1924-06-23

Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Pelletier:
That this House doth concur in the third report of the joint committee of both Houses on the printing of parliament, with the exception of the last paragraph thereof.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it occurs
to me that the proper procedure would be to refer the motion back.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The same question came
up in 1884, and in the drafting of the motion I followed the form which will be found in the journals of the House of that year, namely:
On motion of Mr. White (Cardwell), seconded by Mr. Sergin, resolved, that this House doth concur in the Sixth Report of the Joint Committee of both Houses on the printing of Parliament, with the exception of the last paragraph thereof.
It is the usual procedure. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: I beg
to move that the tenth report of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. C. St. PERE (Hoahelaga):	Mr. Speaker, may I 'ask the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Stewart) if he has received a telegram from the Montreal postal employees to the following effect?-
The post office employees of Montreal are ready to return to work provided the government will grant an independent hoard of arbitration with equal representations to employees, findings to be accepted by all concerned; pending negotiations all employees to return to work to former positions. This proposition similar to demands of Toronto.
Now, may I add a few words-
Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. member will understand tlhat he can only put a question at this time.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil) (Acting Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am in receipt of that telegram as well as one of a similar character from the striking postal employees of Toronto. I replied that the government would not under any circumstances consider arbitration with the striking employees.	_
Mr. Speaker, in fairness to parliament I think I should make a short statement with respect to the strike of postal employees. At the moment all points at which a strike was declared are normal, except Toronto and Windsor. For some reason or other we have had considerable difficulty at Windsor. At Toronto on Saturday, in compliance with the order sent out by me, a number of men endeavoured to get back to work. They had a meeting at night, and of course were unable
Postal Employees

to offer themselves before eight o'clock the following morning, but owing to the crowd then gathered around the post office they were unable to register. Having definitely assured myself that that was the case, I have extended some leniency to employees at Toronto and Montreal who exhibited a desire -indeed, so expressed themselves to the postmaster-to return. In their cases we are giving the postmaster the right to exercise his judgment as to whom he shall take back, the men to go back as new recruits.
_ Mr. MEIGHEN:	What is the minister's
justification for saying that things are normal in Montreal, in view of the telegram just read?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: That telegram was despatched Saturday.


Arthur Meighen: It got normal since?


Charles A. Stewart: Absolutely.
I think I can assure my right hon. friend that mail despatched from Ottawa this morning will be delivered by carriers this afternoon in Montreal.


Arthur Meighen: I do not mean that. I mean, is the strike over in Mbntreal?


Charles A. Stewart: Well, those men who went out, 560 odd, are still out.
Mr. ST. PERE: Mr. Speaker, I was at a meeting of the local strikers in Montreal. I hate to call them "strikers"-a word which is much misunderstood in certain quarters-because I consider their cause is just. They represented to me that they had never been informed of the contents of the telegram sent by the hon. minister to the federation on the day previous to the strike, because if such had been known to them they would not have gone on strike. I think, therefore, that there must be an embroglio somewhere and that their present claim for an arbitration board is justified. It seems very strange that the Montreal men were not informed of the contents of that telegram. Are we to infer from that that they were misled by members of their federation? I would like an explanation from the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
knowledge as to whether the striking post office employees were informed of the contents of that telegram. It was forwarded to the Canadian Federation of Postal Employees at Toronto, who were the head and front of the organized effort in connection with this strike. In addition, the postmasters at Montreal, Toronto, Windsor and Kitchener and other points where the men were on strike were 
sent copies of this telegram and instructed to give it the widest publicity. We also endeavoured to secure publicity through the press so that all might be informed. I am sorry if the employees at Montreal were not informed by their chief executive, but I took every step in my povji r to make the matter public.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. J. LOVETT (Digby-Annapolis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister when the government intends holding Saturday sittings. It would certainly expedite business, and I understand that very many hon. members favour this course.
Mr. GALA'REAL1:	And morning sittings
also.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government contemplates beginning morning sittings on Monday of next week. As to whether we shall sit on Saturday of this week I cannot say at the moment; the probability is that I will be in a position to state definitely by Thursday next.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I do not
think it is customary to sit mornings or Saturdays until an arrangement has been made for the close of the session. When we are able to make that arrangement, of course I shall have no objection to the usual practice being followed.


Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Car-ieton):: Mr. Speaker, I apprehend that the
government does not contemplate morning sittings until the work of the committees is ever. At the present time several important committees are sitting every morning except Saturdays. I think we might more conveniently sit Saturdays until these committees conclude their business.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: What difference does
it make? They are sitting whether the House is sitting or not.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Not many of them are sitting when the House is in session.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: We can have morning
sittings just as well. We want to go home.

Questions



FURTHER LEGISLATION

Arthur Meighen: May I ask the Prime
Minister if he has any other legislation for this session besides that announced to the House on the ninth of June?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As far as I recall at the
moment, the announcement I made on that occasion covers all the legislation that the government contemplates bringing down this session.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: Will my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) explain the reason for the delay in bringing down the Supplementary Estimates? The British Columbia election is now past, is there any further necessity for withholding the information in connection with the elevator at Vancouver? Everybody apparently wants to get home, but we do not know what we can do until these Supplemen-taries are brought down. Of course, if my hon. friend can tell us that there are to be no further estimates, the announcement will expedite our proceedings.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) :: Mr. Speaker, I was in hope that
there would be no Supplementary Estimates, but the persistency of my hon. friend has chased away that hope. There will be Supplementary Estimates, and I hope to place them before the House within a few days.



THE SOVIET AND UKRAINIAN REPUBLICS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, on June 16 I asked the
Prime Minister whether the agreement between England and Russia of July 3, 1922, was endorsed by Canada, and whether the government of Canada had definitely recognized the union of the Soviet Socialist Republics; and, further, whether the government recognized the so-called Ukrainian People's Republic. I put the question because of certain actions now before the courts. It seems to me only reasonable that we should know where we stand in this regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I regret having been
absent from the House one or two days last week and thus unable to answer my hon.
friend's question. By minute of council of December 26, 1921, the Canadian government-approved a formula suggested by His Majesty's government to make applicable to Canada the provisions of the trade agreement between His Majesty's government and the Russian Soviet government of the 16th March 1921. Effect was given to this decision by an exchange of notes dated the 3rd July, 1922, between the foreign office and the Russian trade delegation in London, so that the agreement should apply to the Dominion from that date. Canada's formal recognition of the union of Soviet Socialist Republics was conveyed to their offical agent in Canada, Mr. A. Yazikoff, in a letter from the Prime Minister dated the 24th March, 1924. Among the States included in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which Canada has recognized is a Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic. Canada has not, however, recognized the Ukrainian People's Republic.


Arthur Meighen: I would ask the Prime
Minister to lay on the Table the papers, especially the letter-I presume it was-in which we recognized the states referred to.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Annie Thirde.- Mr. Hocken.

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

Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	For what reason was Martin T. O'Brien of Noel, Hants County, dismissed from the Department of Customs?
2.	Is it true that he was notified that it was on account of active political partisanship?
3.	If so, what constituted such active political partisanship?
4.	What evidence did the department have of it?
5.	Who supplied the proof and in what form was it?
6.	Was O'Brien given a hearing? If so, before whom and when?


Mr. LAPOINTE (for the Minister of Customs and Excise):: 1.	Active political partisanship.
2.	Yes.
3.	4 and 5. On statement of member of
parliament.
6. No.
Questions

CARRIAGE OF MAILS Mr. HOCKEN:
1.	What was the total amount paid to the Canadian Pacific Railway for carrying the mails in 1923?
2.	What was the total amount paid to the Canadian National Railways for carrying the mails in 1923?
3.	What is the total mileage of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Canada?
4.	What is the total mileage of the Canadian National Railways in Canada?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Fiscal year 1923-24, $3,658,937.40
2.	Fiscal year 1923-24, $3,166,026.34.
3.	13,423.9.
4.	20,561.15.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SECURITIES
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the aggregate amount of bonds, debentures, debenture stock (perpetual or terminable), or other securities now issued in respect of the mileage of lines of railway either constructed, acquired, owned or controlled by the Canadian National Railways (a) in gross; (b) per mile?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: Canadian National Railwaj^s (exclusive of Canadian Government Railways):
Outstanding Funded Debt .. .. $856,147,056 Government Loans	 534,822,479

Owned road mileage, 15,668.41.
Average per mile, $88,775.41.
Canadian National Railways (including Canadian Government Railways):
Funded debt	$856,147,056
Government Loans	 534,822,479
Government Appropriations a/c Canadian Government Railways	 447,643,526

Owned road mileage, $20,296.12.
Average per mile, $90,589.38.
Central Vermont Railway (controlled by Canadian National Railways):
Outstanding funded debt_________$15,062,900.00
Owned Mileage, 371.77 miles.
Average per mile, $40,516.71.
NEWS STAND-WINNIPEG Mr. McQUARRIE:
1.	Has space in or in front of the post office in the city of Winnipeg been rented for a news stand? If so, who received the privilege?
2.	What rental does the government receive?
3.	Is he a returned soldier?

4.	Were any other applications for this space received, and if so, from whom?
5.	Is it the policy of the government to give preference to returned soldiers in matters of this kind?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Owing to
representations from the Winnipeg Board of Trade and other bodies, the government decided not to permit a news stand in front of the Winnipeg post office.
If a number of applications were received the privilege would go to the highest bidder. If a returned soldier bid were equal to highest tender it would be policy to give the returned soldier the preference.


MR. W. M. CORY
Mr. CHAPLIN:: 1.	Is W. M. Cory an employee of the Department of the Interior?
2.	If so, when was he appointed to said department, to what position was he appointed and at what
salary ?
3.	Was his appointment to said department made as the result of on open competitive examination?
4.	Is the said W. M. Cory a son of the Deputy Minister of the Department of the Interior?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Yes.
2.	January 1, 1916, clerk, Dominion Parks branch, $600.
3.	First appointment under authority of Section 79, Dominion Lands Act. Engagement ratified 'by Civil Service Commission and Auditor General. Appointed to present position by Civil Service Commission as result of promotional competition.
4.	Yes.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY-SHARES HELD BY SENATORS
Mr. GERMAN:: 1.	Are any members of the Senate of Canada shareholders in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?
2. If so, what are the names of such Senators?
3. How many shares of stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company stand in the name of each of such Senators ?


George Perry Graham: This question refers to a situation existing or that might exist between the Senate of Canada or its members and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. That information could only be secured from that company, and I suggest that if the question is to be asked at all it should be asked in the Senate.


MILITARY AND CADET CAMPS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Have the June military and cadet camps for the militia at Niagara and other places been abolished or discontinued for this year?

Questions
2.	Why has no announcement been made to the House up to date or to the militia interested until recently of said abandonment?
3.	Will the department recompense any boards of education in Ontario who have spent funds for camp preparation and training purposes in expectation of these camps being held this year and for failure of the department, to notify these Boards of the camp's discontinuance?
4.	What military and cadet camps in Ontario were held in the year 1913, and for the years 1921-1924?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (Piotou):: 1.	The June military camps are being held throughout Canada in the form of camp schools and camps of instruction. Camps for cadets are not being held this year.
2.	The usual practice has been followed- instructions were sent to military districts as soon as information was available.
3.	Boards of education are not put to any expense in preparing for camps or training purposes as both these items are ordinarily borne by the cadet vote.
4.	1913. Military: Petawawa, Niagara, London, Barriefield. Cadets: London, Niagara, Barriefield, Port William.
1921-	22. Military: Cove Rifle Range, Carling Heights, Wiarton, Petawawa, Niagara Camp, Barriefield, Peterborough, Rockcliffe, Belleville, Cobourg. Cadets:	London,
Niagara on the Lake, Rockcliffe, Barriefield, Peterborough, Loon Lake, Belleville.
1922-	23. Miltary:	Port Elgin, Petawawa,
Carling Heights, Niagara Camp, Owen Sound, Borden, Rockcliffe, Peterborough, Presoott.
Cadets: Nil.
1923-	24. Military: Niagara Camp, Connaught, Peterborough, Iroquois, Petawawa, Barriefield, Picton, Muncey Indian Reserve, Arkona. Cadets: London, Long Branch, Barriefield, Silver Islet, Fort Frances.


HONOURARY COLONELS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is the office of "honourary colonel" still in existence in Canada for civilians, or has it been abolished?
2.	Does it entitle this class of officer to wear a military uniform on all occasions, both civil and military and at will, and what is the rule regarding these officers' right to wear uniform?
3.	Have any applications been received for leave by militia units to use pre-war uniforms of their respective units instead of khaki?
4.	If so, has such leave been refused, and why?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: 1.	Still in existence.
2.	Uniform may be worn on the following occasions: (1) On a definite military duty or parade; (2) Other occasions when on the special authority of the District Officer Commanding the Military District concerned.
3.	Yes.
4.	Units of the non-permanent Active Militia, other than the bands thereof, are not permitted to wear pre-war uniform, having due regard to funds not being available to outfit the whole of the non-permanent Active Militia with this uniform.


LEASE OF LAND AT MIDDLETON, N.S.
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Has the government leased the lot of land in Middleton, Nova Scotia, purchased as a site for a public building, or granted any right or privilege therein to any person, and, if so, to whom and upon what
terms?
2. If the said land has been leased, was the town council or other local authority consulted before such action was taken?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	To Mr. Phinney for an ice cream stand, at a rental of $3 per month.
2.	No.


INCOME TAX REVENUE
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What was the gross income tax collected in each of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, for the year ending the 31st March, 1924?
2.	What was the net income tax collected in each of the same three provinces for the above-mentioned period ?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Alberta, $1,369,224.24; Saskatchewan, $1 ,- 090,395.70; Manitoba, $3,731,074.78.
2.	Alberta, $1,270,287.79; Saskatchewan, $927,194.04; Manitoba, $3,625,930.37.


AMOUNTS DUE CANADA BY ROUMANIA AND GREECE
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What is the actual amount due to Canada by (a) Roumania; (b) Greece?
2.	What amount of the said sum represents unpaid interest due by each of the above-mentioned countries?
3.	What amount of interest has been paid, and on what dates, by (a) Roumania: (b) Greece?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	(a) Roumania, $23,969,720; (b) Greece, $8,174,274.57.
2.	(a) Roumania:	In consolidating the
Roumanian debt as of October 1, 1922, at the above-mentioned figure, unpaid interest of $3,502,213.29 was added to the original principal. There have been no arrears since consolidation. (b) Greece: In consolidating the Greek debt as of December 31, 1922, at the above mentioned figure, unpaid interest of



Unopposed Motions for Papers
$625,973.90 was added to the original principal. There have been no arrears since consolidation.
3.	(a) By Roumania:
April 1, 1923	 $ 479,390 00
October 1, 1923	 479,390 00
April 1, 1924	 479,390 00

$	7,834 79
53,160 61 273,949 14 141,327 75
225.000	00
225.000	00


$ 926,272 29 UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COAL
Mr. CARROLL:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, receipts, vouchers, tenders, awards and other documents having reference to or bearing on an item of $8,907,846.06, Canadian National Railways, Toronto, coal, as appears in Auditor General's Report, year ending March 31st, 1922, volume III, at page W-165, including the names of the persons, firms and corporations from whom the Canadian National Railways purchased said coal and the prices paid therefor and any contracts in writing relating to said coal.


DESTRUCTION OF BARBERRY BUSHES
Mr. LOVIE:: For a return showing the names and addresses of persons residing in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta growing barberry bushes or hedges, who have been requested by the federal Department of Agriculture to destroy them and have failed to comply with the request.


WEMBLEY EXHIBITION-CANADIAN SPACE
Mr. CHURCH:: For a return showing (1) All rules, regulations, ordinances, regarding the allotment of exhibit space by the officials in charge of the Canadian section of the Wembley Exhibition, copy of any available correspondence on space allotment between the government of Canada and its agents in charge of this building, and a copy of the order re allotment of space, showing the amount assigned to each province.
(2)	A statement showing the estimated cost to the government of the Canadian exhibit, (a) for buildings; (b) for government exhibit and incidentals; (c) a list of the chief officials and their salaries.
(3)	A statement or copy of any agreements between the provinces and Dominion as to space, or between the government of Canada and any city in Canada or Canadian fair as to space, showing the allotment.


ISENBERG LEASES
Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents passing between J. A. Schryburt and the Prime Minister or other members of the government, relative to the Isenberg leases.


BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1906, AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) 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 Bills of Exchange Act, Revised Statutes, 1906, Chapter 119, by providing a tariff of fees (to be charged by notaries for their services in all the provinces for presenting and noting for non-acceptance or non-payment any bill of exchange or promissory note, for protesting the same, keeping the same on record, furnishing copies and sending notices, and other matters incidental thereto.
He said:	His Excellency -the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of the resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (for the Minister of Customs and Excise) 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 Customs Act, Revised Statutes, 1906, Chapter 48, by providing that in estimating the damage by breakage upon brittle goods, such as crockery, china, glass and glassware, under the provisions of the said act, such allowance or damage shall only be made and allowed for the amount of loss in excess of fifteen per cent of the whole quantity damaged, and a period of fourteen days from date of entry or arrival of such goods shall be allowed within which to claim abatement for damage.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of the resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Bank Act and to provide for the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the costs incident to a system of government inspection of banks, with provision for the recoupment of such expenses by assessment upon the chartered banks.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of the resolution, recommends it to the favourable, consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.
(b) By Greece: August 24, 1920.. October 8, 1920.. January 15, 1922.. February 22, 1922.. August 4, 1923.. . December 29, 1923

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 198, to amend the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Explain.


James Alexander Robb: This is the bill I explained
to my hon. friend the other day.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this the one about the signatures?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All right.
Motion -agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Signatures to debentures, bonds, etc.


Arthur Meighen: I would remind the minister that this is not among the bills announced on Friday night, but as it is not of a contentious nature I am not going to press the objection.


John Warwick King: Yes, it was the first one announced.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I just want to
have the effect of this clause clear. I understand that the whole effect of it is to enable the bonding signature to be affixed to these bonds without going through the form of signing-for there is a tremendous lot of them-but using mechanical means instead. I just want to be sure that we have the same safeguard in connection with this process of signing bonds that we have to-day in connection with our bills and notes.


James Alexander Robb: Exactly the same.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Signature of deputy.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is necessary, I presume, in order to give effect to the first clause.


James Alexander Robb: It is also necessary so that if, for instance, w'e were required to sign issues outside Canada we could authorize someone to replace the deputy.


Arthur Meighen: I am no authority on
the question, but is it not necessary to take greater precaution with bonds than with bank notes? The science of hank note printing has become so highly technical and perfected that forgery is very, very difficult; with bonds the same is not true. One would think that this allowing of stamps on bonds might be very risky.
222|
Revenue and Audit Act


James Alexander Robb: The officials of the department, from their experience, contend that it can be worked just as well with bonds as with bank notes, and the same precautions will be taken as we now take with Dominion notes.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but my point is
this: That the bank note construction is very complicated and technical, designed through many, many years to make anything in the way of duplication impossible. Consequently the actual signature of a very important official is not so important as would be the actual signature of a very important official on the bonds, because -a bond can be duplicated quite easily.


James Alexander Robb: This arrangement is optional,
and I imagine the department will not exercise it unless they -are perfectly satisfied they can safeguard the interests of the country.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reportedi, read) thq third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 27, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act, 1908.
Arthur Meighen: Explain.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The purpose of this bill, as my right hon. friend will see, is to make some minor changes in the existing act. It was proposed to substitute an important clause, clause No. 4 for section 23 of the present act, but it was objected to in many cities, and I have therefore decided to withdraw the clause. The remaining changes have been asked for by the various associations interested in child welfare, and by the various courts that deal with juvenile delinquents.


Arthur Meighen: Is that the historic clause which wTas strongly supported by Mr. Scott?


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Scott was strongly
in favour of that clause.


Arthur Meighen: That is the one that is dropped?


Ernest Lapointe: It is dropped.


Arthur Meighen: How does Mr. Scott feel about that?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Juvenile Delinquents Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 1-"Juvenile delinquent" defined.
Ernest Lapointe: What is proposed here is simply to add to the existing clause the words:
Or who is guilty of sexual immorality or any other form of vice.
The act as at present framed does not cover such cases, and the judges have asked that these words be added.


Arthur Meighen: On a hasty reading of the amendment, I gather that it virtually constitutes, as respects a juvenile, a new offence. I am not saying that, even if it does so, it is wrong, but the effect of it should be clearly understood. The Criminal Code clearly defines immorality of this character, but heretofore no juvenile guilty of it was a juvenile delinquent within the meaning of the act. If this goes through it virtually makes the judge the arbiter of what constitutes a vice on the part of a juvenile delinquent. This bill will take the matter out of the hands of parliament and the judge will be made the arbiter. Are we not going to get into a condition where we will have a rather variegated system of jurisprudence under which we will have a Nova Scotia magistrate deciding a thing is all right, and a Manitoba magistrate deciding it is all wrong?


Ernest Lapointe: A tribunal for children
must be considered in quite a different light from a tribunal for other persons. It is not proposed to send children to gaol, or anything of that kind. The object is to have young boys and girls under the supervision of probation officers with the object of trying to reform them. A discretion will be given to the magistrates which they did not formerly possess. I do not think the provision is likely to foe abused. In any case, the amendment is in the interest of the children themselves, and for the proper administration of the act.


Arthur Meighen: Could the minister give
us a definition of a "juvenile delinquent ' as it has been used in legislation up till now?


Ernest Lapointe: Any child who violates
any provision of the Criminal Code, any Dominon or provincial statute, or any bylaw or ordinance in a municipality for the violation of which punishment by fine or imprisonment may be ordered, or who is liable by reason of any other act to be committed to an industrial school or juvenile reformatory under the provisions of any Dominion or pro-

vincial statute. We propose to add the words already quoted, which is really in conformity with the spirit of the clause it enlarges.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are trying
to make a new offence for children. We may be saying that something is a vice which possibly heretofore has not been regarded as such.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend knows
that violation of the ordinance of a municipality is not a vice or a crime. Still under the present law, it is enough to constitute a child a juvenile delinquent. This is simply to broaden the meaning of the act, and apply it to something which is really more important than the violation of any municipal law.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, but we
know what we are doing in the case of a municipal by-law.


