosecution of claims which may arise from time to time on behalf of ex-service men and their dependents, concerning the various forms of assistance which the state provides in respect of pensions, re-establishment, etcetera.
There are a variety of instances in connection with such questions as government employment, land settlement, training, housing, and re-habilitation activities generally, the considerations affecting which depend on the presentation of the individual case rather than on the terms of a general regulation. There are also parliamentary matters not only affecting pensions but amendments to existing statutes, which may indirectly affect the rights and privileges of ex-service men, and in addition there is the desirability of having some agency completely detached from government organization to supply the necessary personal contact between ex-service men and dependents and those who deal with matters affecting their interests.
This outline fully indicates what the duties of the service bureau would be and, I think are, because at the present time those duties are being discharged here in Ottawa, and in my opinion to the general satisfaction of the men.
Then there is a sum of $50,000 to be paid to the United Service Fund of Great Britain, and the sum of $50,000 to be paid to the American Red Cross. The committee is undoubtedly aware that there are a large num-
Pensions-Canteen Funds

ber of men who saw service in France or England who are now living in the United Kingdom and in the United States. According to the recommendation the moneys to be diverted to these two bodies-the amount of which has been fixed in each case by the royal commission-are destined to relieve special meritorious cases in both these countries. The United Service Fund-if I am well informed and I think I am-is the body in England which has been busy with the disposal of the British canteen fund. As to the United States there exists in that country a veterans' bureau and it was first suggested that it might be used in the distribution of this money. However, although it was held that the bureau is deserving in every respect it was pointed out that it is the official representative of our department. Accordingly, since the object is to reserve this fund entirely from government or political control or influence, it was recommended that the money be handed over to the American Red Cross.
The residue is quite a respectable sum, amounting to over $2,000,000. This is to be divided amongst the nine provinces of Canada on the pro rata basis indicated in the resolution founded, as I indicated a few minutes ago, upon the number of enlistments, discharges and pensions in each province. It is also provided in the resolution that the Lieutenant Governor in Council in each province shall appoint a board of trustees to administer the fund. In Ontario there will be five trustees because the number of returned men in that province is much larger than in any other province; in each of the remaining provinces only three trustees are to be appointed. It is somewhat difficult for this parliament to dictate to a provincial government as to the language in which its orders in council shall be couched. We have, however, attempted to go as far as possible in that direction in order that the recommendations of the royal commission shall be carried out to the letter in every province.


Mr. BOYS:: The minister has indicated
Shat an effort was made, by ballot or otherwise, to ascertain the views of the ex-service men themselves, but I have not heard him say what those views were. Could he give us some idea? I understand that only 5,000 ballots were cast for any one object and it might be interesting to know what that object was. If the views of the men were expressed in favour of any other purpose we might be told also what it was.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The largest number of
votes were given in favour of the education of orphan children-schemes of education. 
The second largest favoured relieving meritorious cases or cases of unemployment and distress. These were the two main schemes which were supported by a relatively small number of votes.


Robert James Manion: I think the explanation of the minister is very good, but I should like to know how many of the staff are likely to be paid? According to the recommendation, the sum of $100,000 is to be paid to a central board of three trustees, appointed by the Governor in Council without remuneration. But the adjustment bureau will be a paid bureau-at least some of them 'will be paid-I think it should be as far as possible the effort of the government to retain as much money as possible for the purposes for which it is to be used: in other words, that there should be as few paid men as possible to carry on the staff. During the war we had the Patriotic Fund, the Red Cross Fund and various other funds of the same kind, patriotic men all over the country were very glad to take part in helping to carry out the duties involved, to bring about the best allocation of the moneys, and so forth, and I believe that to-day, if the attempt were made, the same type of men could be obtained to a large extent to carry out the same duties in regard to this fund. In other words, I think we should pay as little as possible of this money in salaries, and retain as much as possible for the benefit of the returned soldiers and their dependents who are to receive benefits from it. I should like the minister to explain how much is to be paid the staff. How much does he think will be necessary to carry out the scheme, as provided in the resolution?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It provides for two or three different things; but it refers particularly to the $100,000 which is designed to support the adjustment bureau. The number of the staff required for that purpose will be entirely in the hands of the three trustees who will be appointed by the Governor in Council without remuneration.


Robert James Manion: Will they be returned
soldiers?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes. The majority of them must be.


Robert James Manion: And they will have the choosing of the staff to be employed in the adjustment bureau? It will not be done by the government or Civil Service Commission, but by the board of trustees?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Absolutely.

Pensions-Canteen Funds


Robert James Manion: Has the minister any idea how many will be required for the adjustment bureau, and how much the staff will be paid?


Henri Sévérin Béland: In conversation with Sir
Arthur Currie, I think he pointed out that five would be sufficient, one at the head of the Service bureau and four assistants.
clusively for returned men, so that it will be seen that in seven cases out of nine they prefer a provincial distribution. In the case of education we would recognize that the proper course to follow would be to hand over the money to provincial governments, for their disposal in whatever way they recommended.


Robert James Manion: Has the minister seen in
the Montreal papers the severe criticism by Sir Arthur Currie regarding the disposition of these funds?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have seen it, but I do
not think it is severe.


Robert James Manion: It is about as severe as
he could make it, without being in politics. The reason I quoted it is that my hon. friend quoted Sir Arthur Currie. I thought it was a very severe criticism. He did not agree with the division, and he thought it should be used for different purposes. I must confess I have not any very fixed ideas in the matter, and have not heard much discussion about it. Has the minister had any expression pro or con from the war veterans as a body in regard to this scheme since it has been published? I suppose there has hardly been time.


Henri Sévérin Béland: From all the information
we have been able to secure from returned men, I think they are in favour of this scheme; but whether they are or not, I feel that I am bound to put through the recommendation of the commission in regard to the fund. That commission has travelled all through Canada, and has heard any number of ex-service men and has information in regard to all features of the problem. This question has been discussed at almost every meeting they have had, and this is the result of their investigation. It is impossible to have unanimity in regard to the disposal of the canteen fund by any one particular scheme. For instance, no unified scheme for one particular method of expenditure has been supported generally. I would illustrate my point in this way: If all the returned men had asked us to construct a war memorial of very large proportions either in Canada or Europe, we might say that this scheme was supported by a consolidated opinion. But there is no such unity of opinion among the men. I might quote for instance what the different provinces have asked. Some four provinces are asking that the money be distributed by provinces, as we are providing now, and three other provinces, if not four, are promoting a scheme of education ex-


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the minister not
retain any hold on the money after it is given to the provinces? The Dominion government is the primary trustee of the fund, from whatever source it comes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We are the trustee, but I do not think we have been invested at any time by the returned men or by anybody with the duty of distributing the money in any particular manner. We are trustees, it is true, as my hon. friend says, but no intimation was given to us, when the money was transferred to the receiver-general, as to what our duties would be. The returned men generally of course are interested. They are shareholders, and we could not take upon ourselves to arbitrarily dispose of these moneys. We have been attempting to ascertain what the wishes of the men were, and I think we have succeeded, to a very large extent, in ascertaining that distribution by the provinces would be the desire of the immense majority of the men, always provided that in every province no distribution will be made by the government themselves, but by boards of trustees. The whole scheme is to remove from political influences or governmental influences the disposal of the money.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Once they have handed
over the money to the provinces, what restrictions exist to preven any abuse of the handling of the money by the provinces, the new trustees? In other words, the Dominion or federal authorities, having been charged almost completely with the whole of the war activities and with the entire matter, would it not be wise for the Dominion government to retain some slight hold upon these moneys after they have reached the hands of the provincial governments? Is it a wise thing to hand the money to the provincial governments. and to say, "Here's the money, find out what to do with it"? The provincial governments have had very little experience in these matters. It may be that on account of politics or certain influences, or from lack of experience or knowledge, the provincial governments will not be able to handle the funds in a manner that would be entirely satisfactory.

Pensions-Canteen Funds


Mr. BEL  AND@: The provincial governments would appoint boards of trustees, five in Ontario and three in the other provinces, and the order in council appointing them will set out what the duties of these men in the different provinces will be, and the money-will be distributed accordingly.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I presume if we carry the resolution now before us into legislation, that legislation will be a complete execution of the trust, so far as the Dominion government is concerned. The action of parliament would operate in that way and would release the government from all further liability. Whether it is a good thing to invest in the trustees or the boards appointed by the province this responsibility I do not know. I had the advantage on Saturday last of having a formal discussion on this question with Sir Arthur Currie, who was the commander of the Canadian corps during the war. While the conversation was informal and, perhaps, in a way private, General Currie did not express any opinion adverse to the proposal now before the committee as contained in this report. He offered one critisism or one suggestion, if I might mention it here. He said that he thought the proposal was largely one of passing the buck. The Dominion government evidently could not make up its mind what the final disposition of this trust fund should be and had determined to hand it over to provincial trustees and to allow them to make up their minds what would be the best disposition to make of this fund ultimately. I quite understand that there is a great variety of opinion amongst returned men and associations of returned men in regard to the application of this trust money. I heard of that during the office of the present government. The suggestions were almost innumerable and none of them had anything like unanimity behind it. If the soldiers' committee or the Ralston commission has now found a solution which will satisfy the great majority of returned soldiers, the government should adopt that as a solution of this difficult question. If the proposal of the government now to hand this money over to provincial trustees in the proportions set out in the resolution meets with the approval of a substantial majority of the returned men, I do not think this parliament should hesitate. Certain it is that the money should not remain idle in the hands of the Receiver General of Canada where it now is, and from which money nobody at the present time derives any advantage whatever. The provincial trustees will be

bound within the general terms of the legislation that this House passes, but this measure will set the machinery in motion which will ultimately distribute this fund to the best advantage of those who are entitled to benefit from it. I do not believe you will reach unanimity; I do not believe you will be able to satisfy everybody; but there is a practical suggestion worthy of consideration for the ultimate distribution of this money. General Currie was very strong on the question of the proposal to set aside $1,000,000 to be used for the maintenance and assistance of an adjustment service and bureau. He thought there had been. a great necessity for such a bureau during all the years since the war, but he was inclined to think that such a bureau should be paid for directly out of the federal treasury as something which the government should maintain. He instanced the case of men living in remote parts of Canada who had no one near at hand to whom they might appeal, no one to take a personal or definite interest in the soldier's case. If such a board had been in existence at Ottawa, many of our returned men would have been able to take advantage of it in past years and they will be in the future. The government might well stand the expenditure of the maintenance of such a board; but if the committee with the approval of the various bodies of returned soldiers has come to the conclusion that $100,000 of this fund should be set aside for that purpose, that should be a sufficient authority on which this House should take action in carrying out that report. The report appeals to my judgment as offering a reasonable solution of a very difficult problem, and the minister would do well to pursue his course in carrying out this measure.


Mr. CALDWELL:: 
Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
give a little more detailed statement of what is meant by section 2 in connection with the $100,000 for the maintenance and existence of an adjustment service and bureau?


Mr. BEL  AND@: Perhaps my hon. friend
was out of the chamber when I first explained this matter at the request of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), and I quoted a passage from the report of the royal commission upon this very subject. The report of the commission demonstrated very clearly not only the usefulness, but the necessity of this central agency, open to anyone outside of all political influences and the duties of that agency will be to act as a basis of contact between the ex-soldiers and the different departments.


Arthur Edward Ross: Are these not matters principally of re-establishment? Is there any objection to making use of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment? Why go to the expense of another department when we already have one with a large number of clerks and officials who have been continued to be paid for some time? It seems to me that, notwithstanding the report of the Ralston commission, this is simply establishing another paid service for something which could be done in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The ex-service men will
always object to having their interests rest entirely in the hands of the government; they will insist on having some intermediary bod3'-, chosen by themselves and selected from among their own number, to present their claims forciblj' wherever they think that there is any right to which they are entitled. As a matter of fact there has always been in Ottawa one agency or another whose duties it has been to present the cases of ex-service men to the different departments, to supervise legislation, and to press amendments to existing statutes.


Arthur Edward Ross: What branches of
associations have been doing this work?


Henri Sévérin Béland: So far it has been done
principally by the Great War Veterans' Association although I will not say they are the only ones.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston); That association will continue, and as far as I know its representatives have always been cordially received by any parliamentary committee before whom they have appeared. But here we have another paid association and I cannot see that it will be of any great service inasmuch as the Great War Veterans' Association, Dominion Alliance, will continue.


Mr. POWER:: The hon. member is no
doubt aware that a portion of the canteen fund has already been given to the Great War Veterans for the purposes of adjustment, and very little information on that subject has yet been given to the House. How much money has been given veterans' organizations and how has it been expended? Has it been used in the payment of salaries of the officials of such organizations, or has it been spent in the adjusting of claims made by returned men? I do not know that any explanation has so far been given.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Having seen something of the work that is done in connection with the adjustment of claims, I believe this measure is a good one upon which the government is to be commended. I think it would be preferable to have the money paid by the federal authorities, but apparently the government has decided to use some of the canteen fund for the purpose. With regard to the claims of all kinds which are made in the interests of ex-service men, and the widows and orphans and other dependents of ex-service men, it is important that applicants for relief should have confidence in those to whom they carry their petitions; if their confidence is reposed in those in authority they are more likely to be satisfied with the results. In the past, in certain cases which -were dealt with entirely by departmental officials, whether of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment or of any other, there has been a latent suspicion that perhaps some undesirable influences were operating against the claimants. I believe that an independent organization such as has been carried on by the Dominion Alliance of the Great War Veterans is capable of doing, as it has done, a splendid work for the ex-service men of Canada and their dependents. These men have examined in greater detail the merits of the individual claims and they have obtained results which no ordinary govermental organization could have secured. They have always pressed their claims with a vigor and intelligence that could not be surpassed by any institution of the government, and they have secured justice and relief for many thousand of ex-service men throughout Canada which these men would not have obtained otherwise. I believe that most hon. members have had something
Pensions-Canteen Funds

or other to do with the claims of ex-service men, and no doubt they will agree with me that an independent body of the kind which is now indicated will be of adventage to the . men and will perform as great a srvice in the future as the volunteer organizations have done in the past. I do not think it should have been incumbent upon ex-service men and their dependents to finance and develop an organization for the purpose of presenting their just claims; that surely is the responsibility of the people. Yet on many occasions we have seen the officials of the government in a controversial attitude towards the exservice men as represented in their official organizations, and in many instances in which the men have established their point and indicated the justice of their claims they have obtained relief which would not have been granted had things been left entirely to the disposal of the ordinary officials of the government. I fully realize the necessity for expediting things at this stage of the session, but I am bound to take up these few minutes to-day on this matter because I know that in thousands of cases in this country the exservice men and their dependents have suffered hardships in connection with their claims, and it is highly important that there should be an organization of this kind independent of political influences and having the confidence of the ex-service men themselves. I repeat, I believe the measure is a good one, but I should have liked to see the money provided in some other way than out of the canteen fund.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I agree with the principle of the legislation, and I also think that
5 p.m. the creation of a central board of three trustees is wise. That board should not overlook the splendid work which the Dominion Veterans' Alliance has done in behalf of the soldiers in acting as an adjustment bureau, and I should be extremely disappointed if the board found it necessary to set up additional machinery not now created by the soldiers themselves for getting this work done. Every one who has been a member of the Pensions committee, both in the past and at the present time, will I think agree that the secretary of that organization has undoubtedly presented the case of the exsoldiers with a capacity and ability, not to say an insistency, which are at once commendable and highly desirable. And it is particularly because of this that I think the Board of Central Trustees which it is proposed to create would be unmindful of the facts if it set up a separate organization for this purpose.

I understand from the minister that the percentages payable to the various provinces have been arrived at by taking not only the average of enlistments but also of discharges and of pensioners. I do not know whether that would work out favourably to every province. For instance, a great many soldiers enlisted in Alberta, but many of them had friends and relatives in Ontario, and upon their return they took their discharges in that province and were provided by the department with passage money to Alberta. Has the minister figures indicating the percentages of enlistments in the various provinces, so that we may compare them with the figures it is proposed to use and see if there is any variation to the detriment of the province in which the enlistments took place?


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: What duties will
the proposed bureau undertake that are not now handled by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment?


Henri Sévérin Béland: As the men who profit by the Pension Act take a good deal more trouble to study closely all the questions relating to the awarding of pensions than does the department they are in a better position to detect any defects in the pension law, and naturally they would require the services of a central agency to represent them before committees of parliament in order to secure such legislation as would, in their opinion, be to their advantage and probably to the advantage of the country generally. This work has been carried on in Ottawa by an agency entirely outside of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. The soldiers insisted that it was their own business, and they have subscribed funds to meet the expenses of this agency to look after their interests in regard to legislation and otherwise. Undoubtedly in many instances the agency has been able to adduce evidence and present arguments which have prompted the board to award many additional pensions to ex-service men. Their activities extend also to securing employment for returned men in governmental departments. We know that deputy ministers are not, perhaps, more anxious than they should be to employ partially disabled men; they may not be reluctant to do so but between a sound man and a partially disabled man, other things being equal, it is probable that the deputy minister would recommend the able-bodied man.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the minister think
that the deputy ministers should do that?

Pensions-Canteen Funds


Henri Sévérin Béland: They may not be aware
that the applicant is a returned man. Most of our staff are returned men. The activities of the representatives of the returned men in Ottawa have been useful to us in very many cases and if I am not mistaken, there are today about 32,000 returned men in the public service.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Would not the deputy ministers know by his application whether the applicant was a returned man or not?


Henri Sévérin Béland: In many instances the
applications are verbal. But the representatives of the returned men in Ottawa have been undoubtedly instrumental in securing a good many departmental jobs for ex-soldiers. I agree with my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) that some of the associations in particular have been exceedingly active in this connection and have rendered a real service to the country.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I thoroughly agree with
that; in fact, in my remarks I complimented the G.W.V.A. and the Dominion Alliance on the splendid work they had done. But I understood the minister to say that the deputy ministers were not inclined to prefer returned men under certain circumstances.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not say that; I say
the deputies may not be aware that the applicant is a returned man.


