1924-06-06

WEDNESDAY SITTINGS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) on behalf of the Prime Minister, moved:
That on Wednesday, the 11th of June, instant, and on all subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the present session the sittings of the House shall in every respect be under the same rules provided for other days.
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE BILL first reading
Bill No. 166 (from the Senate), for the relief of Raymond Anderson Mashinter.-Mr. Mc-Quarrie.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil), (Minister of the Interior) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient,-
(1)	to confirm an agreement for the settlement of certain questions between the governments of Canada and Ontario respecting Indian reserve lands, made the 24th March, 1924, defining the respective rights of each touching the disposition of lands in Indian reserves in the province which are surrendered by the Indians in order that they may be disposed of for the benefit of the band;
(2)	to authorize the payments to the province provided for in the said agreement of any balance from proceeds of the sale or other disposition of the lands or any portion thereof, together with accrued unexpended simple interest thereon, and of one-half of the consideration in the case of the sale, lease or other disposition of mining claims staked on such reserve, or of lands in which minerals are included or may exist or be supposed to exist; and
[The Chairman.]
(3)	to provide that no disposition shall be made of water-power in any such Indian reserve of a greater capacity than five hundred horse-power except by special agreement, and that the provisions of the Bed of Navigable Waters Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1914, chapter 31, shall apply to grants of such lands or minerals heretofore or hereafter made under the Great Seal of Canada or otherwise under the direction of the government of Canada.
He said:	His Excellency, the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: Is that intended to take
the place of the order discharged yesterday?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: I hold in my hand a telegram
which I received from the Portage la Prairie Board of Trade. It is signed by J. J. Garland, president, and H. M. Dunham, secretary, and expresses anxiety concerning, and protests against, a further suspension of the Crowsnest pass arrangement. I should like to ask the Minister of Railways if the government contemplates action that would further suspend the arrangement that would otherwise come into force in July next?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	That is a leading
question. The railway companies have presented an .argument in favour of the further suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement. The government is of the opinion that it would be more satisfactory to hear the representatives of the railways and those who are interested on the other side at some date to be set, so that there would be no question but that .there would be a full understanding of the situation.



HUDSON BAY RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert):: In view of the fact that a week ago the Minister of Railways informed the House that further reports and statements in regard to Port kelson on Hudson bay would be laid on the Table I should like t'o ask the Minister of Railways when we may expect these documents to be brought down?


Mr. GRAHAM:: Very shortly. I hoped
to be able to lay them on the table to-day, but apparently the documents are not quite ready.

Liquor and Narcotics



BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiseouata):: May I ask the Prime Minister a question on a matter which I think is quite important so far as the public is concerned. I should like to know if he has read or heard about an article published in a French Review, LTllustration of Paris, in which Mr. Ludovic Naudeau complains of the total absence of inscriptions in the French language in connection with the Canadian section of the Imperial exhibition at Wembley, whereas both the English and the Dutch languages are used in advertising the display of the products of South Africa at the same place. If the complaint is well founded I should like to ask if it is not possible to have both the English and the French languages in evidence at Wembley, at least in that part of the exhibition which comes from Canada, in view of the fact that hundreds and thousands of French visitors from across the channel may visit that part of the exhibition devoted to products from Canada and the province of Quebec. I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time-apart from Mr. Pacaud, who is secretary to the High Commissioner for Canada in London-there is no French Canadian representative on the staff at the Imperial exposition at Wembley.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: As my hon. friend is
doubtless aware a good deal of the work in connection with the Wembley exhibition had to be done rapidly in order that the opening of the exhibition might not be delayed. There was, however, no intention to overlook the matter to which he has just referred. Instructions have been given to see that the French language, as well as the English language, shall be used at the Canadian exhibit, and I understand the order is now being carried out. As to the statement that no French Canadian representative other than Mr. Pacaud is in charge of affairs there, I am informed that the gentleman who has had to do with the preparation of all the exhibits is Mr. Turcotte, a French Canadian. I think that gentleman can be depended upon to see that proper use is made of both languages.
TORONTO VIADUCT On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: Two weeks ago the Minister of Railways 181
laid on the Table, pursuant to an order of the House, a report from Sir Henry Thornton, president of the Canadian National Railways, recommending from the legal and policy standpoints the immediate construction of the Toronto viaduct. The minister also tabled his reply to this report in which he said he was receiving a legal report and would answer further in a few days. Has this further legal report been received? And when will the government announce its policy on the whole question? Could the minister, either to-day or on Monday, say what action is being taken, and what will be done in the matter?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I can reply immediately. Certain documents have come from the legal department of the Canadian National Railways which, in connection with the whole matter are now being considered by the government.



GREAT LAKES FREIGHT RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Can the government give me any further information with regard to the charges made in connection with the high freight rates on the Great Lakes between Canadian ports? I referred to this matter the other day and read the charge which was made in the Grain Growers' Guide of May last, and the minister said he would kindly look into the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the hon. member
brought this matter up on a previous occasion I intimated that I would see the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) about it. Unfortunately the minister has been confined to his house and has not been in the city, but as soon as he returns I will endeavour to see that my hon. friend's question is answered.



LIQUOR AND NARCOTICS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier):: I observe that the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is going to Washington to sign a treaty. Will the Prime Minister tell us what the treaty is?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As hon. members are
aware, the officials of the governments of the United States and Canada conferred a little earlier in the year with respect to the suppres-

Liquor and Narcotics

sion of rum-nmning and the narcotics traffic, and an agreement was reached which has since been embodied in the form of a treaty between the two countries. I understand the treaty has reached the point where in all probability it will be signed this afternoon. On the advice of our government, His Majesty the King has given full powers to the Minister of Justice to sign in respect of Canada, and the word I received from the minister to-day was that the contemplated treaty would be signed this afternoon. As soon as it is signed it will be presented to parliament for approval.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why is it that our representatives have to go to Washington in the case of every treaty? Does the Prime Minister not think there should be a little reciprocity?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend's suggestion is a good one. This government is strongly in favour of reciprocity and we shall try to carry out the principle as far as we can. When the matter under review was being negotiated the American officials came to Ottawa to do the major part of the negotiating. We are simply returning the courtesy.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: When this
matter came up on a previous occasion I inquired what progress had been made under this treaty to cover the sale of liquor in the province of Quebec on the border between Quebec and the state of Maine. We know that there are armed men stationed on the border. There is a sort of warfare being carried on between revenue officers of both countries and bootleggers at the border between the province of Quebec and the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I prefer to
wait until the treaty is laid on the Table before speaking of details. I might mention, however, that it relates to smuggling along the international boundary.



DESTRUCTION OF THE VILLAGE OF STE. EMELIE DE L'ENERGIE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette):	I wish
to invite the attention of the government to a matter of great importance and urgency to the people residing in the county which I represent. Up to a few days ago, the village of Ste. Emelie de 1'Energie stood proudly like a sentinel at the foot of the Laurentian mountains. A week ago to-day, at exactly this hour, this thriving village, in the constituency which I have the honour to represent was destroyed by fire. It is estimated that

about 85 per cent of the village has been so destroyed. The parish church, the convent and some 75 dwellings have been reduced to ashes. A number of the inhabitants are now homeless, and the financial ruin of many is complete As the representative of the. victims of this conflagration, I have been asked to present the facts to parliament, and to inquire what consideration the government can extend to these unfortunate people. Indeed, I am urgently requesting the government that they go to the fullest extent possible in rendering aid to these people.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can only say that the government will consider very carefully, and I am sure as sympathetically as may in the circumstances be possible, the statement my hon. friend has made. In cases where conflagrations have destroyed towns or villages I think the federal government has given as a general rule such assistance as it could on application in the first instance by the government of the province in which the municipality affected was situated. Occasions have arisen where the government was in a position to render something in the way of special aid, as for example, co-operation with the Red Cross in the loan of blankets, tents and the like. I think the government has always responded quickly where a request for such has been made. Beyond that, where the request resolves itself into a matter of financial assistance, it would be impossible to say what action the government might find it possible to take until after the province concerned has acted in the matter, and we know what it is doing.



MILITIA ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou) (Minister of National Defence) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the provisions of the Militia Act, chapter forty-one of the Revised Statutes, 1906, relating to calling out the active militia in aid of the civil power, and to provide,-
1.	That the attorney general of a province upon receiving notification from a judge of a superior or county or district court, having jurisdiction in the place concerned, that the services of the active militia are required in aid of the civil power, may, upon being satisfied that the services of the active militia are so required, make a requisition whereby the district officer commanding is required to call out the active militia, or such portion thereof as he considers necessary, for the purpose of suppressing or preventing any actual or anticipated riot or disturbance.
2.	That such requisition shall contain an unconditional undertaking that the province shall pay to His Majesty

Militia Act Amendment
all expenses and costs incurred by His Majesty in calling out the militia as aforesaid.
3.	That in every case the attorney general who made the requisition shall within seven days thereafter cause an inquiry to be made into all the circumstances and send a report thereof to the Secretary of State.
4.	That all expenses incurred by His Majesty in so calling out the militia in aid of the civil power shall be paid to His Majesty by the province of which the attorney general made the requisition, and His Majesty may retain from any annual grant payable by Canada to such province and under the control of the parliament of Canada, any unpaid balance of moneys due to His Majesty by such province under this provision.
5.	That the expenses and costs occasioned by the calling out of the militia shall, pending payment by the province, be advanced in the first instance out of the consolidated revenue fund by the authority of the Governor in Council, but shall be payable by and recoverable from the province to and by His Majesty as moneys paid by the latter to and for the use of the province at the request of the latter.
Arthur Meighen: If we pass the resolution, we have in a sense adopted the principle. We should at least have an explanation before going into committee.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this measure is to bring up to date and to put into proper shape a branch of the law which has stood on the statute books and has had many changes since the confederation period. The first statute in Canada providing for the diversion of military forces in aid of the civil power was passed in 1868. That act was amended in certain details in 1873, again in 1877, and again in 1883.


Arthur Meighen: A new act was brought down in one of those years. I can give the date to the hon. member immediately. One of those was not a revision; it was a redrafted act.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was a redrafted act amending in certain details the provisions in regard to the method by which military aid could be obtained.


Arthur Meighen: In what year was the new act passed?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In 1883.


Mr. McMASTER:: In the discussion of this matter of more or less warlike import, is it necessary that members should moderate their voices to such an extent that it is difficult for people to hear what they are saying?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Silence should be observed in the House. Personally, I do not hear what the minister says, and in that regard I am in the same position as the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). The Speaker must at least hear what is being said.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall endeavour to make myself heard if the House will only listen. The trouble was that the House was not listening. The year 1883 marked the last act which provided for bringing out the military without the intervention of a judge. The right to call out the military in those early days was vested in the hands of an official whom nobody ever heard of today, the custos of a county, or the warden of a county, or the mayor, as the case might be. Again in 1904 the act was (further amended, and we have been working practically under the provisions of the 1904 act during the last twenty years. Apart from (details, it provided that if in towns or cities a difficulty arose, die mayor or warden of the town or municipality, or if they refused or were unable to act, then a county or district judge, and in unorganized districts where there was no mayor or warden, the district judge or superior court judge, would act and issue a requisition which was handed to the district officer commanding who was to be found in each one of the provinces of the Dominion, directing him to call out from the permanent force first, and if the permanent force were not available to a sufficient extent then from the regular militia, the number of men that would be necessary for the purpose of restoring order in the particular district.
Under the provisions of those various acts during the years of operation since 1876, there have been 59 occasions when troops were called out in aid of civil power. The expenditure thus occasioned to the Dominion government during that period amounted to S556.291.20. The amount recovered by the Dominion government from the muncipalities Which were made chargeable with the cost of bringing out these troops has been only $40,291.65. The House will see that a rather anomalous situation exists. Primarily the duty of maintaining peace and order in this country, under the constitution is vested in the provincial legislatures; they are that part of the organization known at confederation upon whom has been imposed that task. They are to perform that task either by maintaining a police force of their own, as is done in some of the larger provinces, or by imposing upon cities, towns or other municipalities the task of preserving order within their borders through their own police. As a result of the law that has been on the statute book, as I have already pointed out, on 59 occasions we have had to resort to the aid of troops, and on almost every occasion, with the exception of the small amount of $40,000, this has been done at the cost of the whole Dominion. Tha*
Militia Act Amendment

cost should not be imposed upon the whole Dominion. If a difficulty arises in any one of our provinces, then legally and from every other standpoint it is the duty of the government of that particular province to take care of that difficulty. So it is that we propose to amend the law so that hereafter the cost of calling out troops and of their maintenance for the purpose of preventing disorder in any part of the Dominion shall not be, as it has been in the past, a matter of liability on the municipality where the disorder arises, but on the province as a whole. The result will be that the federal treasury will be compensated by each province for the cost to which it has been put in performing this duty on behalf of such province. During that long period, as I say, with those 59 difficulties arising from various causes, there has been grave question as to the possibility of collecting money from the municipalities affected. Different litigations have arisen and protracted lawsuits have gone on. During the war, I think the policy that was adopted was of foregoing the compulsory payment by the municipality of the cost to which the federal government was put. Since the war the policy of both the last government and this has been to claim from the municipality affected the cost to which the federal government has been put. Matters in regard to these questions during the last two years are now in the hands of the Department of Justice. That is primarily the purpose of this measure.
In addition to that, last year a difficulty arose in Nova Scotia, and a commission presided over by Dr. Robertson was appointed which performed its work very satisfactorily to all the people in our province and, I think, generally throughout Canada. They made a recommendation that hereafter provision should be made to amend the law along the line I now propose. They also recommended that in any amendment this House might make, there might be provision that the attorney general of the province should make a report to the Secretary of State of the Dominion as to the conditions which gave rise to the disorder, so that the federal government would be in a position to know officially just what happened.
The course we propose is this. Instead of leaving to the mayor or warden of a particular municipality the responsibility of calling out troops when difficulty arises, we provide that a county court judge, a district judge or a superior court judge, when evidence is submitted to him indicating that the disorder is of such a nature that the aid of military power is required, shall intimate to the attorney general of the province in

which the difficulty arises, the situation; and the attorney general of that province can then, by the issue of a requisition setting out the facts according to a form provided in the bill which I will submit to the House, requisition the district officer commanding the troops in the province in which is the district where the difficulty has arisen. The district officer commanding will in the future as in the past be bound to obey the request of the attorney general. It does seem to me that this is reasonable and proper legislation. The attorney general of the province is the functionary, under our system of government, to whom is deputed the task of administering the criminal law; section 92 of the British North America Act vests in the province the responsibility of administering justice within its own confines. Under this method we shall have a situation in which the country can be assured that due wisdom and care are being displayed in approaching the settlement of any matter involving the intervention of militia; and at the same time the federal treasury will be relieved of an imposition which it never should have borne in the past. With some degree of certainty henceforth the province in which the difficulty arises will be able, indeed will be obliged, to provide the funds necessary to pay for the troops that may be called out.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Thomas Langton Church: I am not at all satisfied that this is very wise legislation, at all events from the standpoint of the municipality. In the first place the question of cost referred to by the minister is npt a material point, because this country has, so far, been fortunately free from strikes, riots and from unlawful assemblies as have been spoken of. As one who has been associated with municipal affairs, I think that this legislation is altogether too drastic and too circuitous, inasmuch as it takes away from the chief of police, the mayor, and sheriff in the municipality a function which naturally and logically belongs to them since confederation; and it is in my opinion too dangerous a proceeding for this parliament to interfere in this way with the civil authority. I do not see who is asking for it or what necessity there is for the proposed change. I believe that heretofore considerable tact and good judgment have been displayed by those who have been charged with the maintenance of law and order in our cities and towns. Strikes and other serious disturbances of a like nature have been very rare in Canada and in the

Militia Act Amendment
province I come from. While, on one or two occasions, there have been a few industrial strikes and riots in the city of Toronto, they have been easily settled. It seems to me a most unwise thing to call out the militia unless in the most extreme cases; it is dangerous to meddle with the existing power of municipal authorities in this regard. The chief of police, I am afraid, will be inclined hereafter to fold his arms and to take the view that the judge and the attorney general are the proper officers to keep law and order, and in the event of any disturbance on the streets, as in the case of a street railway strike, he may be apt to show a dangerous indifference. As I say, we have been fortunately free from serious industrial difficulties in this country; the cost to the government of Canada has been practically nil as the municipalities pay it except in one or two cases, such as the strike which occurred in Winnipeg a few years ago and the disturbance which occurred in the province of Nova Scotia as a result of some industrial dispute. I repeat, the cost is not the material thing; and if the government takes away from the proper municipal officer the responsibility which is properly his for the maintenance of law and order in the city, then, when anything happens he may simply refer you to the attorney general who in all probability will be inaccessible. In Ontario, the attorney general as a rule does not live in the city of Toronto; and it is equally difficult to get hold of a judge who may in summer be on a vacation. So that if the police commissioners are either explicitly or implicitly, relieved of responsibility in the matter a dangerous situation is likely to develop at any time. The minister should therefore be exceedingly cautious in seeking to make any change in the present arrangements; the troops ffiould bo called out only as a last resort. Everyone wants to see the law properly enforced; there is no doubt about that. But I am not prepared to grant the necessity for nor wisdom of this change in existing legislation, for I think that on the whole we have had fairly happy relations between capital and labour in this country. The power to put down unlawful disturbances now rests with the mayor, the sheriff and the chief of police who may call the militia to their aid and I do not see why the minister should want to deprive these officers of that power. The people of Toronto pay some $2,500,000 for police protection and it seems to me that the police authorities are well able to take care of them. If the judge should refer you in the future to the attorney general you might find that official absent or he might
await a decision of his government, and possibly when you tried to get in touch with a judge you might find him on holiday. The machinery now proposed is altogether too cumbersome. When a slight disturbance occurred a few years ago in the city of Toronto among the soldiers and there was some disturbance on Yonge street, the civil, authorities requested the militia to keep out of the affair although the regulars were on hand ready if necessary. And what is more, not much damage was done to the property of anybody. Does the Minister of Laboui support this legislation, and has any demand for it come from any labour union o: from the Manufacturers' Association or municipalities? The men who compose the militis are probably very largely taxpayers and many of them may be members of some union oi of the manufacturers. Are these men to be asked to quell industrial disturbances? The local authorities, I repeat, should take care of any' situation that arises in the municipality, and no troops should be brought in unless the circumstances are of such an exceptional and grave nature as to make military interference imperative. The ministers of militia and civil authorities on previous occasions having shown good judgment in connection with matters of this kind, it does seem to me that the law as it is should be left undisturbed. At all events, before this motion is pased the attorneys general of the provinces and the police commissioners should be consulted and the views of the municipalities, and of labour and capital, should be obtained.


Mr. KYTE:: This legislation involves a very drastic change in the law as it has existed in Canada. I have two criticisms to make. One is as to the proposal to constitute the attorney general of the province a sort of court of appeal against the decision of the county court judge to whom application may be made for leave to call out the militia in case of rioting. I do not think it is desirable that the attorney general of any province, who after all is a political officer, should be called upon to review the decision of the judge. The law in respect of the authority of a judge to give orders to call out the troops has worked very well, and I object to the amendment to put the responsibility upon the attorney general of the province.
My second objection is that this legislation will apply practically to only three of the provinces, because of the fact that the only labour disturbances we have had in the Dominion for many years are those arising in the operations of our coal mines in the prov- '
Militia Act Amendment

inces of Nova Scotia, Alberta and British Columbia. It is quite conceivable that labour troubles in any of the colliery sections-and I say nothing as to the merits of the disputes which occasion these disturbances- may have very far-reaching consequences. In Nova Scotia we have large coal areas both in the island of Cape Breton and on the mainland. Our fuel supply is of vital importance not only to the people of Nova Scotia, but to the people of the other provinces where there are no coal deposits, and a strike in any of the mining districts might in its consequences very well reach beyond the locality and affect other parts of the Dominion. Therefore this is not merely a local or a provincial question; it may involve other provinces. Up to the present time, as the minister has said, the municipalities have been liable for the expenses incident to the calling out of the militia. But in this report the law has been more or less of a dead1 letter, for from the figures given to the House by the minister it would appear that a very small proportion of the expenses so incurred has been collected from the municipalities.
Last year the question was discussed on the militia estimates, and it was then suggested that the law should be changed so as to make these costs a charge against the whole country. I do not think it is fair to impose this burden on the province affected, having regard, as I stated, to the far-reaching consequences that may result from labour disturbances in our colliery districts.
There is another section in the proposed resolution to which I have objection, the last, which provides as follows:
That the expenses and costs occasioned by the calling out of the militia shall, pending payment by the province, be advanced in the first instance out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the authority of the Governor in Council, but shall be payable by and recoverable from the province to and by His Majesty as moneys paid by the latter to and for the use of the province at the request of the latter.
It is also provided that these expenses shall be retained out of the annual subsidy to which the province affected may be entitled. Now, the provinces are entitled to certain subsidies in respect of the confederation compact, and these are a part of the provincial revenues. I do not think it is fair that parliament should so amend the militia law as to make the expenses incident to the calling out of the troops payable out of these subsidies. I am quite sure that the sense of the committee would rather be in favour of leaving the subsidies intact, and would prefer to have some other method formulated to secure payment of such expenses by the provincial authorities, if it is ultimately determined [Mr. Kyte.l
that the provinces should become responsible in this respect. On the whole I think that this question might well be left untouched, or if it is considered desirable to relieve the municipalities of the obligation, in my opinion the Dominion should assume the burden, on account of the fact, as I have already pointed out, that disorders requiring the calling out of the militia arise only in the coal-mining areas, which areas are limited to three of the nine provinces.