Ernest Lapointe: The addition of these
words has been suggested not only by the courts, but by all the organizations such as the Rig Sisters and the Big Brothers, and associations for the protection of children, in Toronto, Montreal and all the big cities, especially in western Canada. All the probation officers and juvenile delinquent judges had a conference, I think last year or the year before, and they unanimously asked that this amendment should be made. I am not especially anxious to have the amendment placed in the statute if there is any objection; I am simply proposing to parliament what all those who are interested in child welfare work have asked for.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not objecting; I am simply trying to find out what the amendment means. Does my hon. friend say that the term "or other form of vice" will be confined to offences under the Criminal Code?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not think
he would. Then are we not permitting magistrates-some of whom may be and undoubtedly are very estimable men, although they are not all of that class-to assume the functions of parliament and to say that such and such an act is an offence? It may be a good thing to do; it may be a good thing to say that the whole list of actions having regard to children ought to be looked upon as vices. But if we are going to do that we might consider the child himself to some extent, and also the child's parents. I am afraid this might permit a magistrate to take

Juvenile Delinquents Act
a child from its parents under circumstances which the parents themselves might say were perfectly harmless. In other words before the Criminal Code is invoked against, any individual should it not be plain that it is in connection with some offence we already know about, some statutory offence which is already defined, and which will limit the possible intervention of a busybody? If the hon. gentleman would just point out what is meant by these words, we would understand it. What kind of an offence could his own child be arrested for? He cannot tell us. The former limitation was fourteen years, what is the present limitation?


Ernest Lapointe: Sixteen years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon.
friend not think that it would be a good thing if the children of Ontario should know that they would be treated the same way as the children of Quebec, and vice versa, and that they could be given to understand that they are being looked after by the lawmakers of their country upon some well-recognized principle in regard to the offences with which they may be made accused? Does my hon. friend really realize that what we are doing here is asking each magistrate to define what vice is, and to legislate in effect upon each kind of vice and form of conduct, irrespective of any action of parliament? Suppose for example you have a child who engages in a game on the Lord's day-that game might consist of trundling a hoop. Some magistrate might absolutely conscientiously think that that was a vice, and might consider that the child was breaking a sacred law. Under this section could that child be taken from his parents and treated as a child requiring influences other than his home influence, in fact treated as a juvenile delinquent, while in the very next township you would very likely find a magistrate who would think that childish games on the Sabbath were not a vice and were not heinously illegal? There is also the other rule which might be applied. A magistrate might read this statute and consider himself bound by the old rule of ejus-dem generis, which would confine use of these words to vices of sexual immorality. But if you read it in that way, the previous paragraph is so broad that	I would
have thought that those other words would be sufficient. I want my hon. friend to thoroughly understand my .point before he replies. My suggestion is not that I think these children should not be looked after by the juvenile court; it is not that we
should not do everything we reasonably can do in order to strengthen the hands of those administering justice in the juvenile court; there is no question we ought to do that. But, having regard to the very important question, ought there not to be a rule for juvenile offenders and ought there not to be a law for them? Ought not a child to have just as much protection as an adult before it can be arrested?


Ernest Lapointe: As I stated, this amendment has been suggested by associations for the protection of children. I have one letter from the Toronto League of Women Voters, suggesting the words "or who is guilty of sexual immorality or any other form of vice". I agree with my hon. friend that in ordinary legislation and in ordinary cases it would not be desirable to leave the words "or any other form of vice" in that vague form. But the point must arise that the whole spirit of the act is to protect children, and to give the magistrates who are appointed for the purpose of presiding over these juvenile courts more latitude and larger discretion. It is not designed to do any harm to children or their parents, but to help them. It has been considered, in the experience of those judges who are spending their time in that social work, that the clause as it stands on the statute is not sufficiently broad to give them all the latitude which they require. After discussing the matter with those who are promoting the legislation, and after offering the suggestions which my hon. friend has offered, I thought there were good and sufficient reasons in support of the amendment, and I have taken the responsibility of presenting this bill to the House. But I did not originate the clause myself.


Mr. BOYS:: What is the right of appeal?
I think there should be a right of appeal. I imagine in the main the clause would work out all right. I can conceive of cases where perhaps injustice might be done, but so long as protection by way of appeal is afforded, I would be disposed to support this amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not see any right of appeal in the Juvenile Court Act.


Mr. CRERAR:: I am inclined to agree with the criticism of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). I can quite understand the desire of certain people and certain organizations to strengthen the legislation in this respect, and if I were certain that magistrates would always exercise a wise discretion I think I would have no objection
Juvenile Delinquents Act

to this provision. But it seems to me to give too much latitude to the magistrate as the provision stands at present. For instance, a young boy of fifteen years might be caught smoking cigarettes, and some person whose sensibilities would be outraged by such conduct might lodge a complaint. That boy might be brought before the magistrate; the magistrate might be of the same turn of mind as the complainant, and the boy consequently would become a juvenile delinquent. I am not overstating the case when I give that as an illustration. I do not know that it is wise to clothe magistrates with that extensive power. As it stands it would incorporate a rather dangerous principle into our criminal procedure.


Arthur Meighen: I think I would be disposed to go as far in this direction as any hon. member of the House, as long as I felt that our footsteps were safe. I have the greatest sympathy with the organizations which have been conferring with the Minister of Justice, and I can realize their difficulties. I presume they encounter cases of depravity that do not come within the provisions of the code, and that cannot very well be brought within the terms of the code, as the code necessarily is applicable to all people old and young. The law as it stood up to the present time has been in brief this: That wherever an offence against the law is charged, we have never yet gone so far as to say to the magistrate :>
In the case of people below a certain age you shall be the judge of what is right or what is wrong; although this child may have offended against nothing within the purview of the code or a by-law or an act of a legislature, still if you think the child is committing what is not morally in its interest, we leave it to you to take care of it under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. That is very dangerous.


Mr. PUTNAM:: Is the age not fourteen
instead of sixteen?


Arthur Meighen: The minister says sixteen. I would go this far, because I am disposed to go just as far as we safely can,-include the words "who is guilty of sexual immorality," but I would not like to allow any magistrate to define in his own mind what an offence is.


Ernest Lapointe: I am quite willing to
accept the suggestion of my hon. .friend and to amend the section as suggested. I move that the words, "or any other form of vice" be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.

On section 2-Release on probation.
Ernest Lapointe: This is to authorize the court to adjourn from time to time the disposition of the case as well as the hearing. As the old section stood, the hearing could be adjourned; but when all the witnesses had been heard the judge had to dispose of the case immediately, although it might have been better that sentence should be suspended or judgment deferred and the boy or girl placed under the supervision of some probation officer or in charge of some good people. There is nothing contentious about this.
The second change in the section is that the fine which the court may impose is increased from ten dollars to twenty-five dollars. The judge, of course, still has discretion in regard to the amount, and he may impose a fine of one dollar if he thinks proper.
The last change is to give authority to the judge to impose such further or other conditions as may be deemed advisable. This was not in the original act. One condition, for instance, may be when the case is one of theft that the deliquent should make restitution of the money.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If that is the
only matter that is sought to be covered, it is not necessary at all. As a matter of ordinary practice, my hon. friend well knows, a judge has often adjourned sentence in order to see whether restitution will take place or not. I know we always did that in the old days.


Ernest Lapointe: But no harm will be
done by having that inserted. It may be for other purposes too, conditions in a general way. I am simply quoting this.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It cannot be
for that. It must be for something else. Is it intended that further and other punishment may be inflicted?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The word "condition" I suppose, has to do with the child's conduct. One condition you put on a man or on a child is restraint. Does this mean that there is the possibility of other penalties being inflicted?


Ernest Lapointe: No. I do not think
my hon. friend is doing justice to those who are asking for these amendments. They are not trying to punish the children; they want

Juvenile Delinquents Act
to protect them, to help them. This is rather so that they may have more discretion for the child's own benefit. My hon.
4 p.m. friend seems to think there is something mysterious about the whole matter and that they want to punish somebody. If that were the spirit of the amendments, my hon. friend would be right; but it is not. I do not think there is anything very dangerous in this.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know
that there is. I am trying simply to find out what the minister really wants done.


Ernest Lapointe: I will give my hon.
friend the reasons that have been given to me by those who are really promoting this bill:
The fourth amendment proposed to subsection one of section sixteen by adding the words " and may impose upon the delinquent such further or other conditions as may be deemed advisable," is again for the purpose of giving the court wider discretion in dealing with children for their betterment. The right to impose conditions as, for instance, the making of restitution-
I was not so far astray.
.	.	. .etc., has been questioned and while such a
right probably exists-
As my hon. friend rightly says:
-under the present act yet it is better to make the matter clear by the suggested amendment.


Mr. HANSON:: Why is it deemed necessary to increase the maximum fine from ten dollars to twenty-five dollars? What little experience I have had has been that the parent always has to pay the fine and very often a parent who can least afford to pay it.


Ernest Lapointe: The judge of the Juvenile Court at Regina, who is secretary of the association, has written us as follows:
In the western provinces where people are isolated, many of them living on farms removed a considerable distance from town or city, when a boy is proved to be a juvenile delinquent, it is impossible -to place him properly on probation, for the simple reason that there is no probation officer near him to whom he can report. Many of the delinquents belong to the new Canadian type, and to simply return them to their parents when they are not sent to an industrial school, with merely a warning and no probation and no fine, means, that they do not realize they have committed an offence. The only possible way to touch some of these people is through their pockets. And some of same boys work on farms and in harvest time especially earn large wages, and it was thought that in cases where a boy is earning his own wages a fine of ten dollars was too small. It was for these exceptional cases that the amount was suggested changed to $25.
And further on:
The question was fully discussed, and while -we felt that possibly some of those acting as juvenile
court judges might take advantage of the large fine, j'et we felt on the whole that most of the judges would not.
It is also stated:
The idea of a fine is somewhat foreign to the juvenile court system, where the action taken is always what is best in the interests of the boy; but there are of course exceptional cases where it is desirable to impose a fine, and the association-
That is, all the judges.
-considers that the limit should be $25 instead of $10 as at present.
It is suggested especially to cover western cases.


Mr. FORKE:: I think that when a fine is
imposed on a boy under sixteen years of age it simply means a fine upon his parents.


Harold Putnam: The punishment of the
parent through payment of the fine, although sometimes undeserved, is indirectly the best punishment that can be imposed for the offence. A fine of twenty-five dollars for some parents might be less felt than a fine of ten cents in other families. I think I can see a fair reason for increasing the fine to the limit. It does not necessarily follow that the magistrates will impose the maximum.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Support of child-proviso.


William Alves Boys: This imposes a responsibility
upon the municipality. I do not know whether the minister has had experience of similar provisions with regard to hospital expenses, but if he has he will be aware that exceedingly nice points arise as to what constitutes "residence." Personally I would not be in favour of this clause unless there is some very distinct provision in the bill defining what shall constitute a resident of a municipality.


Ernest Lapointe: I have myself had experience to which my hon. friend refers. In the province of Quebec when the government is claiming from a municipality the cost for hospital patients there is sometimes much difficulty in deciding which municipality is responsible. But in this case we are doing something for the advantage of the municipality, because the clause in the original act reads as follows:
In every such case it shall be within the power of the court to make an order upon the parent or parents of the child or upon the municipality to which it belongs to contribute to its support such sum as the court may determine.
When the means of the parents are not known, the order has always been against the
Juvenile Delinquents Act

municipality. This amendment is to give the municipality the right to reclaim the money from the parents, a right which the original clause did not give.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I do not think
that settles the point raised as to whether the child belongs to a certain municipality. In other cases it has been found necessary to define residence as meaning, say, one year's residence in the municipality. The act says simply "the municipality to which the child belongs." Does one day's residence give a municipality a claim upon the child?


Ernest Lapointe: The ordinary law of
domicile and residence does apply.


William Alves Boys: It would, of course, where
there is no definition of what constitutes residence, but in some acts and regulations there are definitions.


Ernest Lapointe: There must be some
rule of practice in Ontario as to that; the courts must decide what length of residence is considered necessary in the case my hon. friend referred to. The same jurisprudence would apply there.


William Alves Boys: As a matter of fact regulations have been passed for dealing with the question; where there is no regulation, one can become a "resident" of any place the very moment of setting foot there. That of course, is another feature. I must admit that when I first looked at this section I did not quite appreciate its significance, but we have often to look at these things in a great hurry. I see that all this section does is to give the municipality the right to recover from the parent or parents any money paid by it in the first instance. Cases might arise where there are no parents but only guardians. What about such a case? And, further, what about a Barnardo boy?


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid the municipality would have to bear the cost as it does in the case of hospital patients.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Juvenile court committee.
Ernest Lapointe: I move that clause 4
be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: My mind keeps running
back to clause 1. I certainly would not like to be instrumental in disarming the organizations that have to do with these mat-
[Mr. Lapointe.;
tens. I have been thinking that possibly the chief offence which these organizations are trying to control might not be held in a court of law to be within the meaning of the term "sexual immorality." With the consent of the minister, I will be prepared to move that the committee return to the clause for the purpose of having the words restored, but accepting the suggestion made by my hon. friend to my left from Glengarry and Stormont (Mr. Kennedy) to insert the word "similar" before the word "form".


Ernest Lapointe: Then it will read:
Sexual immorality or any similar form of vice.
I am willing to accept that.


The CHAIRMAN:: By unanimous consent we will return to clause 1. It is moved in amendment that the words struck out, "or any other form of vice", be reinstated to read: "or any other similar form of vice."


Arthur Meighen: Leave out the word
"other".


George Newcombe Gordon: "Or any similar form
of vice."


William Alves Boys: The minister will probably
know from the correspondence whether or not that does cover the situation. I am disposed to think there is some doubt about it, and I think my leader (Mr. Meighen) is of the same view.


George Newcombe Gordon: Carried as amended.
On section 5-Adults liable who contribute to delinquency.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
reason for the change, and what does the change involve?


Ernest Lapointe: I will give the reasons
as they have been communicated to me by the association:
Section 29 making adults liable for causing delinquency in children is a most useful section but one sometimes difficult to work under. It is the view of the association that if a parent or guardian neglects to prevent a child's becoming a juvenile delinquent that should be an offence and that proof should not be made more difficult by the retaining of the word " wilfully."
The proposal to insert the words "or are likely to render " in the ninth line of the section is with the object of making more certain and effective the amendment to -the same section contained in section 3 of the amending act of 1921 11-12 George V, chapter 37. This amendment was adopted in view of certain decisions in western courts which rendered the section practically nugatory.
It is to punish those adults or guardians who act in such a way as to render children

Juvenile Delinquents Act
juvenile delinquents even though the children do not actually become juvenile delinquents. The word "wilfully" is omitted to compel those who are Charged with proceeding in such a way as to make their children juvenile delinquents to prove that they should not be punished.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would direct
attention to the distinction between a mere act of omission which the conditions might make excusable, and an act of commission. This provision would seem to place in the same position the Fagin who teaches children to steal or makes finished criminals of them, and the unfortunate man who is not able to give his children proper support, proper care, or proper teaching.


Ernest Lapointe: I would not go as far
as that. The other offence my hon. friend refers to is punishable too.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, by a fine
not exceeding $500 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years. That is not a sufficient punishment for a person who turns out children as thieves or who is trafficking in their bodies; the punishment there is entirely out of proportion to the seriousness of the offence. It is certainly very much worse to behave that way with children than it is with adults, yet there would be a far heavier punishment under the Criminal Code for such an offence in the case of an adult.


Ernest Lapointe: This legislation will not do away with the penalty imposed by the Criminal Code against the parent or guardian if what he does is criminal. Surely he can be convicted under the ordinary law.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know.
I am inclined to think that where you have a provision dealing with crime generally and ihen a subdivision dealing with juvenile delinquents, and when in addition to dealing with the juvenile delinquent himself you further deal with the abettor or creator of the juvenile offender, if you like, then you are creating a particular offence. We are here creating an offence which has particular regard to the juvenile delinquent, but we go further and we say to the person who has had an active hand in making the child a thief or directing him into immoral practices:	"You are a
person who not only wilfully encouraged but aided and abetted and connived at the commission by this child of an offence under the Criminal Code"

for we say that a juvenile
delinquent is any child who violates the provisions of the Criminal Code. Let us at least know what we are doing here. We are treating in the same way the person who is actively engaged in the promotion of criminal acts of the vilest character against children and against society, and the person who, perhaps through ignorance, perhaps through poverty, neglects to do something which ought to be done for the child. Does my hon. friend not think that this section ought to be broken up with a view to our taking some cognizance of that distinction? Should we not have a very heavy penalty for the Fagin, and deal gently with those who are doing perhaps the best they can but who by mere neglect place themselves, under this provision, in the same category with those who commit the criminal acts to which I have referred?


Ernest Lapointe: We are not doing what
my hon. friend suggests; we are not changing the law with regard to such criminals as he has described. They have been subject to the penalty inflicted by this act, and they will still be subject to it. My hon. friend seems to think that the penalty should be increased I do not know that we should go further than the people who are interested in this work are asking us to do. It has not been suggested by anybody that those who are acting in a more nefarious way than others should not be more heavily penalized, all that the amendment purports to do is to make it easier to obtain a conviction under the circumstances, by not making it necessary to prove that, the conditions complained of actually rendered the child a delinquent, nor that there was wilful neglect-the mere fact that the conditions exist, renders them subject to the penalty, unless they prove that they are not responsible for those conditions.


William Alves Boys: The minister says that the
design of the amendment is to make proof easier, and that the penalty is not being increased.


Ernest Lapointe: It is the same.


William Alves Boys: The marginal notes, no doubt
quite unintentionally, are misleading in this case. They are supposed to cover the amendments as well as the words which are underlined, but the minister will see, if he looks at the very last of the section, that the penalty is increased to two years, whereas in the original act it is only one year.


Ernest Lapointe: There was an amendment to the act in 1921, and I think the penalty was then increased to two years.
Juvenile Delinquents Act


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would not
blame the minister at all for increasing the penalty; I think some of our penalties are entirely inadequate. I think, for example, the penalties for indecent assaults are inadequate-only two years, for a crime which you could not fittingly describe. But what I resent is to put in the same category with an unspeakable villain like that some poor unfortunate who has not been able to give his children the benefit of better conditions. I do not think the real criminals get enough, and I really fail to see why a person should be charged with neglect which he knows nothing about, and be put in exactly the same class we were discussing a moment ago, for that is the effect of taking out the word "wilfully". 1 do not think that is proper legislation. I want to make it easy to look after the children, but in doing that we ought to have proper penalties for those who offend against the statute.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend may be
sure that his remarks will be drawn to the attention of those who are interested in this work, and will be considered by the department also. I am almost sure that there will be further amendments to this act next session, because the clause which I have agreed to drop will be submitted to the next convention of the association of the judges for approval. The main reason why there was so much objection to clause 4 from Toronto and Montreal was that it had not been approved by the association, and that is why I have moved that the clause should be stricken out. I find that my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) is right. The penalty was one year even after the amendment of 1921, and obviously that is being increased to two years.


William Alves Boys: Does the minister think that
it should be increased? Of course, there might be cases where two years would not be enough, but in the main one year is a severe penalty, and when you consider that a fine of S500 may also be imposed, together with one year's imprisonment, I should think that ought to be sufficient; especially in view of the further fact, which is a fact so far as I know, that there is no appeal.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend from
West York (Sir Henry Drayton) seems to think the penalty too lenient. My hon. friend knows that the magistrate has discretion. It is not exceeding two years, but it may be only one month, it may be fifteen days.


William Alves Boys: I do not know what the minister's experience is, but I have had a good deal of experience in matters of that kind, and it is astonishing how many of the magistrates seem to think that if they divide the limit in two it is about all right. I do not say they always do it, but there is a tendency to compromise always, and if the fine is $50 they are apt to strike it at $25, and if it is $20 at $10. Apparently the minister did not intend to make the penalty two years. There was evidently no intention to change the law in that respect, which provided a penalty of only one year.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no objection to leaving it at one year.


Arthur Meighen: The explanatory note
says the word "wilfully" is strick out before the word "neglects" in the seventh line, but there is no word "neglects" in the seventh line.


Ernest Lapointe: I noticed that myself. It is a mistake. I think it is in the twelfth line.


Robert Forke: I think "wilfully" ought to be struck out. The clause seems strong enough when you have in the word "neglects".


William Alves Boys: I think the note is correct. In subsection 1 of section 29 of the act appear the words "wilfully neglects to do that". What must be looked at is the act itself, and you have both the words "wilfully" and "neglects" there. "Wilfully" is struck out, and the words "and being able to do so" are inserted.


Arthur Meighen: Not in this subsection.


William Alves Boys: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Could the minister tell us whether he would regard as neglect such a neglect as would make a child a "neglected child" within the meaning of the Ontario Act? Would he make that a criminal offence? I am not dealing with the child who commits an offence against the code, but with the parents who may be prosecuted under this act. Would the minister consider that an offence under this section? And if not, why not? Because if a child is neglected, obviously that is more likely to render that child a juvenile delinquent.


Ernest Lapointe: I would say that it all depends on the degree of negligence on the part of the parent; and that should be left to the discretion of the magistrate.

Juvenile Delinquents Act


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to get my hon. friend's idea of that, though. Negligence, of what character? Negligence in looking after the physical welfare of the child? Negligence in providing proper religious or moral instruction? or negligence in what other regard?


Ernest Lapointe: I myself would not go as far as that. It would all depend on the circumstances, which will always be known to the local man who will be in charge of the administration of this act. The local juvenile court judges are well acquainted with the conditions in their community. They have probation officers who report what is going on in the homes where there are juvenile delinquents, and their decision will be largely influenced by the circumstances of the case. I do not think that there can be, in a matter of this kind, a definitely fixed set of conditions necessary to constitute the offence which is contemplated by this section.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree, it is
pretty hard to do that, but it is not hard for the House to have some idea what it is legislating about. Suppose we take it in the simplest form; that there is a neglect to do that which would directly tend to prevent a child being a delinquent or 'likely to become a delinquent-I think that is fairly paraphrasing the clause-now, what neglect are we endeavouring to legislate against? We can say offhand that we are endeavouring to legislate against such neglect that a magistrate might say was a neglect; I do mot think that, from our present discussion, we would go any further than that. Are we really leaving the definition of "neglect" in the hands of the bench, o.r are we dealing with "neglects" which cou'ld properly be looked upon as connected with some criminal matter or likely to bring about some criminal affair? Going a little bit further, I come back to my former query: Is the neglect legislated against here a. neglect to furnish the child with such necessaries and the like as would prevent its being a dependent, neglected child under the Ontario Act or any other similar act? I think they go a little bit further than we do-is it to be confined to a neglect to give instruction to a Child as to the meaning of a crime, or is it a neglect to move a child from conditions which might suggest crime to it? What are we really trying to do?


Ernest Lapointe: All the things my hon.
friend has described would influence a judge in giving his decision.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But the magistrate will not be legislating. We are.


