1924-06-30

Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo) :: beg to present the third report of the select standing committee on National Railways and Shipping as follows:
Your committee have considered item 137 of the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1925, viz., loans to Canadian National Railway Company, $56,000,000, and have approved of the said item.
Your committee recommend that 500 copies of the proceedings and evidence taken should be printed, and that rule 74 should be suspended in connection therewith.
I beg to move that this report be concurred in. I might say that, as regards printing, it was stated merely that 500 copies should be printed and, through an oversight, it was not stated how many should be in English and how many in French. I might suggest that 350 of those be in English and 150 in French.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: The main part of the
report is the recommendation of a large sum of money as a proper vote for the National Railways. I would think the report should have been presented in two parts, this one left apart from the rest. Surely it is not the intention of the House, on the mere report of a committee, to put itself on record as approving a vote of many millions of dollars.
Select Standing Committees


William Daum Euler: In the reference to the committee it is destinctly stated that nothing done shall interfere with the right of the House tc a full debate on the estimate.


Arthur Meighen: That is very good. But if the House adopts the report, the House is on record. There is no use in our going on record two ways. I think that part of the report should not be subject to adoption at all.


Mr. GRAHAM:: There is that difficulty in it. I am inclined to think that the portion of the report in regard to the vote might be adopted, if it is necessary to adopt it, after the committee of the whole passes on the item. It is awkward to bring in a report and not adopt it.


Arthur Meighen: There is no need of
adopting it. We have it before us when we come into committee of the whole.


William Daum Euler: Would it be acceptable if
the first part of the report was struck out? We would like to have authority to print.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: That is as regards printing-yes, that is all right.
Motion as amended agreed to.



OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES

Mr. G. H. BOTVIN (Shefford):: I beg to
present the first report of the select standing committee to supervise the official report of Debates as follows:
Your committee have had referred to them for consideration a communication from the King's Printer, submitting the proposed scale of rates hereto appended to be charged for the printing of special editions of speeches of members in the House of Commons.
Your committee have also considered a report from the Printing bureau showing a net loss to the government in the printing of said special editions of speeches at present rates.
Your committee, realizing in view of the increased cost of paper, the necessity of making a slight increase in the rates for the printing of said speeches, recommend that the rates set forth in the scale hereto annexed be approved, said rates to take effect at the opening of the next session of parliament and remain in force until otherwise ordered by the House. (The scale of rates referred to will be found in the Votes and Proceedings of this date.)
Your committee have had under consideration certain irregularities in the distribution of the unrevised edition of the debates to the members of the House of Commons owing to the absence of any fixed rule adopted by your committee and approved by the House.
Your committee recommend that beginning with the opening of the next session of parliament and until otherwise ordered by the House, each member of the House of Commons be supplied without charge with ten copies of the unrevised edition of the debates, four of said copies to be delivered, as at present, and six of said copies and no more to be mailed by the King's Printer to any six persons, companies, corporations or institutions within Canada, whose
[Mr. Meighen.)
names and addresses shall be supplied by such member to the Clerk of the Debates committee.
Your committee have had under consideration certain recommendations providing for a wider and more general distribution of the unrevised editions of Debates at the actual cost of the extra printing, paper, binding and mailing, which has been ascertained to be approximately three dollars per session.
Your committee recommend that the required steps be taken by the proper officers to inform the general public that the said unrevised edition of the debates is available to subscribers, and will be mailed to them daily, upon application to the King's Printer, at the said rate of three dollars per session.
Your committee took up for consideration and report certain matters concerning Hansard which were recently discussed in the House of Commons without formal reference to your committee, but doubt was expressed concerning the powers of your committee to deal with and report upon said matters.
Your committee, therefore, recommend that they be given power to consider the following questions and report their opinion thereon to the House, viz *
1.	Whether Hansard should be a record of debates only, containing such items of the proceedings of the House as may be necessary to make the report of the debates intelligible, or whether it should contain all of the proceedings of the House and of the Committee of the Whole House as well as the record of debates.
2.	Whether it is desirable, in the interests of economy of time, labour and expense, that the report of the debates in Hansard should be limited to such speeches as may be delivered when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, with or without a brief report of proceedings in committee.
Whether it is desirable to make Hansard an official record of all the proceedings of the House of Commons, as well as a record of the debates.
The whole respectfully submitted.
Geo. H. Boivin,
Chairman.



JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOIVIN for Mr. GAUVREAU (Translation) : moved that the fourth report of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Printing be concurred in.
Mr. SPEAKER:: As far as I remember
this report has reference to the Baker Memorial ceremonial which took place in the early part of the session, and recommended the printing of the speeches.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg):: I beg to present the third report of the select standing committee on Marine and Fisheries as follows:
Your committee recommend that for the season of 1925 a further reduction of 15 per cent be made on all commercial fishing licenses issued to other than white fisheripen and Indians in British Columbia, and also that, owing to the lateness of the season, and the very small catch of lobsters, around the coast of Prince Edward Island and the northern part of Nova Scotia some extension be made to the season this year.
I move that this report be adopted.

Postal Employees


Arthur Meighen: I am not an expert in
these matters, but I notice that the report contains a recommendation for the extension of the lobster season, and I know that that is very important.


William Duff: It has been extended.


Arthur Meighen: The government seems
to be marching along the autocratic road rapidly.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Does that
extension include the province of Quebec, or only the Maritime provinces?


William Duff: There are several districts,
and this extension only applies to the northern shore of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. It does not include Quebec.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Nor New Brunswick.


William Duff: Part of New Brunswick.


Pius Michaud: What part?


Mr. BAXTER:: Has any consideration been given to the southern shore of New Brunswick? In this case I took up the matter with Mr. Found, the very efficient overseer, and presented the petition of the fishermen from Chance and Dipper harbours, asking for an extension of the season. Mr. Found did not see his way to recommend it, and I understood he considered the policy of including extensions was too general. My hon. friend informs me now that in a portion of his own province they have been successful in getting some extension. Will that policy be generous enough to include other parts of the Maritime provinces?


Hewitt Bostock: This matter will stand.
The motion can be adopted at this stage only by unanimous consent.
STRIKE OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES On the Orders of the Day:


Arthur Meighen: An announcement appeared in the press this morning that the government had made a settlement with the strikers. Would the minister say whether this is correct or not, and if so would he tell us what the terms are?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Acting Postmaster General):: I have an announcement to make to the House, as follows:
On Sunday afternoon the striking employees at Toronto and W'indsor, were permitted to return, each individually signing on under the terms offered by the government. The statement signed was as follows:
I agree to resume duty unconditionally as a postal helper on the post office staff.
As soon as the service is normal, arrangements will be made to adjust the staff to the number of positions available. No payment will be made to the employees for the time they were out on strike.
In order to clear up misunderstandings on account of what appeared in the press announcement this morning, I think it well to make a further statement, as follows:
So that there shall be no misunderstanding it is desired to state that no special offer was made in regard to a sub-committee, as reported in some of the newspapers. The only offer made by the government, and which referred to employees actually on duty, was that contained in a letter from myself as Acting Postmaster General, dated June 18, 1924, to Mr. Archer, Secretary, Canadian Federation of Postal Employees, reading as follows:
When the Civil Service Commission has submitted its report upon the salaries of the entire service, opportunity will be given to the representatives of the employees in the postal department, or in other departments of the government, who have objections to file against the salary revision proposed by the government, and to discuss such matters of difference as fully as may be necessary to ensure a thorough understanding, and, it is hoped, a final and satisfactory agreement on the points in dispute.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister give
us any explanation of the grossly exaggerated reports in the press to-day?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: I cannot.
I gave out no reports, and I have no knowledge of how they were given out. All I want to do is to make clear to the House this statement on. behalf of the government.


Mr. SPENCE:: Is the minister thoroughly
satisfied that these strikers understand they wiil get no pay for the days they have been off. There seems to be a misunderstanding.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot say as to that. I know that the instructions from Ottawa were very definite.


David Spence: That is the minister's understanding?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.



THE ALTERNATIVE VOTE

Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: In view of
the large number of inquiries coming to members in this section of the House with reference to the bill regarding the single transferable vote, is the government prepared to give a specific answer to the question which the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) asked as to when they expected to bring in a bill dealing with that matter?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The bill is before the
House at the present time. I mentioned the
United Church oj Canada

ether day that there had been no decision that the bill would not be proceeded with. If such a decision is reached it will be announced as soon as it is made, but up to the present time no decision has been arrived at.



UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 27 consideration in committee of Bill No. 47 to incorporate the United Church of Canada-Mr. Forke-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee
rose we were considering an amendment moved by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) to section 10 (a). The amendment was, to add thereto, in the 33rd line after the word "thereat" the words "or by ballot under the provisions of schedule D." A copy of schedule D is said to be on the desk of each member of the House. The question is on the amendment.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: This point was discussed
to some extent on Friday afternoon last, and I entertained a hope that in the interval the hon. gentleman (Mr. Forke) who is promoting this bill would see the reasonableness of the request of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) and agree to the amendment, if not in its exact terms then to a properly drawn amendment that would carry out the intention of the mover. As regards its drafting, the amendment is of sufficient consequence to enlist the services of the law clerk of this House. What we all want is as perfect a bill as possible. I realize that in the drafting of this amendment there may be some difficulties which will require skilled draftsmanship to overcome, but the principle, I submit, should be adopted. We can then leave the drafting over probably until to-morrow or next day, and pass the bill. Apart from this clause, I doubt if there is any other contentious clause in the bill. The principle has now been accepted, and the bill might go through. But this clause is vitally important. The clause as drawn provides that non-concurring congregations shall attend at a church meeting and there decide whether they are to continue their existence as such church, or merge in the union body; and, as was pointed out by the member for Lunenburg, there would be a large proportion of the membership of each individual church not in attendance at that meeting, and consequently those members would be deprived of a vote.
What strikes me as most important is that when this question was twice submitted to the Presbyterian church,-as I know; I do not know how it was submitted to the other

churches-it was on both occasions submitted by ballot. Members of the church could deposit their ballots during the course of a couple of weeks with the proper authorities, and those votes were counted. That is the method adopted by the church itself. Now when it comes to the vital point whether action shall be taken one way or the other, the bill takes away the right to vote by ballot and compels attendance at that particular church meeting. What will be the result? A large number of those who have to be away from home from time to time during the week or during the month will not be entitled to vote; that class embraces railway men, lumbermen, fishermen, travellers, students-a large number in our community are attending the universities-the sick, the aged and the infirm. The bill proposes to practically deprive all these classes of a vote upon this important question. When the matter was up on Friday last I tried to elicit from hon. members who support this bill some valid reason why the clause should be adopted. In my judgment none was forthcoming. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) gave a sort of hazy intimation that there might be some bad work in connection with the ballots; he did not seem to be able to trust the people in the various churches to take a ballot vote. The only other objection urged at all upon the point was that some of the provincial legislatures had already passed bills containing a clause of this kind. What matters it to this parliament if a provincial legislature makes a mistake; are we going to be bound by it? Are we to have the rights of this parliament circumscribed simply because a provincial legislature has passed legislation concerning which we have never been consulted? If such other acts have been passed, that circumstance should not tie our hands. Let us do what is right, and if the ballot principle is right, let us adopt it. Then the parties interested might go to the legislatures and have the provincial legislation amended in this respect.
I do not want to use strong language, Mr. Chairman, but in my judgment it would be nothing short of an outrage to impose attendance at a church meeting as a condition to voting on this great question, when we know, if we know anything, that we are going to deprive a tremendous number of the members of the various churches of the right to vote at all through quite unavoidable absence.


Mr. HATFIELD:: Might not members on
both sides, unionists as well as non-unionists, be deprived of their votes?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not taking sides;
I do not want to deprive any church member

United Church oj Canada
of his vote, I want to enable every church member, whether for or against, to have an opportunity to vote. We have no right to assume that one class is going to be away and the other at the meeting. No doubt the deprivation will cut both ways, but surely we should furnish ample opportunity for everyone interested to vote.
Now, there is another objection, and a real objection too. We want to have the vote as free, as unbiased, as uninfluenced as possible, and I do not believe you can get a free, unbiased and uninfluenced vote when the voter has to come and stand in front of his parson and declare himself. I think we recognize that in every country there is such a thing as clerical influence. I know that in the Dominion Elections Act we had a clause which recognized this and provided that clerics were not to be allowed within one hundred yards of the polling booth on election day except to cast their votes.


Mr. HAMMELL:: That was in 1917.


Hugh Guthrie: It is many years ago,
But here the effort seems to be to bring the voters together under the eye of the parson and dragoon them into voting in the way the parson wants 'them to vote; while the object should be to make the vote a<s free, as unfettered, as uninfluenced as it is possible to make it. Oh, I have heard my hon. friend from Brandon refer almost every week to the fact that this is a progressive generation, a day of progress. But what are we doing here? We are turning our back on progress. The whole world knows from experience that the fairest vote is the vote by ballot.


Mr. LOVIE:: Does the hon. member know that ballots are taken in church courts?


Hugh Guthrie: I do know that in the election of eldeTS in the Presbyterian church where I attend they vote by ballot and allow you two weeks to turn in your ballot. I never attended a church court, nor have I ever read the rules, so I cannot give any information on that point. But I do know that the experience of every civilized country in the world has .been in favour of the ballot in order to obtain a fair, free and uninfluenced expression of public opinion. By the ballot you get away from influence, you get away from domination, whether it be the domination of the boss, the employer or the parson. And if we want a free vote, why should we turn our back on these yearn of progress, why should we retrace our steps and adopt this high old Tory principle of the open vote? That is what you are now attempting to do, you, ithe great Progressive party in the House of Commons. Until someone can produce some weighty reason for changing the recognized principle of the ballot, I think the clause as drawn should be resisted. My suggestion is this:	Pass this
bill, and let the Clerk endeavour to draft an amendment in lieu of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). I have looked over his schedule D and I think his provisions in regard to the actual vote and the counting of the vote are excellent. But just these words at the beginning, do not, I think, apply to the whole of the bill. The amendment as drawn is that paragraph (a) be amended by adding thereto after the word "thereat" in the 33rd line of page 6 of the bill the words, "or by ballot under the provisions of schedule D." That is an alternative which would be of no avail: If the meeting is to decide whether the vote be taken by ballot or by attendance at the church meeting, why, you have the same difficulty. The meeting will be there under the eye of those who. in many instances want the vote to go one way or the other, and it will be decided at that meeting whether the vote shall be an open vote or shall be taken by ballot. The procedure should be uniform in all cases; and the reasons for taking a vote by ballot are so strong in this instance that the suggestion made ought to be adopted.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Would the preacher have any influence on my hon. friend as to how he would vote?


Hugh Guthrie: I did not think about
that. I said I have not a vote but that I have in my family five votes, and if the meeting were held in the winter only one of those votes would be registered because four of those persons would not be at home. Why should they be deprived of a vote?


Mr. FORKE:: It is very refreshing to
hear the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) telling this parliament to get away from old Tory ideas and adopt Progressive ideas. I like that, and I am quite prepared to do it at any time. He makes a plea for fair play in the taking of this vote. At first glance his argument seems reasonable, but when you look into the matter you find objections to the taking of the vote in the manner prescribed by the amendment. The amendment provides that the ballot shall be delivered by the clerk of session, the recording steward or the minister. Can you imagine the minister personally delivering the ballots to the members of his congregation without having some influence on those people with respect to the manner in which the ballot shall be marked? That is
United Church oj Canada

one thing that the hon. member is afraid of: that the minister may have undue influence in this matter if the vote is taken in the church. But if the minister delivers the ballot to the members of his congregation he has a very good opportunity to do a little canvassing. So also has the clerk, and so has the recording steward. Then we are told that a copy shall be mailed to the last known address of the members who are entitled to vote by ballot and that an accurate list shall be kept of those who receive the ballots. Then, at a meeting of the session or quarterly board the minister, the clerk of session, or recording steward, shall produce all the envelopes containing the ballots-the envelopes have previously been marked with the name of the person to whom it is to be returned- count them and make a statutory declaration as to the number of ballots for and against. There is also a clause in this amendment that failure or omission strictly to observe any of the regulations prescribed shall not nullify the vote. In other words, no wandering away from the direct provisions of this amendment would nullify the vote, and any question in that respect is to be decided by appeal to the county court or superior court. Now, this seems not too bad if one does not go deeply into the matter. But the taking of the vote will extend over a couple of weeks, and if one side starts a vigorous campaign on its own behalf, the other side will be compelled to take a similar course, and we will have the spectacle all over this Dominion of church people waging a contest among themselves as is done in a political election. An hon. gentleman says. "No." But suppose he is on one side and' I am on the other; if he fights vigorously for his side I should be prepared to do the same for mine, and why shouldn't we? But it is not in the interests of church work or in the interests of the United church or the Presbyterian church that this should take place. I have no objection to a ballot vote taken at a church or congregational meeting. I believe in a ballot vote; probably it is the right way to take the vote. But if the vote is taken at the church meeting both sides have an equal opportunity; one has no advantage over the other. Everyone I am sure, who is sincerely interested in this matter will be out to vote. The people I am afraid of are the people who have no definite opinions, who are indifferent, who can be influenced by canvassing, or whose vote one way or the other can be obtained by simply going after it as in the case of a political election. I would rather see such [Mr Forked
people left out; I would rather have the decision of men like the hon. member for Lunenburg, who is in earnest on one side, and others who are equally in earnest in their advocacy of church union than the vote of a great many people whose votes will be got but who do not really care anything about the matter. I want to see fair play. I am thoroughly in sympathy with those who are anxious that this church union question shall be decided without any hard feelings. I assure the hon. member for Lunenburg that I have nothing but the kindliest feelings towards him and the steps he has taken. I should like to have been able to agree to his amendment just to show that we are willing to meet him so far, but candidly I cannot do so, because I think it would not be in the best interests of all the churches, union or Presbyterian. In regard to provincial legislation there is a question which complicates matters; the passing of this amendment would further make trouble in that, direction. However, I leave that to be debated by those who are better acquainted with the legal technicalities than I am. I cannot see my way clear, Mr. Chairman, to support the amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: Is it the principle of the ballot that the hon. member opposes, or merely the provisions set out in schedule D? Those provisions might be changed. If my hon. friend is also of the view that the vote should be taken by ballot, then we could agree as to the conditions surrounding the taking of the ballot; if they are too drastic as proposed, let us modify them. Does the hon. member accept the principle of the ballot?


Robert Forke: I made it very plain that I would accept the principle of the ballot provided that ballot was taken at a congregational meeting.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: It cannot be seriously argued that the views of those entitled to speak on this question, in the Presbyterian church or any other church, should not be taken by ballot. I understand the hon. member (Mr. Forke) however, to say that while he concedes that principle, he is of the view that everybody must go to the church meeting before he can express his views by ballot. There is a class of people whose opinions on this question seem to have been disregarded by those who are promoting the legislation, and that is the older men and women whose devotion to the Presbyterian churdh has been an integral part of their lives. Many of these people may be ill or otherwise unable to attend a meeting called for the

United Church of Canada
taking of the vote; is it reasonable that they should not be permitted to express their views? It is of no use to concede the principle of the ballot and then add that if certain members of the church are unable to attend the meeting called for the purpose of taking the ballot, their voice shall not be heard.
Take the case of the men in my constituency who work in the coal mines. I know many worthy sons of the church who work in the coal mines in Nova Scotia; and the same is true of the men who 'work in the steel lurnaces. Many of them work at night. And my hon. friend would say that before they can be permitted to express their opinion on the question of union they must give up their work at night. That is manifestly unfair. It is no use for the promoters of this bill to pretend to the committee and the House and the country that they want to accept the ballot principle, and then proceed to make it absolutely nugatory, or if not going that far. to refuse to include in this bill any provision with regard to an expression of opinion by the ballot. I think the suggestion of my hon. friend from South Wellington is very fair and reasonable, and I appeal to those who are promoting this legislation, in view of the fact that as a result of the vote of two or three nights ago the attitude of the House is pretty well understood, to be at least fair in regard to the minority. If the minority in the Presbyterian church, who believe with the greatest possible sincerity and earnestness in the rightness of their attitude on this question, are to be told, when it comes to a question of giving them an opportunity of expressing an opinion in regard to this matter, that they are not to have the use of the ballot, which every hon. member of this House would insist upon in regard to the most ordinary election that takes place in this country-


Mr. CALDWELL:: Would the hon. member be willing to extend this method of voting to Dominion and provincial elections? There you vote by ballot, but you must appear in person at the poll.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: (Waterloo):	Would the
hon. member be in favour of the suggestion of the hon. member for South Wellington, to strike out the word "or" in the proposed amendment? Otherwise, would it not be rather an autocratic position for parliament to take?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In reply to
my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) all I am asking is that the principle of the ballot as a means of an expression of opinion should be recognized by this House. My hon. friend asks if I would 241
go further and say that people should not necessarily have to go to the polls on election day. I certainly would not say that. The case is entirely different. At a Dominion or provincial election the polls are open from early morning until late at night, and there are special polls held before election day for those who Eire compelled by their duties to be away from home on polling day, in order that they might have an opportunity of expressing their opinion. In British Columbia there is the system of absentee voting, which has hung up the result of the last provincial election for several weeks. So my hon. friend will see that there are ample provisions in the law for the recognition of the rights of those who cannot be at a particular place on a particular day, and what I am saying now is that there should be some recognition in this bill of the situation of the men who perhaps might not find it possible to be at a certain place between seven and eleven o'clock in the evening of a particular day.
In reply to the question of my hon. friend from South Waterloo, in my judgment what we ought to provide in section 10, is not an alternative method, but we should provide compulsorily that the vote shall be by ballot. I agree with the suggestion of my friend from South Wellington that the Law Clerk of the House of Commons should be asked to draw a proper amendment for the purpose of expressing the intent of the committee on that point.
In regard to the question of conflict with provincial legislation, in view of the fact that there may be in some provinces a provision in regard to the method of voting, I would point out that in some of the provinces adherents have the right to vote, and yet here we do not propose to give them the right to vote.