Mr. HANSON:: Mr. Chairman, there is a
good deal of force in the argument advanced by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte). I think possibly the main objection arises out of the first point stated by him; that is to say, you are putting the decision to call out the troops into the hands of a non-judicial officer-the attorney general of the province-and I can see that from very many standpoints this is a very grave objection to the proposed legislation. It is true that the attorney general is charged with the administration of the criminal laws in the various provinces; but the calling out of the militia might be termed an executive act, indeed I think it might be very properly regarded as in the nature of a judicial act, because we all recognize that in the event of a riot the calling out of the militia should only be resorted to after very grave consideration, and therefore the decision to take this extreme measure should only be .exercised with a full sense of the responsibility which it involves.
Now, I observe that in the resolution the calling out of the troops is discretionary on the part of a non-judicial officer. He is, as was stated by the previous speaker, a court of appeal from the requisition of the judicial officer named in the resolution. I do not think that parliament will favourably consider the placing of such power in the hands of a person who in any event is a political official of the provincial government, and I think we would do well to pause before taking this course. In my humble judgment the effect of conferring such power on the attorney general will be entirdy nullified by the succeeding sections of the resolution which place the onus of payment upon the provinces. I venture to say that only in the very gravest instance will the province shoulder the burden of the expense. I have every reason for saying that, because we all know that expenditure of this character, especially in the smaller provinces, is vital to the province. It is true that in the past the law has provided that the municipalities shall recoup the Dominion government for the expenses incurred; but it is also true that the law has

Militia Act Amendment
been more honoured in the breach than the observance. As a matter of curiosity, I think we ought to know what municipalities have reimbursed the Dominion to the extent of the $40,000 mentioned by the minister.
But I do not think that the question of expense is by any means the vital question involved; it is of minor importance; the principle involved is, shall the militia be used in aid of the civil power? That, I think, should only be determined by a judicial officer a non-political officer, a non-partisan officer, a man who is accustomed to weighing facts and evidence, a man who has a sense of responsibility. Not that the attorney general would not have that sense of responsibility, but he is in no sense a judicial officer; and I am opposed to the principle of making it discretionary on the part of any non-judicial officer.
Another point:	Section 1 of the resolution
provides:
That the attorney general of a province upon receiving notification from a judge of a superior or county or district court,-
And so on. Who is to move this judicial officer to requisition the attorney general? Certainly no judge will do it of his own motion. There must be action by the municipal officers if in an organized territory, and in the case of an unorganized territory I am at a loss to know who, under the resolution as it stands, will move the attorney general or the county court judge. So that something is lacking in the first clause of the resolution, and I would ask the minister to give some attention to that.
While it is true that, unfortunately, in the past, most of the disturbances which have been the cause of the calling out of the militia have been in certain coal mining districts, I would like to point out that these districts have been largely urban, well organized, and that there has been a sense of responsibility on the part of the municipal authorities. But I have in mind a coal mining district in a rural locality where there are few if any municipal officers and where the operatives are largely of foreign extraction. What would happen in a community of that character is this:	No local officials
would requisition the county court to make the representation to the attorney general; it would in the last analysis be up to the companies employing these foreign operatives to do so, and we would immediately have the question of capital and labour thrown into the struggle. I am very strongly of the opinion that this matter should be left under judicial control; that it is of too great importance
to be placed in the hands of any political official of any government.


Mr. LOGAN:: I go further than the hon. member (Mr. Hanson) and say that the matter should not only be left within judicial control but that the judicial control should be added to by the requirement that the attorney general should join in the requisition along with the judicial authority.
This discussion is interesting to me, because some years ago I moved an amendment that now is the law of this country in reference to calling out the militia. Prior to
4 p.m. that time any two magistrates in any province, no matter where they lived-for instance, in my province they might live at Yarmouth while the trouble might be at Cape Breton-by requisition could call out the militia without conferring with anyone. In the amendment which I moved to a bill introduced by the late Sir Frederick Borden it was provided that in addition to the magistrates there should be action by the mayor of the town or the warden of the municipality, and in case the mayor or warden declined to act, then the requisition could be made by the district court judge.
This resolution favours taking the control entirely away from the municipality, and I doubt very much if that is a proper thing to do. It is scarcely fair to a municipality to provide that the militia may be thrust within their bounds without their having a word to say about it. There may be considerations of importance in that municipality other than those affecting the particular industry in which the strike or labour trouble may occur. I submit that we should make it more difficult to call out the militia, instead of making it easier.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the hon. member reads the 'law differently from the way I do, but is it not the law at present that the municipality really has no control?


Hance James Logan: The present law is that the first requisition to call out the militia must be made by the mayor or warden, but if he refuses then the militia can be called out by the judge of the county or district court. This matter will, of course, be considered more in detail when we have the bill before us. But the general principle does not appeal to me because, as the hon. member (Mr. Hanson) well said, if takes away the judicial control and places it in the hands of an officer who is generally a politician. However brilliant he may be or however able he may be, at the same time he is probably a politician.
Militia Act Amendment


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is that a term of reproach?


George Perry Graham: Is not the Minister of
Militia in that position?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Or the
mayor of the town?


Hance James Logan: But the judge is not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The mayor of the municipality is not.


Hance James Logan: The militia should not be called out except upon requisition by the mayor or warden of the town or municipality, and in case of their refusing, it should not be called out except upon requisition not only of the judge of the court but of the attorney general as well. We then have the representative of the province and the judicial officer acting together. In other words, it would make it a little more difficult to call out the militia, and I think everybody will admit that the militia should not be called out except in the very last extremity. Every other remedy should first be applied. There may be times, I will admit, when the militia is necessary, but I am inclined to think that on occasions the militia has been called out unnecessarily, or when it might have been better had the militia not been called out.
My objection, therefore,-and I will discuss this matter more fully when the bill is before us-is that we are making it easier to call out the militia; that we are taking away any responsibility on the part of the municipality, and that we are imposing taxation upon people in different parts of the province who are not very much concerned in the matter. For instance, why should the people of the county of Yarmouth or the county of Digby be taxed to pay a per capita share of a provincial tax of $100,000 or $150,000 to take care of unrest, say, in the county of Cape Breton, or in the county of Cumberland? After all, it is the duty of the Dominion government and this parliament to maintain the military law in this country. Had we not better do away with the municipal charge entirely, say it is a farce and let the whole expense be borne by the federal government, which is supposed to maintain law and order so far as the use of the militia goes?
My objection to the last paragraph is just as strong as that made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Kyte). I do not believe we should place any province in the position of a sifspected indigent debtor.


Mr. MARTELL:: Does my hon. friend say that the county of Yarmouth should not pay for the maintenance of law and order in Cape IMr. Logan.]
Breton? From the point of view of the country as a whole does he not think it right that the county of Yarmouth should pay its share in respect to Cape Breton?


Hance James Logan: No, Yarmouth has no more
right to pay for the calling out of the militia in Cape Breton than has the county of Westmorland, New Brunswick, or any other county in the Maritime provinces which is not directly affected. I do think that the last clause is very objectionable-that is to say, paragraph 5 of the resolution which reads as follows:
5. That the expenses and costs occasioned by the calling out of the militia shall, pending payment by the province, be advanced in the first instance out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the authority of the Governor in Council, but shall be payable by and recoverable from the province to and by His Majesty as moneys paid by the latter to and for the use of the province at the request of the latter.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I am going to ask my hon. friend one more question. I do not want to interrupt him, I have every respect for his argument, but do not law and justice in all provinces have to be enforced by the provincial authorities? Therefore the county of Yarmouth should help to maintain law and order for the county of Cape Breton. But why should Vancouver, for example, be compelled to aid in the enforcement of law and order in the province of Nova Scotia?


Hance James Logan: The county of Yarmouth already contributes to the enforcement of law and order in the province of Nova Scotia by bearing a portion of the expense entailed by the maintenance of the provincial police. But I submit that the county of Yarmouth should not be called upon to pay the expense involved by the militia of Canada being called out to maintain law and order in the Dominion any more than any other Canadian county.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Would my hon. friend
not say that the enforcement of law and justice is a matter of provincial jurisdiction?


Hance James Logan: Law and justice are matters of provincial jurisdiction, but the militia of Canada are under the control of the Dominion and not under that of any province. Therefore I say that while I should like to hear this matter thoroughly discussed-as it will be in due course-I must state that on general principles I am not in favour of the proposed legislation for the reasons already assigned.


Mr. BROWN:: I should like to ask one
question as to the reasons advanced1 why this

Militia Act Amendment
principle should not be enacted into law. It is desirable that the militia should not be called out except under the most extreme circumstances?	.


Hance James Logan: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: Would not the fact that the expense was thrown upon the attorney general-at least the fact of the attorney general remembering that the expense had to be borne by the province-render him still more cautious in accepting requisitions that might be made to him?


Hance James Logan: To some extent it might,
but after all it is not always the cost. That is not altogether the question at issue The attorney general would not have the direction of the militia, and the district commanding officer of the Department of National Defence might be more inclined to send the militia into a particular district knowing that the federal authorities would not have to bear the expense.


John Livingstone Brown: Yes, but it did not seem to me, under your argument, that it would be any more easy to call out the militia than under the present statute. It seems to me that it would be more unlikely that the troops would be called out.


Hance James Logan: I cannot agree with you.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence just what the underlying reasons for the proposed legislation are? Is it because of certain occurrences that took place in the county of Cape Breton last summer, and because of certain speeches which the minister made during the Cape Breton North by-election?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am afraid that a good many of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken with regard to this matter have been too precipitate in expressing their views. Had they waited until they saw the bill itself I am sure that some of them would not have delivered the addresses they have delivered. I am rather surprised, for instance, to find some of my colleagues from Nova Scotia assuming that this question is one which wholly relates to that province, because during the past ten years I find there have been eleven occasions upon which the troops have been called out in aid of the civil power-twice in British Columbia, three times in Ontario, once in Manitoba, twice in Quebec, once in New Brunswick, and only twice in Nova Scotia. So that the situation is not confined to Nova Scotia by any means.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister state the expense incurred in each case the troops were called out?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have a
statement of the expenditure in each case in a long statement here and shall be very glad to give that information at a later stage However I can give these particulars:
Nanaimo, British Columbia, August 1914, $255,000. Vancouver, Hindoo riots, $1,143.
Windsor, Ontario, 1919, street railway strike, $2,187. Winnipeg, 1919, $196,821.
Quebec, 1922, $184.76.
St. John, N.B., street railway strike, $985.46.
Cape Breton, September 1922, $63,295.
Cape Breton, August, 1923, $99,621.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister repeat the figures as to the St. John street railway strike?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The amount I have here is $985.46 but I should say that I did not come prepared with the information in detail. If my hon. friends desire fuller or more definite information I shall be very glad to give it at a later stage. I have mentioned these facts to show that the occasions on which the military are called out to aid the civil power arise in all parts of the country and not in any particular section. Furthermore, in the course of ten years of our history there have been eleven occasions on which the act was invoked and they happened in every province of the Dominion except Saskatchewan, Alberta and Prince Edward Island.
My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church), the former mayor of that city, seems to be very much disturbed over the fact that apparently we have taken away some power from the chief of police of Toronto. There is no power vested in the chief of police under the Militia Act as it stands to-day, and I did not altogether catch the point of my hon. friend's criticism. The situation to-day is that under the existing act the mayor of any municipality can of his own volition, if he wishes, issue a requisition to the district officer commanding and call out the troops. It is true that there is a distinction drawn between that act when it is performed by him and the act when it is performed by a judge, because the judicial requisition is especially declared by the act to be such a document as cannot be questioned by the military authorities. It is not desirable, however, that the district officer commanding should be put in the position that he would have to question whether or not the right of a mayor to act was as binding and as conclusive as that of a judge. When disorder occurs and it is possible that lives may be lost and property destroyed, everyone knows that the Canadian people can depend
Militia Act Amendment

upon the proper officials to move in the matter and take such steps as are provided for by law. Of course we all agree that it is most desirable that the military force should not be invoked for the aid of the civil power except in cases of absolute necessity. The use of the military in support of civil power is something that has come to us from the Mother Country. But the situation that arises here is not parallel to similar cases that have occurred in the United Kingdom for the reason that the legislative and administrative machinery over there is concentrated at Westminster. Here the powers are divided under the Confederation Act. The control of militia and defence is vested in the federal authority, whereas the absolute duty is imposed upon the government of a province and it's attorney general of carrying out the police powers within the province. So that we have a situation here quite different from that in the United Kingdom when it comes to calling out the troops to aid the civil power.
Now, it is asserted that the attorney general of a province is a political functionary and that under this proposed enactment he is made a court of appeal from the judges. That is not the idea at all. I am bound to say that I do not know of any attorney general in any province in this country upon whom is not imposed to-day the duty of carrying out the criminal law, of seeing that the prosecutions are properly carried on in every part of the province in which he acts.
I am not for one moment prepared to believe that there is a gentleman occupying the position of attorney general of any one of the provinces who could be said to be so utterly insensible of his duty that he could be termed a politician when considering this serious question. Why is it suggested that he should be?
I am sure that every hon. gentleman who has been vested with responsibility in the past, or who may have it now, or hopes to have it again, so far as federal matters are concerned, will realize that in these matters the situation should be dealt with and the law applied in accordance with the constitution. When a judge intimates to an attorney general or to whatever member of the government may be acting attorney general that it has been called to his attention that a situation exists which in his judgment involves the necessity for calling on the military power, then the attorney general whose duty it is to maintain law and order-not the judge mark you, it never was the function of the judge-must take action. It is the duty of the attorney general who may have at his own command a police force of three or four hundred men, and who will say: "Perhaps the 
judge who calls attention to this situation may not know just the position -we are in. We can summon the police force and deal with the trouble without going to the expense and difficulty of invoking the military power". Is not it fair and reasonable that that duty should be imposed upon him?


Lewis Herbert Martell: As I understand the matter, the attorney general is made a concurring party in the calling out of the militia-not an appellate party.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Quite so,
my hon. friend has put it more clearly than I could have stated it,-the attorney general is a concurring party, the judge is the official who determines on the facts. The attorney general who has his own police force, mark you -and they exist in all the larger provinces-* can say as to whether or not he can deal with this question with the police force. And is it not only reasonable that that should be the situation? If he comes to the conclusion that the trouble that has arisen is of so grave a nature that it is impossible for him to deal with it with his own police force, then this bill proposes to provide that he shall have the right to invoke the military power. As we are only dealing with bald resolutions which do not deal in detail with the whole question I would suggest to the committee that it would be wiser to leave the questions of detail until we come to the bill. One hon. member spoke about the provisions that exist in regard to calling out of troops in the unorganized parts of the country. With regard to that situation, no change is proposed in the present law. At the present time a district or county court judge or a superior court judge has the power to call out the military in unorganized districts. He will have exactly the same power in the future, with the intervention and co-operation of the attorney general provided for. I refer to the fact that a commission was appointed last summer to inquire into the industrial unrest among the steel workers, which was presided over by Dr. Robertson, who has always been an official of high standing in this country, who dealt with the whole question involved, and made this recommendation.
The commissioners are of opinion that it is desirable that the Militia Act should be amended in such a manner as to provide that a requisition requiring the active militia to be called out for active service in aid of the civil power may be made only by a judge and the attorney general of a province acting jointly in making the same and that the requisition should contain a statement by the attorney general of the province to the effect that he shall as soon as possible, and not later than one week thereafter, cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances which occasioned the calling out of the active militia and send a report upon the same to the Minister of National Defence.

Militia Act Amendment


George Perry Graham: That report was signed by the three commissioners?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes Dr.
Robertson, whose high standing is unquestioned, was at the head of that commission, and the other commissioners were men who might be said to be representatives of both capital and labour; and the report which was made was adopted by all three.


Arthur Meighen: Who were the others?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The others
were Mr. J. J. Johnston, former Attorney General of Prince Edward Island and Mr. Fred Bancroft, of Toronto. This is a matter which we should not approach and are not approaching from any standpoint of political feeling. In this matter every party is interested in having the law put upon a proper basis.
In regard to the question whether or not the federal government should assume the full responsibility of all the cost of maintaining military interference where a difficulty arises, I cannot accede to the proposition that has been made that that should be done. Beginning in 1868 the Fathers of Confederation started to lay down the principle in their very first law. Dealing with this question they imposed upon the municipality the cost of maintaining the forces when called out. That has been continued all along. In those early days we did not have the great number of employees' organizations that we have now. Our cities had not been developed. Our smaller towns had not corporate rights. In our province for fifteen years after confederation we had no municipal corporations at all. As the years went by and population increased, and here and there unfortunate difficulties arose in the country, it was found necessary, in the judgment of the men of twenty years ago, to do away with the principle of leaving it to the heads of municipalities to say when the troops should be called out, and they introduced the element into it of the judicial functionary who should have to deal with it. Now, after an interval of twenty years, I think if we only realize what the situation is constitutionally, we will come to the conclusion that in this bill a proposition is made which is reasonable and proper. The provincial government-not the Dominion- is in charge of the task of maintaining law and order and the administration of law. The question as to whether one county in any particular province should be deemed to be treated unfairly if asked to contribute to the cost of calling out the troops is beside the question; because if it is unfair to them
to do so, it is open to the provincial legislature, upon whom the cost would have to fall, to pass legislation themselves for the particular municipality, if they saw fit to do so, assuming the cost of calling out the troops. So, if there is any injustice, the province can relieve it, distributing the cost in any way it sees fit, and I think the provinces are better judges of that than we would be. I think we should endeavour to approach this question with a view to placing upon the statute book, a workable piece of legislation which will deal with this question fairly and reasonably, and if hon. gentlemen desire any further information, I shall be glad to bring it down when we get to another stage.


Mr. IRVINE:: Who is responsible for
the expense of calling out the militia under the present act?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: According
to the law as it stands the municipality in which the difficulty occurs is supposed to bear the whole cost.


Arthur Meighen: What was the cost to
the government of calling out the troops to Cape Breton in 1922 and in 1923? And how much of the cost has been paid by the municipalities?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Nothing
has yet been paid. The Department of National Defence has asked the Department of Justioe to take up the question and proceed with it, and they have made their claim upon these municipalities.


Arthur Meighen: What was the cost in
each case?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The cost in 1922 was $62,295 and in 1923 it was $99,621.


Arthur Meighen: That did not include
anything for the pay of the troops?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: With the
meagre information at hand I cannot say, but I shall be glad to get the information and give it to my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: Is it the intention,
under the amendment proposed, that any discretion shall rest with the Dominion government after the requisition of the attorney general comes in?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The situation is not generally understood in that particular. Under the law as it is to-day a judge 'issues a requisition, not to the Department of National Defence, but directly to the officer who happens to be in command of the military district in which the trouble arises. For instance, Judge Finlayson issued a requisi-
Militia Act Amendment

tion to General Thacker, who was in charge of the military district in Nova Scotia, and General Thacker proceeded to act as the law provided, without reference to the department. The law is very clear, it says that he cannot question the requisition when it is made by a judge. Questions of doubt have been involved in regard to matters of this kind, whether the district officer commanding had power to call out troops beyond his own district, for instance whether the district officer commanding in Nova Scotia had power to call troops from other districts beyond. The Department of Justice held that he had, and it has so advised, it has given an opinion to that effect.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister the
opinion of the department at hand?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No. I
shall be glad to get it for my right hon. friend. This new bill provides that he has the power.


Arthur Meighen: Does the Department of Justice advise who has the power of withdrawal? Par instance, is the (opinion of the government now that under the law a judge has been able to requisition troops from the ends of Canada and to maintain them in the district where the disorder exists, as long as that judge likes or as long as who likes?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The law
officers of the Crown have expressed the opinion that the existing act empowers the district officer commanding, first, to go beyond his military district in order to get troops, and, second, to vary from time to time the * number of troops that are called out. The matter is still uncertain on account of a conflict 'between the King's regulations and the statute as to who has the controlling power as to when the troops shall 'be sent home. It is proposed in this bill to remove all doubt on that point by making it clear with whom the responsibility lies, by providing that as the provincial authorities requisition for the troops and have to pay for them, they are the people to intimate when they shall be withdrawn.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has not yet answered my question. Is it proposed that any discretion at all shall rest with the federal government after the requisition is issued, either as to the effect of the requisition, the extent of compliance, or the length of time?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is not
proposed to change the law in that respect
[Mr. E. M. Macdonald.)
from what it is now, and I doubt whether, under the law as it stands, there is any discretion except as regards seeing that the officem of the department simply carry out the requisition of the jhdge.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is the law as it stands
not tantamount to this?-that the provincial authorities who are charged with the administration of law and justice in the province, say that they are unable to cope with the trouble; a requisition is made on the Militia department and when they receive the requisition, they send the militia to the district affected; and when the provincial authorities say that they are able to cope with the difficulty, then the militia is withdrawn.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As I have
already stated, that is a question about which there has always been some uncertainty on account of a conflict between an interpretation of the statute and the King's regulations. As a matter of fact, the practice has always been in the past, as I understand the matter, that when troops have been requisitioned, the district officer commanding confers with the requisitioning authorities and the troops are withdrawn as a result of agreement between them.


Hance James Logan: In how many cases have
municipalities paid for the militia?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have the total amount paid, but I have not the number. I shall be glad to bring down a complete return when this matter comes up again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I asked the minister a
couple of questions.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I answered them.. My hon. friend was out of the chamber.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was out of the chamber for a moment but I was informed that he did not answer them.	Did the minister not
directly, last year, in the county of Cape Breton, of his own motion, pull out the troops there and state on the public hustings that he had given orders to that effect? I should like to know by what authority he did that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is misinformed. I never gave any such orders and I never made any such statement.


George Perry Graham: We who are not lawyers do not understand the intricacies of all these statutes and we are liable to get mixed up. We ought to keep in mind the fact that the militia of Canada is not called out primarily to keep or to restore order. It is called out

merely -as an aid to civil power. A municipality Ending itself unable \o maintain order ought to apply to the next higher civil authority, the province. Those constitute the civil powers. The militia should not be called out until those powers are exhausted, and that is all that the statute ever contemplated. Is it unfair to say that both of these civil powers ought to be responsible before the federal power is called in? That is all that this bill proposes.


Hance James Logan: Should the municipality not be responsible also?


George Perry Graham: Certainly. First the
municipality, second t'he province, and if they fail in their duty or if they are unable to cope with the situation, then the militia. That is all that the act ever intended. The difficulty that has existed has been that the municipality in some cases wanted to put the militia ahead, as if it were the duty of the militia to quell any disorder. Then the province unwillingly admitted that it had a duty; if the federal authorities would step in and become the primary power to restore order, that was all right for the province and. the *municipality. But we ought to keep it clearly in mind that it is the duty, first of the municipality, a civil power, to endeavour to restore order. The next higher civil power is the province; if the municipality cannot perform the function, then it should call on the province. And it is only after these two civil powers have exhausted all their forces for the maintenance of peace that the militia should be called on. This bill is to make it more difficult for the militia of Canada to be called out. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) informs me, it is a policing *power. It was never intended that the militia should interfere until every other authority had been exhausted. That being the case, is it unfair, or is it not rather wise, to say that after the municipal authority has exhausted its power, the province is the next higher civil power and it should be brought in to tell the federal authority, the next higher power, that these two powers could not cope with the situation?


Thomas Langton Church: The people most concerned with this matter are the municipalities of Canada who have been satisfied since confederation with the existing law and are not asking for any change. The question of cost, as I have already said, is not the important thing; what is important is to see that law and order shall be maintained. But how is a judge to know when the services of the militia are required? And is he the proper
Militia Act Amendment
authority to say? Under this legislation the judge is supposed to get in touch with the situation and find out what is going on. He will then have to notify the attorney general and the attorney general, in all probability, wTill take up a lot of time, and may even be absent, he may be out of the country at the time. If this bill becomes law the municipality will not in my opinion be as well off as it is now from the point of view of emergency protection, whereas the municipality will have to pay the bill just the same as the province will assess the local municipality for the entire cost. And all these things fall back upon the municipality in the long run; the municipality has to bear all these burdens. In Ontario in the last few years we had once a Labour-Farmer government which was opposed to anything military; it did not favour the militia, nor did it believe in votes for such purposes. From what source, then, comes the demand for this legislation? Not from the municipalities, or capital or labour. I say there is no demand for it. If there are some small places that cannot afford to pay for the maintenance of law and order then the government should undoubtedly meet such a situation. But under the British North America Act all matters appertaining to the militia and defence are to be decided upon by the people through their representatives in this parliament. And it is dangerous to get away from that principle. If this legislation goes into effect it will in my opinion open the door to a freer use of the militia, and the municipality will pay in taxation without representation and it is likely to suffer not only from the consequences of this interference but also from the expense involved. The municipalities to-day are labouring under a heavy burden of taxation of every kind and they cannot afford to pay any unnecessary bills. I do not think that this legislation is wise; the keeping of law and order is a matter that should rest with the local civil authorities, who at present can take care of it in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred.