Mr. BROWN:: I heartily endorse the
suggestion made by my hon. friend from West Calgary. We know that last fall the returned men were finding increased difficulty in securing the necessary funds to maintain their organization, and ever since I have felt that, on the same principle that the Crown sometimes assigns counsel to defend a prisoner, the government might very well bear the expenses of maintaining the necessary organization to present the claims of returned men to the administration and to the various parliamentary committees during the session. We can all bear testimony to the effective manner in which the work has been done in the past by the representatives of the returned men. If the government is going to take $100,000 from this fund it would be very desirable that the men selected by the returned soldiers' associations should be recognized by the government as those best fitted to carry on the work that they have hitherto performed so effectively.
Mr. BLACK (Yukon); With all due deference to what the minister has said, it seems to me that the very high tribute which he and others have paid to the returned soldiers' organizations on the effectiveness of their efforts on behalf of their members would indicate the lack of any necessity for the proposed bureau. If the work has been done so well in the past, why create another agency now? Surely the efforts of returned soldiers on their own behalf, coupled with the work done by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, ought to be sufficient; but if an additional bureau is needed I submit that the expense should not be met by withdrawing $100,000 from the canteen fund. That should be a government expense coming on the whole people. This $100,000 is not a gift to the returned soldiers; in fact, the whole of this $2,296,936.06 is the returned soldiers' own money now, and the government only have it in trust. It does not belong to the government or the public; it belongs to the returned men, who overseas ran a canteen and made a profit out of it, and now the money is theirs. I submit that neither the $100,000 nor any other amount should be taken out for this purpose. The bureau, according to the minister's own words, is not necessary, because the soldiers' interests are being so well looked after by the government and by the soldiers themselves.


Charles Gavan Power: Am I right in understanding that the hon. member is very much opposed to any of the canteen funds being used by
the veterans' associations?


George Black: Not at all. My hon. friend must not draw that conclusion from what I said. What I do say is that the money belongs to the returned soldiers.


Charles Gavan Power: And should not be used by the associations?


George Black: It should not be used by the government. It belongs to the returned soldiers and should be handed over to them through the G.W.V.A. or some other association.


Charles Gavan Power: In 1920 and 1921 large sums from this canteen fund were handed to the Great War Veterans and other associations for the very purpose of adjusting these claims.


George Black: Those are the proper
institutions to hand it over to.


Charles Gavan Power: For adjusting these claims?

Pensions-Canteen Funds


George Black: And if my hon. friend objects to payments that have been made in the past, that is all the more reason why objection should be made now to continuing the payments.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not object to these
claims in the past where the money has been really used for the purpose of adjusting veterans' claims, and if the amount of $100,000 is to be used for that purpose I do not know that I have any objection. I agree with some hon. gentlemen who have spoken that the secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association has done excellent work in presenting the veterans' case to parliament, and in urging the claims of the returned men before the Board of Pension Commissioners, the Appeal Board, and other bodies, but if some of these funds are to be used for the payment of salaries of unnecessary officials in the Great War Veterans, or are to be used to pay travelling expenses for officials who have gone overseas or who have travelled elsewhere, I am opposed to any such payments out of these funds, and in this connection I have a number of questions to ask the minister with reference to the disposal of these funds up to the present. I should like to ask him to give us an estimate, if he has not the exact figures, of what was the original amount of money in this canteen fund; how much of it was lost through injudicious investments; how much of it originally came to Canada, and how much of it has been expended since the fund came to Canada and was placed in the Receiver General's hands. I think the minister must have these figures, and I think that it is of great importance that the committee should know what has happened to this fund since its inception.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Before the resolution carries I should like to give my hon. friend the information he requests. The amount I gave in the first place, $2,030,403.25, represents the total amount now with the Receiver General, outside of interest. What the original amount was can easily be made up if we add what has been paid out from that fund. The total amount that was paid out to different associations-


Charles Gavan Power: At what date?


Henri Sévérin Béland: In 1921 different amounts were paid out by order in council to a total of $202,000.


Charles Gavan Power: To which association?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have not got here the associations. I have only the dates and numbers of the orders in council.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the minister know for what purpose it was given?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I suppose it was for the purpose of maintaining the bureau, acting as an intermediate between the department and the returned men, and also for the purpose of relieving distress.


Charles Gavan Power: How much of the original fund which should have come to Canada after the war was lost through injudicious investments on the other side?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no information in that regard at all. I am dealing only with the amount that has been transferred to us and which is now deposited with the Receiver General.


Charles Gavan Power: Is the minister aware that owing to mismanagement, if not worse, on the other side, large sums of money which should have been brought over to Canada to be distributed to the soldiers in some such fashion as this were lost in England through the operations of the United Canteen Fund, I think it was. Could the minister give us any details of those losses?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am not aware of it, and I should be very sorry to hear, that such is the case.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for
Quebec South has made an allegation that is rather serious, and I hope he will be able to tell us something about it. It is the first I have heard of it. I should like to know who were the officials of the United Canteen Fund. Were they British or Canadian?


Charles Gavan Power: This took place some two or three years ago, so I have not the facts before me, but whether it was called the United Canteen Fund or some such name, I do know that canteen funds belonging to the whole of the British Expeditionary Forces were placed in a common fund, and owing to certain injudicious investments, or to mismanagement, large sums running into the thousands of pounds, if not hundreds of thousands, were lost and never recovered. I remember reading in the English papers, I think it was two years ago or more, of an investigation held by a parliamentary committee of the British House of Commons, in which all these facts were brought out, and there was some talk of it, if not debate, in this House at the time. The result of these

Pensions-Canteen Funds
transactions was that a portion of the moneys coming to the Empire troops, which were put into a common fund with the British moneys, was lost. I thought perhaps the minister or his officials would be able to give us the figures, or to state clearly what were the facts in this connection. I am quite willing to admit that my recollection is not quite clear on the matter, but I do know that there was considerable scandal in the Old Country with regard to these funds, and that some of the Canadian funds were lost.


William Alves Boys: I should iike to ask what proportion of the funds the hon. member speaks of belonged to Canada?


Robert James Manion: I must confess that I have never heard of this charge made by the hon. member for Quebec South before. There are just two suggestions I should like to make to the minister, and one at least is a repetition of what I said before. I hope, and I am sure the minister will agree with me in this, that in the handling of these moneys every cent so far as possible will be retained for the use of the returned soldiers and their dependents in whatever distribution is finally decided upon, and that as little as possible goes in the shape of wages or salaries for any purpose in connection with this matter.
I hope that when the government finally asks the provincial governments to appoint trustees in the provinces, it will impress upon the provincial governments the importance of appointing men who also will realize that very deep responsibility, and try to avoid the waste of any of this money that can possibly be avoided in wages and salaries of any kind.
My second suggestion, and I know the minister will accept this in the spirit in which it is given, is this: In the appointment of the five trustees at headquarters here in the city of Ottawa the qualifications should be entirely of a military character, or at least of a public service character, and most' decidedly not of a political character. I say this because it should be the desire of hon. members generally-I think it is the desire of the vast majority of them if not all-to see that all questions relating to the returned soldiers and : heir dependents, generally speaking, are dealt with on a high plane far removed from party politics.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I can assure my hon. friend that as far as the members of the board of trustees in Ottawa are concerned those selected will commend themselves to the general appreciation of the public and of the returned men. To the extent that the provincial governments are concerned we hope they will be animated by a similar desire.
281i


Donald Sutherland: I am sorry that I was called out of the House very shortly after the discussion of this matter began. Representations made to me by a number of returned men cause me to suggest that we should exercise extreme caution in dealing with this fund. This money was paid out by the soldier from his very meagre pay, and the accumulation of such a fund is evidence of the fact that great profits were made by the canteens in catering to the soldiers' requirements. The proposal to use this money for purposes of this kind appears to a number of these men to be rather high-handed action on the part of the government.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Who are they?


Donald Sutherland: I am speaking on behalf of certain returned men.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, but who are they?


Donald Sutherland: A number of them spoke to me on Saturday last with regard to the paying of this money for certain purposes, particularly the payment to the American Red Cross Fund. What authority has parliament to use it for any such purpo-e? It belongs to the men who paid it in and it should be returned to them so far as it is possible to do so.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The American Red Cross will do that.


Donald Sutherland: Return the money to these men?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Donald Sutherland: The fund consists of two million dollars and this is only a fraction of the amount. The Great War Veterans Association in the particular town where these men reside are very much opposed to paying the money out in this way.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Are they opposed to the American Red Cross paying out the money?


Donald Sutherland: They are opposed to it being disbursed in any way instead of being returned to those who paid the money into the fund.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is for the purpose of helping Canadian soldiers who are in the United States.


Donald Sutherland: What about the balance of the men who are not in the United States?


Henri Sévérin Béland: They are in Canada and in England and they are being provided for.

[DOT]	* I
Pensions-Canteen Funds


Arthur Edward Ross: I must admit that I am getting a little more light. I thought when I spoke first, that this was an entirely new organization going out into this field of work without any relation to the existing organizations, but I can see that it will maintain close connection with the various bodies ministering to the needs of the returned men. I had not thought that the Great War Veterans' Association, and other soldier organizations, should be replaced by some new board. I only hope the government will receive in a friendly way the suggestions in regard to pensions and other matters which this organization may bring forward. I know that the American Red Cross does a lot of important work, but will the minister tell us briefly and precisely what work it does in connection with ex-service men in that country?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It has been brought to our notice that the American Red Cross has extended relief in some cases of dire distress.


Arthur Edward Ross: There is an understanding, I think, that whatever work is done for the Canadian ex-service man in the United States shall be done for the United States ex-service man in Canada.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I presume so.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does the American Red Cross do anything further than that?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am not in a position to say.


Arthur Edward Ross: If so it is not doing any more than the Canadian Red Cross is doing for the American soldier.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The idea is to find a body in the United States to do this work for the Canadian ex-soldier over there. We thought that the American Red Cross would commend itself generally speaking to our people, and that is why we selected it.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am not objecting.


George Black: How has the British government applied its share of the canteen fund?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The British share was
placed in the hands of the United Service Fund. His Excellency Lord Byng was at the head of this fund before he was appointed Governor General of Canada. I am not aware of the details as to the distribution of

the British share of the fund, but the opinions of something like two hundred local bodies in the United Kingdom were obtained in that regard.


Mr. HUMPHREY:: I think I can approve of this proposal in its present form, but I must associate myself with the remarks of previous speakers in emphasizing the importance of seeing that on the central board for the distribution of $100,000 there should be a representative of the returned men. I was surprised to hear my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) entering a protest against the plan of distribution which the resolution provides for. As I understand it, this is carrying out the recommendations of the Ralston commission after that body had made a thorough investigation. Personally I have heard no protest against the plan provided for here of administering and paying out the fund. I should like the minister, however, to give the dates of the orders in council passed in 1921 for the expenditure of any portion of this fund and the purpose for which such expenditure was made.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I may as well supplement the information I gave the committee a few minutes ago. I have here a statement which the Department of Finance has prepared on the subject. The orders in council referred to by my hon. friend bear the following dates: July 22, 1921; August 17, 1921; September 17, 1921; October 12, 1921; September 13, 1921; October 1, 1921; October 17, 1921.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Are these the dates upon which these amounts were paid and what were the amounts each at date?


Robert James Manion: Has the minister the statement of the order in council as to the purposes for which this money was paid?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think it was in the report. I might read it, but it is pretty long. All the orders are in that report. It was an order in council for relieving distress caused by unemployment or other reasons among the returned men.


George Black: Why is it the allotment for British Columbia and the Yukon are joined? This allotment is not made in accordance with military districts and the percentage returnable to the Yukon can be ascertained as accurately as the percentage returnable for any province. It will be a smaller amount, but why should it be tied up with British Columbia.

Pensions-Canteen Funds


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is the recommendation of the royal commission.


George Black: I protest against that. I suggest that the exact percentage due to the Yukon be ascertained and allotted to the Yukon to be distributed by a local committee there, altogether separate and apart from British Columbia. Is it possible to do that? I submit there is no more reason why Yukon should be attached to British Columbia for this purpose than that Yukon should be attached to Prince Edward Island.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is a difference. The population in the Yukon is much smaller that that of the province of British Columbia, and I think what influenced the commission in annexing the Yukon to British Columbia was the fact that the territory is small and the number of returned men very limited. It would be an easy matter for the board of trustees in British Columbia to determine what amount should be paid to the men in the Yukon, and I expect my hon. friend will have full confidence in the board appointed in British Columbia. He may be quite certain that the men of the Yukon will not be neglected.


George Black: I hope that will be so, but I submit that according to the wording of the resolution this money and the distribution of it will be in the hands of the committee in British Columbia. The amount for the Yukon is as easily ascertainable as the amount for Manitoba or British Columbia. I could ascertain the number of enlistments in the Yukon in a very short time. The number of discharges will be proportionately smaller than in British Columbia. The province of British Columbia got an advantage which no other province got in the matter of discharges, because the government gave the returned men free transportation West, but not East, and many men went west to British Columbia and took their discharge. The Yukon men took their discharges all over the Dominion. I submit the legislation should provide that a definite amount allotted to the Yukon should be segregated from the amount going to British Columbia and from the amount going to other provinces, and put in the hands of a local committee in Yukon.


Henri Sévérin Béland: If my hon. friend reflects he will be satisfied that no injustice will be done to returned men located in the Yukon. Why should they be discriminated against, and why should we go to the trouble of creating a special board of trustees for the Yukon? We
may ask the provincial board in British Columbia to see that the men in the Yukon receive their proportionate share, and they would be quite willing to do that in any case. My hon. friend would not want a special board appointed.


George Black: Is a bill to be
presented pursuant to this resolution?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Can the minister give me the percentage of enlistments in the different provinces?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I will give it to the hon.
member in the committee stage of the bill. I do not have it at hand.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will the minister explain just who is meant in section 5 by those interested and residing in the province who shall have the deciding of what shall be done with the fund? Has the minister anything more definite than is contained in the resolution.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is the duty of the provincial government to ascertain what the wishes of the men are.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It says "The wishes of those interested.'' Does that mean the returned men?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, surely.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There may be others
interested besides the returned men.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The bill will provide for
that.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Beland thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 253, respecting the disposal of the Canteen Fund.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chanr.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is the bill printed and distributed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have no wish to hold up the bill at all. If it is available I would like to have it. If the resolution covers the bill, we are willing to go on.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I move the committee
rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
R. C. M. Police Act



REARRANGEMENTS AND TRANSFERS OF DUTIES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL WITHDRAWN

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:: That the order of the House for the second reading of Bill No. 39, an act to amend the act to authorize rearrangements and transfers of duties in the Public Service, be discharged, and the said bill withdrawn.
Motion agreed to and bill withdrawn. ADMIRALTY ACT AMENDMENT



RESOLUTION WITHDRAWN

Ernest Lapointe: That the order of the House for the consideration of the following proposed resolution be discharged:
** Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Admiralty Act, chapter one hundred and forty-one of the revised statutes, 1906, and to provide:-
1.	That the Governor in Council may appoint one or more deputy local judges for any Admiralty district, and a deputy registrar for any district or registry division of any district;
2.	That when the local judge of the Quebec Admiralty district resides at Montreal, the deputy local judge residing at Quebec shall be paid the salary, if any, which he would have received if he were the local judge of the district; and when the local judge resides at Quebec, the deputy local judge residing at Montreal shall receive the salary, if any, which he would have received if he were the local 'udge of the district; but not more than one deputy ocal judge in the district shall receive a salary."
Motion agreed to and order discharged.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act by providing,-
1.	That the Governor in Council may by regulation determine the pay and allowances to be received by the Commissioner and other members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force.
2.	That the time served by officers in the Dominion Police Force may be included in the term of service for pension purposes, and this provision shall apply as from the first day of February, 1920.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Black: How is the amount of pay and allowance determined at the present time?	[DOT]


Ernest Lapointe: I will first give the
purpose of the bill to be founded on this resolution. The salaries of all the members of the force are fixed by the Royal North West Mounted Police Act. The section of
[Mr. Beland.)
the statute fixing the salaries has been amended many times. Finally, in 1919, when the Dominion Police and the North West Mounted Police were amalgamated, that section was amended again and the following subsection was added:
The Governor in Council may authorize an extra rate to be paid to members of the force employed as detectives, to those serving in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory and for a period of five years from the 1st day of June, 1919, to any other members of the force.
The government then granted extra statutory pay to the members of the force by order in council under that section. But the powers expired on the 31st May last, so the extra statutory pay which has been given, the government cannot renew under the law as it is. The purpose of this legislation is to place the mounted police on the same basis as the military forces and to have their salaries fixed by the Governor in Council. It is not proposed to increase the salaries of the force, but this is to give the Governor in Council authority to grant to the police what they are receiving at the present time. The hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Black) asked what the present salaries are.


George Black: The minister misunderstood me. I asked as to the method of payment. I wanted to know what the change was.


Ernest Lapointe: Their salaries are fixed
by statute and they have the extra statutory pay which is fifty cents a day in most cases. Sergeants and staff sergeants receive seventy-five cents a day. They also receive uniforms, food, and all that is estimated at a certain amount. As a matter of fact, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have smaller salaries than provincial police officers and even police officers in large cities.
The purpose of the other portion of the resolution is to correct an oversight when the act of 1919 was passed. In that act there is this provision regarding pensions:
That service in the Dominion Police shall be deemed to have been service in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the case of such constables in the Dominion Police as are appointed constables in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force.
This amendment was not included in the section concerning the officers. There are only two officers who were officers in the Dominion Police, and whose services while they were in the Dominion Police cannot, under the act as it is according to the ruling of the Department of Justice, be added to their service as constituted now. This is to correct that anomaly.