Mr. BROWN:: That is not the point we are discussing.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend will follow my argument, my hon. friend from Brandon says that we must not provide for voting by ballot because in some of the provinces that is not the method provided, but yet he is perfectly willing to consent to a clause which may prevent adherents from voting, although in certain provinces adherents have the right to vote.


John Livingstone Brown: That is not correct.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Certainly it
is.


John Livingstone Brown: That will be taken care
of under subsection (b).

United Church of Canada


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am pointing out the inconsistency of my hon. friend from Brandon when he raises the difficulty of conflict with provincial legislation. Surely if in certain provinces adherents have the right to vote, as they undoubtedly have in many provinces, the natural argument would be that we should give them the right to vote in this bill.


Mr. CRERAR:: I think that is provided
for in subsection (b).


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am not
discussing that particular point except for the purpose of showing the inconsistency of my hon. friend from Brandon on the question of conflict with provincial legislation, and the use of the ballot being made compulsory by Dominion legislation.


Robert Forke: I did not say compulsory.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend indicated that we ought not to provide for the use of the ballot in the way proposed by the hon. member for Lunenburg, because some of the provinces have not provided for the ballot.


Robert Forke: That was not the idea. My idea was that the congregation itself at its meeting should decide whether to vote by ballot or otherwise, leaving it entirely to the congregation to decide.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I quite
understand my hon. friend's attitude, but he mentioned what had been done in certain of the provinces and the desirability of our not doing anything inconsistent with it, and I was endeavouring to point out that he was perfectly willing to be inconsistent in regard to the question of adherents voting under provincial law, and not being allowed to vote under our law. I do not think it is fair that a congregation should decide whether the vote shall be by ballot or not, because supposing the meeting of the congregation is held on a winter night, with the snow three or four feet high; how is any old lady over sixty, or any old man, for that matter, to get to that meeting and express his view?


Robert Forke: My mother is eighty-six and she turned out and voted for me.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But not on a winter night, with the snow three or four feet deep. That only proves my point. My mother is eighty-three, and she turned out to vote for me, but it was on a nice day in the autumn; I do not know whether she would be able to do it on a winter's night, if there was a snow-storm. My hon. friend would

prevent both his mother and my mother from voting on this church union question, because he will not allow the ballots to be taken home. He does not know whether his mother would not vote against church union. He must not be too sure about it. I think the dear old lady must cherish the church of her forefathers with which she has been associated all her life, and if she had the opportunity of voting by ballot I venture to say she would quietly mark it against church union.


Mr. BUREAU:: You think she would
weaken?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I know
what these good old Scottish people feel in their hearts when they are left alone but no matter what their feelings are they would be prevented from expressing them if they had to attend a meeting of the congregation on a stormy winter's night.


Mr. LOVETT:: Why not in the afternoon?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have
pointed out the situation of the working men in that connection.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: They will not be working
on Sunday.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Some of
them have to. Are we to say that we shall not provide this fair and honest method of obtaining an expression of opinion, but that there shall be some other method adopted under which the meeting would be called by some of those interested at a time when they knew their opponents would not be there? That attitude on the part of those who are imposing this action on the church would be tantamount to saying to the members of the church "We will not give you the opportunity that is afforded by the state in the case of questions even of the smallest possible importance." It seems to me that when the supporters of church union take that position it indicates that those opposed to them are not to be given the fullest consideration. The whole complaint in this matter has been based on the adoption of an attitude of coercion on the part of the so-called majority. WThy should they not be generous in such a matter as this and accede to a reasonable proposition, which no one can question, to be embodied in a properly drawn amendment and incorporated in this bill so that every member of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, where a vote is to be taken on this question, will be given an opportunity, in a manner entirely unfettered, to quietly mark his ballot and indicate his views on this

United Church of Canada
question in the same way as if the balloting was for the election of members to the House of Commons. Surely we ought to throw around the determination of a question of this kind the same reasonable precautions that are extended to the voter when he marks his ballot for an election of a member to the House of Commons.


Charles Marcil: As a member of the Private Bills Committee I was called upon by my constituency to devote more than ordinary attention to this bill. I have had the honour for a great number of years to represent that constituency in which close upon one-third of the people are English speaking Protestants. They were divided in their opinion upon this bill just as the others are who are interested in this question, but not being a member of any of the churches immediately concerned my sole abject was to try and bring about an understanding such as would promote Christian union generally. I strove to the best of my ability to effect such an understanding. I was in favour of union, and I supported the principles of union in the committee in deference to the request made by a, large number of my constituents; but having received representations from a considerable number of others who are opposed to union I thought I would furnish the dissenters with an opportunity of making good their case. Therefore I supported the amendment that was inserted in the bill. I also had the honour of serving as a member of the sub-committee which sat for two or three days with the idea of trying to bring about an understanding. Having failed in these respects I now appeal to the majority in this the final court of appeal in favour of the idea contained in the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Duff). In my constituency the chief Presbyterian church is located at New Carlisle, but some of the members of the congregation reside thirty and forty miles away from that town. They are scattered over a long coast line and it would be physically impossible for all these people to be assembled together at a certain date at a specific point to express their views on this important question. In fairness therefore to all parties concerned 

those in favour of union as well as those opposed to it-I think the House would do well to find a means of giving both sides an opportunity of expressing their opinion. We have a rule in politics in this country which is a good one, which has stood the test of time; it is that the will of the majority must prevail. In church matters I presume the same rule will have to apply, although doubt-241J
less there will be dissenters as there always have been. I am old enough to remember when the break occurred in the Presbyterian church in the city of Montreal. I refer to the occasion when Sir Hugh Allan, and other members of the old Scottish Presbyterian church in Montreal refused to enter the Presbyterian Church in Canada, but remained connected with the old Presbyterian Church in Scotland. There will still be a Presbyterian Church in Canada even after the union which this bill accomplishes is brought about. For how long a period this will be no one can tell but it will continue for some time. In the meantime, in the best interests of union, I think all fair means should be adopted, especially in view of the conditions in my own constituency which I have described, to obtain as complete an expression of opinion as possible. It is physically impossible to get all these people, many of them fishermen and lumbermen who are absent from home, together in the one place at a fixed hour

it is out of the question to obtain a complete expression of opinion. Therefore I think the principle of the ballot should be adopted which would be the best means of convincing all parties that the real opinion of the majority has been obtained. What better means could be used than that which is in universal use throughout the country, not only in parliamentary elections but in case of controversies of various kinds and which is secret.? That is a vote by ballot. I think it would be wise on the part of the promoters of the bill to adopt the suggestion that the Law Clerk of the House should be asked to draft a clause for insertion in the bill eo -that when the measure finally passes the House it will have some chance of rallying to its support the majority of those whc are interested in it.


Miss MACPHAIL:: The case of the absentee voter of British Columbia has been referred to as an argument in favour of the adoption of the ballot in the present case. The citation iof that illustration is somewhat misleading because in that very case the voters had to go to church, or some suitable place within a limited time for the purpose of casting their votes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend agree that it is desirable that there should be a ballot in some form?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I think it is a safe
way of voting.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does not
the hon. member think it is the fairest method of obtaining an expression of opinion?
United Church of Canada


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I wished to clear up
what I thought was a misunderstanding in regard to the absentee voters of British Columbia.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I only cited that case as an instance of the fact that voting by ballot was extended to those who were unable to be at their proper place when the opinion of the congregation was sought, and the proper place according to my hon. friend would be the church.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: When the Minister of
National Defence speaks of "the secret ballot" may I suggest to him that ballots sent in by mail are not secret because the voter must sign his name to the ballot and 4 p.m. do so in the presence of a witness. On the other hand those assembled at a meeting can mark their ballots yea or nay and do not have to sign their name to them. Consequently the latter procedure is more secret.


William Duff: That is a mere technicality.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I was not saying that.
I was simply pointing out to the minister that this is not a secret ballot.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: All we are
asking for is fair play; that the church should not desert the method which it has adopted and ratified in the past in determining who should be elders of the church, and the method which, on two distinct occasions in the past, it used for the taking of a vote on the question of union. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) informs me that the assembly recommended that an expression of opinion in regard to this question should be taken by ballot; but when the legal gentlemen framed I Mr. E. M. Macdonald.]
the bill, they excluded that provision. Why should we not say that the well-recognized practice of the church should be followed, by which a member should indicate on the ballot what his views are in regard to the question and then sign the ballot, so that the people who have to do with the taking of the vote may know that that member has a right to vote. Surely, you can trust the session of the church-I am wdlling to do that in each particular church-to determine the accuracy of the vote and the question whether the party who sends in a ballot has a right to vote or not.


Mr. MILLAR:: Would the hon. member
favour confining this ballot to those resident in the district? As I understand the amendment now, the ballot would go to those who, perhaps, moved away years before, whose names are still on the church register, but whose homes are permanently somewhere else.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon.
member for Lunenburg says that the act provides in the way the hon. member suggests, but not his amendment. I should think that every person who was a regular member of any particular congregation, would have a right to vote in that congregation. Tht course usually adopted in the church is this, that where one is a member of a particular church and moves to some other locality, he takes a certificate from the church with which he has been connected and becomes identified with the church in the locality to which he goes to reside.


John Millar: Sometimes the names are
left on the books for years.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am perfectly willing, and surely my hon. friend is willing to trust the session and elders on that point. I have in my own county a congregation in the country where the people are provided wtih religious services for a distance of ten miles. If a person that lived ten miles away, owing to the day being stormy, or owing to illness, or a death in the family or some other cause was unable to go to the meeting, he would be deprived of his vote. Surely it '}[DOT]* reasonable 'to ask that there be embodied in this bill a provision that every recognized member of the church should be given a reasonable method of expressing his or her view. That is not an unfair proposition. If the promoters of the bill are hopeful of bringing about anything like a union, such as so many of them cherish and conceive is possible, they are throwing very grave and serious difficulties in the way of the attainment of

United Church oj Canada
their object if they fail to give fair play and reasonable consideration to every one who is entitled to vote, to enable him to express his opinion in a well recognized way and in accordance with the practice that has obtained in this and every other institution in the country in the matter of expression of views. I am astounded to think that the promoters of 'this bill should want to adhere to the proposition that nobody shall be allowed to indicate what his views are in regard to this important matter if he happens to be prevented on account of some sufficient cause, from attending a meeting on a certain day. I am sure every hon. gentleman's sense of fair play would at once bring him to consider the reasonableness of the contention that the law clerk should be permitted to draw up a clause which would recognize that principle. 7'hat is all we ask.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Can a member be a registered communicant of more than one church? He can take communion in more than one church.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I understand that a person is admitted to the membership of the Presbyterian church in some particular church. If he leaves that church and goes away, a certificate to the fact that he is a member accompanies him to the place to which he goes and entitles him to recognition as a member of the church in that particular locality.


Arthur Edward Ross: He connot be a
member in that church without that Certificate?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


Arthur Edward Ross: Therefore, it is
only one vote.


Thomas George McBride: I do not think the time
of this House should be taken up any longer on this question. It was very fully gone into in the committee, and after it was gone into very fully, clause 10 was adopted by that committee. We heard arguments in that committee on both sides so why take up the time of the House on this question? Let us have a vote.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: There is one phase of the amendment that has not been discussed yet. Under section 3, there are possibilities that should be considered before we come to a decision. This section reads:
The said clerk of session or recording steward. . . .
Which is the same thing;
.... or minister of any congregation in which a vote is to be held shall personally deliver a copy of said ballot to each member of said congregation entitled to vote.
Or he can send it through the mails. If both of those parties happen to be on one side of this question, you will see that they can control the distribution of all the ballots. It may be said that that is not likely to happen. Let me recite my experience. Some citations of a similar nature have been given this afternoon. In our congregation, the clergyman and clerk of session were such strong Presbyterians that they felt satisfied that that was the only route to eternal glory. Imagine the ballots being in their control!


William Duff: Why do you not write them a letter?


William Richard Motherwell: I might do worse.
If we are going to seed the countryside down with ballots in this fashion, they should be distributed equitably on both sides of the question. Take the illustration I have given. The clerk of the session was an excellent man and so was the minister, but under this proposed system they would have had all the ballots. Imagine such a condition of affairs! In order to have a fair expression of opinion and an equal opportunity given to both sides, perhaps the ballots should be divided fifty to one side and fifty to the other. There might be something in that, but why depart from the systematic method of doing such things? There are three or four distinct reasons why this amendment should not be adopted. In the first place, it is diametrically opposed to practice of the church itself. It is true that in the case of elders, they may be selected by the method of distributed ballots, but in many places, particularly in rural parts, the elders are selected right at the meeting. But before a ballot can be taken, a congregational meeting has to be held to nominate those elders, and consequently, this is diametrically opposed to the recognised way of doing business.
It is also diametrically opposed to the provincial legislation which has already been passed in six of the provinces. I think somebody has made the remark: What of that? Is this House going to override the will of the provincial houses in the matter of the ballot? I do not think that is contemplated. What is the other alternative? You are going to have two systems of election, and if we are going to be law abiding people, we shall have to abide by both of them. We shall thus have an election under the provincial law, the
United Church of Canada

regular system that has been the rule of the church as long as I can remember. That is either by a show of hands or by standing up, and if they like they can adopt the regular ballot system; and in the election in the village of Abemethy for church union we adopted the latter. We disagreed on the former methods. We said, "Let us have all things done decently and in order", and we borrowed a ballot box from the municipality; we had a returning officer and a polling place and got a decision, and it was all over.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why do
you not do that now?


William Richard Motherwell: We can do itmost decidedly we can. It is not a question of the ballot proper. It is a question of distributing ballots or voting at the congregational meeting.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why will
the hon. member not accede to the proposition which has been made that the law clerk of the House should draw up a proper amendment that would provide for an expression of views?


William Richard Motherwell: It is implied-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do not go
on implication. You must have machinery provided.


William Richard Motherwell: I know how it has been done in the congregational meetings, but that is not the question at all. It is the principle of voting by the distribution of ballots that I object to. What would be the result of the two methods of balloting? We take one vote under the provincial system, and we have a result under this system. We follow also the system now proposed of distributing ballots and thereby we would have the probability of two decisions diametrically opposite by these two systems of voting. Which is to prevail?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What does the minister say to. the situation that arises in provinces where adherents have the right to vote and this bill does not give them the right to vote? Where does the minister land then? That is much more serious.


William Richard Motherwell: That right is conceded in certain provinces where the adherents have the right to vote.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But that
is not stated here.


William Richard Motherwell: That provincial
right was simply preserved in law, which I think was quite proper. But under this proposal you are going to inject an element of confusion; you are going to have two systems of voting which may result in two opposite decisions. If we want a church union with as much harmony as possible, we should not adopt this method of voting. We should not depart from the ordinary method. Why should we intrude the arm of the state into a matter that is so distinctively a church matter?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In view of
the fact that the assembly on the previous occasion in 1915 provided for an expression of the people in regard to church union, will the minister tell me why we should debar them from doing the same thing to-day?


William Richard Motherwell: There is quite a
proper distinction, and hon. members should note the distinction. On the two former occasions it was not a vote, but a plebiscite or referendum, simply for the guidance of the courts of the church.


William Duff: Is it not a fact that the
General Assembly provided to take this vote by ballot?


William Richard Motherwell: Which vote?


William Duff: The one that is coming now.
Is it not a fact that the General Assembly decided two years ago that when this vote was to be taken it was to be taken by ballot?


William Richard Motherwell: It was discussed.


William Duff: Was it decided?


William Richard Motherwell: I think not.


William Duff: Yes, it was.


William Richard Motherwell: We have to take
the wishes of the General Assembly as being provided for in this bill.


William Duff: The General Assembly never
passed that bill.


William Richard Motherwell: The committee on Church Union was endowed with assembly powers to confer with the other denominations to make such changes in the bill as would harmonize the differences between the churches. The more we depart from the regular practice of the church in regard to voting which method lias been adopted by provincial legislation, the more confusion will result. We should hesitate a long time before we throw this kind of a monkey wrench into the

United Church oj Canada
machinery and invite such chaos as this will promote. Are we seriously going to do that? Why spoil a wise and good bill by deliberately passing a provision of this nature?


Mr. CARROLL:: , If the local legislatures of the various provinces have undertaken to legislate on the question of how the vote is to be taken, why should we discuss it at all?


Mr MOTHERWELL:: There is something
in that; but I understand there is a reason connected with the larger question of trust funds which comes under Dominion jurisdiction. They are adopting the church provisions in the matter of voting. That is the point. The question is, is this a church matter or is it a state function? Let us render unto the church the things that are the church's and unto the state the things that belong to the state.	This is a matter entirely for the
church.	By this proposed method you are
going to interfere directly with the internal administration of the churches and going to adopt two methods of voting. You are going to make it possible for two decisions. What kind of confusion is that going to promote? Would we do that in a federal election? Would anybody advocate the method of voting as proposed by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr, Caldwell) in a federal election?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Pardon me, I did not
propose that. I asked the Minister of National Defence if he proposed it.


William Richard Motherwell: 
George Newcombe Gordon: Then there is a notice of motion to amend subsection (b):
That at the end of subsection (b) the following words be added:	" on matters affecting the disposal
of property."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection (a) of section 10 as amended On the preamble:
George Newcombe Gordon: Notice of motion is
given by Mr. Brown to amend the preamble by striking out the following words after the words, "set forth" in the fifteenth line thereof:
"And whereas doubts have arisen as to the power of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada to agree to the union mentioned herein and as to the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada with regard to certain of the powers asked for."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Notice of motion is also given by Mr. Brown to further amend the preamble as follows:
To strike out the words " subject to the provisions hereinafter set forth in section two of this act."
Amendment agreed to.
Preamble as amended agreed to.
On the title:
William Duff: Mr. Chairman, I move that
the title be changed to "The United Church in Canada." My reason for moving this amendment is that under the present title many people in this country and elsewhere might be under the impression that parliament was incorporating a national church, and I do not think we should do anything that might give rise to such an erroneous idea.


George Newcombe Gordon: My opinion is that
this amendment comes within the meaning of section 112, and therefore requires notice. I shall be glad to hear the views of any hon, members before I rule on the point of order.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, the title of
the bill is perhaps more important than the
3S16

United Church oj Canada
point of order. If I have not given sufficient notice I would ask that the committee rise and report progress in order that I may have an opportunity to give the required notice.


John Livingstone Brown: I submit, Mr. Chairman,
that to adopt this amendment would be to reverse the principle which we have already adopted by passing section one which declares that, "This act may be cited as The United Church of Canada Act."


George Newcombe Gordon: Section one of this bill declaring that "This act may be cited as The United Church of Canada Act" having been already passed, I feel that that of itself precludes the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) from moving his amendment, it being inconsistent with the declaration.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be
read a third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Next sitting of the House.



PRIVATE BILL SECOND BEADING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 210 for the relief of Elizabeth Atkinson.-Mr. Duff.


Mr. DOUCET:: How much money has been paid monthly by or on account of the Canadian National Railways to newspapers or other printers for advertising, publicity and printing of any character, during the twelve months' period ending on May 30th last?


George Perry Graham: June, 1923			$ 145,291 74
July		
August		
September		
October		
November		
December			 100,732 18
January, 1924			 118,036 87
February		
March		
April		
May		
Total		

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS MANITOBA-APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR Mr. BAXTER (for Mr. Meighen):
For a copy of all correspondence since June 1st, 1924, between the Prime Minister and the government, the Lieutenant-Governor or any judge of the province of Manitoba, relating to the appointment of an administrator for said province, to act during the absence of the Lieutenant-Governor.
STRIKE OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES Mr. CHURCH:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters and other documents containing any conciliation in reference to the dispute between the postal employees and the government or Acting Postmaster General or Minister of Labour, from June 16th to date, including all correspondence with the Dominion executive of the men and the Toronto postal employees' committee.


Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all reports, letters, telegrams and other correspondence since June 10th, between the government or Post Office officials on the one side and public bodies, individuals or business men, relating to the tie-up of the postal sendees in Toronto. Also the daily reports made to the minister since the strike began by his officials, and of protests made as to the confusion and damage done by said post office strike to the public at Toronto, and of all correspondence on the files on this question.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) I would ask that these motions stand as I have some objection to offer to them.
Motions stand.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:: Resolved by the	House of Commons,-
That it is expedient that section ninety-one of the British North America Act, 1867, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection in lieu of that set forth in the address of the Senate and House of Commons to His Majesty the King, adopted by the House and Senate, respectively, on the 24th and the 26th June, 1920:-
" 2. An enactment of the parliament of Canada, if expressed to operate extra-territorially, shall have and be deemed to have had, that operation, if and in so far as it is a law for or ancillary to the peace, order and good government of Canada."
And that His Majesty's government be respectfully requested to promote the necessary legislation for the sanctioning of the said enactment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is the adoption of an address to the Imperial parliament for an amendment to the British North America Act making it clear that this parliament has the power to enact legislation with extra-territorial effect

Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
in matters within its sphere. The question has been much discussed in this country and in the other dominions. It has been recognized that this parliament within its own sphere has all the powers of self-government, exactly as the Imperial parliament has within its sphere, and this opinion is not only admitted by all constitutional authorities but has received the sanction of the highest judicial courts of the Empire. Still, the question whether outside the territory of Canada the legislation of this country has effect or is valid has been discussed, and there has been a marked difference of opinion. The standard opinion, I think, -was the case of McLeod in the New South Wales dominion. It was a case of bigamy, and it was decided by the Privy Council that a citizen of that dominion could not be sued for having contracted a second marriage outside the territory of the dominion because the offence had been committed without the territory and the jurisdiction of New South Wales. The question of bigamy has also been discussed in Canada in many instances. It was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1890, I think, and on that occasion two judges decided that Canada had the full extra-territorial power in respect to its legislation, but three judges decided otherwise. In order to institute proceedings against a Canadian who, already married, goes to another country to contract the second marriage, our section of the criminal code says he must leave Canada with the intent of going to the other place for the purpose of entering into a second marriage; the offence then is committed prior to his leaving Canada.
There have been many cases of bigamy, especially since the war. There have been cases in Montreal of Canadian soldiers who, already married, contracted a second marriage overseas and when they came back were sued for bigamy, but the courts stated that they could not be convicted because the offence was committed outside the territory. In New Zealand there was a case of bigamy in 1919, quite a recent case, in which Chief Justice Stout, stated that the dominion has extraterritorial rights and that the accused should be convicted, but the majority of the Supreme Court of New Zealand decided otherwise, stating that the dominion had no such power. In a Canadian case, that of Keyn versus Attorney General of Canada which went to the Privy Council, the decision was otherwise. It was the case of a man who had entered Canada contrary to the provisions of the Alien Labour Act, and when the immigration authorities instituted proceedings to expel him from the country a writ of
habeas corpus was taken on his behalf and the Canadian judge decided that Canada had no power to expel a man under such circumstances because an extra-territorial effect was involved in the act of deportation. But the Privy Council decided otherwise, namely, that the legislation of Canada in that respect was valid.
Quite recently the question was discussed in connection with mandates given by the League of Nations and by the Peace treaty to South Africa and New Zealand. New Zealand was given a mandate over Samoa and South Africa over German West Africa. In New Zealand the authorities thought they did not have the power to enact legislation for that territory of Samoa, which wras not within their jurisdiction, and they obtained from the Imperial government an order in council giving them such power. South Africa, on the other hand, under General Smuts, contended that they had such power, that they had all the powers of self-government and that that included the extra-territorial effect of their legislation. Their contention was upheld and they legislated for German West Africa, over which they had been given a mandate.
The constitutional authorities allege that there is doubt as to the extra-territorial right of dominion governments. In an article by Sir John W. Salmond who was Solicitor General of New Zealand, he takes the view that the dominions have an extra-territorial power in their legislation. In Canada the question came to the attention of the government in 1920 in a definite manner when the chairman of the Air Board recommended that the government be requested to take the necessary steps to secure legislation by the Imperial parliament provided that any law' of Canada relating to air craft registered in Canada may extend to such air craft and personal license as well without as within the territorial limits of Canada. The House will realize then how important it is that our aviators shall be compelled to follow Canadian regulations even when they are temporarily outside of Canadian territory.
Apart from the necessity for having the ciuestion definitely settled so far as aviation is concerned, there is also the question of our criminal code, especially with regard to bigamy cases, as I set forth a few minutes ago. There is also the question of our customs laws and regulations. Men should not be at liberty to organize conspiracies to defraud Canada while they are temporarily outside of our territory. There is also the

Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
question of the protection of our coastal fisheries. Indeed, in the Northern Pacific Fisheries Protection treaty we have assumed that we have that extra-territorial right, and the legislation enacted under the treaty assumes that we have that extra-territorial right. Surely it is important for the protection of our coastal fisheries that we should be able to prosecute those who violate our laws and regulations while temporarily outside of the territorial limits. The same thing applies to our shipping regulations, when our vessels are temporarily out of our territorial waters. If this was not clearly recognized it would certainly impose fetters upon the self-governing powers of the Dominion, such as to hamper the natural working of our constitution.
In 1920, parliament unanimously passed a resolution for an address to the Imperial parliament for the purpose of correcting this anomaly, not, I take the trouble of stating again, that we do not contend that we already possess that power; we think we do possess it, but it has been challenged and contradicted by strong constitutional authorities and by many judges, so it is important to have a clear and definite recognition of that right bjr the Imperial parliament.
The amendment which was suggested in 1920 and which was adopted unanimously by '.his House and the Senate provided that:
Any enactment of the parliament of Canada otherwise intra vires shall operate and be deemed to have operated extra-territorially according to its intention in the like manner and to the same extent as if enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom.
The law officers of the Crown in the United Kingdom took some exception to the phraseology of the amendment suggested, and, while I believe they were not right in their contention, thought it might give the parliament of Canada with regard to the other self-governing dominions the same powers as the Imperial parliament has with regard to them. Nobody in this country ever had that intention, and the wording of that amendment clearly could not bear that construction because it stated: "when intra vires," so it could only concern legislation within the power, authority and jurisdiction of the Canadian parliament. There were negotiations between members of the government of the day and the officers of the Imperial government, and a change in the wording was suggested by the law officers of the United Kingdom, which was not acceptable to the Canadian government. Finally, the draft as now proposed has been suggested by the Canadian government. The order in council was passed, I
I Mr. Lapointe.]
think, a year and a half ago, and only recently the Imperial government has signified its willingness to accept this proposed amendment and to have it carried by an act of the British parliament. I repeat, my own view is that the wording of the first amendment is preferable to this one, but this one will give us all that we need and will definitely recognize Canadian rights of self-government extraterritorially as herein defined.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I wish to thank the hon. Minister of Justice (M"r. Lapointe) for having allowed this resolution to stand over, because I wished to give some expression of my thought with regard to it.
It is not by any means a controversial question. As the Minister of Justice pointed out, the preceding government pdoptedi a resolution in another form, and a form which he thinks is preferable, and now, in consequence of the reasons which he has given us, and which I may say were not known to me before, the resolution appears in a new form.
I know there is one thing the Minister of Justice does not want to do, nor does the government of which he is a member. I am quite satisfied there is no intention in any part of this House to obtain legislation which would enable any possible interference with provincial rights. I am not going to make a charge; I am going to acquit the hon. minister at the same time that I suggest that the particular phraseology gives an opportunity for that. We have under section 91 of the British North America Act general power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada. Then particular subjects are enumerated in section 91; I shall not enter into the category, and by section 92 a limited class of subjects is exclusively assigned to the provincial legislatures. If a thing definitely and actually falls within the categories of section 92, then the Dominion has nothing to do with it, but if it can be said to fall within both, then the jurisdiction of the Dominion is exclusive of that of the province; but there is always a certain jurisdiction on the part of the province that cannot be interfered with by the Dominion, and that ought not to be interfered with.
I think the Minister of Justice will recognize that he is absolutely right in preferring the original draft to the substituted one; the original draft used words to this effect "otherwise within the legislative authority of the parliament." I do not think the British law officers could have taken ob-

Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
jection to that part of the phraseology. Their difficulty was more probably with the latter part, which said that our legislation was to be effective "to the same extent as if enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom." Probably their objection was to that; but I have not seen the correspondence, and it is not necessary to spend much time on it. I would suggest to the minister that in point of form, yes, and with real substance behind it, it would be well to interpolate in his present resolution the words "otherwise within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada," so that if we are to have extra-territorial powers they shall be limited in terms to the exercise of the powers which are vested in the Dominion, in contradistinction to those vested in the provinces by our charter, which is the British North America Act. I am absolutely sure that the minister has not the slightest intention of going any further, but I think he will see-


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend suggest in which way there is a possibility of this interfering with provincial rights?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If the minister has not
grasped it yet, I will state it definitely. The moment there is legislation in the words of the proposed enactment I think it is absolutely apparent that we could not interfere with any provincial legislation within Canada, but we could take a provincial subject of legislation and deal with it extra-territorially.


Ernest Lapointe: The parliament of Canada cannot legislate on subjects that are not within its sphere.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: We could, under the general provisions of the law dealing with the peace, order and good government of Canada, deal with a subject allocated to the province to the extent of giving it extra-territorial effect. Now, the provinces, it will be said, have no extra-territorial effect to their legislation. That would be the answer that would come to anyone's mind. That is true in a qualified sense but I think it is pretty well established that the provinces have the right to incorporate companies and that while they can only create a company within their territorial ambit yet they may endow it with powers which are capable of being exercised beyond its territorial jurisdiction. That is the result of a series of Privy Council cases decided within the last ten years. That is only one subject that I think of, and the minister will see at once the action that might be taken by some federal parliament in dealing, for instance, with company legislation by the exercise of the extra-territorial power. This
language really sweeps away the limitations between federal and provincial legislation. If you accept that extra-territoriality, then your legislation will be introduced on the ground of extra-territoriality and it would open up a line of argument which none of us in this country,
I think, wants to have opened up. It is so simple and easy to remedy. I think the minister on very slight consideration will see it is advisable to insert these words.


Ernest Lapointe: Where would you insert
the words?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: An enactment of the parliament of Canada otherwise within its legislative authority.
That would be sufficient "otherwise within its legislative authority."


William F. Carroll: That is the legislation
which they may pass at the present time?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Enumerated under section
91, and any extra-territorial operation should only be given in connection with these classes of subjects. I do not want to talk at much length and, as I say, there is no complaint or controversy in this matter. But the subject is an interesting one and I have been trying to fix in my own mind where we are going to get to by obtaining this power and attempting to exercise it. I followed my hon. friend in his discussion of the bigamy question. That is the principal one in regard to which any difficulty has arisen; but we seem now to have an effective, or a fairly effective way of grappling with that evil because our legislation is good, in the case of a man leaving Canada with the intent of committing an offence. But supposing he does not leave Canada with the intent at all? Supposing he forms the intent, we will say, in a state of the American union; there is a deserted wife in Canada and the man ought to be punished. But if the wrongdoer remains in the United States we are still helpless; we cannot expect extra-territoriality of legislation to be recognized by any foreign power. It can only be within the ambit of the British Empire, otherwise this legislation will have to be followed up by a series of extradition treaties by means of which we could bring out of a foreign country a man who had done the act which we had determined should be a crime even though committed beyond our territorial jurisdiction and these we are not likely to get.	.
The principal point of view I wish to impress on the minister is, that we open up almost a network of conflict with every other British state. If we claim this then all other parts of the Empire can equally claim it; and if it is
3S20

Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
accorded to us, we assume it will be accorded to all others. Then once you get a citizen of Canada outside of the three mile limit of this Dominion there is a possibility of a number of jurisdictions affecting him. Eor he may go from one part of the Empire to the other and by what law will he be judged if he commits an offence? We read in the Scriptures of St. Paul claiming the rights of a Roman citizen, which brings very vividly before 5 p.m. our minds that which was undoubtedly the principle of the Roman law in early times when a man, so to speak, carried his law with him. But Rome was then the centre of enlightenment, set among a multitude of mere barbarous tribes, and Rome had the power of her legions to enforce her law. Whether it was what we would now call a contract or whether it was a crime the Roman citizen would claim the right to be judged by the law of Rome and by that law only.
_ Put is it possible for us to put the Canadian citizen in that position in all parts of the world, or even in the British Empire itself? If he sets foot in New Zealand he will have to be judged by the local and territorial law of New Zealand; if he sets foot in London he must be judged by the law that obtains at Westminster; if he goes to South Africa the Roman-Dutch law will take care of him both civilly and criminally. Where is our extraterritorial law to operate? It cannot operate in the United States where most of these offences against the law of marriage are committed. It might operate, possibly, on the high seas, but if our citizen is on a British ship he will be then practically within the territory of Great Britain. I see nothing but cross currents of legislation arising out of this. And after all, what has the United Kingdom done itself? Away back, I think about 1878 or thereabouts, there was the criminal case of a man named Keyn who had committed a murder on a foreign ship and outside the three mile limit. The case came before the Central Criminal Court, and it was held the court had no jurisdiction territorially because its jurisdiction stopped at the three mile limit. Great Britain afterwards passed an act, and this seems to be as far as the United Kingdom has attempted to go in the hne of extra-territoriality. The act was passed m 1878 and recited as follows:
Whereas the rightful jurisdiction of Her Majesty tier heirs and successors, extends and has always extended over the open seas adjacent to the coasts of the United Kingdom and of all other parts of He* Majesty s dominions to such a distance as is necessary lor the defence and security of such dominions.
2. An offence committed by n person, whether he is or is not a subject of Her Majesty on the open sea 
within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions is an offence within the jurisdiction of the Admiral, although it may have been committed on board or by means of a foreign ship, and the person who committed such offence may be arrested, tried and punished accordingly.
A requirement was inserted in the act that had reference to any other portion of the Empire that the leave of the government of the particular dominion would be necessary to bring a prosecution. That, I think, in general terms, while Canada is not mentioned, applies to Canada. The reference is unmistakable, and it means that the leave of the Governor General would be necessary to bring about a prosecution under this particular act. The act also defines "territorial" in these words:
" The territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions " in reference to the sea, means such part of the sea adjacent to the coast of the United Kingdom, or the coast of some other part of Her Majesty's dominions, as is deemed by international law to be within the territorial sovereignty of Her Majesty; and for the purpose of any offence declared by this act to be within the jurisdiction of this administration, any part of the open sea within one marine league measured from low water mark shall be deemed to be open sea within territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions.
So that Great Britain herself, with all the plenary' power of the Imperial parliament, did not^attempt to legislate any further than a stones throw from her shores, the three-mile limit. Now we are asking that a sort of unlimited extra-territorial jurisdiction be conferred upon Canada. I see only the possibility of conflict. I see the helplessness, the utter impotence on the part of Canada to enforce this extra-iterritorial jurisdiction if it leads into a foreign state, and I see some difficulty in reconciling the conflicting claims of jurisdiction which may be set up" by the several parts of the British Empire. I can see no real, clear good. Constitutionally, our courts have affirmed the right to go as far as we have gone with reference to the bigamy sections of the code. They have done that, over-ruling a very strong opinion by the late Chief Justice Strong. I noticed that the present Mr. Justice Anglin some years ago contributed a most scholarly and valuable article to the Canada Law Times on this subject, and I take it that his opinion would scarcely be in accord with the legislation that we now have on our statute books. I am not going to oppose the resolution. I only want to point out to the minister some of the difficulties which possibly were not laid before him when his department were giving consideration to the framing of this legislation. I would suggest to him that the matter is not one of immediate

Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
urgency, that he might take time and give some further consideration to this far-reaching subject and not rush into Imperial legislation which may confuse us in a tangle that, in after years, we may have some difficulty in unravelling.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to support the view of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in regard to this matter, notwithstanding the very able argument that has been presented to the House by the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Baxter). I remember well when this matter became a real issue, a definite question in this parliament. I happened, at that time, to be chairman of the Air Board and also Acting Solicitor General, and I remember well when we brought the question to the attention of the Hon. Mr. Doherty, who was then Minister of Justice. The question is a large one and one which, I think, it is in the interest of Canada and of all parts of the Empire to have definitely settled. If there is a real doubt as to the jurisdiction of this parliament to act extra-territorially, we should have that doubt removed at the earliest possible moment. It may be, as the hon. member for St. John City has pointed out, that this is not a case of urgency; that we are not bound to act precipitantly. If there are real difficulties in the matter, we shall have plenty of time to consider them; but I think the matter has now been under consideration for at least three or four years between the Department of Justice and the Imperial authorities, and if they have come to some conclusion which is acceptable to both parties, my view is that the matter ought to be settled. It is to be noted that in the drafting of the former address which was passed by this House, provision was made to protect the rights of the various provinces in any jurisdiction which they have exclusively under section 92 of the British North America Act. I cannot remember that the question arose in the discussion of 1920; I am inclined to think that it must have arisen on those words which the hon. member for St. John City has pointed out would not likely have appeared in the address at that time. But I -think the suggestion of the hon. member for St. J-ohn City that those words be included in the present address should be followed. I cannot imagine that the Imperial law officers would take any exception to the words:
Otherwise within the legislative authority of Canada.
being inserted in this resolution. I think, perhaps, on a strict reading of section 2 as now drawn, it might be held that the language means that we could exercise jurisdiction extra-territorially only in regard to such subjects as are placed under the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada by the British North America Act. The inference from the language is certainly very strong. The presumption would be that we were dealing only with such matters in regard to which we had undoubted jurisdiction, but it would make the matter doubly clear if the words suggested by the hon. member for St. John City were included.
Under our criminal code a number of cases arise in regard to which this extra-territorial jurisdiction is very necessary. It is not very long ago when, in my part of the country, there was a rather important case where a conspiracy to defraud was deliberately hatched in Buffalo, by Canadians. They proceeded to Buffalo; they drew their documents there, and entered upon their conspiracy. Afterwards, when they returned to Canada, and were charged in Canada, they were acquitted on the ground that the offence, if any, was committed in a foreign country. If we had had extra-territorial jurisdiction, those men on their return to Canada could have been dealt with under our own law. That is only a single instance but I have no doubt hon. members could recall to mind many instances. There is, of course, the case of bigamy. There are questions arising under our customs laws and the like. I would urge upon the minister to take the question up at once with the Imperial authorities and to see if they will accept the amendment suggested by the hon. member for St. John City. If so, I think we would be justified in going ahead and taking chances in regard to the other difficult questions which might possibly arise at some time in the future. That is only a possibility and, in most instances, a very remote possibility; but in the meantime we are suffering some inconvenience on account of the uncertainty which exists as to the rights of this parliament to legislate now extraterritorially in regard to matters over which it certainly has legislative authority.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I appreciate my hon.
friend's remarks, but I still feel a great difficulty as to how the British parliament can give us any power to legislate extra-territorially except it be within the limits of the British Empire. If people go to Detroit to form a conspiracy, form it and execute it there, I fail to see how the British parliament can
Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction

give us any power to make criminal an act which was committed in Detroit. The British parliament may resolve the rather vexed question in reference to naturalization of aliens. My opinion-and it may not be worth much-is that when we have naturalized a man in Canada, we have made him a British subject throughout the world. The contrary seems to have been held. But even if I am wrong about that, the British parliament could certainly give us power to enact laws which would bind British subjects resident in Canada wherever they might go, and make our law follow them; but that law would only be enforceable when they came within our territorial jurisdiction. That is rather mixing-up two things. We ask to get extra-territoriality for our laws. That cannot be given by any legislative power in the world but we may achieve the same results by treaty. What we may get is a declaration that Canadian laws shall bind subjects of His Majesty resident in Canada wherever they may go in the world. There is a very radical distinction, and I think perhaps the present resolution is climbing up the wrong tree.


Ernest Lapointe: The first amendment-


Hewitt Bostock: Except by general consent of the House this matter cannot be debated.


Ernest Lapointe: The first amendment
stated that this parliament would have the same right as the parliament of the United Kingdom with regard to extra-territorial powers, and no exception was taken on that ground. None of the law officers suggested that the Imperial parliament had no such power, as my hon. friend suggests now. There is no doubt they cannot take proceedings against British subjects in foreign countries, but they can bind their subjects for offences committed in those countries when they come back, and the British courts are enforcing such extra-territorial powers when expressed in an Imperial act. My hon. friend says that Mr. Justice Anglin, in a very able article agreed with his own view of the matter; but Mr. Justice Anglin stated that in his opinion we had no such extra-territorial rights. It is exactly because men of high standing have expressed the opinion that we do not possess those rights that we are asking that there shall ne no doubt in the matter and that the Imperial parliament should recognize our undoubted right to have these extra-territorial rights validated by legislation.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What my hon. friend wants is personal application of the law.


Ernest Lapointe: When subjects are in
foreign countries, exactly as the subjects of a sovereign power have. My hon. friend says it may bring conflict with the other dominions. I do not see how it can bring any conflict. In the other dominions the same question has been discussed, and gentlemen of high standing in Australia and New Zealand have contended that the dominions possess that extraterritorial power at the present time. Others are of a different opinion. There is no possible conflict as between the dominions in that respect. They will have the same right and power that the Dominion of Canada has. All that the former Minister of Justice wanted was a formal definite and clear expression on the subject by the Imperial parliament.
I have really no objection to the amendment suggested by my hon. friend. However, I do not think it adds anything to the resolution. The present wording of the resolution has been discussed for a couple of years and has been finally agreed to by both governments, and it seems a pity that we should change it in any way. However, if my hon. friend insists, I am willing to agree to the amendment he suggests.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I will not put it on the
grounds of insisting. I am trying to let the minister see the way this matter strikes me, and if he finds anything in my suggestion that he considers of value, he is most heartily welcome to it; and if he thinks it is not worth while making any change, I shall have no quarrel.


Ernest Lapointe: The words of my hon.
friend and my own words will certainly serve in the interpretation of the meaning of this resolution in any discussion in regard to it in the future. Nobody in this parliament desires to interfere in any way with provincial rights.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The minister will realize
that in the English-speaking countries the debates of parliament cannot be referred to as indicative of the intention of the legislature. Only the language employed in the act can be referred to.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister say
what he purposes doing after the passing of this legislation? There is still another step.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. The Senate will
pass a resolution and it will be forwarded to the Imperial parliament.


Arthur Meighen: The reason I asked was
that formerly the action of parliament took the form of an address to the throne from

Indian Act Amendment
both Houses. A mere resolution does not take that form, and it occurred to me that the minister should have an address to the throne, concurred in by both Houses.


Ernest Lapointe: There will be a joint
address after the Senate passes the resolution.


Arthur Meighen: Does the joint address
come before parliament?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Hewitt Bostock: Legislation having for
its object to amend the Imperial act must proceed by way of an address to His Majesty. But this resolution is only in regard to the principle, and when it comes jointly from the Senate and House of Commons, it will take the form of an address.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 172, to amend the Indian Act.
Arthur Meighen: This bill is not included
in those we have notice of. Is it the subject we dealt with before?


Charles A. Stewart: We had a
slight discussion upon this last week, but it is not the bill we were discussing at some length dealing with the agreement between the federal government and the government of Ontario.


Arthur Meighen: I have no objection to
going on with this bill, provided that if later I see an objection of any magnitude, the minister will carry the discussion over to another date.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Mr. IRVINE:: Mr. Speaker, I understand
there are a number of gentlemen who would like to express their views on this bill, but who are not in the House, relying on the understanding given by the government last week. I would ask that the bill stand until Tuesday.