Arthur Meighen: If I understood the
minister rightly he said it was not the intention to limit in any way the power of requisition or to give discretion to the federal authorities; that is to say, the power of requisition of any provincial attorney general will extend over the entire militia force of the Dominion. There is to be no intervening discretion resting in the federal government?


William Irvine: It is satisfactory to note
that something will be done with the control of the militia in respect of its being called
Militia Act Amendment

out in cases of strike. I am not sure whether we can feel satisfied that the bill which the minister has in mind will meet the situation, but I cannot conceive that it will be worse than the present law. There are two points in connection with the act as it is now in force which seem to me to be very unsatisfactory; the first is that the municipal or the local authority has the power to call out the militia against an organization in itself local. That is apt to complicate matters, as indeed it has proved to d'o in many instances. In the case of an industrial dispute it is only natural that there should Ibe considerable heat and that local animosities should creep in. So that those in authority locally, if they happen to disagree with the labour union in the particular city or municipality, will be very anxious to call out some force to settle the matter favourably to themselves. It would therefore be better from that point of view if some other authority a little removed from the immediate disturbance had the final say in the requisitioning of the militia. The next point with regard to the act as now in operation is this:	If the local authorities appear
to foe tardy in exercising their power a judge may call out the militia. I know of no individual who would be more ignorant of the situation than a judge. I do not of course, intend to reflect upon the judges in saying that; but they are entirely removed from the field of action in these cases, not being acquainted with the difliculties that surround industrial life. For that reason, because of their very ignorance of industrial conditions, they are surely the last persons who should be vested with authority in this matter. I am inclined to think that the proposal of the minister, while it may not be adequate, will be an improvement upon what we have at present. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that any act will be adequate which will permit the militia to be called out in cases of industrial disputes; nor do I know of any case in the history of Canada in which, the militia having been called out, there was not more harm done than good, and I doubt whether any occasion will arise in the future when the militia will do more good than they have done in the past. I agree with the statement that has been made by an hon. member that, since we must have an act of this kind, .it will be better to put the control of the situation under the provincial government. But I would go a step further; I would make it more difficult than that, giving also to the federal authority some responsibility, some discretionary power. I would do that in order to make it absolutely certain that before the militia could be called 
out there would be definite assurance that there was real need for it. I would ask the minister whether there is any possibility of his department retaining some responsibility so as to further safeguard the interests of citizens generally before an employer of labour is allowed to call out the militia to quell a disturbance for the creation of which he is largely responsible.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The theory of the bill is that the responsibility for maintaining law and order in the country shall be vested in the different provinces and in the law officers thereof. The bill provides that when the provinces find that their local forces are unable to cope with a situation that has arisen they may, following the same practice that obtains in the Mother Country, and by the method prescribed in the bill, requisition the military forces to aid them. The bill sets out in detail t'he methods by which this end is to be attained. It also designates the powers which the district officer commanding, who is the representative of the Defence department, can exercise in the premises. I think my hon. friend had pei-haps better wait until he sees the bill; if then he has any suggestions to make I shall be glad to hear them.


Hance James Logan: Is any provision made for what might be termed interprovincial labour disturbances? Suppose, for instance, there was a riot in Ottawa and Hull, who would call out the militia? And who would pay the expenses?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There might be a riot in Hull any night. I do not think my hon. friend need be disturbed as to how that problem would be solved. I think the law to-day provides a solution, but we have ample powers under the new bill for dealing with such a situation.


Arthur Meighen: Am I correct in understanding from the answer the minister gave before that the requisitioning power of the province extends io the militia over the whole of Canada without the intervention of any discretion on the part of the Dominion?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The situation under the existing act is such that there has been some doubt as to the right of the district officer commanding, who has been requistioned, to proceed outside his district. The Department of Justice has given its opinion that he can use his discretion and proceed outside. In the bill it is made clear that he can still exercise that discretion if he deems it necessary.

Militia Act Amendment


Arthur Meighen: The Dominion does not have any discretionary power?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is no change in the power of the district officer commanding as distinct from the government or the department.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is very
clear in his opinion that there never has been any discretion on the part of the Dominion government. Is he equally clear in his intention here that there shall be in future no discretion?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We simply continue the present situation.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Chairman, I
am very glad to have the lucid statement by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) in regard to the relationship to the different civil powers. I take it that one of the difficulties in connection with the calling out of the militia has been that this action was taken in spite of the advice of the municipalities. There, it seems to me, is one of the real difficulties. When the local authorities, who presumably know something of the situation, have said that they were quite able to maintain law and order, it is possible for a county court judge to ignore their decision and make a request for the militia. That is an intolerable situation, especially when the municipality is later on called upon to pay a bill which it was not responsible for contracting. It has been argued that it is not fair that one municipality should be called to pay for the expense of quelling disturbances in an altogether distinct municipality. If that objection is at all valid, it applies with all the more force to the relationship between the Dominion and the provinces. Why should the whole Dominion be called upon to pay the expense of quelling a disturbance in one particular province? And we are told by the minister that only three provinces have been concerned in these troubles.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No,	more
than three.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Possibly it was not
the minister who said it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Six	provinces were concerned.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well	then,	why
should the province affected not pay the bill? The province is very largely responsible under our present arrangements for the economic and social conditions that so frequently lead to trouble. We have been told in this House that it is very difficult for us to legislate for an
eight-hour day as that is a provincial matter. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) has referred to the Robertson report. That report not only spoke of the calling out of the militia and made certain recommendations along the lines of this resolution, but it also called attention to the fact that the men were working under very bad conditions, they work eleven and thirteen hour shifts, with every ojther week twenty-four hours of labour on end. Now surely such conditions are intolerable. Further, various industrial disputes investigation committees have told us of the very bad sanitary conditions that prevail in the mining districts. Again and again in connection with the negotiations between companies and men it has been found that the wages paid are altogether inadequate. These are the economic and social conditions which are driving the men to take some action. The only action there seems to be left for them to take is the strike. The province is very largely responsible for the existing situation. Why should not the province pay the bills that arise because of such disgraceful conditions? One of the speakers argued that the attorney general's position was not judicial but political, and implied that a politician could not be trusted in these matters. I would venture to suggest that even under the present act which gives the Minister of National Defence certain authority, the minister's position is non-judicial, and yet he is responsible in the same way as, under the proposed motion, the attorney general would be. But after all, as my colleague (Mr. Irvine) pointed out, the expediency of calling the militia is not a matter which is essentially judicial in character. Such decisions require another type of mind than the purely legal, judicial mind; they require some knowledge of the industrial situation and of the psychology of those who are involved in the dispute.
One hon. member referred to the importance of fuel as it affects the people of the whole Dominion, and suggested that hence this is a Dominion matter. I should like to point out that while fuel may be of importance, and while the dividends of the big companies may also be of importance, the welfare of the men is of still greater importance. That is the point Which, it seems to me, is not fully realized by this House, nor is it recognized in our legislation, nor by the administrative authorities. We can call on the militia to quell a disturbance in order to protect property; we never call on the militia to protect the rights of the men who are working day in and day out for 365 days of the year-when they can obtain the work. That is essen-
Militia Act Amendment

tially the reason why the calling out of the militia does not settle any of these problems; it quells the transient disturbance, but it does not get at the root of the difficulties. It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman,that in referring this matter to the attorney general- perhaps I would rather have had it referred to the lieutenant governor in council-at any rate in referring it to the provincial authorities we are at least helping to saddle the responsibility where it really belongs.
Mr, MEIGHEN: Mr. Chairman, if the law has been as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) has expounded it, I am in favour of an amendment, and I have some sympathy with what the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) said in the first part of his remarks. I have never so understood the law. I certainly do not believe it ever was the intention of parliament that the law should have the effect which the minister states it has to-day. He says that under the law to-day the municipality, by acting through its mayor or reeve, or, failing them, a judge in the municipality having jurisdiction there, may, on the mere say-so of one of these officials that in his belief troops are needed, requisition troops not only in the military district in which that municipality is but throughout the whole of Canada, and that those troops may be kept there just as long as that official likes. Now, that is exactly the statement of the present situation as the minister understands it. Undoubtedly, under the law to-day the municipality, acting through its mayor or reeve, or, failing them-that is, should either of them refuse or neglect or be incapable to act-through any judge, can requisition troops. The statute says, section 81, that the district officer commanding, on receipt of such requisition, or failing him, the senior officer of the active militia, shall call out the active militia or such portion thereof is he considers necessary. The word "shall" s used. The word "shall" is not always imperative, but I am not going to argue at the time that it is not imperative here to the extent of the powers of that senior officer or that district officer as the case may be. But it surely never was the intention of parliament that those powers should be amplified away beyond his own district, that he could reach his hand out, go from Sydney to Vancouver, gather up the active militia both permanent and volunteer, take them across the continent to that particular locality and keep them there as long as he likes. Surely parliament never contemplated such a thing, and I venture to say that governments of Canada have not acted upon that interpretation. The ut-

most that parliament could ever have intended was that upon the requisition the senior officer of the district should send troops as far as he thought they were necessary and so far as they were under his command, that is to say, within his district, and that any troops that went in from outside went in on the responsibility of the government. Let me repeat:	If the Justice department rules-and
to the Justice department of course I must yield in matters of this kind, always reserving this statement: that parliament never so intended; it is preposterous to think parliament so intended-if the Justice department so rules, then the law must go, because the law is absurd. Now the minister proposes that it shall go and that in its place we shall have this situation: The municipality shall send the requisition? No, the municipality hereafter shall have no initiating power. The mayor? No; he is out of the picture too. The reeve? He is equally absent. The judge alone shall send the requisition-a statement of his belief-to the attorney general; the attorney general shall then consider the circumstances and, if he deems action necessary, requisition such action, and that such requisition shall be equally sweeping in its effect, extending beyond the military dio-
5 p.m. trict, beyond the province and throughout the whole confines of Canada. Compliance with such requisition of the attorney general shall be mandatory upon the federal government without the intervention of the last discretion This is what the minister says he proposes to make the law of Canada instead of what exists to-day. Well, I have stated that the law is certainly a preposterous condition of affairs as it exists, if the minister's interpretation is right-it never was so intended. But it is only a little more preposterous than what the minister proposes. In the first place, why is the mayor-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Perhaps I misapprehend my right hon. friend's point when he intimates I was desirous of making some change in the law which would be preposterous. With regard to the point he is making, as to the right of the district officer commanding to requisition troops outside the district, I shall be prepared when the bill comes before us in committee to consider any suggestion that may be made in regard to improving the law as it stands in that respect.


Arthur Meighen: I am only taking the
minister's answers as he gave them to me, because I was careful to ask him definitely two or three times, his intention. Certainly,

Militia Act Amendment
I repeat, if his intention is persisted in, if he perseveres, he will only have a state of affairs slightly less preposterous than that which exists to-day. I have always thought it was not quite just that on the hypothesis that the municipality was to pay, the initiation of the municipality's responsibility should be in any case shifted from the shoulders of its own officials and vested in a judge. I have never thought that was right. I do not dispute at all that such is the law, or that such has been the law right along. I contend only that that authority is confined within the circumference of the district and never was intended to go beyond. I contend that it is so confined, subject of course, to the higher authority of the Justice department. As to the original intention of parliament, nobody could convince me that it ever was to bring about the situation which has been described.
What is going to be the condition of affairs now? Apparently the municipality's direct responsibility is to go. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) is not right in his interpretation of what is intended. According to the Minister of Railways the municipality is to be responsible first, then the province, and if both fail to preserve law and order, then the Dominion. There is no responsibility financially under this new legislation to devolve upon the municipality; the province is to be wholly responsible. Of course the province could so legislate as to distribute that responsibility, or localize it, but the minister's act comes into effect at once and no province has such legislation. I suggest that the minister should consider postponing the coming into operation of the act until the provinces have an opportunity to place the ultimate responsibility where heretofore it'always has been.
Next, assuming that the provinces will want to bring back the old condition of affairs-the ultimate responsibility on the municipality-I do not see why the mayor and the mayor's officers should be wiped away and the judge alone put in their place. These two objections I advance now, but here is the one that is to me far more formidable and unanswerable: By what right is any province going to summon the Dominion parliament, the Dominion government, to gather its militia from all over the Dominion, land them in that province and keep them there as long as the officers of that province like? We will assume, for example, that Nova Scotia is the first to act. Alberta may 182
be, Saskatchewan may be-the farmers there sometimes assume a militant attitude; but suppose Nova Scotia acts first: Nova Scotia becomes so alarmed that they believe the whole permanent militia of Canada-"active militia" is the way the act reads and the way it is going to read-should go in there. Last summer, for no very great cause, they thought they should go right from Winnipeg-if I am wrong I would like to be corrected-right out from Manitoba. Well, it would not take very much to have (hem come right from Vancouver; the Nova Scotia authorities can bring the troops and keep them there. Now suppose they do. The minister says "Oh, they are going to pay for it." Very well, but there may be trouble in Alberta the next week and how are we going to take care of that? There may be trouble in British Columbia. The Winnipeg situation may be repeated. What does the minister propose in that event? He is going to divest himself of every possible discretion, he is going to put himself utterly powerless in the hands of an attorney general, and if he does he will find himself helpless and disarmed should a certain situation arise comparable with the first. Now, I never have believed that, there was no discretion in the Dominion government. I have always believed there was in so far as the troops are concerned beyond the district affected; and f insist that in this legislation discretion to this extent at least be preserved, that the federal government be not under command of any provincial authority to send troops into that district beyond those within the military district affected. Secondly, that beyond that circumference the power, utterly unfettered, remain in the hands of the responsible federal authorities.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: One word
in order to make clear to my right hon. friend that the law in that respect is not changed. Discretion is vested in the district officer commanding to go outside and take troops from the permanent force there when he deems it necessary. He also has the power to utilize the active militia within the province. While he has that right the power must be exercised with some discretion in each case and with due regard to which particular force will be necessary in order to bring to an end the difficulty that may have arisen. The difficulty my right hon. friend anticipates as a result of all the permanent force being concentrated in one province would hardly arise in actual practice because the district officer commanding always has power to utilize the services of the volunteer

Militia Act Amendment

militia who can be mobilized for the purpose. But one can hardly conceive of a case where a district officer commanding, say in Vancouver, would mobilize the militia in Ontario and move them there.


Arthur Meighen: Was it not done last
summer?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I understand what was done then was that the district officer commanding in Halifax obtained some detachments from Winnipeg in preference to mobilizing the ordinary volunteer militia. While the discretionary power has existed in the past, and while the volunteer militia are available to that extent, the department and the district officer commanding will have to exercise the discretion wisely. Then too he would have discretion as to the number of troops to be employed.


Arthur Meighen: Discretion by whom?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: By the district officer commanding to whom the requisition goes.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I object
to.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The government will accept any reasonable suggestion that may be advanced in order to make this bill thoroughly workable. Because this is really not a matter upon which there should be any political division; we are all approaching the subject with a view to framing the best possible law that can be enacted.
My right hon. friend has made a very good point as to whether it might not be desirable, should this legislation become law, of postponing its coming into operation. I have not the slightest doubt that the provinces will proceed to legislate so as to place the liability for the cost of any troops called in upon the particular municipality to which they are summoned. I shall be glad to consider any suggestions from the House generally, prompted by the desire to make this bill more efficient, when we come to consider the measure in committee.


Arthur Meighen: There is just this I
would add in reply to what the minister has said. He admits! that the district officer commanding is to have this full sweeping authority under the amendments as proposed but he says that subsequently reasonable amendments to the bill may be accepted. He states it is not very likely that the district officer commanding would summon the militia from the ends of the country because the volunteer militia are available. Does he re-
member that the reason the permanent force are sent first is that they are the most efficient force; secondly, because that does not entail any cost upon the municipality as will be the result in this case. If the law is passed as proposed the district officer commanding will call out the permanent force and what will be the result? If the situation is just a little worse than it was in Nova Scotia he will summon the troops from Vancouver. What a fine situation would then arise if a difficulty occurred in Alberta or in British Columbia. The men who would be there would be these active militia, who would be paid day by day, without the support, without the experience, without the training and certainly without the efficiency of the permanent force. It would leave the rest of the country utterly stripped, and the government would stand stark and helpless, unable to do anything.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Macdonald (Pictou) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 169, to amend the Militia Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Department of the Interior-salaries, $1,500,737 50; contingencies, $105,000.
Mr. ARTHURS:: Explain.


Charles A. Stewart: There is a reduction in the personnel of some sixteen. The details are as follows:
Increases:
Statutory increases	
$27,497	50Promotions	
2,810	00Reorganization and	reclassification.. ..	12,175	001 new position created	
4,350	00

Decreases:
17 positions abolished	 $20,745	00
Vacancies, due to superannuation, promotions, resignations, deaths, etc., which have been reduced to the minimum of
the class	
9,832	00Saving estimated to be effected through superannuation	
20,500	00

Net, Decrease, $4,244.50.
That is a summary of the item.
Mr. MicQUARRIE:	What are the positions that have been abolished?

Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: The details are:
Positions abolished, $20,745.
1	Director of reclamation	service	
$4,8002	Head clerks, 1 at $2,880, 1	at $2,280.. ..	5,1602 junior clerks at $600	
1,200	'1 junior file clerk	
6001	clerk stenographer	
1,065
7 junior clerk stenographers, 2 at $720, 1 at
$705, 2 at $690, 1 at $645, 1 at $600.. ..	4,770
2	junior clerk typists at	$600	 1,200
1 senior engineering clerk	 1,950

That makes seventeen.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Were these positions
abolished on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission?
Mr.	STEWART	(Argenteuil):	No.


William Garland McQuarrie: Are the salaries mentioned in this vote being reviewed by the Civil Service Commission and the Audit Board?


Charles A. Stewart: You mean
the whole department-yes, they will be.


Mr. HOCKEN:: With a view to increasing
or decreasing?
Mr.	STEWART	(Argenteuil):	I cannot
tell you.
Mr.	SUTHERLAND:	W'hait about	the
$20,500, saving effected through superannuation? Does that mean a saving to the department or does it include the saving to the country as a whole?
Mr.	STEWART	(Argenteuil):	This	is
a. saving to the department. The difference between the salary and the amount of superannuation would be the true saving to the government, but the department does not pay the superannuation and is not charged with it.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: The effect of superannuation might be to increase the cost to the country.


Charles A. Stewart: No, it could not. The superannuation is never the amount of the salary. The maximum superannuation is seven-tenths of the salary.


Donald Sutherland: Have the places of
those superannuated been filled.


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Donald Sutherland: No additional appointments?


Charles A. Stewart: No.
182*


Mr. GARDINER:: I notice that a new
position has been created of Assistant Director General of Surveys, at a salary of $4,350. Will the minister give us the explanation as to the nature of this position?


Charles A. Stewart: A reorganization is proceeding in the surveys of the department. We have discussed this a great many times, and in the amalgamation of the work I have been seeking to bring about in the department we have been endeavouring to cut down the staff. A number of the older officials are seeking superannuation, and the staff will be cut very materially. As a matter of fact, I cannot say offhand, but I know that we have three or four positions in that division which it is not our intention to fill. Of course the younger men in the service are taking the higher positions, but the Assistant Director General of Surveys, while not a temporary appointment, is more or less of that nature. Our director has been ill for the past three or four months, and is quite an aged gentleman. We are not adding to that particular branch of the work but rather decreasing it.


Robert Gardiner: Is the present position filled, and if so how long has it been filled?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Thomas Shanks occupies that position.


Robert Gardiner: How long has he
occupied that position?


Charles A. Stewart: Since April first.


Robert Gardiner: Is his appointment subject to the Civil Service Commission?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Did he sit for examination?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: How long since the examination took place?


Charles A. Stewart: I have not the exact date at which the competition took place but it was some time last fall. I cannot remember the exact date. A number of the officers of the department wrote in that examination. The Civil Service Commission appointed him.


Robert Gardiner: 'Was the position
occupied prior to Mr. Shanks' appointment and by whom?


Charles A. Stewart: I think it was temporarily occupied by Mr. Peters.


Robert Gardiner: For how long?
Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps it is a mistake to say it was occupied. Mr. Peters had been carrying on this work ever since he had been brought from Calgary. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) raised the question of the allowance that was paid him for assisting with the reorganization. He was never appointed to the position. He was drawing the salary he had been drawing when located at Calgary.


Robert Gardiner: I understand that the examination for the position of Assistant Director General of Surveys was made some time last fall, but notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Shanks was the proper person to appoint, he was kept out of the position because of the desire of someone to keep Mr. Peters in that particular position. Has the minister any explanation?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know anything about that. The Civil Service Act is specific in that regard. In the case of post office appointments, I have one case in mind at the moment in which the appointment was made by the Civil Service Commission where it was not approved by the Postmaster General. Approval has to be given by the Governor in Council, but the recommendation comes from the department. In looking up the act I find that there is nothing that the department can do except to refuse approval. They might do that, but then that creates a situation that is impossible. There must be a trial of the individual passed upon by the Civil Service Commission. If he is unsatisfactory, then, of course, the department have authority, for which they must give reasons, for refusal to make the position permanent. But under the act they must accept the decision of the Civil Service Commission and appoint for six months the party named by them.


Robert Gardiner: Did the department withhold approval of the appointment of Mr. Shanks?	[DOT]


Charles A. Stewart: I was not
aware of that. That may be true.


Mr. SHAW:: As reported on page 2510 of
Hansard, I asked certain questions dealing with the appointment to a vacancy in the Fort Smith district agency. The material portion of the questions asked are as follows:
1.	Is Mr. C. S. MacDonald, Dominion Land Surveyor, an employee in the Department of the Interior?
2.	Was Mr. MacDonald appointed to the position of District Agent of the Northwest territories, at Fort Smith, N.W.T.?
3.	If so, is Mr. MacDonald fulfilling the duties of that office? If not, why not?

The answer to the first question was: Yes. The answer to the second question was:
He was notified by the Civil Service Commission to report on receipt of instructions from the department.
The answer to the third question was:
No. Has not got necessary administrative experience.
I want to draw that to the attention of the minister because, as he would know, the Civil Service Commission is the final body under the statute which determines as to the qualifications of the individual, and no department has any right to say that, because this man, after having been chosen by the Civil Service Commission, has not the necessary administrative experience, he shall, therefore, not occupy that particular position. That is a direct contravention of the statute, and I simply draw the attention of the minister to it, because I am sure, under the circumstances and realizing the matter, he will see that justice is done in the premises.


