1924-03-25

COMMON MEETING ROOM PROVIDED FOR MEMBERS AND THE GALLERY

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that representations, both last session and during the recess, were made to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) and to myself that there was a great need for a place in this building that would be a common meeting ground for members of the House and members of the press gallery. It was pointed out that with the present arrangement of lobbies and private rooms for members, there was little opportunity for intercourse between members. The minister and myself, after looking over the building for a suitable room, decided to place room No. 268 on the main floor, near the main entrance and opening out of the reading room, at the disposal of members of the House and the press gallery for the purpose referred to. The room has been furnished and is now open and ready for use.

Wheat Board



UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

Mr. G. C. WILSON (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present the petition of J. B. McQuesten, Esq., David Burton Dewar, Esq., and John James Morrison, Esq., all of the city of Hamilton in the county of Wentworth, Ontario, protesting against the bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada, on the ground that the rules have not been complied with.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg) moved:: That the petition of John Forbes Michie, and others, ministers, elders or members of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, of the city of Toronto, county of York, province of Ontario; praying that the bill which is now being sought, to incorporate the United Church of Canada, be rejected and not proceeded with, presented on Tuesday afternoon, March 18, 1924, be referred to the Committee on Standing Orders.
Motion, agreed to.



JUDGES' ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Act to amend the Judges' Act, chapter fifty-six of the statutes of 1920, section seven, to provide that the salary of the judge of the Territorial Court of the Yukon Territory be increased from seven thousand to nine thousand dollars per annum, but the increase of salary so granted shall not entitle the judge to any increase in the annuity which may be granted him on retirement in excess of six thousand dollars.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert):: In view of the fact that the Saskatchewan legislature has passed a resolution asking that the division of the surplus funds of the Canada Wheat Board should be made amongst the provinces according to the amount contributed by each province, and also in view of the fact that the representatives of the Saskatchewan Wheat Producers, Limited, have already interviewed the acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) regarding this matter, I should like to ask the government what their policy is in regard to it.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) :: A deputation said to represent the different co-operative grain societies of the
three provinces waited on me some time ago and made a claim for this money. I quoted the recommendation of the wheat board, the board that had the administration of the act when they remitted the surpluses to the government. They recommended that the money might be employed for the relief of settlers in western Canada, and I recall having pointed out to that deputation that as Acting Minister of Finance, my policy was: "What we have we hold," and that as we had already advanced something over $3,000,000, if my recollection is right, for relief in western Canada, I thought we should apply this amount to the redemption of that debt.


Andrew Knox: I should like to remind the
minister that this money was not contributed by people who were given relief owing to destitution; the money is being asked for largely by people who contributed it. I would ask the minister to reconsider his decision.
DATE OF BUDGET SPEECH On the Orders of the Day:


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Immigration, in his capacity of Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) if he has yet thought of what day he would like to bring down the budget.


James Alexander Robb: I have not yet reached a conclusion. I will advise my hon. friend a few days in advance.
NATIONAL DEFENCE EXPENDITURES On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: 1
wish to ask the following question. Will the government, when bringing down the estimates covering the expenditures on national defence, take into consideration the fact that Canadian expenditures for that purpose for the current year are considerably larger than those of other dominions, notwithstanding the fact that Canada occupies a less vulnerable position?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways):	The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) is not in his place but I shall call his attention to the question.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I might ask, in the
same connection, whether the government
Industrial Disputes

will take into consideration the undoubted fact that the expenditures are much less than those of the other dominions.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I will call that also to
the attention of the minister.



FRUIT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 13, to amend the Fruit Act (French
version).
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Grades for fruit in closed packages.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the minister will tell us what he proposes to do in this bill.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: As I explained
when the bill was given its first reading, the purpose of this legislation is merely to make one slight change in the description of No. 2 apples. In the French version the word "eighty" appears, in reference to the percentage of apples that are free from scab and other defects and which shall constitute Grade No. 2, and the present amendment is to substitute for the word "eighty" the word "eighty-five," so that the French version may conform to the English version of the act. That is the sole purpose of the bill.