Charles A. Stewart: There is no
objection to the bill standing over until tomorrow, but I think my hon. friend is under a misapprehension. The bill to which exception is taken by some hon. members is that dealing with the argeement between the federal government and the government of Ontario.


William Irvine: Then I have no objection. Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) moved that the House go into committee on the bill.


Arthur Meighen: Before we go into committee would the minister state pretty fully the purpose of the amendments?


Charles A. Stewart: The first
section provides for bringing the Eskimos under the provisions of the Indian Act. As we are now, establishing police posts in the north, we have to deal with the Eskimos to a considerable extent, and therefore I think it wise to bring them under the Indian Act.


Arthur Meighen: Has the Indian Act never applied to any band of Eskimos at all?


Charles A. Stewart: They are
not mentioned in the act.


Arthur Meighen: If such is the fact, I
have been under a misapprehension.


Charles A. Stewart: This is the
first attempt to bring the Eskimos definitely under the Indian Act.


Arthur Meighen: Have they not been
taken care of?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, they
have received relief grants through the agency of the mounted police.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee on the bill, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Superintendent General to have control of Eskimo affairs.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the minister will state what advantage this is to be. My impression has always been 'that Eskimos were considered Indians for the purpose of the Indian Act. The minister may remember that a terrible holocaust swept the Ungava peninsula some years ago and stripped it of the deer which were the principal source of food of the Eskimos, and from that time on we had to take care of them under the Indian Act and provide them with a new supply of deer. If that was done in the past why is any amendment necessary? Will the minister say under the authority of what act the Eskimos were looked after?


Charles A. Stewart: Since I have been in charge of the department most of the relief given to the Eskimos has been through the agency of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, under the jurisdiction largely of the Northwest Territories. Where they have been subject to famine, food and other relief has been accorded them. Really no distinction has been made between Indians
Indian Act Amendment

and Eskimos. One of the chief reasons for bringing the Eskimos definitely under the Indian Act is that at Aklavic at the mouth of the Mackenzie river, where traders from Canada and the United States are active, many of the Eskimos are fairly well off, and it is doubtful whether anyone has jurisdiction over them, although we have been treating them to all intents and purposes as Indians.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister before
him the definition of Indian in the act?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, this is the definition:
" Indian " means any male person of Indian blood reputed to belong to a particular band; any child of such person; any woman who is or was lawfully married to such person.


Arthur Meighen: Then there is no definition of Indian at all, except that a person to be an Indian must be a member of a band, and, I presume, a band with whom we have made a treaty. Well, the Eskimos go in bands, too. I always regard an Indian as a native of Canada; and the Eskimo is certainly just as much a native in that sense-that he was here before Columbus.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: An aborigine.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. Consequently he
appears to be covered by the act as much as he ever need be covered. Then I call this to the attention of the minister: we have never made any treaty with Eskimo bands. Personally I do not feel disposed to treat the Eskimos on that basis. My own opinon would be to leave them alone-make them comply with our criminal law and give them all the benefit of our civil law; in other words, treat them as everybody else is treated. I should not like to see the same policy precisely applied to the Eskimos as we have applied to the Indian.


Charles A. Stewart: In what particular does my right hon. friend object?


Arthur Meighen: I object to nursing.
I really think the nursing of our Indians has hurt them. The best policy we can adopt towards the Eskimos is to leave them alone. They are in a latitude where no one will ever bother them.


Charles A. Stewart: I am inclined to agree with my right hon. friend, except that we are forced to assist the Eskimos just as we are forced to assist the Indians. The white man came and took away the Indians' means of livelihood.


Arthur Meighen: He will never take the
Eskimos'.


Charles A. Stewart: It is being done at the moment. I am not asking that the Eskimos be placed under the department in order that they may be made wards of the government, nor is it my desire that the effect shall be to make them dependent upon the people of Canada for a livelihood. But white men are going amongst them; the missionaries are beginning to require education for the children, and for that reason I think it is advisable that we have the Indian Act apply to the Eskimos. Of course whether they are under the Indian Act or not, if famine strikes a band of these people we must come to their relief.


Arthur Meighen: Is the minister not doing by this section just what he does not want to do, namely, make the Eskimos wards of the Dominion? I do not want to make the Eskimos wards at all, and in that I agree with the minister. Give them all the rights that our Canadians have. There will be no invasion of their domain on our part and there will be very little invasion of ours on theirs if any at all. So far as they want to come, let them come. The minister is also right when he says that if there is a famine we ought to try to help them, the same as we do anybody else in our country, especially the same as we do the aborigines of our country. But do not let us start on the path making them wards. Perhaps the next thing we hear the Eskimos will be over at the League of Nations.


Charles A. Stewart: We have
never, so far as I know, entered into any treaty with the Eskimos. They have not been treated as a band, although they actually are a band, with their chiefs, following the Indian mode of life. The white trader is going in among them, so much so that we have been forced to establish police posts in those localities. We must have some regulation by which we can deal with these people, outside of any question of their becoming wards of the government.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is doing
here just what he said he did not want to do. Let me read the section:
The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs shall have the control and management of the lands and property of the Eskimos in Canada and the provisions of Part I of the Indian Act shall apply to the said Eskimo in so far as they are applicable to their condition and mode of life, and the Department of Indian Affairs shall have the management, charge and direction of Eskimo affairs.

Indian Act Amendment
That simply means that hereafter the Eskimos are to be considered wards of the Dominion, with all the consequences of that relationship. For example, an Indian to-day cannot be sued; an Eskimo can. I do not suppose he ever is, but if this bill passes he never can be. The government is in possession of his property; the government has made him a child. The minister says that left to their own resources some of them are already pretty well off. Well, there are not any Indians very well of, or mighty few.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh yes.


Arthur Meighen: After seventy-five years
of tutelage and nursing, for the most part they are still helpless on our hands. I do not think we could have treated the Indian differently, and we treat him generously yet. But the Eskimo is different in this regard. The only air he can breathe is the northern air. There is where he is going to stay; there is where we are not going to go in very great lumbers. Let us give the Eskimo the full oenefit of our civil law; if necessary give him the benefit of special precautions to see that he is not imposed on. But I do think we are taking a pretty serious step when by this bill we put our wings all around his property and tell him he is our ward and that we will look after him.


Charles A. Stewart: It is the
opinion of the officers who have to do with the Eskimos that they would be much better under some such provision as is proposed. There is no doubt that many of them are comfortably off. Some of them own their own fishing boats-and by the way, some of these boats were ordered in Canada this year, costing about $4,000 or $5,000, and were sent north. Of course the Eskimos come under the general law that protects a Canadian citizen, but they do not get the same protection that the Indian Act would provide. If my right hon, friend argues that they should be left as they are, in ownership of their territory, allowing them to protect themselves unless they get into trouble -well, I hardly agree with him. However, I am not particularly anxious to press the bill if there is a feeling that we should not undertake this responsibility and place the matter under the control of some department.


Arthur Meighen: I have no objection to
one of the departments having charge of Eskimo affairs, and I have no doubt that the Indian department is the right one, to see that the officers of the law are there, to 242
see that our general civil rights are given them to the full, and to see as well that they are not left to starve; that on the principle of relief, and that principle alone, we may help them the same as any others who are in distress. But what I object to is that we should make the whole population our wards from this day henceforth and make their property legally ours, they simply enjoying the use of it; bringing them into the category of the Indians, with all the responsibility entailed. I think it is a mistake.


Charles A. Stewart: Would my
right hon. friend be content with the simple statement that for the purposes of administration the Eskimos should come under the control of the Department of Indian Affairs, without any question of taking control of their lands as is provided in this section?


Arthur Meighen: Well, I am not sure that that would get just what I want.


William F. Carroll: I was going to ask the
minister a moment ago whether any request had been made to the government by the Eskimos through their chiefs that they be brought within the provisions of the Indian Act. But apart from that I do not think that at this stage the government should bring any persons in as wards of this country. If the Eskimo is the person I understand him to be, any such provision would only make him less ambitious to earn his own living. The Eskimos are a thrifty people, and aside from some unforeseen occurrence, such as the loss of the animals which constitute their crop, they have done about as well as most other people. The next thing we shall have here will be the Doukhobors, if they get into trouble, asking to be brought in as wards of the government. These people are really not natives of Canada; they come in from some other place, and they find that in that part of the country they can eke out a living where they could not do it anywhere else. So far as being imposed upon is concerned, there are many people in this country who are imposed upon, If the Eskimos are in hard luck, if their crops are ruined, the government extends a charitable hand to them, but that is no reason why this government should undertake to make wards of such people. There might be considerable difficulty in doing that. As I understand the provisions of the Indian Act, the consent of the Indians must be first obtained before certain things can be done, especially in regard to property and estates, which are owned by the government.

Indian Act Amendment

I agree with the leader of the opposition that we should have more information upon this question and ascertain definitely why the Department of Indian Affairs wants to pass this amendment. So far as being imposed upon is concerned, perhaps fifty per cent of the people in this country are imposed on at some time or another in matters of trade and business, but that is no reason for making them wards of the government, and I presume the Eskimos are in the same category. I, for one, with the information that is before us, cannot concur in this legislation. I do not think the fact that we have been giving the Eskimos a little charity, and the further fact that they have been imposed upon, is sufficient reason for bringing them under the Indian Act.


William Irvine: I certainly agree with the
remarks of the previous speaker (Mr. Carroll), and also with the argument put i forward by the leader of the opposition. But not only is it a bad thing for us to take the Eskimos on our knee as wards; there is another objection to this clause, perhaps equally as great. What, for instance, are the aboriginal rights of these people? Have they any rights, for instance, to the lands they now occupy? Have they entered into consultation with the Dominion government asking that the Superintendent General should administer their lands? If not, it might only lead to a great deal of trouble if we were to assume the right to administer their lands without consulting with them as to their aboriginal rights.


Charles A. Stewart: I am afraid my hon. friends have the idea that the Eskimo in his habits is similar to the Indian, but this is not the fact. The Eskimo, except in rare cases, does not live in definite localities. He follows his food, wherever it may be. True, he returns to certain points for fishing, and that sort of thing. On the other hand, the Indians from time immemorial had definite localities where they established themselves as tribes. The Hurons and the Algonquins, for instance, all had definite areas in which they lived long before the white man came to Canada. That is part of the difficulty in British Columbia to-day; these various tribes had definite locations which they called their own. But the Eskimo does not follow that mode of life to the same extent, and so far as I know he has not laid claim to aboriginal rights or title to his land. He is established in Aklavik, which is probably the best settled district where the Eskimos congregate, has established his home

there, and undoubtedly through right of tenure could lay claim to that particular locality; but there is the whole of that immense territory in the north over which the Eskimos roam, and to which, just recently, owing to the very great increase in the price of fur, the attention of the white man has been directed. He is trading with them, and is bringing his mode of trade and of life amongst them; there is more contact being had to-day than ever before with the Eskimo tribes in the north. Now, whether or not you strip this amendment of the wording that deals with the land altogether, I do think that some department of the government should be designated to have some supervision over the Eskimo tribes. I am not particular about taking control of the land or bringing them as wards under the control of the government, but whether you do that or not, this government in times of distress must come to the rescue of these people, and in order to avoid that as much as possible, and to prevent disease getting amongst them, if that is possible, it should be made the business of some department of the government to look after these people and render them such protection as the government can afford, for after all they are citizens and natives of that territory, and there is much more trade going on in that territory than ever before.


William Irvine: I appreciate the difference
between the actual position of the Eskimo and that of the Indian, as put forward by the minister, but it is not so fundamental as it would appear. It is agreed, I presume, that the Eskimo is not so definitely fixed at one point, but it is equally true that he is fixed, and very definitely fixed, in a certain latitude, and he looks upon that territory as his home just as much as the Indian looked upon certain areas of this country as his home. I would suggest that the minister take whatever steps are necessary to prevent the white man from robbing the Eskimo, but keep away altogether from taking any control over his land.


Charles A. Stewart: We can let
this section stand for re-drafting. I would like to consult with the solicitor of the department and have it re-drafted to cover what appears to be the consensus of opinion of the committee, namely, that it should be just a matter of control, without making a ward of the Eskimo.


Arthur Meighen: The minister should remember that the distinction that really counts

Indian Act Amendment
is the one that he has not mentioned. In the case of the Indian, there was a certain territory that the Indian occupied and used. We took that territory, and we therefore had to make terms with the Indian. We had to live among him. We could not live among him on an equality, because he was not of a status to warrant it. We therefore made him our ward. There may be some question of the rightness of making him our ward, but it has been done, and we have paid a frightful penalty for it so far. On the other hand, we are not taking the Eskimo's land; we do not need to make any treaty with him. He is in free possession of his territory. It may be he now has facility to sell what he could not sell before, but in so far as that is concerned, it has helped him, and-


Charles A. Stewart: A serious
situation would arise if we got into a dispute over the sale of the territory.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I would keep away
from that; I would not cross the bridge till I got to it. In the meantime I suggest to the minister that he use the agency we have had all along; I think it is under himself; he is the minister in charge of the Northwest Territories, and has a commissioner there. It would seem to me this commissioner and his organization, very small, if he has any, comes in contact with the Eskimo, and has in the past, and utilizes the mounted police, and this is probably the best means. I fancy the minister's deputy is ill advised in trying to bring in the Eskimo in any special way now.


Charles A. Stewart: All I am
asking is that we should settle definitely who is to deal with the Eskimo, because up to now we have been voting sums of money that have been spent upon him, largely for relief purposes, it is true, through the agency of the mounted police. I do not think it would be well to put the Eskimo under the control of the Department of Justice, because as my hon. friend pointed out, the Interior department is in control of the Northwest T erritories.


Arthur Meighen: It should be the Interior department.


Charles A. Stewart: If it should be the Interior department, I think we should in some way set it out. If it is agreeable to the committee we will let this section stand until I have had an opportunity of discussing it further with the department.
Section stands.
242i
On section 2-Administration of Indian ' estates.


Arthur Meighen: The minister did not
get through with his explanation.


Charles A. Stewart: This is simply to make clearer the action that can be taken in the case of an insane Indian. As my right hon. friend knows, in most of the provinces some individual is appointed by the provincial authorities to administer the estates of insane persons. This legislation will, to some extent, give us control of an insane Indian's estate.


Arthur Meighen: I am very much mistaken if the minister has not this power already. In my time we administered the estates of insane Indians. It may have been that something was lacking legally but if so I never knew it.


Charles A. Stewart: We had not the authority to take the proceeds of any Indian property in order to maintain an insane Indian in a hospital.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister happen to have a memorandum on this one clause?-


Charles A. Stewart: I have not
other than what is set forth here. I was looking up the act but I think it is evident the law needs to be clarified in order to enable us to do what we contemplate. The act is not sufficiently clear to enable us to use the proceeds from any property owned by the insane person to maintain him in the hospital. That is all that this provides for.


Arthur Meighen: I certainly have no objection to the power being granted, but I am astonished if it does not already exist. What has been done during the past fifty years? Nobody would suggest that no Indians have gone insane, there have been quite- a lot of them, and we must have been managing their property?


Charles A. Stewart: This provision is to make it clear that we can exercise the necessary authority to pay for the maintenance of the insane person.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Inheritance of Indian dying without issue.
Arthur Meighen: I suggest that we call it six o'clock. This clause will take some time because there is quite a lot of explanation required.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

Indian Act Amendment

After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 3-Inheritance of Indian dying without issue.


Charles A. Stewart: The word "Indian" has been struck out in the fourth line of section 28 to enable the nearest of kin who io not happen to be Indians to share in the listribution of the estate of their deceased [DOT]elative who may be an Indian. We have a lumber of mixed marriages amongst the Indians, and whenever an Indian woman marries a white man she ceases to be a member of the band and ceases to have any rights in that connection. If her brother or sister dies possessed of property, this is to enable her to participate in the distribution of that property, the same as other relatives.


Arthur Meighen: Was the last clause in
the act before, the proviso regarding inheritance rights?


Charles A. Stewart: 
Arthur Meighen: Supposing he leaves a
widow not of good moral character, what happens? This act is utterly silent as to what happens then. Who is the judge of her character? Is it the minister?


Charles A. Stewart: Usually the Superintendent General is the judge in matters of that kind. The Indian Act gives him pretty wide powers, as my right hon. friend knows.


Arthur Meighen: It seems to me that the
word "such" should be inserted before the word "widow" in the fourth line of section 28:
If he leaves no such widow.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not just follow my right hon. friend there.


Arthur Meighen: As the act reads now, in case an Indian dies leaving a widow of good moral character, she gets his estate. The next clause says that if he does not leave a widow at all, his estate goes to the next of kin. There is still another contingency which is not provided for, that is, if he leaves a widow who is not of good moral character. What becomes of the estate then?
[Mr. Meighen.)


Mr. McMASTER:: This discussion seems to be carried on in an amiable but almost inaudible fashion.


Arthur Meighen: It is really on a subject that the hon. member should scarcely hear any way. I suggest that he come closer if he is anxious to hear the discussion. The act is in a form in which it should not remain in that respect. If the minister wants to keep it the way it is-and I have no objection -he should insert the word "such" before the word "widow".


Charles A. Stewart: In that regard the wording is the same as in the old section 28. The only amendment we are seeking to make is to bring in relatives of the deceased who are debarred on account of marriage to white persons.


Arthur Meighen: It is wholly wrong. The word "such" should be inserted.


Charles A. Stewart: Frankly, I
do not see how that is going to change the condition of the widow. She has to be of good moral character now.


Arthur Meighen: There are three events
that may happen. The Indian may leave a widow of good moral character; he may leave a widow of bad moral character or he may leave no widow at all. The first and last are provided for. In the first case the widow gets the estate. In the last, the next of kin gets it, but no provision at all is made for the middle case. There would be if the minister inserted the word "such". Then the next of kin would get the estate. That is what is intended, but the act is silent.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Is it the intention
to debar a widow who is not of good moral character?


Charles A. Stewart: There is
no doubt about that, or the words "good moral character" would not have been inserted. As we are letting the others stand, we will let this section stand.
Section stands.
Section 4, sub-section (2)-Powers of superintendent exercised by deputy. When cancellation not invalid or defective.


Arthur Meighen: The explanation simply
reads that section 61, which is the section amended, does not provide as it stands for the observance of any formalities in carrying out the cancellation of a sale or lease for violation of the conditions of such sale or lease. This amendment is to embody in the act what has always been the practice with

Indian Act Amendment
respect to cancellations; that is to say, it is intended to provide a written form which is to be effective for purposes of cancellation. Is this the practice?


Charles A. Stewart: It is practically following out the provisions of the cancellation proceedings provided in leases in the Department of the Interior. There was a question as to the right or authority under the act of the Superintendent General to cancel. This provision is simply making it clear that he has that authority. A question has been raised as to the delivery of the notice. We have been attacked on two counts, namely that the Deputy Superintendent General had not the power to cancel, and that our notification was not regular; and as there have been a great many cancellations-in fact all cancellations have been made by the Superintendent General-we are making it clear that he has that authority, and validating those cancellations which he has made. We have to read clauses 3 and 4 to get the full sense of the amendment to section 61. While we are doing that we are not affecting any rights of any individual who has entered action prior to May, 1924. This is what we did in connection with the validation of leases in the Mining Act a couple of years ago.


Arthur Meighen: The English seems to be bad. Take the infinitive in the fourth last line-how does that work in as an infinitive? I cannot see it. I will read it aloud so that hon. members will understand it. It says:
For the purposes of this section the powers and authorities conferred upon the Superintendent General shall be and be deemed always to have been exercisable by the Deputy Superintendent General.
That is all right. The section continues:
And in any case where the Superintendent General or the Deputy Superintendent General has heretofore cancelled any sale or lease, or shall hereafter cancel any sale or lease, for any of the causes mentioned in this section, such cancellation shall not be or be deemed to have been invalid, defective, or irregular by reason only of the fact that the purchaser or the lessee, his heirs executors, administrators or assigns, or, if the purchaser or lessee be a corporation, the corporation, its successors or assigns, or any person claiming by, through or under him, it or them, was not notified previously to such cancellation of intention to cancel, or to consider the facts of the case with a view to determining the execution of the power of cancellation.
I can say definitely that it is hopeless. I will not be criticised for using that word again. It makes no sense. To put it. briefly, the section says that, for the purposes of this section, the Superintendent Genera! or the Deputy Superintendent General shall be deemed to have had the power of the minister. That is all right. Then it says that any cancellation previously effected or to be effected shall not be deemed to be invalid because the party whose lease was cancelled got no notice previous to cancellation. Up to that point, whether it is good law or not, it is good sense; but it goes on and says "or to consider." Who is to consider? What does that mean? It does not mean anything. It looks as if it had fallen in from some other act. It has no place there.


Charles A. Stewart: It is dealing with corporations there pure and simple. It may not be very clear, but we have so many cases in which corporations are interested in these purchases that it is difficult sometimes to know who the parties are. So that it is an endeavour to cover any point that may be raised in connection with the communications with the representatives or otherwise of the corporations. Dealing with individuals it is perfectly clear. My hon. friend will remember that a great many of those agreements of sale are made. The agreement of sale is sometimes sold to somebody else. Perhaps two or three individuals have dealt in this property, and then suddenly they all fail to pay, and, in order to clear up the property we are taking this precaution, and they shall be notified. Then we have the case of the corporation which purchases. Any number of complications arise about the purchase of the property, and we are simply seeking to cover the whole of it.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I see a possible way of
getting the language together, but no way that would make it decent English in that construction. I do not know that anybody is finding fault with what the minister wants to do, but whoever has been employed to put the minister's meaning into English has used neither English nor French, the only two languages recognized in this parliament, and we are not conversant with any other.


Arthur Meighen: It makes no sense at
all. I think I see what the minister is after, but he has not got it. I could not see it for a long while. What is the sense of saying that a cancellation cannot be invalid merely by reason of the fact that the authority cancelled it under notice previously of such cancellation or intention to cancel? The word "of" should be "or"; that is plainly a misprint. It reads "previously to such cancellation of intention." How could you cancel an intention to cancel?