Charles A. Stewart: I think there must be some mistake with reference to the answer, because it is very clear that the department has not authority to appoint someone else in place of an appointee of the Civil Service Commission.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The answer is to be found on page 2510 of Hansard. The further question which I did not read, because it was not material to the point I wished to make, is as follows:
(a) What person, if any, is acting as District Agent at Fort Smith, N.W.T.? (b) What salary does he receive and (c) from what fund is he being paid ?
The answer is:
(a) J. A. McDougal;	(b) Salary', $2,700, living
allowance, $1,500; (c) Northwest Territories Administration vote.
The point I want to make is not that somebody else was put in the position, but that the Civil Service Commission gives a certificate to another individual to fill that position, and the department comes along and says: No, we will not place him in the position because he has not the necessary administrative experience.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not know anything about the particular circumstances, but I imagine that in that case McDougal could not draw his salary. I will make full inquiry. I think there must be something wrong with the inference that the Civil Service Commission appointed! MacDonald.


Mr SHAW:: The answer is perfectly clear.

Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: These are checked very closely by the audit, and if that were the case, McDougal would not be able to draw his salary. I shall, however, make full inquiry. I do not want to get into a controversy about the matter at the moment.


William Garland McQuarrie: Are all the increases
shown statutory increases?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: There appear to be
some decreases in salary. I notice on page 76 an item: Publicity agent, this year, $1,920; last year $2,400.


Charles A. Stewart: That can
come about only in one way. There must have been a change, but the gentleman is at the minimum of the class instead of getting towards the maximum. The salary is fixed for that particular position with a maximum and a minimum. Of course, when a man moves out to some other position and a new man takes his position, he begins at the minimum salary.


William Garland McQuarrie: On page 77 there is
another item: Assistant Dominion land surveyor, this year, $2,555; last year; $2,562.


Charles A. Stewart: There have
been a number of changes in the surveying staff; there have been a number of resignations, and undoubtedly the same answer applies in this case. This may not be the minimum salary, but it will be a lower salary than that which the former occupant of the position was receiving.


William Garland McQuarrie: The same thing applies to all the other cases?


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that it might be a difference in the date of the statutory increase. They do not all date at the beginning of the fiscal year. That might account for the smaller amount, but usually that happens because the occupant is beginning at the minimum of the class.


William Garland McQuarrie: I suppose the same
thing would apply to other cases where there have been decreases.


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that there might be a difference in the date at which the statutory increase takes place. For instance it might not take place on the 1st April; it might occur on the 1st July or the 1st October.


William Garland McQuarrie: There has been no
attempt to decrease any of the salaries in this department?


Charles A. Stewart: We could
not decrease salaries. The salaries for the positions are fixed.


Mr. MILLAR:: Are homestead inspectors
included in this appropriation?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Mr. EVANS:: How many are maintained
in the three prairie provinces and what salaries are they receiving?


Charles A. Stewart: We passed
that item, but I will try to get the information for my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: The minister says that
he could not decrease the salaries. Will he tell us who could?


Charles A. Stewart: I think my right hon. friend will agree with me that the Civil Service Commission fix the minimum and maximum salaries for any particular position. The minister has nothing to do with salaries, except those of his secretary and the deputy minister. They are the only positions over which he has control, with the exception of positions the remuneration for which is under $200. I think that is the amount fixed now. The salaries of all other positions are fixed by the Civil Service Commission, with a maximum and minimum for the class.


Arthur Meighen: At the request of The
government. If the government wants the Civil Service Commission to revise the salaries down, all it has to do is to request them to do so.


Charles A. Stewart: I know that.


Arthur Meighen: No country has put out
of the hands of the government or of parliament the power to determine the salaries it pays to its employees.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
quite right. The minister or the deputy minister can make recommendations. In fact, he has made recommendations and the recommendation goes to the Civil Service Commission, but the commission adjudicate on that recommendation.


Arthur Meighen: They do not adjudicate
except to this extent:	They make recommendations to the government which the government may accept or not as it sees fit. But the general scale of salaries is a matter which is in the hands of the government, and the
Supply-Interior

Civil Service Commission, merely makes a classification of the individual salaries. If at any time the government wants to reduce the total, all it has to do is to intimate to the commission that a reduction of 10 or IS per cent, as the case may be, is required, and the Commission will classify accordingly. When a general scale comes before the government the government passes it or sends it back.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
agree that the government goes as far as that.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly it does.


Charles A. Stewart: I am having a little experience with the commission now in regard to the postal employees. The government or the minister or the deputy minister can make a recommendation, but the commission fixes-


Arthur Meighen: The Civil Service Commission does not fix anything; it only makes recommendations to the government.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, let us say it recommends. But what does the act say about the powers of the government? The government may approve; but if it does not approve, what then?


Arthur Meighen: It refers the matter
back.


Charles A. Stewart: But if there is to be a continuous reference back and forth there is going to be an impasse. The Civil Service Commission makes a recommendation to the minister or the deputy minister naming, or fixing, or suggesting such and such salaries and1 remunerations as it sees fit.


Arthur Meighen: Only the government
can finally determine what the general scale shall be. If the government does not approve of a scale because it is too high it can refer the matter back to the Civil Service Commission. The minister knows as well as he is sitting in his seat that if the government felt that a general scale was five, or ten or fifteen per cent higher than it should be under present conditions, all that would be necessary would be to so represent to the commission and ask them to submit a scale reduced individually in accordance with that general reduction. The minister knows that.


Mr. BELAND:: Would that not be considered undue influence?


Arthur Meighen: Not at all; it is entirely in the hands of the government to say what the general scale ought to be.
fMr. Meighen.]


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend suggest that the commission is bound to accept that recommendation from the government?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Charles A. Stewart: I am glad
to know that, because I cannot construe the act in that way.


Arthur Meighen: The minister knows
that the Civil Service Commission is a classifying body; but the general scale is something which is in the hands of the government, subject to parliament. The minister, to get out of some trouble that threatened in the post office department, referred the scale back to the commission for revision. The commission revised it but the government did not say whether they Wanted it up or down. Is it not a fact that the commission asked whether the government wanted the scale u,p or down?


Charles A. Stewart: Not that
I am aware of.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister will make inquiries he will find that to be the ease. But I could not see how in the world the commission could be expected to make a revision, having just done so, unless there was an intimation as to what the government wanted. I made formal inquiries to find out the facts and I discovered that the government did not inform the commission what it desired to have done.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend was in the government which passed the act.


Arthur Meighen: Yes; and the act is all right. But we never said that we were helpless under it.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
right hon. friend suggest that the government has any control over the question as to what the salaries shall be?


Arthur Meighen: In so far as the general
level of salaries is concerned. If the government think that the general scale in any case is too high, all they have to do is to inform the commission accordingly. And I challenge them to try that out. If the government are of the opinion that salaries are too high, I ask them to submit a requisition to the commission, as they did in the case of the Post Office Department, only intimating, in this instance, the reason for the revision. Let them say: "We want the salaries revised because we be-

Supply-Interior
lieve they are too high; we think there should be a reduction of 10 or 15 per cent and we ask you to make a recommendation with that in view." Let the government try that and see if the commission will not respond.


Charles A. Stewart: I usually
agree with my hon. friend but I cannot on this occasion. .


Arthur Meighen: Try it out.


Charles A. Stewart: What in
the name of heaven was the commission appointed for if it is to be a rubber stamp in a matter of this kind? I am not a lawyer and in construing the act I am apt to make terrible mistakes. But I take the intent of the act to be that the commission should exist for the very purpose of taking this matter from the hands of the government. I quite understand that the government is ultimately responsible.


Arthur Meighen: That is the point.


Charles A. Stewart: But on the other hand what is the sense of having a commission if the government are to have absolute control to this extent?


Arthur Meighen: The minister knows that
the commission has two functions, one, to classify and the other, to appoint, subject in every case to the approval of the government. But it has no final authority in any case. These two functions of the commission are considerable; but surely no one will suggest that parliament has put into the hands of that body the uncontrollable power to write cheques at whatever dimensions it sees fit against the treasury of Canada in favour of the service of Canada. It cannot possibly do that.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my right hon. friend suggest that if the minister or the deputy should recommend that a salary of, say, 84,500 be paid a certain individual, it is the duty of the commission to fix that salary?


Arthur Meighen: I never said that, and
that is not the fact.


Charles A. Stewart: What my
hon. friend is saying seems to be to that effect.


Arthur Meighen: What I am saying is
that the responsibility for the general level of salaries rests with the government, and if they feel that it is too high they can refer the matter to the commission with a request that it be reduced by a certain percentage. If they make that recommendation the commission will undoubtedly act upon it. The commission will then by rts classification .adjust the individual salaries to meet the
total reduction. The reason I went into this matter was that the minister of a department, to get out of a trouble that was his own, made a reference to the commission.
I asked the minister concerned and the Prime Minister whether they had indicated to the commission just What they really wanted- whether an upward or a downward revision

and they said, no; they virtually said, "We just threw the thing at them." I therefore wondered what in the world the commission would do, and upon making inquiries in the regular way I learned that they had never been informed by the government as to whether the revision was to be up or down, or by how much. So that I am speaking of my own knowledge when I say that if the government really think the general scale is too high, all they have to do is to say so and they will get a classification apportioning the individual salaries so as to meet the lower level.


Charles A. Stewart: I can well
understand that the commission would pay a great deal of attention to any recommendation from the government regarding a general revision of an entire scale of salaries. One can easily understand that. But that is not the point I have been trying to make. I understand that the commission can go even a great deal further, in a general way, than my right hon. friend argues this afternoon. But the government need not accept any recommendation of the commission, and it would be absurd to suggest anything else.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is it not a fact that
in connection with the revision of salaries of postal employees the commission reported three several times to the government and three several times the government returned to the commission the recommendation it had made?


Charles A. Stewart: I think my
hon. friend is correct in making the statement twice, not three times.


William Garland McQuarrie: Then for what reason
was the report returned to the Civil Service Commission?


The CHAIRMAN:: That is not under this vote: this is the Interior.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
answer that question.


Arthur Meighen: To gain time.


Charles A. Stewart: Not at all.


William Garland McQuarrie: I simply mention this,
Mr. Chairman, because the minister has referred to it himself.
Supply-Interior


George Newcombe Gordon: It is not in this vote anyway.


Charles A. Stewart: It was referred to by my hon. friend.


George Newcombe Gordon: It was used by the
right hon. leader of the opposition as a measure of comparison.
Mr. MeQUARRIE:	My memory may be
wrong then, but I think Hansard will bear me out. As I understand, the minister said he bad some trouble with the postal employees. However, if you rule out any discussion, Mr. Chairman-


George Newcombe Gordon: No, I do not. By way of comparison, it might be used, but I say you cannot address to the minister under the Interior vote an inquiry relating to the postal service.
Mr. MeQUARRIE:	Then I will ask this
question:	Is the revision of the salaries of
the Interior department and of the Department of Indian Affairs being proceeded with, and what stage has it reached?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
tell my hon. friend whether the revision has commenced or not, but all salaries which were affected by the bonus are under revision.
Mr. MeQUARRIE: Has the Civil Service Commission made any report as to any other salaries than those of the postal employees?


Charles A. Stewart: Not that I am aware of.
Mr. MeQUARRIE:	Would the minister
be aware if they had made a report?


Charles A. Stewart: I think so.
There has been none so far as I know.
Mr. MeQUARRIE:	Then what is the
reason why the postal employees' salaries have been taken up first?


Charles A. Stewart: The order
in council, which was laid upon the Table, asked that the postal employees and the customs employees be dealt with first.
Mr. MeQUARRIE:	Of course that hardly
answers the question. Why was it the government desired the commission to take up the postal employees' salaries first? Was it on account of the threatened strike?


Charles A. Stewart: Naturally
that was part of the reason.
Mr. MeQUARRIE:	That was the reason.
When I asked the Prime Minister the other day he answered that that had nothing to do with it at all.


Charles A. Stewart: When a readjustment was asked for by the postal employees a serious situation arose-for I think my hon. friend will agree with me that a strike of the postal employees would be a serious situation-and I think he will also agree that it was well that their salaries should be dealt wtih as soon as possible.
Mr. MeQUARRIE:	That is the way it
appealed to me, and I was rather surprised at the Prime Minister's answer. I must say that the answer which the minister has just given appears to me much more reasonable. In regard to the revision of the salaries of other employees of the Civil Service, there is. as I understand it, great complaint that the revision is not being proceeded with and that the men are not receiving any consideration whatever. Has the minister heard of any such complaints?


Charles A. Stewart: I have had
no notice of any complaints in the three departments of which I have charge.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister say
what his attitude is towards a strike in the Civil Service; does he think it should be treated the same as a strike by private employees?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I do
not.


Arthur Meighen: What would be the government's attitude?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think this is the place to commit ourselves in face of the difficulties which confront us; but it seems to me, that policemen and civil servants are in a different category altogether from people engaged in industrial disputes; they are servants of the Crown. It is rather a serious thing for these men to resort to a strike. On the other hand, one cannot say that they should foe denied the right to protect themselves. However, that is my general attitude.


Arthur Meighen: Nobody disputes that.
Mr. MeQUARRIE: WTe will suppose that the employees of the Interior department were threatening to strike:	Would the minister and the government then take up the revision of their salaries next after the consideration of the salaries of the postal employees?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend is very thirsty for information. Speak-

Supply-Interior
ing from memory, I think the order in council requested that if possible the salaries of the postal employees and the customs employees should be dealt with first.


William Garland McQuarrie: But the salaries of the customs employees are not being dealt with,
I understand.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
answer that question, I do not know.


William Garland McQuarrie: There is no report
from the Civil Service Commission?


Charles A. Stewart: I may say that the same request for expedition has been asked all along the line. I can* hardly believe that the Civil Service Commission is simply doing nothing.


William Garland McQuarrie: What is the government doing to assist expedition?


Charles A. Stewart: So far as I know, the government have no knowledge that there is a complaint.


Arthur Meighen: Has not the government refused already to accept two reports from the Civil Service Commission?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is asking another question entirely.


Arthur Meighen: No, that is the same
question. First the minister said that the government instructed the Civil Service Commission to use all expedition so as to get all possible light on the subject, but he said a little while ago that the commission reported once and the government referred the report back, and after the commission reported again the government again referred the report back. So the government's instructions are a great deal better than its actions.


Charles A. Stewart: Refusal is
hardly the word.


Arthur Meighen: The government referred the report back. So far as expedition is concerned, it amounts to the same thing.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
objecting, but I do not think refusal is the proper word to use at this juncture with respect to the revision of the salaries of the postal employees.


Arthur Meighen: It is equally effective.


Charles A. Stewart: Our idea is
to try to arrange an amicable settlement, and I think my right hon. friend will agree that that is the proper course to pursue. I happen to be rather vitally interested inasmuch as I am Acting Postmaster General, and
therefore that is the only object I have in view. On the other hand, I do not want the idea to go out that because these men met and took a strike vote that was the sole reason why they were dealt with at once. Undoubtedly it was one of the reasons so as to see if an amicable adjustment could not be made. But I would very much resent compulsion from the post office or any other employees. At the same time I want to make it very clear that I am desirous to give them just, fair and equitable treatment.


William Garland McQuarrie: What were the other reasons?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend seems to be desperately anxious to obtain information on this point. I think my hon. friend will readily agree that the Acting Postmaster General has a rather difficult situation on his hands, and he will appreciate that words which I may utter here may be used outside the House, and perhaps imperil an equitable adjustment of the trouble. I hope it will be settled within a day or two, and settled amicably. I cannot prevent these employees from going on strike, and I am not making any threats about it. I am trying to make this adjustment, but my hon. friend is pressing for information that I have had to refuse to give to the representatives of the employees.


William Garland McQuarrie: I understand the minister to say that the threatened strike was only one of the reasons for giving preference to the postal employees.


Charles A. Stewart: The other
reason is this; the postal employees have been pressing for an adjustment for the last two years, and so have the customs officers.


William Garland McQuarrie: Other departments as well.


Charles A. Stewart: That may be so, but frankly I was not aware that other departments had been doing so. Undoubtedly, individuals and groups in other departments have been but there has not been the request for a general adjustment such as the postal employees and the customs officials have asked for.


William Garland McQuarrie: The Amalgamated
Civil Servants of Canada have had their representatives here; have they not requested that the revision of their salaries be proceeded with immediately? Are they not pressing for the other departments just as much as the Postal Employees' Association have been pressing for theirs?
Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: If that is the fact I was not aware of it-not to the same extent.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister stated
that some seventeen positions in his department had been abolished on his recommendation.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: And not on the recommendation of the Civil Service 'Commission-that is as I understood him?


Charles A. Stewart: That is correct.


William Garland McQuarrie: The first position was, I think, in reference to reclamation. Were the seventeen all in the same class?


Charles A. Stewart: I am not sure about that, but I do not think so. They may have been attached to other branches of the same department than the Reclamation branch.


William Garland McQuarrie: As I understand it, the government are giving up certain reclamation works in the prairie provinces and consequently are able to make a reduction in the staff. I am asking if the seventeen positions-


Charles A. Stewart: If my
memory serves me rightly only two of the officials of the Reclamation branch are paid out of the civil government vote; the remainder are paid out of the votes we passed yesterday. There has been a reduction of about eighty in the whole Reclamation branch; all these reductions do not appear here.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is what I was asking about. As I understand it-
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Louis Wliite. -Mr. Lovett.
Bill No. 158, to incorporate Merchant Casualty Insurance Company.-Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 159, to incorpate The Laurentian Insurance Company.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Merlin Englehart Olubine.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Victoria Stella Haswell.-Mr. Gordon.

Bill No. 162, for the relief of Thyrza Ewart (otherwise known as Thyrza Hodgins).-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Rebecca Messer.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of James Henry Kirkwood.-Mr. Anderson.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Dorothy Marie Robinson.-Mr. Harris. [DOT]

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Department of the Interior-salaries, $1,500,737.50; contingencies, $105,000.
William Garland McQuarrie: The difference between the salaries this year and the salaries last year is $4,244.50, and I think the minister explained how that was made up by saying that some 17 positions had been abolished, the particulars of which he gave. What will be the total amount of salaries in the Interior department for this year?


Charles A. Stewart: The amount will be $1,500,737.50.


William Garland McQuarrie: Are there any other
salaries which are not included in this vote?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is what I am
asking.


Charles A. Stewart: I could not attempt to give you the salaries. We were discussing that in connection with the parks administration and irrigation. There are innumerable services for which we have passed votes where the salaries are proportionate to the vote.


William Garland McQuarrie: My hon. friend cannot give it.


Charles A. Stewart: No, there are too many divisions. Then there are part time services and full time services, day labourers and prevailing rates of pay. There are innumerable salaries mixed up with the vote.


William Garland McQuarrie: Of course, but I should think the minister would be able to inform the committee as to the total amount of salaries in his department; however, he says he cannot do that.


Charles A. Stewart: If we had a considerable amount of time I assume I could have a return prepared for my hon. friend showing exactly the amount expended in salaries and for other services; but we have not them segregated in the department.

Supply-Interior


William Garland McQuarrie: Surely the minister
has been trying to figure out whether he could do anything in the way of economizing?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: As far as I can see there is practically no economy this year as compared with last year in the estimates we have before us, except the amount mentioned, $4,244.50, out of a total salary vote of $1,500,737.50. The minister has no doubt seen the indictment against his department which has appeared in MacLean's Magazine. It would seem to me that the very first thing the minister would do would be to find out how much salary he was paying, how many employees he had, and what could be done in the way of economy. I have before me MacLean's Magazine of February 1 of this year, in which some particular reference is made to the Department of the Interior, and perhaps I might have the privilege of reading a small extract from this article.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member is
limited to civil government and is not entitled to go outside of that.


William Garland McQuarrie: I think this is civil
government.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member has
not been talking civil government recently.


William Garland McQuarrie: Take the Department of the Interior; twenty years ago this department got along with 231 officials, who drew salaries to the total of $214,000 a year. By 1906 the number of officials had exactly doubled and salaries had reached $382,000, and thereafter there was a regular deluge of new officials and expenditure. Then in the year 1907-


Mr. McBRIDE:: Is it understood that we
have come down here to listen to members reading the paper?


William Garland McQuarrie: I want to find out
if there are any economies and if so what they are. I find the number of employees and their salaries were as follows:
No. of	Total
Year	Employees Salaries
1907	
468	$ 411,3771908	
578	514,7121909	
663	679,8971910	
666	773,9251911	
701	817,5441912	
720	862,0231913	
806	939.5651914	
909	1,032,1271915	
976	1,113,555


George Newcombe Gordon: Will the hon. member tell me the relevancy of this particular matter. I am not able to ascertain it. His inquiry must be relevant to the matter of civil government and contingencies.


William Garland McQuarrie: I am asking whether
it is not possible for the minister to economize in his department.


Charles A. Stewart: If the hon.
member will look up the figures for this year, as against last year, in the general vote he will find that there is a reduction of $769,000 all told. There is only a certain reduction in civil government. My hon. friend's remarks are quite relevant. He is reading a statement with reference to civil government and that is the vote we are discussing at the moment. I am doing my level best to ascertain where economies can be instituted and I hope to be able to make reductions. We have reduced the staff by seventeen employees under the head of civil government and I think I can reduce it more because it is needless for me to say to my hon. friend that there is not as much business done now as there was in the year when the department had a thousand employees. We have reduced the staff by seventeen and we have a number of retirements of elderly people in view. I do not wish to say that I am forcing these people out, they are retiring' voluntarily and their positions will not be filled. I propose to reduce the staff just as fast as I can, because this is a very large department and it costs a lot of money. My hon. friend must bear in mind that the unfairness of the article from which he is quoting consists in this, that no allowance is made in it for the difference between the salaries prevalent to-day and those in the days as regards which comparisons are made. It is quite fair to make the comparison as to numbers as long as you compare the volume of work in carrying on the department. I have not increased the civil government staff of the Department of the Interior by a single individual. Reductions have gone on every year since I have taken office.


William Garland McQuarrie: The only reduction
this year is $4,000 in a vote of $1,500,000.


Charles A. Stewart: But the hon. member must not forget that the reduction of $4,000 applies only to civil government, and that in the general administrative appropriation there is a very striking reduction of more than $700,000 as against last year.


William Garland McQuarrie: We have not that information yet. I asked the minister what was the total amount of salaries in his department this year and he did not even know that.
Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is most unfair. I said frankly that I could not segregate the vote, 'but that does not mean there is not a reduction. If my hon. friend will look at the general administrative appropriation, he will find the reduction I have mentioned, namely, 8700,000. The department must be credited with the total reduction as against last year.


William Garland McQuarrie: What appears to me
as being so remarkable in view of those charges and similar ones that have been made of extravagance on the part of the government, is that the minister should not have ascertained how much his department is actually costing in salaries.


Charles A. Stewart: This is the exact amount that we are discussing and voting now; that compares precisely with the statement in MacLean's Magazine.