R. C. M. Police Act


Mr. KNOX:: I should like to draw the
attention of the minister to the second portion of the resolution and to ask him if he cannot .possibly stretch this a little further. We have to-day in the Dominion of Canada some seventy-five non-commissioned officers and men who left the force prior to the 1st January, 1919. These men had to retire on the former pay which was at the rate of seventy-five cents per day. After the 1st January, 1919, the pay was $2 per day, so that any man retiring after that and drawing a pension received the benefit of the increased pension. These old veterans, of whom I am sure we are all justly proud, numbered at the end of last year about seventy-five. I question if there are as many as that at the present time, and it would not take a great amount to bring their pensions up to the same level as that of those who have retired since that time. Let us cite a few instances to indicate the inequality of this. I am comparing the pensions of men who retired prior to the 1st January, 1919, and of men o,f the same standing who have retired since then. Staff Sergeant Keenan retired after twenty-nine yearn' service, and I might state in passing that he is a man whom I know very well. He is at the present time living on a homstead all alone. I should say rather that men of this class are subsisting because they never had an opportunity of building up homes for themselves. They have devoted the greater part of their lives to the service of their country and no men in the employment of the government of Canada did more towards opening up and civilizing the great West than did these old veterans. After twenty-nine years of service this man, retiring on the old rate, receives a pension of $366. per annum or practically a dollar a day. That does not look very well when you compare it with the pension of Staff Sergeant Evans who retired on the 13th November, 1919, also after twenty-nine years of service, and who draws $973.33 per annum or almost three times what the other man gets, although Sergeant Keenan was in the service from almost the very beginning. His regimental number was 301 which shows that he enlisted very early in the force, and his record is one of the best amongst those who did the pioneer work in the West. They certainly had the hardest time. Sergeant St. Denis who lives at Duck Lake and whom I know very well, after twenty-six years of service has a pension of $262.77, while Sergeant Mapley, also twenty-six years of service, retiring after the date I mentioned, draws a pension of $735.46 Here is another
man residing in Prince Albert and whom I have known for a great number of years. Nicholas Jaffrey was retired with the rank of constable after twenty years of service, having performed heroic work on many occasions. He draws a pension of $109.50, while Constable Phillips, after ten years' service, retiring after the date I have mentioned, draws $200.75. These things will not stand comparison and as a matter of fact they have often been pointed out as a blot on the escutcheon of our country. Surely the government can devise some means .whereby these men may receive just treatment. I know the contention is put up that it would interfere with the Pensions Act, but if that is unavoidable I am sure there are other ways which the Department of Justice could find whereby justice can be done these men.


Ernest Lapointe: The remarks of the hon. gentleman will of course be carefully considered. The case of these veteran pensioners is a deserving one but the hon. member has himself pointed out the difficulty; there are at stake questions of principle and of precedent. There are in all branches of administration pensioners who are on the schedule just as they were when they got their superannuation, and they also have urged that their rate be increased in keeping with the rate now paid. There is no doubt that if this is done for one class it will have to be done for others. I admit that the case of the old Royal Northwest Mounted Police officers and constables appears to be a special one; these men deserve very much, perhaps more than others. But it is difficult to convince some people that their neighbours are more deserving than are themselves. However, I may pledge my sympathy in the consideration which will be given to the plea of my hon. friend.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have received representations from this class of pensioners some of whom reside in the West, and I think the whole point is one of economics. The purchasing power of the dollar to-day is much lower than it was when these men received their pension; at that time it enabled them to live fairly decently, or at any rate according to a certain standard, whereas to-day the same amount, owing to a depreciated purchasing power, leaves them in a most humiliating position. I would urge upon the minister the justice and wisdom of giving every consideration to this particular class of pensioners so that they may be put upon a plane of
R. C. M. Police Act

subsistence worthy of their service to the Dominion and equal to the position held by pensioners to-day.


Mr. WARNER:: I know a few of these
men who are almost in every case unable to take care of themselves. They served the country when the country most needed them and at a time when men of lesser ability and qualifications would have been totally unfit for the service they performed. They have had a harder time than any other mounted policemen and I know from personal knowledge that they do not receive enough to allow them to live comfortably. There are only a few of them and I was pleased to hear the minister say that their case might be regarded as a special one. These were special men and they gave their best years to the country at a time when they were peculiarly needed; the conditions called for men of their type and no others would have done. I do not think it is at all just that these men should be required to get along on the pension which was paid them at the time they retired, and their case should certainly be favourably considered. Their position should be made comparable with that of pensioners who did not have as hard a time and who are receiving better treatment through being placed on a basis established at a later date.


Arthur Meighen: I understand the minister to say that the allowances are now fixed by statute and that the intention is to have them placed in the power of the Governor in Council.


Ernest Lapointe: Certain allowances were fixed by statute but that was only for a period of five years. We cannot, however, decrease the salaries of the mounted police at the present time; far from it, they are paid less than any other police in the Dominion.


Arthur Meighen: But why not bring in a statute to continue parliamentary control? I am astonished that the minister should undertake such a revolution as this. Is he not surrendering to order in council government, even to the extent of handing over the control of the purse strings?


Ernest Lapointe: No, I am asking parliament for the authority.


Arthur Meighen: But parliament has the
authority now.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not the proper
way.


Arthur Meighen: More order in council
government? This is awful.


Ernest Lapointe: Why should there be
special treatment for the mounted police? Are the salaries of other employees of the government dealt with in this way? In no instance, not in connection with civil servants or with the army, whether it be soldiers or officers, is there anything of the kind, and it is considered very undesirable that we should make an exception. We have come to parliament to have the change made.


Arthur Meighen: One would have thought that the government instead of making the change in such a way as to hand over more power to the Governor in Council
6 p.m. would have made it in the other direction, if they wanted uniformity, and brought the others under parliament.


Ernest Lapointe: Does the hon. member
advise that? Does he suggest that military salaries should be placed under parliament?


Arthur Meighen: I should have thought
that the minister himself would want to do that if he were consistent, because he was one of the loudest to complain of order in council government. The minister has lost his red corpuscles,-


Ernest Lapointe: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: -because he at one
time predicted the wreck of the constitution by reason of order in council government whereas, since coming into power, he has failed to introduce a single bill to curtail the power of the Governor in Council and restore parliamentary authority, the encroachment upon which he used to deprecate so strenuously.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is not
consistent. He has always complained that this government was not willing to assume responsibility for what it ought to do, but was always asking parliament to act for it. Now, however, he complains that we are not appealing to parliament.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is wrong.
The government is continually taking power but afterwards is afraid to exercise it, except in cases of paying out money or establishing commissions. In the way of determining policy it shivers on the brink, it cannot move at all, but it is continually coming back to

Feeding Stuffs Act
parliament for more powers to be given the Governor in Council. Now it wants to give the Governor in Council power to fix the wages of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Really the government must tremble for the fate of the constitution!


Ernest Lapointe: Not if my right hon.
friend is trembling.


Arthur Meighen: Where is parliamentary
government that this administration was going to restore to an expectant people? The powers of parliament were to come back once again after being usurped by a former administration.


Ernest Lapointe: So they have.


Arthur Meighen: Here we have pbwer
passing day by day from the hands of parliament into the hands of the Governor in Council. One would have thought to hear hon. gentlemen talk when in opposition that they would have taken from the Governor in Council, yea, from the Civil Service Commission or any one else, the right to fix salaries of civil servants and brought it back to parliament so as to restore "responsible government" to the people of Canada! This continual introduction of bills giving the Governor in Council more and more authority really alarms me.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend does not look alarmed.


Arthur Meighen: When it comes, though,
to the exercise of any really fundamental policy, to declare what ought to be done in the powers the government has its weakness is manifested. Why, the government has ample power in many cases, but it refuses to take any responsibility. It is always wanting a little more power to pay out money so it does not have to come to parliament at all.


Ernest Lapointe: The difference between
us and my right hon. friend is that he left to parliament only the small things and kept to himself the big things-


Arthur Meighen: For example?


Ernest Lapointe: -we are giving to parliament the big things to decide, and the small things, such as salaries of the mounted police, we leave to the Governor in Council.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman
just inform us-and at the same time amuse us-by giving an example of where the late government exercised, aside from parliament, power in big things which this government has given back to parliament?


Ernest Lapointe: I did it in my speech
on the Address, and really as it is already five minutes past six my right hon. friend must give me some latitude to do so again on some future occasion.


Arthur Meighen: I will give him three
days to think it over.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 254, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police 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. FEEDING STUFFS ACT AMENDMENT
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 238, to amend the Feeding Stuffs Act.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Certain feeding stuffs as designated may contain 50 per cent by weight of bran, etc.


The CHAIRMAN:: The words "as ingredients" in the eighth line were struck out in the committee; also sections (b) and (c).


Arthur Meighen: This is the bill for the balanced hen ration, I believe. It is the one the minister had his doubts about. Has it come back from the committee unscathed?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: No. The words "as ingredients" have been stricken out of the eighth line, and sections (b) and (c) have also been stricken out.


Arthur Meighen: That is of section 1?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. There were
features in both of them that were quite commendable, but the committee thought they were not essential. The primary object of the bill is contained in subsection (a). The committee will remember that when the resolution was before the House it was pointed out that the purpose of the bill was to correct an inadvertent effect of the bill of last year, based upon a decision of the Justice department, which prevented the manufacturers of feeding stuffs using mill feeds
Feeding Stuffs Act

to any extent at all in mixing the feeds they were manufacturing. By subsection (a) the use of mill feeds is permitted up to 50 per cent by weight in feeds made by these manufacturers throughout the country, of whom I said there were about forty, but I have since discovered that it is nearer seventy. If they have a mixture of alfalfa, corn, buckwheat or any other of the permissible ingredients, they can mix with them 50 per cent by weight of mill feeds, and make a feed to put on the market under the terms of the Feeding Stuffs Act.


Alan Webster Neill: Were not the words "as ingredients" stricken out in the committee?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, the chairman has announced that. The language was superfluous.


Donald Sutherland: Unfortunately I did not have the advantage of hearing the discussion in the committee on Agriculture when this bill was before it. There were two other committees on which I happened to be. It was very important that I should attend one of them, and we did not get through until two o'clock, by which time this bill had been disposed of by the committee on Agriculture. I presume, from the fact that the committee on Agriculture has seen fit to accept the bill, there must be something in it, but personally I could not see any necessity for a departure from the bill of last year. The mixing of mill feeds of these kinds I do not think is of very much importance. I would [DOT] ask the minister if he will insist upon the manufacturers of these mixed feeds printing upon the containers the ingredients and the proportion in which they are contained in the mixture? I have good reason to believe that a great fraud has been perpetrated on the public in the past in connection with some of these mixtures. Some of them undoubtedly would not fall in that category, but in connection with others the grossest frauds have been perpetrated upon the people who have been purchasing them, and if the minister insists on this bill going through I think it would be advisable to see that the purchasers know exactly what they are buying. There is no secret formula that these mixers have that is of such great importance. The main thing is to protect the public from fraud of any kind. This is being done in connection with many foods now under the pure food laws, under which strict regulations are provided. The same is true with regard to fertilizers. Furthermore, a measure was passed this afternoon requiring a license to be taken out for the manufacture of certain by-products of fish. It appears to rMr. Motherwell.]
me that we are passing so many regulations, we are compelling the taking out of so many licenses and appointing so many inspectors that people are getting heartily sick and tired of the whole business. If a little more attention was paid to the matter of informing people as to what they are really buying- and that applies not only to this measure but a great many others-it would be more in the public interest. I think a bill was introduced last year with regard to clothing which sought to have it stated of what materials the clothing we purchased was made-the proportion of wool, the proportion of shoddy and the proportion of cotton. I simply mention this to indicate the character of a great deal of the legislation we are enacting. I really cannqt discover any virtue in this bill but I do see a great danger in allowing the people who have 'been agitating for this legislation to accomplish their purpose.


William Richard Motherwell: If the suggestion of my hon. friend were carried out and the manufacturers of feed were required to state the composition of the preparation upon the package it would be revealing trade secrets. There has been no complaint, but in any event under the regulations we have the power to act whenever necessary.


Donald Sutherland: I am sorry that I
cannot appreciate the minister's sympathy with those who fear to have trade secrets disclosed. The manufacturers of these feeds have taken full advantage of the situation and have advertised them under a score of different names.
Although we have had a Dominion analyst for many years some of these feeds have escaped being brought under supervision, and evidently the minister is not going to see that they shall be strictly supervised. I can see no reason why there should be an objection to Stating what all these feed stuffs are composed of especially if they are to be sold in such large quantities-for poultry feed, for calf feed, or other like purposes-as the minister has indicated. There is not one of these formulas which could not be analyzed by any one desiring to do so. Therefore why not have the department undertake this work especially when there is a qualified official available for the purpose. Let the people know what they are buying: do not let them be imposed on in this way whqn it is altogether unnecessary.


Alan Webster Neill: I wish to make a protest at
the departure from the order of busines laid down. I have no objection to this bill going through, I am glad to see its passage, but we have a time honoured custom in accordance

Vancouver Harbour
with which the leader of the government announces each day's programme the night before at the time of adjournment. Now, this bill was not mentioned in the order of business for to-day that was announced on Saturday morning. As we all know when the House is sitting practically all day, and well into the morning, and committees sitting at the same time, it is almost impossible for members to attend regularly. They make it their business to be present when they know that something in which they are interested is coming up. But this bill was brought forward this evening without previous notice whatever; I ask what is the use of announcing a programme in advance if we do not adhere to it.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. VANCOUVER HARBOUR
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolutions:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide,-
1.	That the Governor in Council may, from time to time, advance and pay to the Corporation of the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners, in addition to the moneys heretofore authorized to be advanced to the corporation for the construction of harbour improvements by existing legislation, such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $5,000000, as may be required to enable the corporation to complete construction olf terminal facilities in Vancouver harbour for which the plans, specifications and estimates have already been approved by the Governor in Council, and to construct such additional terminal facilities as may be, likewise, approved as necessary, further to properly equip the said port.
2.	That during the period of construction of the works referred to, the interest payable on the debentures to be deposited with the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, under the provisions hereof, shall be deemed to be money acquired in the construction of such works and to be a part of the cost of the construction thereof, and may be paid out of the said sum of $5,000,000; the period of construction herein referred to shall begin on the day when the first advance is made on account of said construction, and terminate on such date as the Governor in Council shall determine.
3.	That no advances shall be paid, as above provided for, unless such detailed plans, specifications and estimates for the works on which the money to be advanced is to be expended, as are satisfactory to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, have been submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council before work on the same has been commenced.
4.	That the corporation shall submit to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for approval, monthly applications for such advances as they may be entitled to apply for, with statements, in detail, in such form as the minister may direct, and, uspon approval of same, authority for the payment of the amount, applied for may be granted by the Governor in Council.
5. That the corporation shall, upon any advance being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance debentures of the corporation equal in par value to the advance so made, repayable within twenty-five
years from the date of issue, and bearing interest payable half-yearly at the rate of five per centum per annum.
6.	That the principal and interest of the sums advanced to the corporation under the authority of any act founded on these resolutions shall be payable by the corporation out of all its property and assets and out of all its tolls, rates, dues, penalties and other sources of revenue and income, and shall rank as a charge thereon and have precedence in regard to payment next after payments provided for in section twenty-seven of chapter fifty-four of the statutes of 1913, equally with the advances made under authority of chapter twenty-nine of the statutes of 1923.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Mr. GARDINER:: On what facilities is this money to be expended?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I must state first of all
that a certain amount of this money will be spent upon necessary work now under way and partially completed: The construction of a new grain elevator, No. 2, adjacent to the site of the new Ballantyne pier, to have a storage capacity of approximately 1,500,000 bushels, with car unloading plant and conveyor gallery, with a berth on the new pier; the construction of a grain loading jetty to be equipped with conveyor galleries to serve grain elevator No. 1 and the construction of a grain loading berth-


Mr. LUCAS:: Has the minister the amount for each of the items he is giving at the present time? If he has and could give the amount of each, it would be more interesting.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The items are as follows:
No. 1 grain jetty, not yet contracted for,
(a)	Conveyor gallery	
$204,000(b)	Dredging west inner berth	
610,500Total amount, for main jetty	
$814,500
This is the first item.
No. 2 grain jetty, including conveyor system. $585,000
West shore quay, Ballantyne pier	 171,000
West basin dredging, Ballantyne pier	 129,000
Lumber assembly wharf, north shore	 317,000
Temporary overhead bridge to Baillantyne
pier	 30,000
Permanent pavements at Ballantyne pier and
government pier	 36,000
Coaling wharf, bunkers	 450,000
Substation, Ballantyne pier	 155,000
No. 1 elevator, addition	 160,000
No. 1 elevator, addition and alterations.. ..	53,000
Terminal railway, north shore	 264,000
Railway equipment	 131,000
Extra grain storage, No. 1 elevator, 1,000,000 bushels	 300,000
Total amount	$3,595,500


Robert Gardiner: Will the minister give
the cost for the new elevator with a capacity of 1,500,000 bushels?
Vancouver Harbour


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The estimated cost for
grain elevator No. 2 is $915,000.


Robert Gardiner: And the capacity.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The oapacity is 1,500,-
000 bushels. That is the superstructure.


Robert Gardiner: Exclusive of foundation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: What is the cost of
the foundation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The cost of the foundation is $190,000.


Mr. SALES:: Is No. 2 let by contract?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The foundation was let by contract, and the superstructure at cost plus, on a 10 per cent basis.


Robert Gardiner: Who is doing the building work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Northern Construction Company.


Robert Gardiner: When the chairman of the harbour 'board was at Ottawa during the spring they were contemplating an expenditure of $17,500,000. Why did they cut down the proposed expenditure?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have come to the conclusion that with the amount we propose to grant to the Vancouver Harbour Commission for this year the facilities at that port will be double what they are at the present time. We quite realize that business will develop at the port of Vancouver; but we did not think it proper this year to grant the full request of the harbour commissioners, without first having further plans carefully prepared for the additional work in connection with the port, and without giving all parties interested an opportunity to submit their views as to the future development of the port. The Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National, the Great Northern, the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul, as well as the British Columbia Electric Railway are very much interested in the facilities that should be provided. The steamship companies are also interested as are the grain growers throughout western Canada. Therefore, it seems to me it would be wise to co-ordinate the views of all interested parties before deciding upon further large expenditures at Vancouver. It may be possible to constitute a sort of voluntary board upon which various parties interested would be represented to consult with the harbour commissioners of Vancouver and their 
technical advisers in preparing a comprehensive plan for such further developments as may be deemed to be necessary. The Vancouver Harbour Commissioners submitted a request that authority should be obtained from parliament during the present session to advance to them, as has been suggested by my hon. friend, an amount of $18,000,000 for the construction of additional facilities at that port. The view of the department was that to accede to such a request before taking such steps as I have outlined would be a mistake. With the $5,000,000 for which the authority of parliament is asked, it is proposed to complete at an early date the work now in hand and certain of the works outlined in the programme which I indicated a moment ago which are regarded as necessary. That is the reason why we submit to parliament a programme for a grant of $5,000,000.