Charles A. Stewart: Not having a legal training-
Indian Act Amendment


Arthur Meighen: One is better without it in this case. ,


Charles A. Stewart: - I do not wish to argue it. But I see my right hon. friend's contention.


Mr. MANION:: I wonder these sections are not divided into reasonably short sentences. For instance, this subsection contains nineteen lines, averaging about ten words to a line, or about 190 words. No one but a lawyer has any idea of the beginning of the sentence by the time he reaches the end. I would suggest to the minister that he put this bill into the hands of an ordinary sensible layman instead of a lawyer, to recast it in good English.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Then we will have litigation for the rest of our lives.


Charles A. Stewart: Of course, 1 am not a legal draftsman. I will have the subsection re-drafted.


Arthur Meighen: Assuming we have here what the draftsman intended to say, is the minister not going a little too far? I am willing to support him in going to great lengths in validating cancellations the result of mere technicalities, but here he is asking that every cancellation be declared valid even though the purchaser or lessee had not only no notice of it at all, but no notice of intention.


Charles A. Stewart: That is not the intention.	*


Arthur Meighen: But that is what is here.


Charles A. Stewart: I admit that on the face of it it appears so. It is very difficult to notify all the interested parties in one of these deals, and your cancellation proceedings may be invalidated by the mere fact that although you have been careful to notify the original purchaser, his equity has disappeared by assignment or otherwise and he is no longer an interested party. What I want is to ensure the purchaser being properly notified, and that is always done, but our [DOT]difficulty is caused by so many transfers having taken place. I am informed that this was drafted by the Department of Justice.


Mr. MARTELL:: If we are interpreting
a statute in the courts, we cannot say, "Well, parliament intended so and so." The act must speak for itself whether its express words give the intention of parliament or not. I agree with the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) that these lengthy sections should be broken up into various subsections so as to thoroughly convey to the reader what is the intent of the section.

Some people may say, "Lawyers want to becloud the issue in order to get cases." That is not so. Lawyers always know what they are doing. They may disagree at times, and their clients may have to pay for such disagreement, but only after a thorough presentation of both sides of the case. It has been said that when a doctor makes a mistake he buries it;-


Mr. SHEARD:: Order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: -but lawyers seldom make mistakes which their clients have to pay for. The average lawyer to-day who has any respect for his profession discourages litigation, for he does not make money by going into court. Therefore statutes should be worded as plainly as possible in order that "he who runs may read". But however plainly the intention of parliament may be stated in a statute, I am sure my fellow-practitioner will agree with me that finally only an intelligent lawyer can interpret its true meaning.


Arthur Meighen: I make this suggestion
to the minister in so far as the wording goes, unless he intends to recast the whole sentence, namely, that after the word "or" he insert the words "of intention," so the sentence will read, "or of intention to consider." Then with a reasonable effort a layman can get at the meaning.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It is badly expressed.


Arthur Meighen: I do not say that that
is the only improvement which might be made, but it undoubtedly would be a very great improvement at the most obscure point. Would the minister also bring a statement from his law clerk, Mr. Williams, as to really all that he intends to accomplish by this section? He is accomplishing so much that he is in danger of simply cutting out the rights of the most bona fide purchasers. According to this subsection he validates every cancellation not only if the interested party got no notice but even though he never knew of the cancellation. The minister says, "Yes, but we do not want to do that; all we want is to see that we are not declaring invalid any sale or lease merely because some one holding shares in a company was not notified." Well, no man because he holds an interest in a company is entitled to individual notice; he never was. There must be some mistake about that. But if there are partners, and they are on record in the department, they are all entitled to notice; and the minister would never ask parliament to pass an act which would declare those partners not entitled

Indian Act Amendment
to notice. I am not at all clear what the departmental officers intend) by this section. If I am clear, and it does not extend too far,
I am prepared to go a long way with the minister to validate cancellations.


Charles A. Stewart: It is
just possible that the Department of Justice has tried to cover every contingency. All we want to do is to clear up the question whether the Deputy Superintendent General had authority to sign for the department. That is necessary owing to the fact that hundreds of these leases and sales have been cancelled by the action of the Deputy Superintendent General. Then, there is the question of notification. No cancellation proceedings are ever taken until notice has been repeated^ sent to the person in arrears. Some of these sales run over a period of ten years. A short time ago, on the Galician .eserve, we could get no response from two or three parties who were interested in a sale -Americans-although an examination of the files showed that they had been repeatedly notified. The sale was cancelled and the land was subsequently sold, and the parties interested have now turned up and make certain demands, one of the grounds of their claim being that the Deputy Superintendent General had not authority to cancel and that notification had not been properly sent them, although they had been notified at their last known address. Then we have the other complicated case where those agreements are sold to or traded in with other parties and we do not know who may have an interest in them. We have no notification of their interest until after cancellation proceedings take place; then the other parties suddenly turn up with an interest in the property and say that they have not been notified. These are the cases that we want to cover in this section.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has made
very clear why the first part is necessary, and in that I cordially support him. He has not, however, made clear to me the second part, because if these men are not on the record < f the department as purchasers from a purchaser or otherwise they are not entitled to any notice, and though they might hang around here until doomsday the minister would be justified in ignoring them. He does not need the section for this purpose; there must be some other.


Charles A. Stewart: I am advised by the Justice department that with respect co one case the best thing we can do is to return the money, although we did all we thought was necessary to cover the case.
The question is involved there of the Deputy Superintendent General's authority, as well as the matter of notification and a second party appearing in the transaction.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If an official is charged
with the performance of a duty before a right can be cancelled, there is no good reason why that duty should not be performed literally and practically in accordance with the statute. The difficulty with the government and' with most public bodies is found in the slipshod work of officials who come to think that anything will do. It is quite right that there should be some notice.
I do not think any one wishes to put the law in the position that my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) suggests it would be by this amendment, whereby cancellation could be made without notice of any kind. Very often the courts act without notifying every one in interest. They take what is called a representative of a class, and it is held that where a given class of people have the same sort of interest, service of a notice upon any one of that class is sufficient. A great deal of property is dealt with in that way. The minister might add some provision that the notification, however irregular in form it might be, would be good provided it had1 been given in accordance with the rules to some one of the class of persons who have an actual interest. But I do not think there ought to be an entire dispensing with any effort to let people know that it is intended to deal with their rights. That ought to be preserved to some extent, though I am willing to facilitate as much as possible the main objects the minister has in mind.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
desire that the rights of the purchaser or lessee shall not be protected.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: But your section destroys all protection.


Charles A. Stewart: This section is not so much for the future as it is for the past. I agree that for the future we might curtail it to a definite procedure, and that I am willing to do. But here we have cases where the officials acted in good faith, not at all in a slipshod manner, as my hon. friend suggests. Cancellation proceedings have always been preceded by an attempt to locate the person concerned and notify him of the condition in which his contract stood. The main object is to prevent any doubt arising as to the validity of what has happened in the past.
Indian Act Amendment


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That could be done by a few simple words.


Charles A. Stewart: We might
argue for hours about this. The best thing we can do is to take it back and have it redrafted.
Section stands.
On section 5-Power of Governor in Council over expenditure of capital.


Charles A. Stewart: This is to
widen the scope within which we may spend band funds for the purchase of implements or machinery, also to provide for the expenditure of capital moneys standing at the credit of the band upon such improvements or works as will when completed properly represent capital, or as the section goes on to say-
-in the making of loans to members of the band to promote progress, no such loan, however, to exceed in amount one-half of the appraised value of the interest of the borrower in the lands held by him.
Almost eveiy day I have complaints arising out of a rather vicious system that prevails in the Indian department, and that is the agent has authority in case of distress or necessity to authorize the Indian to purchase horses, machinery and equipment in order that he may carry on his farming operations. Members from the prairie provinces have been complaining to me almost every day that these accounts have not been paid. I hope to try and limit this practice to cases of absolute distress; that is, the agent will not have authority to issue these permits except in case of absolute want or distress; and to take the place of that I want to make it a little easier to secure capital moneys for the purpose of assisting the Indians to get started. We have a profit on the greater production scheme of some $60,000, which has been turned into the treasury, and I am going to ask in a supplementary estimate for that sum to be revoted to assist in this very purpose, in order that we may stop this practice of the Indians purchasing from implement companies, from merchants and from farmers stock and the necessary equipment to carry on their farming operations. We will utilize that amount, and in addition the capital funds we have now to the credit of the band, for this purpose.


Arthur Meighen: I see no objection to this section. I think those additions are probably in the interest of the Indians. I do not quite follow the minister, though, on the other phase, namely that relating to the $60,000 which he proposes having in the estimates.
Is that greater production money?


Charles A. Stewart: It is profits from the greater production scheme. Under the act we have to pay it into the treasury, and I am asking for it as a grant for the very purpose set out here, in order that we will be able to loan the Indian money rather than have him go to the merchant and get into debt, with all the trouble that involves.


Arthur Meighen: I want the minister to
understand I am not objecting to the section at all; I think it is all right, but when this money is voted is the minister going to allow it to be applied to any cases of the past where agents have authorized purchases where they should not have-in payment of notes given, for example?


Charles A. Stewart: There are cases now where band funds have been used for this very purpose. Of course, the band have always loaned the money. It is the clearing up of all indebtedness I have reference to, but there is no authority for me to do it under the act. I want to try and stop this vicious practice if I can.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the minister got my point. I emphasize again, the section is right, to enable the minister to advance money for machinery out of band funds, but when he votes the money he speaks of, is he going to permit any of it to be used, not to purchase new machinery or horses or to make a new loan for the Indian's immediate purposes, but rather to pay past debts incurred by the Indians and never before recognized by the department? If he is, well, there is opportunity for frightful favouritism, and I think the minister would be in hot water from the beginning.


Charles A. Stewart: I confess I
have a lot of difficulty to know how to straighten these matters out; but no, it is not my intention to use that money for that purpose. What I actually want this money for is to start the younger men farming. My hon. friend knows that when a young man graduates from one of these schools, if he can be induced to marry and settle down, he usually makes a pretty good farmer, but we have no funds from which to loan him money to make a start, and I propose asking for this $60,000 to be revoted to be used for that purpose.


John Millar: Did I understand the minister to say none of this money would be available for wiping out past debts?


Charles A. Stewart: Not the
money we are discussing now, that is the profits from the greater production scheme.

Indian Act Amendment


John Millar: But there will be otlher
provision made for that purpose?


Charles A. Stewart: I may say
frankly, if money is to be procured for the wiping out of these old debts, if we have to come to that-but I hope we will not;
I have been trying to get them squared away and get the practice stopped-the proper thing would be to come to parliament and get money voted for that purpose.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister ever intends to apply money to those purposes, I hope he will give me a chance to put in an application on behalf of very many clients.


Charles A. Stewart: It would be a rather dangerous thing to do.


John Millar: I have seen the minister
several times about these debts that have been incurred by the Indians, some of them three and four and five years old. I did not intend to take any part in this discussion, but from the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition it would rather seem to me that he objects to these old debts being paid.


Arthur Meighen: I object to paying them.


John Millar: In that case I think I should refer to the matter. Many of these debts have been incurred as long ago as three and four years. Goods have been sold to the Indians on the signed order of the agent, as agent. Horses, goods from the store, and in some cases oil from the oil tanks have been purchased, not at fictitious prices at all, but on the signed order of the agent, as agent, and when these men delivered their goods' to the Indians on the strength of the order signed by the agent, as agent, they certainly felt the government was behind the agent and would see that the bills were paid. Now, after waiting for years, and crops having failed-in one case as the minister knows, a man was burnt out and lost his store and stock, involving a loss of some thirty or forty thousand dollars-if there is any money available I think it should be devoted to wiping out these old debts. I know it is a difficult matter, and I believe the minister is using his very best energies to meet the difficulty and to get the old debts paid, but some of the Indians have died, and others have moved away and feel as though they were paying for a dead horse; they are not willing to make the effort. I think there is no possibility of having these debts paid unless the government takes the matter in hand and pays the debts itself.
I do not think the government can afford to be so unjust as to see a man take the goods off his shelf for the Indians on the strength of an order signed by the agent, as agent, and then say: We will not pay those debts.
I do not think the government can afford to do that. It is setting an example, I was going to say, of dishonesty. I think there is a moral obligation on the government to wipe these debts out, and I think now would be a proper time for the minister to say just how far he has been able to proceed. He has been trying to meet this difficulty he has told me, and has been doing his utmost in that direction, and I have no complaint to make on that score. He has also been in touch with the Indian Commissioner for the purpose of providing a remedy, and perhaps it would be a satisfaction to those who are expecting some remuneration if the minister would make a statement on the subject so that we would know just where we are.


Charles A. Stewart: This is, of course, one of the very difficult problems that the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs has to face. I point out to my hon. friend that there are faults on both sides. Very frequently the Indians are somewhat easy to persuade that they require horses, implements and food when, perhaps, they do not require them at all; and through the easy methods pursued by the agents obligations were incurred that never should have been entered into at all.


Mr. HOEY:: What authority had the
agent to endorse these purchases from time to time?


Charles A. Stewart: The agent
simply issues an order.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Had he authority to do that?


Charles A. Stewart: On this
order the agent says he thinks the Indian worthy of credit. Of course I take no exception to the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Millar): there is undoubtedly an obligation on Ithe part of ithe government through their agents. I have now put a stop to that sort of thing, and confined the relief to cases of dire necessity. What I want to do is to stop the practice and try and clean up this indebtedness that exists in practically all of the provinces. I may say that in the province of Alberta we have the matter pretty well in hand; but in Saskatchewan, for some reason or another-I imagine very largely owing to the bad crops and to the conditions that surround the farmers generally-the Indians, as well as

Indian Act Amendment
other farmers have been unable to pay their indebtedness. If we have a good agent, and after all that is the greatest asset you could have on a reserve, we will not be very long in cleaning these matters up, except in some particularly aggravated cases. We are endeavouring first to secure the consent of the band for the purpose of liquidating this indebtedness. Undoubtedly before it is finished we will require some assistance in the cleaning-up operations, because as my hon. friend has pointed out in many cases the Indian has died, or otherwise disappeared, and the indebtedness stands. However, I think it will have a good effect if we cease doing that kind of business altogether because there is a temptation on the part of people who have articles to sell to induce the Indian to buy if they can, persuading him that something of the character indicated is needed. The indebtedness is incurred in that way when probably the Indian would be far better off if he were not given assistance it all. That is usually what has happened in the most aggravated cases. However, we are making a real effort bo clean up the Saskatchewan situation. It is probably the worst, and it is confined to three or four reserves. The reserve my hon. friend has in his constituency at Broadview is one, the reserve at Touchwood is another, and there are a few other cases which need immediate attention. We hope to be able to clean the entire situation up without having to come to the government for assistance except for a very small amount.	*


John Millar: I think what the minister
has said may be true in some parts of Saskatchewan. I could not say positively that there are no cases in the reserve at Broadview, but I know of none. I do know however that in many cases goods were sold that were absolutely needed, goods off the shelf. The man that I spoke of who has the largest account-$6,000 or $5,500-took the goods right from the shelf. I think it would be well if the minister could see some way to use part of this or some other money, to pay part of this obligation in cash immediately, because many of the persons concerned are in dire need and even a settlement at once of a part of the obligation would be a great help. I would ask the minister to give this matter his very best consideration. The district is one where the crop has failed; we have had poor crops for some three or four years, and most of these people are very much in need.


Arthur Meighen: I am not objecting to
the payment, but I warn the minister first that he will be in difficulty if he starts this tiling because the number is almost legion. I know myself of many cases-many large and many small-and I protest against any system of picking out a few and providing money to pay them out of the treasury. If the minister is going to pay them all right, but let him come down with a vote for the whole amount; it is the only fair way to do. Section agreed to.
On section 6-Procedure where wife living apart.


Charles A. Stewart: We have
cases where wives have left their husbands and are living in the United States, and it is not desirable that they should be enfranchised along with their husbands. That is why we are asking for this provision.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Enfranchisement of Indians, section 122a revived.
Charles A. Stewart: The difficulty here is, the Justice department have informed us that although section 122a is retained in the act it is doubtful if it was not cancelled in the amendments of 1920. We are reviving section 122a and making it clear that it remains.


Arthur Meighen: What is section 122a?


Charles A. Stewart: It is set out here; it is in the old act. This is to make it absolutely clear that the section was not struck out in the amendments of 1920.


Arthur Meighen: The explanatory note
does not say what it is.


Charles A. Stewart: I will read
the section:
If an Indian who holds no land in a reserve, does not reside on a reserve and does not follow the Indian mode of life, makes application to be enfranchised, and satisfies the Superintendent General that he is self-supporting and fit to be enfranchised, and surrenders all claims whatsoever to any interest in the lands of the band to which he belongs, and accepts his share of the funds at the credit of the band including the principal of the annuities of the band, to which share he would have been entitled had he been enfranchised under the foregoing sections of the act, in full of all claims to the property of the band, or in case the band to which he belongs has no funds or principal of annuities, surrenders all claim whatsoever to any property of the band, the Governor in Council may order that such Indian be enfranchised and pay his said share if any, and from the date of such order such Indian, together with his wife and unmarried minor children, shall be held to be enfranchised.

Indian Act Amendment


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister the
section of 1920?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I have
not.


Arthur Meighen: Could the minister give the general effect of i't?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I have
not the old act here. The purpose is to make it absolutely clear that that section was not cancelled in 1920.


Arthur Meighen: I know it was not the
intention to cancel it. The reason I ask is that the minister came down in 9 p.m. 1922 with some further amendments and I was never very enthusiastic about them. Is the minister quite clear it was not the 1922 amendments?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. The
J922 amendments as my right hon. friend will remember, cancelled some of the drastic yowers of the Superintendent General, but they did not interfere with the mode of enfranchisement. The amendment of 1922 was that the enfranchisement should not be carried out without the knowledge of the band. This affected the whole of 122a, so the Justice department said.


Arthur Meighen: The enfranchisement
should not be carried out without the consent of the band, and consequently the effect would be to repeal section 122a. I think it is the 1922 section that does the repealing, but it does not matter. We want it restored, and I am satisfied to do that. Does the minister say that it is working out well to have the band virtually in control of the enfranchisement, as was brought about by him in 1922?


Charles A. Stewart: We are not having any difficulty.


Arthur Meighen: How many is the minister enfranchising?


Charles A. Stewart: A very considerable number. A' return was brought down fifteen days after the opening of the session. There was only one band, the Six Nations band, which raised any particular objection. The enfranchisement is still going on amongst the Indians, and I think I am safe in saying that it is working out satisfactorily.


Arthur Meighen: My understanding is
that, at the rate at which we are going, the enfranchisement is very slow and that our grandchildren will be in their graves and
several generations after them 'before the Indians are citizens. Was it not a mistake to pay so much attention to a recalcitrant band in Brantford county? It does not seem to have mollified them very much. They seem to be going to the League of Nations over our heads.


George Perry Graham: One of the complaints was that we were enfranchising them against their will.


William Irvine: The minister has explained the meaning of sections 107 and 122a, and he has given us to understand that a number of Indians have been enfranchised under the provisions of those sections, although he does not seem to be clear as to exactly how many have been enfranchised in the last year or two. He has told us that the tribe has to give its consent before an Indian is enfranchised. Is that so?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, if an enfranchised Indian has common, communal property in the band; otherwise, no.


William Irvine: To what extent does the enfranchisement of an Indian make him a Canadian citizen?


Charles A. Stewart: He is a
Canadian citizen before enfranchisement, but he has not the full right of citizenship, namely the privilege of using a ballot.


Arthur Meighen: After enfranchisement, is it not the case that he has every right that we possess except that he is not a member of parliament?


William Irvine: That is just what I wanted to find out. Am I to understand that after the Indian has been enfranchised according to this legislation, he may vote?


Charles A. Stewart: The full
right of citizenship.


William Irvine: In that case, will the Elections Act be amended to provide for that?


Charles A. Stewart: That is not necessary.


Arthur Meighen: No, because the Elections Act merely exempts Indians who are wards. He is no longer a ward; he has all the rights of citizenship. He can even take a drink if he can get it by law.


William Irvine: Have the provisions referred to under section 7 the effect of breaking up the bands or the tribes, perhaps before they are fit for citizenship? Does the minister believe that this is working well?
Indian Act Amendment


Charles A. Stewart: There is no doubt about that. There are in Canada a great number of Indians who are educated in the various schools that are provided for them and there is no reason why they should not have the full right of citizenship. The trouble arose over the fact that the Superintendent General had power, without the consent of the band to enfranchise an Indian and demand his share of the communal property. If the Indian has not a communal interest in the band, the band has nothing to say about the matter. He has free will as regards that. He himself makes application always for enfranchisement.


William Irvine: How many Indians have
been given the right to vote?


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will look at the return that was brought down, he will find out how many were enfranchised last year. When the estimates are brought down, I shall be glad to furnish that information if necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Trespassing on reserves or cutting or removing.
Charles A. Stewart: This is
simply to assist in the better preservation of timber and other property of the band and to provide penalties for the destruction of such property.


Mr. SENN:: Does this mean that any man who buys hay from an Indian living on a reserve will have to have a license from the Superintendent General before he can deal with the Indian in that way?


Charles A. Stewart: Not necessarily. He can get a license from the local agent or secure permission of the council. This is to provide penalties when destruction takes place when no permission of any 6ort is given.


Mark Cecil Senn: Will it be necessary for a buyer of hay to have a license for every Indian he trades with or just a general license to do business with the Indians?


Charles A. Stewart: Just a general license issued by the agent in charge, which would always be by consent of the council.


John Millar: This would not cover the case of an Indian who drives a load of hay from the reserve to a neighbouring tcwn and offers that hay for sale?


Charles A. Stewart: No. That is his own property.