William Garland McQuarrie: I will go on and give
the rest of it.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is welcome to do so, but there is nothing in MacLean's Magazine that deals with the general departmental vote. It deals with the civil government vote, of the department. The Civil Service as regards numbers has been reduced by 300 employees. There were 1,000 people according to the statement made by Mr. O'Leary.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have not a reduction; I have an increase all the time. The balance of the statement is as follows:
Year	No. of Employees	Salaries1916	. 1,058	$1,247,8751917	. 1,080	1,257,9721918	. 1,191	1,463,9601919	. 1,150	1,634,2061920	. 1,242	1,932,2651921	. 1,238	2,119,8181922	. 1,342	2.402,6801923 (nine months).. .	. 1,329	1,794,488
This is the indictment of the department:
No one will seriously argue that the administrative requirements of the Interior are any greater to-day than they were in 1913; yet the fact remains-as these figures show-that the department has increased its staff between that time and the present by more than 500 officials, and has advanced its cost to the public by about $1,250,000 a year. And this, be it remembered, does not include officials and salaries of the Interior department in the outside service, and has nothing whatever to do with the Department of Immigration. Taken all in all it is one of the worst examples of overmanning in the government service.
Those statements are either true or untrue. If they are true, then the department is seriously overstaffed. What is the minister

doing to meet that situation? He is asking this year for practically the same amount of money as was required last year. There is no reduction at all except this $4,000.


Charles A. Stewart: That is not the case, for this reason. As I pointed out to my hon. friend before, if he will carefully examine the statement, he will find that there is a reduction of over $700,000 in the general vote for the department and a very large part of the staff is paid from that vote. We have $1,500,000 voted for 816 employees who are under civil government and whose names appear in this lidt. We have a reduction there of $4,000. We have been reducing the staff very rapidly and the statement contained in MacLean's Magazine that we are overmanned because of an increase of staff is quite beyond a reasonable statement of the true condition of affairs. My hon. friend, perhaps, will say that, because of a reduction of the work of this particular department, we should have a tremendous reduction in staff. To some extent that is true and as fast as we can reduce, we are doing so. But some people forget that this department is cleaning up such accounts as we were discussing the other day: advances for seed grain, loans to settlers and homesteads still to be inspected, although not at the same ratio because we have not homesteading going on. That particular activity in the department is the place where we can reduce most rapidly, but there is no reduction in our work in the other direction. I do not say that I cannot make considerable reductions in the staff; I propose doing so and I am doing so all the time, and also making a reduction in expenditure. I claim that a reduction of three-quarters of a million dollars in one year is meeting at a pretty reasonable rate the clamour for reduced expenditure. I cannot but think that I have done all that is humanly possible in the way of reduction this year. I am not going to say that it is ended, because I think I can make more reductions, and I propose to make more-more reduction in this particular staff as well as in the outside service-as fast as the work decreases. The statement that the department has been hugely overmanned, I do not think I or my predecessor would admit. It has been reduced in my time, but there is a tremendous amount of work performed in the Department of the Interior. If my hon. friend has time some day just to look into the activities of the department, he will discover how much territory we cover. We are administering land and resources in three provinces in the prairie belt, in his own province, in the Peace river block.

Supply-Interior
That cannot be done without a staff at the head office or without a staff in the provinces.
I confess that the reduction in the provinces this year, the closing up of the land office at Saskatoon, the cutting out of sub-offices, and the closing of the one at Battleford, with the consequent reduction of $700,000 in the estimates, have been the subject of severe criticism on the ground that we are not giving the service to the people. Let me say however that I am doing the best I can with a very large department.


Donald Sutherland: Does the minister
say that there has been a reduction of $750,000 in the cost of civil government in connection with his staff?


Charles A. Stewart: I did not say it was in the staff. In the general vote we passed yesterday, except for the one item of $8,000, there is a reduction of the amount I mention.


Donald Sutherland: Shortly before six o'clock I inquired of the minister whether there had been any increase in the staff this year and he said there had not been any.
I notice on page 76 of the estimates that there is a new appointment this year of an Assistant Director of General Surveys at a salary of $4,350. Apparently this is a new office that has been created.


Charles A. Stewart: No; this
official is transferred from another position.


Donald Sutherland: The minister also intimated that, according to the statement in the estimates, there had been a saving of $20,500 by reason of a number of officials having been superannuated. But the fact is that these officials are really transferred to another department of the government, as one might say; they are put on the superannuation list and, as the minister admits, the cost in connection with them is about seven-tenths of what it was previously. So that after all there is not a saving of $20,500 in that connection as we have been given to understand; there may seem to be a saving to the minister's department of that amount but it is not a saving to the country. Some time during the session I placed on the order paper the following question:
What is the total amount in annual salary of the new appointments to the Civil Service since December 29, 1922?
The answer was that, in connection with the Department of Interior, there had been an increase during that period of $227,761 under the head of civil government. In 1922 the increase was $114,904, in 1923 $105,149-


Charles A. Stewart: I hope the hon. gentleman is not attributing this to an increase in staff.


Donald Sutherland: The question speaks for itself. Let me read it again:
What is the total amount in annual salary of the new appointments to the Civil Service since December 29, 1922?
That was the question, and as I have stated, the increase for 1922 was stated to be $114,904, for 1923 $105,149 and for 1924 $7,708. Now, this does not indicate any decrease in the cost of the department in connection with staff, if these figures are correct. And this is the only way we have of arriving at any clear and definite understanding as to what is going on in the department. It is well understood that there is an enormous increase in the Civil Service of the country, and the great need in Canada to-day, not only in the administration of public affairs but in every other sphere, is economy; particularly in connection with the government of the country, the paramount need is economy in the Civil Service. We must reduce our expenditures in every possible way if we are to make ends meet. Yet we are daily receiving notices from the Civil Service Commission of appointments to be made in the various departments of government. I would suggest to the government that instead of making new appointments, they utilize some of the superfluous assistance which is at present employed in some of the departments; rather than create new offices the government should transfer from those departments that are over-manned, to others in which more help is required, such officials as *at the present time are unnecessary. But this is not being done; on the contrary, advertisements are appearing frequently from time to time in regard to fresh appointments that are being made. Why do the government not transfer these superfluous officials from one department to another and economize in that way? There must be something radically wrong in the system when these new appointments are being made with such frequency. I can quite understand the hardship it would be to throw out of employment civil servants who have spent the greater part of their lives in the service of the country and who would find it exceedingly difficult to compete with people in private life. I would not advocate any such thing; nor do I think such a policy is necessary. But it is imperative that the government should practise economy in this matter; there should be some common sense in the filling of positions. When therefore some official is required for
2S90
Supply-Interior

a new position that is to be filled, why not transfer somebody who is not needed in some other department? Men are being superannuated to-day who are just as useful to the country as they were some years ago, and possibly more so in view of the experience they have acquired. Many of the new appointees are men of over sixty. I am not referring to the Civil Service in Ottawa; but I have in mind just now a man of upwards of sixty-five whose hearing and sight were both bad who was appointed to a position only a short time ago through the Civil Service Commission acting under instructions from the government, while at the same time other men who are more competent are being superannuated. There is no sense in this; why not take the matter in hand and, where there are idle officials in one department, transfer them to some branch which is in need of extra help, rather than go to the expense of a new appointment. If this return is correct I am inclined to think that the minister is not frank with the committee to-night; at any rate there is something wrong somewhere. I have put questions to other ministers in this regard when their estimates have been before the committee and I have received answers similar to those which we have been given tonight, that the number of officials is being reduced. But the returns tabled in answer to questions do not bear this out. We must reduce overhead expenses in this country if we are to carry on; that is obvious to every one. I am not in favour of turning out those who have served the country for a number of years to the best of their ability. At the same time, however, those who are found to be superfluous could very easily be utilized by being transferred to some other department. This would be much better for all concerned. Certainly those civil servants who have been in the service of the country for such a length of time are entitled to every consideration at the hands of the government and of the people, especially when we reflect on their inability to meet competition in a department of life which would be entirely new to them. Why, the very hours which they are called upon to serve constitute a handicap to them; they are not accustomed to a day's work, and they would be at a disadvantage if they were turned out of the service.
Mr. HEALY; Put them in the Senate.


Donald Sutherland: I think the minister ought to give us some explanation as to the necessity for this new appointment of an Assistant Director of General Surveys at a salary of $4,350. There are areas of land 
unsurveyed in the Northwest Territories which, it seems to me, it is not absolutely necessary should be brought under cultivation just now. If there is anything of which we have a surplus in Canada to-day, it is farmers. I noticed an article in a New York paper a short time ago referring to the exodus of farmers from the United States to Canada, and particularly to northwestern Canada. They pointed out that there were people who had been engaged in grain growing in the United States and would not adapt themselves to diversified farming there, and that they had gone to Canada in order to obtain cheap land.


Thomas George McBride: Is the hon. member
opposed to any more farmers coming to this country?


Donald Sutherland: I do not think my
hon. friend's question is pertinent to the subject we are discussing. I am referring to an article which appeared in a New York paper pointing out that the exodus of American farmers to Canada was decreasing, giving the numbers for several years past, and stating that the great problem in the United States was the necessity for reducing the acreage under wheat, as they were growing too much wheat, and that the country was glad to get rid of these grain growers who would not adapt themselves to general farming and were therefore going to western Canada. The article stated that the United States had secured for their industries one-third of the Canadians who had so distinguished themselves overseas, and it compared the advantages which had accrued to the country in the exchange. Now, I do not understand why it should be necessary to create this new position of Assistant Director General of Surveys. I think it would be much more to the advantage of the Dominion to see that our farms are properly cultivated rather than to bring new areas under cultivation. For that reason I would ask the minister to inform the committee why it is necessary that this new position should be created. Also, whether the statement furnished in response to the question which I submitted is correct or not.


Charles A. Stewart: It is quite
correct, but it does not mean that an additional two hundred men have been appointed to the staff; it simply means that vacancies have been filled by new people. They may already have been inside the service. For example, let me quote the number of transfers within the department. In 1020

Supply-Interior
135; in 1921, 190; in 1922, 184; in 1923, 136. These are transfers of clerks from one branch to another. What my hon. friend complains about is being done every day.


Donald Sutherland: Those would not be considered new appointments surely.


Charles A. Stewart: They are not; neither does the return cover them.


Donald Sutherland: That is the question.


Charles A. Stewart: I admit that the return is a little misleading in that respect. It means that that is the number of people we have put into positions in the service, not necessarily creating new positions.


Donald Sutherland: New appointments?


Charles A. Stewart: New appointments in those particular jobs, not additions to the staff.


Donald Sutherland: That is the question:	What is the total amount in annual
salary of new appointments to the Civil Service since December 29, 1922? That does not cover transfers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The report is misleading
if it covers transfers.


Charles A. Stewart: No, it does
not mean that the total staff was increased by that number. We may have had the same number of resignations and these new people were appointed to the vacancies. I was under the impression that my hon. friend was misled by the idea that the return covered new positions -which had been created since 1922. That is not the fact, because really we have been reducing the. staff. I am not claiming any particular credit for it, as the war created a great deal of extra work, and necessitated additions to the staff, but the general reductions in the staff, I think, run between four thousand and five thousand according to the last returns. The numbers I have read represent transfers. Now wherever we have a person who can take a position in some other branch we are trying to place him there, always with the consent of the Civil Service Commission, because we have in our department a representative of the commission who is going through the staff all the time and assisting us in this work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the return which
the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland! has referred to include transfers such as the minister is now speaking of?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think it would.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would mean either
new positions created or vacancies filled from outside altogether?


Charles A. Stewart: Not necessarily new positions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: One or the other.


Charles A. Stewart: They are
new people who come into the service to take new positions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think tone criticism
which may be made of this department, as well as of others, is that while it is true the minister has in his general estimates shown a saving of three-quarters of a million dollars, he has not shown a corresponding saving in the overhead, and this is the one thing which the country is criticising very severely. It cannot be said with -any degree of accuracy that a reduction of seventeen in the number of officials in this department is in any way commensurate with the reduction in the service of the department as a whole, neither can it be said that a saving of $4,000 in overhead salary is commensurate with the decreasing work the minister has himself acknowledged. I have no doubt he has made a good start with respect to the outside service, but I do not think he will claim-and he has not claimed really here to-night-that he has made very much progress with respect to the inside service in Ottawa. That may not be the minister's fault, but a reduction of the inside staff ought to be his -aim, and it is what the country is asking for. It is felt that there are altogether too many civil service officials in the head offices of these various departments. I think the minister if he is candid will agree with my criticism.


Charles A. Stewart: The centre
of the whole organization is here at Ottawa, which may or may not be good business, but nevertheless it is here. The outside service is curtailed wherever possible. For example, all the branches, and there are a great number of them) are run from Ottawa. Of course, as my hon. friend will understand, -that necessitates a fairly large head office staff, but every individual of that staff is on this list, and naturally this will be the last list to be cut. Undoubtedly I hope to make reductions, because I frankly admit that I think the work in this department will decrease year by year; therefore there should be a corresponding reduction in the staff. But I do claim that a cut of three-quarters of a
Supply-Interior

million dollars in the Department of the Interior is a pretty fair showing. With that before the committee I fail to see why I should be criticised so severely because someone on the outside undertakes to write a magazine article without putting himself to the trouble of going through the department. The Audit Board under the powers granted them will attend to reductions, and I trust they will do the work thoroughly. At the moment in this huge' staff of eight hundred odd people I do not know that I am over-manned to the extent of even one person. Of course, some members of the staff are asking for superannuation, and their places will not be filled. But although I have not a single man too many to carry on the work, I do think I can reduce the staff.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister stated last year that the Surveys branch of his department was years ahead of settlement-I think he actually used those words. When the work is manifestly decreasing, according to the minister's own statement, and when very few new homesteads are being taken up, why should it be necesary to have an Assistant Director General of Surveys in that branch? There is ground there for criticism.


Charles A. Stewart: I meant to answer the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). Mr. Shanks, whose appointment was discussed before dinner, has been in this service for twenty or twenty-two years and for a long time he has been drawing the same salary that he is getting to-day. Dr. Deville is becoming aged and somewhat infirm and Mr. Shanks has been assisting him. Last year the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) discussed the Surveys branch at some length, and as I promised then I have been endeavouring to cut down the survey branches and to amalgamate them so as to bring them under one control. I think that Mr. Shanks or whoever would secure the position was fairly entitled to some recognition. He was given the name of Assistant Director, but no increase in staff is involved.


Donald Sutherland: What was his position before?


Charles A. Stewart: Assistant
Surveyor General. Of course to the uninitiated these things are misleading and the statement my hon. friend holds in his mind is somewhat misleading. He doubtless was under the impression that this was an entirely new appointment, but such is not the case.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a fair explanation. When the work Mr. Shanks had been doing previously fell into decay I suppose it was necessary to provide him with another position.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I gather that from what the minister has just said. If the Director General himself is now an old man, why not superannuate him and give Mr. Shanks the position?


Mr STEWART (Argenteuil):: That possibly will happen in due course. As the older men are superannuated these reductions will go on. I am grateful to the hon. member for South Oxford for the very kindly way he spoke about the staff. I agree with him thoroughly, but I do not want it to be inferred that I let my sympathies run away with my good judgment. On the other hand, I have some sympathy for the man who spends ten or fifteen years in the service; it is rather a serious thing for him to be pitchforked out into the world, because he is entirely uninitiated in business pursuits. In some cases we have to do that, but in the main we should use some judgment in the matter and try to make a transfer or other change that will obviate the necessity of taking that course.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister say it
is necessary to have a Director General of Surveys and an Assistant Director General of Surveys, having regard to the extent of the work of that department?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I would say that in the new organization I would consider it necessary. The assistant can do a great deal of work in addition
9 p.m. to rendering assistance to the surveyor general on survey work.


Mr. LUCAS:: Are the duties of the Interior department confined entirely to the three western provinces and the unorganized territories?


Charles A. Stewart: That is the territory over which we have jurisdiction, but we have in addition the scientific institutions.


William Thomas Lucas: Can the minister say how
this vote is apportioned among the various provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think I could. Since 1915 the returns from the various departments have been kept seg-

Supply-Interior
regated, but the cost of the service in the respective provinces would be difficult to get at, because a man may be working in Saskatchewan one month and in Alberta the next.


William Thomas Lucas: It would be fair to assume
that if the natural resources were handed over to the three western provinces this service would be very materially reduced?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, it would be almost wiped out, yes.


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: What proportion of the civil list can be allocated to the Dominion Lands branch?	[DOT]


Charles A. Stewart: I could not give that. This staff performs service for all the western provinces, and we can only give you the total with respect to the areas over which we have jurisdiction.


Harry Leader: Does the question of the
housing of the minister's department come under this item?


Charles A. Stewart: No. We
do not pay rent.


Harry Leader: You do not pay any rent
in your department?


William Garland McQuarrie: Does the minister
question the correctness of Grattan O'Leary's figures which I quoted from MacLean's Magazine of February 1st? If so, in what respect are they incorrect?


Charles A. Stewart: As to numbers and cost?


William Garland McQuarrie: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: I presume
they are correct.


William Garland McQuarrie: Will the minister give the details of the saving of $700,000 odd which he says has been effected in his department?


Charles A. Stewart: I gave those details the other day. That is all on Hansard.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: When the minister says he presumes that the figures given in MacLean's Magazine are correct he is admitting overmanning and is admitting increases.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, no, my hon. friend should not put words in my mouth. He knows there is the inside service at Ottawa, and the outside service is the civil government list and the list paid from the general 183
vote. One of the difficulties with respect to Mr. O'Leary's statement is that it is based only on the statement of the number of people employed at Ottawa. I have been . trying to get the Ottawa figures for my hon. friend, which I assume are the figures given by Mr. Grattan O'Leary. What are the figures for 1922 as given by him?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will give my hon. friend the figures which I think he will be very much interested in. The figures to which he is now taking exception are:
Employees Salaries
1921	
1,238	$2,119,8181922	
1,324	2,402,6801923	(nine	months).. ..	1,329	1,794,488
In the case of the last item, at the rate for the nine months' period, the total for the year would be $2,512,648. Then there is the survey question with which I dealt at a good deal of length both last year and the year before, in the hope of bringing about some economies in connection with that service. I also urged we should try and have our estimates so prepared that the country would have a chance of knowing, and hon. members also, what the cost of running any particular department was. We do not know to-day. My hon. friend, I think, does not know today, because we have our employees tucked away in this, that and the other vote. I think my hon. friend will recollect the argument I made in connection with that matter. Now, admittedly there are far more employees in the Department of the Interior than is shown by the civil service list. There is no question about that and I think my hon. friend will agree with me. I had hoped that he might be able to make some headway in preparing the figures for presentation to the House in such a form that we would know where we are, would know what real economies, if any, are being made. But I point out to my hon. friend that these figures, to which he did not take exception but which he admitted to my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) were correct, show when these outside services are considered that there has not been any reduction but rather an increase in cost, and not only an increase in cost but also an increase in numbers. Now, perhaps, my hon. friend would give us the exact figures of all these employees at the present time. I think he will find that his offhand idea was not correct, and that the figures given are substantially right.


Charles A. Stewart: In reply
to my hon. friend I would say that the figures I have here show a total in January, 1922,

Supply-Interior

of 1,325, and in January, 1924, of 1,300, or a net reduction of 25 in the Ottawa service. But in both the inside and outside services there is a reduction of 92.


Donald Sutherland: With reference to
the explanation given by the minister as to what appears to be a new appointment, that is to say the Assistant Director General of Surveys, he stated that this gentleman had formerly been Assistant Surveyor General. I find that to be the case. In the estimates for 1924, and in those for 1922, I find there was an Assistant Surveyor General at a salary of 13,666 and the amount has been constantly increasing. I notice in the estimates now before the committee there appears an item of $4,140 for the salary of an Assistant Surveyor General, in addition to the salary for a new appointee as Assistant Director General of Surveys of $4,350. Does the minister wish the committee to understand that this appointee is drawing the salary of Assistant Surveyor General and also the salary of the new Assistant Director General of Surveys? The salary for the old position still appears in the estimates, it was there in 1922, and I presume it has been there for many years.
I repeat, that in the estimates we are considering there appears the salary of an Assistant Surveyor General $4,140 and in 1922 the amount appeared as $3,666. This gentleman is certainly receiving considerable attention from his friends if he is able to draw two salaries and has been receiving such a substantial increase all the time.


Charles A. Stewart: That is not true; he is not drawing two salaries.


Donald Sutherland: Then how does it
appear that the item still figures in the estimates, and that there is a salary for a new appointment as well?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will understand we are bringing men in ' from the outside and cutting down the outside staff. I can assure my hon. friend there is no increase. Mr. Shanks was appointed to assist the Director General of Surveys, more particularly and his classification is under that heading. We brought no new men into the service and do not propose to do so.


Donald Sutherland: Did Mr. Shanks
occupy the position of Assistant Surveyor General?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Donald Sutherland: That still appears in the estimates. Who occupies that position at present?


Charles A. Stewart: There is no one in that position.


Donald Sutherland: Why should it appear in the estimates?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will have to give me an opportunity to readjust my department, which I am trying to do daily. I am not creating any new positions, and it is not the intention to increase that staff. This gentleman has been given that position, and the hon. member will notice that we are dropping a reclamation engineer further down the list, whose salary was $4,800. So that in dropping our reclamation and survey work we have to make all these changes and arrangements.


Donald Sutherland: If there is any intention to make a reduction, surely this item should not appear in the estimates this year, the position being abolished. If the reduction the minister refers to has taken place, and the staff is being reduced, as has been stated, the Assistant Surveyor General is surely a new appointment. If a new position is being created and the old one is being maintained, and we are asked to vote the amount that has been in the estimates for years, there is no reduction.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister informed the committee this afternoon that he assumed no responsibility for salaries, and that that was a matter for the Civil Service Commission. I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not believe in reducing salaries. I believe that men are entitled to a fair and reasonable wage. I do not think that where the salaries are reasonable at the present time they should be reduced. But 'there is another phase of the matter which has to do with this item, and that is as to the question of over-staffing and overlapping. I presume the minister will assume responsibility for that, if there is any, and he would not try to put that off on the Civil Service Commission. What is he doing in that regard? What is he doing, along with the other ministers of the Crown, to endeavour to correct any overlapping or over-staffing? It may be that there are men in one department who are doing the same work, and it is not necessary to have more than one at that particular work. If that is so, and if the country is paying men for holding positions where they do not require to do a fair day's work, the minister should investigate and deal with such cases. I notice that some charges have been made by Mr. O'Leary in this connection. I will quote a short extract from MacLean's Magazine of March 1, this year, which reads:

Supply-Intenor
For an uprooting of waste from the Oivil Service can never be achieved by the mere indiscriminate dismissal of a few hundred civil servants. What is required is a major operation. What is needed is not so much a combing of branches as a sheer abolition of branches, a ruthless extinction of overlapping and duplication and of wasted, futile effort. Let me give an illustration of what I mean:
Two government departments carry establishments for precise levelling.
Three departments have establishments in connection with topographical maps.
Seven departments have photostat establishments.
Five departments support establishments and equipment for the purpose of blue printing and reproductions.
One department has five distinct engineering branches; and it is said that only one of these operates under the departmental engineer.
Dredging, with its costly overhead engineering establishments, is carried on in three different departments.
Surveying work is carried on in three different branches of one department.
One department has seven distinct branches dealing with lands, each having its own expensive overhead establishment.
Now the need here is not for dismissals; it is for wholesale abolition, or at least intelligent consolidation. Dismissal of a few hundred employees would mean a saving of some thousands of dollars; ordinary, common-sense centralization would mean a saving of millions.
Would the minister agree to the correctness of that statement?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. I
would like to say, however, that the gentleman must have known when he made the statement about the Land's department, or he should have known if he had made inquiry, that those several branches were moved into the Norlite building and amalgamated under one head at the time that article was written. As for the other accusations, I did not follow my hon. friend very carefully, I am speaking for my department. However, before that article was written, these changes were made along the line of reorganization and work which I have been endeavouring to carry on in the department. With a staff of 1,200 or 1,300 people the minister should be given a little time to effect economies and savings. I think I can point with a great deal of pride to having done so. I do not say that I am through. One difficulty is that there are a number of men on my staff who have given splendid service to the people of the country, and spent years of their lives at it. In due course they will have to be retired. I expect a number will be retired this year, and in fairness to them I do not wish to mention their names at the moment. I am endeavouring to effect economies. I cannot reduce the staff from 800 to a very large extent next year but I hope to reduce it in a considerable degree.
As for economies in the outside service, naturally our work is reduced. I think threequarters of a million, plus four hundred thousand, is a fairly decent showing. If my hon. friend thinks it is not, all I can say is that it is hopeless to attempt to make him realize the fact that one is trying at least to do his very level best to effect economy in a very large department. That is my feeling and I cannot help saying it.