Robert Gardiner: I should like to congratulate the minister on the stand that he has taken with reference to consulting various parties interested before making further expenditures at the port of Vancouver. Has the minister any knowledge of the personnel of the board and their qualifications for holding their present positions?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no personal knowledge of the gentlemen who actually compose the Board of Harbour Commissioners of Vancouver. I have had an opportunity of meeting only the chairman of the board; I have not met the other members. I have nothing before me so far to shake the confidence that we have in those gentlemen.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating the minister on what he is trying to do at the port of Vancouver. I, as one from the extreme East, who have had an opportunity of visiting Vancouver, desire to say that Vancouver cannot get too much, and it will be in the interest of my hon. friends from the West not only to endeavour to develop that port and other ports on the British Columbia coast but to endeavour to promote industry and build up ports on the Atlantic seaboard. We should have no jealousy in regard to this matter. If we are going to be a great confederation, the East cannot afford to be jealous of the West. Vancouver is one of the great cities of Canada of which we can all well afford to be proud. I should like to see the great ports of Sydney and Halifax in the Maritime provinces developed. I am absolutely in accord with, as far as possible, having trade go through Canadian ports, but

Vancouver Harbour
I am not going to ask my friends from the West to endeavour to force trade through places which it should not go through naturally. As I have said in this House on divers occasions, the people of the Maritime provinces have been hewers of wood and drawers of water for the rest of confederation. We want our Maritime ports developed, but we do not ask that they be developed at the expense of the Pacific or of the shippers in this country. In the great maritime province of British Columbia every person who has true Canadian blood running through his veins must be pleased with the city of Vancouver. It would be very petty for us to endeavour in any possible way to prevent expenditures of money for the development of that important port. While I have admiration for every portion of the Dominion of Canada, if I could ever be tempted to leave my native province of Nova Scotia, I would find myself hieing to British Columbia which lies by the waters of the Pacific.


Charles A. Stewart: What is the matter with Alberta?


Lewis Herbert Martell: I do not think I could live on your prairies. I would rather be on the shores of lands that lie by the Atlantic or the Pacific. We should be prepared to spend anything within reason for the development of our great Canadian ports no matter whether they be on the Atlantic or on the Pacific.


Robert Gardiner: I quite agree with the
hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) as regards the development of our various ports, because I believe that unless our ports are properly developed, much of our produce will go through another country which will naturally derive the benefit. I should like to see all ports in Canada developed to the extent they are required. But on the other hand, I would not like to see any ports overdeveloped, because if any port is over-developed, the charge must be borne by the produce going through that particular port. Consequently, it is an extra charge upon the business of this country and that is something that should be guarded against in future.
The facilities owned by the government at the port of Vancouver were, some years ago, turned over to the Board of Harbour Commissioners. These facilities that are under the control of the harbour board are the property of the government, the harbour board being to all intents and purposes an arm of the government, and the government must be responsible for the actions of that board. That board is composed of three commissioners,
Colonel Kirkpatrick, who received a salary of something like $6,000 a year, Mr. Prenter, who receives a salary of $4,000 and Mr. Beattie who also receives a salary of $4,000 a year. I am not very well acquainted with the first two gentlemen, but with regard to Mr. Beattie, I have some information which I should like to lay before this committee. During the last general election Mr. Beattie was a candidate and was elected to this House. Very soon after the election Mr. Beattie retired for reasons of ill health, as stated in the press; and very shortly after he had resigned his position as a member of this House he was appointed to the Harbour Board of Vancouver.
I do not know whether Mr. Beattie is on that board for his health or not but the fact is that he is a member of it. I mention his name because last fall he was appointed to a position under the board at a salary of $4,000 per annum, so that taking his position as commissioner and his position as superintendent of the grain movement of the harbour we find that his two salaries of $4,000 each give him a total of $8,000 per annum.
Mr. MARTELL. Has the hon. member ever met Mr. Beattie personally and discussed matters with him? If he has he will have found him a very excellent gentleman and highly qualified?


Robert Gardiner: That may be so, but
that is not my point. Here we have a harbour board consisting of three commissioners. These gentlemen meet in .session and appoint one of their number to a position under the board, and the commissioner so appointed sits on the board and assists in getting himself placed in that position. Consequently when any matters come up under the board in which this commissioner's work might be criticised he will be sitting in judgment on his own endeavours, and under the circumstances I need hardly point out that such a procedure is not advisable. I suggest that as soon as possible this feature be eliminated. Up to the beginning of the last grain season the elevator which was built by the Dominion government at Vancouver was under the control of the Board of Grain Commissioners but it was turned over to the harbour commission about the beginning of August. The original cost was something like $850,000 but for some reason or other it was turned over to the harbour board at a cost of $550,000 and no explanation was given why the board should have assumed control of the elevator at a sum $300,000 less than it had cost the government originally.
Vancouver Harbour


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
member says that no statement was ever made as to how the price was arrived at. It was arrived at on the basis of the ordinary depreciation of the building itself.


Robert Gardiner: I will accept that explanation. Before the elevator was turned over to the board it was under the control of the Board of Grain Commissioners, and n their employ was a Mr. Bennett. Mr. Ben-lett was a qualified terminal elevator opera-:or who knew his business thoroughly, and mmediately it was known that the elevator vas to be turned over to the harbour board that body advertised for a superintendent md other help. The .grain merchants of Vancouver as well as the shipping interests there then petitioned the board to retain the services of Mr. Bennett but the board decided otherwise and Mr. Bennett was discharged. It was given as a reason for dispensing with Mr. Bennett's services that he was not temperamentally fitted to work with Mr. Beattie. Well, that may be all right, but at any rate the board decided to have a new set of officers and to advertise for men to take the positions. They finally appointed Mr. Colin McLean as superintendent of the elevator. Now Mr. McLean had had no terminal elevator experience prior to that time, having been theretofore employed with Messrs. Davidson and Smith at Port Arthur, having served part of his time in a feed mill and part on a grain boat. Sc^ far as I have been able to ascertain he had never had any experience in a terminal elevator but he was appointed as superintendent of this particular elevator and, as far as I know, he still holds that position. I stated that Mr. McLean had previously been employed' by Messrs. Davidson and Smith at Porth Arthur, and if we rim down the list of important officers in the service of the harbour board handling the elevator we find that seven of the important employees were previously with the same firm of Davidson and Smith. The assistant superintendent is a gentleman named Penfold.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: I must inform the hon. member that the debate is limited in committee strictly to the subject immediately under discussion. He will observe that paragraph 1 which is at present before the committee relates to the propriety of an advance to be made. May deals with the question at page 281:
On the consideration by the House of the names, taken seriatim, of commissioners to be appointed pursuant to the provisions of a bill, discussion, sought 
to be raised upon each name, of the general policy involved in the appointment of the commissioners was not permitted.
I doubt very much whether the hon. gentleman can go into detail to the extent that he has been doing when the resolution is in committee. Such extended remarks would be in order before a resolution was in committee but not after.


Robert Gardiner: With all deference to
your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I submit that I am in order; I am leading up to the question inasmuch as I am bringing to the attention of the committee matters touching the action of the Vancouver harbour board which would determine the advisability or otherwise of granting this money for the purposes set forth.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: The rule as to
relevancy would also apply to any arguments leading up to the question.


Robert Gardiner: I respectfully submit
that I am not out of order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Do not make your observations too long.


Robert Gardiner: I will try to cut it
short. Mr. Penfold, I say, was appointed assistant superintendent, and he also had been employed for a number of years by Messrs. Davidson and Smith at Port Arthur. Previously to being in their service he was employed by the Board of Grain Commissioners as a weighman but for certain reasons he was suspended and after that he received employment with Davidson and Smith. I trust the committee will remember that the assistant superintendent is Mr. Penfold. The superintendent of Elevator No. 3, known as Woodward elevator is a gentleman by the name of King. Mr. King was accountant for Davidson and Smith for a number of years but he was made superintendent of this particular elevator although he had had no experience except in accountancy. I am giving the facts so that the members of the committee may realize the situation exactly as it is at \ ancouver at the present time and the kind of men that are employed by the board. The house inspector at No. 1 elevator, W. R. Biernes, was discharged in 1922 for his part in a shipment of grain at the head of the lakes. The chief electrician, a Mr. Thompson, was formerly employed by Davidson and Smith at Port Arthur.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. It would be
quite proper, I think, for the hon. member to indicate that for certain reasons the harbour

Vancouver Harbour
board at Vancouver was not to be entrusted with the expenditure of a large sum of money because it would not appreciate its responsibility, or something of that character, but he cannot go over a list of employees seriatim, as he appears to be doing.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I am
leading up to the point, that in my opinion it is necessary for the committee to very seriously consider the advisability of entrusting $5,000,000 to this board for expenditure upon harbour improvements. I will be as short as possible in doing this. The harbour commissioners also employ a Mr. Hamilton as house weighman at No. 1 elevator; he too, was formerly in the employ of Davidson and Smith. As night superintendent the commissioners engaged Joe Smith, and he also was formerly employed by Davidson and Smith. These seven men are all holding most important positions under the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners. The harbour commissioners also employ as chief of police Charles Julian at a salary of $2,500. A little information with regard to this man's activities may interest the committee. According to the evidence given before the Royal Grain Commission he employed a number of ragamuffins to pick up loose grain that had been spilled from the cars. In the evidence it is stated very distinctly that all loose grain should be swept out of the unloaded cars and credited to the shipper. Instead of doing this a warehouse receipt was issued for this loose grain.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Where does my hon.
friend get his authority to term people employed by the chief of police "ragamuffins"? Undoubtedly they were respectable citizens and thoroughly qualified for the work. Why should he use an opprobrious term?


Robert Gardiner: This is part of the
evidence taken before the Royal Grain Commission at Vancouver.


Lewis Herbert Martell: You are not following the evidence.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Julian handed the
warehouse receipt over to Mr. Smith, who sold the grain covered by the receipt. He took the proceeds, and in his evidence he states that he disbursed it among the ragamuffins whom he employed. It is emphatically stated in the evidence that it was improper to issue a warehouse receipt for the loose grain, which should have been dealt with as part of the overage. The evidence also discloses that Mr. Smith sold for Mr. Beattie two cars of grain, and for Mr. McLean one car. I would ask the
minister this pointed question:	Why should
these men who are in charge of the elevator at Vancouver be dealing in grain? They may have come into possession of it by legitimate means-


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: My hon. friend
is pretending to review the evidence taken before the Royal Grain Commission. Will he give the actual evidence adduced in regard to Mr. Beattie's sale of grain? It was proved that the grain came from Mr. Beattie's own farm, went into the elevator, and he received the ordinary warehouse receipt.


Robert Gardiner: I have stated that Mr. Beattie may have come into possession of that grain quite legitimately,-


John Warwick King: He did.


Robert Gardiner: -but in view of the
fact that he was in charge of the elevator it does not look very well.


John Warwick King: What would my hon. friend have Mr. Beattie do with his grain -ship it to Fort William?


Robert Gardiner: If that is a good excuse for the grain being there, it is quite acceptable to me; I simply want to get at the truth. I do not know whether Mr. McLean had a farm or not, but he sold one car of grain through Mr. Smith. Mr. McLean is superintendent of the elevator.
Another feature which I think is relevant to the question under discussion is the past attitude of the board with regard to the construction of the elevator. Last year an agreement was entered into between the harbour board and the Pacific Construction Company. The estimated cost, of the elevator was $42,000 for the foundation and $350,000 for the superstructure. The foundation was built within the estimate of the engineer; but the ultimate cost of the foundation and superstructure was $711,000. The superstructure was built on a 10 per cent plus basis. Under the contract entered into between the harbour board and the Pacific Construction Company we find these two important clauses:
1.	We are to receive as our fee for superintendence of the work and furnishing tools 10 per cent of the actual cost, but in no case shall our percentage exceed $35.000.
2.	Should the total cost of the work-being the actual cost plus 10 per cent of the same-be less than $350,000 this sum being the engineers' estimate of cost, then we are to receive 50 per cent of the difference between such total cost and the engineers' estimate of cost of $350,000, that is to say, we shall share equally with the commissioners in any saving so effected.
Vancouver Harbour

Under that agreement the company could not receive more than 10 per cent on 1350,000, except there was a saving, in which case the saving would be divided on a fifty-fifty basis. Now instead of the elevator costing $350,000 it cost $711,000. The construction company have up to the present time been paid $37,000 on their contract, and they claim another $25,000 as further remuneration for their superintendence in building that elevator. The harbour board, I understand, have set aside $25,000 for the purpose of paying the company that amount if they are forced to, but I submit that the Pacific Construction Company have already received more than the agreement called for to the extent of $2,000, and they should not under those circumstances receive any part of this $25,000 that has been set aside by the harbour board.


Mr. VIEN:: Does my hon. friend think the House can settle that difficulty between the harbour commissioners and the contractor?


Robert Gardiner: I think it is essential that the House should know just exactly where this money is being spent and how it is being spent.


Thomas Vien: Is my hon. friend for or against this vote?


Robert Gardiner: I have stated that I want to see all the facilities that are required at any harbour provided, but I want to see them provided at a reasonable cost.


Thomas Vien: Do I understand my hon.
friend to say that he is opposed to this vote?


Robert Gardiner: Possibly the hon. member will find out after a little while whether I am or not.


Thomas Vien: It is high time you came to that, if you have finished with these prefatory remarks.


Robert Gardiner: It is only necessary for me to remind the House again of the excessive cost of this elevator. The final cost was over 90 cents per bushel capacity, whereas the average cost at the head of the lakes is from 23 to 28 cents. The committee will therefore realize that unless there were some extraordinary conditions prevailing at Vancouver the cost was excessive.
We have heard a good deal recently about the famous Maharg spout. I desire to give the committee a little information, so that they will know exactly what the conditions are in regard to that matter. This particular spout known as the Maharg spout is placed underneath the spout that comes from the receiving leg. The spout from the receiving

leg takes the grain into the scales, and this Maharg spout being underneath the other enables the grain, by simply opening the valves, to be diverted from the scales, and the owner under those circumstances would not get the full weight of grain to which he was entitled. This is recognized as being a very improper installation. In fact, there is only one other elevator in Canada that has a spout in the same position, and that is the Davidson and Smith elevator at Port Arthur. The chief weighmaster, who is employed by the Board of Harbour Commissioners, testified before the Board of Grain Commissioners that he had not given his permission for putting in this spout. The spout was put in by Mr. Colin McLean, the superintendent of the elevator, and for fourteen days at least it was not locked.


John Warwick King: It was put in by
the engineer of Metcalf and Company.


Robert Gardiner: It may have been put
in by Metcalf and Company's engineer, but if Mr. McLean was up to his job as a terminal elevator man, as he should have been, it was up to him to see that such a spout was not placed in such a position. I have information that a spout could have been placed in any other part of the building to have conveyed the grain to the place where McLean expected the grain to be conveyed to, and that was the cleaning machine. But the Maharg spout has since been taken out, I understand, and so far as that is concerned the elevator is all right now.


Mr. STEVENS:: Is it not true, whatever
one's opinion may be about this famous spout, that all parties who have examined it have admitted that there was no material damage done to anyone because of the spout having been placed there?


Robert Gardiner: Vancouver Harbour

per annum. The total shortage for twenty-one years by reason of this proviso limiting the earnings to 9 per cent of the bond issue would in the first case amount to $70,980; in the second case to $139,230; in the third case to $23,205; and in the fourth case to $91,455. The report of Touche and Company further shows that with the interest on the bonds at 5 per cent and the sinking fund accumulating at 3 per cent there would not be enough revenue from the rentals even to take care of sinking fund and interest. That is merely part of the agreement that was entered into between the harbour board and the Oriental Grain Company.
Hon. members will no doubt remember that last fall the harbour board raised the cargo rate from one cent per ton to six cents per ton. First of all the rate decided1 upon was ten cents per ton, but eventually it was reduced to six cents per ton. Now, I desire to call attention to another very important part of this agreement. The part in question is clause 10 and it reads as follows:
It is the intention of this lease that the lessee shall have free use of the shipping facilities herein agreed to be provided, except the usual payment of cargo rates, but that in no event shall such cargo rates be annually less than twelve thousand dollars ($12,000). For the purpose of convenience it is agreed between! the parties hereto, however, that rental as hereinbefore provided shall be paid in the manner set out in this agreement for the whole property, including the said shipping facilities, but that the lessee shall be credited annually against the said total amount so to be paid all cargo rates paid by the lessee up to but not exceeding the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) per year.
What does that mean? It simply means that under this agreement the Oriental Grain Company, must pay the regular cargo rates, but in the event of the amount of cargo rates due by them to the board not amounting to more than $12,000 then that amount shall be credited as part of the rental of the elevator on the nine per cent basis. That is to all intents and purposes a present to the Oriental Grain Company of any sum up to $12,000 that would otherwise be paid to the harbour board as cargo rates.
I do not propose to take up any more time at present. Possibly the minister may have something to say with respect to the matters I have brought before the committee. My only reason for bringing this question up is this:	In my humble judgment the present
harbour board of Vancouver are not capable of spending money efficiently. I think I have produced sufficient evidence to establish that fact. Now what I desire is to see that the money shall be spent efficiently and that sufficient facilities shall be provided at that port to handle all the business that is offered.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before the minister enters upon any reply, or any effort to explain the statements made by the hon. member from Medicine Hat, (Mr. Gardiner) I wish to say a few words in regard to this matter. In the first place I would like to make clear to the minister and to the government the position I take in regard to the general administration of this very important board. I believe that the principle directing the activities of the harbour commissioners under the supervision and guidance of the Department of Marine should be to keep the charges against the shipment of cargoes as light as it is possible to keep them, and that there should be an effort made to have the charges at a low minimum rate. It must of course be recognized that in a port which undertakes to pay interest on its capital and also to erect a sinking fund for the retirement of its bonds, there will have to be port charges of one sort and another. I think the effort of the harbour commissioners has been-at least up till very recently, if it does not still obtain-to keep these rates as low as they reasonably can be kept.
I want to refer to some of the things brought forward by my hon. friend from Medficine Hat. In the first place, I think it would be most unfortunate if statements unsupported by absolute and1 positive evidence should go unchallenged as to the management of the board. I am not here at all with a brief from the harbour commissioners. I have no responsibility for their appointment, with the exception of the chairman, who was appointed under the previous government. The other two commissioners were appointed by the present government and they did not consult me at all with regard to the appointments, but I wish to say this to the committee: judging of the work of the harbour commissioners by and large-that is in the general results-I think it will be admitted that phenomenal results were achieved during the past year in the handling of grain through the port of Vancouver. It ought to be borne in mind, as far as the elevator management is concerned, that the commissioners passed through one elevator, with a capacity of
1,300,000	bushels-which was I think increased in about February of this year by the addition of No. 1 elevator-seven and eight million bushels a month. At the present time I believe about 59,000,000 bushels have passed through that elevator. I am informed by the very best of grain experts and elevator operators that this is a phenomenal achievement and that such a feat has never been accomplished at any place. That is to their credit.