Arthur Meighen: This was not included
in the Speech from the Throne.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think so.


Mr. MARTELL:: What effect will this
amendment have on special grade apples?


William Richard Motherwell: It will have no
effect whatever on apples of special grades. The purpose of the bill is merely to make the correction I have mentioned.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT, 1907; AMENDMENT
Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
[Mr. Meighpn.l
On section 1-Statutory declaration to accompany application for appointment of Board.
Arthur Meighen: Will the minister explain the purpose of the bill?


Mr. MURDOCK:: The change proposed in this section merely contemplates that, in cases where it has been impossible for employer and employee to meet and negotiate, a declaration may be accepted from the employees indicating that it has been impossible to secure a conference or enter into negotiations and that as a result a strike is likely to occur. There have been cases in the past where such a provision has appeared necessary.


Mr. CHURCH:: There is before the law
courts on the way to the Privy Council for decision at the present time the question of the jurisdiction of parliament to enact legislation of this qature, and the question at issue is as to whether this parliament can delegate to itself the power to regulate the public utilities of municipalities. The municipalities operate many public utilities such as light and power, and under section 91 of the British North America Act it seems to me that this parliament has enough to do in reference to federal utilities, such as the postal service, without encroaching upon the realm of the provinces and the municipalities. I do not think that parliament should pass any legislation that has any relation to the municipalities without the consent of those municipalities. I understand that the Department of Justice has given an opinion that this whole act is ultra vires, and that opinion is supported by two courts of record in the province of Ontario. I think that is good not only as a matter of law but of policy. For how can this parliament say:	We are going to regulate the
municipal activities of, say, Winnipeg, Edmonton or Vancouver, and virtually act as a court of appeal in labour disputes between those municipalities and their employees? It is not in the public interest that there should be such interferences with the harmonious operation of public utilities by municipal corporations from the commercial aspect.
I should like to know who is asking for this legislation, because I understand the Department of Justice has advised that it is ultra vires of this parliament. Until the Privy Council has given its decision in the case now pending as to the respective powers of the federal parliament, the provincial legislatures

Industrial Disputes
and municipal corporations, I think it would be unwise to proceed with the bill. Certainly if it is enacted it will stir up trouble all over Canada, and the operation of public utilities by our municipalities will be very seriously handicapped. The present law is working quite satisfactorily, and our public ownership bodies are paying the highest wages to their employees. In my own province there is no complaint that the law is not working well. On all these grounds, therefore, I am strongly of opinion that we should leave well enough alone, or in any event defer action until we get the decision of the Privy Council on the case now in the courts which decision may be expected next May or June.


Mr. IRVINE:: Mr. Chairman, I have been told that this clause is very favourable and very just to labour. But it is in one sentence a page long, and I can make neither head nor tail of it; I do not know what it means. I am reasonably certain that very few labour men would be able to interpret the clause. Therefore I would ask the Minister of Labour to kindly explain once more what it really means, because I did not get his first explanation.	*