Mr. MALCOLM:: I was chairman of the
Civil Service committee last year, and I think all the hon. members who took part in the investigation before that committee and in the recommendations to the government with reference to the superannuation scheme will agree with me that the very question which the hon. member fo"r New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) is discussing was paramount in the minds of the committee when dealing with this question. We hear criticism of the government when faithful employees are retired, and if any more of our employees were retired without superannuation we would hear still more criticism. The bill for superannuation has been referred to a committee and we hope that it will be passed this session. That bill will cover many eases to which the hon. member for New Westminster refers, it is going to give an opportunity for many faithful servants of the government for the past thirty-five years to retire to private life on a superannuation adequate to the service which they have given to the state, and I think all members on both sides of the House who criticise overmanning would be better to withhold their criticism until such time as the superannuation bill has been put into effect and the economy in connection with old employees has been adjusted according to the retirements under the Superannuation Act. The amalgamation of services will then be possible.


Donald Sutherland: With regard to
withholding our criticism, I should like to ask the minister further in connection with what appears to be a new appointment on page 76 of the Estimates, because the fact that the Assistant Surveyor General is being transferred to another position does not justify having the two items appear in the estimates. There is still the old position of Assistant Surveyor General appearing on this page of the estimates, and there is a new appointment of Assistant Director General of Surveys. Why is it that the two salaries should appear in the estimates for the one official, because we are informed that this is merely a transfer from one position to the other? Surely one of them could be dropped if that is the case.
Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: I have explained to my hon. friend that we are in the reorganization stage all down the line. I have at the moment transferred under one head seven land branches at the head office. We were enabled to do that when we secured premises into which we could move our people, and make that saving by getting them all into one building. One of the difficulties in this city is that the department is housed in seventeen different buildings.


Donald Sutherland: I am not surprised
at that judging from the leases that have been brought down recently.


Charles A. Stewart: That was a condition of affairs that was in existence when I took office and it is still in existence. We happened to find ourselves in that position. Bringing these branches from buildings which were not contiguous before and placing them all in one building, we are able to put them under one head. That was known when that article was written, 'and while I have no quarrel with Grattan O'Leary over the articles he writes, my work is to make savings in the department where that is humanly possible. While I expect to make savings by reorganization, still I am not in a position to come into the House and abolish those positions in a moment. There is no one at the moment drawing a salary as Assistant Surveyor General. Mr. Shanks who occupied that position is drawing the salary of the other position.


Donald Sutherland: Then, why not
strike it out of the estimates?


Charles A. Stewart: I would
ask my hon. friend to leave it in the estimates. I anticipate that I can make a number of savings on these salaries. Perhaps we shall have to pay them for one, two or three months-I do not know how long- but you must provide for the salaries until the resignations take effect, and I have to ask the committee to vote them. It is asking a minister to d'o the impossible to clear out these employees on the 31st March and make these savings. Many of these men are waiting, of course, for the passing of the Superannuation Act. My hon. friend may say:	You should not allow them to wait;
but as I pointed out, these are old and trusted employees who have rendered good service and I think they are entitled to some consideration.


Donald Sutherland: In connection with the savings to which the minister refers, I have in my hand the estimates for the year

ended March 31, 1922, showing that this official who has been transferred to the new position of Assistant Director General of Surveys is receiving an increase in salary of $690. That does not indicate any great inclination on the part of the minister to curtail expenses in any way. At the same time knowing that he has been transferred from 'one position to another, the minister allows this item to appear in the estimates for the old position of Assistant Surveyor General at a salary of $4,140, and an item for the new position at a salary of $4,350. I do not think it is fair to the committee that we should be asked to ferret out these things. The minister ought to be frank with the committee and intimate what is being done rather than force us to the work of worming these things out of the minister as we have had to do time and again since this session has commenced.


Charles A. Stewart: I have explained to my hon. friend over and over again what has been done in this particular case, but my hon. friend persists in misunderstanding me.


Donald Sutherland: I do not persist in misunderstanding the minister at all. I beg to differ from the minister in that respect, and if the minister states what is correct, there is no justification for the two items appearing in the estimates and for asking us to pass them in this way. I will venture to state that this is unheard of and has never before occurred.


Charles A. Stewart: It has been done every year, and my hon. friend who has been/ in this House for some years should know that that sort of thing has been done every year. You cannot on the 31st March abolish a position with an occupant whom you are not sure is going to be superannuated. The committee will have to take the word of the minister, as they always have to do, that this position Is not going to be filled beyond a certain time. Mr. Shanks had been promoted to be Assistant Director General of Surveys. The other position is not filled. I am asking the committee to give me an opportunity to reorganize and in some cases to reclassify and cut down this staff. I have pointed out the accomplishment as regards the Lands branch. I want to <io the same in this case. My hon. friend will persist in misunderstanding me or in assuming that I am trying to cover up something. I have been absolutely open about every item in connection with these estimates and I have been trying my level best to explain them.

Supply-Interior


Donald Sutherland: The minister will recall that before six o'clock I asked whether any new appointments were being made in this branch of the service and I was informed that that was not the case. Apparently this is a new appointment.


Charles A. Stewart: It is a new classification. It does not add to the personnel by a single individual. I trust my hon. friend will take my word for that.


Donald Sutherland: We are asked to
vote an amount to pay the salary of a new official and we are asked also to vote an amount that was in the estimates of last year for the old position. The minister now informs the committee that it is not his intention to fill the old position. Is that correct?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Donald Sutherland: Then, why not
strike this out of the estimates and be done with it. so that we may know what we are doing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister, on thinking this over, will see that he is taking somewhat of an impossible position. If this is a matter of reclassification, the old office goes. There is no dispute about that.


Charles A. Stewart: That is quite true, but it may not be done on the particular date at which we vote it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us get down to facts. If my hon. friend admits that this is a reclassification, the old office goes. I think my hon. friend on sober thought will agree with me that that is the case. The reason for holding it, therefore, is not a matter of reclassification. If it be not a matter of reclassification, but a matter of creating a new office, the previous position stands and a new office is created. My hon. friend will see that that is just what his vote is doing. It is either one thing or the other. It cannot' be both. We have the old office standing, and unless my hon. friend abolishes it he is in the position of having created a new situation at an increased salary while keeping open to be filled one that is already in existence. I want to be absolutely fair to the minister. There is just one consistent course for him to take; he can do one of two things, either to admit frankly that this is a new job which is found to be necessary in the department and which does not prevent him from keeping the old one, or to acknowledge that the matter is one of re-classification, and do away with the old position. It is a question for the minister to settle; but he cannot take both views; it is impossible for him to do so. I want to help the minister, who tells us that he does not want to appoint anyone to the old position. The best way in which we can help the minister to make 100 per cent in the economics in his office this year is to strike out that vote. After all the talk about economy in the Civil Service he should not object to that $4,000 being struck out; here we have a chance of helping the minister in a few minutes to add to the good work of the year by striking out this vote. Does not the minister want to be helped? Why should he not strike out the vote, unless it is that the job is being retained for someone else?


Charles A. Stewart: It is not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then why not strike out the vote?


Charles A. Stewart: As I have
stated half a dozen times, I expect to be able to cut down the service-at least I am so informed by some 12 or 15 persons.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that all?


Charles A. Stewart: By retirements at least; I do not say that is all. My hon. friend might as well say, why not wipe out all the salaries in connection with these positions? But we cannot do that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would not say that for one moment.


Charles A. Stewart: Let me say that there is no desire to fill the position of Mr. Shanks; we do not need anyone to take it. And if it would obviate discussion at greater length I am prepared to cut it out. My hope however is that these 15 or 20 men will not draw salary beyond two oh three months; that is my expectation. But I am bound to ask for a vote to cover their salaries for the whole year. If it will facilitate matters I am ready to strike out the amount because Mr. Shanks has been established in his position. He was not so established when we prepared these estimates; he was in the same category as the others.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is quite right, but such is no longer the case.


Charles A. Stewart: No, for the reason I have stated; he has been established; but had it not been so we should have had to maintain the position.


Donald Sutherland: The position the
minister takes is reasonable if he will adhere to it. This official seems to have been moved
Supply-Interior

up rapidly, and I might ask the minister at what age superannuation is obligatory. For some time past there has been a tendency to take back into the service people who have been superannuated and to pay them higher salaries than they previously received, the result being that on their final superannuation they have drawn a greater allowance, through their increased salary, than they would have been entitled to before. This official received an increase of $680 in the estimates of 1922. Is it possible that he is approaching the age of superannuation?


Charles A. Stewart: He has
seen 22 years of service. I do not know the man; I would not know him if I met him. The recommendations in regard to his service and his ability are splendid and I assume that they are correct; but I do not know, nor have I any personal interest in, Mr. Shanks.


Donald Sutherland: How long will it
be before he is superannuated?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know.


Donald Sutherland: Will he not be superannuated at a certain age?


Charles A. Stewart: He might be superannuated at any time owing to illness or from any other cause that might arise.


Donald Sutherland: I understood there was a stated age.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Calder Act fixes the age of compulsory superannuation at 70.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I move, Mr. Chairman,
that the item be reduced by $4,140.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Could we not
help the minister further? We have added to his batting average about 100 per cent. The minister has referred to various maps and all that sort of thing and he has been looking into the matter generally. But what is a cartographer?


Charles A. Stewart: I am not prepared to define these classifications.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is not a cartographer a man who works on maps?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let me mention some of the details in connection with the great struggle which my hon. friend has been making against this avalanche of maps. Last year when we were discussing this subject we were told that- there was a number of people who were making maps. We had in this department 4 chief map draftsmen. Then
f Mr. S ut her la ud. 1
we had 11 principal map draftsmen; 26 senior map draftsmen; I senior relief map maker; 1 relief map maker; 12 map draftsmen; 1 junior map draftsman; 2 chief draftsmen; 4 senior draftsmen, 1 draftsman; 1 junior draftsman, and 4 cartographers. My hon. friend has been struggling with this problem and I want to compliment him on one thing: he has taken care to see that there are no more than 6 cartographers this year. The result of the minister's efforts has simply been this, that "what we have we hold." There is not one single; reduction made in this connection, although I thought that the discussion last year had at least shown that economies could be effected in regard to the number of persons we have engaged on maps. We have maps for everything; maps in this department and maps in that department; and we have surveys in this field and surveys in that field, an overlapping service here and the same there. We had this matter all discussed last year but my hon. friend has been unable to do anything. Now, can we help him to some extent? I say, there is not one single reduction effected; no attempt made to give effect to the protests of this overlapping and the like.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
no overlapping. I am sure my hon. friend must admit that there is none.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know. These maps-I should think a good many of them by this time must be drawn one on top of the other. Does my hon. friend say he cannot effect any economies there?


Charles A. Stewart: No, not a
thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman,
it is just as well that we should grasp where this is leading to. There is a little economy made here of $4,000 in connection with the total of this vote as the result of all the work my hon. friend is-


Charles A. Stewart: Of course,
there is no credit for the three-quarters of a million dollars saved.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Three-quarters
of a million dollars saved! As my hon. friend knows full well, that saving is due to the curtailment of service to the public. I am not talking about the withdrawal of public conveniences, I am talking about the cost of service to the public, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the conveniences.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my
hon. friend name one convenience which has been withdrawn from the public?

Supply-Interior


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend knows-and I am not blaming him for doing it; it is the right thing to do-that he has closed offices which were open for the purpose of convenience to the public in certain localities. As I say, I am not blaming him for closing those offices-


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not blaming him for closing them, but the economy which is effected, as my hon. friend knows who laughs, is by reason of the curtailment of this service. I am talking about the cost of the reduced service to the public, and as admitted by the minister-I do not know that the hon. gentleman who laughs was in the House at the time-the net reduction in connection with this particular vote comes down to some four thousand odd dollars. It is true we have added 100 per cent to it by striking out an amount of $4,100. But that is the net result of all this work. Now we have services here and services there, employees inside and employees outside, employees that are shown on this list and hundreds of employees that are not shown, and we have an approximate cost in 1921 of $2,119,000 odd, in 1922 of $2,400,000 odd and in 1923 of $2,500,000 odd.


James Malcolm: Will the hon. gentleman read the figures between 1911 and 1921? He will find a real increase there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am just
dealing with the figures I have before me.


James Malcolm: You have those figures
before you there also.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not. But does the hon. member think that what was done some other year has anything to do with the necessity for economy in this particular year? Is that his idea of the duty of a public servant?


James Malcolm: But you had control
in those years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What difference does that make? Supposing that what was done was wrong-and I am going to tell my hon. friend, as the fact is, that the votes for those years were considerably less than in 1922-


James Malcolm: And the rate of pay
much higher to-day.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The votes are
a great deal less, and the numbers are less.
If my hon. friend wants to debate it we will debate it. I take the year 1921 with a vote of $2,100,000, the year 1922, for which my hon. friend's government is responsible-


James Malcolm: No, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All right, I will take some other year that you are interested in. I will take the vote of 1923 amounting to $2,500,000.


James Malcolm: Covered by statutory
increases.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is a
wonderful economy 1 It is an economy which is costing more and more and more in service all the time.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes; with less
facilities to the public. But if the hon. minister says he cannot do anything better I am not going to delay the vote. It is perfectly ridiculous to talk of economy in the face of those figures, as every hon. gentleman knows.


William Garland McQuarrie: Did I understand the
minister to say that he did not know anything about the leases of the premises occupied by his department?


Charles A. Stewart: No,, the
leasing is in charge of the Public Works department.


William Garland McQuarrie: It seems to me that we are finding out a great many things in the department which the minister does not know anything about. We have found out now that he does not know anything about the leases of the premises occupied by his department. He told us some time ago that he did not know anything about the salaries in his department; he did not know anything about the salary revision in his department; he did not know that the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada, which includes employees in his department, were asking for salary revision; he did not know the number of employees in his department; he did not know the amount that his department is costing for salaries. Now, it seems to me this is a business proposition and that he as the head of this department ought to obtain this information.


Charles A. Stewart: Let me say to my hon. friend that if he is asking for real information he will get it; if he is not, I want seriously to protest against his endeavour to create the impression that the minister does not know anything about his department.


William Garland McQuarrie: I did not say that.
Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: You did say so.
Mr. MoQUARRIE: No.


Charles A. Stewart: It meant
practically the same thing. That is the impression which my hon. friend wants to create, and I think we have come to the point where patience ceases to be a virtue. I have endeavoured to be fair and to give all the information I possibly could. Then to be told that the minister does not know anything about his department convinces me that there are some courtesies at least due to a poor minister who happens to be so unfortunate as to have to answer a thousand and one questions that have no relevance to the estimates whatever. I am quite prepared to answer any legitimate questions.


William Garland McQuarrie: Mr. Chairman, I did not say or suggest that the minister did not know anything about his department at all. Perhaps there are some things he knows about


Mr. LOVETT:: Read Hansard to-morrow, and you will find you did say so.


William Garland McQuarrie: I did not say anything of the kind, but I did mention certain things that admittedly the minister does not know anything about,-things which, I think he should know something about. To get down to business, take the matter of leases. I do not see any occasion for the minister to get excited about this.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Mr. Chairman,
may I interrupt? Surely the hon. member is out of order. We are discussing civil government. The matter of leases comes under my department.


Charles Marcil: Yes, the hon. member is out of order, this resolution being for salaries and contingencies of the Department of the Interior.


William Garland McQuarrie: All right, I have to accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, if you do not want to hear anything about leases. It seems to me that certainly the minister should know something about the leases of the premises which his department occupies here in Ottawa.
Mr. STEW*ART (Argenteuil): All the premises of my department which are leased are under the control of the Minister of Public Works.


William Garland McQuarrie: Certainly.
[Mr. McQuarrie.l


Charles A. Stewart: He is responsible for the leasing of the premises and the payment of the rent. We occupy the premises. I have no records of the leases whatever.


William Garland McQuarrie: I am quite aware
of that, and that is what I am complaining about-that there is no co-operation among the members of the cabinet in important matters like this. However, I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman; we have nothing to do with leases now, and if the minister does not know anything about them I cannot say any more. But there are other things. I stated that the minister did not know the number of employees in his department and that he did not know how much his department was costing in overhead-salaries. I do not think that is an unfair statement. The first duty of the minister on taking office-and he has been in office some years now-should have been to find out how many employees he had and how much was being paid for salaries. That is the first thing the business manager of any private concern would do. I do not think the minister should take exception to the mention of these things. He should not get excited because I make a statement of that kind and say I stated that he did not know anything about his department. I did not say such a thing. Now, he says he does not know anything about salaries.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
say anything of the kind.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is what I understood the minister to say.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, I am not responsible for what the hon. gentleman understands.


William Garland McQuarrie: Then we will get
right down to business on that and find out what the minister does know about salaries. He certainly does not know the amount that his department is costing in salaries. I understood him to say this afternoon that he did not have anything to do with salaries at all, that was a matter for the Civil Service Commission.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, that is correct.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is right-that
he could not do anything about having salaries reduced if they were too high; that that was a matter for the Civil Service Commission, and that he was not concerned with whether the salaries were too high or too low.

Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
make any such statement.


William Garland McQuarrie: What other conclusion can any reasonable person come to?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is drawing inferences again.


William Garland McQuarrie: He does not know
anything about it, has nothing to do with it.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
say so.


William Garland McQuarrie: And he does not propose to find out anything about it.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
propose to allow my hon. friend to say so, either. If the hon. gentleman would make his remarks coherent so that one could understand his questions, one might answer them. He says the minister has no control of salaries and that the minister admitted that. We discussed that this afternoon and I made the explanation then; my hon. friend was in the chamber. I said that the proposal with respect to salary is made by the deputy minister of the department. That proposal may be accepted or rejected by the Civil Service Commission; that is their business. To that extent the minister has no control, but he has an opportunity of suggesting what the salaries shall be. The Civil Ser-
10 p.m. vice Commission adjudicate upon that, pass it on to the Governor in Council, and approval has to be given by the Governor in Council. The minister has that much control. The right hon. leader of the opposition raised the question whether the government, could not suggest to the Civil Service Commission a reduction in salary. I assume that that is quite possible from the point of view of the salaries throughout a whole department, but what we both agreed upon this afternoon, I thir'k, if I have any recollection of the discussion, was that that was the process, and to that extent the minister is not responsible for the salaries.


William Garland McQuarrie: I must say that the
minister has taken a very tame way of replying to the question I asked. He says my questions are not coherent and that he cannot answer them. Now, my questions will be in Hansard, and if the minister cannot understand them. I venture to say that the public will understand them all right. I think they were perfectly clear.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my
hon. friend agree that when the time comes we let the public decide?


William Garland McQuarrie: Certainly. That is
why we are talking here to-night.


Charles A. Stewart: I am prepared to do so. I am prepared at any time to stand upon my record.


William Garland McQuarrie: I suggest that the minister find out something more about his own department. Now, there is the matter of salary revision. The minister said he did not know anything about that. He did not even know that the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada had had their representatives here in Ottawa demanding salary revision.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I said I had no knowledge of that.


William Garland McQuarrie: I think he ought to
find out something about it. Either their demands are justifiable or they are not. I do not think I have to withdraw the statement I made in the first place; I do not think it was unfair in any particular. The minister should find out something about his own department.


Donald Sutherland: The hon. member
for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) a few minutes ago, in putting a question regarding salaries, went back as far as 1911. I have not the estimates for all those years but I have them for the year 1920-21, the year prior to the advent of the present government, and I find there was an item in those estimates of $3,4S0 for the Assistant Surveyor General. To-night we are being asked to vote S8.490 for the dual position which this official occupies. I do not want to be unfair; the minister has intimated that he has no intention of allowing these two positions to function. But I think the motion before the committee is a very appropriate one and that we should remove either one position or the other, and let this official occupy whichever position he sees fit. In anv event the salary to be paid under this grant is $4,350 whereas in 1920-21 it was $3,480. If the hon. member for North Bruce wishes to make any comparison between the conditions a few years ago and those to-day he has a fair illustration in the salary that was being paid this official at that time and the salary to be paid unde: the present estimate.


Charles A. Stewart: Up to last
year we were voting large sums of money annually to pay the salaries of reclassified civil servants, and' Mr. Shanks, if I remember cor-
Supply-Interior

rectly, was among a large number of civil servants who were reclassified after this government came into office, the reclassification dating back to April, 1919. I do not think there is any vote in the estimates this year for that purpose, but I would not like to speak with authority as to that. Last year there was such an item. When these recommendations come to the Governor in Council they may of course, be approved or disapproved. In any case ,Mr. Shanks in his reclassification undoubtedly received a fairly large increase. That was done by the Civil Service Commission after the fullest investigation. I am not quarrelling with that; I simply want to make it clear to my hon. friend how these things come about. Notwithstanding the fact that this year there has been no increase but rather a reduction in the number of employees it requires nearly the same amount to pay the services. The time may come when we will reach a dead level in connection with these statutory increases. Every year it has been my experience to find a very considerable number of them and it requires more money to pay the salaries although we have not increased the number of men.


Donald Sutherland: I think the minister will admit that in this case it is not a reclassification but a transfer by the minister of an official from one position to another.


Charles A. Stewart: I was speaking of the salary Mr. Shanks was receiving.


Donald Sutherland: I was speaking of the position which Mr. Shanks is holding. I believe he is the official referred to in the item which appears here of S4,140.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, that is quite correct. That was his salary.