Vancouver Harbour
and is to the credit of Mr. Colin McLean, the manager of the elevator, more than to any other person.
Let me refer to the question of Mr. Beattie acting in a dual capacity. I do not think it is desirable the commissioner should hold a second position, carrying an additional salary of $4,000. I have no hesitancy in saying that in my estimation it establishes a very bad precedent, and in addition to that it is very difficult indeed to justify. From what I have discovered of Mr. Beattie I desire to say that he has certainly unbounded energy. He is constantly driving and working to the limit of his capacity in the interests of the harbour.
I do not know that his energies have always been most wisely directed, but certainly they have been directed with vim and energy. Nevertheless, I question the advisability of allowing a commissioner to hold an additional position under the commission of which he is a member, carrying an additional salary such as he is drawing, namely, $4,000 a year.


Thomas Vien: We have the same thing in Quebec. We have General Tremblay as general manager and1 commissioner, and the public at Quebec are extremely pleased with the results.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Thomas Vien: Will the hon. member allow
me to correct him on that point? The hon. member supported that system of construction in reference to the parliament buildings and in reference to the construction of the Welland canal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As far as the parliament
buildings are concerned, if the hon. member will recall, parliament appointed a committee consisting of members on both sides of the House, including on the original committee such energetic Liberals as the Hon. William Pugsley and the present Speaker, and one or two other Liberals, in conjunction with members supporting the government, and it was that committee which decided to do the work under the present system. I did not particularly approve of it, but I did not resist the appointment of this committee. We always gave contracts for the construction of work in Vancouver. There was an exception that might possibly be justified in connection with No. 2 elevator. I will explain that. I remember that when it was contemplated, I think about a little over a year ago, I questioned the harbour commissioners' course at the time, but this explanation was given to me, which, while I do not think it would wholly justify the course pursued, yet in a measure it was a justification, according to the way one looks at it. The contractors were working on the pier and they had the ground covered with their equipment. They had their little narrow gauge railway carrying material all over that huge structure and they were operating. It was pointed out to me that had the harbour commissioners given another contract to other contractors while the contractors in possession of the pier were still constructing the pier, you would have complications at once if you did not have an impossible condition. It was
Vancouver Harbour

further pointed out that what we wanted above everything else was elevator capacity at the coast, and if we were to get that, it would be advisable to give a contract on a cost plus basis to the contractors who were on the job and who had their equipment there. I am not prepared to go to the extent of wholly endorsing that contention, but there is an argument in support of it. That could be well and satisfactorily settled if the minister would make a careful investigation. Perhaps he has already done so and is prepared to advise the committee that the contract so let on a cost plus basis has proven to be as economical as if the work had been done by tender.
As regards the need of elevator facilities, one of the difficulties we have met with on the Pacific coast this year and one of the reasons for losses of two, three, four or six cents a bushel to the producer has been this, that because of the absence of elevator capacity the smaller shipper could not ship his grain from the interior to the coast unless he had an export permit. The reason was obvious. Had the harbour commissioners or the grain board as the case might be, permitted the promiscuous shipment of grain from the interior to the Pacific coast during the past season, the elevator would rapidly have been choked with individual shipments with the bringing in of small quantities of grain. So an embargo was put on that no grain would be received for shipment unless it was accompanied by an export permit, that is, unless the shipper had provision made for actual shipment out. We had as many as forty-seven vessels lying in the harbour of Vancouver in one day waiting to load and they were being loaded as rapidly as possible, all from the one elevator. Naturally, not only the grain trade and the shippers of grain on the prairies, but the business men on the coast, in fact everybody in touch with the business, demanded an immediate increase of elevator capacity. The result of that pressing demand was the letting of the contract for No. 2 elevator. I believe a very good job has been done, and no doubt when this elevator is in operation very soon now, it will be a splendid acquisition to the port.
As to the Woodward elevator, I want to say very frankly to the minister that I have never from the very first mention of the acquisition of the Woodward elevator, supported the suggestion. I wrote a letter-I do not have it under my hand-to the chairman of the harbour board, I think, last February warning him that the acquisition of this elevator, I feared, would be a costly move on
Mr. Stevens.]
the part of the commissioners and would result in loss later on. If the high pressure which has obtained this year were to continue year after year for a number of years, those who have rented this elevator would possibly make a success, make money out of it and be able to pay the harbour commissioners a handsome revenue for the use of it. But that would obtain only by the continuance of those abnormal conditions which we are seeking to relieve as rapidly as we possibly can and which we hope to see relieved immediately.


Thomas Sales: Does the hon. member mean
that if the Woodward house is operated as a public or a private elevator, that profit will be made?


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Robert Gardiner: Carter disc machine.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are two machines
which I have looked at myself. Why were these machines put in.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Perhaps it was a moneymaking scheme.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend should
not be facetious about these things. That is the name commonly used in the trade regarding these machines. They are cleaning machines. I am not joking about this matter which is very serious. There was an insistent demand for cleaning machines to be put in at the coast and the only places where these machines could be put were two vacant places in the working house. In order to get the grain to these machines the main spout was tapped at a certain point and a valve put in. The criticism of that valve is this, that it taps the main spout between the hopper where the grain is dumped and the weighing machine. The suggestion is that if one desires to be a common thief, that valve could be opened and grain could be diverted before it could get to the weighing machine. As a matter of fact this valve was kept locked. There is a dispute between the weighmasters representing the Department of Trade and Commerce and the management of the elevator for permission being secured for putting that valve in. But this fact has been clearly demonstrated beyond any possibility of question that no improper use was ever made nor has there been any indication of any intention of any improper use of that spout or valve. I think it would be only fair to the management of the elevator to clear them completely of this continual suggestion that there were sinister motives that prompted the installation of the valve. As regards the extension to No. 1, the present government on the advice of the harbour board retained the services of Messrs. Metcalf and Company of Montreal to furnish the design, and I think I am justified in saying that this company is one of the most reputable firms of engineers in Canada. Certainly no one, not even the
most prejudiced individual, has suggested that this firm is at all likely to draw plans or to make specifications that are not absolutely correct. And- yet they installed three if not four of these diversion valves in the new extension to No. 1 elevator. These valves were never used; when the question arose regarding the valve in No. 1 elevator they were removed before the elevator was put into operation. So that in the interests of the grain movement on the western route it is imperative that we should dispose of the question as to the so-called Maharg spout and cease from referring to the matter with the implication that these valves were put in with some sinister motive. Not only has there been no evidence to support such a contention, but everything to the contrary has been demonstrated beyond any possibility of question.
As to the method of shipping at Vancouver, I have watched this with a great deal of care and interest because the original elevator No. 1 was erected in Vancouver after a couple of years of the hardest work I ever did in parliament in urging the preceding government to construct it. I had faith in the western route for grain and therefore pressed the matter with all the energy I could exert. I was laughed at at the time; indeed my political opponents at the coast referred rather disparagingly to the elevator as "Stevens' white elephant" and ridiculed the construction of it. Time however has proven the wisdom of that work, for we shall require much greater facilities. A charge has been made of 6 cents a ton, which I think is very moderate. I did say to the commissioners, when they raised the cargo tonnage charge to that point, that possibly they might have been well advised to let it stand for the time being. But when you divide it up what does it amount to? It represents a small charge. The point to be kept in mind is this: With one-sixth of a cent here, a quarter of a cent there, one-third of a cent somewhere else, or a cent and a quarter, as the case may be- and these by the way are some of the charges which now obtain-in the aggregate a considerable amount is involved. And it is the increasing number of charges against the movement of grain, whether east or west, which is causing a good deal of irritation and loss to the grower of grain. After all there is a certain price when the grain is taken to Liverpool and the grower gets that price less the cost of placing it in Liverpool; and that cost comprises handling charges, freight, insurance, elevation and so forth. All these
445S
Vancouver Harbour

things accumulate against the grain and therefore as far as it is humanly possible it would be well to keep down to the minimum point the cost of handling the commodity. While the individual charge of 6 cents a ton is no great burden on the traffic, at the same time, added to the innumerable other charges that are involved, it certainly has an irritating effect on the shipper.
I do not wish to delay matters, but it is necessary that I should say something in justification of our efforts to build up the movement of grain westward. The committee should bear in mind that whether or not the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners are guilty in any detail-and I am not aware of any of the more specific charges made by my hon. friend-the accomplishment during the past year has been very commendable and of the highest character. There has been inaugurated a movement of grain through the port of Vancouver exceeding the movement through Montreal, and that is a considerable accomplishment. Naturally therefore we on the Pacific coast are very proud of the fact and believe in giving a measure of credit at least to those who are responsible for the work.
I do not know personally any of the gentlemen referred to by my hon. friend, with the exception of Mr. Colin McLean whom I have met probably two or three times. There has been made a suggestion which I think the minister should carefully look into, that there is some influence at work to secure the appointment of persons, in connection with the management of the harbour, on grounds other than that of efficiency. If that is the case it is the duty of the department carefully to check the administration of the harbour by the commissioners. If those charges are sustained and it is found that individuals have been put into positions when they do not know their business, such persons should be removed promptly and be replaced by those who are capable. But I will say for Mr. McLean at least that he thoroughly understands his business, and the result of his supervision of the elevator this year has proven that beyond question. As to the others, I know little about them. As regards Mr. Julian, the chief of harbour police, I want to say quite frankly that I am not in any way indebted to this gentleman for protection, if you like to put it that way; he has never been anything but a political opponent to me to the very limit of his capacity. Nevertheless I want to say in justice to his work that there was a good deal of pilfering going on in connection with grain, as in connection with other things around the government
TMr. Stevens.1
docks, such as goes on wherever there are waterfront operations. It is very difficult to detect and prevent these thefts. Men of all classes and descriptions are constantly going in and out of the wharves and the sheds and it is quite natural, unfortunately, that elevators should suffer from petty thieving, because a good many people are not altogether honest. So that things will disappear. It was found that some cars had been opened and some grain taken out; and a further discovery was made. Cars that were brought to the elevator, and in regard to which a dispute arose upon their being inspected, hatl to be shunted away from the elevator on to a side track to await the decision of the dispute before they could be unloaded. The result was that the seal of the car was broken and the door opened, and it was not difficult for a thief if he wanted to do so to obtain access to the grain. For these reasons the harbour board appointed Mr. Julian as chief of harbour .police; and while I do not know anything about the ragamuffins about whom the hon. gentleman has made mention, I believe that certain persons were hired to assist Mr. Julian in watching the cars. It seems that for a while these fellows did sweep up grain that had leaked out on its passage to the ship; because there is always a certain amount of grain that will spill especially in the handling of sacked grain. And it was almost altogether in the handling of this grain that this occurred. There is a certain amount of loss in that way. For a short time this loose grain was sold by Julian and-I am not sure of what I am saying and I may be doing him an injustice-some of the proceeds were paid over to those who did the work. This question was brought before the grain board in February when they sat at the coast, and was not only ordered discontinued, but was voluntarily discontinued by the harbour commissioners. It was an undesirable practice, but really a very small matter, and having been discontinued I see no object in bringing it forward again.
In a general way I think this vote of a further $5,000,000 is certainly needed for the additional equipment of the port of Vancouver. Indeed, a very much larger sum will be required if this port is to keep pace with the insistent demands which are being made for increased shipping facilities. There is no doubt that this is the commencement of a great movement, not only of grain but of all classes of goods through the Pacific ports to the Orient and of incoming cargoes from Europe via the Panama canal. Therefore we must have adequate facilities to handle this growing trade.

Vancouver Harbour
I would add one further request to the minister; that he. take the earliest possible opportunity of satisfying himself,-first, that the money is being wisely expended; secondly, that the present needs of the port are supplied out of this vote; thirdly, that early steps will be taken to supply other needs which are not covered by this vote.


Mr. MILLAR:: Mr. Chairman, I believe
this expenditure is quite warranted. When a request was made last winter for $18,000,090.
I feared that perhaps a mistake might be made and too much money granted and too much elevator capacity provided. The advance from 19,000,000 bushels of grain last year to 55,000,000 bushels,-or, as the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has said, 59,000,000 bushels-[DOT] this year has been very rapid. I believe the movement is going to increase with equal rapidity in the next few years. For some reason not only in Canada but in the United States the production of wheat has moved northward and westward. Time was when Ontario grew a considerable quantity of wheat, later Manitoba became a great wheat growing province, and I can remember When I moved west first I was advised not to go farther than Brandon for wheat growing. Later on wheat production extended to Moose Jaw, then the time came when Saskatchewan became a great wheat producing province. Although I belong to Saskatchewan I admit to my friends from Alberta that when the Peace river country is opened up theirs will be the banner wheat producing province. The movement is going to continue steadily westward and northward.
With reference to the enormous amount of wheat handled through No. 1 elevator, 59,000,000 bushels, although its capacity is only
1.300,000	bushels, I believe this was handled very much too fash-too fast to give proper cleaning and proper handling. During the month of February when I was there with some other members of this group 178 cars a day were being handled. I am told by experienced grain men that the capacity of such an elevator is about 125 cars a day. It shows, as the member for Vancouver Centre says, Mr. McLean's ability as a grain man. In fact, until my hon. friend came to the point where he spoke of the Maharg spout I agreed with his remarks in every respect.
I add my voice to those who would urge upon the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, as well as on the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that the closest supervision should be kept over the port of Vancouver. I am not going to thresh over the old straw dealing with Maharg spout, with the irregularities, with the
inefficiency referred to, but the evidence is such that it would be very wise indeed that the most careful supervision be exercised if this port is to be the great grain outlet that we hope it will be and the movement is to be handled with that efficiency and economy which we would all like to see. There is considerable evidence to show that the same abuses were creeping in which cost us so much on the eastern route, and if the wish of the harbour board at that time-although I think they have changed since-to be allowed to operate under the Department of Trade and Commerce instead of under the Board of Grain Commissioners had been acceded to, I am quite convinced that those irregularities would have increased. I do not wish to insinuate that the Department of Trade and Commerce is inefficient, but it is too far away and cannot exercise that close supervision so essential to the successful operation of the port; this supervision can be exercised only by the Board of Grain Commissioners. Under the Department of Trade and Commerce the harbour commmissioners would be left too much to their own devices, and would be inclined to build up for the port of Vancouver a prosperous institution and forget those who are producing the grain and paying the price. I am confident that unless the Department of Trade and Commerce, through the Board of Grain Commissioners take very close and strict supervision of the grain handling facilities at Vancouver they will not have the confidence of the people in the western provinces. I do not agree with my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre in thinking that insinuations have been made for the purpose of damaging the western grain route. I do not believe that is so except to a very limited extent. The desire is to keep this route absolutely clean. Those of us who have been growing grain for a number of years and know the abuses that used to creep in from the time the grain is loaded into the farmer's wagon until it reaches the port of Liverpool could tell the committee a great many things; but time is too short for me to deal with these abuses which, fortunately for us, have been cleared up.
I agree with my hon. friend in what he said about Mr. Beattie. I talked with him about the trade and the harbour of Vancouver and my conversation did not lead me to believe that he could not be trusted. I believe he is a man of energy and, I think I might say, of integrity. Perhaps when he started first he did not have a sufficient knowledge of the grain trade and it may be that for that reason he fell too readily under
Vancouver Harbour

the influence of the grain firm about which we have heard so much and about which we feel tempted to sometimes say things that we do not like to say. I think for that reason his course of action injured the grain shipping facilities of the port. I know some things that I should not like to repeat here that lead me to that conclusion. If all interests are to be served, if you are to get the best results, I think a very close supervision should be kept ever the port.
I liked the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver when he pointed out that when the rates were raised it meant only a little, but that little was vital. If we are going to compete against Russia, the Argentine, and India in the markets of the world, every quarter of a cent counts, and a saving of three or four cents a bushel on wheat that we are growing for export may enable us to raise wheat at a profit for years. There is only a step between failure in success, in this as in almost every other business. Let me point out one more thing before I close. A saving of two cents a bushel on two or three hundred million bushels of wheat amounts to an enormous sum, and it well warrants a little expense on the part of this government in making a thorough investigation and in taking steps to see that the handling facilities are up to date in every respect. Just consider what it means -two cents a bushel on two hundred million bushels! The amount is amazing. When we consider that grain shipped from this port last 3'ear sold on sample for five cents a bushel more than it would have sold on grade, we can realize the damage that is done, as I have already pointed out, by mixing and adulteration over the eastern route.
I would like to compliment the department and the government on keeping this expenditure down to where I think it ought to be. I think an expenditure of $5,000,000 is warranted, but to expend as much as $16,000,000 or $18,000,000 would be a mistake for the reason that the southern portion of Alberta, unfortunately, does not always have a bumper crop, and if we provided enormous facilities that would be adequate in a year when there was a bumper crop, and the :oll owing two or three years should be dry years, we would have a white elephant on our lands, more grain handling facilities than were needed. So I think the government were wjsc in keeping this expenditure down to $5,000,000, and I will have no complaint to make if they will just exercise careful supervision to see that the evils that crept into that eastern route, and that are creeping in at Vancouver, and were so apparent in the pur-

chase of the Woodward elevator, are kept out, I am sure that Vancouver will be a winter grain port that we will all be proud of. It will jump by leaps and bounds into prominence and enable us in the western provinces, in Alberta and the western part of Saskatchewan, to compete at a profit perhaps with other countries where labour is cheap and where the grain is close to tidewater, but with which we shall otherwise be entirely unable to compete.