Ernest Lapointe: The conditions my hon.
friend has mentioned may be such as to justify a judge in convicting a man, but they may not warrant the sending of the mam to prison or fining him severely. I repeat, the circumstances surrounding every case must govern. This legislation is for the purpose of administering the act and it is certainly for the protection of the children.


Arthur Meighen: The words in the bill
"or are likely to render a child a juvenile delinquent"' should have been underlined, because they are additions, and also the word "two" in the last line.


Harold Putnam: As to the question asked
by the hon. member (Sir Henry Drayton) I am inclined to think the danger he fears would be remote and that the parent would not be punished unless he was, by his own action, directly aiding the child to become a delinquent. However, I think we can easily imagine a class of cases where the parent would be an agent in the commission of offences by the child as the latter left the 'home from day to day.	-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite agree
with what the hon. gentleman has said; that is how the section ought to be read. I agree also that we should have a distinction between a course of conduct where there is not direct connivance and a course where the parent wilfully aids and abets the child to become a delinquent. If my hon. friend will look at the section again he will see that persons who knowingly or wilfully encourage or connive at offences are properly dealt with. But I draw my hon. friend's attention to the Language farther down as to a parent or guardian who "neglects to do that which would directly tend to prevent a chi'd being or becoming a juvenile delinquent or to remove the conditions which render or are likely to render a child a juvenile delinqent." Now, instructing the child as to the difference between right and wrong, properly grounding in him moral principles, are likely to influence his conduct for the better. Here, unless that is done, it would appear there is going to be an offence.


Harold Putnam: My hon. friend will concede, perhaps, that the word "directly" is a very illuminating one. The mere failure of
Juvenile Delinquents Act

perhaps a very ignorant parent to teach a child proper ethics would only indirectly tend to produce the conduct sought to be corrected. Let us take a concrete case; my hon. friend may, perhaps, argue that it is too elemental in character but it will serve to illustrate the principle involved. If the father knew his child was going out stealing pennies, even though he himself did not receive the stolen money, he Should be punished. If he knew the child was committing this offence and did not reprimand him or prevent him, he is guilty.
Sir HENR\ DRAYTON: I quite agree.


Harold Putnam: But, as to teaching the child and making him to understand the difference between right and wrong, if we went into that matter I think we would be on visionary ground, and the parents should get the benefit of the doubt. The magistrate, of course in such cases, should have common sense to do the right thing. He would have to take into consideration the environments of the boy and the parents. If the father were an illiterate man the magistrate should not deal with him so strictly as in cases where the father was not illiterate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would go even further than my hon. friend. He says the magistrate should have common sense to do the right thing. I say we should have common sense to do the right thing here in the first place. I point out also that in the first case referred to, if the parent knows the child has gone out to commit an offence he is accessory before the fact and is already liable.


Harold Putnam: Yes, if he abets the commission of the crime.


Henry Lumley Drayton: His mere knowledge makes him liable under the Criminal Code. He is liable as an accessory before the fact and subject to the same punishment as the young offender. The duty to stop that sort of thing is cast upon him, as the duty is thrown on every citizen to prevent crime. If a person knows a crime is about to be committed, it is his duty to see that it is prevented. I was pointing out that that cannot be the case here because that is already covered.


Harold Putnam: I am afraid a great deal of this is already covered by some severe punishment already.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It ought to be.


Harold Putnam: I agree with my hon.
friend. The danger is that the lesser punishment here might displace the present severer punishment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My impression is that it is removed by this legislation. I think that is the most dangerous part of this legislation, because I d'o not know whether it can be done under this.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I think, rightly or
wrongly, that this is more or less experimental legislation, and whether we should enact a law of this kind or not I do not know. I am not quite sure that these societies are able to handle the child problem. It is a very difficult matter, and they have not had as much experience perhaps as they will have. Whether it is wise or unwise to pass a law that is more or less experimental I would not take upon myself to decide. Yet that is the position here. We are making this experiment and bringing the child under this law.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not object to it being experimental, and I do not object to doing anything I can to advance the interests of the child; but I am objecting to the provision with respect to adult offenders, who, I think, are not severely enough dealt with in this section, and the mixing up of a real adult criminal with an innocent man.


William Alves Boys: The more I think of this
provision the more I am convinced that the section is going too far, although I am convinced the section is framed with a desire to do what is best for the child. It cannot be argued for a moment that this is anything but a criminal section, because when the punishment to be imposed is one year's imprisonment or a fine of five hundred dollars, or both, it becomes very serious, and surely it is unwise to drop the word "wilful." I quite appreciate the effect of the addition of the words "or are likely to render." But I say do not strike out the word "wilful." Take an illustration:	A parent who would bring
himself within the facts I am going to outline could certainly be convicted under this section. We will assume that curfew rings at eight o'clock, or nine o'clock. Suppose a father permits a boy of fourteen to remain out between nine and ten o'clock and to continue that course of conduct, and that boy commits a theft or some crime which brings him within the interpretation of the section, that boy becomes a juvenile delinquent, and the father could be convicted under this section. But I doubt if the father

Juvenile Delinquents Act
could be convicted if the word "wilful" were there. Surely, before we render a man liable to imprisonment for one year and to a fine of five hundred dollars, he should be guilty of something wilful. It should be proved that there was some animus in his mind, because that is the foundation of all criminal acts. I suggest that we should restore the word "wilful" after the word "child," and eliminate the words "and being able to do so," leaving the other words "or are likely to render." If you are going to make the punishment one year, that punishment should only be imposed in cases of gross neglect. The father might be away, and he might have left instructions that the child should not be permitted out at night. Before the father could be convicted under this provision I think it should be proved that he was a paTty to the offence.


Mr. GORDON:: I agree with the remarks
of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. boys). The words "or to remove the conditions which render or are likely to render a child a juvenile delinquent" have been inserted on account of a series of cases in which the father of the family persisted in allowing one member of the family, who was notorious in the community to remain at home. The effect was to corrupt the younger members of the family. The mother may have desired to have one daughter removed from the household, and the father persisted in having her at home, although her society no doubt corrupted the younger female members of the family. No provision then in force, however, could deal with that case. The case was brought up before the Police Constables' convention, or the facts of the case were forwarded to them, in order that some action might be taken to prevent a recurrence of a case of that kind, where there was no provision which would deal effectively with it. This provision may go (further than was perhaps actually intended, but it seems to me to deal with that particular class of case, if it is so interpreted and read by the judicial officer before whom such proceedings might be taken.


William Alves Boys: I am not familiar with the
case mentioned by the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Gordon), but I would have thought from his recital of the facts that such a parent would come absolutely within the provisions of the former section. Surely, under this section, the parent, knowing that such a state of affairs exists in his house and permitting it to exist, is doing so "wilfully." The strong point that I desire to make is that
a severe penalty is provided here. I am not objecting to it; I am commending the minister and all those behind the provision in their efforts to do what they are seeking to do. My one point is that if we make a man a criminal and put him in prison for a year and fine him five hundred dollars, without any evidence to connect him and to show he is the guilty man, we are going too far. I would not be prepared to pass this section on the suggestion that this is a matter ifor the magistrate to consider. We know there are many magistrates of experience, but there are many magistrates who are not lawyers and who have not had experience. They are tremendously influenced by their surroundings and they become considerably worked up at times. In this way a man might suffer where he never should suffer as a criminal. If the word "wilful" is restored I feel satisfied that any case will be met in which a parent should be subjected to imprisonment for one year,


George Gordon: What could be done in the case of a father where a daughter, say over eighteen years of age, was boarding at home, a member of the family, where no act of immorality was committed in the home, but who was notorious for her immoral conduct, who came home for her meals and lived there and who must necessarily exercise an evil effect upon the younger female members of the family? The former act does not deal with such a case, because there is no act of participation by the head of the household in anything which would tend to the moral delinquency of the child; but under this amendment the section would deal with a case of that kind because the father was failing to remove from the family the source of the influence that tended to cause the delinquency?


William Alves Boys: That raises in a very neat way the very point that I wanted to raise. If I understand my hon. friend aright, he goes this far: The girl in question is notorious, but apparently her notoriety has not reached the mind of her father. Would it be proper, under those conditions, that the father should come within this section and be imprisoned for a year? The whole thing is one of knowledge. If the father knows that he has such a girl in his household, then he is within this section and his neglect is "wilful". If he does not know this-and that is the case put by my hon. friend-surely he should not be held responsible. A man cannot be guilty of a crime if he is not directly associated with it. In the case cited, I submit with all respect, the father cannot be held to be a criminal.
Juvenile Delinquents Act


George Gordon: In the twelfth line of page 3 of the bill there are these words:
Being the parent or guardian of the child and being able to do so, neglects to do (that which would directly tend to prevent a child's being or becoming a juvenile delinquent.
The expression "being able to do so", having the power, must mean, it seems to me, having the knowledge, because he would not be able to exercise that power unless knowledge was brought home to him.


William Alves Boys: I agree with my hon. friend that that implies knowledge. That is my exact point. The moment you get knowledge you get wilful conduct. That is why I want to see that inserted in the bill.


George Gordon: While wilful conduct is
implied in this, the actual word "wilful" is not used. But it indicates there is power of suppression of the evil condition that exists, and if he is able to suppress that evil condition and does not do so, my suggestion is that he becomes guilty of an offence under section 4.


Harold Putnam: I should think the word "wilful" should, in any event, be restored. The question of ability is ambiguous. He might be able if he had the knowledge. "Being able to do so" means, I think on fair reading, that he is in a position of authority to straighten out the regettable state of affairs provided that he knows about it. I would strongly support the idea of removing the ambiguity by restoring the word "wilful".


George Gordon: I have had some cases
under this act. The word "wilful", as my hon. friend knows, has a peculiar signification before a judge. It means a deliberate act, a knowledge brought home in such an emphatic way that there can be no question that the person guilty of the offence had it brought home to him, not in a constructive way, but in a most definite and positive
5 p.m.* way. The defence in many of these cases is that the person did not know. Take the ordinary case of a father who has young children at home, who is guilty of a persistent course of profanity, of assault upon his wife, assault upon the children and generally a course of conduct of that character. That would bring him within this section. But it does not deal with those peculiar cases where the mother, perhaps, wishes to have the home wholesome, but some member of the family, perhaps a sister of the father or some other member, a boarder, is kept there in defiance of the wife's wishes.


William Alves Boys: With knowledge?


George Gordon: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Then it is "wilful."


George Gordon: I have had a case in the city of Peterborough, where, in spite of the mother's attendance on the chief of police, the father deliberately persisted in keeping this person in the household, and he had a right to do so.


William Alves Boys: Will my hon. friend not agree with me that that is really a case of wilful conduct?


George Gordon: I do not think "wilful"
goes that far. "Wilful" is such a deliberate, determined refusal to accept the condition as laid down that it goes far beyond the interpretation which might be constructively put upon knowledge, that is, knowing that a condition exists. Supposing this case existed: Knowledge is brought from the chief of police to the head of the family that a certain member of his family is of the type of character that would cause delinquency of the younger children. After that notice had been given to him, he would be put upon inquiry and would be guilty of an offence under this legislation unless he satisfied himself in every reasonable way that there was no ground for the suspicion that was indicated to him, say, by the chief constable. That would be, perhaps, a wilful breach of this section. I am submitting that to my hon. friend in order to prove that wilfulness must-go far beyond what must be real knowledge brought home by evidence of members of the family who have learned from time to time the evil conduct of this person who has been kept in the family in spite of knowledge being brought home to the head of the household. It might be said that this is not wilful because it was a sin of omission, not of commission; that is there was 'not the positive act, but neglect in permitting the matter to drift. It is just to deal with those cases, it seems to me, that this particular section is worded in this manner.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend, I think, is
putting upon the word "wilful" too severe a construction. But, lest he be right and I be wrong, I would suggest to the minister that, instead of the words "being able to do so," he insert the word "knowingly". My whole point is, knowledge; I think it must be shown that the man has knowledge. To convict a man of crime and take any chance of sending him to prison for one year without showing that he has any knowledge of the wrong is abhorrent to me. I do not think

Juvenile Delinquents Act
the word "wilful" is too strong. It was in the act before, but if it is thought that it is too strong, let the wording be as follows: Being the parent or guardian of the child knowingly neglects to do so.


Harold Putnam: I agree with my hon.
friend (Mr. Boys), and I think as respects almost every crime you could bring forward the same argument about the deletion of the word "wilful" ingeniously used by the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Gordon). Careful as he generally is in language, I agree with the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) that he went too far in his definition of "wilful". The word does not necessarily mean a determined wilfulness; it means a substantial degree of knowledge. You bring home to the accused that with that degree of knowledge he lets this thing go on from day to day. I can see no objection to putting in the word "wilful", for we must assume that the judge or magistrate will at least be of average intelligence and that on the evidence he will be able to decide as a juror the issue of wilfulness.


Ernest Lapointe: The word "wilfully", the elimination of which is proposed, was discussed by the association to which I have referred at its last convention. It was then unanimously decided to ask for the elimination of this word because in Rex v Hoffman. 1919, 1 Western Weekly Reports, page 625, and Rex v Limoges, 1921, 1 Western Weekly Reports, wage 293, convictions could not be secured against the offenders because of the word "wilfully" in the section, although in the opinion of all the members present at the convention the conditions justified convictions.


Harold Putnam: Was there something peculiar in the facts in those cases?


Ernest Lapointe: I have sent for the law reports. I find that I made a mistake a few minutes ago when I said that two years instead of one was a change; I was right in the first instance when I said that the amendment of 1921 covered it, section 3 of chapter 37, which substituted the word "two" for the word "one". So, as it is now, there is no change in the term of imprisonment.


William Alves Boys: That only emphasizes my
contention that it makes the offence all the more serious.


Ernest Lapointe: It is my reason for withdrawing my assent to the change.


William Alves Boys: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: In the two cases I have
mentioned the word "wilfully" in the section prevented convictions.


William Alves Boys: That in itself would not perhaps warrant the dropping of the word here I do not argue for one moment that the use of the word "wilful" in statutes does not frequently stand in the way of convictions; I say it does, and I say it should when we are talking of crime. Under the Ontario Temperance Act we find provisions that a man shall be presumed to have knowledge of this, that and the other thing, and he can be convicted of many offences without the Crown actually proving that he had knowledge of any guilty actions. But that is a different state of affairs altogether.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree to "knowingly."


William Alves Boys: I think that would be fair
under the circumstances.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of
the committee that section 5-now section 4 *-be amended in the thirteenth line by adding after the words " to do so " the word " knowingly."


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do you think
that would work out well?


Ernest Lapointe: Putting "knowingly"
before neglects."


William Alves Boys: It is just merely inserting the word " knowingly " instead of the word " wilfully."


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


EXCHEQUER COURT ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. 116, to amend the Exchequer Court Act'-Hon. Mr. Lapointe-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Henry Lumley Drayton: When this bill
was in committee before, the minister withdrew it for the purpose of considering the questions then raised.


Ernest Lapointe: Is my hon. friend still
objecting?


William Alves Boys: We are suggesting, not objecting.	_________________________


Ernest Lapointe: As I said, the other day, the reason why the words " or any person " are included is to anticipate a case where the
Exchequer Court Act

Crown has to compel its contractors to pay to a third person damages which might be caused to him by a public work. On the other hand, I think it could not be construed as against the rights of any third person. However, I am inclined to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) as far as that goes. But when he suggested that we should include the word " company," I think that is unnecessary, because it is included in the Interpretation Act. I agree, therefore, to the amendment suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Boys), that the words "to any person or to the Crown" in the thirteenth line of this section be omitted.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read \the third time and passed.


GOLD AND SILVER MARKING ACT, 1913, AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 20 consideration in committee of Bill No. 176, to amend the Gold and Silver Marking Act, 1913-Hon. Mr. Low, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-"Platinum" to be applied only to articles of defined component parts.
Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: When this matter was previously under consideration I maintained that what the Jewellers' Association had in mind was that the word "platinum" was to be applied to any article of which 95 per cent of the total quantity consisted of platinum. In a report received from Mr. W. J. Ryan, Inspector of the Gold and Silver Marking Act, among other things he states:
At the fifth annual convention of the Canadian Jewellers' Association, which was held at Windsor, February 13, 14 and 15, 1922, and at which over 300 jewellers from all parts of Canada were present, among the business problems discussed was a proposed amendment to The Gold and Silver Marking Act regarding the stamping of platinum goods. At a meeting of the executive committee held on the 5th of December it was decided that application should be made at the next session of parliament for an amendment to The Gold and Silver Marking Act to provide for the marking of platinum articles. The committee recommended that the title of the act be changed to read " The Precious Metals Marking Act, 1924," and that a new section be inserted to cover platinum articles, worded as follows:
" The word ' platinum ' or any contraction, abbreviation or colourable imitation thereof shall not be applied, either alone or in connection with any other word, to any article of merchandise composed wholly 3r in part of any metal unless 950/1000ths of component parts of the metal appearing or purporting to be platinum of which said article consists are either the pure metal and element platinum alone or in conjunction with iridium."

I always thought that the jewellers had in mind that the article should be 95 per cent platinum, but the leader of the opposition in several Statements ridiculed the idea. When the Deputy Minister of Justice came into the House the other day the right hon. gentleman put certain questions, and the deputy agreed with the interpretation placed on it by my right hon. friend. I had not the slightest doubt in my mind at eleven o'clock in the morning that he had told me that it meant 95 per cent of the whole article. But he whispered to me that since I had been in his office he had read the debates of the day before-I did not question him as to whether the opinion of other lawyers had impressed him or caused him to change his mind. He further added that these sections were not drafted with the idea in view that they should be interpreted by the ordinary layman in the House; rather was it intended that the courts should interpret them. I allowed him to go out of the chamber. But the leader of the opposition made this statement:
There can be no possible two opinions on the subject. The opinion is just, what the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice told the minister a while ago, and what we have contended for for two days, I do not think it is the object of either the Jewellers' Association or the framer of the bill that the whole article should be 95 per cent platinum.
And again he said:
The minister is wrong as to his conception of what the draftsman intended. The draftsman who drew this never in the world intended the whole article to be 95 per cent platinum-never.
I had stated in the House that the president
or the secretary of the association had told my deputy over the long distance telephone that what the section meant was 95 per cent of the whole article, but again the right hon. leader of the opposition disagreed with me. I was glad to know that there were a few hon. gentlemen who did agree with me. If hon gentlemen will refer to page 3395 of Hanusard they will find that the hon. member for King*, N.S. (Mr. Robinson) said:
The intention doubtless was that it should be 95 per cent of the element platinum, but it does not say so.
He agreed that that was the intention. Again, on Friday last, the 20th, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) stated:
That is the meaning I put upon this clause. In other words, whatever metal it is composed of, 95 per cent pure platinum or platinum in conjunction with some other metal shall form part of the whole composition.
In order that there might not be any mistake, I telephoned to the secretary of the Jewellers' Association, to satisfy myself that the opinion my deputy had conveyed to me

Gold and Silver Marking
was correct, and the secretary replied: "There is absolutely no doubt that was the intention." I said, "Come down here to Ottawa, so that you may be able to verify it." He said, "I will send the chairman of the association." The chairman of the association came down, and afterwards I addressed the following letter to Mr. John C. Strachan, chairman, Canadian National Jewellers' Association, Toronto District:
I attach hereto a question asked by the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen in the House of Commons on Friday. Will you be good enough to advise me which of the questions he asks is correct? I shall esteem it a favour if you will give me the answer in writing.
And the question I attached to the letter was the very question asked by the right ban. leader of the opposition on Friday last. I did not wish to put it in my own words, because I knew my hon. friend would probably doubt it had been properly put, so I simply attached the following clipping from Hansard:
Mr.. Meighen:	As to the plainness of the clause
it is a matter of opinion. As to the meaning of the clause it is not a matter of opinion, it is very clear, I would not have risen but I see the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice here, and I am going to put the two interpretations in his hearing and ask him to give the opinion of the department as to which it is. The question is this: Whether in the case of an article, a single article, as respects which part purports to be platinum and part not, this bill insists that the whole article shall be 95 per cent platinum or part platinum and part iridium, or whether only the part that purports to be platinum shall be 95 per cent platinum and iridium? I want the assistant deputy minister to answer himself.
The reply I received to that letter was as fallows:
Hon. Thos. A. Low,
Minister of Trade and Commerce,
Ottawa.
Sir,-In reply to the question asked in the House, a copy of which you attached to your letter, I beg to advise you that the intent conveyed in the first question correctly represents the desire of the jewellery trade-i.e. that an article to have applied to it the word-" platinum, or any abbreviation of the word platinum," must contain 95 per cent of the gross weight, or total contents of platinum, or any combination of platinum and iridium.
I have the honour to remain,
Your obedient servant,
John C. Strachan,
Chairman Canadian National Jewellers' Association, Toronto District
That, I think, bears out the statement that I made as to the intention of the jewellers. I also informed the right hon. leader of the opposition, that that was what the president of the Jewellers' Association 'had told me over the long distance telephone, but he doubted me. I perhaps have given the act 223
more attention over the week-end than before, and I have discovered that it contains a clause providing that:
The Governor in Council may, from time to time, make such regulations as to him seem necessary or expedient for declaring articles to be exempt from the application of ithis act.
I am sure that the right hon. leader of the opposition knew of these orders in council that had been passed; he knew a great deal more than I did; he knew that if there was any remedy required in connection with this section it could be provided by order in council. However, in view of the opposition raised by certain members of the House, I desire to withdraw the bill.


William Alves Boys: So far as I am concerned I do not propose for one moment to be under any such cloud as that. Surely to goodness it is not fair to suggest, when we on this side of the House make suggestions regarding the phraseology of a clause appearing in a bill, that we are objecting to the bill itself. We were, just making some suggestions a few moments ago to the Minister of Justice in connection with a bill he had before the House, and it is only fair to say that he accepted some of those suggestions. The Minister of Trade and Commerce now says definitely, and I think if he is fair he will admit he did not say it quite so definitely a day or so ago, that 95 per cent of the whole article, or as the chairman of the Jewellers' Association perhaps better puts it, 95 per cent of the gross weight, shall be platinum or iridium. Now all we have been endeavouring to do here is to point out to the minister that we want the wording of this section made so definite that a layman can construe it and understand it. It may be that a jeweller or a judge might understand it as it stands, but you want to think of the public who are not experts, too. The very beauty of legislation is that its wording shall be such that any man of reasonable intellect can read it and understand what it means when he reads it. I made a suggestion the other day to the minister, and I am going to make it again before he presses for withdrawal of this bill, because there is not the slightest desire on the part of any one on this side, and I think I can speak for every one, even for my Progressive friends, to interfere with the provisions of this bill in any way. We are simply trying to make the wording definite, and I would ask the minister to consider this suggestion. I would suggest that the section be amended to read as follows:
The word " platinum " or any contraction, abbreviation or colourable imitation thereof shall not be applied, either alone or in combination with any other

Gold and Silver Marking

word, to any article of merchandise composed wholly or in part of any metal unless 95 per cent of component parts of the metal of which the whole of mid article consists are either the pure metal and , slement platinum alone or in conjunction with iridium.
I think this does exactly what the minister says he wants. Surely the minister will be fair, and when at least eight or ten members of this House, all acting in good faith, express a doubt as to the meaning of the section, he will admit that there is some doubt. I am certain that he has the desire to have this section made definite, and now that we know that the 95 per cent applies to the gross weight, if the language I have suggested, or some similar wording of which the English language is certainly capable, is used, there can be no further doubt. I would ask the minister to consider that suggestion before he presses for the withdrawal of this bill.