James Murdock: If my hon. friend from
East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) will look at the explanatory notes on the right hand pages he will find that the only changes proposed are printed in italics, their purpose being to permit the acceptance of a request from employees for a board of conciliation, even although those employees are not able to declare that they have met the employer and exhausted negotiations. As long as they can declare that they have made all possible efforts to obtain a satisfactory settlement, that will be sufficient for the Department of Labour to act upon.
Might I say to my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) that the particular question which he dealt with is not referred to in any of these proposed amendments? He is quite correct in saying that a board appointed by the Department of Labour was enjoined from proceeding with an investigation in regard to certain employees of the Hydro-Electric Commission in Toronto. An application was made to the department, and .following the usual practice of many years the department asked the Hydro-Electric Commission if they would agree to the formation of a board. The Commission hesitated for some time and finally did, in substance, decline to give their sanction to the formation of such a board. The department regarded the situation as so important that it proceeded to appoint a board, and the Hydro-Electric Commission at once took proceedings in the courts to obtain an injunction, which injunction the department has scrupulously observed. But we went into court to ascertain the rights of the federal Labour department under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. One judge issued the injunction and another judge, of equal standing, disagreed with his learned brother and referred the case to the Court of Appeal of Ontario, where argument was heard about a month ago. A decision is expected in a few days. As my hon. friend from North Toronto suggested, the case will probably go to the Privy Council for final determination. I may say that should it be decided that we have no right to appoint a conciliation board in the case of disputes between municipal corporations and their employees, it would simplify our work very much. But the proposed amendments have no connection with the question raised by my hon. friend, and I am quite sure he will not contend for a moment that the act is not applicable to recognized dominion-wide public utilities. The particular section we are now considering has no bearing on the case before the Court of Appeal.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Will the hon. minister
go a step further and tell the House what the result would be, if the proposed amendments are passed, in the case of a strike of the employees of any government department, and the department in question refused to negotiate with the strikers? Could the strikers thereupon go to the minister's department and as a matter of right obtain a board of conciliation?


James Murdock: I could not say what I might do or the department might do until we were confronted with the circumstances and were able to take them into consideration.


James Arthurs: Similar cases have arisen in the past, so it is nothing new. We had a similar case in Winnipeg, where a department refused to treat with strikers.


James Murdock: I never before heard it intimated that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act applied to such disputes.


James Arthurs: As I understand the act, and as the hon. gentleman has endeavoured to explain it, it would seem to apply to any body of organized labour.
Industrial Disputes


James Murdock: The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act applies to public utilities which are specified in section 2 of the act. The Post Office Department would not be a public utility as contemplated by the act.


James Arthurs: Will the minister read section 2?


The CHAIRMAN:: This is an amendment to section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. It is a question whether that inquiry is in order.


Thomas Langton Church: The whole question of the power of this legislature to enact a law of this kind is now before the courts, and if the act is declared unconstitutional then this amendment would also be unconstitutional. If the act applies to municipal public utilities, why should employees of the Post Office Department not be given a board if they wish to make a declaration under the act? Moreover, they are getting only one-half what the Hydro-Electric employees are getting to-day. Their lowest wage is $790 a year whereas in the other case it is $1,200 or $1,300. I contend that this whole matter should be held over until next session pending the decision whether this parliament has power to pass legislation of this kind.


James Murdock: In answer to the hon. member (Mr. Arthurs), I may say that section 2 of the act reads:
In this act, unless the context otherwise requires-
(a)	"Minister" means the Minister of Labour;
(b)	"department" means the Department of Labour;
(c)	"employer" means any person, company or corporation employing ten or more persons and owning or operating any mining property, agency of transportation or commuhication, or public service utility, including, except as hereinafter provided, railways, whether operated by steam, electricity or other motive power, steamships, telegraph and telephone lines, gas, electric light, water and power works.


William Irvine: What is the meaning of
the exception in parenthesis in lines 13, 14 and 15, section 1 (b), which reads:
Except where the application is made by an employer in consequence of an intended change in wages or hours proposed by the said employer.


James Murdock: That parenthesis has been there for a number of years. It does not contemplate any intention of an employer to lock out his employees, but he may have a justifiable intent of serving notice on his employees of his desire for a reduction of wages, and in that case he could make the necessary declaration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the minister look upon the post office as a public utility?


James Murdock: Not within the meaning of this act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does it cease
to be a public utility because it is looked after by a department of the government?


James Murdock: Not so long ago it was
even held that this act did not apply to Intercolonial Railway employees because they were government employees. I think several decisions to that effect were made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is what I
want to get at: The real distinction is that they are government employees, and that is why the department does not consider that the act applies.


James Murdock: One other important
reason is that they ax-e not engaged as employees of a public utility as specified in section 2 of the act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why on earth
the whole act was placed in jeopardy through an endeavour to make other public officials, just as representative of the people as this body, subject to what we would not make applicable to our own people, I do not know. It is idle to say that there should be regulation of public utilities simply because they happen to be provincial in their character while on the other hand the same regulation should not apply to public utilities which are carried on by the Dominion government.