Donald Sutherland: And a new position has been created to which a salary of $4,350 is attached, or an increase of $210. This does not indicate that the minister is very anxious to curtail expenses in any way. It is a case of transferring an official from one position to another because the minister considers it necessary, and I assume that he knows what is required in his department. But I cannot imagine that this official is going to do more work than he did before, and therefore I cannot see why the salary should be increased by $210. That is a thing I cannot understand. We find so many people anxious to get in the Civil Service, straining every nerve to enter the government service at almost any salary ' they can get, and after they are appointed they are dissatisfied and are continually agitat-
ing and bringing pressure to bear to obtain promotion and higher salaries and lesser hours of labour. The two seem to run concurrently. I think the minister will admit that even if the transfer is necessary he is not compelled to grant an increase of salary. This official has been in the service for so many years that he is now approaching the superannuation period and, it is very important to him that he should receive a high salary so that when superannuation becomes effective he will get about seven-tenths of that salary. We have recently seen men who had been superannuated brought back into the service at much higher salaries than they enjoyed when superannuation took effect.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
knowledge of that. Will my hon. friend state a case?


Donald Sutherland: I can give my hon. friend the information privately, or publicly if he wishes it. I do not think it is very desirable that the names of those in the service should be mentioned, but I can assure my hon. friend that such is the case. However, I do not like to mention the names of those who are in the service and are rendering valuable service. I simply refer to the matter for the reason that when these officials are approaching the age which requires them to be superannuated it is important that they should be in receipt of a high salary so that they may get seven-tenths of that amount when they are superannuated.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend is
wrong. Superannuation is based on the average of the last ten years of service.


Donald Sutherland: If that is the case
it is very important that during that period the salary should be high in order that the income under superannuation should be substantial. That is what I object to. When the minister claims that he is making every effort to reduce the overhead expenses in connection with the administration of the department we find an official being transferred from one branch to another and at the same time receiving an increase in salary of $210.


William Garland McQuarrie: I should like to ask the minister if the new Auditor General is taking any part in the re-organization of the department?


Charles A. Stewart: He will, yes. Mr. MACKENZIE KING: He is.

Supply-Interior


William Garland McQuarrie: The Prime Minister
says he is. The Minister of the Interior does not know apparently.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend wish to be insulting?


William Garland McQuarrie: Not at all. I asked
the minister a question and I drew that inference from his reply.


Charles A. Stewart: Why does my hon. friend insist that the minister does not know when the act provides that the Auditor General shall do this work. He is doing this work and will continue to do it.
Is there anything wrong about that? I arr getting somewhat tired-


William Garland McQuarrie: Well, you can get tired. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):-of the insinuations of my hon. friend.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister can get just as tired as he likes.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, we will see.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have got certain
rights here.


Charles A. Stewart: I hope the
minister has some.


William Garland McQuarrie: Certainly. Now, I
asked the question whether the Auditor General would take part in the re-organization of the department. The minister said he would, and the Prime Minister said he already was doing so. There is quite a difference there and I came to the conclusion that the minister, did not know that the Auditor General had already taken part in the reorganization of his department.


Charles A. Stewart: I know perfectly well. He is doing so in all the departments.


William Garland McQuarrie: If the minister had
said so in the first place there would have been no misunderstanding. I also understand that the Auditor General is looking after the salary revision. Is that right?


Charles A. Stewart: Salary revision?


William Garland McQuarrie: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the duty of the Civil Service Commission.


William Garland McQuarrie: I understood the other day from the Prime Minister-


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, I see.


William Garland McQuarrie: -that the Audit Board had something to do with the matter. I understood that the Civil Service Commission had reported to the government, that the government had returned the report of the commission, and that the Audit Board had been called in to assist the Civil Service Commission; that is in regard to the revision of the postal employees salaries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The act provides for what is to be done.


William Garland McQuarrie: Then the Auditor
General has something to do with the matter and the minister might have answered in the affirmative in that case also.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister will do his own answering, do not worry about that.


William Garland McQuarrie: For some reason or
other the minister does not want to say. I do not know why. It would appear that the Auditor General is going to be a pretty busy man. He has not been able to get to the salary revision of any but the postal employees up-to-date. He has got an immense task and apparently its magnitude is the only reason why the salaries of the employees of the other departments are not being considered at the present time. The Auditor General has got the re-organization of the departments to attend to in addition to his regular duties. It appears to me he is going to be a pretty busy man.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my hon.
friend the acting leader of the opposition?


William Garland McQuarrie: At the present time I am asking a few questions which I presume I have a right to do. I do not suppose the Prime Minister will object to that.


Thomas George McBride: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. Has he been delegated by the opposition to hold these estimates up? If not why did he come back and ask some other hon. members to get questions ready to fire at the minister?


William Garland McQuarrie: I do not mind telling the committee why I am taking an active interest in these particular estimates. As a matter of fact I happen to be chairman of the committee of our party on Interior estimates.


Mr. CANNON:: We did not know that.


William Garland McQuarrie: Can the minister tell me-if not probably the Prime Minister can assist him-what experience this new Auditor General has had which will enable him to undertake all these multitudinous duties?
Supply-Interior


Mr. ANDERSON:: Am I correct in assuming that there are 65 different draughtsmen in the- minister's department engaged in preparing maps for the government?


Charles A. Stewart: They were engaged in that department, yes.


Robert King Anderson: 
Charles A. Stewart: Yes, it
would be in the neighbourhood of that amount. We covered the map vote the other night, and I pointed out the great advantage there was in having those maps for distribution, and the immense service that was being rendered to the other departments and the country generally by the distribution of the maps. I said on that occasion that I thought this money was well spent in advertising Canada by way of maps. I know of no better way of advertising and directing attention to Canada for investment purposes of all sorts. That is just a little outside of the purview of the duties of the Department of the Interior, but we were enabled to keep up with the requisition for maps of this character, to be used legitimately in the interests of the people of Canada.


Robert King Anderson: I have not. so far as I am aware, seen any of these maps, and I should like to know the particular character of them. What are they?


Charles A. Stewart: They are innumerable. They have serial maps, land maps, maps designating timber areas,' and maps of every description. They are innumerable in number. They are not altogether for the purpose of advertising Canada, but very largely for that purpose, under the Natural Resources and Intelligence branch, through which we are trying to advertise the resources of Canada from one end of the Dominion to the other. We are utilizing the maps and doing work of this character to the degree for which we are asking this vote. I think if my hon. friend will take the time to examine the work we are doing he will agree that it is of immense value to the public generally.


Mr. LADNER:: I observe two or three
items dealing with statistical clerks. Is there a separate statistical branch under the Department of the Interior dealing with these matters, or is some of the work handled by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?


Charles A. Stewart: No, these statistical clerks are for the purpose of supplying the statistical bureau with the informa-fMr. McQuarrie.]
tion it must have . They are under that designation in our vote, and that is the work they are doing. They pass the work on for compilation to the statistical bureau. We have a very large department, covering a multitude of different kinds of work, and these statistics are made available for the statistical bureau.


Robert King Anderson: Will the minister tell us how many appointments made by the Civil Service Commission have been rejected by his department since he came into office?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
recollect a single rejection, after the Civil Service Commission had passed upon the application. There may have been a case, but I certainly do not know of it.


William Garland McQuarrie: Under this item 7, are we dealing with both salaries and contingencies, or only with salaries?


George Newcombe Gordon: (Air. Marcil, Bonaven-ture): I understand we are dealing with the one item.


William Garland McQuarrie: I would like to get the details in connection with this item. What is clerical assistance, for instance?


Charles A. Stewart: There is a
reduction in the clerical assistance of $10,000. My memorandum on this item reads:
The above sum of $15,000 is required to pay for the services of a number of temporary employees during the fiscal year 1924-1925. These employees are appointed by the Civil Service Commission to the various branches at Ottawa as necessity presents itself, and the period of employment varies from three to six months and for a longer period when required.


William Garland McQuarrie: What are they required for?


Charles A. Stewart: For the overplus work at times.
Mr. AIcQUARRIE:	For what particular
division?


Charles A. Stewart: We have
them at the moment preparing returns for members. When we have not sufficient permanent clerks we put temporary clerks on the work. This occurs largely during the session.


William Garland McQuarrie: Then there is an item of printing and stationery, $58,000. That is the same as last year. What is that for?


Charles A. Stewart: My memorandum in regard to that item reads:
The money is needed to pay for books of* various descriptions such as index books for the Registration branch, land patent record books, etc., for file backs, special paper for patents, printed forms, the purchase of typewriters and stationery required for the general use of the inside sen-ice at Ottawa.

Supply-Interior


Henry Lumley Drayton: What amount was spent last year?


Charles A. Stewart: We spent
$60,000 last year, and I was inquiring how it happened that we could spend more than we had voted, and I was informed these three items were in one vote, and we spent more on the other item and less on travelling.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That did not
worry the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: It worries
me in this way. You cannot, as a matter oi fact, spend more money than you vote, but it happens that less is spent on travelling.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was spent last year?


Charles A. Stewart: 


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is less than half of what you ask for this year.


Charles A. Stewart: As we overspent in printing, I asked for the same amount as last year. It is rather difficult to estimate the amount required, and we must have some leeway in connection with this. The sundry account is $9,792.75.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that really under that we have a total of about $22,500.


Charles A. Stewart: Actually
spent, plus the $2,000, of course.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 


William Garland McQuarrie: For whom are these travelling expenses?


Charles A. Stewart: For the minister, the deputy minister, and the heads of departments, Natural .Resources and Intelligence, Dominion Lands branch, North West Territories branch, Dominion Parks, Dominion Observatory, Geodetic Survey, Ordnance Lands branch, all draw from this for travelling expenses. It is very difficult to estimate how much one is going to spend under this head.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does this item cover all travelling expenses for the department?


Charles A. Stewart: For this
particular service.


William Garland McQuarrie: Outside	of the minister and the deputy minister, what system is adopted by the department as regards travelling expenses?


Charles A. Stewart: Vouchers
have to be furnished for the expenditure.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is the person who does the travelling puts in vouchers and they are paid.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is there any limit to it at all?


Charles A. Stewart: It must be within reason, yes. They are checked if they do not appear to be within reason; but where vouchers are presented, we know exactly the purpose for which the money was expended.


William Garland McQuarrie: Has the minister ever considered the advisability of adopting a different system whereby a certain daily allowance would be made?


Charles A. Stewart: We do if they are travelling outside of Canada.


William Garland McQuarrie: But in Canada? I understand that in certain of the provinces that change has lately been made and they find that a great saving has been effected.


Charles A. Stewart: We do adopt that principle in connection with the surveyors, but of course they are in a different category. They are out for the whole season and they have a daily allowance. As regards men who travel from time to time, the system has been followed of their being asked to provide vouchers for actual expenditure while on their trip, because the amount may vary a great deal. ' One trip may cost a man a great deal more than another.


William Garland McQuarrie: I understand in Alberta a change has been made and a system of daily allowance has been adopted by which a considerable saving has been effected. I also understand that the employees who do the travelling are better satisfied with that system. If they economize, they can keep under the amount allowed and that is a saving to them.
I do not know whether this system would work out the same in the Dominion or not. I am suggesting that the minister might consider it.


Charles A. Stewart: Of course, there is an objection to having to get vouchers for every item of expenditure, but the voucher is a clear record of the actual expenditure of the individual while on his trip. The daily allowance is a very much simpler matter because no voucher is required. They simply give a return for the days they are absent.


Robert Gardiner: This department receives a great deal of revenue and that revenue' comes mostly from the three prairie provinces. In the statement that the minister made to-day in connection with reductions, he stated that reductions in the outside service had amounted to over $700,000. I do not know whether the minister realizes, bv cutting down the outside service to the ex-
Supply-Interior

tent to which it has been cut down recently, the inconvenience to which the people 'of the West are put in order to transact business with the department. I trust when he comes to make reductions next year, he will keep that particular point in view, and if any reductions are to be made he will let the reductions be made in the inside service and see to it that the people who are providing the revenue will, in the outside service, receive some sendee for the money they are paying.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am interested in three
photographers mentioned in the list for the Interior department. What is their ddty?


Charles A. Stewart: They are
in the Natural Resources and Intelligence branch. We use them for taking photographs for the purpose of advertising. In the Surveys branch we are taking aerial surveys now. This saves a great deal of time and effort. That is where these men d'o their work. One of them is an expert on aeroplane work.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is that information contained in the publication called Natural Resources and Intelligence?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is the item for that under this heading or -is it a special appropriation?


Charles A. Stewart: It does not come under this heading. The salaries are paid from this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Public works chargeable to income-harbours and rivers Ontario-Belle river harbour improvements, $30,000.
Hon. .1. H. KING (Kootenay) (Minister of Public Works):	When we were last in committee, we were asked to procure certain information regarding previous expenditure at Belle River. I find the first expenditure between 1884 and 1900 was $4,826.24 spent for protection work and dredging. Since 1905 there have been many expenditures down to 1921 varying in amounts from $400 up to $5,318 making a total expenditure in 1923 of $28,211.62. The amount being asked for is a re-vote, parliament having voted $30,000 last year. The contract was let for this work, which has been completed, and the amount asked for is for payment of the construction that has been done during the last fiscal year.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Have we been
given all the papers m regard to the Belle River matter?
Mr. KING (Kootenay) [DOT] Yes


Henry Lumley Drayton: The file stops
apparently in 1922. The top letter is dated December 30, 1922. Is that the last of the list, or are the letters not in order?


John Warwick King: I think that is the beginning of the file.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Taking the
year 1922, can the minister tell me what work had been undertaken by the government as at January 1922 at Belle River?


John Warwick King: There was no
work in 1922. My record shows the last expenditure to have been made in 1921, until last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was done in 1921?


John Warwick King: There was $400
for dredging.


Henry Lumley Drayton: To what depth was that dredging done in 1921 and for what purpose?


John Warwick King: It was done to
relieve shoaling in the channel; it was to clear the channel.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Dredging of
course is always done to clear something; at least it is supposed to, although it does not do so always. Will the minister give us some more definite information? What depth was dredged or supposed to be dredged in 1921?


John Warwick King: I have not that
information in my notes, and it is not usual to expect a question of that kind. I was asked when last we were in committee to ascertain the amount of the expenditure year by year. There was $400 for dredging in 1921 and presumably it was spent to relieve shoaling in the channel. I informed the House when in committee before that the present object of the department is to secure a depth of about 10 feet, but as to the depth secured in 1921 I have no information.


Donald Sutherland: What work is contemplated at this point? This is merely the commencement of the operations which the department evidently has in view. The return brought down clearly indicates that the building of a pier on one side of the river will have to be duplicated by a pier on the other side; and at present there is apparently no necessity for this work so far as can be seen by those who are familiar with the location. Evidently there is a company which is anxious that something should be done in the way of establishing a port at this point. I think the correspondence which has been

Supply-Public Works
brought down, although I have not had an opportunity recently of looking into it in detail, shows that an expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars is contemplated in this connection. There certainly is no pressing need for any such expenditure at this point just now, as those who are familiar with the situation at Belle River realize. This is a case of political expediency rather than of real necessity on the part of the department and it is quite apparent from the return which has been brought down at this session that it is not contemplated to let the matter end here; it is anticipated that nearly $200,000, according to the statement of an official of the department, will be necessary to make this port of any use. And even at that it is to be a pleasure resort for the recreation at Belle river of people coming across from Detroit. There is absolutely no need of an expenditure of this kind at the present time, and the necessity for curtailing expenses in every direction in this country is so imperious to-day that the minister would be well advised to eliminate this item from the estimates.


John Warwick King: Would you not
pay the contractor who has completed the work under the vote of last year?


Donald Sutherland: The minister understands that the vote was put through last year under rather peculiar circumstances such as would hardly justify it. I am not aware of the nature of the contract which has been let, and I am merely pointing out that there is absolutely no necessity for an expenditure of this kind at this particular point under present conditions. This is an expenditure that might well be deferred for years to come; it will be a long time before anything of this character can be contemplated with justification. When the matter was first approached by the then Minister of Railways who represented the constituency it was clearly shown by the officials of the department that something in the neighbourhood of $200,000 would be necessary before any useful purpose could be served. The Northern Navigation Company .are really the ones who are anxious to have this made a port of landing for their boats to look after the tourist traffic between Detroit and this point. In view of that I should like to know what contract has been let and what is due to the contractor at the present time.


John Warwick King: I think my hon.
friend was not in the House on the last occasion when we discussed this matter-


Donald Sutherland: I was.


John Warwick King: -because the whole history of the contract and the necessity for the work was gone into very thoroughly and my hon. friends were informed that we were asking a revote to pay for construction that was done on a vote passed by this House last year. The amount of the contract is $27,663.26. This money has been earned by the contractor. As to the necessity for the work, I think very good evidence has been furnished to the committee. During the war years the department continued to spend money at this point, and surely they were not spending it unnecessarily at that time. The harbour at Belle River is an old settled community, I am informed, and probably it has been unfairly treated in this House. My hon. friend speaks of this being a political vote, but I do not look upon it as such at all. A large amount of lumber and beet shipments, amounting to 1,350 tons, were handled there last year. I believe this waterway is necessary in order that the people may carry on. We hear a great deal about Canadians being attracted to the other side of the line. I am told that just opposite Belle River on the American side there are proper harbour facilities, and the officials of my department inform me that this work is necessary for the people at Belle River. It is true that we have gone further than has been the policy of the department in the past. It is hoped that by building this retaining wall we will prevent the silting up of the channel and so avoid the dredging which has been necessary year after year. The larger scheme my hon. friend refers to has been reported upon by the engineer, but not accepted by the department. It would give greater security and improve the harbour facilities, but is beyond what we think is necessary at the present time. We are simply asking for a revote to pay for the work authorized by this parliament last year.


Donald Sutherland: Does the work
contemplate the building of a pier on each side of the river?


John Warwick King: No, just on one
side.


Donald Sutherland: It has been already
pointed out by the engineering officials of the department that it would be absolutely useless to build1 a pier on one side of the river without also building a parallel pier on the other side to prevent the filling up of the channel.


John Warwick King: The engineering
officials have not made any such statement.
Supply-Public Works

They have suggested that the building of a retaining wall on the other side would help very materially to relieve what we are trying to overcome, but at the present time this is all the work we expect to do, and we believe it will be a benefit to the community.


Robert King Anderson: What river is this harbour on?


John Warwick King: I have no doubt that my hon. friend knows the local geography much better than I do. I am assuming that Belle river is the river that this harbour is on. Am I right?


Donald Sutherland: No.


John Warwick King: I do not know
the country. I shall be glad to have my hon. friend inform me.


Robert King Anderson: As I do not know of
any river of any size in Ontario by this name I was wondering if it might run into the St. Clair river.


John Warwick King: I am advised that it runs into St. Clair lake.


Donald Sutherland: I would imagine that in view of the discussion which took place a year ago in connection with this matter the minister would have taken the trouble to inform himself of the locality. There is certainly no Belle river.


John Warwick King: I have repeated
time and again that it is known as Belle river.


Donald Sutherland: It must be the
Thames.


George Perry Graham: No.


Donald Sutherland: Probably the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) is much more familiar with the locality than the Minister of Public Works, as he represents a constituency in that county.


John Warwick King: I expect he would be.


Donald Sutherland: I think it would be very interesting to the committee to know what his views are in regard to the matter, because so far as the necessity of dredging at this point is concerned I know that in western Ontario it is considered to be somewhat of a joke-as merely a " hand-out " to the constituency for returning a supporter of the government. I do not like to say it, but that as a matter of fact is really what 
it amounts to. There is no urgent necessity for any expenditure of this kind, and I am sure the committee would like to hear the Minister of Railways give us his views on the situation.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, I am
always glad to accommodate my friend from South Oxford, we have been in public life a good many years together, but always looking at each other from different angles. Belle River is Belle River; it is not the Thames river or any other river.


Donald Sutherland: All the worse for it.


George Perry Graham: It is one of the nicest little towns located in one of the nicest spots in western Ontario.


An hon. MEMBER:: River or town?


George Perry Graham: The river is composed of water and the town is composed of land and houses; you can hardly compare them. But the country, as hon. gentlemen who travel through that part of Ontario know, is very flat and one of the chief items of expenditure is drainage. Now, Belle River is a town situated on what is known as Belle river. I have never heard it called anything else, and I have travelled through there a good many times. This matter was first brought to my attention by the late Minister of Railways, Mr. Kennedy, who, as eveiybody in this House knew, was not given to doing things that were not necessaiy and who was not much of a man to be asking for grants for his own constituency. This was brought to my attention in the first place shortly after he was elected. There are several reasons why this little harbour should be enlarged. One is because there is a lot of business capable of being done at Belle River. The population there is anxious to get its coal in by boat, to start with, and it cannot do so under present circumstances. I am talking perhaps against railway interest, when I say this, but I am talking on behalf of the people. There is a prosperous farm population in that vicinity and they are devoting their attention more and more to sugar beet production. There is the export movement of sugar beets, probably via the river Thames, and besides, one or two of the sugar beet refineries have to, import a certain quantity of sugar beets annually in order to make up their requirements. If there is any section in Canada that is entitled to some development on account of the necessities of the situation, it is Belle River. I know that a good deal of fun has been poked at it, and there is the suggestion that there never was a Belle river proper. I do not blame hon. gentlemen for taking full advan-

Supply-Public Works
tage of the situation and offering criticism, but I have been there many times and I know the conditions. This money was voted by parliament; the contractor has done his work and wants his pay. The vote is to provide for that payment for work done by the contractor according to the orders of parliament through the Public Works department.


Mr. FORKE:: I have a letter in my hand
written by an inhabitant of Belle River. He speaks about the mouth of the river being filled up with the drifting silt, so I have no doubt it is a river-"the Belle river"-he says I do not think it is necessary to read the letter; it is much along the line of what the Minister of Railways has just said.


Donald Sutherland: It is a joke to call it a river. It is a low, flat tract of land, and if you are going to keep it open you will be constantly dredging it. So far as the sugar beet industry is concerned, the exchange of sugar beets between the United States and Canada is in the other direction. The beets are being shipped to Michigan and not through this port at all. They are loaded on the cars and shipped from the eastern part of the county of Lambton.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think it was
$400 that was spent at this place in 1921. Will the minister give me the other figures that he relies upon in justification for his position-the amounts spent in other years?


John Warwick King: In 1913, repairs,
$268; dredging, $5,318; 1915, $1,040; 1920, repairs, $554.84; 1921, repairs, $1,699; dredging, $400.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know
that we can very well lock the door after the horse has been stolen, but the horse was stolen all right. Yes, and we did our best to stop it. We had the bill here; we had everything here. We heard all about Tim needing [DOT] King and King needing Tim. We heard of the price that was paid.


John Warwick King: Oh, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says, "Oh, no," but everything was produced here, and there was no question about it. There was no question where Mr. Cooper was in that election. There was no question who got those dodgers out; there was no question as to whom those dodgers were used for. Of course the price was paid. I do not know that we can do anything now except again enter our protest that elections are carried on in such a way without something being done through the criminal courts.
There was the admitted bill; there was the admitted deal. There was the consideration to be given, and the government endorses the cheque. How much of this vote is to be paid the present contractor?


John Warwick King: 


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then why should not the vote be put in at that amount?