Arthur Meighen: One needs to study these provisions carefully to be certain what they mean. Reading this section over, I am of the opinion that it goes too far. I think the minister has a section under which nobody could sell anything off a reserve. It reads:
Every person, or Indian, other than an Indian of the band to which the reserve belongs, who, without the license in writing of the Superintendent General or of some officer or person deputed by him for that purpose, cuts, carries away or removes from any of the lands, roads or allowances for roads in a reserve, any of the trees, saplings, shrubs, underwood, timber, cordwood, or part of a tree, or hay, or removes any of the stone, soil, minerals, metals or other valuables from the said land, roads or allowances for roads, or who buys any of the above-mentioned materials, shall, on summary conviction thereof before any stipendiary magistrate. .	. .
And so forth, be liable. If an Indian on the reserve takes his hay into town and this section passes, nobody can buy that hay unless he has a license to do so. Does the minister intend that?


Charles A. Stewart: That the
purchaser should have to have a license?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: That is not intended.


Arthur Meighen: That is the result.


Mr. BLACK (Huron):: It must be an Indian of the band to which the reserve belongs.


Charles A. Stewart: It is to
stop the destruction. In most cases it is wood that is pilfered off these reserves. You require to have a fairly broad provision. Nearly all these men, when they dispose of their produce, have authority from the agent to dispose of it. If it were otherwise the Indian would never keep any money at all. It would be all dissipated. You have to have some control of the Indians, or they would never have a dollar to pay their debts. They would sell their stuff, it would be gone, and that would be the end of it. This is to stop that sort of thing. It may look drastic in the case of a good Indian who is a law-abiding citizen, but you have to make laws for those who are not law-abiding, who will get all the money they can, pauperize themselves by selling everything; their families will get into trouble and the department have to come to their rescue. This measure is intended to cover cases of that kind and to prevent pilfering.

Indian Act Amendment


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister mean
that no man is able to contract with an Indian to take from that Indian's lands trees or shrubbery or anything else which the agent does not wish the Indian to sell?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: But the agent authorizes the Indian to sell his hay, and the Indian comes to town, and no one can buy that hay unless he has a license.


Charles A. Stewart: No, that
is not the intention.


Arthur Meighen: That is the way the act reads.


Charles A. Stewart: If he purchases without the Indian being able to show his authority to sell then you can prosecute.


Arthur Meighen: That is the way it should be, but that is not the way it reads.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: No. Nobody can buy,
unless he has a license, any hay grown on the Indian's land. If the man who buys is an Indian of the band, he is permitted to buy, but if not he cannot buy.


Charles A. Stewart: If the Indian was not in possession of authority from the agent to sell, he should not buy from him.


Arthur Meighen: Even suppose he has
authority to sell the hay by license, then the purchaser is not protected according to this section. As a matter of fact, if the Indian is a member of the band he does not need any license at all to sell the hay under this section. It is only one who is not of the band who has to have a license to sell, and very rightly so. But I am assuming now that the man who is selling has a right to sell. The fellow who takes the hay to town has the right to sell it. The minister is preventing anybody buying it under this section. There is no use giving a man a right to sell if everybody is prevented from buying.


Charles A. Stewart: Does the
hon. member contend that a man must have a license to buy?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is the drafting.


Arthur Meighen: The section reads:
Every person .... who, without the license in
writing of the Superintendent General, or of some
officer or person deputed by him for that purpose,
cuts, carries away or removes from any of the lands
roads or allowances for roads in a reserve, .... or who buys any of the above-mentioned materials shall on summary conviction thereof before any stipendiary magistrate, police magistrate or any two justices of the peace or an Indian agent, incur in each case the cost of prosecution-


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think the section
is poorly drafted, but if I were called upon to interpret that section I would interpret it in this way:
-or who buys from someone who has not a license or who is not otherwise authorized-
And so on. I agree with the leader of the opposition that it is not as clearly expressed as it should be, but I think he has put a darker construction upon it than the circumstances of the case really merit.


Charles A. Stewart: I will have this section examined as well as the others.


Mark Cecil Senn: What do the woftls " or other valuables aforesaid " mean? Does that include live stock?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think it would include live stock.


Charles A. Stewart: What is
involved in the section is definitely se( out. It does not mention live stock.


Mark Cecil Senn: It says " other valuables as
aforesaid."


John Millar: Would the minister say
that this clause is drafted in such a way that there is no ambiguity about it? The reserves with which I am familiar are not very far from towns of considerable size, and it is a common practice for men to come to town with loads of hay. I have purchased it from them myself. I do not know whether they had a license or not. I may have been liable without knowing it. I think a great many others have bought hay from them without inquiring whether the man had a license or not, and probably did not think he required a license.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
member was not liable.


John Millar: If the clause means what
the right hon. leader of the opposition thinks it means, we might be liable.


Arthur Meighen: I have no doubt what it means, but if this clause passes in its present form, it does not matter whether the Indian has a license to sell or not. The buyer would require to have a license.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is an extreme interpretation.

Land Titles Act Amendment


Arthur Meighen: I do not want the minister to report to the Minister of Justice that I have said that the clause is badly drafted. I think it is very clear, but it means the wrong thing.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would like to answer the leader of the opposition. The clause is not intended to mean what he says it clearly means. In that respect it is not drafted to meet the desires of the government and of the minister in charge.
Progress reported.



LAND TITLES ACT-AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 188, to amend the Land Titles Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Qualification of registrar and deputy.
, Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil): This section is simply to permit us to utilize the gold commissioner, who is not a barrister, for the purpose of registering.
Arthur Meighen: I never knew there was a Land Titles Act for the Dominion. Does it apply just to the Territories?


Charles A. Stewart: To the Territories and the Yukon.


Arthur Meighen: Would not the law as
to resgistration be included in the Yukon Act?


Charles A. Stewart: I think not. This amendment is simply to allow us to use ;he gold commissioner, who is not a barrister, :or the purpose of registering all claims that require registration.


Arthur Meighen: Not mining claims?


Charles A. Stewart: Transfers of real property.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: Shall I report the bill?
,Mr. MEIGHEN:	I have no objection to
the present gold commissioner being appointed as registrar; he would be quite capable; but does the minister consider it advisable to make the repeal applicable generally?


Charles A. Stewart: It applies
only to the Territories and the Yukon.


Arthur Meighen: I know that.
[Mr. McMaster.J


Charles A. Stewart: As my right hon. friend knows, the population of the Yukon is becoming so reduced that the overhead expense of government is enormous. It is in order to cut down the expense that I am asking for this amendment.


Arthur Meighen: All right.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS-HARBOURS AND RIVERS-NOVA SCOTIA

George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee that this vote be taken item by item?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.
Apple River-breakwater repairs, $2,000.


Arthur Meighen: Where is Apple river?


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Public Works):: In the county of Cumberland. The money is needed for repairs to the breakwater approach.


Arthur Meighen: I notice the vote is for
repairs. What happened?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: No repairs or
improvements have been made to this breakwater since it was constructed in 1907.


Arthur Meighen: Has it been much used?


John Warwick King: It is a farming
and lumbering settlement of about two hundred people. The breakwater is to provide shelter for vessels loading lumber, the shipments amounting to between ten and fifteen million feet a year. Shipments are temporarily held up owing to a recent transfer of the lumber property, but will be resumed in the near future.


Arthur Meighen: Were the fifteen million
feet shipments lately or long ago?


John Warwick King: Shipments are
temporarily held up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Babin's cove-wharf extension, $1,700.
Arthur Meighen: This is a new wharf?


John Warwick King: 
Mr. GOULD:: What is the total length of
the wharf?


John Warwick King: It consists of a
block and span one hundred feet long by twenty feet wide, with an "L" twenty-five feet in width projecting twenty feet from the southern side of the outer channel. In 1910 a warehouse twenty-five feet by sixteen feet was built at the head of the wharf, greatly interfering with the turning space for teams. To widen this turning space is the principal reason for the extension.


Oliver Robert Gould: What industry is carried on on the island?


John Warwick King: There is a general development carried on. The island has a population of 3,000 people.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was this shed put up in such a way that the wharf could not be used?


John Warwick King: Apparently.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was it put up by the same engineer w'ho is now recommending how to undo his mistake?


John Warwick King: I am not sure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bass River-improvements, $1,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is Bass River?


John Warwick King: Colchester county.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the improvements to consist of?


John Warwick King: It is to construct a crib protection work for a vessel bed, to be built in two sections; also minor repairs. The vessels go up on the tide and rest on the mud when the tide recedes, and this bed is to hold the vessel on an even keel when the tide is out.


Oliver Robert Gould: Will this list take care of all the improvements necessary in the way of harbours and wharves in Nova Scotia? That is, shall we have no further items in the supplementary estimates?


John Warwick King: It is pretty hard to say.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bayfield-breakwater repairs, $6,000.
John Warwick King: This is a reconstruction of both sides of breakwater for a distance of 420 feet, the work to be effected by setting stone in concrete.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When did the destruction take place?


John Warwick King: In the storm of
October 1, 1923.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bay St. Lawrence-'breakwater repairs, $5,000.
John Warwick King: That is in Cape Breton North.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What has happened here?


John Warwick King: The damage was caused by a storm on October 2nd, 1923. The Department of Marine and Fisheries strongly urged that this breakwater be repaired.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the report from that department?


Mr KING (Kootenay):: I have only a reference to a letter written on October 17, 1923, by the Department of Marine and Fisheries strongly urging that these repairs be made. I have not the letter here.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
date of the by-election there?


John Warwick King: In August, I think -before the storm anyway.


Oliver Robert Gould: Of what is this breakwater
constructed?


John Warwick King: Of native timber crib work filled with stone.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Broad Cove marsh-replacement breakwater wharf, $8,400.
Arthur Meighen: What county is this in?


John Warwick King: Inverness.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why was the
work not done last year? Is this because of an anticipated storm that did cot arise?


John Warwick King: They had difficulty in getting the labour last fall and the contract was let in March of this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: For what price?


John Warwick King: $7,329. The contractor is with the Sydney Construction Company.


Arthur Meighen: There were hundreds of people out of work; why could not the labour be secured?


John Warwick King: I have not the
details as to that.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the member for the riding will give us the real reason.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Mr. CHISHOLM:: The explanation is
simple. It is difficult to get the timber there at that time of the year, and that was really the cause of the delay. Labour was very plentiful down there; we were well employed in that part of the country last year. It is a rather rough country and you need the snow in the winter to get the timber out. The timber is there now and the structure is about completed.


Arthur Meighen: Has the timber that has been brought there been paid for?


John Warwick King: Not yet.


Oliver Robert Gould: Has the government considered the advisability of making a permanent construction by pouring cement around the rocks in the cribwork?


John Warwick King: I hardly think so.


Oliver Robert Gould: You will find that concrete construction in every stream and every river in this country where abutments are put in to protect bridges from the action of ice.


John Warwick King: That is solid concrete but to pour concrete around the boulders in the crib would not be effective. Moreover, it would not be satisfactory in salt water.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cariboo Island-breakwater reconstruction, $8,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Was this carried away too?


John Warwick King: This is in the
county of Pictou, N.S.


Arthur Meighen: Is this let by contract?


John Warwick King: It will be.


Arthur Meighen: There is $2,000 already spent on it. What happened?


John Warwick King: Certain work was being carried on last year with the vote, following a storm which destroyed not only some of the work that had been done but another section of the breakwater as well. It had originally been intended to do this work by contract, but when the storm occurred we used a certain amount of money to hold what we had remaining of the breakwater.


Arthur Meighen: There were no tenders called for, then?


John Warwick King: We were calling for tenders last season when the storm occurred, destroying another section of the breakwater, and it was considered inadvisable CMr M^iab*** '
to let a contract that season. The engineer was instructed to expend a certain sum of money to ensure the safety of what was left, with a view to asking parliament for a revote to carry on the reconstruction this season.


Arthur Meighen: Why could the tender
not be gone on with notwithstanding the storm? Is the minister going on with tenders now?


John Warwick King: We will complete the work by day's labour now.


Arthur Meighen: Why?


John Warwick King: Because we think it is in the interests of the department to do so. We started to do certain work last fall, and we will continue the work by day's labour, as it is more economical.


Arthur Meighen: Why was it more economical to do it by tender before the storm and more economical to do it by day labour after the storm? Did the storm upset the whole principle of the department?


John Warwick King: Oh no, but the situation was changed very much after the storm, and we then decided to carry on by day labour to retain, if possible, what was remaining. It is considered by the department that we had better continue as we have begun, under the direction of the engineers.


Arthur Meighen: Is the work being done on a percentage basis?


John Warwick King: No, the department is doing it.


Arthur Meighen: Was this the October
storm too?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Carr's Brook-breakwater repairs, $1,275.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that the same storm?


John Warwick King: No. This is to
renew the stringers where necessary. There was a storm in that vicinity that disturbed the structure somewhat, and this vote is for repairs.


Arthur Meighen: What storm was that?


John Warwick King: On October 1st and 2nd.


Arthur Meighen: Where is Carr's Brook?


John Warwick King: In Colchester
county.


Arthur Meighen: What river is the breakwater in? Is it out in the ocean?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: Carr's Brook
enters into Minas Basin. The wharf is at the mouth of the river, I suppose on Carr's Brook, at Minas Basin.


Arthur Meighen: Is this by tender too?


John Warwick King: No, by day
labour.


Arthur Meighen: Has anything been done by tender of all the list so far?


John Warwick King: Yes, the larger
item for Broad Cove marsh. Tenders were called for that work.


Arthur Meighen: Did the storm not change the minister's idea there?


John Warwick King: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chimney Comer-wharf reconstruction, $8,000.
David Spence: Just why is the minister
spending $8,000 on a very unimportant place of this kind? Is there any coal business or any business of any kind being done there? Is there any population there? This is the same thing as last year.


John Warwick King: This is for the reconstruction of a wharf destroyed by a storm last October. The industries are farming, fishing, and coal mining.


David Spence: That storm must have been a cyclone.


John Warwick King: A storm on the Atlantic covers the whole coast pretty well. A storm in the vicinity of North Cape Breton, for instance, or on the north or south coast of Nova Scotia is not confined to one harbour, but covers the coast pretty generally.


David Spence: This is not on the Atlantic mast at all. The storm could not have hit .here too.


Alexander William Chisholm: This is a very important .ittle harbour. My hon. friend seems to be impressed with the idea that there is nothing going on there. I do not know for a certainty where he got his information, but I think he gets it from someone pretty close to himself.


David Spence: I know something about this particular section. I do not have to ask my hon. friend to my left (Mr. Black, Halifax).


Alexander William Chisholm: There are four fishing establishments there carrying on business through all the open season of the year. There is also a coal mine which is going to be operated just as soon as it is possible to carry the coal away from there, but fishing is the im-243
portant thing. If my hon. friend will come down to my part of the country I will take him there, and I am sure he will enjoy himself. It is a magnificent spot.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was spent there last year, the year before, and the year before that?


Alexander William Chisholm: Last year's storm destroyed the whole structure, which was in first-class shape till then.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have been spending money there right along.
Mr.CHISHOLM: No, this is the third time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we did some work there in 1922, and again in 1923.


John Warwick King: There was expended in 1922-1923, $1,100, and in 1923-1924, $11,885.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a coal prospect there. I wonder if my hon. friend could tell us who control the coal prospect, and whether they have been able to sell it
yet?


John Warwick King: I have not any information on that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think if my hon. friend will find out who wants this he will be able to get the information.


John Warwick King: I have no information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No mystery
about it?


John Warwick King: I know of none.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No coal taken out of it yet at all?


Alexander William Chisholm: A very considerable
amount of coal has been taken out of it. I may tell my hon. friend that the property is owned by an incorporated company. If he wants further particulars I can tell him that I am a small owner there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is just the
facts I want.


Alexander William Chisholm: Well, the property is
owned by an incorporated company and I am ,i shareholder.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who are the
ethers?


Alexander William Chisholm: It is not necessary for
me to give my hon. friend that information is it?



Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not if it is withheld.


Arthur Meighen: Is there any reason why the hon. member should give his name and not the others?


Alexander William Chisholm: I might tell my right
hon. friend I thought the ex-Minister of Finance was insinuating something, and that he had me in mind. I have no hesitation in saying that I am a part owner, and that I hope to see the property developed on such a scale that it will be a great benefit to the surrounding country. I have put my own money in this proposition with the hope that I would do something by way of developing that natural resource. Does the hon. member find fault with that?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think it will
be a good thing.


Alexander William Chisholm: I wish to tell my hon.
friend that it is not the coal development alone that is looked for a't that particular point; good results have accrued to the fishing industry from the construction of the pier there. There are two fishing establishments in vigorous operation now. A very considerable amount of fishing is done in the neighbourhood, and a considerable amount of business has been transacted as a result of the construction of this wharf. The benefit of the expenditure for this purpose is not confined to this particular community, because that part of the coast is far away from any harbours and boats come here for shelter from other sections.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I may be quite wrong but my recollection is that when the present Judge McKenzie was a member of the House he wanted this work undertaken in connection with the coal development which we would all like to see. I think the work was started in 1922. I cannot believe that this coal development is not going on simply for the lack of an expenditure of $8,000. What is the real reason why this coal development, which was expected to take place in 1922, has not come about?


Alexander William Chisholm: The reason is very clear. There are no railways to that part of the country and just as soon as this wharf is in shape to take care of the export of coal the coal development will take place. The reason no coal is shipped from there now is that the wharf is not in shape to handle it. A very considerable amount of coal was shipped from there one season, three years ago; but the accommodation was not good enough to enable 
the coal owners to ship anything like substantial quantities from that pier so the operations had to be suspended.


Arthur Meighen: The minister says there was $1,000 spent in 1922-23. The vote in 3922-23 was $18,000. The vote for 1923-24 was $13,400. The latter was said to be a revote so that there must have been $.5,100 spent in the previous year; $11,000 last year, and now $8,000 is asked. What is this coal mine worth?


John Warwick King: An order in
council was passed on August 2, 1922 accepting the tender of W. E. Laundry for $12,159 for the construction of this extension. It was under the estimated cost. My notes show that the expenditure in 1922-23 was $1,100. It was late in the season when the contract was let, and I expect that very little work was done until 1923-24.


Arthur Meighen: There must have been
$5,100 spent.


John Warwick King: No, I think not.


Arthur Meighen: The $13,400 was a revote the next year.


John Warwick King: The tender was
very much lower than our original estimate.


Arthur Meighen: Has any coal been shipped out of there?


Alexander William Chisholm: I have already told my right hon. friend that considerable coal was shipped from there in 1921. I am not able to give him the exact quantity, but I may tell him in order to really carry on a coal business there it is necessary to have a considerable depth of water. The structure at that time would only furnish sufficient depth for small schooners. It was found in the fall of the year, it being a rough coast, that it was necessary to stop shipping because it was difficult to get a schooner of any size to the pier and large vessels were required for the fall trade. That is why this extension was made. The extension was built last year but it was carried away by a storm in October. It is impossible to carry on a coal business there until this work is finished. Again I want to emphasize that it was not for the coal business alone that this pier was originally constructed, It was for the purpose of providing a harbour of shelter for the fishermen along the coast, and they have taken advantage of it to a very considerable extent.


Arthur Meighen: There has been no coal
shipped since 1921?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Alexander William Chisholm: Since 1922, to be accurate. I have given the reason why more coal was not shipped.


Arthur Meighen: When was the pier constructed first?


Alexander William Chisholm: The first part of it was built in 1921. The coal was shipped in the season following the building of the pier. I might tell my hon. friend that a considerable amount of money was spent there developing that coal property, the expectation being that there would be a sufficient depth of water to permit the shipment of larger quantities.


Arthur Meighen: I think my hon. friend must be wrong in his dates?


Alexander William Chisholm: I may be mistaken as to the exact date.


Arthur Meighen: Because according to his first statement the shipment was made before the pier was built.


Alexander William Chisholm: I may be wrong in the date of the construction of the pier, but the shipment took place the year after the pier was built and would have continued if this structure had been sufficiently long to give water enough to enable larger ships to tie to pier. Shipments will start again just as soon as the work is finished.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: I point out to the committee that the expenditure for development at Chimney Corner will benefit Prince Edward Island and not merely that part of Cape Breton. It is the nearest point to Prince Edward Island that contains any coal, and many cargoes of coal were shipped from Chimney Corner to Charlottetown and Summerside. It was good coal. It came from the nearest point to us and the freight was very reasonable; we got it at a much cheaper rate than we could get it by rail from other points. I may say that the great majority of our people now use coal for domestic purposes, very largely on account of the scarcity of wood, and they would like to see the coal mine in question developed in order to obtain cheap fuel. The expenditure at Chimney Corner will benefit not only the people of the immediate locality but also the people in other parts of the Maritime provinces and especially those along the coast who are dependent on coal for fuel.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would my hon. friend tell me the name of the company?


John Ewen Sinclair: I do not know the name of the company. I can tell my hon. friend that the coal at Chimney Corner is of 243i
very fine quality especially suited for 10 p.m. kitchen use, and it is popular among those in the province of Prince Edward Island who have had the opportunity of using it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In what year was this coal shipment made?


John Ewen Sinclair: The same year it was shipped from Chimney Corner.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What year was that?


John Ewen Sinclair: I understand it was in 1921 or 1922.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister say it was the late government that started this work?


John Warwick King: Construction was started in 1919-1920.


Arthur Meighen: There was no vote in 1922.


John Warwick King: Yes a contract
was let to Messrs. Morrison, Congdon and Company.


Arthur Meighen: It must have changed
its name.


John Warwick King: No. The wharf
was originally 170 feet long by 20 feet wide. This new section was an extension of a former work started in 1919-20.


Arthur Meighen: But all this new construction is for the purposes of coal shipments. The place was all right for fish before. There is none of that in the vote under Chimney Comer for 1921-22.


John Warwick King: No; the contract was let for 1919-20, and I suppose it was completed in that period.