Mr. CARROLL:: The other evening while
we were discussing the resolution of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) I made some observations with regard to the necessity of having changes made in our constitution, the British North America Act, which would clearly define the respective powers of this parliament and the provincial legislatures with regard to labour and several other matters. The opinions of judges of our supreme courts, especially in Nova Scotia, with which I am more familiar, are such that there is grave doubt in the public mind whether parliament had the power under the British North America Act to pass this legislation. In a private discussion which I had with the minister the other day he suggested to me that there would shortly be a decision which would settle the question. I presume that he had reference to the case to which the hon. member for North Toronto has just referred. In that case the question may not be brought fairly before us whether or not the act is ultra vires. The case may turn on the question of whether it is a provincial public utility or a national public utility. I for one would like to see

Industrial Disputes
the Privy Council decide just as clearly and as quickly as it can be done whether the Industrial Disputes Act is within the power and-jurisdiction of this parliament. I am one of those who think that the Industrial Disputes Act has been a tremendous power for good in this country. Innumerable disputes which would otherwise have led to strikes and disasters have been averted through the goodwill which was brought about between employers and employees by virtue of this act, and so far as I am concerned I would be sorry if in the end it was declared ultra vires by the Privy Council. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) suggests that the Department of Justice has given opinions which, in effect, declare the act to be ultra vires.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Merely against
the municipality.


William F. Carroll: As against the municipality. I read some of these opinions last winter, and I am sorry to say that different branches of the Department of Justice have given different opinions as to the validity of this act. I hope the day will soon come when if this case is not taken direct to the Privy Council-and if the Department or Labour loses the case in Toronto they certainly will carry it to the Privy Council, but in case the Department of Labour wins, the people of Ontario may not see fit to carry the case to that court-


Henry Lumley Drayton: They will.


William F. Carroll: Then that will overcome the difficulty. I have my own opinions as a lawyer, very serious and, I think very well-grounded opinions. I am not going to give them to the House this afternoon; I did give them more or less the other day; but I think this matter should be settled. There should not be any doubt about the matter, and if there should remain any doubt after the decision of the Privy Council, if they do not give a clear-cut decision as to the validity of the act, I think the Department of Justice should even take the trouble of having our constitution so amended as to make it perfectly and amply and fully plain that this parliament has the power to legislate on matters of this kind.
I do not think the Industrial Disputes Act goes far enough. It seems to me that in all our great industries in this country there should be the means whereby a conciliation board could be granted, in order to give employer and employee a chance to fight their differences out before such a board. Let me give an instance. In the constituency I
represent we have two great industries, the coal mining industry and the steel industry.
If differences of opinion arise in the coal mining industry, and if the conditions of the act are fulfilled, the employers may get a board, and boards h|ive done very much good in that part of the country; but if a difference of opinion arises between the steel workers and their employers, who are the very same people, the British Empire Steel Company, the poor steel worker is told that he cannot have a board to investigate his grievances, while his brother, the fcoal miner, working for the same corporation five miles away, has the right to a conciliation board.
I would draw this respectfully to the attention of the Minister of Labour. It may make for a weakness in the act so far as legislative power is concerned, but I think the day should come when this parliament should take power under the constitution to give every industry, employers and employees, the right to a conciliation board. Let not a preference, so to speak, be given to a man because he happens to be working in an industry which comes under the nomen of a "public utility."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Relation of parties to remain unchanged pending proceedings before a board.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: There is one point, it semes to me, that is hardly sufficiently guarded in this clause. The idea is that there shall be no change pending an investigation. If I am rightly informed in the case of the Nova Scotia trouble a year and a half ago, a board had been asked for, but the employers took the ground that since the agreement had expired there could be no change in the conditions; that is, they had been running along under the conditions of the old agreement, but the agreement having expired the employers took the ground that everything was at an end, and they proposed under those circumstances to change the rates of pay, the hours and working conditions. It was really that that led to the so-called "ca' canny" policy-"striking on the job," the men taking the ground that since there was no agreement they were not bound to give a certain amount of work. Now it is quite obvious that the company was not carrying out the spirit behind this legislation, and I wonder whether it would not be possible to draft the legislation in such a way that no employer or employee could disregard its spirit in that way.