William Thomas Lucas: I would like, in a few words, to say that I think the development of the Pacific coast is one of the most important questions we have before us at the present time. One of the cries we lave heard from all parts of the House for a number of years past has been the amount of our grain that has been going through American ports. We in Alberta, especially, and I think I can speak for a great part of western Saskatchewan, believe that the natural outlet for our grain is through the Pacific port. I agree with a great deal that was said by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) this evening, and I want to congratulate him upon the splendid fight he put up in years gone by in having built the first elevator on the Pacific coast. I happened to be living at the coast then, and I know the fight he put up. But I could not agree with him to-night when he said that a great deal of the opposition that was coming to Vancouver's development was from eastern interests who were opposed to that route. These charges were also made freely in the press of Vancouver during the recent investigation by the Royal Grain Commission, in connection with the evidence given by Mr. Van Allen, who was representing the Alberta government in that grain inquiry. I want to say definitely that Alberta is not antagonistic to Vancouver. On the contrary, we believe it is our port, and we want to see that port developed, but in such a way that the cost will not be prohibitive to shipping our grain over that route. V e feel that we have been discriminated against in the eastern route, and that the charges have been too high, and consequently when a new port was being opened up we took a very keen interest in it, and we want to see that port developed so that it will get every bushel of grain that it is entitled to get.
In regard to the charges that have been made and the suspicions that have been aired with respect to the Vancouver Harbour Board personally I have met a number of these gentlemen, and from my personal knowledge of them I can speak of them only in the

Vancouver Harbour
highest terms, but I am doubtful whether they were wise in selecting the persons whom they did because of certain suspicions that were attached to these men. We know that the firm of Davidson and Smith operating in Fort William, while no definite charges were proved against them, were engaged in several dealings that were sufficient to give rise to a great deal of suspicion, and while they were not refused their seat on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, we were given to understand that they would not have received it had they applied for it. They went to Vancouver and we find in respect to the personnel operating the terminal elevator at Vancouver, that the more important positions are all held by men who formerly worked for Davidson and Smith at Fort William. One especially was discharged as a government weighman in connection with the Pollock shipment of grain. I am not making this as an idle statement, because any one who peruses the report of the grain commissioner's inquiry at Vancouver will find the statements therein set out. In regard to Mr. McLean, I do not know him personally, but the report states that he had had no experience as a terminal operator before going to Vancouver:
McLean began his experience in the grain business as a grain trimmer. He was newer at any time in charge of a waterfront terminal, either public or private, carrying on the sort of business that is carried on at the harbour commissioner's elevator here.
That is from the evidence. While there were over seventy applicants for this position, it was given to Mr. McLean, although many of the other applicants possessed the necessary qualifications to carry on this work. The report says:
Mr. Beattie, of the Harbour Commission, who had the most to do with Mr. McLean's appointment, could not offer any cogent reason for the selection made of Mr. McLean over all the other competitors, some of whom, on the face of their applications appeared mere readily qualified by their past experience for the position to be filled.
As I said before, we are very much in favour of the development of the port of Vancouver and the elevator facilities there, but I am glad that the minister has seen fit this year not to make a hurried development and increase the overhead to such a point that it would not be profitable to ship grain that way, but that he has rather confined himself to the amount asked for in this resolution. I believe there is another outlet on the Pacific coast that is well worthy of consideration when any further expenditure is called for there. We find in the Vancouver harbour at the present time elevator accommodation with over 2,000,000 bushel capacity, and when the contemplated programme is finished that capacity will be considerably augmented. Now we know that at the waterfront at Vancouver, the building of wharves is very expensive and there is already great congestion. Furthermore we know that the Canadian National Railway does not own its terminus in Vancouver. From September 1, 1923 to June 6, 1924 the Canadian National shipped 16,394 cars of wheat to Vancouver, while the Canadian Pacific shipped 19,368 cars.
I should like to bring to the attention of the committee, and of the minister, when any further expenditure is contemplated at this port, the desirability of building an elevator on the Fraser river at Port Mann or in that district. We find that when the Canadian National Railways bring their trains from Port Mann, which is their terminus across the Fraser river en route to Vancouver they have to split them into three sections. There is a one per cent grade approaching the provincial bridge across the Fraser and the charges on each car of the National Railways going from Port Mann to Vancouver amounts to something over $13. Taking the 16,394 cars that were hauled by the Canadian National during the period mentioned at $13 per car the total cost would amount to $213,122, and it must be remembered that is not for a full year. I venture to say that the Canadian National has had to absorb a loss of over a quarter of a million dollars on the shipment of that grain from Port Mann to Vancouver. Another important point is this: I am told that the time occupied in hauling those cars from Port Mann to Vancouver is such that by the time they get over to Vancouver and unload the cars could have unloaded at Port Mann and returned to Edmonton. It therefore can be readily seen the tremendous saving there would be and what a number of cars would be available if the cheaper and easier route was adopted. That is a very important point to the farmers on the prairie as there is usually a shortage of cars when the fall rush is on.
The leasing of the Woodward elevator has occasioned a great deal of annoyance. I trust the minister will look into this matter, that he will take cognizance of the report of the Royal Grain Commission and see if it is not possible to immediately break that lease. If the harbour board in any of these ports are really going to control the elevators they should take proper measures to give effect to that policy. Let me quote a few words from the report of the Royal Grain Commission on this matter:
Finally it does not appear to be sound public poI>c>
lor the harbour commissioners to finance out of public credit the building of an elevator, capable
Vancouver Harbour

of profitable use only as a private house, in order to lease it to a private company for private purposes, in the face of a report by competent engineers that the port's need of larger public terminal storage capacity could be better and more conveniently provided in connection with the commissioners' own elevator, numbers 1 and 2.
I ask the minister, and hon. members also, if they think it is sound government policy to finance a project of this kind in order to turn it over to private interests to make a profit out of it. If the harbour board are going to operate the Vancouver terminals any profit derived from them should go into the public treasury. I therefore trust that the minister will give this matter his very serious consideration.


Mr. CHURCH:: The port of Vancouver is
evidently destined to become one of the greatest ports in the world. Its growth and development is one of the results of the opening of the Panama canal which has revolutionized transportation not only on the Pacific but on the Atlantic. A lot of package freight is now going from Toronto to Vancouver by a boat called the Kirkwood. I think no less than 97 different wholesale and retail merchants are shipping freight by this particular line. I point out also that the Harbour Commissioners of Toronto brought 38 per cent of the lumber required in connection with harbour improvements from Vancouver. This lumber came from the Pacific coast through the Panama canal, and the shipment by this route effected a saving of, I think, 34 per cent compared with the all rail route charges. As a Canadian I rejoice to see the growth of the port of Vancouver. When you think that over 30 vessels a day lie in that harbour awaiting grain cargoes you can form some idea of how that port has developed. 1 It certainly lis rapidly transforming the grain carrying trade originating in the prairie provinces. The application of the principles of the good old National Policy in connection with this trade development will be of the utmost advantage. This wonderful growth at Vancouver indicates that the Pacific is coming into its own. Its day is dawning; it was only a short time ago that the Atlantic was pre-eminent in the transportation system. The ports of Montreal and Vancouver are destined to become two of the greatest ports in the world not only in connection with grain carrying but in the carriage of merchandise of all kinds. The government are to be commended for their vision in realizing the possibilities of trade development at Vancouver and taking action to provide facilities for the growing trade as they are now doing.


John Arthur Clark: I ask the minister whether
the department approves of the appointment of Mr. R. E. Beattie as general superintendent of the port of Vancouver?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: I am heartily in favour of
the proposed legislation; that goes without saying. At the same time as a citizen of Vancouver I want to see a close supervision kept by the department over all expenditures. I think we are entitled to the most detailed information as to how this mopey is to be expended. I believe that $5,000,000 can be very easily expended in the harbour of Vancouver next year. It would be easy to expend double that amount, or even three or four times that amount, to advantage. At the same time I do not propose toi be a party to the encouragement of extravagance at this moment. I want to see the development encouraged just so far as we can afford it, without increasing the harbour dues unduly. I am not in ,a position to say how far we can go toward increasing the port facilities at the moment without unduly increasing the harbour dues. That is the department's duty and the department should be prepared to give us the details .and prove to the House conclusively that the improvements are essential, as I believe they are, and that every improvement is being made that is needed; because, as my hon. friends to my left have pointed out with great force, this is not a port which belongs to the people of Vancouver only. It belongs to the people of western Canada and we are equally interested in the development, and I can assure the minister that we are very [DOT]much concerned both with securing adequate facilities and with the proper management of the port. From a general point of view I think we are bound to judge by results, and the general situation is favourable. The increase in grain shipments through the port has been simply phenomenal, il do no,t think that .any port in the world can boast of such growth, particularly in grain shipments, as that port can boast of in the last three or four years.
There are a few things however I would be inclined to criticise, and I think the outstanding feature is this:	That the government has permitted a suspicion of party influence and patronage to creep into the situation in the Vancouver Harbour Commission. First of all, we had two very capable harbour commissioners dismissed without cause and two others appointed. One of them, Mr. Beattie, w,as an elected candidate in the

Vancouver Harbour
upper country, and 'he never had anything whatever to do with harbours or the management of ports. He was appointed in the place of a man of great experience. Mr. Beattie has been a very hard worker. I must give him credit for being a very active man, but I can see no justification for the minister giving his approval to the appointment of Mr. Beattie to a position under himself. We have three harbour commissioners, and an appointment under the harbour commission, namely the general superintendent of the port. One of these harbour commissioners has been appointed to that position. I know there is no justification for it in the world, and particularly as he appears to be the junior commissioner, the last appointee. He is appointed to a position which commands exactly the same salary as he draws as harbour commissioner. He thereby draws a salary of $2,000 more than the chairman of the commission. I say that is not right. It is unfair to the man who is in charge, or who is supposed to be in charge, of the administration of the affairs of the harbour. Here is a man, the junior commissioner, drawing $8,000, whereas the chairman draws only $6,000. What chance has the chairman got? That is only one instance. The Woodward elevator has been touched upon by some of my hon. friends to my left. I do no,t know anything about that. I do not know particularly about the financial end of it; but I do know that the Woodward elevator has been leased to partisans. It is a strange thing, and I think that it is difficult to justify. We have a third instance of a very valuable piece of land in the harbour leased to the terminal Grain Company of which R. H. Gale, one of the defeated Liberal candidates in Vancouver, is the president.


George Perry Graham: Would that be sufficient
to condemn him as a business man?


John Arthur Clark: I am not condemning him.
I am only pointing out facts, and I am not doing it in a partisan sense, but I think it is important for the House and for the country to know the facts. All I Say is that here are certain facts. Are they right? Do they justify suspicion or criticism? Here we have a site, a piece of land on the harbour front adjoining the most important wharfage in the harbour, with the best grain facilities. That is leased to a partisan, and according to an answer which appeared in Hansard of April 24, this piece of ground which is in the most favourable part of the harbour, cost $325,000, and was leased for the first year for $2,566.67. For the next forty years it was leased for
$12,000 a year. It is difficult to understand that. The point that worries me is this: How can a private enterprise, for instance the company of which the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) is president, go into the harbour and compete against a company which has such a favourable lease? If the harbour commission can give all other companies equally favourable leases then they will be able to compete on r.n equal basis; but unless the harbour commission and the government can do that it does not give private enterprise the encouragement it should have to go into the port. I am pointing out what I consider in part to be minor features and the features that can be criticised, and which are being criticised by the Progressive members of this House. When we have such a marvellous opportunity for development, and such a wonderful record already established of being the greatest shippers of Canadian grain from any port in Canada, I say it is too bad that the government should permit the management of the harbour to be surrounded with any degree of suspicion whatsoever. I call this point to the attention of the government, because I do not think the government is justified in countenancing this appointment and such leases.


Charles Gavan Power: I wish to endorse the statements of those who praise the government for taking an interest in, and the development of Canadian seaports. In that connection, I think they have done well by Vancouver and by the country in encouraging that, and I express the pious wish and hope that they will do well by ports further east. But after having listened to the discourses of some of my hon. friends directly opposite and diagonally opposite, it struck me that, perhaps, there might be some objection to voting a large sum at this stage. Almost every speaker has cast some suspicion on the personnel of the Vancouver Harbour Board; even one of the hon. members from the city of Vancouver has intimated that it is not quite right for the government to entrust the board with such a large sum of money. Under the circumstances, I would suggest that only a certain portion of the money be advanced this year. I understand from the explanation given by the minister that some of the money is for work already under way. I suppose that must be carried out, and if the minister could state just what those works were, it would be in the best interest of the country to advance the money required for those and to leave the remainder over until next year. If the citizens of Vancouver and the people of western Canada who stand most to profit.
Vancouver Harbour

by the development of Vancouver and the increase in its harbour facilities are not quite sure that the money will be properly expended, it is only reasonable that the matter go over until next year with the exception of such works as are urgently required this year. I have not been able to gather from the explanation of the minister just what is required, but it should be easy for the minister and his deputy to arrive at the amount necessary for those urgent works. If there is a little left over, may I express the wish that some of this would be applied to other harbours not quite so far west? In any case, it is our duty to consider veiy carefully any appropriation of this kind, and in view of the representations made in the committee, I would ask the minister to think over the matter seriously with a view to reducing the amount of the loan this year and to coming back next year, if he obtains the proper information and is satisfied that his appointees are trustworthy persons, in order to grant the remainder of the loan asked for.


Arthur Meighen: It will not be difficult to catch the significance of the words of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Put in very brief terms they mean this, that if anyone dares to criticise an apjpointmlent which this government makes or even the conduct of the appointee, look out, for this government will take that as an excuse to deny moneys to a harbour!


Charles Gavan Power: I am not speaking for the government. They have not honoured me by placing me in the cabinet yet.


Arthur Meighen: This is what the hon. member recommends to the government and he recommends it feeling that the government is governed somewhat by principles of that kind. His threats will not in the slightest degree affect anybody on this side of the House.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not made any threats.


Arthur Meighen: I was not aware until tonight that this government actually countenanced an appointee of its own as harbour commissioner engaging himself and doubling his salary at the expense of this country, acting at the same time as employer in the service of the Dominion and employee in the service of himself. The minister states that the government has approved that, believes it to be right. Actually one begins to wonder what in the world this government is not capable of doing. It seems to be willing to be drifted, pitched and shoved by any par-

tisan supporter, anybody it can find that still stands behind it, willing to do almost anything at all. Was ever a case like this known in the history of Canada?


John Warwick King: Going on for years.


Arthur Meighen: Where?


John Warwick King: In the Harbour
Commission of Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: Who was appointed and who appointed himself? I have never heard of it before. I never knew of a case. A man appointed as a harbour commissioner under salary by this country, engages himself at the same salary over again, doubling his salary, acting as employer in charge of himself!


John Warwick King: That is hardly
fair.


Arthur Meighen: It is the fact.


John Warwick King: It is understood
the harbour commissioners do not devote their whole time to the work.


Arthur Meighen: I know that.


John Warwick King: In the case of
Commissioner Beattie and also the chairman of the board in Quebec they devote their whole time to the work of the harbour, and in doing this, they are paid this additional allowance.


Arthur Meighen: It does not matter if he is employing his whole time or not, he is still an employer. He is employing those under him and he is employing himself.


George Perry Graham: Would this not be about the same case as that of the president of a company who is appointed general manager? He appoints himself.


Arthur Meighen: It is anything in the
world but the same. The government of Canada employs this man and pays him a salary to perform certain duties. In the discharge of those duties he employs himself at a salary of S4,000, doubling his pay, and the whole thing comes out of the people of Canada. The Minister of Railways and Canals actually approves that. I cannot believe he does. The minister stated that he was going to give another case where this was done. He cannot give it.


George Perry Graham: I did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: I mean the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King). I know the Minister of Railways would not say that. He has more experience in public life than the Minister of Public Works. This is the man who

Vancouver Harbour
resigned in order to let the Minister of Public Works get into parliament and this is his reward. He is permitted to play fast and loose with all principles of public policy and apparently with the treasury of Canada. I wonder how many members would care to support a vote of S6,000 a year for forty years to Spillers and Company to come to Vancouver with R. H. Gale or anybody else as president. Would there not be some cries against special privilege and the bonusing of concerns? Is that not precisely what is being done? It is true, parliament has not approved. Parliament never passed a vote. The way adopted is this. The government goes in and expropriates the property or rather affects that it is going to expropriate it and then pays $325,000 for it out of the treasury of the Dominion, borrows the money at 5i per cent, for it costs the country that amount, all expenses included, and then rents it at what returns to the country a little over 3i per cent. This means a bonus of approximately $6,000 a year to this company. We are all glad to have the company there, but is the government prepared to bonus every other concern that goes to Vancouver harbour? If so, has it the authority of parliament to do so? What authority has the government of Canada to ratify conduct which extracts out of the treasury indirectly this sum by way of bonus, with parliament having nothing whatever to say about the matter? This is the kind of conduct that we are threatened by the hon. member for Quebec South that we must put our hand on and approve.


Charles Gavan Power: I made no threats; but
from what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) says, I am becoming more convinced that we should not advance this money. I am opposed to advancing such a large sum of money if it is going to be wasted or badly spent. The leader of the opposition tells me that a portion has been or is about to be badly spent. Therefore, I am opposed to the appropriation until a thorough investigation is made. I have no intention of threatening the government and I do not think they would pay any attention to me if I were to threaten them.


Arthur Meighen: Would it not be more
logical to get rid of the people who are wasting the money?


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps that would be a
good idea, but we cannot do it between now and the end of the week.


Arthur Meighen: If there is a vote, will
the hon. member support it? Will the hon. member stand night after night for this kind of thing?


Charles Gavan Power: The chairman must be in
some way responsible for the conduct of the board. Does the hon. member want him to resign too?


Arthur Meighen: I presume that two of
them could appoint one of themselves and that would be two out of the three.


Charles Gavan Power: If the chairman is worth
his salt he will not stand for being overruled by the two others; he will resign.


Arthur Meighen: I fancy he is over-ruled
by the government.


Charles Gavan Power: If that is so, why does he
not resign? He does not owe anything to this government if what I know about him is correct, and certainly this government owes him nothing.


Arthur Meighen: It is for the chairman
himself to say what he will do. I am at present holding responsible those who assumed responsibility.


Charles Gavan Power: And the chairman is one
of them.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know whether
he assumed it or not.


Charles Gavan Power: He must have.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what
his attitude is; I have never heard of it until to-night.


Charles Gavan Power: He must have assumed
some responsibility.


Arthur Meighen: I was astonished when
I heard the government approve of this conduct. Why not let each of them have a job under himself?


Charles Gavan Power: I am in favour of the chairman having such a job.


Arthur Meighen: Why did that member
of the board not appoint himself in this parliament to another job?


Charles Gavan Power: That would be all right if
parliament would stand for it under the circumstances. The chairman was directly responsible and he is a friend of the right hon. gentleman's. Yet he did not have the gumption to resign.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member says
that the chairman should resign because everything he wants done is not done or because something is done of which he does not approve.


Charles Gavan Power: When there is such an
atrocious scandal he should resign.
Vancouver Harbour

t46t>


Arthur Meighen: I do not know whether he approves of it or not; at any rate I do not.