John Warwick King: There are always contingencies, engineering ex-
11 p.m. penses, and so on to make up the balance. That is the contractor's fee; as my hon. friend knows there are other items.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know at all. Will any part of this vote be used for extra work that the country is not now liable for?


John Warwick King: No, the work is
complete now.


Robert King Anderson: What is the character
of the work that has been done? Is there a wharf, and if so, what is the size of it? What dredging has been done?


George Perry Graham: I may say, in order that
the hon. member (Sir Henry Drayton) may be put right, that this work was asked for when the late Minister of Railways was still in the full vigour of health, and the work would have been done had that by-election never taken place.


Henry Lumley Drayton: These things
sometimes chime in, but whether they do or not there is no question as to the corrupt offer made to that electorate. There is also no question that this government, with all its protestation on the supposed basis of high moral qualities, never did a single thing in connection with it. On the contrary they came across at the earliest possible moment and endorsed that bill.


John Warwick King: In reply to the
hon. member (Mr. Anderson) I may say that the additional items are for the usual inspection and contingencies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Burlington channel-reconstruction of south pier, $50,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is entirely a revote?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When did it
first appear.

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: Last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why was not the work gone, on with then?


John Warwick King: I think the contract was not let until October.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The contract has been let?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Robert King Anderson: Was the contract let by tender?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was it advertised in the newspapers?


John Warwick King: It was advertised in the usual way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In what papers?


John Warwick King: Ini the local papers and in the Toronto papers?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Which papers?


John Warwick King: The Canada
Gazette. I have not a list of the papers here but the advertisement would be inserted in the local papers and in the Toronto papers, the leading dailies, and in the Canada Gazette.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
tells me we can find that advertisement in the leading dailies of Toronto.


John Warwick King: I would think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All of them?


John Warwick King: I am not sure, not necessarily.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was just asking; you said "dailies".


John Warwick King: No, not necessarily.


An hon. MEMBER:: He said " The leading dailies".


Henry Lumley Drayton: Did the minister say in one or two?


John Warwick King: I have not a list here. I have no dloubt it was fully advertised.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know
that. The minister may or may not have done so. Perhaps he can tell me what papers they were?


John Warwick King: I am sorry but I have not the list here.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the rule as to advertising?


John Warwick King: We endeavour to place our advertising so that the public will be informed' as to what the requirements are. We use the best media we have for that purpose.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was just wondering what the general practice is. No doubt I ought to know, but I am asking for information, and the minister certainly must know. I am asking what the usual practice is.


John Warwick King: That is what we
do.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What?


John Warwick King: Place our advertising in the media we think will reach the public.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now, let us get down to something concrete. How long before the tender was called for were the advertisements issued? How long a period was given?


John Warwick King: It is three weeks
usually.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would that appear in the local papers? Are there any local papers there?


John Warwick King: Hamilton would
be the nearest point, I think.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should think
it would be Hamilton, not Burlington.


John Warwick King: Hamilton is the
nearest local point.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And was the
contract advertised for three weeks?


John Warwick King: Three weeks.


George Perry Graham: One insertion a week,
I think.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is it, is it? What is the date of the tender? The file will show that?


John Warwick King: The order in
council letting the contract was passed on 2nd October, 1923. I have not the date of these single tenders.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And the opening of the tenders?

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: They would be
opened on a certain date fixed.


Robert King Anderson: How many tenders
were received by the government?


John Warwick King: There were eight in all.


Robert King Anderson: Was the lowest tender
accepted?


John Warwick King: The lowest was
accepted.


Robert King Anderson: Who is the contractor?


John Warwick King: The Port Arthur Construction Company, Limited.


Robert King Anderson: Is local labour employed?


John Warwick King: I think the practice is to employ local labour where it is obtainable. These contractors carry their own superintendents and chief men with them, but local labour is employed usually.


Robert King Anderson: Was there any stipulation in the contract that local labour should be employed?


John Warwick King: No, we do not
stipulate that. The contractor undertakes to pay the fair rate of wages prevailing in the locality. For his own purposes he naturally secures local labour. It is cheaper to do that than to carry labour about the country.


Robert King Anderson: There was some work
done before, was there not?


John Warwick King: There has been
work done before. I am not sure that they have started yet. They were to start this spring and I imagine they have done so, but I am not informed as to that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chatham-repairs to the revetment wall, $4,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister explain this item?


John Warwick King: This amount of
$4,000 is required to complete the contract entered into with William Bermingham for the renewal of 182 lineal feet of the revets ment wall at McGregor's Creek. Here are the details of the estimated cost:
Amount of contract at unit prices	 $14,961 31
Extras approx	 $1,098
Extension of contract	 3,200
Inspection	 700

 5,098 00
Total amount	 $20,059 31
Appropriation 1923-24	 16,000 00
Amount now required to complete	 $4,059 31
Say, $4,000.
184*
In regard to extras the district engineer reports that when the contractor commenced to drive piles he found it impossible to penetrate the hard material without iron shoes on each pile which were provided for in the tender form, and even with shoes it was impossible to reach rock, which was called for under the specifications of the contract. The extra cost of using iron shoes was $6 per pile or a total of $366 and the contractor was authorized to proceed with the driving using shoes. In addition to this the contractor wishes to be reimbursed for the extra length of piles over and above what he actually finds possible to place in the work. The district engineer, Mr. Craig, states that assuming they are able to get 35 feet of penetration the extra length will amount to approximately 12 feet per pile or about $732. It was also found that the old material did not make sufficient backfill as it was not porous enough to allow sufficient run off of any underground water. The contractor was therefore authorized to secure and place in the work 150 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel at 75 cents per cubic yard. Then as to the extension of the contract the explanation is rather long but I will read it if the committee wishes. The section up there is a rather difficult one and a certain amount of work had to be put in which the engineer thought would be sufficient and would withstand pressure. He found, however, that there had been a slip back of the wall, that there had been a movement, and it was necessary to reinforce and strengthen the wall which cost an additional amount of $3,200. If the committee would like further explanation I would not object to reading the engineer's report.


Hance James Logan: Dispense.


John Warwick King: I have given a
brief statement of what the report contains.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was wondering if the hon. gentleman who called "dispense" had gone over that report and knew all about it.


John Warwick King: I do not understand what my hon. friend means?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend's hearing apparently is not very good.


John Warwick King: I did not catch
the observation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think I can
save my hon. friend's voice. I do not think he need read the report, it is probably wrong and we will let it go at that.
Supply-Public Works


John Millar: Before the item carries I
would like to ask a question. I have asked it before but I have never been Ale to get a satisfactory answer. Here is a small item of $4,000. Now, I understand that under the British North America Act certain matters have been allotted to the Dominion government and other matters to the provincial authorities. Can the minister explain-we have the Minister of Railways here, he is an old parliamentarian-why it is that such small undertakings as these devolve upon the Dominion government whereas other works such as the building of elevators, and the construction of creameries, which cost twice as much, are left to the provincial governments. I suppose there is a good reason for it but I should like to have it explained. Then I could feel more like voting for such enterprises as these. What is ithe fundamental authority for spending this money?


John Warwick King: The Dominion
government own property in that vicinity and this revetment or retaining wall was filled in for the protection of that property.


John Millar: Does that apply in every case where money is spent for these wharves?


John Warwick King: This is a retaining wall to prevent property slipping in. It is built to retain the earth in position.


John Millar: That is not what I am
trying to get at. Surely in all those cases the work is not on property owned by the Dominion government. In every little fishing village if it seems to be right that there should be a wharf or harbour built, the Dominion government undertakes to build it.


John Warwick King: Yes. Under the
British North America Act the government assumes that responsibility.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) wants to get definite information on that question. As I understand it, the question does not depend at all upon either the amount or the importance of the undertaking. It has rather to do with the sub-division of governmental activities in this country. There is no duty at all, as the hon. gentleman will see, thrown upon the provinces to look after our harbours and rivers. Just in the same wTay there is no duty thrown upon the Dominion to look after the courthouses of the provinces. The courthouses cost a great deal more than the little improvements on the tuppeny-ha'penny rivers, but nevertheless the job belongs to the Dominion and not to the provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Cobourg-reconstruction of harbour works and dredging, $50,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: How does that
work stand?


John Warwick King: The $24,200 is a re-vote this year. It requires $20,000 to complete the contract. Y. T. Bartram is the contractor. The items are as follows:
To complete contract with V. T. Bartram for the reconstruction in concrete of 170 lineal feet of the superstructure of the east pier immediately south of the lighthouse, width of work 30 feet, $20,000.
Dredging, cleaning up inner and outer harbours to depth of 20 feet, ($4,225 of this to complete contract No. 14,320 with Frontenac Dredging Company), $30,479.50. Total amount required, $50,497.50. Say $50,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us get this a little more clearly in our heads. We start with a contract of $25,000, because I assume the government will hold that contract within the vote. What is the initial contract under the vote of 1923-24?


John Warwick King: The initial contract was $18,222. That is the contract for the concrete superstructure of the east pier. Then $20,000 is asked to cover not only the contract, but inspection and other fees. Then there is the dredging and cleaning up of the inner and outer harbours to a depth of twenty feet, $30,497. We are asking for $50,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When was the
later contract let?


John Warwick King: The 14th of September, 1923.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
authority for it?


John Warwick King: An order in
council.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where was the vote?


John Warwick King: We had a vote
last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was $25,000 and at the time apparently the department let a second contract. I do not know if my hon. friend is right, but I hope he is wrong. Out of a total vote which gives them the right to commit this country to a given expenditure of $25,000 they increase the liability to $48,497.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the minister is wrong. Suppose he tries again.

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: No, I am not
wrong. We let a contract for the superstructure of the east pier for $18,222, that is a contract for breakwater reconstruction and also a contract for some dredging which was to be completed under this arrangement this year. We are asking for a vote of $50,000, of which $30,000 will be for dredging.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In the fiscal year 1923-24 a vote was passed in the House for $25,000. During the recess we have had two contracts let on the authority of that vote of $25,000.


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the authority?


John Warwick King: The contract was let on the general dredging vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
did not tell me that at first. There is just one thing done in connection with that which was wrong.


John Warwick King: I do not think
so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the minister
thought it was wrong he would not say so anyway. He would not come to the House and say he had brought in something which was improper. I would not expect him to be quite so silly as to admit it and I do not ask his admission. But I am pointing out that it is not good practice to cover specific contracts under your general vote for dredging; and then afterwards, to greatly increase your rights under your general vote by a large revote this year which you try to justify as being a vote to carry out e contract which was entered into to be paid out of the general vote although the general vote was never put to that purpose.


John Warwick King: No that is not
correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It has not been put to that purpose. There is no use in my hon. friend shaking his head. If it had been put to that purpose this vote would not be here. I am not saying this has not been done lots of times.


John Warwick King: We contract
under the general vote right along and now we come before parliament this year, the vote having expired, and we put in a special item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many more contracts are there in this list which are justified under the general vote?


John Warwick King: We have the
item for dredging. I have not the information which my hon. friend asks for with me.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The amount of the vote ought to be known and the amount of the contracts made under it ought to be known before any specific contracts are considered in connection with it. I am going to ask my hon. friend when he can give me that information, if he cannot give it now.


John Warwick King: I can give my hon. friend the total amount last year if he will look at page 42 under item 163, where he will find the dredging in Ontario and Quebec, $675,000. As to contracts let under that vote, that information will be set forth in proper form and I shall have it here when we reach the vote. I did not bring it to-night because I did not think we would advance this far. I have not the information in my head, but the information will be given to the committee in good time, if that is satisfactory.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The proper time to give it is now when we are considering contracts which are let under the general vote. I do not think the minister has understood the point. I am not questioning the amount of money which is being [DOT] spent under that vote; I am questioning the advisability of continuing a vote which allows work to be commenced impossible of being finished within the term of the vote. In other words, the real function of the general vote, I certainly would have thought, would be to look after general dredging to be done through the provinces apart from the consideration of some specific contracts by parliament. I do not suppose there is any doubt about that. If there is, will my hon. friend tell me?


John Warwick King: There is no doubt at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is to enable work to be done apart from special votes for specific contracts by parliament. Is that right?


John Warwick King: Go ahead.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister will see, if he will just go a step further, that if that be the object of the vote, it is quite another thing to turn around and make that vote the justification for entering into contracts not to be performed under the general vote, but to be made the purpose of a specific vote and committing the House to that specific vote, because, it is said, a contract has already been entered into under the general vote.
Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: I think my hon. friend misunderstands me. A contract was entered into last year with the Frontenac Dredging Company to be paid out of the general vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 


John Warwick King: That contract was let out of the general vote last year and the contractors were paid $15,533. We are asking to be voted this year a balance of $4,225, to complete that contract.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why should that
not be included in the general vote, instead of in this vote?


John Warwick King: We had not a
special vote; we are asking for a special vote now. This amount of $4,225 is to complete the contract. We are asking for a special vote for harbour works and dredging and we are including that balance in the amount. That is fair, I think, to the committee. I do not think it would be proper to take that from the general vote this year when a special item is being voted for reconstruction, harbour work and dredging.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why not?


John Warwick King: This sets the
matter out to the committee clearly. In fact, I am told that it is not the custom where there is a special grant for dredging at a special location to take from the general vote to pay for the work. The amount is put in the special vote as is done in this case. In fact, I think it is an advantage to the committee to have the information and to have the vote made specially in a work of this character.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
says that if there is a specific vote for dredging, it should appear in connection with that specific vote. I will agree at once, but the only specific vote for dredging at this point is the one that he makes this year.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is idle to make that the justification for the present action. That certainly does not make you either right or wrong. You have done it. My hon. friend on reflection must see that it is childish to do that. The vote under which that work was done was the general vote.


Mr KING (Kootenay):: Prior-?
[Sir Henry Drayton. J


Henry Lumley Drayton: Prior to the
time those estimates are tabled, and it is in connection with the change that I am objecting. Why should that general vote not be charged with payments of obligations created under the general vote?


John Warwick King: Because we are
voting a special item for dredging.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend surely sees that that is just like saying that any old thing will do. The item I am objecting to is the very item the minister says is his specific item, and this must go under it because, he says, it is a specific item. My objection is to the item itself. Has my hon. friend taken the matter up with the Auditor General?


John Warwick King: The Auditor
General will insist on having it in this way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why?


John Warwick King: He will not allow expenditure out of two votes. We are voting a special item for dredging in this harbour. That being so, the Auditor General would not allow it to be taken from the general vote. That would be his ruling.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says: This has to be done in this way because I am doing it in this way.


John Warwick King: No, I am not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I ask my hon. friend to point out any specific vote for dredging except the vote of this year.


John Warwick King: That is the one.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then you come back to your argument which is just as beautiful as Tweedledee and Tweedledum, backwards and frontwards. It has to be done because I have done it. Of course, the Auditor General would say, after this item is passed', that any money expended would have to be expended having regard to this item. But I am going back to that altogether. What I want to try to get at is to what extent that general vote is made use of as founding a justification for contracts which are not expected to be paid for out of that vote, but which are expected to be looked after in legislation of another year like this one is being done. Surely the minister can see the importance of that question. In other words, the committee does not know when

Supply-Public Works
it authorizes a general dredging vote of $600,000, whether that general vote will not be made use of for the purpose of contracts going into a multiplication of that sum, if that principle is adopted.


John Warwick King: I think my hon.
friend understands it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
is not helping me to understand it, nor can anyone understand it.


Robert Gardiner: I am sorry to interrupt
this conversation but if the committee cannot hear what is going on I would suggest that we go home.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hope I was
talking loud enough.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the item is carried it is carried on division.


George Newcombe Gordon: Carried on division.
Item agreed to on division.
Collingwood-breakwater reconstruction, $20,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
might explain this.


John Warwick King: This $20,000 is
required towards the reconstruction of the eastern breakwater by rebuilding in concrete the superstructure of 560 feet at the inner end, adjacent to the 500-foot section completed in 1922-23. This is the final section to be reconstructed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Tenders will be called for, I presume.


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Collingwood-dredging, $30,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this to be
done in the same way as the other?


John Warwick King: This is for the
dredging of two sections in the outer harbour to complete the turning basin, enabling a 600 foot boat drawing 15 feet to turn around, and to dredge three sections to clean up the shallow areas in the inner harbour. The work is to be done by contract.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The government is not committed at all?


John Warwick King: No.


Robert King Anderson: Was there no dredging
done last year?


John Warwick King: No dredging was done in the harbour last year.


Robert King Anderson: What was the $20,500
voted for last year?


John Warwick King: That was for
reconstruction purposes .


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Goderich harbour-repairs and improvements, $50,000.
Robert King Anderson: What is this for?


John Warwick King: This is for improvements to existing harbour works at Goderich, for general repairs, timber, decking and stringers amounting to $1,000; for reconstruction of 600 feet of superstructure, $15,000; this relates to the south pier. For general repairs in connection with the north pier there is $250, and for work in connection with the breakwater $350, together with reconstruction work in concrete on the 80-foot tunnel through the breakwater, $1,100. That amounts to $17,700. Then there is, for reconstruction in concrete on the inner 400 feet, $16,800. There is also an amount to provide for mooring accommodation, in addition to dredging, and so forth.


Robert King Anderson: Is the work being let
by tender?


John Warwick King: It will be done by contract and tenders will be called for.


Robert King Anderson: There was something
like $26,000 spent last year.


John Warwick King: That was for repairs and improvements. On the south pier there was a rebuilding in concrete of 147 feet of superstructure. The departmental dredge dredged some 110,000 cubic yards, rock and silt being removed.


Robert King Anderson: Is that contract already let?


John Warwick King: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improve-merits, $50,000.
Robert King Anderson: What repairs will be
required, and what harbours and rivers axe included under this vote?


John Warwick King: This is required
for general repairs and improvements to harbour and river works in Ontario which are under the control of the department. The department has prepared a list of unforeseen expenditures ranging from $30 to $750 or thereabouts. Under this vote repairs which are unforeseen and which are brought to the
Supply-Public Works

attention, of the department dining the year are taken care of, where the expenditures are not large. Usually these expenditures do not exceed $1,000; they are small amounts. Last year repairs were made, covered in a very long list, involving amounts varying from $92 and even lower-as low as $17-up to $1,000 or $1,200.


Robert King Anderson: Is it the practice of
the department to combine all these small amounts in a general vote?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Robert King Anderson: What is the maximum amount which is included in these unforeseen expenditures? In other words, how large must an item foe in order that it shall be regarded1 as a special vote?


John Warwick King: Where an expenditure is foreseen, amounting say from $1,000 to $1,500, we put it as a special item. But in the general conduct of the department various small expenditures which are entirely unforeseen are inevitable. During the course of the season the engineer makes his inspection and finds probably that $92, or whatever it may be, will provide the necessary work to keep a wharf in a state of repair. That is classed as an unforeseen expenditure, and that principle is observed throughout the service. But only small items are treated in that way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jackson's Point-to purchase and reconstruct wharf, $6,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
object of purchasing a wharf at Jackson's Point, and from whom is it being purchased?


John Warwick King: The proposed
amount of $6,500 is required to provide for expropriation and for the reconstruction of timber crib work of wharf 159 feet long by 36 feet wide, including warehouse and right of way, notice of expropriation having been filed in January 1924. The cost of reconstruction is $2,100. There was an expenditure under the vote of last year of $2,047.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But why is the property being bought?


John Warwick King: It is quite a
long story. There are letters from the Jackson's Point Board of Trade and resolutions from the council of the Chippewa Band, Georgian island, from the council of the township of King and others.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there no government wharf there at all?


John Warwick King: I think not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jeannette's Creek-wharf repairs, $1,000.
Robert King Anderson: Where is Jeannette's
Greek?


John Warwick King: In Kent county. This expenditure is for anchor piles and tie rods for the front wall of the wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kincardine-wharf repairs and reconstruction, $20,000.
Robert King Anderson: Will the minister give
us particulars of this?


John Warwick King: This is to continue reconstruction of the piling and wharfage along the western and south sides of the turning basin commenced in 1922. It is proposed to reconstruct the second section of 975 lineal feet with a concrete superstructure, leaving one more section to be completed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Leamington-repairs to pier, $1,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: With what portion of these public works does the minister desire to conclude?


John Warwick King: I should like to run through Ontario, if that would suit my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose he
thinks he will have done a pretty good day's work if he gets that through?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have read
through this list pretty carefully, I think it is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported-.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the House adjourns, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention that at noon to-day the Secretary of State, for the government of the United States, and the Hon. Ernest Lapointe K.C., Minister of Justice of the Dominion of Canada, for the Canadian government signed a convention for the suppression of smuggling

Liquor and Narcotics
operations across the International boundary, the prosecution of persons violating the narcotic laws of either government, and for kindred purposes. Each government is to furnish information on request to the appropriate officers of the other concerning clearances of vessels or the transportation of cargoes, shipments or loads of articles across the International boundary, when the importation of the articles transported by land is subject to the payment of duties, also information respecting clearances of vessels to any ports when there is ground to suspect that the owners or persons in possession of the cargo intend to smuggle it into American or Canadian territory. Clearances are to be denied to vessels carrying cargo consisting of articles the importation of which is forbidden by either country when it is evident from the tonnage, size or general character of the vessel, or the length of the voyage, or certain other conditions that the vessel will be unable to carry the cargo to the destination proposed in the application for clearance. Arrangement is made for the return under reasonable conditions of stolen property brought into either country from the territory of the other when the owners are nationals of such other country. There is agreement that both countries shall exchange information concerning the names and activities of persons known to be engaged in the violation of the narcotic laws of the two countries. The convention also provides for the attendance of government officials of one country as witnesses in the other and the production of records and files or certified copies thereof in the trial of civil and criminal cases. Arrangement is made for the payment of cost of transcript of records depositions, certificates, letters rogotary, and the attendance of witnesses. Offences against the narcotic laws of the respective governments are added to the list of offences in the treaty now existing between the United States and Great Britain of May 18, 1908, with reference to reciprocal rights for the United States and Canada in the matters of conveyance of prisoners and wreckage and salvage, no penalty of forfeiture under the laws of the United States to be applicable or attach to alcoholic liquors or vessels, vehicles of persons by reason of the carriage in transit under Canadian guard through the territorial waters of the United States to Skagway, Alaska, and thence by the shortest route upwards of twenty miles to Canadian territory. Such transit is to be as now provided by law with respect to alcoholic liquors through the Panama canal or on the Panama railroad provided such liquors shall be kept
under seal continuously while they are carried within American territory and that no part of such liquors shall be at any time unladen therein. The convention is to take effect ten days from the date of the exchange of ratifications and to remain in force for one year and thereafter is terminable on thirty days' notice.
At the opening of the next sitting I will place on the Table a copy of the treaty which has been signed to-day.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: On Monday
we propose to take up the estimates of the Department of External Affairs and matters relating to external affairs, such for example as the appropriation for the League of Nations, and also any matters incidental to the department, the Privy Council and the Governor General's office, and if time permits, we will return to estimates of the Public Works department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does that go as far as taking up the general question, having regard, for example, to the treaty with Turkey -or rather the lack of it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Lausanne treaty, I presume, will be one of the main subjects of discussion.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
Monday, June 9, 1924.