Industrial Disputes
Even although the agreement had come to a close at the end of the year, could not the conditions run along until a. final settlement was made? I would ask the Minister of Labour if it would not be possible to insert such a clause as that?


James Murdock: 1 fear it would be impossible to attempt to meet the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth), for this reason: It would contemplate coercion possibly of both parties to an agreement, and we might have just as much or even more difficulty in securing the consent of the workmen than of the employers to a provision of that kind, which would, in effect, tie them to their tasks for a certain stated or uncertain time. I am sure we would have just as much difficulty under the circumstances suggested by my hon. friend, where you would compel the workmen to continue working under the conditions of an agreement after it had expired until a board had finished its sittings and had filed its award.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do you not do that m this case?


James Murdock: We hope to secure the co-operation of both employer and employee to the end that no interruption of the industry's operations shall take place; but we would hope also to secure the co-operation of the employer and employee in seeing that agreements be not made that would automatically sever relations as between the two parties at a given time. The consistent thing,
I think, for organized labour to do now generally is to make an agreement subject to sixty days' notice of a desire for a change by either party to the agreement. That would give reasonable latitude to the interests of the parties and the public for negotiations to be held and a new agreement to be reached.	.
Now, in the case my hon. friend cited the agreement expired at a certain hour on a certain given day, and, no new agreement having been arrived at, there was a complete stoppage of operations regardless of the public right in the matter, creating a situation which ought to have been avoided. But I suggest to my hon. friend that such a situation cannot be avoided by attempting to assert in this, or in any other law, a coercive restriction that will compel either the employer or the workman to continue operations, possibly in the case of the latter, at a rate he may not have agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
 .

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (For the Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 4 to amend the Patent Act (French version).
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1.-Inventions for which foreign patents have been taken out.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: - The only object of the bill is to correct two words in the French version. The word "earliest" in the fourth line of the English version-you have it on the opposite page-was translated into French as if it were the "latest". The same thing at the end of the section, where the word "black" appeared as "white".


Mr. STEVENS:: The translator who would translate "black" into "white", and "earliest" into "latest" needs an examination. I was just going to observe to my hon. friend that there have been quite a number of bills of this character. I noticed last session we had one or two cases, and this is the 4 p.m. second one already this session correcting translation. It does seem to me that the government owe it to the House to see that its officers do better work in the translation than this. I am not offering this criticism of my hon. friend, but really I think a little healthy sharp criticism of an officer who Mil do such slovenly work as this is not at all untimely. I am not aware of any objection to the bill but there is need, perhaps, of a little castigation of the officer responsible for the errors.


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid these mistakes were happening quite frequently in former times without being noticed. However, the remarks of my hon. friend are to the point. And I may say that measures are being considered at the present time for the purpose of improving the translation branches of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Commencement of act.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Does this make any change in the original act? The section reads.
This act shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of September, 1923.
Why is it necessary to have this clause?


Ernest Lapointe: I think that was the date fixed in the original act.

Pacific Halibut Fishery


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the minister quite sure of that?-because the change may be far reaching.


George Newcombe Gordon: An explanation is given on the opposite page.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was in the original act?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a little hurried, I have really not had time to look the matter over. I should judge from what is said on the opposite page that the act came into force by proclamation published in-the Canada Gazette. The proclamation was issued, I gather, on 7th July, 1923.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And this clause is necessary in order to bring the French version into harmony with the English version? The act was brought into force by proclamation?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, by proclamation.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