Charles Gavan Power: Tell him that; he is a
good follower of your own.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member
say whether he approves of such conduct or not?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know the circumstances well enough to say whether I approve or disapprove. I understand the chairman of the board is a well known man. He enjoys a great reputation in Vancouver.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member had
better give us his own opinion.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not familiar with the
editions there.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that
:t depends much upon the conditions for one :o decide whether a man should be allowed to appoint himself to any position at the public [DOT].xpense; I know of no conditions that could ustify such a thing. If the hon. member is uvare of any circumstances that would war-[DOT]ant so peculiar an appointment I should be dad to have him reveal them to the House. There can be only one opinion regarding con-luct of this kind, but I do not know that we -ould have expected anything better. Scarcely had the member for Cranbrook, I believe, resigned to make room for the minister-


George Perry Graham: Get the geography right;
it is Kootenay.


Mr. JACOBS:: May I point out to the
right hon. gentleman that other people resign their seats to make room for others?


Arthur Meighen: That is very true, but
they have never been appointed to jobs in which they could re-appoint themselves in order to double their salaries.


George Perry Graham: There has been no opportunity yet.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, there have been
abundant opportunities ever since confederation, but no government has ever grasped any one of those opportunities until the present administration came into power. In conduct of this sort the present government excels all administrations, past, present, living or dead. I know of no precedent, either on this continent or anywhere else, that would extenuate this kind of thing. Fancy a man appointed to a post where he is the trustee of a tremendous interest, and forthwith, with

the approval of his associates, he appoints himself to another post under review by himself. This is the kind of thing which this government sponsors.


Mr. CAHILL:: He must be a "weak
sister."


Arthur Meighen: Well, then, if the government think he is a "weak sister" they had better deal with him. Hon. gentlemen try to hide behind the skirts of the chairman. Can no hon. member opposite stand on his own feet? Here we have conduct the justification of which would challenge the capacity and the ingenuity of any hon. member of this House, and I leave the matter to be settled by every hon. gentleman as his conscience dictates.


Thomas Sales: The hon. member (Mr. Stevens) pointed out the danger of any person who was associated with any company which had interests at the head of the lakes being accused of opposition to the port of Vancouver. At the risk of a charge of this kind I am going to say a few words on this question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think I made any such statement or even referred to the head of the lakes. The hon. member is mistaken.


Thomas Sales: As I took down the hon.
member's remarks, he said that Hansard and newspaper reports would be quoted in this connection, or something to that effect. At any rate I realize the danger and I am going to take the risk. Now, we are not opposed to the port of Vancouver, for Canada cannot have too many outlets for her gi'am, no matter where those outlets may be. The company I am connected with has made extensive inquiries regarding the Vancouver situation and far from being opposed to it we are impressed with the possibilities of development there. At the same time, however, it is our opinion that the development of Vancouver should not be expedited for the glorification of Vancouver alone; the port should be built up for the benefit of the people as a whole who want to use it. And the same thing applies to the port of Montreal. The development of the port of Vancouver or of Montreal or of any other port for that matter should have in view the interests not only of the citizens of that particular place but of the people at large who have to transact business through those ports. I must admit that the confidence of the western farmers in the present harbour board is badly shaken, and there is every reason for its being shaken. Their actions, as related by hon. members around me, in the employment of men, some of whom have been discharged by the grain commission, are not creditable. I

Vancouver Harbour
have been reading the interim report of the royal commission which inquired into the grain trade, and while the hon. member (Mr Stevens) apparently takes it for granted that all suspicion has been allayed, I find at pages 12 and 13 of the report evidence to show that the commissioners themselves are still unconvinced in this regard. Reference is made to the spout and the commission finds that for several weeks the padlock had not been put on. I quote:
We feel bound to say that this delay in having the by-spout properly equipped for the padlock should not have been allowed to occur, and has not been explained satisfactorily to us ...	. According to Mr. McLean's own evidence, the actual time required to do the necessary drilling ii* the slide and frame was only a few minutes. Instead of being done at once this work was left undone for a period of nearly two weeks (until Hollingshead arrived), during whicch time the by-spout was capable of being used, and was in fact, used, to convoy grain.
They conclude thus:
Further, we are of the opinion that positive rules should be enacted making it impossible for such installations, with their consequent perils and suspicions, to be placed in any storage elevator operated under the Canada Grain Act.
So that I must disagree with the hon. member when he says that all suspicions have been removed and that we should forget all about them. He said that the general results had been good; that is what we must judge by. He also stated that all the costs on grain between the farmer and the market must be paid by the farmer. Let me show how the results affect the farmer. For the year ending July 31, 1923, the port of Vancouver handled 34.309,172 bushels; the receipts were S203.477.96 and the expenses 8106,329.10. This was during the period when the elevator was operated by the grain commission. On July 31, 1923, it was handed over to the harbour commissioners for operation. To the end of February they handled 31,176,900 bushels; the receipts from the farmers were 8392,294.08 and the expenses 8200,519.04. There is an increase of $190,000 in cost to the farmers and an increase of $94,000 to the harbour commission's expenses. The farmers paid more, and it cost the harbour commission more to handle that grain. If that is the result we are to have by the operation of elevators under the harbour commission, I say the sooner the operation reverts to the grain commission, the better.
As far as I can see from a perusal of this report, there was no justification for Mr. McLean's appointment. My hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner) referred to the very serious charge in reference to the issuing of warehouse receipts for car sweepings, and
I find the word " ragamuffins" is quoted in the evidence, so he had good authority for using it. Five warehouse receipts were issued covering these sweepings-out of the cars. When grain is left in a car it means that the farmer is not getting paid for all the grain he put in that car. The farmers' grain covered by these warehouse receipts amounted to 1,600 bushels. One of these was for over 400 bushels and was given by the superintendent to the chief of the harbour police, with instructions to sell same and pay the proceeds to certain people whom he employed in the detection of pilferers of grain which was accumulated in this very manner. I find from the evidence that a cheque for this amount was made out to Mr. Smith, and is endorsed by him, and there is no record to whom the money was ultimately paid. When a harbour commission conducts its business in this way it cannot complain if suspicion arises that the commissioners are not altogether blameless.
Everybody agrees as to the necessity of terminal elevator facilities; whether these should all be at Vancouver or not is another point. The other night we discussed the erection of an elevator at Prince Rupert. I did not join in the discussion for fear, as I said before, that, being connected with a company which has large holdings at Port Arthur, I might be accused of opposing western interests. To my mind the place to build that elevator is at Port Mann on the Canadian National Railway, with an exchange of cars east of that point so that both Canadian Pacific and Canadian National cars could be unloaded there. That is one of the things which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries should devote his attention to. If it were not for the fact that part of this money is for the completion of some of this work at Vancouver, I would endorse the suggestion of the member for South Quebec (Mr. Power) that this money be withheld until a further investigation has been made.
Before I refer to the recommendations contained in the commission's report, I wish to again draw attention to the question I raised a few weeks ago, the danger of creating a monopoly by the formation of harbour commissions such as those in Montreal, Vancouver and other ports, and then allowing them to charge anything they wish for handling grain, with no one to supervise those charges. There is great danger in that course. All these terminal houses should be under the control of the grain commission; they should have power to regulate the charges imposed by the harbour commission.
446S
Vancouver Harbour

I am reminded that a year ago I directed the attention of this House to the cost of the addition to the existing elevator at Vancouver. For an additional capacity of 500,000 bushels we were given an estimate of $400,000, a cost of 80 cents per bushel capacity. I pointed out to the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) that similar additions were being constructed at the head of the lakes for 23 cents per bushel capacity. What do I find after this is all through? According to the government's own figures, as furnished to us by the returns, the original elevator, composed of the storage house and the workhouse-and it is the workhouse which is the expensive part of a terminal elevator- cost less than 70 cents per bushel capacity. The additional storage cost over 88 cents per bushel capacity, without a workhouse. At the same time two or three private companies were building similar storage capacity and paying at the rate of about 23 cents a bushel for it. Is it any wonder that we entertain a little doubt as to the ability of the present harbour commissioners at Vancouver to properly handle this money?


Mr. HOEY:: What year was that?


Thomas Sales: Last year-the very same time that these additions were being built at Vancouver. That is the discrepancy.
Dealing with the operation of elevators by a harbour commission the royal commission sets forth the following conclusions in its report:
The operation of terminal elevators is bound to distract the harbour commissioners and to interfere with them in the proper performance of their primary duty, the administration of the port.
The operation of terminal elevators leads to difficulties over the general cargo rates levied for the services of the port. If the elevators make large profits, users of the elevators allege that cargo rates on grain should be reduced. Conversely, it has been argued that cargo rates might rightly be increased because the board is engaged in building terminal elevators or perhaps running them at a loss. Yet the two are absolutely distinct. A cargo rate is levied for the general services of the port and should not fluctuate with the success or failure of the harbour commissioners' adventures in terminal elevators. . .	.
The cargo rate on grain passing through the terminal elevators of private companies should in no way fluctuate or be determined by reason of success or failure of terminal elevators operated by the harbour commissioners.
The assumption of dual functions by the harbour commissioners leads to conflicting interests and opens the door to favouritism and irregularities.
That is exactly the charge I made about the port of Montreal. When I find that half the revenue of the entire port comes from the handling of grain, the question naturally arises in my mind and that of every farmer whether

grain is not paying too large a proportion. The commission finally report:
For these reasons we recommend that the elevators of the Vancouver Harbour Commission should be acquired by the government of Canada and vested directly in the Crown.
Now in the face of this report that has been made after a careful study by the commission appointed by this government, I question whether the government is wise in continuing to vote money for the harbour commission to go on erecting elevators. I would like the government also to get this viewpoint in the appointment of harbour commissioners. They should be appointed not from local men, not Vancouver men for the port of Vancouver, or Montreal men for the port of Montreal, or Quebec men for the port of Quebec, but recognizing that these ports are national institutions, the government should appoint as harbour commissioners truly national representatives.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I would like to occupy
a minute or two of the time of the House to say a word on this very important question for Vancouver. The question of passing the vote cannot be in doubt by any one who will examine the situation as it actually exists. The development of the port of Vancouver and the works in course of construction there requires the expenditure of this money, and the business of the nation would be seriously interrupted if any one really thought of not going ahead with the proposal of the government.
The question of whether the grain elevators should be under the harbour board or under the grain commission is a question of policy, the responsibility for determining which rests upon the government. For my own part, although I do not profess to be an expert in the matter or to have more than the ordinary knowledge of this question, I am of the opinion that the elevators and the grain business should be absolutely under the control of the grain commission, and I may say that everyone you consult who understands the gram trade strongly advocates that course. However, the elevators in Vancouver and the grain business there at the present time are under the control of the harbour board. I am not hesitant in saying that I think altogether too much party politics is carried on sometimes in questions of appointments and matters of that kind in connection with the grain business in Vancouver. Applications for small, picayune jobs of no consequence must have the earmark of those of the same political inclinations as our friends across the way. That is usual in government matters,

Vancouver Harbour
but I do not like to see it carried on in connection with such a great enterprise as the grain handling business. Hon. members will notice that in paragraph 3 of the resolution it is stated:
That no advances shall be paid, as above provided for-
That is, under the terms of this resolution:
-unless such detailed plans, specifications and estimates for the works on which the money to be advanced is to be expended, as are satisfactory to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, have been submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council before work on the same has been commenced.
The next paragraph requires:
The corporation shall submit to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for approval monthly applications for such advances as they may be entitled to apply for, with statements, in detail, in such form as the minister may direct, and, upon approval of same, authority for the payment of the amount applied for may be granted by the Governor in Council.
It seems to me that our friends to my left should take some degree of confidence from the fact that departmental officials here, in conjunction with responsible officers on the coast, will probably see that there is a proper expenditure of this money, and if they do not the department and the minister will be accountable to parliament for anything that goes wrong in connection with this very large appropriation.
Personally, I do not take very seriously the argument that is made by some hon. gentlemen to my left that they must reflect upon this proposal of loaning $5,000,000 to the harbour board because of some doubt in connection with the personnel of the board. If the spirit and letter of this resolution are carried out by the government, it is unlikely that anything serious will go wrong in the handling of this money. It seems to me that the main point of this debate centres around the question whether the elevators and the grain business should be under the control of the harbour board or the grain commission. On that question I have expressed my own [DOT]opinion, and I believe that sooner or later the government will be compelled to adopt the report of its own commission, and many other authorities who urge that course.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I would just like to say a few words in connection with this resolution. There is one point that .all the members who have spoken seem to have lost sight of, and that is that Vancouver is not getting $5,000,000 from the taxpayers of Canada. All this government is doing is lending the harbour board $5,000,000, every dollar of which will be returned with interest. The impression a number of members seem to have is that this 283
government is voting Vancouver something, but it is not doing that at all. It is simply lending the harbour board $5,000,000, and that is all the harbour hoard asked.
Now in connection with the amount that is paid in harbour dues ,on wheat, when the harbour board in Vancouver arranged the dues that were to be paid, they increased the dues on everything that passed through the harbour at Vancouver three times as much as they increased the dues on wheat. We had a meeting there of those that shipped through the port, and the commissioners put .it to us fair and square. They said: "We don't want the people on the prairies to think We are charging them more than any one else. We think the people of Vancouver bhould bear their fair share, and more than their fair share," we agreed to do this, and we are doing it to-day.


Thomas Sales: What has the hon. member
to say about the proposal to increase cargo rates on wheat six times on the 1st of September of this year?


Thomas George McBride: I am not speaking of that, but of what exists at the present time. A good deal has been said about McLean being appointed and not having had experience. I would ask the men that make that statement, what experience they had when they were sent, down to this parliament to run the affairs of this country, and yet each and every one is prepared to draw his $4,000 a year.


Thomas Sales: I think we have had just as much experience as the hon. member.


Thomas George McBride: I am not disputing that,
but I am saying that each and every one of us is willing to draw his $4,000 a year without having had any experience, and yet there are some members willing to criticise McLean, who certainly had a certain amount *of experience.
In connection with Port Mann, I am not here to condemn Port Mann in any shape or form, but we have to realize that the insurance on a steamer going up the Eraser river to Port Mann is considerable. The hon. member (Mr. Lucas) made the statement that it costs $13 to take a car of wheat from Port Mann to Vancouver. There was a time when that statement was correct; it is not correct to-day. A car of wheat to-day costs less than half of that amount to haul from Port Mann to Vancouver. I can see no good in taking up time with any further discussion on this matter. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) covered the ground

Vancouver Harbour

thoroughly and made a straightforward and honest presentation of the case. He dealt with the situation at the port of Vancouver so thoroughly that nothing more was left to be said. That being the case I think it is simply a waste of time to discuss this resolution any further.
iMr. KING (Kootenay): I do not wish to delay the committee but I should like to take a few minutes in justifying this loan to the Harbour Commissioners of Vancouver. The commission was created some years ago with a view of directing and controlling the development of the port. The first government loan amounted, I think, to $5,000,000. As the result of that expenditure a certain amount of development was brought about. Two years ago parliament again voted money for further improvements in the port of Vancouver. What has been the result in the last two or three years? We were exporting from Vancouver in 1921 between three and four million bushels. The following year the exportation had grown to approximately seven million bushels. In 1923 it had increased to twenty million bushels, and this year nearly sixty millions of bushels have been exported. A transformation of that nature could not occur without attracting the attention of people dealing in wheat, and the result has been that a certain campaign has been carried on in various parts of Canada with the idea of attempting to show that matters were not right in the port of Vancouver. For example charges were made by one Mr. Van Allen, representing the government of Alberta. Those charges were of such a nature that the government considered them worthy of investigation; in fact the Harbour Commission of Vancouver expressed their desire that an inquiry should be held. Accordingly the Eoyal Grain Commission went to that city and conducted a careful inquiry. What is the result? We have the report of the Royal Grain Commission on the matter and each one of the charges made has been dealt with by them.
My hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner) discussed the employees of the elevator and conveyed the idea that something terrible had happened in connection with them; there was the suggestion that Mr. McLean, for instance, was not a fit and proper person to be employed at the elevator. Nothing of the kind has been established. It has rather been shown that Mr. McLean's actions at the elevator this year were entirely unexceptional and such as to promote the

interests of the grain movement. It is true that certain individuals moved from other parts of Canada and obtained employment about the Vancouver elevator; but those who have experience in operating elevators on a large scale realize that you can only get experienced elevator men at Port Arthur, Fort William and Montreal. When the control of the elevator was handed over to the harbour commission and a change was made in superintendents nothing was more natural than that men should go from Port Arthur and Fort William to Vancouver, especially when there was the likelihood of the Vancouver elevator running the year round. I do not know any of these men upon whom suspicion has been cast, but the report of the royal commission does not indicate that the patrons of the elevator suffered in any way from their actions. It is generally conceded that Mr. McLean's activities have justified the harbour board in employing him, and there is no doubt he has rendered excellent service this year.
The attempt has been made to show that there has been a great increase in the charges at the port of Vancouver since the harbour board took over the elevator. That may be true but what are the facts? The grain commission formerly operated the elevator built by the Department of Trade and Commerce. There were no interest charges to begin with; they were using free of expense a pier in the harbour of Vancouver built by the Dominion government. However, hon. gentlemen will realize that if the Vancouver harbour is to be developed by the revenue derived from the traffic passing through the port, and the revenue is to become a guarantee for the government loans, there certainly must be fair and reasonable charges made in order to earn the interest charges. That is what the government proposes, and it is a fact that the harbour board are able to carry these charges to-day. It must be borne in mind that under the grain board's operation of that elevator the charges were low because the board were not paying the interest on the original cost of the elevator, neither were they paying anything for the use of the pier already referred to which had been constructed at a cost of $3,000,000. I am informed, however, that the charges made in the port of Vancouver will be on a par with the charges made in other Canadian ports, but will be more moderate than those exacted in American ports on the Pacific.
Some criticism has been indulged in because one of the commissioners, Mr. Beattie, ac-

Vancouver Harbour
cepted a position under the harbour board and received a salary for discharging the additional duties. I think those who are familiar with the development which has taken place in the port of Vancouver during the last two years, and the activities which are in progress there, will realize that it became necessary either for the harbour commission to employ someone to devote his whole time to the work or else do what they did. However, there is a precedent in the case of Quebec. We are told that Mr. Beattie's work is satisfactory, and I do not think the harbour of Vancouver has suffered from Mr. Beattie's activities.


Arthur Meighen: What is the precedent
at Quebec; will the minister tell us?


John Warwick King: A commissioner
who is also general manager.


Arthur Meighen: Under this government?


John Warwick King: It is working well.


Arthur Meighen: The government justifies this offence by pleading another which it committed itself.


John Warwick King: I do not think
any offence is being committed. Service is being given and proper value is received for that service.