Arthur Meighen: As far as I am concerned, I make no request at all; the minister can withdraw his bill or not, just as he likes. All I am concerned with is that he is not going to put me in any false position. I made a certain contention as to what the bill meant in its present form, namely, that the exaction, of the bill applied only'to the portion of the article which purported to be or was apparently platinum. The minister disputed it. I asked the minister to get the opinion of the justice department. He called the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice in and he agreed distinctly with me after the minister had told the House that the Justice department were all against it. Not only did he agree, but virtually everybody in the" House agreed with the contention. Yet the minister persisted and persisted. Now he makes his appeal from the Justice department as to the effect of the clause to the Jewellers' Association. Well, I decline to submit myself to the jurisdiction of the Jewellers' Association. The Jewellers' Association may be a very fine institution, but it never was created for the purpose of determining the meaning of a legal statute. It may have been their intention that the whole article should be 95 per cent platinum or platinum and iridium, I do not know as to that, but the Jewellers' Association is not a court of appeal as to the meaning of a statute. Nor did I express any opinion as to what the chairman of the Jewellers' Association would say. I am ready to submit to the opinion of the Justice department, but after this in the case of the minister I would rather somebody else would endeavour to carry that opinion to the House than he. He misaprMr. Boys.]
prehendOd what the Justice department told him, and the department's representative came here and distinctly said. so in his own hearing.


Thomas Andrew Low: I endeavoured to adhere to
the opinion not only of the Justice department but of the Law Clerk of the House.
The bill was referred to the Department of Justice and Mr. Newcombe wrote as follows with respect to it. The letter is dated 12th January, 1924:
Referring to your letter of the 24th ultimo, asking that a draft bill to amend the Gold and Silver Marking Act, 1913, be prepared by this department for your minister's consideration, I have the honour to enclose same herewith.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
E. L. Newcombe.
For three days I stood behind the opinion of. the Deputy Minister of Justice; the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice, another member of the legal branch of that department, and also behind the Law Clerk of the House of Commons. But my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and other members of the House, insisted that the section was, to say the least, very clumsily framed. On many occasions during the last few days you will find the clause characterized by the right lion, gentleman in that way. Now, an hon. gentleman, who is a lawyer I know, gets up here and suggests that the amendment be drafted1 in a certain way. Is it possible that one hon. member of this House can, in a few minutes, draft a better section than the Department of Justice was able to do in two or three months.


William Alves Boys: If the minister will permit
me I will convince him that the suggestion made was not unusual or unreasonable. Not thirty minutes ago, when we were considering Bill No. 116, to amend the Exchequer Court Act, introduced by the Minister of Justice, a suggestion was made-as the minister says here more or less hurriedly-but it appealed1 to the Minister of Justice. He accepted it, struck out certain words, and amended the section. Are we to understand that if a bill is brought forward, even if it has passed through the hands of the Deputy Minister of Justice, that we are debarred from criticising it or from offering any suggestion for its improvement? That is practically the attitude of the minister. As far as I am concerned these suggestions are made in good faith. I want to see the bill go through in the interests of the public as well as in the interests of the Jewellers'

Gold and Silver Marking
Association. It is most important that the word " platinum " or the word " sterling " or the words " solid gold " and! so on should not appear upon articles of jewellery unless they contain exactly what they are supposed to contain. I have taken that attitude mainly on behalf of the public. The intention of this bill should be made absolutely clear and not be left in the slightest degree in doubt.


Thomas Andrew Low: The Jewellers' Association submitted a certain wording and surely they knew what they wanted, and gave proper instructions to their attorney. I submitted the clause to Mr. Newcombe, the Deputy Minister of Justice, to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice, to another member of that department, and to the Law Clerk of the House of Commons, and they all agreed as to its effect. Surely the Association knew what they were about when they drew that clause.


William Alves Boys: Of course if they want- the article to consist of 95 per cent platinum. That is one thing, but the wording by which it was sought to give effect to their desire is something entirely different. That is what the minister has overlooked.


Thomas Andrew Low: Would not men who understand their business word such a clause properly? There is no doubt that an association consisting of four hundred members must have had some legal assistance in drafting such a clause as this.


William Alves Boys: My object in suggesting an
amendment was to carry out what was desired. The minister is an experienced business man who conducts large interests. In practically every case where he has a contract drawn up does he not have that work done by a lawyer?


Thomas Andrew Low: Every time.


William Alves Boys: That being so is it unreasonable to expect that lawyers should have the opportunity of expressing their views regarding the wording of clauses in bills coming before this House? That is all that is suggested here.


Thomas Andrew Low: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know whether my hon. friend looks upon this as the most fitting end to what might be a very good plot for a comic opera, but is a fitting wind-up to the nonsensical farce that has been going on in connection with this bill. The whole trouble is due not to what the bill says but what the minister thought it said. He has grumbled about the proffering of suggestions by lawyers. Well, the minister had the hon. member for Kings N.S. (Mr. Robinson) behind him and he knew what it meant. He had the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) in front of him and he knew what it meant. The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) he knew what it meant. Everybody knew what this bill meant except the minister who introduced it. That is the extraordinary feature of the situation-nobody but the minister had any doubt as to what the bill meant. We sought to find out what it was the minister wanted. The bill said ' one thing, and the minister said it meant something else and stuck to it all the time. I am quite sure he was not doing that simply to delay the business of the House; the trouble was that he had never got the effect of the section into his head. I am just as sure as I am of anything that he honestly believed the Department of Justice said what he thought they said. The trouble was he did not understand the Justice department.


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend cannot say that I did not understand the request of the Jewellers' Association, because I placed it in writing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend did not understand the Justice department, nor could he understand what the hon. member for Kings, N.S. (Mr. Robinson) said. He could not understand anybody in the House. He could not understand the Department of Justice in regard to this section, and I am quite sure the Department of Justice did not understand the instructions which he sent to them.


Thomas Andrew Low: The Jewellers' Association, the people who were most interested in the bill held the same view as myself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course they
undenstand what they want. Now we have
Gold and Silver Marking

t
wasted three afternoons, and the minister is peeved because he has been put right. Why? Because the deputy read over what had been said in the House, and after reading over what had been said in the House, he found out for the first time what the issue was. That issue the minister had never been able to get icross. I had a better opinion of the minister than that. I think he has had his fingers crossed, or something of that kind in connection with this matter. There is some sort of hoodoo in connection with it. I am quite certain that if the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice had been here he would not have agreed with what the minister said, although I have no doubt he made the statement in good faith. We had an extraordinary statement from the minister this afternoon, and everybod3'- knows it must be absolute nonsense. Legislation ought to be drawn so that everyone could understand it, not even excluding the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I would like to know what my hon. friend's idea is? Here he introduces something which re says has been sent to him from the Justice department. The Justice department knew what it meant. There is no difficulty in understanding what it meant-not the slightest -but there is difficulty in getting the minister to admit, it, and saying that was what-was wanted. That is the whole difficulty. I wonder if we are to understand from this letter that in connection with the bill brought down by the Department of Trade and Commerce we are not to look upon that as serious, but that we are to look upon it as a fitting setting for a comic opera, something by which the business of the House can be indefinitely delayed, and then dropped, something in connection with which there is no public interest one way or the other, just something that can only be justified as a means of taking up the time of the House- at the minister's whim. If it be that kind of legislation, he is quite right in withdrawing it, but if it is intended to be legislation in the public interest, it was his duty to put the legislation into proper shape. I venture to say that the real reason why the minister does not want to go on with the bill is that it has to be redrafted, in order to make it conform with the other sections. The deputy minister said that in connection with the interpretation clause and in connection with applications that ought to be covered.


Thomas Andrew Low: Why did my hon. friend not
suggest the amendments?


Henry Lumley Drayton: He was willing to suggest them, if it would do any good. The minister was no more fortunate in get-

ting that understanding of the situation into the head of the Justice department than he was in getting it into his own. Everybody else was at one. The whole trouble was with the minister. His own deputy, I have no doubt, would say the same thing as the Deputy Minister of Justice said, and if he would accept a sporting proposition I would ask him to go over to the deputy.


Thomas Andrew Low: I went over the whole matter
with my deputy, and when the memorandum was presented to me, I said it was a technical matter and asked him to take it over to the Justice department and have a bill properly drawn to cover it. I knew nothing more about it until the bill was introduced into the House. However, when it is introduced again there will be no question about the wording of it.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to prolong the.discussion; it has been too prolonged; but I desire to say a word anent the minister's remark, which apparently conveys the impression that he had it in for the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice, and particularly because that assistant deputy told them he was wrong here in the House, and had even committed the unpardonable offence of reading Hansard. I have not any brief for him. We did hot appoint him; but having acted in the Justice department for a very considerable time, I want to say that this government has not any more faithful and few more competent officials than the same gentleman, nor has any government a more conscientious official. He is there early and late and has no affiliations of any kind. I had no communication with b'm nor had anyone in my behalf, but I knew he had a head on him, knew he was honest, and I appealed, without the slightest hesitation, to what he said, when I knew who it was that was referred to. The Deputy Minister of Justice did no more than his absolute duty, and if the minister is withdrawing the bill to get a better one, I compliment him.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is understood the
bill will not be reported.


Thomas Andrew Low: I beg to move that this committee rise.
Progress reported.	'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 190, to amend the Canadian National Railways Act, 1919.

C.N.R. Act Amendment
Arthur Meighen: This item was not induded in the business mentioned on Friday night. I do not know whether we ought to press the objection or not. What is the bill?


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend will
remember that last year the Guarantee Act of the Canadian National Railways, was amended in the Senate in reference to the guarantee of the equipment bonds. The amendment to the bill raised the question whether it did not take away altogether the right of guarantee equipment issues, the Justice department was consulted, and they thought it did.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Guarantee only on authorized issues.
George Perry Graham: The hon. member for
West York (Sir Henry Drayton) and myself have discussed this matter a good deal. The other day I read the brief that counsel for the Canadian National Railways had put into my hands, as follows:
Paragraph 4 of section 2, of this last-mentioned bill reads as follows: "Nothing herein contained shall be construed as granting power to guarantee any securities the issue of which has not been authorized by parliament."
The trouble with this paragraph 4 was that it prevented, in the opinion of the Department of Justice, the issue of equipment securities for the reason that equipment securities are obligations of the Canadian National Rolling Stock Company, Limited, which is a company incorporated under the Dominion Joint Stock Companies Act. General power is given the Dominion Joint Stock Company to issue securities, but the Justice department considered that paragraph 4, as above quoted, was dealing with specific authority to issue a specific amount of securities and that the general power in the general act to issue securities did not comply with the wording of the paragraph. Consequently we propose to amend the paragraph to read this way:
" Nothing herein contained shall be taken to authorize the guarantee of any securities the issue of which has not been authorized by this act or some other act of parliament."
The " some other act of parliament " covers the provisions of the Companies Act, and we have added the words "this act" so as to overcome the objection which was raised, but not seriously pressed, that the provisions of paragraph 4 destroy the power to issue securities given to the company by the Canadian National Railways Act itself.
For the purpose of further restricting the company in its issue of equipment securities, I have added the
second clause to the draft bill to the effect that where parliament has authorized expenditure on equipment to the extent of 25 per cent of the cost, the company may make, or cause to be made, one or more equipment issues for the remaining seventy-five per cent of such cost; that means that in order to make equipment issues in the future we will have to go to parliament and obtain an appropriation of the 25 per cent down payment, which is always made in cash. When this appropriation is passed no further legislative authority is necessary to enable us to issue securities and, if deemed desirable, to have them guaranteed for the remaining seventy-five per cent.
That is, that the. requirement of the act that parliamentary authority must be obtained will be complied with when parliament passes an appropriation for twenty-five per cent of the proposed issue.


Arthur Meighen: When the bill was up
before, the minister stated that the government was ready to engage itself not to guarantee securities under the act of last year or under this amendment except to the extent that the amount was included in the estimates of the year. I hope I have not misunderstood the minister on that?


George Perry Graham: That does not include
equipment issues. They are made on what is called the Philadelphia plan under which 25 per cent cash is paid and 75 per cent is issued as securities, the roiling stock purchased being the security for the 75 per cent. But these issues never go in the estimates., What I said the other night, and what I think my right hon. friend is referring to, is that we have no idea of departing from the practice of putting regular railway issues in the estimates.


Arthur Meighen: That is to say, for all
other purposes except equipment-


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: [DOT]-the amount shall be in the estimates. I may say that equipment security guarantees have not been in the estimates before, for the simple reason that there were none. I think the minister will search in vain for any.


George Perry Graham: There were last year.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, $22,500,000, but tlx re were none by the, previous government. My opinion is that they ought' all to appear in the estimates. If we adopt this practice it will be very hard to get away from it.


George Perry Graham: Bonds are issued for 75
per cent of the equipment, and under what is known as the Philadelphia plan the amount due is amortized and so much paid every year
C.N.R. Act Amendment

into a sinking fund to repay the bonds at the end of a certain term. I do not think you will find that they were ever placed in the estimates. Of course, branch lines are dealt with in separate legislation.


Arthur Meighen: They never were in the
estimates because there were no equipment guarantees until last year.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: No. Mr. Fielding the
year before advanced about a million and a half dollars for equipment purchases, and the previous year we advanced about fourteen million dollars odd. This money of course was in the estimates, but at no time until this past year was any guarantee given of equipment securities. I do not say there were not equipment securities isisued, but they rested on their own feet. I am not objecting to the principle of guaranteeing equipment securities, but I am not convinced that there is any real difference merely because a different system of payment is adopted. Every security issued has got to be paid. The equipment issue is given special security on the equipment, and I know other issues give a special security of their own, The equipment security provides for yearly payment; other securities do not, they provide for payment at maturity. But what difference that makes on the principle of including our liabilities in the estimates I am not able to see. My contention is that until the hour comes when the National Railway securities that we are responsible for are themselves assets to us equal to their face value, the amount of our responsibility we ought to always include in the estimates, and include in our debts our liabilities as respects the road. If we do not do that we may just as well take all our other securities which already have been added to our national debt, and which no longer are regarded as active assets, and regard them as active and deduct them from our debt. In a word, we have no right to say to the people of Canada that our responsibilities are such and such until the asset we take for our responsibility is equal to the amount of our liability. Consequently, it seems to me, the minister would be well advised to put all these things into hhe same catalogue exactly and include them in the estimates, and in our debt, until he is able to recover from the company interest on the mortgages we hold.


George Perry Graham: Unlike the loans to the
Canadian National Railways, the government is asked to contribute nothing directly to this particular loan except the 25 per cent
[Mr. Graham.1
that it pays in cash, and the securities for the balance of 75 per cent are issued against the new rolling stock purchased. As I said before, a certain amount has to be paid annually over a term of years until the whole is amortized. Now, putting it in the estimates would of course imply that the government must guarantee, otherwise there would be no necessity for it being placed there.


Arthur Meighen: But it is just the same
as any other estimate, if the government does not guarantee it the expenditure is that much less.


George Perry Graham: But my hon. friend from
West York- (Sir Henry Drayton) and I the other night when discussing this matter agreed that it is well to have in the act a power to guarantee.


Arthur Meighen: I think so.


George Perry Graham: As far as the New York
market is concerned, the government guarantee practically amounts to nothing, the United States understanding so well the system under which these securities are issued, but in Canada it does make a perceptible difference.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As a matter of fact, does
not the government guarantee the other 75 per cent?


Arthur Meighen: This is authority to do
so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What has been the practice in the past? Did the government guarantee the issue last year?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the government say
that these equipment issues of the National Railway would sell on the New York market at equally as good a price if the government did not guarantee them?


George Perry Graham: On the New York market I would say yes; but not on the Canadian market.


Arthur Meighen: The minister says
there is a great difference because there is provision for annual payment of these equipment securities. Suppose the Canadian National Railways issued a mortgage for $12,000,000, and instead of making the mortgage bonds repayable in twenty years, with interest at 5 per cent yearly, they made them repayable so much every year, or provided a

C.N.R. Act Amendment
sinking fund for the purpose, would the minister consider that a sufficient reason for not including in the estimates for that year the guarantee of these bonds by the country?


George Perry Graham: I should not like to give an opinion offhand, but as a matter of fact these equipment issues are under a different system and a different principle altogether from other securities. They are an obligation of the Rolling Stock Company. The Rolling Stock Company primarily has its charter under the Companies Act, and that is one of the reasons for one of the changes in this act. These securities are treated in a separate and distinct manner altogether different from the guarantees of the Canadian National Railways themselves, and they are looked upon with such favour in the United States that a government guarantee is not considered to be of any assistance at all in marketing them. It did not enter my head that it would be necessary to put equipment issues in the estimates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think the former government guaranteed any equipment issues.


George Perry Graham: I do not know.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think I am wrong in my recollection. We used to get just as good prices for those issues on the New York market as was got in any other way, and I think my hon. friend is quite right when he says that in the New York market a government guarantee is not of any practical use. Since then a new situation has arisen in Canada in connection with the growth of our war financing; to-day we can raise large amounts of money without guarantee. There is a marked difference between a security issued on rolling stock and any other security. A security issued on rolling stock is one that can be readily realized upon, one of the very few things that a creditor can take in connection with the operation of a railway under the trust deeds. In connection with an ordinary guarantee or ordinary security, summary proceeding is out of the question; receivership is all that can be got. With regard to the amortization, I presume these are ten year bonds?


George Perry Graham: I assume they would be ten, yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My recollection is ten; sometimes they are seven. Ten is about the longest that should be considered. The theory is that as you pay 25 per cent cash and as each year you have to pay a
certain amount into sinking fund, there is not much risk. That is the plan the Americans have worked upon in connection with practically all their loans, and practically without loss. Loss on an equipment issue is a very rare thing; I do not offhand remember any. Frankly I do not think we are in very much danger of losing anything over and above the 25 per cent. But there is a great deal more to this bill than that. When the matter was being discussed the other day I pointed out that under the general act of the 'Canadian National Railways, which defines their present bonding powers, the right was given to the system to issue bonds to the extent of $75,000 per mile, and that I had been told by one of the railway officials that practically the whole.. of that privilege of issuing bonds had been exhausted. In connection with these regular bonds, which are the major part of the bonds of the system-the equipment bonds are very small compared to the regular bonded obligations of the system, -there is a very sharp difference between the position we took in the past and the position of the hon. gentleman. Our position always was that the practice we initiated was right, namely, to include in the annual vote the amount of money required to help the railway out, whether in connection with guarantees or in connection with the furnishing of cash. We drew no distinction between guarantees and cash, and under the legislation of this very year my hon. friend availed himself of the practice that we had followed. Take, for example, his guarantee of equipment securities; he made that guarantee last year under the authority of the vote of last year. At least, that is as I understand it; if my hon. friend has any other legislation I wish he would tell us about it. However, I do not think he has. Now, I was not quite sure that the officials of the road were right about the limit of $75,000 per mile being nearly exhausted, and I put a question on the order paper, the answer to which I received to-day. The answer shows the outstanding funded debt of the Canadian National Railways, exclusive of the Canadian government railways, to be $856,147,056. The owned mileage, which is the mileage on which the right to borrow money would be calculated, is given at $15,668.41. The average per mile of bonds is given at $88,775.41. If these figures were correct I would have no objection to this legislation, because the government would have to come down and get parliament's authority before they could give these guarantees; there would be no right on the part of the company to issue bonds. As the right to guarantee is limited by the right to
C.N.R. Act Amendment

issue bonds, if the right was exhausted then we should be squabbling over something which is not at all material. _ But my hon. friend's officials do not figure in such a way as to show that, or if they do they figure in such a way as to make for their argument and not for the facts. The average per mile of bonds I have given as 888,775. If you divide the amount of owned road mileage, 15.668.41, into the amount of the outstanding funded debt, it is obvious that that gives the amount of bonds per mile. If hon. gentlemen will take the trouble to check these two figures they will find that the amount issued is under
155,000	per mile-154.643, to be exact. So that the effect of the legislation that my hon. friend is now introducing is, first, to give the right of guarantee after the voting of 25 per cent of the amount to be expended in the equipment. .As I say, I do not think there is much issue there.


George Perry Graham: I did not quite follow
that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are two questions involved. First there is the matter of the guarantee of equipment securities. In that connection the House is to be informed, because under my hon. friend's own proposal 25 per cent of the whole cost is to be voted in cash.


George Perry Graham: That is on equipment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On equipment. So we there do get some control of the system ; we do get these figures submitted to us; we have the opportunity of check and we have the duty of voting. Then, the next proposition is to get an untrammelled right of guarantee. That general right of guarantee, in its turn, is held down by the 875,000 per mile. The figures submitted would show that it had been altogether exceeded, but that figure of $88,000 odd is incorrect. The correct amount is, as I have stated, 855,000 odd per mile. So the effect of this legislation is to give the government the right to issue these guarantees without the considered consent of parliament to the extent of 820,000 per mile ' on a mileage of 15,668. It does not require a very close figuring to show the tremendous extent of the blank cheque which this legislation would entail. If my hon. friend is well advised he will go back to the old practice so far as these votes are concerned. He did it last year and it did not hurt him at all. He is getting the advantage now in connection with his guarantees of 25 per cent. If he would just take section 2 of his bill and drop section 1 he would then be in a position to 
carry on business as we have always carried on, plus the right of issuing guarantees on securities when there was only 25 per cent voted.