Arthur Meighen: Yes and no harm was
ever done to that wharf. That was sufficient for the purposes of the fishing industry.


Alexander William Chisholm: It was necessary to extend it because there was not sufficient space for the boats. It was the initial step in the contemplated plan. The late government started to build it, and I think if the minister will look over his records, he will see that the first item was only a part of the plan at that time. So much was available for that year and the original plan was to be finished the next year. The first original structure would' certainly not give enough protection to the boats. Two large fishing buildings were put up there for the purpose of buying and exporting fish. The business

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
enlarged and it justified the extension. It was necessary also to give protection to the additional number of boats that came {here as a result of the development that took place.


Arthur Meighen: What portion was destroyed by this storm-the new part or the old?


Alexander William Chisholm: The new part.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: This seems to have caused a good deal of commotion amongst the people in that vicinity. As I understand the matter, a petition was sent in some time ago, and I have what I think is a copy of it. The residents of St. Rose, who seem to think their place is the one which should be favoured with a wharf, sent this petition to the minister:
We the undersigned citizens do petition asking for consideration for a wharf to be constructed at Saint Rose cove, Inverness county, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada, as already on petitions for two consecutive years to our member of parliament, Dr. A. W. Chisholm, (for nineteen years representing the county) and to Minister of Public Works, asking for a "wharf" to enable our fishermen a place to land their fish, and a place of protection for their boats, and to have a place to ship material. Recently orders of lumber had had to be cancelled, owing to the fact that we had no place to ship via water, railroad, nor any making. It is very hard for us espcially during the present crisis of hard times, when lumber is the only means we have to earn money to support ourselves and families.
This is signed by all the representative people who live in the place. There are excellent names signed to this petition. There are a large number of 'MacLeods, McRaes, McKenzies, McKinnons, McPhersons. It would be almost like the landing of the Hector to put this on Hansard, so I will forego. I have no doubt that they are excellent citizens. I am favouved with a communication on this subject. I am not responsible for it, but the person seems to be acquainted with certain facts. He says:
For over fifty years money has been spent at Chimney Corner, Inverness county, Cape Breton. Dr. A. W. Chisholm, M.P. for Inverness county has secured $17,000 for a breakwater wharf, and it was built in 1923. The following fall it was destroyed by the fall gales. He had a returned man, Dan McKay, appointed inspector of the wharf works while under construction at $3.50 per day. McKay was at the same time working on the highway with a pair of horses at $6 per day. If he was attending to his job as inspector of the wharf, as freely said, it might be that the wharf would have a different story, than a wreck. Not satisfied with this, McKay was appointed once again by Dr. Chisholm to do the repair work of the old wharf, $800 which was destroyed and six beautiful boats, and lumber on the wharf. Seems strange McKay should be having about all while others get nothing. Dr. Chisholm is interested in the Chimney Corner coal mines, associated with three other colleagues-


Arthur Meighen: Does it give their
names?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not know. I am just reading through.
-but I am told that owing to water trouble, it cannot be a success yet he gets all this money for the place. We cannot leave any material on the wharf. The beach with a brook running through is bad and not much hauling can be done, especially up a steep hill, with millions of cliff stones hanging above and during half a century all this money is spent there. We have been trying to get a wharf constructed as stated on petition, and do not seem to get in fact anything through Dr. Chisholm, yet he can get money for Chimney Corner. Many other efforts have been tried, but nothing doing for this district. Four contracts for lumber had to be cancelled this winter owing to no shipping place for St. Rose. For years we have been trying to get a wharf, and petitioned for it every year. Last year we do not think Dr. Chisholm introduced the bill.
Of course, we know that this does not come in by a bill unless it is for the services of a wharf inspector.


Mr. HEALY:: What is the name of the
last writer?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It was written by Mr. A. J. MacLeod who, I believe, is a near relative of the representative of the country.


Albert Frederick Healy: That is the reason for it,
I suppose.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am informed:
That these people have already petitioned twice through the representative of this county to have this expenditure made. They claim Dr. Chisholm has ignored them and instead of trying to get a vote for a wharf at St. Rose bent his energies to get money spent at Chimney Comer where the doctor has coal mining interests. The people of this St. Rose district-
I am sure the other side of the House will be glad to hear this.
-were very strong in the Liberal political faith. At the last federal election, I got only 24 votes in this district and the total vote ,polled was over 200.


George Perry Graham: Twenty-four too many.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Too many from the
Liberal point of view. The hon. member had better do something, for he cannot expect people to vote for their representative unless they get a vote for a wharf.


Alexander William Chisholm: I will take my chances.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The hon. member had
better remember Tim and the success of the breakwater. There ought at least to be a wharf of a reasonable size built there:
The majority of the men whose names appear on their petition were strong supporters of Dr. A. W. Chisholm at the last election. They are much opposed to him now on account of this matter.
Think of the chances he is willing to take! Apparently there is no change in their political

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
faith, but there is some dissatisfaction at the lack of activity of the representative of their constituency. It seems to me only fair to give an opportunity to the hon. member for Inverness to explain how soon he will have a wharf built at St. Rose, and why he persists in favouring Chimney Corner at the expense of St. Rose, which, from the petition and the correspondence I have read, appears to be indisputably entitled to a wharf. It is a place where a wharf will stand, where a wharf will not fall out like the one at Chimney Corner. It will be a public utility. The hon. member should give some apology to his constituents to-night and show some signs of repentance.


Alexander William Chisholm: I am glad my hon. friend has brought this matter up. The fact of the matter is that I have put forth all the efforts in me for four consecutive years in trying to get a wharf built at St. Rose. Reports were made by the engineers setting forth that it was an impossibility to construct a wharf there at any reasonable cost. It is a fact also that the late government made a report in regard to the matter. If they failed to get the wharf, that was not on account of any lack of persistence on my part, because I endeavoured to get the department to see as I saw. I would like very well to have a wharf at St. Rose myself if it could be built at a reasonable cost.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: How did you succeed in
Chimney Corner?


Alexander William Chisholm: I succeeded there because nature helped me, and because the wharf would be a great benefit when it was put there. So far as St. Rose is concerned, it is in my own neighbourhood, and I am very grateful to my hon. friend for his interest in it. I know MacLeod is a relative of mine. My hon. friend will find it one of the most difficult things in the world to satisfy some of his relatives sometimes. So far as his criticism of Mr. McKay is concerned, my hon. friend should be ashamed to read a letter like that, couched in poor English and worse judgment. He was the only returned soldier there. He left home in 1914 and remained overseas until 1918. But let me ask my hon. friend if he knows whether MacLeod went overseas or not. That gentleman took very great care that he remained on his father's farm, when he was just as well able to go. when McKay went. He seems terribly distressed because I recognized this soldier who has sacrificed so much for his country. Mr. McKay is possessed of a substantial amount of intelligence. I cannot say that much for Mr. MacLeod as is clearly shown
by his letter. So far as the district of St. Rose is concerned, I may tell my hon. friend that I got eveiy vote in that district, twelve miles distant, except Mr. MacLeod's vote.
I suppose that may explain why he is so persistent in writing childish letters.


An hon. MEMBER:: He was not a warrior.


Alexander William Chisholm: He certainly was not a warrior in that case, and I do not think his sympathies were strongly in that direction. I will be very glad if my hon. friend will help me to get a wharf at St. Rose. If he goes with me to the department we will try to satisfy the department that there is a justification for the expenditure. We have failed so far. It is impossible to convince the engineer that a wharf should be placed there.
I do not know that I can give my hon. friend any more explanation than that, but I am sure he should be satisfied with it inasmuch as his own party when in power never spent a dollar in any part of that district.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The information is very
nice indeed, and the hon. member has his chance now. If he will induce the minister to put a decent little sum in the estimates to put a wharf at St. Rose, I think I can guarantee the support of all the members of this group, and I think I can go him one better. If he will cease accumulating votes in those districts in the way he has been doing in the past, and give us a chance to take over the reins of government ourselves, we will put a wharf there, and we will not find that nature will interfere with it. We will employ returned soldiers in connection with it, but not returned soldiers holding two incompatible jobs at the same time.


Alexander William Chisholm: That statement is not correct. This man who writes the letter exaggerates. Mr. McKay is a responsible man who would not be guilty of such a thing. He is a leading citizen of that community and he would be the last man who would try to fill two positions at the same time. Mr. MacLeod has not been telling the truth. So far as my hon. friend's graciousness goes, his party was in power previously, and the county of Inverness sent a representative supporting the party. I think there was one pier built in Inverness county during that long eighteen years. His party was also in power from 1911 to 1917.


An hon. MEMBER:: Longer than that.


Alexander William Chisholm: 
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would advise my hon.
friend not to worry. If the wharf should not be built there, surely he does not think he could induce the Minister of Public Works to put it in the supplementary estimates.


Alexander William Chisholm: I did not say I could.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: My proposition is that if
the minister would put an item in the supplementary .estimates we would vote for it.


David Spence: It has been stated either
by the minister or my hon. friend on the other side of the House that this coal mine would not pay unless we had boats of large dimensions coming in. I presume this is an endeavour to insert the thin end of the wedge, and next time we will have to spend ten or fifteen thousand dollara in dredging, to allow the larger boats to come in.


Alexander William Chisholm: No.


David Spence: I do not think there was a range of a hundred yards along the whole Atlantic coast where the government did not provide last year to build a wharf. I remember it well. It was the same thing this year. It seems to me there is not a quarter of a mile along the coast where the government is not providing for a wharf. What is the object? To keep them in power all the time?


Mr. PRESTON:: Is it. a fact that the
principal stockholders in this coal company are members of this House and members of the Senate of Canada?


John Warwick King: I have no information to that effect. I have no knowledge of it.


Richard Franklin Preston: Perhaps the hon. member for Inverness might tell us.


Alexander William Chisholm: Would my hon. friend
expect me to give him all the information with respect to my private business or anything else? Would he like me to ask him a similar question? He can find out if he is anxious to do so. It is known as the Chimney Corner Coal Company.


Richard Franklin Preston: It is understood in some sections that the colleagues of my hon. friend own the stock in this company, and that they are endeavouring to have public money spent to build a wharf with a view of having large improvements. I understand they want the money spent to build a wharf, in order that they may sell the property.


Alexander William Chisholm: I may satisfy my hon.
.friend by telling him that they have no intention of selling the property. It is not for sale, and my hon. friend's informants should get a little better acquainted with the circumstances of the company. They are not trying to sell.


Richard Franklin Preston: I am trying to get information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Comeau's Cove-breakwater improvement, $-1,900.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What happened at Comeau's Cove?


John Warwick King: This item is to
build a new cribwork block on the harbour side of the breakwater and a native timber, stone-filled crib. It is to protect the local fishing fleet. The existing work consists of a breakwater built in 1914-15. I think that covers the structure to date.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Digby-repairs and renewals to pier, [DOT] $2,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is to be
done this year?


John Warwick King: Renewals of floors, fenders and freight shed repairs. It is annual repair work necessary on account of great and constant wear and tear.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	-
Dartmouth

pier, $120,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is a large item. What is the present position?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: This is for the
construction of a pier 661 feet long, consisting of stone with gravel approaches. The work is under contract to the Halifax Dredging Company and the Standard Construction Company. The amount of the contract is $135,659.54. The probable expenditure for 1923-24 is $25,000. There is a re-vote of $50,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then the other
figure must be wrong.


John Warwick King: That was the
probable expenditure when the estimates were being made up. The actual expenditure was $22,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How can that be in view of these figures?


John Warwick King: You have inspection fees as well, and then expenditure for the site, $6,802.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the vote of
$120,000 going to clean up the whole matter?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hope this is
not a place where the wharf is going to be carried away by storms.


John Warwick King: Halifax is a protected harbour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No trouble up
there at all?


John Warwick King: I think not.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Is this entirely
new work?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What constituency?


John Warwick King: Halifax.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
East Bay-wharf repairs, $1,600.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Any storms
there?


John Warwick King: No; this is a
renewal of stringers, guard rail covering, and so forth, which are in a decayed condition.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
East River-repairs to lock, $3,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
occasion for that work?


John Warwick King: To repair the
lock walls, which the district engineer states are badly disintegrating and may fall into the lock and block navigation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The $4,000 spent last year was to do similar work. What has happened in the meantime?


John Warwick King: The repairs were
not completed last year. This work is of concrete, there has been a very considerable disintegration, and the engineer recommends that if the work is to be saved these repairs must be made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much
money was spent last year?
Mr. KING Kootenay: We spent $4,096.35.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I point out to my hon. friendl that the whole of the money that was to be sufficient to repair this work last year has been spent. Now, what has happened?


John Warwick King: This is additional work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I know; but
w'hat has happened to bring about this very bad state of affairs when $4,000 was to put the work in proper condition last year?


John Warwick King: This is additional work required this year. The undertaking cost nearly $400,000, and a repair of $4,000 would not be very great.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the same
thing be required next year?


John Warwick King: I cannot say.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should think
the minister can say if he has the engineer's report before him.


John Warwick King: No, that could
not be reported at this time. The report from the district engineer covers the requirement for this year. By next November or December we will probably be getting a further report on this work. It is a large work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course it
is a large work. It must follow that the minister should know whether further repairs are under contemplation or not. Last year $4,000 was not enough to look after the necessary repairs, although, so far as my memory goes, it was considered sufficient. There has been no storm to interfere with the lock since. The whole trouble we are told was that the work was large and the engineer did not completely cover the repairs. Now I ask the minister does this $3,000 cover it, or is he coming back next year for another $3,000 or $4,000?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: I am asking parliament to vote what the engineer considers necessary to take care of the repairs this year. The work is of concrete. This concrete is disintegrating, and when disintegration sets in in concrete it is difficult to say what repairs will be necessary year by year. My hon. friend is well versed in that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does this sum cover all the repairs necessary to look after the concrete that has disintegrated?


John Warwick King: It is what the
engineer has asked for this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am asking,
Mr. Chairman, whether this sum will cover all repairs for concrete that is disintegrating.


John Warwick King: No one can tell you that at the present time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has any disintegration evidenced itself that it is not now intended to repair?


John Warwick King: I have not had a report on that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does the report say?


John Warwick King: I read the report: This amount of $3,000 is required to repair the lock walls, which the district engineer states are badly disintegrating, and may fall in the lock and block navigation if not repaired. That is the district engineer's reason for the expenditure. As to further disintegration, I have not any report, and it is impossible to say that this will be the only amount required for years to come.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am asking if this sum is sufficient to cover the repairs for this year.


John Warwick King: We will probably have a report on this work at the end of the season suggesting the requirements for next year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where has this happened?


John Warwick King: It is a lock between Pictou and New Glasgow. Two ferries operate daily between these towns, and a large number of boats use the channel. This lock was built as part of a general river improvement project carried out from 1908 to 1918. A contract was let for this work in 1913.


Mr. EVANS:: What is the cause of the disintegration-bad work in the beginning?


John Warwick King: It is the effect of salt water.
fSir Henry Drayton.]


John Evans: I did not know salt water would have that effect.


John Warwick King: Yes, it has a very serious effect on concrete.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Eastern Harbour-improvements, $42,000.
David Spence: Do we derive any real
benefit from the expenditure of this money? How is it that $38,000 was voted last year and now we have an item of $42,000?


John Warwick King: The contract was entered into last year late in the season, .but it was difficult to get tenders at that time and very little was done; about $6,000 or $7,000 was expended. This is to continue the contract.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: To whom has the contract been awarded?


John Warwick King: New Glasgow
Dredging Company.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In what county is Eastern Harbour situated?


John Warwick King: Inverness.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will this vote
complete the work?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Mr. LEWIS:: What is the nature of the
improvements?


John Warwick King: Dredging a channel into the harbour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
French Village-rebuilding wharf, $3,700.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is French Village?


John Warwick King: In the constituency of Halifax. The vote is to rebuild the pile work of a portion of the wharf, 150 by 25 feet. The district engineer on January, 12, 1924, says that the proposed work is of an urgent nature. The wharf is the only one in that vicinity and is used by the residents to land freight brought by vessels from Halifax, also for the export of fish, cordwood, lumber, and so on.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is there any
revenue from this wharf?


John Warwick King: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Friar's Head-harbour improvements, $1,500,
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
nature of the work there?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: $500 to complete
payment on contract for the extension of breakwater; $1,000 for the removal of large boulders and ledge rock a't the approach to the harbour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
$4,200 spent for last year?


John Warwick King: The contract last year was for the raising of 105 feet of the breakwater to a further height of 3 feet and the construction of a new section 60 feet in length.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will this complete the work?


John Warwick King: I think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is nothing more asked for?


John Warwick King: Not at present.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is Friar's Head?


John Warwick King: In the county of
Inverness.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Great Village-wharf replacement, $3,500.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will the minister explain the nature of this work?


John Warwick King: This work is in
the constituency of Colchester. It is to construct a wharf to replace the old structure, which was in a dilapidated condition and was entirely wrecked by a severe storm in October, 1923.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grand Narrows-wharf extension, $2,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: How was it we did no work there last year? Is there the same lack of necessity now that there was in 1923-24 as evidenced by the action of the department?


John Warwick King: The engineer
states that there was difficulty in getting delivery of creosoted timber; that the cost was excessive and he was convinced that a postponement of the expenditure for one year would be advisable.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was
his estimate of the cost?


John Warwick King: $2,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
price he indicated as excessive?


John Warwick King: He did not state the amount; he simply said that the price was excessive and that he considered it inadvisable to proceed with the work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
present information?


John Warwick King: He says that
since last summer a new view of the creosote situation has arisen. The plans of Creosote Products Limited of Toronto indicate that they will establish creosote works at Newcastle, New Brunswick, and New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, and the probability is they will be able to supply all the creosoted materials required for these and other works at much more reasonable figures than those received during the past year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is Grand Narrows?


John Warwick King: Cape Breton
North and Victoria.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is this work
done by tender and contract?


John Warwick King: I think it is done by day labour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $55,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: How much was spent last year under that vote?


John Warwick King: $57,926.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was that work done by tender or by day labour?


John Warwick King: Mostly by day
labour. The amounts are small, varying from $30 to $1,400.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is to take care of unforeseen expenditures in the way of repairs and so on?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is there any report covering the various items, or is it just a lump sum put in to take care of repairs that crop up from time to time?


John Warwick King: A sum put in
to take care of repairs that become necessary from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Irish Cove-wharf repairs, $3,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What has happened in Irish Cove?


John Warwick King: We are replacing the native timber piling in the wharf there with creosoted timber. The native timber has been' badly eaten by teredo and the early destruction of the wharf would be inevitable if this piling was not replaced with creosoted timber.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When was that wharf put in?


John Warwick King: In 1920 the piling was put in.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that a
wharf that was put in in 1920 is already so far gone that we have to put in new timber?
Mr. KING (Kootenay: That might easily happen if we have the teredo in that vicinity. The native timber which has not been treated may not last a year under those conditions.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In what county is Irish Cove?


John Warwick King: Cape Breton
South.
Little Bass River-repairs to channel protection work,


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is that?


John Warwick King: In Colchester
county.
Lunenburg-dredging, $51,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is Lunenburg?


John Warwick King: In the constituency of Lunenburg. It is an important fishing harbour.


Arthur John Lewis: Does this dredging have to
be done annually? I see there was a vote for $40,000 last year.


John Warwick King: The Acadia Contractors Limited.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Have they got the contract also for this further expenditure?


John Warwick King: This is to complete their contract.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But is that quite right? The whole vote last year, for $40,000, has been spent apparently. What authority had the government to enter into a contract for more then the $40,000 voted last year?


John Warwick King: The amount of
the contract was $81,840.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to find out definitely what the practice of the department is. It may be there is some use in considering estimates; it may be there is none at all; it may be the minister is entirely a law unto himself. But here is a vote for $40,000, which so far as I know, and so far as is shown in the estimates, is the sole justification for entering into a contract. Now we are told that a contract has been entered into, not for $40,000, but for $81,000.


John Warwick King: It is not unusual to vote a sum for a contract, and then to increase the contract and come to parliament next year for an additional amount to complete. The advantage in letting the larger contract would be the opportunity of getting a lower price than if a smaller quantity was moved. The contract price is considered fair and reasonable by the department, and we are asking for this vote to complete the contract.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely the minister can see the result of it all. Last year there was doubtless the usual discussion as to the necessity for dredging at this point, and we were doubtless told that dredging should be done to the extent of $40,000.


John Warwick King: There has not
been any dredging done there for some years, and there is a considerable amount of it to be done.


John Warwick King: I think the whole contract was discussed last year. I have the information here, but cannot find it at the moment.


Arthur John Lewis: There was some done last
year.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: By contract or day labour?


John Warwick King: By contract.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Who had the contract last
year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would be interested to know if that was the fact.


John Warwick King: The minister last year stated that the estimated cost of dredging would be $103,000, and that the work would be done by tender, so the House was advised at that time that the expenditure would be larger than the vote then asked.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is this to complete the balance of the dredging at the harbour?


John Warwick King: This is to complete the contract.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it contemplated there will be further dredging necessary there?


William Duff: We hope so; it needs it.


John Warwick King: I am not in a
position to say, but there are requests from the engineering department for further dredging at Lunenburg.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the dredging
being done for greater area or greater depth?


John Warwick King: It is to provide
an area where the ships may lie during the winter season when they return from the banks and crowd into the harbour. At the present time there is not sufficient mooring space for the ships when they come home.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then it is for
extra space?


John Warwick King: Dredging the channel and around the piers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What depth is
the channel being dredged?


John Warwick King: Eighteen feet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is, the
channel to the pier?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are we troubled with silting there?


John Warwick King: Yes, there is
some silt from the sea wash.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Malagash-dredging, $22,700.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What about this
case?


John Warwick King: This work is necessary in order to permit steamers to enter into the harbour to receive cargoes of salt. Important salt discoveries have been made at this point, and by opening up the channel steamers will be able to come in and receive cargoes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is this?