Arthur Meighen: I should like to get the facts about the Quebec case:	Can the minister tell us? I never heard of the case before.


John Warwick King: I am not familiar
with the case. I did not say there was anything wrong; what I said was that it seems to be satisfactory.


Arthur Meighen: How does the minister
know the arrangement is satisfactory if he does not know the facts?


John Warwick King: I am told it is
very satisfactory.


Arthur Meighen: The minister does not
know what the arrangement is and yet he says it is satisfactory.


John Warwick King: I did not say
anything like that.


Arthur Meighen: I am asking the minister what it is. What is the position in Quebec?


John Warwick King: I told you.


Arthur Meighen: Who is the commissioner who has been appointed, and to what office, and what does he get?
283i	. '


Mr. BUREAU:: He was appointed by the government. In Quebec they are appointed the same as in all other places where there are boards of harbour commissioners. They are appointed by the government.


Arthur Meighen: I am not asking that.
The Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) has come in a little late. According to the statement of the Minister of Public Works, one of the commissioners in Quebec was appointed by this government, and he also appointed himself to another post under the commission.


John Warwick King: I do not think
that is a fair statement.


Jacques Bureau: He is one of the appointing bodies. My hon. friend need not be smart about it. He is performing now one of his terpsichorean feats.


Arthur Meighen: What happened at Quebec?


Jacques Bureau: There were three appointees. One of the commissioners, General Tremblay, was an engineer, and to save money he was appointed chairman of the board, engineer of the board and general manager.


Arthur Meighen: What does he get as
engineer?


Jacques Bureau: I do not know. The harbour of Quebec is not under discussion. My hon. friend is always shifting the question. We are now discussing the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners. Quebec will come later and the hon. member will have a chance to get after Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: The minister gets in a
little late. I did not do any shifting, but my hon. friend's colleague behind him has been doing some shifting.


George Newcombe Gordon: The Minister of Public Works has the floor.


Arthur Meighen: I do not care who has
the floor. I do not want to have anything said-


George Newcombe Gordon: The Minister of Public Works has the floor.


Arthur Meighen: I am going to call attention to this, no matter who has the floor-


John Warwick King: I do not wish to
detain the House at any greater length. I am satisfied that the development at Vancouver is necessary in the interests of Canada. Great benefit will result from the flow of grain
Vancouver Harbour

through that port-benefits to the farmer or to the producer of grain. Not only that, but it means that with the development which is taking place, and arising out of this grain trade, there will be allied trades that will come to Vancouver, to the benefit of the people of British Columbia and of western Canada. I am satisfied that this vote will receive the support of parliament; and that under the minister, who has already indicated that he proposes to have a thorough inspection into the developments and future proposals for that port, this money will be properly expended to the advantage of the port of Vancouver, and to the benefit of the whole of Canada.


Mr. OOOTE:: Before this question is decided, I would like to explain my position in regard to it. I am very anxious to see more facilities established on the Pacific coast for the handling of our grain. Last fall the farmers of Alberta were unable to ship their grain to Vancouver because there was not sufficient elevator accommodation there. As hon. members are well aware, a reduction in the freight rate on grain to Vancouver was made last year, amounting to about 2i cents a bushel, but all the advantage which came to western Canada through that reduction came into the hands of grain firms, and not into the hands of the individual farmer, because the farmer could not ship his grain to the coast without a permit. He could not get a permit from the railway, unless he could show he had boats chartered to take the grain out of the elevator as soon as it got there. The only people who could ship grain to Vancouver were those who had permits, and the only men who could get permits were companies who were handling large quantities of grain.
I want the committee to understand the position the western members are in on this question, as to whether they are going to support a vote of $5,000,000 for Vancouver harbour or not. We need additional facilities on the Pacific coast. At the same time we feel that the money which was voted to the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners last year was not very wisely expended. Surely as members of this House we have a responsibility to the people of Canada, when we vote any money, to see that safeguards are provided for the expenditure of the money. The member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) quoted figures showing that the addition to No. 1 elevator built at Vancouver last year cost 88 cents per bushel capacity. Let me point out to the House that the government has recently given * contract for an addition to the elevator at

Port Colbome of a million bushels capacity, for $373,000 or 37.6 cents per bushel.	But
this contract was let by public tender.	The
cost of the government elevator at Saskatoon I find was 33 cents per bushel, and the cost of the elevator at Calgary was 35 cents per bushel. The discrepancy is too great, and I am afraid that the Department of Marine and Fisheries did not excercise proper supervision over the expenditure which the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners made last year. I think the best thing we could really do in this case would be to suggest to the harbour commissioners that they might resign and the minister might appoint some new commissioners. Or, I would suggest that possibly he might get one competent man and put him in charge of Vancouver harbour. I do not really see why it needs three men to supervise a harbour like that.
I was at Vancouver last year, at the opening of the Ballantyne pier, and I suggested to the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) that he should have more facilities at Vancouver. But what I have seen of the operation of the Vancouver harbour by the present board since that time does not lead me to feel that we could with very much confidence vote this money to-night. I do not suppose the minister will entertain my suggestion for a new board at Vancouver; but if not, I would urge that he should be very careful this year in supervising the expenditure of money, if it is to be voted. I want the minister to realize the position the western members are in. It has been stated very plainly to-night that the revenue from Vancouver harbour must be sufficient to pay the interest charges on the money invested in it. That is a good reason why we should carefully scrutinize the expenditure of money for that harbour. If the elevators are costing anything like twice as much as they should cost, hon. members will see that it is going to increase the handling charges on our grain. This grain trade is a national matter, and we have a very good reason to-night for carefully scrutinizing the vote. If we had not shown that the cost of the elevator erected at Vancouver was excessive I would not say another word. But I think we have certainly shown that.
I would like to draw the attention of the minister to a report which was made to the Canadian National Railways by Mr. Howe, one of the best known grain elevator engineers in Canada, in which he states, I think very distinctly, that it would be much better to build a grain elevator at Port Mann rather than to build this No. 2 elevator on the Ballantyne pier, because the elevator could be constructed

Vancouver Harbour
at Port Mann for less than SO per cent of the cost which must be incurred in building it on the Ballantyne pier. On the other hand I presume, from what the minister stated tonight, that the work in connection with No. 2 elevator has proceeded to such an extent that probably it would be better now to finish it; but if we are going to finish it, I think the minister should send an engineer from his department out there, let him stay at Vancouver all season, and let him see that the money is properly expended.
I want to protest against the building of this elevator on a cost plus basis. The work should be done by tender. The action last year might possibly have been justified because of the necessity of getting the elevator ready, but I do not think the same reason can apply to elevator No. 2. As I said before, we are in the hands of the government in this case. We need more accommodation on the Pacific coast because that is the way our grain should go, and we want to get sufficient storage capacity there so that the individual farmer can, if he wishes, ship to Vancouver and save this little reduction which came last year in the freight rates. At the same time we want to guard ourselves against an excessive capital cost which is going to entail a heavy charge on our grain for many years to come. There is no question that the charge for handling grain through the elevator was largely increased after the elevator passed under the control of the harbour commissioners. I would not object so much to that if I thought that the money which they had received out of the handling charges had been wisely expended.
On page 18 of the interim report of the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission there is this statement:
Mr. Van Allen in his statement at Winnipeg, quoted figures obtained from the Board of Grain Commissioner.5; relative to the handling of grain in the Vancouver elevator, which showed that between August 1, 1923, and March 7, 1924, that elevator shipped 232,252 bushels of One Northern in excess of receipts.
That looks too much like the practice that went on in the private terminal elevators at Fort William. The minister, I hope will see to it that this practice is not allowed to continue, that is of shipping out more bushels of No. 1 than come into the elevator.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know the hon. member does not wish to convey a wrong impression. I think that was explained afterwards by reference to the actual records which showed that on August 1, last there was in the elevator a certain quantity of No. 1 which was carried into this year, which accounted very largely for this excess, and that it was not made up of what is commonly called overages. Let me
add, so that my hon. friend will not misunderstand me, that for the last seven years I have been bitterly opposed to the creation of overages, so that I am not for a moment defending that system. I am merely trying to get the fact as it was, I think, finally discovered. Although the record of this year showed a certain quantity received and a larger quantity shipped out, it was made up in that way.


George Gibson Coote: I have read this report and
I did not notice that the commission has reported so, but I am willing to accept the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). Because they could not have a weigh-up of the elevator, it has not been decided whether they have an overage or not.
Another thing to which attention should be given is the shipping of wheat out of Vancouver without the surrender of certificates. This is mentioned on page 20 which shows that at that time there was a quantity of 12,500.000 bushels of outstanding warehouse receipts for cancellation. The report says that this should not be allowed to continue.
The lease to the Terminal Grain Company is very improper and unfair because it is made at such a ridiculously low price. It should have been high enough to return the amount of interest which the Board of Grain Commissioners have to pay on their bonds.
As regards the acquiring of the Woodward elevator and its subsequent lease, some time ago I put on the order paper several questions regarding the Woodward elevator. The last one was:
If it was advisable, either in the interest of the grain traffic or the port of Vancouver, to acquire this elevator, why is it not to be operated by the Vancouver Harbour Commission?
The answer is:
Before acquiring the elevator the commissioners had an inspection made of the plant by a competent engineer, and his report was to the effect that it was well designed for profitable operation as a part of the commission's e.evator system without extensive alteration.
I hope the minister, if he can, will tonight explain why that elevator is not to be operated by the Vancouver Harbour Commission when, according to this statement, they say that the engineer reported that it was well designed for profitable operation as a part of the commission's elevator system. In spite of that they later on leased it to a number of Liberal friends.


Jacques Bureau: Do not choke over it. It
is all right.
Vancouver Harbour


George Gibson Coote: It may be all right and then again it may not. But I would like to refer again to this interim report on page 18-it says:
We have been unable to clear up the discrepancy between the figures of the Board of Grain Commissioners and those submitted by Mr. McLean, superintendent of the Vancouver harbour elevators. The totals submitted by Mr. McLean show practically an equality between the receipts and shipments of No. 1 Northern, but they do not check with those compiled by the statistician of the Board of Grain Commissioners based on the weekly reports submitted to the board by the harbour commissioners. During the course of the inquiry various attemps were made to bring these figures into agreement by the officials of the elevator and the officials of the Board of Grain Commissioners who were present. This they proved unable to do. After the close of the public sittings D. D. Young, technical adviser with the commission, made further efforts, but reports on this date (June 18) that he cannot account for the discrepancy.
This is the discrepancy to which I Tefewed in the shipment of No. 1 wheat. Possibly the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has some information which has been obtained since that date. I do not know. Perhaps the minister, when he makes his reply, would deal particularly with this question why the Woodward elevator is not to be operated by the Vancouver Harbour Commission.


John Arthur Clark: What causes the increased
grain charges?


George Gibson Coote: That I am not able to say.
Probably the minister will be.


John Arthur Clark: Is it not the fact that the
increase of from one to six cents a bushel in cargo charges is largely responsible?


George Gibson Coote: I was not referring to that
increase at all. I was referring to the charges in the elevator itself, foT elevating and handling the grain.


John Arthur Clark: That is, there have been
increased charges for handling and elevating the grain, in addition to the other?


George Gibson Coote: Yes, half a cent a bushel.


Oliver Robert Gould: Hon. members can understand that one who has been producing grain for thirty-three years on the western prairies and particularly one living near the dividing line that is where grain might be shipped east or west, has a great interest in this question. I have on former occasions mentioned what I consider a detriment to the producers of grain in the mixing privileges that have been accorded to elevator companies throughout the country in the past. At the present time the port of Vancouver is in its initial stage, and the Woodward elevator which has been under discussion was built there for the sole
[[DOT]Mr. Bureau.]
purpose of mixing and for that reason I am very much concerned, as people are throughout the country who are engaged in the production of wheat, as to whether this government is going to allow that practice to continue. I notice in the interim report which has been brought down that the commission made a very brief reference to the question of mixing, and while one might .term it noncommittal there is nevertheless a phrase in the report which might be regarded as undoubtedly committal. It is this:
If the mixing of different grades of grain in private terminal elevators is found after full consideration to be expedient the permission to do so should not be withheld from Canadian Pacific ports.
The grain commission has been taking evidence for some months and prior to their visit to Vancouver they received much evidence from the producers of grain against the practice which has been in vogue for some years of mixing grain. I hope that when the government brings down legislation they will definitely refuse to allow companies to mix our grain. I want to cite for a few minutes the way in which these evils affect us. For the past thirty-three years I have been engaged in the raising of wheat and in all those years I have had the good fortune never to have a solitary bushel which was graded either damp or tough. The reports show that in a decade there has been some 20 per cent of the total grain output registered as damp or tough wheat, so that 80 per cent would be real hard wheat with a moisture content of say 10 per cent. It is a well known fact that before the mills will grind this wheat they bring it up to a 14 per cent moisture content. I argue that as we had last year an exportable surplus of approximately 300,000,000 bushels, taking 20 per cent as damp or tough wheat-it was lower than that last year, but we will take that percentage-we had an exportable surplus of 260,000,000 bushels of real hard wheat with a moisture content of approximately 10 per cent. But after the elevators got hold of this wheat what did they do? It has been proved before the special committee on agriculture that only 1 bushed of every 4 which are supposed to go to the dryers really reaches them. The elevators mix that dry wheat, raising the moisture content of the 260,000,000 bushels up to 14 per cent; in other words the amount of moisture which is added to that 260,000,000 bushels represents 9,600,000 bushels of wheat. The elevators and mills will not accept the wheat except under these conditions. This mixing privilege is allowed and that 9,600,000 bushels, which is really water, represents a profit to the companies. It must not be for-

Vancouver Harbour
gotten that the individual who is unfortunate enough to produce wet or damp wheat has to pay the difference. The people who grade it make sure that they judge the moisture content against the individual who produces the wet wheat and he therefore pays the price, whereas the man producing the hard wheat does not receive the premium he deserves producing an article which lacks 4 per cent moisture content which must enter the wheat before milling. I argue that the people who have produced 80 per cent of hard wheat in all the years since the western country has been opened are entitled to a premium which they have not been rechiving but which has been taken by the elevator and milling companies and used to their own advantage. I would therefore ask the government to seriously consider the question while the Vancouver port is in its initial stage. If this mixing privilege is allowed at one place it should be allowed elsewhere; but my contention is that it should be and must be abolished at all export places, whether Fort William, Port Arthur, Vancouver or anywhere else.
I have referred to the Price Waterhouse report which revealed the enormity of overages in mixing. The amendment to the Grain Act came as a result of the findings of that report, which showed that these elevator companies made from 36 to 50 and 56 per cent of profit in one year's operations in consequence of the mixing privilege and various other things. The amendment to the act was brought in allowing the elevators to retain only \ of 1 per cent of the overages, the rest going to the consolidated revenue fund. A recent decision handed down by the Exchequer court holds that the amendment was ultra vires and consequently at the present time the elevators have no restrictions whatever, such overages as there are they may retain. Hon. gentlemen can therefore see that this privilege is of such value to the elevator companies that they will naturally make all the overages they possibly can. The elevators being in this position, the grain producer must necessarily suffer; and whether by legislation or otherwise, some means ought to be devised to take from the elevator companies the undue and illegal profits which they at present make. I thought once that possibly a sample market would assist materially in eliminating this evil practice, and I am still of that opinion. However, for some reason or other, largely because of the agitation created by the companies themselves, who do everything they can to prejudice the producer aginst his own interests so that they may reap all the profits, the sample market is not in existence in the West.
Hon. gentlemen can easily see that if there were a sample market at Vancouver, when any individual sent in grain that was worth a premium, being hard and dry wheat lacking moisture content, if the millers bought that wheat on its merits the producer would get his price for it. For my part I do not mind after they have paid me my price how they mix the wheat. At the present time, however, the profit is taken from the producer; the grain gets to the Liverpool market in a deteriorated state, because, although it may carry a certificate, that certificate is given after it has been mixed. So that I receive a price for an article which is several times lower in grade than the sample I grew. I do trust that when the final report of the royal grain commission is brought before this House the government will seriously consider the introduction of legislation to deprive the elevators of the country from mixing grain to the detriment of the producer.


Mr. SPENCER:: Mr. Chairman. We have had a good many criticisms against the operation of the Vancouver elevator, and we should be glad to have the Minister lof Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) reply to thesm, particularly to those made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner) .


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I was under the impression that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) had replied to the criticisms in a general way. The investigation by the Royal Grain Commission covered almost all the points which have been raised by hon. members, and without having gone through all the details of the report, I think the commissioners have found that certain of the complaints were not well founded and that on certain points the evidence adduced was, to say the least, very contradictory. I think we should be sufficiently generous to give the harbour commissioners the benefit of the doubt in view of the splendid record which they have achieved in handling 50,000,000 bushels of grain with the inadequate facilities at their command, and that wre should be content for the time being with the investigation which was conducted by the royal grain commission. It ia admitted that in all human institutions defects develop and must be remedied as time goes on, but I think, on the whole, the administration of the harbour commission has been pretty good and that they should be given some consideration. For myself I feel that the major portion of the criticism which we have heard
Vancouver Harbour

should not shake our confidence in the members of the harbour commission. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the representations which have been made, and I can assure hon. members that, being a new man on a new job, I will look into all these cases to the best of my ability and with all the enthusiasm which is left in a man of my age.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6.
George Gibson Coote: Has the lease of the Woodward elevator been approved by the government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think it has been definitely approved by the department.


George Gibson Coote: Is it the intention of the
government to approve that lease?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I suppose my hon. friend
will not object to the usual answer-the matter is under consideration.


Oliver Robert Gould: What material is being
used in additions which are being made to the Woodward elevator at Vancouver?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My information is that
we are not building any additions to that elevator.


Oliver Robert Gould: There is provision made for another elevator there. What do the plans and specifications provide for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They provide for concrete construction.


Oliver Robert Gould: I would remind the minister that the other night we were told that concrete disintegrated in salt water.


Robert Gardiner: How is the completion
of the Woodward elevator being financed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The harbour commissioners have been authorized to issue bonds, but we have not been informed that they have yet made the issue.


Robert Gardiner: I understood that the
harbour commissioners have invited tenders for these bonds, but because of the proviso insisted upon they had withdrawn the issue. I was wondering how the elevator was going to be paid for.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have no information
as to that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon
 moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 256, to provide for further advances to the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first time.
George Newcombe Gordon: When shall
the bill be read a second time?


Arthur Meighen: Next sitting.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 12 o'clock midnight.
Tuesday, July 15, 1924