George Perry Graham: I do not quite follow
my hon. friend when he says it would give us carte blanche to issue securities without the sanction of parliament. But let me refer to the other matter first, for my hon. friend's criticism of the figures needs a little elucidation.
My department errs very often in giving more information than is asked for. In this case we were asked only for the bonded indebtedness, but in addition to that they added an amount of something like five hundred odd million dollars that the railways owed the government for loans from the government, not being bonded indebtedness, and they made the amount of indebtedness per mile 888,000. That was not the question asked. The question was, what was the bonded debt? So, deducting the amount of government loans in cash from the totals given in the statement my hon. friend has in his hand, would leave the amount of fixed debt at $856,147,056; dividing that by the mileage, exclusive of the government railways, on which there is no bonded indebtedness-on the Central Vermont there is something like $40,000 per mile indebtedness-would leave $55,000 per mile as the bonded indebtedness That does not include the loans in cash from the government to the railway, these having no bearing on the question of indebtedness It will be remembered that last year Mr. Fielding introduced a bill taking power to grant certain securities. That bill was amended in a way that the Department of Justice informs us possibly takes away all the powers of bonding from the Canadian National Railways, so far as equipment is concerned anyway, and it is rather to restore that power, without depriving parliament of any rights that were purported to be guarded in the bill of last year, that we are introducing this legislation
This bill is amending subsection 4 of section 2 of the Canadian National Railways Guarantee Act, 1923, and that subsection reads;
Nothing herein contained shall be construed as granting power to guarantee any securities the issue of which has not been authorized by bond.
The amendment proposed is this, and I shall submit it to the committee after the explanation I have made:
1. Subsection four of section two of The Canadian National Railways Guarantee Act, 1923, is hereby repealed, and the following enacted in lieu thereof:-

C.N.R. Act Amendment
"(4) Nothing herein contained shall be taken to authorize the guarantee of any securities the issue of which has not been authorized by this act or some other act of parliament."
Some other act of parliament, I presume, refers to-


Henry Lumley Drayton: The general
bill of 1919.


George Perry Graham: Or the powers of the
rolling stock companies.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The company
has the right with respect to rolling stock.


George Perry Graham: I do not understand that this gives us carte blanche to authorize guarantees without coming to parliament.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think it does, and I think I can carry the judgment of my hon. friend. In the first instance, I will come back just for a minute to the question of the guarantee clause my hon. friend has referred to. They are two distinct matters entirely. In so far as the guarantee is concerned, I have pointed out that in that connection parliament's advice is taken, and a vote of 25 per cent' of the guarantee has to be passed. That guarantee, I do not think, is subject to very much risk at all. It is something which has not been found necessary to use in the past. It was used once this year under the regular form \Vhich we have used for many years, under which railway assistance, whether by way of direct grant, guarantee, or anything else, has been given in a supply bill. Now my hon. friend's government, last year came to the conclusion that they did not want to bring down in a supply bill any question of guarantees. We thought they were wrong at the time we took our stand.


George Perry Graham: That was on the branch
lines bill?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, on this very issue. Last year we passed a law, which deals in the first instance with the securities of the company. Perhaps I had better read it all:	'
No securities, as defined in this section including in such definition equipment certificates or obligations in any form intended to be issued to the public, shall be issued for the purposes of or by the company or any of the companies designated in the schedule hereto except those approved as to form, terms and amount by the Governor in Council.
I may pause there simply to say that there was no objection to that at all. As a matter of fact, there was no need for it, because'the company always had to come to parliament, and we had complete control over
it, but there was no harm in taking further control, and so there was no objection. The next clause reads:
The said securities so approved may be guaranteed by His Majesty and any such guarantee may be in such form and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may determine, and may be signed by the Minister or Acting Minister of Finance on behalf of His Majesty.
The effect of that legislation was to give the government the right to guarantee, without coming back to parliament at all, any securities of which they approved and which were issued by any of these companies. That was the thing we objected to. We said, "You should incorporate this in the supply bill, come back to the House, and in the usual way get your right of guarantee." But the government did not agree with us at all. The matter was taken up in the Senate, and the Senate and government have agreed to this clause:
Nothing herein contained shall be construed as granting power to guarantee any securities the issue of which has not been authorized by parliament.
One would naturally think it would be imprudent indeed for any government to want to do anything more than that. The form is not the form in which we thought it should be in at all. We thought we should still have our supply bill, we should still have our vote, and that parliament should still know exactly where the railways were to be, and what the country's commitments were. That was our position and, speaking frankly, I do not think the amendment in the Senate was a proper or a sufficient one. However, it was something that pleased the government and they took it gladly.


George Perry Graham: I did not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, my hon. friend perhaps was not here but no objection was raised by the government at all; they accepted it immediately. The difficulty the government find themselves in is this: In consequence of the opinion given by, I think, the law officers of the government-this is their considered view after this question had been taken up by the legal gentlemen that look after these issues-the construction was put upon this section that the power to guarantee securities is one limited not to the case of the general right of issue but to the specific right of issue. I think my hon. friend will agree with everything I have said so far. That is where the whole difficulty is-that although it may have been thought that this would give a blank cheque, a blank authorization, the lawyers have since held that there being a term of limitation on the powers of guarantee, the
C.N.R. Act Amendment

specific right of issuance must be first shown before there is the right of guarantee. I think in this I still carry the judgment of my hon. friend. Now, the minister says he does not understand when I point out that this is a case of general right to the government. What has been done is this: Under the former bill we have the limitation, as construed by the law officers, that I have already mentioned. The government want to get away from that so they propose:
Nothing herein contained shall be construed as granting power to guarantee any securities the issue of which has not been authorized by parliament.
The use of these words is to show that a specific right was not required, was never wanted, but that the general right of issuing securities either under this act-which would apply to equipment securities-or under any other act which would apply to the general rights of issue, was the only thing that had to be considered. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that is the situation down to this point. I would ask him if we are at all at variance down to here.


George Perry Graham: I am a little afraid to agree with my hon. friend, because perhaps I have not sufficient grasp of the legal side of the matter. I will read him Mr. Ruel's opinion instead of, giving my own, not in reply but as an explanation:
The trouble with this paragraph 4 was that it prevented, in the opinion of the Department of Justice, the issue of equipment securities for the reason that equipment securities are obligations of the Canadian National Rolling Stock Company, Limited, which is a company incorporated under the Dominion Joint Stock Companies Act. General power is given the Dominion Joint Stock Companies to issue securities, but the Justice department considered that paragraph 4, as above quoted, was dealing with specific authority to issue a specific amount of securities and that the general power in the general act to issue securities did not comply with the wording of the paragraph. Consequently, we propose to amend the paragraph to read this way:-
Nothing herein contained shall be taken to authorize the guarantee of any securities the issue of which has not been authorized by this act-
That is the act in question.
-or some other act or parliament.
Now, what I cannot get thoroughly through my mind is this: The suggestion that this does away with the necessity of getting an authorization by act of parliament for the guaranteeing of bonds.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the
only reason it was put in here; we do not need it for any other purpose.


George Perry Graham: But why " the issue of
which has not been guaranteed by this act." That is the Canadian National Railways Act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend does not
propose to take away any rights guaranteed that way in the Canadian National Railways Act?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are no
rights there.


George Perry Graham: If that be true I cannot
see where t-his makes any change. I want to point this out to my hon. friend:	He
stated1 that last year $22,000,000 was not in the estimates but 25 per cent was explained in the House, and voted, as being for the purpose of the purchase of rolling stock. I do not think that was in the estimates at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not in terms
but we had an amount of money then large enough to enable my hon. friend to do just what he did. The very putting of the vote gives the right of guarantee for any of these purposes right up to the amount -of the vote. My hon. friend' therefore had the right to go on in the case of the money that was paid in each year.


George Perry Graham: I think that is the case.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that
was the case.


George Perry Graham: When I say that, I have
reference to the case as I have stated it; my hon. friend has reference to the case as he has stated it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are practically at one down to this point. Now, my hon. friend agrees he has got to get amending legislation for the simple reason that the act of last year was read in the narrower sense which required specific authorization of an issue before the government could get a guarantee. My hon. friend no doubt agrees with that also. Where we cease to be in agreement is merely as to the effect of this legislation. In the first instance let me point out this one fact which is perfectly clear-that unless a general right of guaranteeing is given by this legislation, which to-day does not exist or which to-day is limited1 in the manner I have pointed out, there is absolutely no object in the legislation. There is no object in asking the House to pass it or in taking up the time of the House in considering it. If these rights exist to-day why waste time unnecessarily?


George Perry Graham: I do not want to appear as discussing any legal point with my hon. friend, but the Justice department tells us

C.N.R. Act Amendment
that the legislation of last year took away any rights of issue we had. This legislation is to restore the rights and in addition to provide that parliament shall have the protection-shall have the further restriction- that any equipment issue must first be approved by parliament to the extent of voting 25 per cent of it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is right and he is wrong. He is right to this extent, that the law officers apparently have advised him-I am not saying they have not advised him absolutely correctly-that we have got a statutory limitation worked by section 4 of the government's right of guarantee; my hon. friend is wrong when he says the legislation of last year took away the right of guarantee. It did not. It never existed before. Why, the right of guarantee in the government of itself, and apart from this House and the votes of this House, never existed until the legislation of last year. The right of guaranteeing in the railway estimates and in the supply bill always had to be given to us by parliament; so that it is not right to say that the legislation of last year took away the right of guarantee. It did not, because it did not exist. The legislation of last year first gave, on the one hand, the omnibus right of guarantee; and then, through a mistake to which I think the government fell heir, the general right was restricted, and it ought to be. My hon. friend says he does not think this gave any general right. I point out, that under the legislation with regard to the Canadian Northern system-and I am not now going into all the other different companies- there might be arguments as to whether they did not still have the right to issue securities. I am not going into the question of whether, by order in council or in some other way, the right of issuing bonds could not be given on the Transcontinental, Intercolonial, and so on; but I will simply take up what is absolutely beyond question or doubt. Under the legislation of 1919 the Canadian National Railway has the right to pledge the road and issue bonds to the extent of $75,000 a mile. I do not think the minister will disagree with that statement.


George Perry Graham: Yes, $75,000 a mile.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the plain fact as I recollect it, and I do not think my memory is faulty in that regard. There is the right to issue up to $75,000 a mile just on one part of the system, some 15,668 miles. All my hon. friend has to do is to take that right to issue $75,000 worth of securities, take this legislation in the way he now proposes it,
and this government would be in the position, without the slightest say-so of this parliament at all, of guaranteeing the bonds to the extent of $313,000,000. I really think that if my hon. friend sees what he is doing, and sees the extent to which these figures run, he will consider that the government would be very much better without this right. Surely parliament ought not lightly to put into the hands of any government the right to guarantee railway securities to the extent of $313,000,000.
It is an absolutely unheard-of proposal. We did our best last year to make the point clear on the closing day of the session. This time we have the accurate figures, and I ask my hon. friend to check them. We have a little under $55,000 a mile of bonded indebtedness.
I take the figure roughly at $20,000 and if my hon. friend will just multiply that-


George Perry Graham: I have figured it all out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -he wall find that I am right in saying that he would have the right to issue guarantees to the extent of $313,000,000. It is idle to talk about parliament voting 25 per cent of all these things. It does not do that.


George Perry Graham: I did not say that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The only thing it passes is the vote for equipment securities.
I am not objecting to that. There is the right of parliament to have the say in all these matters, railway or finance. Let the minister do as I suggest, and we will be able to say something on the 25 per cent. We will know what we are doing; but there is not one single sou marquee to be voted in connection with that enormous guarantee of $313,000,000. All the minister has to do is to drop the fourth section and put through section 2, to give him the right in connection with the guarantee. That is, if he will properly observe, as I submit he ought to, the right of parliament to pass on these things, and not take such tremendous powers.


George Perry Graham: Section 4 of this bill of
course was prepared by the counsel for the 'Canadian National Railways. I have had no idea of any intention, near or remote, of endeavouring to get for the government the power to guarantee $20,000 a mile without the consent of parliament. I would not recommend 'an order in council, and would not agree to it myself, no matter what the act was, unless I was ordered to do it, for any such purposes; because I believe the parliament of Canada is supreme in all these things, so long as we are shareholders of the road. We will leave that. I have not yet
C.N.R. Act Amendment

'got through my mind that? the bill does what my hon. friend says it does. I think he has probably mistaken the meaning of the words. There is no suggestion or desire to do what he suggests. Last year the bill as first introduced by the Minister of Finance was more for the purpose of imposing a check on the railway company, in order to have control of the bonds. "However, we will let section 4 stand till to-morrow. We will agree to section 2, and I will get a further explanation, because I have no further explanation on the part of the government at present. In fact the government would not want to take the responsibility of issuing securities of that kind without the consent of parliament. I move that the committee adoipt section 2, let section 4 stand until we get some further information, and report progress.


Arthur Meighen: I suggest that nothing
be accepted yet. If the section is allowed to stand, which I think is the proper course, let the whole bill stand. I have a high appreciation of the point raised by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). I had not observed the effect of the bill as fuljy as I do now, and I am satisfied that the minister will find the effect that my hon. friend from West York describes naturally flowing and inevitably resulting from the legislation.


George Perry Graham: What will we do if the Justice department says the act as it now stands has the effect of taking away all power from the railway to guarantee any securities?


Arthur Meighen: I do not attempt to
paint the lily, but I will put the matter as I understand it, and it may be of some value to the department when the minister lays the matter before them. What the minister started in to do last year


George Perry Graham: It was not my bill at
all last year.


Arthur Meighen: I refer to the Minister
of Finance. What the Finance minister proposed to do last year in respect of the general guaranteeing is just what the minister this session sought to do in respect of his Branch Lines bill; that is to say, to obtain power to advance money in the one case, and to guarantee it in the other case, without having the authority specially mentioned and the amount voted in the estimates That is the course the Minister of Finance started to pursue last year, and we resisted. The Minister of Finance took a general power to so guarantee, and if the bill as it passed this House had 
gone through the Senate, the very general power the hon. member for V:est York (Sir Henry Drayton) now describes would have been in the hands of the government. However, the Senate attached a rider, the effect of which turned out to be that that general power is restrained; and restrained how? Just to this extent, that it can apply only to issues for which there is specific authority.
The minister this year wants that restriction removed because, he says-and I do not at all dispute his bona fides-"unless I get it back the way intended last year, I cannot get my equipment issue guaranteed." The reason is that the issuing of his equipment securities lies in territory beyond the restriction of last year; it lies in territory covered by the general power of guarantee, not by the specific power. But a great deal more lies' in that territory, even the amount between the $55,000 a mile and the $75,000 a mile. So, when he removes the restriction of the Senate, he opens up the whole thing, and he is able to guarantee not only his equipment securities, but the extra $20,000 a mile over the whole
15,000	miles. That is the effect of the amendment that is set out in this legislation,


George Perry Graham: I cannot see it.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister wants
only what his object is, he can secure it without opening up that tremendous field of guarantee that is opened up by. the removal of the restriction. All that he need say is that the government may guarantee equipment issues such as may be authorized by the act incorporating the Rolling Stock Company, and which are covered by the 25 per cent. I do not advise him to do the thing in that way.
1 would advise him to go back to his supply bill every time and to include his equipment in his supply bill.


George Perry Graham: I think this is right but
it is subject to correction. In 1921-22 the Canadian Northern Railway had an equipment issue guaranteed by the government of $11,000,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think
we ever guaranteed them.


George Perry Graham: It is in the list.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It may be. If
it is, it has escaped my memory. I think it is a mistake.	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: I think that is an equipment issue.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think
so.

Supply-Immigration


George Perry Graham: I will find out before this bill comes up again because that will be of some importance as to the practice.


Arthur Meighen: If so, it was included in the authority voted in the estimates, but I do not think it existed.


George Perry Graham: I am going to ascertain
that. I do not think it was in the estimates. I think it was guaranteed.


Arthur Meighen: The reason why I say
I do not think there were any equipment guarantees is because, for the purposes of the debate on the budget, I asked for a statement in the premises and the statement did not show any guarantee prior to 1923. If the minister is ready to do as to equipment issues what he is ready to do as to all other issues, that is to say, to have them voted, he will not need any such act as this. If he is not prepared to do that all he requires is a bill providing authority to guarantee wherever parliament votes the 25 per cent.


George Perry Graham: I am not going to argue the question any more. I am going to let it stand until we get the thing right. But in 1921-22, the Canadian government guaranteed a loan of $25,000,000 for the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and they guaranteed a-loan for the Grand Trunk Railway Company of $25,000,000. Consequently, I am inclined to think that this amount of $11,000,000 was equipment issue, but I will see whether it was in the estimates.


Arthur Meighen: We have no objection
whatever to the minister guaranteeing equipment issues. All we ask is that they be included in the estimates the same as was done there if there was a guarantee.


George Perry Graham: I do not think it was in the estimates.
Progress reported.


IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair:
Immigration and Colonization-British Empire Exhibition, $300,000.
James Alexander Robb: I have called this item first because I understand some hon. gentlemen are to be absent to-morrow who are interested in this appropriation. The British Empire Exhibition, as hon. members know, is an exhibition at Wembley Park, London, England, representative of all the British dominions as well as the Mother Country. It is said that the idea originated with a former Canadian High Commissioner, Lord Strathcona. Canada
was invited with the other British dominions to take part in this exhibition. I think the minister last year explained that fully and I will not go into it any further than to present to the committee what we have accomplished. It will be generally admitted that Canada is on the trade routes to different parts of the British Empire. No other British dominion is so favourably located geographically as Canada to trade with the other parts of the Empire, so it is fitting and, we believe, profitable that Canada should take part in that exhibition. I have been told by those who have been over there that we have one of the best sites in Wembley Park, and it is generally admitted by those who have called at the office, by those who have written to us, and by the press despatches, not only of the United Kingdom, but coming from other parts of the Empire, that Canada's exhibit is recognized as the best of all exhibits at this exhibition.
As has been the custom for many years in connection with the Canadian Immigration Commissioner, who was one of the commissioners in charge of exhibits from different parts of the 'Empire, his was the exhibit that was ready and complete on the opening day. Mr. Tolmie, the commissioner in charge, advises us that the building is divided into two parts, one part containing government exhibits, that is the natural resources of the country, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, minerals, fruits, water powers, educational exhibit and art, and the other is devoted to our manufactured products. From a list sent me I find there are 268 exhibitors of these products. The building is 451 feet long by 280 feet wide with an annex at each end 110 feet long by 90 feet wide, one belonging to the Canadian National Railways and the other to the Canadian Pacific Railway, containing exhibits of their railway equipment, national parks, natural resources, and whatever else would attract tourists.
Based on our experience at the Milan exhibition of 1906, the Dublin exhibition of 1907, the Franco-British exhibition in London of 1912, the Ghent exhibition of 1913 and the San Francisco exhibition of 1915, we gave the contract for the building to the contractors who had erected our buildings at those exhibitions, and that is one reason why we were ready, on the opening day at Wembley.


Arthur Meighen: Who were the contractors?


James Alexander Robb: Humphreys Limited.


Arthur Meighen: Where from?


James Alexander Robb: I really do not know. They
are a British concern.
Supply-Immigration


Arthur Meighen: Who is the Mr. Tolmie in charge?


James Alexander Robb: He is the Commissioner of
Exhibitions, and was trained under Mr. Hutchison. He has been attached to the Department of Immigration for many years.


Arthur Meighen: W. T. R. Preston?


James Alexander Robb: Don't re-open that old sore
to-night; we wasted too many hours o-ver it last week. Our building represents Canada as a whole, but every exhibit is distinctly labelled showing the province and the locality in that province from which it comes. In other words, we have a Canadian exhibit as a whole with provincial representation. It is thought that this being an Empire exhibit, it would be a fitting occasion for us to send from this parliament a small deputation consisting of representatives of the different parties, who might have an opportunity of associating with representatives from the other outlying portions of the Empire. There is little use putting so much money in this exhibition without trying to get from it the very best advertisement we can. While we will leave it to each party to make its lomination, it has been thought that the 3hief whips might form the delegation.


Mr. HOEY:: Are the provinces concerned paying the expenses of their representatives?


James Alexander Robb: When Maj or Belcher was sent around the Empire to organize this exhibition he reached Canada with the idea that every province should have its exhibit. He had fostered that idea in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia., and1 in fact had convinced the Australians that that was the proper system to adopt, but we pointed out to him the advantages of organizing these exhibits on a dominion or commonwealth rather than on a provincial or state basis, and finally he adopted our view. I may add that Australia recognized the merit of our suggestion and theirs ;is a commonwealth exhibit. Many years ago we had the provincial idea and found it a failure. I am not sure when we made the Change, but I remember that our Canadian exhibit at San Francisco was recognized to be the best on the grounds, because we had the one outstanding idea-Canadian.	It was proposed
to the provinces that they should share in the expenses on the basis of population, and after considerable correspondence some of the provinces were willing to do so but others were not. Finally, last fall When we had our Immigration conference here I suggested to

the provincial representatives, and confirmed it in writing, that each province might send an accredited representative and deduct his expenses from its share of the contribution which it would make to the federal treasury. So to that extent the provinces are represented, but if they do not make such contribution they will pay the expenses of their representatives.


Mr. LEWIS:: How many delegates is it
proposed to send to the exhibition, how many groups are to be represented, and what is to be the total expenditure for this purpose?


James Alexander Robb: I had in mind a very small
delegation. The total expenditure will be the cost of transportation and a living allowance while in England.


Arthur John Lewis: How long are they to be
there, and what is the estimated expenditure?


James Alexander Robb: I imagine about forty days,,
Mr. CAMPBELL.:	What is to be the
amount of the living allowance?


James Alexander Robb: Twenty dollars a day, and
$400 for the return fare.


Arthur John Lewis: Has the number from each
group been decided upon?


James Alexander Robb: No; but I should like to say right now that we do not feel we should send the whole parliament, much as we would like to; we think it should be a very small delegation.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Would the expenses be paid
out of this item of $300,000?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Thomas Langton Church: Has it been possible to
allot space in the Canadian building at Wembley to all the Canadian manufacturers who applied for it?


James Alexander Robb: Space was allotted by the
commissioner, working with the different government representatives of the natural resources of the country and with a representative of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. We charge $2.50 a square foot for show case space and $1.75 a square foot for the other space. At the time the exhibition was opened the space was all allotted. Recently some exhibitors who had been given not one opportunity but no less than three opportunities to take space, having learned that the exhibit was a great success, have

Supply-Immigra tion
been demanding that space be given them. It was not possible to accede to their request, the space having been all allotted to those who had early in the year intimated their desire to exhibit. '


Arthur John Lewis: Are these members going
over as a responsible body, or are they going in. a sort of social or fraternal way? Is parliament to be responsible for what the delegates say when they get overseas?