John Warwick King: In Cumberland
county.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What did we spend last year?


John Warwick King: Practically nothing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
reason for the change? Why did we not go on last year and why are we going on this year?


John Warwick King: The contract was entered into last fall, and it was impossible to get the plant then.


Henry Lumley Drayton: To whom has the contract been let, and for what amount?


John Warwick King: It was let on
October 4, 1923, to the Fraser Paving and Construction Company Limited for the dredging of approximately 23,920 cubic yards, at $2.35 for class A material, and 90 cents for class B.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does that mean?


John Warwick King: Class A is rock, and class B is gravel, sand, clay and other material.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is the work being undertaken this year greater in extent than was proposed last year? The contract last year was only for $15,700.


John Warwick King: We are asking for $22,700 this year, of which $15,700 is a revote. We know better now what the cost will be. We have had tenders since we asked for the vote last year, and the lowest tender was for $22,000 odd.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But it is for
exactly the same work?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
McKay's Point-wharf repairs, $2,700.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is new.


John Warwick King: This is for the
construction of the outer part of this wharf and to put in about twenty new stringers. It is not new work, it is reconstruction.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Where is Mc-
Kay's Point?


John Warwick King: In Cape Breton
North and Victoria.
Item agreed to .
Merigomish-wharf repairs, $1,400.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Where is this?


John Warwick King: In Pictou county. Item agreed to.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Meteghan-wharf extension, $6,500.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
object of this extension?


John Warwick King: This is in Yarmouth and Clare.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is entirely a revote. Has the contract been let?


John Warwick King: Tenders were received and the order in council was passed in September, 1923, for this work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
amount of the contract?


John Warwick King: The contract
was for $5,673.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New Harris-wharf, $8,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: How much was spent last year on that?


John Warwick King: We did not expend any money there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
reason for the increase from $5,000 to
$8,000?


John Warwick King: The engineer increased his estimate by $3,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, but what
was the reason of the increase? Is he committing us to more work, or was his first estimate hopelessly out?


John Warwick King: The other
estimate evidently was too low.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is his explanation; what does he say in his report?


John Warwick King: Last year apparently he found cresosoted timber very high and had his estimates too low. He figures this year that his creosoted timber, 10,300 cubic feet, will cost $4,120. Then he is using more native timber which he estimates will cost $2,400. And there is the purchase of right of way, filling, and contingencies, making a total of $8,000.


Arthur John Lewis: Is the precaution taken to
see that all native timber is creosoted in a proper manner before it is put in?


John Warwick King: We are using creosoted timber a great deal more than formerly.


Arthur John Lewis: Is it the practice to creosote all native timber?


John Warwick King: We use some
native timber.
[Mr. J. H. King.)


Arthur John Lewis: Without creosoting it?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is $2,400
worth in this item for example?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur John Lewis: It seems to me that since
experience has shown that timber deteriorates very rapidly, sometimes in the space of two or three years, the precaution should be taken to see that all timber placed in wharves, and similar structures, is creosoted.


John Warwick King: The creosoted
timber is used more under water, whereas the native timber is used above and on the inside of the work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is this new
work?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the
purpose of it?


John Warwick King: To enable the
subsidized steamer which passes daily during the season to call for freight, passengers and so forth. The district contains a scattered farming population. The nearest public wharf at present is at New Campbellton, six miles distant.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What county is
it in?


John Warwick King: Cape Breton
North and Victoria.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
North Ingonish (.McLeod's)-reconstruction of breakwater and dredging, $34,700.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There has been nothing at all done here has there?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the
minister will tell us what happened to this matter since he got the vote of $34,700 last year?


John Warwick King: The delay is due to the lateness of the season when the contract was let. There was no work undertaken there in 1923-24.


Henry Lumley Drayton: To whom was
the contract let?


John Warwick King: To Thomas D.
Morrison.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
amount?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: The amount is


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why is the
vote as large as it is?


John Warwick King: There is dredging to be done in addition to the wharf.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then the
$21,572 is just for the wharf?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
estimate for dredging?


John Warwick King: About $11,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: To what depth will the dredging be carried and what will be the width?


John Warwick King: There will be
10,500 cubic yards of stone and gravel and also 5,000 of sand and boulders to be dredged inside the breakwater. I do not have the depth in my notes.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Would the minister say in what riding this work is?


John Warwick King: Cape Breton
North and Victoria.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: About what time were
tenders called for this work last year?


John Warwick King: The order in
council was passed in November, 1923.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Calling for tenders?


John Warwick King: No, awarding
tenders. Tenders would be called probably in October.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: This is a revote of last
year?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Is there any valid reason
why the tenders were not called earlier?


John Warwick King: The supply came rather late in the department. This is one of the many works that were up for consideration and plans had to be prepared. I imagine the work was expedited as rapidly as possible.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why does the
minister say supply was late last year? Supply was voted by the 1st July.


John Warwick King: It will be late
this year for public works.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was passed
before this last year, was it not?


John Warwick King: Supply is always
voted late for public works, much to the detriment of the activities of the department. Work cannot be advanced until supply is granted. The result is that many of these works are not undertaken and contracts not awarded until the following spring. That is why many of the works go over until the spring of the following year.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Supplies must evidently
have been called in the past for North Ingonish on the same day as for 'Lunenburg.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: The department had their supplies presented sufficiently early last year to spend $40,000 in Lunenburg, and we could not get the work done in North Cape Breton and Ingonish. There are a few items that appertain to North Cape Breton and Victoria which it might have been very nice and convenient to have in the estimates last year, but which were not expended. Speaking as one of the members from that section, I hope the minister will find his way clear to see that the expenditures are made this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
North West Cove (Tancook)

breakwater, wharf extension, $8,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this a new
work?


John Warwick King: It is an extension to an old work. The extension is required in order to provide adequate landing facilities at this point, also for the protection of 133 boats which fish from this place.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Greville-breakwater reconstruction, $40,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the present condition of this work?


John Warwick King: This is for reconstruction of the breakwater. In 1923-24, there was an appropriation of $24,000 and an expenditure made of $11,908. This breakwater was badly damaged by a storm and unusually heavy ice last year, which necessitated the rebuilding of practically the entire structure. Sixty feet of the shore-ward section was reconstructed during the year 192324. The breakwater protects the harbour, and without the breakwater it would very shortly become unnavigable.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The vote in
1923-24 was $24,000. The revote is $10,000, while the total vote now is $40,000. That [DOT]would look as if we had spent $14,000 last year.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: We did not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then there is
ti larger revote than the figures show.


John Warwick King: When the Estimates were being made up, it was assumed that there would be an expenditure of $14,000, but the actual expenditure was $11,908.19.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that when
we are voting $40,000, it is not $40,000 in addition to $14,000 already spent?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is how it would appear on these estimates. I just point that out because it is misleading. What is the reason for the increase of $16,000?


John Warwick King: Additional damage was done by the storm and unusually heavy ice last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was the work
that cost $11,908 injured?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
name of the contractor?


John Warwick King: The work was
done by day labour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the explanation of having work done on a job of this size by day labour?


John Warwick King: We started to do this work by contract and we prepared to enter into a contract when this storm occurred.
I hat changed the whole situation as regards contracting, and there were many extras in addition. The department decided to make the expenditure themselves and a contract was not entered into. For this year we are asking for tenders for the completion of the work. Item agreed to.
Port Hood-wharf repairs, $5,800.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We had this
matter up last year and all that was necessary was $8,600. That was spent. What has happened since?


John Warwick King: A contract was
entered into with the Sydney Construction Company for $7,796. In August a further contract for extension was entered into to provide a new block to be placed at a distance of 18 feet from the end of the old work. It is reported that this appears to be due to the falling in of material from the sides which prevented an even or level bearing for the block. [Sir Henry Drayton.J
As a result it was found necessary to construct a connecting block 29 feet in length. This work was authorized August 28, 1923, as an extra to the contract.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The original
contract was $7,400.


John Warwick King: It was $7,798.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was within
the vote?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: While that
contract was being carried out, if I understand the minister correctly, an undisclosed condition developed and it was found necessary to make another contract. Why was it not dealt with by Governor General's warrant? Why is it brought in here?


John Warwick King: That has never been the practice.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The act is
perfectly clear. I would again suggest that the minister should have a talk with the Auditor General. We have an Auditor General now and he might be used.


John Warwick King: We are coming before parliament and asking parliament to vote the amount now. The contract is being carried on at the present time. I am sure this is more satisfactory to parliament than issuing a Governor General's warrant.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is not satisfactory to parliament to have votes brought down that we cannot do anything with, when the minister says to us, "The money is all gone and it has to be paid".


John Warwick King: What would be the position in the case of a Governor General's warrant? It would be in the same position exactly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then there
would be a responsibility for it; and, in its turn, it has to be sanctioned by parliament and put in the proper place.


John Warwick King: Exactly.	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is an improper way of doing it. Has this money been paid?


John Warwick King: It cannot be paid until it is voted.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course not. The position is that when it is done in this way the matter is hung up.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: Parliament still
has control. If it were done by Governor General's warrant the money would have been paid.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How idle to say that parliament still has control! Parliament is supposed to have some sense of decency. It is nonsense to say that parliament has control, and the hon. minister knows that it is nonsense. Any self-respecting parliament would not want a contractor to lose the money. Is the government going to make a practice of this?


John Warwick King: I think my hon.
friend is hardly fair when he says it is not the proper practice. As a matter of fact it is the proper practice and this practice has been followed for many years. My hon. friend says that when it was found necessary to have an extension of the contract we should have obtained a Governor General's warrant. I do not think that procedure would be endorsed by this House. I think we have adopted the proper method. We asked for a certain amount last year and let the contract. During the contract certain conditions developed that required the letting of further work in order that the job might be properly done. That has been done and we come to parliament with this explanation asking for a vote. I quite disagree with my hon. friend when he says that has not been the practice. It has been the practice for many years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I never said it
had not been the practice. I still say that it is an improper practice. The government does not like signing Governor General's warrants. It is a check on the extravagance of governments. It is supposed to be the only way in which no regard could be paid to the vote of parliament. It is supposed that money can only be paid out of the treasury when it is sanctioned by vote of parliament. Apparently the practice is to depart from that supposition. That is one of the reasons why I always advocated a pre-audit system. If you depart from the pre-audit system there is no check on the department and there is no help for the treasury; but I realize that it is no good talking to my hon. friend, and the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is not here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Lome-'breakwater extension, $8,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is this for?


John Warwick King: To construct a
cribwork extension 50 feet long by 40 feet
wide and 32 feet high to existing breakwater. This work is under contract with the Reid Construction Company of Granville Ferry, N.S. Owing to the lateness of the season when the contract was let it is not expected that any work will be done during 1923-24. The vote last year was $9,600 and this year $8,000. Tenders were received, the lowest tender being $7,168. This would be the amount required for completion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the expenditure last year?


John Warwick King: 


Henry Lumley Drayton: How could we * have spent that large amount last year?


John Warwick King: We did not spend
it all last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will $8,000 complete everything?


John Warwick King: Yes, that will
complete the work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Medway-to purchase and extend wharf, $6,100.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: How much of a wharf
could be built for that sum? Is this wharf in Lunenburg county?


John Warwick King: No, in Shelburne and Queens.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister explain just what the wharf is needed for, who owns it, when the suggestion for purchase came, and how far the negotiations proceeded.


John Warwick King: There was a petition signed by some sixty-three residents calling attention to the public wharf at Port Medway, especially on behalf of the merchants and fishermen. They complained that they had not a wharf or a dock to lay a vessel to. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) visited this district in 1923, and he confirmed the statements as set out by the petitioners. During the storm of January 4, 1923, the old wharf was completely wrecked. There are certain industries located at this point. The Nova Scotia Wood, Pulp and Paper Company have mills at Charleston on Medway river, seven miles west from Port Medway. Their yearly output is 5,000 tons valued at $40 per ton.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is that the wharf used
by the McLeod, McCurdy combination?


John Warwick King: I do not know.
There is a letter here stating that a public

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
wharf is urgently required at this point. There is no place where the packet ship from Halifax may discharge her cargo, and there is enough business to be carried on at this point to justify the construction of a wharf.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: How far has the minister
got with the negotiations for the purchase of this wharf from private interests?


John Warwick King: No purchase has
been made yet. There is an estimate by the department that the site will cost $2,500.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is that to be expropriated?


John Warwick King: It will depend on whether the owner agrees to a price which the department considers fair and reasonable.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Who is the owner?


John Warwick King: J. N. Wilde.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: How big will the wharf
be?


John Warwick King: It will be 225
feet long by 25 to 90 feet wide. The extension will be pile work 40 feet long by 90 feet wide.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many other wharfs are there at this point?


John Warwick King: The pulp company have a wharf near there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there a wharf on this site at the present time?


John Warwick King: There is an old
wharf.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are there any
others?


John Warwick King: Not to my knowledge.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is (he size of the other wharf that is mentioned?


John Warwick King: I have no information regarding the pulp wharf.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the
complaints against the man who runs this wharf? Why is it thought better to have the government purchase the wharf?


John Warwick King: The present wharf is not being maintained, and to-day the public are without any accommodation at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is not the other wharf which you are buying available for the general public?


John Warwick King: It was, but it is not being maintained by Mr. Wilde, and today it is not safe for use.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
record of the business done over it?


John Warwick King: We have no information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the minister know if Wilde made any dock charges or not?


John Warwick King: I have no information. During the storm last year a steamer was lying at this wharf, which became more or less wrecked, endangering the steamer and causing considerable expense and delay.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
date of Mr. Fielding's visit?


John Warwick King: His letter submitting the petition of the residents is dated February, 1923. In May and October of the same year he wrote strongly urging the necessity of wharfage accommodation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Shelburne-wharf repairs, $1,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the necessity for the extra grant there when we already have the contract of last year?


John Warwick King: We are renewing the guard timbers and placing new mooring posts and rings.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What did we spend $5,000 for the year before?


John Warwick King: In 1923-1924 there
was a renewal of the top at an expenditure of $4,478.39. This is to complete the work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was that by
tender?


John Warwick King: No, by day labour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not suppose the minister misled the House last year when he said that the work would be done for $4,500. The estimate proved $1,500 too low?


John Warwick King: Quite right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ship Harbour-wharf, $4,100.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is new
work?


John Warwick King: There was an estimate for this work last year, for "wharf repairs at Ship Harbour." The word "repairs" was inserted in error, as the appropriation was clearly for the construction of a wharf as explained by the minister at page 4586 of Hansard. The minister then said:
Ship Harbour is in Halifax county. The estimated cost is the amount oi the vote. It is to construct

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
a pilework wharf 80 feet long and 20 feet wide with an ell 20 feet by 30 feet. The purpose is to provide shipping accommodation for the residents of Ship Harbour and the surrounding districts by shortening the haul from the mills to the now only available wharf by a distance of about 41 miles, over a very hilly road. It is a fanning and fishing district.
Last year there was an error in setting out the vote in the estimates. It is construction, not repair, so we are asking for the vote this year. The work was not done last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What representations have been made asking for this work?


John Warwick King: That information is given in the explanation which I just read.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I have had an opportunity of visiting that section of country and it is one of the finest harbours in the world. The people there have no facilities for carrying on their business. If the hon. member could only come down to Nova Scotia I would be glad to arrange to take him on an automobile drive of ninety or a hundred miles in Hants county which would show him the beauty of that part of the country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tiverton-breakwater extension, $14,000.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I see this is a revote.
Are most of these revotes due to the fact that supply was voted too late last year to get the work done?


John Warwick King: Largely, yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In view of the statement made by the minister a short time ago I suggest that the House should meet earlier in the season. There are several reasons for that. One is, as the minister has said, that supply is voted so late that it is impossible to carry on this worjk, and it is just possible that the construction of a good deal of this new work from year to year has been due to the fact that work began too late in the fall owing to the late voting of supply. Then there is another important reason: A great many hon. members would rather be in session here during the winter than during the summer. I urge strongly upon the government that the estimates be brought down earlier in the session and that the session be called earlier in the year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Walton-breakwater repairs, $1,800.
Oliver Robert Gould: I would ask a question generally about these breakwaters. I understand 244
there is a deep tide there, and I wondered what height above the natural water these breakwaters were.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Before the minister answers I may say to my hon. friend that he is speaking on the item relating to Walton, which is in the county of Hants. Walton is the home of my ablest opponent in the last election, Mr. Parsons. I have nothing against him personally. He and I are close personal friends, though we do not step with the same foot politically. If $15,000 or $20,000 was being voted for this purpose I would support it, because as a matter of fact I asked for 150 per cent more than what is provided in these votes for ordinary repairs. In all the districts where these votes are given the majority of the people are neither Liberal nor Progressive, but Conservative; nevertheless when it comes to a question of the encouragement of industry I believe in taking the necessary steps irrespective of what people carry on that industry or what their political beliefs are. The hon. member (Mr. Gould) probably does not know our section of the country. I would like him to come down there some time and see it, not in the spring when those fogs prevail which are the bane of the people of our province, but when the apple trees are in blossom, when gypsum quarries, of which Mr. Parsons is a great operator, are working, and when the lumbermen are shipping their products. The tides in that section of the country from time to time recede to such an extent as to leave the rivers nothing but beds of mud.


Arthur John Lewis: Is the hon. member in order? We wrant to get on with the business. We do not want to be here forever.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. member (Mr. Gould) referred to the height of the wharf above the tides. If my hon. friend (Mr. Lewis) is a landlubber he had better be patient. If hon. members would come down to my part of the country they would be in a position to criticise, adversely or otherwise-


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: We are trying to pass
the item.


Lewis Herbert Martell: No, you are trying to
obstruct it.


Oliver Robert Gould: I merely rose to ask for information, and the question is not yet answered.


John Warwick King: I understood that the hon. member (Mr. Martell), who has knowledge of the locality, had given the information. The height of the wharf is 24 feet; that would be from the bottom sill up. I do



Supply-Harbours and Rivers
not know the extent of the tides there, but I suppose the top would be four or five feet above high water.


Oliver Robert Gould: Have the engineers taken into consideration the pressure of the tides and have they made an estimate of what the total cost would be to complete the work so as to make it permanent in its character at these various points and render unnecessary these haphazard votes year in and year out?


John Warwick King: They are not
haphazard; the works are all carefully gone into by the engineer in charge. Many of these works are timber and stone cribwork which are subject to decay and deterioration. There will be annual repairs. My hon. friend, I think, has in mind the hope of permanent construction, something that will wipe out these annual votes. Permanent construction on our coast line, with the present population, would be a very formidable task to undertake. We find that in view of the character of the works and the service they are supposed to render the manner in which we are carrying on these works is the most economical one.


Lewis Herbert Martell: If my hon. friend from
Assiniboia would come down there he would find it is absolutely impossible, unless you spend millions and millions of dollars, to make a permanent structure along the Avon river and in Minas Basin. We have there the highest tides in the world, and you may dredge around the wharves to make berths for the vessels, but in the winter season the water freezes and afterwards you have these immense tides that carry the mud right back again, so it is practically a continuous task to keep these harbours clear.
Mr, CALDWELL: How high is the tide, thirty-six feet?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Up to sixty feet. My
hon. friend has evidently not been over that portion of the country, but as usual he is a sailor, a marine engineer, a dredger, and a lawyer too.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the House.
William Irvine: May I ask if the House
is sitting to-morrow? It is Dominion Day, and I think we ought to recognize that as a holiday.
[Mr. J. H. Kina.J


John Warwick King: I announced
in the House a few days ago that it was the intention to sit on Dominion Day, and no objection was taken. I doubt if there is any better way in which we could observe the holiday.


William Irvine: Then why not observe them all that way? I do not see why we should disregard our country's birthday, our own particular holiday.


Arthur Meighen: I think myself it is a
mistake for us to be sitting on Dominion Day. The Prime Minister did mention it on Friday, immediately after the opening of the House. I did not catch it myself, or I would have objected then. Dominion Day is perhaps the most outstanding holiday of the year, the commemoration of the birth of this country. We are, I know, pressing to get through the work of the session at this period, but it seems too bad to be observing every manner of holiday as a holiday all through the session, and then to ignore altogether the one that really means more to our country than perhaps any other.


John Warwick King: I submit we
are not ignoring the holiday in attending to the country's business. In Great Britain the House of Commons sees fit to sit on the King's birthday and on other days that are set apart as holidays. I am inclined to think the country wull back up our position very strongly to attend to the country's business on the holiday.


Arthur Meighen: I would object less to
sitting on the 24th of May than to sitting on the anniversary of the birth of our own country. It seems to me it is overdoing it to be sitting then. If that is not ignoring the holiday, there is no other way of ignoring a holiday that I know of.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: When we were sitting
in the Museum in 1919 the session lasted, if my memory serves me right, until the 10th of July, and we sat on Dominion Day. I have sitting beside me the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Sinclair), now occupying the treasury benches, and he remembers very well that the House sat on that day, and the session was prolonged until the 10th of July. If that was right when my right hon. friend was leading the government, or when he was one of the real leaders of the government, I do not see why it should be wrong to-day.


Arthur John Lewis: Do the civil servants get a
holiday to-morrow if the House sits? I think they ought to get the holiday.

Home Bank Investigation-Report


John Warwick King: Yes.


Mr. SHAW:: Although it does inconvenience a great many of us, particularly the members from the West, I do think we should observe the 1st of July. Of all days of the year I think it is the most important, and if Canada ever means anything to us I think parliament should set a standard in that regard.
Mr. MA.R,TELL:	I am absolutely in accord with the right hon. leader of the opposition and with the hon. members for Calgary. Surely if we have a birthday in this country we should observe it. We keep all manner of holidays in this country, as the leader of the opposition has said, and we sit night and morning to make up for them. For heaven's sake, let us have some pridte in our country and observe Dominion Day.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
Tuesday, July 1, 1924.