James Alexander Robb: Oh well, they would go over
as a representative body. Parliament is not responsible for what anybody says in parliament ; every man is responsible for "his own statements. They will1 go over as a body representing the parliament of Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As I belong to the smallest group in this House, a group that will not be asked to go over and that would not go if it were asked, I want to oppose this vote. I speak as representative of one of our western cities where we believe that the time has come for economies along certain lines. We cannot see any reason why certain members of this House should be picked out and sent overseas on what is ordinarily termed a joy ride. If these particular persons were to be placed for five weeks in the Canadian building as an exhibit, there might be something to be said for the proposal, but if they are simply to go over there, look around, make speeches and have a good time, I think there are some expenditures that might better be, made for which there is crying need throughout the country. Again and again wp have asked that something be done to relieve the pressure of unemployment that persists out in our western cities, but the government cannot see its way to do anything of that kind. This exhibition itself may very well increase unemployment in Canada by bringing over a number of people who are unfitted for life in this western country. However, that is another matter which I may touch upon later. For the present I should like to protest against the precedent which would be instituted by picking out a number of men to go over there without any ostensible purpose in view.


James Alexander Robb: It is not a precedent; they
have been sent before.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What will be the estimated total cost of this trip? Surely the minister has some idea of the number that are going and of the cost involved. That at least is due to parliament.


James Alexander Robb: I should think it would not
cost more than $15,000 or $20,000. It would depend on the size of the delegation. It may cost less, possibly not more than $11,000.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Are there any particular duties resting upon this group? I understood they were to be connected with the Immigration department, in the way of giving a certain amount of information to people in the Old Country. Or is their trip purely of a social character?


James Alexander Robb: Very naturally a Canadian
going over there would, if he had the opportunity, tell of the advantages of the country he lives in.


Milton Neil Campbell: Then the government
will find itself facing a definite responsibility for the statements of these men, if they are expected to give information about the country.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wish to
join the protest of the hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth) against this vote. It is a disgrace that we should adopt a procedure of this kind when we need so many things in Canada. We need relief for agriculturists; we need rural credits; we need transportation; we need unemployment relief-we need anything that any country needs; yet we turn round and vote $20,000 for three or more persons to go over to England whose principal duty apparently will be to tell how employment may be secured in Canada. I do not think that is fair either to Canada or to those over there. I have no doubt the idea would be to select some-what we might call awful examples, to show how splendidly they have done in this country. I do not like the idea of this vote at all. I am going to move, Mr. Chairman, that the item be reduced by $20,000.


James Alexander Robb: It is quite true that we need
much in this country. If there is one thing we need more than another it is markets, and we need to give out a knowledge of the products that we have to sell.


Milton Neil Campbell: Surely there is a sufficiently large staff of technical men over there dealing with the marketing problems. If these men are unable to secure markets for us, how can we expect these parliamentarians to do it?


Mr. GARDINER:: I want to protest against the spending of .money for sending delegates from this parliament over to the Old Country. I know the conditions that exist in western Canada to-day; I know of many families out
Supply-I mmigration

there who do not know where the next mea"! is coming from. If parliament is to vote money to send some of its members across to the Old Country merely as a social event, I think it is a crime against the interests of the Canadian people as a whole. A few years ago the government or parliament undertook to open up certain areas in western Canada, areas on which it was impossible to make a living. People went in there at the invitation of the government and spent ten or fifteen years in an effort to make a living, without success. Only a few days ago I interviewed ' the Minister of Agrculture (Mr. Motherwell) to see if a small advance could not be obtained to assist these people to go to some other part of the province or some other part of the West where they could get a better location or where they would have some opportunity to make a living and be enabled to stay in this country. But the minister said, "No, we could not vote any money for that; that is an impossibility." Yet to-day parliament is asked to vote approximately $20,000 to send members of parliament on a junketing trip. I object to the proposal.


Mr. EVANS:: I rise also to oppose this scheme for sending delegates to the Wembley Exhibition. If the government want to send anybody over they should appoint them and take the responsibility for them. I take it that the whole scheme is one of immigration. 1 cannot take part in any scheme of immigration under the conditions that prevail in agriculture throughout this country-conditions that could very largely be alleviated by the government. It may be said we need markets, but we shall not extend our markets very much by taking a trip over there for five weeks and spending 820,000. We have marketing agents in every country in the world at the present time, but our trade policy in this country diminishes our markets rather than expands them
I am opposed to the present scheme of immigration, and did I go over to England I could not take part in it. I could not point out the advantages of this country to intending immigrants, not because this country is not worthy of more immigration, but simply because of the conditions that this government could remove in that the earnings of these immigrants, through unjust legislation, are year by year filched from them, so that after a lifetime of work we have many in Canada to-day whd are no better off than when they first emigrated. To me the present immigration scheme-well, it is practically a white slave traffic, and I am not 
going to take any part in it, and until these conditions that are removable are removed, I shall raise my voice in (protest against any such scheme.


John Warwick King: A glance at
the past will, I believe, indicate that it has been customary for the government, where Canada has had a Canadian exhibit at some international exhibition, to have the country represented by distinguished citizens, members of parliament or a parliamentary delegation, or others as commissioners representative of the country as a whole. As far back as the Centennial at Philadelphia in 1874, this parliament sent at the ex- -pense of the country some of its leading citizens as commissioners representative of Canada to the international exhibition held in that city. At the time of the World's. Fair at Chicago, in 1893, this parliament sent two of its members to represent the parliament of Canada at that exhibition which was also in the United States. I have before me the Hansard which contains the debate, at that time, and the question that arose then was as to the amount that the members of parliament were to be paid. Parliament appears to have agreed that it would not be proper to allow anything for "services" so called, but that on an occasion of the kind it would be proper that there should be a liberal allowance for expenses, and accordingly members of parliament were sent from Canada under the Conservative government of the day to represent this country at that exhibition in Chicago.
There have been inter-imperial gatherings in England at which this country has been represented by members of parliament, gatherings which afforded opportunity for gentlemen in public life in this country to become acquainted with fellow British subjects, citizens of the Empire resident in the Old Country, and others from other of the selfgoverning dominions. At the time of the coronation of King Edward VII., the parliament of Canada was, I think, represented by several ministers. At the time of the corona-of King George, in addition to the ministers who were present, there was a large delegation representative of both houses of parliament. That event was not looked upon as a junketing expedition, but as one of those much to be desired opportunities of bringing together members of parliament from different parts of the Empire to interchange ideas on matters of common interest in the expectation that in the sum of things, in the long run, ail parts of the British Empire would gain from a representation of the kind.

Supply-Immigration
Last year when I was at the Imperial conference, members of the British government of the day and some of the members of parliament spoke to me as to the possibility of having a representation of the Canadian parliament visit England during the holding of the British Empire Exhibition. It was intimated that an effort would be made to have representatives of the different parliaments of the self-governing dominions present in London during the months of the exhibition. I was asked to convey to my colleagues and to the members of the House an invitation on behalf of the British members to visit the exhibition, and to say that if an official delegation were sent over they would be sure of a very hearty welcome from members of the British parliament.
When the government was considering the representation of Canada at this exhibition, it was thought at first that representation might be best effected by appointing, as was done in some other cases, commissioners, that some half-dozen or more prominent persons in Canada might be appointed to represent our country overseas as commissioners at the British Empire Exhibition. It was realized that Canada was likely to have one of the finest exhibits of all the self-governing dominions; it is now admitted, I think, to be the finest of all. As a government, we felt that rather than appoint special commissioners outside of parliament, and rather than have the country represented exclusively by ministers of the Crown, we could not do better by way of representation of Canada than to choose from this Dominion House of Commons, irrespective of parties, a few of its members, and have these gentlemen represent the Dominion of Canada at the British Empire Exhibition. We felt were it understood that the party that was to go were chosen in the manner I have indicated, as representative of the main divisions in the House, we would be taking a course of which the public generally would strongly approve. There are occasions when a country stands to gain by indirect as well as by direct methods. I think it may be assumed that members of parliament going from Canada to the present exhibition in England, particularly if they are selected from among the more active members of the House, will come back with a knowledge of other parts of the British Empire and with ideas which will be useful to this country, and at the same time that while they are in England they will carry with them and be able to impart to others ideas with respect to Canada and her relations with the other parts of the Empire which will be all to the good.
I would respectfully express the hope that the House will see its way to take a large view of the matter, not look upon it in any small way, but rather take pride in the fact that we have a country that we may well be glad to see represented abroad by its members of parliament, and agree to allow the minister the opportunity of making the arrangement which the government proposes. It is not one which involves a large expenditure.
May I add this further word, since the minister himself has spoken of the possibility of having the whips of the different parties in any group that may go. Very few of us, I think, appreciate just how much the work of parliament, the orderly carrying on of business here, is dependent upon and facilitated by these gentlemen who give their service without any thought of what it costs them in time and effort, and without expecting anything in the way of recognition or remuneration from their fellow members in the House or from parliament itself. It is a very little thing for us to attempt to recognize in this way a part of the great service which they render not only parliament, but the country. I hope parliament will respond to this very fitting request in a liberal manner.


Mr. SPENCER:: Unfortunately I had to be a little late coming into the chamber, and I have not heard what groups in this House are supposed to be represented. I should like to know what groups have been suggested- how represented, and how many from each group-and what the expenditure per member will be for the members it is suggested shall be sent.


James Alexander Robb: A few moments ago I gave
the estimate that the expenditure would run from $11,000 to $20,000. It depends upon the number that will be sent from the three different groups in the House. While I am on my feet I should like to put on record some of the statements that have come in to us as to the work that Mr. Tolmie, the Exhibition Commissioner, is doing. That is only an act of justice to Mr. Tolmie, who is an old employee of the government of Canada ,and has had charge of. exhibitions under different administrations. In the first place the High Commissioner for Canada writes as follows:
24th April 1924.
Dear Mr. Robb.
The British Empire Exhibition was opened yesterday and I can vouch for it that the Canadian building is beyond compare. It was the only building on the grounds that was absolutely ready to the last tack. Mr. Tolmie did wonders and deserves the utmost credit.

Supply-Immigration

Sir James Stevenson and Sir Travers Clarke, the two real managers of the exhibition, are simply delighted, the latter telling me that the building itself and its completeness just show the capacity of the people it represents. This was a very neat compliment indeed.
I am proud of the Building; proud of its management and everything connected with it and I want again to say that Mr. Tolmie and Mr. McKinnon are wonders.
Your sincerely,
Peter C. Larkin.
The Honourable James A. Robb, M.P.,
Minister of Immigration and Colonization,
Ottawa.
P.S.-Sir Joseph Cook, the High Commissioner for Australia, was telling me he had gone through the building the day before and he said he absolutely had to acknowledge that we were far and away the best thing m the grounds. Yesterday, after the ceremony in the stadium, the hundred odd thousand people seemed to make a rush for the Canadian building for it was jammed.

Then on May 5, this message was addressed to Mr. Tolmie:
2 Garden Court Temple,
London, E.C. 4. 5th May, 1924.
Dear Mr. Tolmie,
I went to the British Empire Exhibition on Saturday, and I must write to congratulate you on the Canadian pavilion. I think that it far surpasses anything else in the exhibition.
Yours sincerely,
Beaverbrook.
Here is a message from the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce who was over there:
Ottawa, May 28, 1924.
I have not had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Robb since I came back, for I wanted to add my testimony to the wonderful exhibition that Tolmie has put up at Wembley. He is the greatest living showman, and he has had a heart-breaking time of it. I hope the government can find a way of giving him a bonus in appreciation of his work. He has riveted Canada into the picture before the Empire and the world of tourists that visit Wembley.
' Here is a cable to the Prime Minister from Sir Newton Moore, who is an ex-Prime Minister of one of the states in Australia:
London, April 30, 1924.
Rt. Hon. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa.
Canada's section exhibition reflects greatest credit all concerned Splendid advertisement Dominions wonderful resources and potentialities.
Newton Moore.
I shall now read a letter from Mr. F. W. Hay, of Listowel, Ontario:
Listowel, Ont., May 6th, 1924. Honorable Jas. A. Robb,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Robb,-
We are just in to-day from London, England, and while there attended the opening of the Wembley exhibition, and went back a second time.
LMr. Robb.l
I am prompted to write you, only to express to you what we all felt in reference to our Canadian building- that it is altogether the best building on the grounds, and almost completed, and I feel those in charge of the work there, should receive a word of encouragement, and appreciation, first because of the beauty of the building, and then because of its practical completeness, when this cannot be said of any of the other buildings.
In Mr. Tolmie, who I understand is in charge, although I did not see him we have an excellent representative, and Mr. McKinnon, who is in touch with the exhibits has shown splendid organization to have everything so far advanced.
With kind personal regards,
Your faithfully,
F. W. Hay.
I now give a letter from Jenkins Brothers, Limited, manufacturers of London to the following effect:
13th May, 1924.
The Hon. J. A. Robb,
Department of Trade and Commerce,
Government Building,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir,-As a Canadian manufacturer's representative and an exhibitor at the British Empire Exhibition, Wembley, London, I would like to call your attention to the very excellent work that has been done by the representatives of the Canadian government, Mr. A. W. Tolmie and Mr. J. S. McKinnon, and express to them through you my personal appreciation of their co-operation and help in our very small effort.
The Canadian building is in itself the most complete and artistic in the whole exhibition to my way of thinking, and this is the opinion that I have heard and read as expressed by the official as well as the private individuals who have seen the exhibition, and does Canada a vast amount of good, even at this early stage of the exhibition.
Mr. Tolmie and Mr. McKinnon have been extremely kind and considerate, as well as helpful to the exhibitors in getting their materials together, arranging their exhibits, and were always, not only helpful but cheerful and pleasant whenever approached, and I feel that they should have the thanks of the responsible members of the government as well as the manufacturers who are exhibiting at Wembley and who have not had the opportunity of personally observing the splendid work which they have done.
Yours faithfully,
Jenkins Bross, Ltd.
W. H. Utz,
V. P. and Managing Director.
Next I shall quote a letter from the Winona Fruit Growers', Limited:
Winoma, Ont., June 16, 1924. The Deputy Minister o>f
Immigration and Colonization,
Ottawa.
Sir,-Have just returned from a visit to England during which I, of course, went to Wembley.
This letter is written for the special purpose of expressing appreciation of the splendid exhibit made by your department, the fruit display in particular appealing to me very strongly. Whoever is responsible for it, Mr. Tolmie, I think, but am not sure, is to be congratulated.
Yours faithfully,
J. W. Hewitson,
Manager, Winona Fruit Growers, Limited.

Supply-Immigration
Next I shall quote a letter addressed to Mr. Tolmie himself:
London, May 21, 1924.
Canadian Government,
Exhibition Commission,
Canadian Pavilion,
Wembley Park.
Attention: Mr. Tolmie.
Dear Mr. Tolmie,
I wonder if you would be kind enough to let me have a list of the exhibitors in the Canadian pavilion, if such a list is available.
Many of the companies are our clients in Canada and I would like to write them all a letter offering them the facilities of our office while they are in England.
This good weather should be helping things along at Wembley and I hear nothing but praise for the Canadian building. In fact, one prominent Scotch manufacturer whom I have been trying to interest in Canada for the last year or two came in to me the other day and asked for a plan for advertising his products in Canada. He said that he had just come from Wembley, had gone through the Canadian building, and had no idea that it was such a country as it was, and that he was sorry that he had not been in the market long ago.
Yours faithfully,
A. McKim Limited,
Alan R. Cole, London Manager.
Finally there is a letter from the Canadian Authors' Association expressing their appreciation of the work of the staff. I should like to say that while these letters convey a well deserved tribute of appreciation to Mr. Tolmie and Mr. McKinnon, the man who more than any other is responsible for the scenic effects and transparencies is Mr. Turcotte, who has been for many years attached to the Canadian Exhibition staff.


Arthur Meighen: I have been from the
beginning very strongly in favour of Canada taking part in the exhibition and also of her part being such that it would properly reflect the importance of the Dominion and the Empire, and I see no reason to criticise the success with which Canada's work has been done. I have not, of course, been able to visit it, but such reports as I have had, let me frankly say, reflect credit on the Dominion. I do not oppose any vote that is essential to the complete success of the undertaking, As respects the feature of the vote which covers a proposed official representation there by members of both Houses and the press, I take a different view from that of the government but not in any truculent way. I think the government would be well advised to withdraw that feature of their proposal. The Prime Minister has referred to a pre-ced<ent when we sent to Chicago an official representation of two. He has referred, as well, to a representation! of much larger 2244
dimensions that went to attend the Coronation of King Edward, and a similar representation that attended the coronation of the present king. These, if I understood him correctly, were all parliamentary representations.
I distinguish between functions of that kind and an exhibition-this exhibition, the Chicago exhibition, or any of a similar kind. The coronation of His Majesty was an event in a category by itself. The reason we were properly represented in such a fashion was to attest the fealty of the Dominion to the person of His Majesty. I think considerable reflection might have been made on Canada, and justly so, had we not sent such a representation of the parliament of Canada as attested the fealty of parliament to his person and his throne.
Of course the Chicago exhibition is a case in point. We were represented there. I would have no objection to similar representation here. In fact, I think it is quite right that a member of the government should be there, so that at functions he may speak as representing the Dominion, and I have not the least doubt that as soon as parliament prorogues, which will be as soon as anyone else can readily go, a member of the government-probably more than one-will go over and represent this country. But that is different from sending a delegation of from eight to twelve members of parliament to the exhibition in any special capacity. To do so would not in my judgment strengthen the confidence of the electors and taxpayers in the country in the good faith and fidelity of their representatives in this House. It seems to me that all that is requisite, in so far as parliament and the government are concerned, is representation which should fittingly be by a member of the government itself. There will be members of parliament there; doubtless many contemplate going. It is to be hoped that they do go, but I do not think there should be a group of others placed in any special position and sent at the expense of the treasury. That is the view I have held and the view I will have to support, and in all earnestness I suggest to the government that they themselves withdraw from the vote such amount as covers what they have in mind with reference to an extended parliamentary representation.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I wish to associate
myself with those who have opposed the principle of this vote of probably 120,000, to send a delegation of parliamentarians overseas. I believe it is true that the whips have
Supply-Immigration


Mr. McBRIDE:: 
Mr. MORRISON:: As a western representative, I am very sorry to hear the pessimistic remarks of other members from the prairie provinces. I think I have as good a perspective of the whole situation as those dissenting representatives, and when the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) says there is so much unemployment in Canada which should be taken care of before we bring in any more immigrants, I do not think he is representing the viewpoint of the majority of Canada's best citizens. I know that in Winnipeg and other cities there are hundreds, and may be thousands, of men who do not want to work, but want something handed to them on a platter.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask whether the hon. member has read the official letters

Supply-I mmigra tion
which have gone out from several leading citizens of Canada in reference to the unemployment which they face at the present time? *I refer particularly to Toronto and Winnipeg.


John Morrison: No, I have not read
the articles which the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg refers to; but I will tell him what I think is another of the causes of so much unemployment. Many of those who employ these men cannot get them to earn the money they are asking. A lady keeping a boarding house told me not a month ago that she called a plumber in. He was not in the house more than fifteen minutes; he did not put any new material on the job, yet he charged her eight dollars. That is a sample of some of your unemployed men. They cannot get steady employment and they do not deserve it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps he was a
lawyer, not a plumber.


John Morrison: He may have been a
political agitator too. If the whips go over to the Old Country they can honestly make representations to thousands' of people who will be glad to come to Canada and who will, in that way, improve their material conditions very much. With all the hardships we have in Canada-and I admit there are many

conditions are much better here than in the Old Land. We want 'to give those people an opportunity to come to Canada, and while I am well aware that a small percentage that come will not make good, I believe the great majority will make good. This country needs hundreds of thousands, aye, millions of men who are not afraid of hard work. We want men who will work more and talk less than some people we have in this country. I am going to vote for sending those delegates because I think this will be a good investment for the country and we shall get our money back a hundred fold.


William Alves Boys: As I am more or less associated with this vote I think I should not remain in my seat without saying a word or two. If there is one thing I regret, it is that if the invitation were extended to me as a whip to go over to England, for certain reasons that I need not trouble the committee with, I would not be able to go. I would, nevertheless, appreciate the opportunity of going and enjoying the honour of representing Canada at that exhibition. When one reflects that Canada has invested a million dollars in this proposition and when we are told that other colonies in the Empire are sending delegates, it would be somewhat extraordinary if the largest and most important colony in the Empire had no delegation there
whatever. I may be under a misapprehension as to the number that are going, but what information I have indicates that six are going, four from this House and possibly two from the Senate. I will support the appropriation heartily, and I regret that circumstances beyond my control will prevent my going if the invitation should ever come to me as whip of the party, because I would enjoy that very decided distinction on the part of my country.


Milton Neil Campbell: The discussion has
wandered entirely out of its proper channels. The discussion was on the question of immigration, and I am not convinced that this has anything to do with immigration at all.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is on the British Empire Exhibition.


Milton Neil Campbell: The Prime Minister
(Mr. Mackenzie King) cleared up at least one point, namely, that the visit was purely a social one. It is based entirely on tradition and precedent, and I would understand, when we are compared with the other colonies that this is just a matter of keeping up with the Jones's. If it were of particular interest as regards immigration, I would say that it would probably be right and proper to take a certain amount of the Immigration estimates for this purpose. I am not convinced of that however; I think our friends who propose to go over to England are going just to have a good time and, perhaps, incidentally to represent Canada. As to how they are going to represent Canada and what particular good they are going to do, I am just a little at sea. I tried to secure from the minister some time ago statements regarding the number of Canadian employees already in England, connected with the various departments, Immigration, Trade and Commerce, and the number of special men they propose to send over in connection with the exhibition. I did not secure that information and I would be obliged if the minister could give it to the committee now.


Mr. HUMPHREY:: I have not lost confidence in our fellow Canadians nor in our fellow members of parliament. Whatever action a member of parliament would take on behalf of Canada at the British Empire Exhibition would be creditable to himself and to Canada. I cannot support for several reasons the amendment that has been moved. In the first place, no concrete reason that I can support has been given and) I cannot follow the line of reasoning of those who support the amendment. In debating the amend-
Supply-Immigration

ment they referred to the duties of different members going to the exhibition in connection with immigration. There are more factors in building up Canada than immigration and people do not come out from the Old Country only for the purpose of engaging in farming. I look on this vote for the British Empire Exhibition and upon the money that would be spent for individuals who might go to the exhibition as money well spent. We living in British Columbia are interested in other questions than that of immigrants coming here for the purpose of farming. The people of British Columbia, particularly the fruit growers, have gone to a great deal of expense, time and trouble to send exhibits to this exhibition. The fruit growers of British Columbia have prepared one of the most wonderful exhibits of fruit at that exhibition that any one would want to see. This is the advice that has come to me directly from those who are at the exhibition at the present time.
In British Columbia they have also preprepared a wonderful exhibit of minerals, and I hope hon. members on this side of the House will sometimes take into consideration that in Canada- there are other factors than farming. I appreciate the position they take on behalf of farming and their farmer friends, but I feel that sometimes they lose sight of the fact that in Canada we have many conditions outside of farming, although I will admit that it is one of our greatest assets. We all want to promote in Canada every asset we have and in British Columbia two of our greatest are minerals and fruit growing. At this exhibition, they have done themselves proud in preparing these exhibits with the co-operation of the provincial and Dominion governments. I feel that the procedure taken by the present government in departing from the custom that has been followed in the past is a good one, by appointing certain representative members of the House of Commons, members of the Senate and members of the press gallery so that when they visit this exhibition they will be able to interchange views and accomplish a great deal of good in that way.
In British Columbia we have many undeveloped mineral resources, and at the present time every effort is being made to endeavour to get our Old Country friends to invest money in our mineral resources. With the mineral display on exhibition in England *nd with the different representatives visiting the exhibition on behalf of Canada, I believe a great deal will be accomplished

towards promoting an interest in Canada's natural resources. For these reasons I cannot support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland).


Henry Elvins Spencer: Can the minister give
an answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) as to the number of employees from the various departments? Also, can he give the number of the provincial representatives whose expenses are being paid by the Dominion?


James Alexander Robb: I have already stated-I do
not think my hon. friend was in the House at the time-that we told the provinces they might send official representatives and deduct the expenses from their contributions to the federal treasury on account of the exhibition


Henry Elvins Spencer: That is practically the
same thing. But could the minister answer the other question put to him by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) ?


James Alexander Robb: My recollection is that that question was placed on the order paper some days ago. It has to go through the Secretary of State, and I do not carry the information in my head.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How many members do the government suggest should be sent, and from what groups will they be selected?


James Alexander Robb: I stated a few minutes ago that the number would not exceed seven, including representatives from the Senate. The different groups in the House will be represented.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Mr. Chairman, I
hope that the item before the committee will satisfy the people of this country, and I think the government would have been recreant in their duty had they not seen that Canada was well represented at the Wembley exhibition. I do not know of any better opportunity to advertise Canada than this exhibition presents, and I am glad to know that the Canadian building is a very creditable contribution.
But I am sorry that I cannot commend the other feature. I have no doubt whatever that many members of this House will visit the exhibition during the summer, and I do not think it is fair to those who go over at their own expense that they should find there a more distinguished band of fellow members, as impliedly they could be placed in an inferior position by not having been included in this band of official representatives of the Commons. This, I think, is possibly the most objectionable part of the proposal. I thought

Supply-Immigration
that when a few years ago we abolished titles we had become very democratic indeed, but I am afraid that a distinction will be drawn between those members who go over at their own expense and those who attend nominally as the representatives of parliament-a distinction that is not at all desirable. The members of this House who belong to the British Empire Parliamentary League will meet with a very cordial reception from the other members of the league in London, but I have been picturing in my mind the position in which our members will be placed who are not nominated as the representatives of parliament to attend the exhibition. The Prime Minister has intimated that a good deal will be expected of these official representatives on their arrival in England. Well, it may be so. But I have no doubt that the government will follow their usual practice and that most of them will visit the Old Country immediately after prorogation. They are the people whom we expect to represent Canada rather than the parliamentary delegates. Personally I do not see the slightest reason for a selection of this kind, for it will discriminate very severely against those members who visit the exhibition at their own expense. At this particular time it is not wise for us to encourage any expenditures that can possibly be avoided, and I think it is the duty of this government, perhaps as it never was the duty of a government before, to practise the most rigid economy. I objected the other night to an "exhibit" being sent over there-one of the most widely known men in the Dominion-but my hon. friends at the other end of the chamber took exception to my motion to reduce the item by $4,000. I might refer to some other "exhibits" sent over to Great Britain. Certainly I would be sorry to think that our whips, genial, affable and well-liked by everybody in this House, should go across as "exhibits," considering some of the "exhibits" we have already sent across and whose expenses we are still paying. I would hesitate to vote against any item for this exhibition, but I am absolutely opposed to a grant for the purpose of sending over selected members of this House on the mission stated. Many people in this country are to-day bringing pressure to bear on the government on the plea that they are not receiving a living wage-I do not know whether they are right or not.-but when they learn that members of the House of Commons are being sent over on an expedition of this kind at the country's expense, I do not think it is likely to increase their respect for our system of government. If the government wish to send a parliamentary delegation, why do they not introduce in the estimates a separate item for the purpose and accept responsibility for it?


Mr. SHAW:: I have not had the advantage of hearing all the discussion, but I have been apprised of the purpose for which the vote is proposed. I think in order to consider the matter in its proper perspective we must first of all realize that we stand here as the trustees, the custodians of the monies raised from the people of Canada, monies raised for the purposes of national government, and I think it is highly improper, indeed highly immoral, for parliament to use money so entrusted to its care for the purpose of spending it in the manner indicated. Consequently I oppose the expenditure as a matter of principle. In these latter days we hear a good deal about the "honour and dignity" of parliament. I am quite satisfied that we are not enhancing either the honour or the dignity of parliament by using these trust funds to give a pleasant month or so to a few members of this House, however desirable that may be to them personally. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that I believe parliament would be recreant to its trust should it for a single moment countenance this expenditure.


Mr. COOTE:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to practically all the debate on this item, but I am not sure yet just what is the necessity for sending the proposed delegation to the Wembley exhibition, and I think the government is making a mistake in bringing the proposal forward. I understood from the speech of the Prime Minister that he thought we should reward the whips by giving them this trip. While I feel the House is often indebted to the whips, yet I think the proper way for the House to reward their services, if some reward is to be given them, would be to increase their salaries. The people of Canada-that is, those of them who give any thought to this matter-will say that this House is spending money in an improper manner in sending certain of its members on this enjoyable trip. I would like the minister to state to the committee a definite amount that will not be exceeded should these delegates be sent to England. Then, how will members who do not belong to some of the parties mentioned by the minister have a chance of being represented? I take it from the speech of the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Morrison) that these members are being sent over as immigration agents. When he said we needed millions of men brought into this country I could not help thinking how inadequate this estimate was, when we know that from a grant of $200,000 made to the Canada Colonization Association we secured the large number of 35 settlers.
Supply-Immigration


James Alexander Robb: That answer was subsequently corrected.


George Gibson Coote: I have not the corrected answer.


James Alexander Robb: It is on Hansard.


George Gibson Coote: It has been suggested by some hon. member that the press men are to have a representative sent ovpr. Is that correct?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: Can the minister justify the sending of a representative of the press gallery to this exhibition at the expense of the people?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I surely can. I should think there would be no cheaper method of getting advertisements for our country than through the press; in fact, it is almost the only way you can get it. The press helped to make my hon. friend; surely he does not object to the press doing a little advertising for Canada?


George Gibson Coote: No, but I expect the minister to give us some better justification than that for spending the money of the people to send a representative of the press gallery to the exhibition at Wembley.


James Alexander Robb: We expect to get returns for our investment.


Robert Gardiner: The minister has not yet answered the question, put on several occasions, as to how many groups in this House were going to be represented-how many from the Liberal party, how many from the Conservative party, how many from the Progressive party-and whether labour was to be represented.


James Alexander Robb: I will be frank with my hon. friend. We started out on the assumption that there were three recognized groups in this House. I think the representatives will be decided on the same basis as that on which the committees of the House are decided.


Edward Joseph Garland: There are four groups.


Robert Gardiner: Is the Labour group not recognized in this House or in this country?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, there is no objection to recognizing the Labour group, but if we follow the rule that prevails in the appointment of committees I am not sure that the members of the Labour group are sufficient to bring them in under the quota.


Robert Gardiner: Then are the labouring classes of this country not to have a representative from this House?


James Alexander Robb: I did not say so. I said that the Labour group were not sufficient in numbers to enable them to be included in the quota on the basis of the nomination of committees. There is no reason why they should not be recognized.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the quota?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend can figure that out for himself. He knows the basis on which the committees are appointed.


Mr. IRVINE:: Seeing that the Labour
group has been brought so prominently into this discussion, let me say this: I understaand that the grant under consideration is to go toward sending the whips of parliament over to the Wembley exhibition. As the Labour whip I want to say right now that I will not go, because I am opposed to the principle. of taking a trip like that at the expense of the public.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I do not want to give
a silent vote on this proposal. I am opposed to sending whips or any other body of members of this House to this exhibition at the expense of the country. This is a year in which I think we can hardly justify any expenditure for that purpose. One has only to look at the estimates, at pages 60 and 61, to see how necessary it is that we conserve our resources. We have found it necessary this year to reduce our annual vote to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind from $20,000 to $10,000. If we must reduce that vote for the blind I certainly would not feel justified in voting $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 for this little trip. I find on the same page that we have had to reduce our vote this year in the interests of economy from $20,000 to $15,000 as a grant to the Canadian Tuberculosis Association. If we have to pare down that vote by $5,000 this year in the interests of economy, I would not feel justified in spending $5,000 for the expenses of this trip. So with the vote on page 60, Canadian National Safety League, a vote the application of which is familiar to every member of the House. That is reduced this year from $25,000 to $10,000 in the interests of economy. With such a statement as that in the estimates laid before parliament by the government, I think the government should reconsider this matter and follow the suggestion of my right hon. friend and leader that the proposal be withdrawn.
Supply-Immigration


George Gibson Coote: I will ask the minister once
more to tell us whether or not he will limit the amount which may be expended' for this purpose. I understand he places no limit on the expenditure; it may go to $50,000 or $100,000 if he cares to have it go that far.


James Alexander Robb: That is nonsense. I have
said two or three times that there would not be more than seven.


George Gibson Coote: The minister has not yet
stated any amount that would not be exceeded.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is on
the amendment.


George Gibson Coote: Surely we are entitled to
get an answer.


George Newcombe Gordon: The minister contends
that he has answered the question already. He is not required to answer it a second time.


Robert Gardiner: I have been in the
House while this discussion has been in progress and I have never yet heard the minister state the total amount that will be spent. That is a very proper question when an item is under consideration, and I trust the Chairman will see to it that members are given an opportunity to get answers to their questions when money items of this kind are going through.


James Alexander Robb: I do not want to be discourteous to my hon. friend, but he must have been out. I have already stated twice that the cost was estimated at from $11,000, and not to exceed $20,000. But if the number is limited to only seven, it will be less than even the $11,000.


Donald Sutherland: The hon. member
(Mr. Coote) has had no answer to a question he put with reference to others who were to be sent over besides members.


James Alexander Robb: The press.


Donald Sutherland: Are any others represented except members of the House and the press.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, the Women's Council
of Canada have a representative there now.


Donald Sutherland: Would it not be
just as well to be frank and to give the committee all the information without our being compelled to extract it in this way?


James Alexander Robb: So far we have only been
discussing the representatives of parliament.


Arthur Meighen: How is the minister going to restrict them to seven if it includes the press and representatives of the various parties?


James Alexander Robb: The seven were the members
of parliament under consideration.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, and then the press
besides? That makes a difference in the minister's estimate. The point is this:	Here
ic an estimate for $300,000. If this estimate were for $20,000 the House would know that amount could not be exceeded, but when the minister merely says, I estimate it will be from $13,000 to $20,000, that is no undertaking on the part of the minister, much less to this House, that the $20,000 will not be exceeded. Would the minister give that undertaking? I am only saying this to emphasize that the member for Macleod is quite within his rights in asking the minister to say yes or no.


James Alexander Robb: I will tell my hon. friend the
estimates we have. It will cost $400 for return fare. We will give them $20 a day for forty-days, or $800; that makes $1,200, and seven times that makes $8,400.


Arthur Meighen: But what about the press besides? How many of them are going?


James Alexander Robb: I think there are five members of the press going.


Arthur Meighen: Who selects the press?
Does the government select the press men of all shades?


James Alexander Robb: I really did not inquire into
the politics of the man sent from eastern Canada. He is the president of the Newspaper Publicity Association of the Maritime provinces.


Arthur Meighen: Who is he?


James Alexander Robb: I do not recall his name, but
that is his position. There was also a man sent from western Canada, from Vancouver.


Arthur Meighen: Who is he?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Hodge, the editor of one
of the papers there. We propose sending three men from the press gallery.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know either of the first two, and the minister does not know one of them himself. Who are these other three in the press gallery?


James Alexander Robb: We propose to send Mr. Mears, Mr. Fraser, and Mr. Fortier.


Arthur Meighen: The government selects
all these?
Supply-Immigration


James Alexander Robb: We have sounded out some
other gentlemen who were unable to go, some very prominent, true and loyal friends of my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: That would not hurt.


Mr. DOUCET:: I did not intend to say
anything on this question, but when I hear that the press is to be represented by five members, apart from the seven members of parliament, and when I take into consideration the fact that when the suggestion was made to the government that a representative of our Canadian National Railways, representing the Atlantic section, should be present at the exhibition, and that only two representatives of the railway were chosen, and those two representing other sections of the railway, I contend that we are possibly not doing justice and acting fairly to all parts of this Dominion. I intend to vote for the amendment. I do not think we should spend this amount- of money in view of the financial condition of the country. Furthermore, I do not see how this government can select five members of the press and seven members of parliament to visit the exhibition, when thev cannot select a representative of the Cana-lian National Railways representing the At-< ntic section.


Robert Gardiner: The more we discuss
this item, the more information we get. It would seem the committee would be justified in asking the minister to give the various items that go to make up this estimate, so ihat the committee will know exactly what it is voting for. I would ask him to give the House all the items contained in this one vote.


Mr. EULER:: Mr. Chairman, I rise for
only one .purpose. I am not opposed to the vote. I am only sorry the House cannot be unanimous with regard to it. If we are to send representatives, I think the upon which the representation is to go is quite proper.
Some question has been raised with regard to representation from the members of the Labour party in this House, as they call themselves, consisting of two members. For my part, if the whips from the other parties are sent overseas, I would be quite prepared to send a member of the Labour group, but I do resent, and this is the purpose for which I rise, that the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner) should intimate that if no member from the so-called Labour party in this House is sent, the working people of this country will not be represented. I would say

this: In every case where a member of this House, and I think it includes them all, has among his constituents working people, he represents that class whichever one of the various parties he belongs to, and I resent any such significance being given to the representation that is being sent over to the British Empire Exhibition.


James Alexander Robb: The estimated balance of expenditure on the British Empire Exhibition for .the fiscal year, 1924-25, is as follows:
Balance interior finish, including sheeting,
painting, showcases-, plumbing, water, drainage, emergency fire apparatus and heating.. $20,000 Estimated consumption electric current.. ..	15,000
Balance installation of exhibits and grain
decorations	 20,000
Return freight on exhibits	 25,000
Balance cost of collecting and preparing exhibits	 5,000
Upkeep of grounds outside building and decorative plants inside	 4,000
Consumption water and	gas	 9,000
Signs and bulletins	  8,000
Salaries and expenses,	staff (permanent).. ..	50,000
Twelve temporary employees for information bureau for six months, based on $10 per
day	 22,000
Guards, attendants and cleaners for six
months	 25,000
Literature	  50,000
Advertising	  15,000
Art exhibit	   12.000
Unforeseen expenses	 20,000


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Did I understand the
minister to say it would cost $8,000 to send seven members of parliament over?


James Alexander Robb: No, $8,400.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Then I would ask this question:	Have we not spent about $12,000
or $15,000 talking about this thing?


Robert Forke: I want to say just a few words before this debate closes. I had and have no intention in anything I may say of embarrassing any member in this part of the House for quite properly taking an independent view of this matter. I wish first to concur in what the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) has said that labour would be represented by almost any member of this House. I have no hesitation in saying that I represent labour in the constituency of Brandon perhaps just as adequately as the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) represents it in that constituency.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Three times better.


Robert Forke: To digress for a moment, I
think perhaps one of the great hattles of the future will be between highly organized

Supply-Immigration
labour and another standard of labour in which agriculture is included.
On the question of immigration, I do not intend to enter into ,any debate to-night; it is readily recognized that there is a fundamental difference of opinion in regard to this matter. I only wish to repeat that the solution of a great many of our problems depends upon having a great many imore people come into Canada and help bear our burdens. It would be better for those who come and for those who are here.
I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that this discussion has taken a little different aspect from what I expected when first this question was mooted. I understood at that time that the representation would be from all three parties in the House, and if necessary, include some other gentlemen who think they are entitled to representation. But it seems to me from what I have gathered that one of the large groups in this House is unanimously opposed to this vote. Well, practically unanimous; the only member who has spoken has made the statement that he could not go.


William Alves Boys: I said I was in favour of it just the same and I meant it.


Robert Forke: I think, perhaps, there is a reason.


William Alves Boys: I do not know what my hon. friend means by that. I should like him to explain what he means; that is a reflection.


Robert Forke: I can assure my hon. friend that I do not mean it as a reflection.


William Alves Boys: I am glad to hear that.


Robert Forke: There seems to have been some misunderstanding about this question; the hon. member will admit that fact anyway. When this question was mooted I understood -and I understood also the information came from the hon. member-that it was likely his party would be represented in this group. Am I wrong?


William Alves Boys: I would not have thought that the leader of a great party would be disposed to pass on what his own whip may have said to him when I had a private conversation with that whip. It is a fact-I will be frank about it-that there was some discussion as to what the attitude of this party might be. and I intimated there would be some opposition. I did not know for certain what its attitude would be. My own course has been consistent from beginning to end.


Robert Forke: I have no reflection to cast upon the hon. member; I did not mean to do so anyway. It does seem to me however, that
the matter assumes a different aspect when one of the parties in this House is not likely to be in that group. I may be wrong but I do not look upon this as a question of principle, it is a matter of expediency. Is it a wise thing, is it the right thing, that Canada should be represented at the Imperial exhibition? I do not think that Canada has descended so low yet that she is not in a position to send delegates that will uphold the dignity and honour of this country in connection with the exhibition. On the other hand it does seem to me that some little difference is made when we have not the unanimous or the nearly unanimous support of the House. I would not care whether there was a minority, but when we find that one of the large groups in this House is utterly opposed to the proposition I think it requires some reconsideration. While sitting in my chair I have changed my mind several times.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: It is clearly evident why I should do so in this case because, as I said before it is not a question of principle it is a matter of expediency. Is it expedient, is it the right thing to do in order that this country may be well advertised and properly represented. There is no principle at stake; I do not look at it in that way at all. But if there is strong opposition, if in this matter parliament does not express the voice of the people as a whole. I think we ought ^ to reconsider the matter. That is the position I take, and I feel inclined to vote for the amendment at the present time.
Amendment Mr. Garland (Bow River) negatived: Yeas 48, Nays 86.


George Newcombe Gordon: I declare the amendment lost and the vote carried.


Arthur Meighen: If the amendment is
declared lost the question is now on the main motion. Does the minister expect that this money will take care of all Canada's liabilities in respect of the exhibition, and if so what will the whole exhibition cost the Dominion?
Mr. ROBB. I rather think we will have to have a small supplementary vote. My right hon. friend will notice that in the figures I gave a few moments ago there was mention of $50,000 for literature and I think we will require a further sum for that purpose. I think I shall be able to tell my right hon. friend this week what the amount will be. We may require another $100,000 to $150,000 but a great part of this will be for literature, pamphlets, maps and so on. I suppose the total cost will amount in round figures to $1,000,000.
Supply-Immigration


Arthur Meighen: Was the first vote last year?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: How much has been
spent?


James Alexander Robb: The sum of $649,859.09 has been spent. It is pretty close up.


Arthur Meighen: The supplementary
estimate will be approximately $50,000 then?


James Alexander Robb: Probably $100,000, although it may be $150,000. I told my right hon. friend there was some of it charged; we are paying advertising out of part of it. That is the $50,000 already announced for literature.


Arthur Meighen: Then the cost will be
$1,100,000 altogether?


James Alexander Robb: I said one million in round
figures. It will be $1,100,000 or $1,150,000 but we expect to get part of that back from the provinces.


Arthur Meighen: I was just going to ask about that.


Edward Joseph Garland: How many of the permanent employees of the Civil Service of Canada are on duty at the Wembley exhibition and paid by the Dominion?


James Alexander Robb: I think there are eleven of
the permanent staff of the Department of Immigration and Colonization.


Edward Joseph Garland: (Bow River): Outside of that the minister does not care to give any information?


James Alexander Robb: In addition to that I think
there are nine or ten men and one officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are over there as a guard. They are guarding the building and the exhibits.


Edward Joseph Garland: (Bow River): What is it estimated their salaries will amount to during the period of the exhibition?


James Alexander Robb: I think I answered that question a moment ago.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, I do
not think so.


James Alexander Robb: The deputy tells me there was a question of that nature put on the order paper and it is on the way through; it has not come across yet. At any rate I gave my hon. friend an estimate a moment ago of the wages involved in this vote. Yes, $91,813.54 is the expenditure that we have for the fiscal year 1923-24.


Arthur Meighen: What are the minister's hopes of getting some money from the provinces based on, and what is the division between the provinces? Has the minister received anything yet, and if so from whom?


James Alexander Robb: There was a very fair understanding at one time that the provinces would contribute. Later on they met in Quebec city and stood out for, or thought they should have, their own provincial exhibit. They took the ground that unless they got their own provincial exhibit they would not exhibit and would not contribute. We went on and gathered the exhibit. Later on there seemed to be a modified view of that; but I will be frank and say to my hon. friend that while some of the smaller provinces by population have intimated a willingness to contribute, some of the larger provinces have not given us that hope. I think my hon. friend will agree with me, that it would not be fair to call upon the smaller provinces unless at least those provinces that will benefit most by it and are the largest exhibitors contribute their share. That will be a matter for adjustment afterwards.
:Mr. MEIGHEN:	What are the larger
provinces who are behind in supplying the hope?


James Alexander Robb: The provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: Most of the larger provinces. I think the minister may just about as well let that mirage disappear. He will never get anything from the other provinces unless Ontario and Quebec come forward.


James Alexander Robb: It would be hardly fair to
ask them.


Arthur Meighen: We may count that we are paying the whole shot.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Buildings at St. John, N.B., $22,000.
Arthur Meighen: What buildings are
these?


James Alexander Robb: An arrangement has been
made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company by	which the department is	to
bear half the cost of constructing and maintaining the following buildings for the proper handling of immigrants arriving at the port of St. John:
Cost to Department
Baggage	$88,048	28Detention quarters	
58,748	68Waiting room	
20,419	11
Total,

Supply-Immigration
The total cost to the department, extras already totally paid by the department, is reduced by $5,748.68, which makes the item $58,439.38. This is payable over a period of ten years. The cost this year is 122,000 and the whole thing has to be paid in ten years.


Edward Joseph Garland: Can the
minister give us some explanation of the occurrences recently at Halifax in regard to the deportation of Italians? Some large number were found unsatisfactory for some reason.


George Newcombe Gordon: That does not come
under this vote.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is in connection with Halifax.


George Newcombe Gordon: This is St. John.


James Alexander Robb: I will answer the question.
These immigrants were brought unauthorized to Canada. We were advised by the authorities before they arrived that their papers had not been properly vised. They were not deported, but the steamship companies that brought them over returned them-at least they were supposed to go back with them.


Edward Joseph Garland: Were representations made by the Italian government to the Canadian government asking that these men be returned, or was there any complaint? What are the facts?


James Alexander Robb: The British ambassador advised us of the irregularity of these sailings, and vises were secured by misrepresentation. I think it was represented to us that they were going to farms and that they had positions.


Arthur John Lewis: Were they physically fit
otherwise?


James Alexander Robb: We admitted some 400 of
the previous lot that were examined, but wheni we discovered that an attempt was made by the steamship companies to make false representations as to immigrants getting into Canada we simply said, "You cannot land these people here." We had been advised in the matter, and the steamship companies were supposed to take them back.


Arthur John Lewis: It seems to me that these
vises should be attended to at the other end before they start.


James Alexander Robb: Probably the hon. member
is right; but the government does not allow Canada to have a representative in that country.


Robert Alexander Hoey: How many were there?


Arthur John Lewis: If we are anxious to get
people into this country a few episodes like this will do a great deal of harm to immigration to Canada.


James Alexander Robb: In answer to the hon. member for Springfield, (Mr. Hoey)
11	p.m. there were 240.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Were these
immigrants turned back simply because they came here ostensibly to go into one employment and wanted to go into another? Were they physically fit?


James Alexander Robb: We admitted 75 who were
physically fit, and the others were returned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Relief of distressed Canadians, $6,000.
Arthur John Lewis: Will the minister explain
what is meant by distressed Canadians? The amount seems very small.


James Alexander Robb: The different Canadian immigration agents throughout the world are occasionally called upon to help out a person who claims to be a distressed Canadian. The facts come to us chiefly through the office of the High Commissioner at London, England. The total payment last year amounted to $5,815.12.


Donald Sutherland: The Auditor General's statement for the year ending March 31, shows there was $11,881.50 paid for the relief of distressed Canadians.


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend has the reference for the year before. The amount expended for the year 1922-23 was $10,975.74. My hon. friend has the Auditor General's report. I may say that, getting away from the period of the war, the amount for 1923-24 was $5,815,12.


Donald Sutherland: At the head of the
list there is an item of $1,109.95, house rent, London, England, W. T. R. Preston, vote 480. Is that a type of distressed Canadians referred to?


James Alexander Robb: Is that charged in this vote? Mr. SUTHERLAND:	It is on the same
page of the estimates.


James Alexander Robb: Let my hon. friend come out
in the open and say whether it is charged in this vote.


Donald Sutherland: I am asking the
minister what this item is for.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is not in this vote.
The question is out of order.
Sup-ply-Immigration


Edward Joseph Garland: Just a
minute ago the minister informed the committee that a certain sum around fifteen or nineteen thousand dollars was included in this vote for salaries. We now find that there is a vote for exhibitions, salaries and contingencies, 3140,000. On further examination the minister stated that the total for salaries was $91,800. An explanation would, perhaps be in order.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend must realize that the British Empire Exhibition is a separate account. There will be charged up to it the permanent staff, a vast number of char women who are engaged all the time in keeping the building in proper shape, and labourers, some of whom are engaged for a few hours. The hon. member has overlooked that feature.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the total of the salary bill?


James Alexander Robb: I will give the details:
A. W. Tolmie, Exhibition	Commissioner..	..	$4,320
A. W. Despard, Chief of Agricultural and
Exhibit Division	 3,240
W. D. Dalglish, Chief	of	Mineral	Division..	3,240
J. O. Turcotte, Chief of Designing and Decorating Division	 3,240
Mr. Turcotte is one of the most valuable men in that class of work. In recent years the great success of Canada's exhibits has been largely due to Mr. Turcotte. who is in this work a specialist in a class all by himself.
A. Pereira, Assistant to Chief of Designing and
Decorating Division	 $2,340
P. A. Corkery, Fruit Exhibit Specialist, (Transferred from Civil government	salaries)	2,040
R. G. Brown, Exhibit Decorator	 1,365
Miss. E. M. Livingston, Clerk Stenographer..	1,140
O. Joubame, Caretaker	 1,080
Total	 $22,005


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exhibitions-salaries and contingencies, $140,000.
Donald Sutherland: Is any of this
amount for exhibitions in the United States?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Donald Sutherland: What amount is being expended for this purpose in different countries?


James Alexander Robb: Exhibitions at state and
county fairs in the United States, $50,000, and permanent exhibits in the United States, $5,000.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What comes under contingencies?


James Alexander Robb: Collection of exhibits, materials for same, certain wage expenses, freight, express and so forth. Some of the exhibits might be destroyed.


Donald Sutherland: What amount was spent in the United States last year?


James Alexander Robb: I have not the details. I will get them and send them to my hon. friend if he is interested.


Edward Joseph Garland: What other exhibitions did the department send representatives to and have expenses in connection with last year?


James Alexander Robb: We spent $926.10 on an exhibit at Paris at the conclusion of the French train that was run under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is that the only additional exhibition that was attended by representatives of the government last year? Was there none in the United States, for example?


James Alexander Robb: We have exhibits in other countries as well as in the United States. We have exhibits at many fairs in Scotland, Ireland and England. We have some exhibits on the continent. We have exhibits on the little boats that go through Holland. We had some in Belgium last year.


Mr. ANDERSON:: Is any of this money to be spent for exhibitions in this country?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I take it that these exhibits are all for the purpose of inducing people to come into Canada. The department is exhibiting the resources of Canada in countries from which immigration is expected?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, and they are advertising Canada's resources.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister has mentioned Holland and Belgium. He has not mentioned the United States at all. I think the United States is by far the best country for Canada to seek her immigrants in. We get perfectly acclimatized people, suitable for Canada, from the United States.


James Alexander Robb: I will give my hon. friend the names of the states that we have been operating in. We have had exhibits, some small and others larger, in these different states, at the various stock shows and other fairs wherever there is a large gathering of
people: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, fornia, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. We have agencies in: Kansas City, Mo.; Harrisburg, Pa.; Columbus, Ohio; Indianapolis, Ind.; St. Paul, Minn.; Fargo, N.D.; Milwaukee, Wis.; Omaha, Neb.; Syracuse, N.Y.; Spokane, Washington; Des Moines, Iowa; Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Boston, Massachusetts; Great Falls, Montana; AVatertown, South Dakota; Manchester, New Hampshire; San Francisco, California.


George Gibson Coote: Do these executive officers come under this vote?


James Alexander Robb: They have charge of the
exhibits.


George Gibson Coote: AVhat class of people does the minister expect to attract to Canada as a result of these exhibits?


James Alexander Robb: These minor exhibits are largely agricultural, and perhaps some person who desires to buy seed wheat or seed oats or something else which Canada has to offer becomes a purchaser by reason of seeing the exhibits. They serve a double purpose, being of advantage in securing immigration, and an advantage in advertising our products.


George Gibson Coote: As a matter of policy, does the minister think that the farmers of Canada are not at present producing plenty of agricultural produce? And what benefit is it going to be to them if they produce ten or twenty per cent more, or whatever increased production may result from the bringing in of new immigrants and placing them on the land? Last year the farmers of Canada produced 70,000,000 bushels more wheat than in the previous year, but it brought them $25,000,000 less.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend cannot prove that because the wheat is not all sold yet.


George Gibson Coote: I should have stated that that is an estimate prepared by the officers of this government. If the minister will explain to us just in what way this expenditure is going to benefit our farmers I should appreciate the information. It seems to me that the farmer has always been singled out so far as our
immigration policy is concerned as the one class of the community that should have some more competition. We have for years spent money to bring in more farmers, but many leading men in the United States to-day are on record as stating that overproduction is the principal cause of the farmers' financial distress. If the minister disagrees with that opinion, would he give the House some reason why the farmers who are now in Canada will be benefited by bringing in more immigrants and placing them on the land?


James Alexander Robb: That is all a matter of opinion and we discussed it fully last session. At that time we heard hon. gentlemen opposite decrying their own provinces to such an extent tha' their premier came down and apologized fo them and asked us not to pay too much atten tion to them.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chair man-


James Alexander Robb: But that is only a side issue. In answer to my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) as to the price of wheat being affected by increased production, I can recall buying No. I Northern Manitoba wheat at 67 cents a bushel, delivered Goderich, at a time when the northwest country was producing less than 75,000,000 bushels, while last year it produced over 400,000,000 bushels of wheat. I speak subject to correction, but I do not think any of that huge crop ever moved much below a dollar at Fort William. While I do not offei any opinion-if a man were sure of his opinions he could get rich quick-yet I may remind my hon. friend that within the last few weeks wheat has advanced from 14 to 16 cents a bushel.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, when
it is all out of our hands.


James Alexander Robb: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
minister state the province and the premier?


James Alexander Robb: That is disposed of.


Edward Joseph Garland: May we
have an answer? Mr. Chairman, if the minister is not going to answer that-I am not quite sure whether he was referring to any members in this corner of the House-I want to tell him quite distinctly that last session I heard no members decry any portion of Canada.


James Alexander Robb: Hansard is full of it.


Edward Joseph Garland: They decried conditions in this country, and they will continue to do so until those conditions

Supply

Immigration
Cali-
Supply-Immigration

are remedied. We have artificial barriers and restrictions against the farmer and the worker in Canada, and we will continue to decry such conditions until they are changed.


Donald Sutherland: I am wondering if
the minister is going to reduce the amount which his department usually spends in the United States, in view of the fact that it is not immigration from, but emigration to, the United States that has been taking place? Surely a great deal of this money has been wasted. With regard to the grain growers, I recall reading in a New York newspaper a short time ago an article which pointed out the advantage accruing to the United States by the exchange of certain of their citizens for Canadians. It stated that that country had got a good deal the best of the bargain in that the great problem of the United States was to reduce tiheir wheat production,, and they got rid of many of what were known as "Wheat miners," people who would not adapt themselves to diversified farming and had obtained in' exchange a class of citizens from Canada who adapted themselves to conditions in the United States much better than those who had left. The United States have signified their intention of discouraging commerce with this country by raising a tariff barrier which is almost insurmountable. In view of this fact and the further fact that our people are going there in large numbers, and have been for a long time, I think this expenditure should be cut down to the very smallest possible proportions.


Thomas George McBride: I should just like to
correct a statement in connection with our people going to the United States. On the Pacific coast over nine thousand people have come back from the United States into British Columbia this season. Indeed, there is a steady flow into British Columbia at present and those people seem glad to come back to Canada.


Milton Neil Campbell: I think the minister
should answer the question asked by the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). Surely in all fairness he should give the name of the premier wiho, he said, came to Ottawa and apologized for those federal representatives of his province Who had decried it in this House.


Thomas George McBride: Mr. Chairman, I may
say that I had to apologize with respect to remarks made in this House, by some Progressive member last session.


George Gibson Coote: Has the minister had any
manufacturers ask him to use his immigration officers in an endeavour to get more manufacturers to locate in Canada to produce more manufactured products and so compete with them?


James Alexander Robb: They would go to the Department of Trade and Commerce.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Chairman), if we are going to spend taxes to bring in more farmers, I do not see why in all fairness we Should not spend a little money to bring in more manufacturers. Possibly we could bring some from England who are used to manufacturing without the protection of a tariff as high as 30 or 35 per cent. I think it is only fair to the people I represent that I should ask the minister whether he is limiting his exertions to bringing in farmers or whether he is trying to bring in people of every class. .


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the vote carry?


George Gibson Coote: I hope it will not carry until the minister replies.


George Newcombe Gordon: I intend to rule that that question is not relevant to the item under consideration.


James Alexander Robb: I do not want to be discourteous to my hon. friend. He comes from Alberta. We had a conference last fall attended by representatives of all the different provinces. Alberta was represented by Mr. Hoadley, the Minister of Agriculture in the Alberta government, and Mr. Hoadley was most insistent upon it that we should get more immigrants, particularly for his province. I would like to satisfy my hon. friend, but I am bound to say I do not think he represents the views of the people of Alberta. I believe the people of Alberta desire more immigrants, more people to go on the land. The people of Saskatchewan desire more; the people of Ontario and Quebec desire a prosperous Canada. We are not among those who are afraid that our country will be filled up with thrifty and industrious people.


George Gibson Coote: I hope the minister does not insinuate that I am afraid of filling up this country with industrious people. But we have been endeavouring by this policy to fill it up for a number of years and we have not filled it up yet. The United States is often referred to as an example, but I am told that the United States has never spent one dollar for the purpose of bringing immigrants into that country. What the United States did was to make the condiitions in that country such that people were anxious to go there.

Supply-Immigration


George Perry Graham: By a high tariff?


George Gibson Coote: This immigration policy as at present carried out in Canada is class legislation. If we are to have immigration why should we have it limited to one class? Surely the farmers of Canada are producing enough now. I have been told by a gentleman from British Columbia that they are producing more fruit in that province than they can sell. I have seen potatoes left in the ground because of a lack of market for them.
I have seen cattle sold for one half what it cost to raise them, because there was not a market in Canada for them. There is no question that a great deal of agricultural produce is turned out in Canada which cannot be sold at the cost of production because there is not a sufficient market. Why should we go on trying to get more farmers into Canada? If all other classes of people in Canada had done their share as well as the farmers, there would be no lack of prosperity in this country. To answer what the minister has said about my representing the people of Alberta, I do not pretend to represent the people of Alberta. But I do pretend to represent the people of my constituency, and I say without hesitation that the majority of them would tell the minister just as frankly as I have done that his immigration policy is a class policy; that it is directed against one class. I have resolutions here from farmers' organizations in my constituency protesting against the government spending any more money on immigration until the financial condition of the farmer is made easier and until conditions generally are such that the farmer can make a decent living as well as the other people in this country.


Henry Elvins Spencer: None of us on this side want to stop voluntary immigration. What we are against, though-and we think a good deal more attention should be given to it-is any condition which results in a great number of people leaving this country. We consider that people who have been in Canada anywhere from ten to twenty-five or thirty years are far more valuable to the country than any people brought in with no experience. I wonder if the minister is aware that in spending $3,500,000 last year to bring people into this country Canada lost the entire number she brought in and 45,000 besides? That is why we are anxious to see a change made in the government's policy. It is not because we do not want people in this country: what we want to stop is the exodus of people from this country.


James Alexander Robb: It is true that people were leaving the countiy, and they will do it again next year or any other year if similar conditions prevail: a man who can get $15 a day or $1.50 an hour in New York is not going to work in Canada for $5 a day. My hon. friend would not do it. But the tide is turning the other way: the records show that in the last two months, 9,815 Canadians returned. These are the reports from ten ports.


Milton Neil Campbell: I object to the implication of the minister's remarks that hon. gentlemen in this section of the House are opposing immigration. If I understand the situation rightly, no hon. gentleman in this section of the House is opposed to immigration. What we are trying to point out is the absurdity of taking people in who have no money and no means of being placed on the land. If the government are determined to carry out a policy of immigration and to bring in some good, hardy, vigorous types of settlers they must at the same time provide some financial means for settling those people upon the land. I came originally from Prince Edward Island. There was a time in the history of that province when they were faced with an almost complete breakdown of agriculture. The difficulty was solved by the provincial government of that day financing the farmers of the whole province-and in this I believe they were assisted in some of the borrowing arrangements by the Imperial authorities-through a system of rural credit which enabled the farmers to buy their own land under long term loans at a low rate of interest. That resulted in resurrecting agriculture throughout the whole of Prince Edward Island, and I understand that the provincial government lost not one dollar. That is one of the things the government must face to-day; if they are prepared to carry out an immigration policy it must be coincident with some means of putting the people on the land and enabling them to remain there. The assumption seems to be that when a remark is made from this part of the House with regard to immigration we are saj'ing something derogatory to the country, something defamatory of the country. But I think a search of the pages of Hansard during the last three years will show that not one single remark in any way reflecting upon western Canada came from this part of the House. The very fact that we are in the country shows that we have confidence in it; the very fact that we are here in this House shows that we have confidence in it and that the people have confidence in us. We have a country second

Supply-Immigration

to none in the world. In the district in which I live we are growing fruit which cannot be equalled in most parts of Ontario. On the farm on which I live wild grapes are growing, all kinds of wild fruit-we can produce almost anything. Gentlemen to our right and hon. gentlemen on the other side refer to us as wheat miners, and all that kind of thing, but the day will come when some of those hon. gentlemen will be down on their knees praying to heaven that we be wheat miners again. What is happening your farmer to-day? Trainloads of our western butter are coming to the East and swamping your markets. Last year seven or eight carloads of dressed poultry came to this part of the country from the West and were marketed in Montreal. What did that do to the eastern farmer? It cut his price just in half.


James Alexander Robb: They are not grumbling.


Milton Neil Campbell: Thirty or forty years
ago the eastern farmer was almost put out of business when the prairies were opened up and they commenced to grow wheat and oats out there. I have heard the old people talk about it; I have heard them talk about it in the Maritime provinces, and those who lived through that period will remember it as long as they live. They finally got into mixed fanning, and they have now weathered the gale and re-established themselves. We are going through that period in western Canada to-day. We have a hardy, vigorous, virile type of people, and they still have a low standard of living, no matter what nationality they are. They work long hours, and deny themselves a good many of the things that you think are necessary in eastern Canada, and they are producing beyond the limit of this country to absorb. Now, what is the government doing? Last year our exports of butter to England dropped from about 17,000,000 pounds the previous year to 4,000,000 pounds. We have a host of trade agents on the other side trying to get us business, but. they are failing because we are losing that business to New Zealand, Denmark, Holland, Argentina, and other countries. I am quite convinced that if the government would put a little bit of energy behind an effort to go after that trade, they would secure it. I made a suggestion to the Minister of Agriculture when his estimates were before the House, and I give him credit for admitting it, but he stated that the people of eastern Canada were not prepared to submit to the regulations that were necessary to bring our butter up to the same grade as New Zealand butter in the Old Country market. The consequence is that we are losing the English butter market to-day.
fMr. Campbell.]


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. I would ask
the hon. member to confine himself more strictly to the item under discussion. I think his remarks do not bear very closely on this item for exhibitions.


Milton Neil Campbell: I think this has a very direct bearing on the question of immigration, Mr. Chairman. However, if that is your ruling I will sit down.


Edward Joseph Garland: We can
have the real discussion on immigration when the second or third item farther down is called. I would ask the minister whether the figures he gave a moment ago with regard to the re-flow of Canadians from the United States are official, or simply newspaper estimates.


James Alexander Robb: They are official figures.
Mr. GARLAND Bow River):	He stated,
just before he gave those figures, that the whole question of emigration from Canada was very easily explained by the natural flow; it was going on every year, he said; there would be departures from the country month by month. Well, exactly the same answer can be made to his figures. The tourists art just coming over now to see Muskoka.


James Alexander Robb: These are immigrants, not
tourists.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
minister give us some idea of the value of settlers' effects brought in during the last few months?


James Alexander Robb: I can give my hon. friend
the number of cars; there were 120 cars from Fargo, North Dakota.


Arthur Meighen: Can. the minister give
the number going out the same months? Surely he has those figures.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend was inquiring
as to the number coming in. From April to March the total value of the settlers' effects was $6,962,739.53.


George Gibson Coote: Is the advertising which the
minister is doing at these exhibitions in the United States responsible for this flow of ex-Canadians from the United States back to Canada?


James Alexander Robb: That is a method of advertising. It is not a new policy; it has been going on for years.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Of the 9,807 ex-Canadians repatriated, are there any who have not found employment in Canada in the last few months?

Supply-Immigration


James Alexander Robb: I have no complaints before me.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I notice that when people are going over to the United States they are asked whether they are going to stay or whether they are just going for a holiday, and if they say for a holiday, they are allowed tc go through and no record is kept; but when people come back from the United States, whether they have made their home there or are just returning from a holiday, they have to fill out a form, and thus a record is kept and filed in the immigration office of the flow back to Canada. Does the minister think Canada can possibly keep a real check on her citizens who are leaving, when no record is kept of those who are crossing into the United States just for a holiday?


James Alexander Robb: I do not think we can. I do
not think that is kept in any country, except through ocean ports.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is it not quite possible
we have been losing a great many more people than we have a record of? I know of a certainty of a number of families who have gone over to the United States intending to stay there, but who have said they were just going for a holiday, and if that is the case with others, we may be losing many thousands more than we have a record of.


Donald Sutherland: I asked the minister a short time ago in regard to the amount spent in the United States, and I did so for this reason:	Although the money is spent
for exhibitions the main object is really to promote business and emigration from the United States to Canada. There was spent in the last four years $1,830,669.32 to promote emigration from the United States to Canada.


James Alexander Robb: What was the amount for
each year?


Donald Sutherland: For 1920-1921, $456,870.41; 1921-1922, $419,946.02; 1922-1923, $525,363.90; and from April 1, 1923, to January 1, 1924, $428,488.99. What I am pointing out is this:	In view of the amount which has been
spent over there we have not really been getting value if the tide of immigration is from this country to the United States. Possibly this may have been the effect of the money that has been spent, and I presume the same condition existed before this four-year period* ended. In view of all that is taking place between our neighbours to the south and ourselves, it appears to me that this money could be spent to much better advantage in the Old Land, where we could get a much better class of citizens who would 225i
come out here and likely make homes in this country. I do not agree with those who say we do not need' people in this country to help develop our latent resources. This country was never so much in need of willing workers as it is at this hour, and any one who desires employment in this country can get it at short notice. In the case of those who have not found employment, it is largely because they cannot obtain a certain kind of work they desire. If they were as handy at adapting themselves to conditions in this country as the people of twenty-five or thirty years ago you would not hear much about unemployement in Canada. For that reason I have no sympathy with those who would put up the bars and exclude from Canada those who would make desirable settlers. We have in the Dominion a tremendous undeveloped area, and it is quite evident that our people, or at least many of them, are not inclined to indulge in the manual labour necessary to develop the resources which that area contains. That is the reason I would urge upon the minister to consider the wisdom of curtailing expenses in the country to the south.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
Tuesday, June 24, 1924