PACIFIC HALIBUT FISHERY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to amend section six of the Northern pacific Halibut Fishery Protection Act, chapter sixty-one of the statutes of 1923, which relates to Canadian and United States nationals and ships liable to seizure for engaging in fishing for halibut in prohibited waters, by limiting the time for an offence thereunder to the close season as defined in the Act, and by repealing section nine, relating to the seizure of foreign ships.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. CARDIN:: The committee will surely remember that, following the treaty between Canada and the United States, an act was passed during the last session in order to make' effective the provisions of the treaty. The first amendment which is proposed relates to section 6 which reads:
Every national or inhabitant of Canada or of the United States, and every ship, vessel or boat registered in Canada or the United States, or belonging to a national or inhabitant of Canada or of the United States, together with all furniture, apparel, appliances, gear, tackle and rigging thereof, engaged in or used in connection with fishing for halibut in prohibited waters or aiding or facilitating, or used for the purpose of aiding or facilitating such fishing, may be seized by any officer authorized by the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act to board and search.
41i
The amendment is to add the words "during the close season" after the words "prohibited waters." As the section now stands, it prohibits fishing throughout the year, the words "during the close season" having been left out through error. We propose to repeal the whole section because, by a rule passed last session, when we amend part of a section, we have to repeal the whole section and ask that a new one be substituted for it.
The next amendment we have in view is to repeal section 9 which reads:
Every ship, vessel or boat which is foreign, or not navigated according to the laws of the United Kingdom or of Canada, which,
.	(a) has been found fiishing or preparing to fish or to
have been fishing for halibut in the territorial waters of the western coast of Canada in any close season; or (b) has entered such waters for any purpose of which the execution is prohibited by this act: may be seized by any of the officers aforesaid.
Section 9 is almost a repetition of section 5. The point covered by this section is already covered by section 5 which reads:
Every ship, vessel or boat, including all furniture, apparei, appliances, gear, tackle and rigging thereof, which is in any manner operated or used for the purpose of committing an offence against this act, or for aiding or facilitating the commisson of any such offence, may be seized by any officer authorized by the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act to board and search, and shall be forfeited;
Besides that, section 9 may be objected to on account of the fact that it states that only foreign ships can be seized. It appears that an exception is made in regard to vessels navigating according to the laws of the United Kingdom or Canada. I think these small . amendments will not in any way change the situation in which we find ourselves now. They are not material at all. They are intended only to do away with some doubts which may arise between the interpretation of section 9 and section 5.


Mr. BAXTER:: I should like to suggest to the minister that, in making the amendment, he might, perhaps, go a little further in section 6. The act itself defines the territorial waters of the western coast of Canada. It also defines the territorial waters of the United States. I cannot conceive that a Canadian customs officer would be intended, by this government, to attempt any seizure outside of our own territorial waters. Yet, if my hon. friend will look at section 6 as it stands to-day, he will find that apparently just as much power is given to a Canadian customs officer to seize at Seattle as there was for him to seize during the open season. I quite concur that it is correct to limit this legislation
Pacific Halibut Fishery

to the close season; but I think it would be just as well to make it clear to men who are looking to the statute for guidance, that their operations as regards seizures ought to be confined to the territorial waters of Canada. I would suggest for the purpose, not of criticism but of assistance, that after the word "seized" in the printed statute at the third line from the top of the page, there should be some definition of the place, that is, seized "within the territorial waters of Canada" or some similar expression, because I can understand how a zealous but mistaken officer might cause considerably difficulty by going outside of Canadian territorial limits altogether and making a seizure.
I would also like to suggest that section 9, which the minister proposes to repeal, might receive further consideration. Section 4 puts the owner or master of a vessel under a certain penalty. Section 5, as the minister very properly says, involves forfeiture of any vessel:
-which is in any manner operated or used for the purpose of committing an offence against this act, or for aiding or facilitating the commisson of any such offence.
I think that might very properly apply to vessels on our own register. I would think, however, that we would not be wise, to say the least, to attempt to create an offence or to inflict a punishment upon a foreign vessel, unless her act had been done within the ports or territorial waters of Canada. Under section 4 or section 5, it does not matter where the person or the vessel is. For instance, if a Canadian vessel were out on the high seas and made preparations there to invade the territorial waters of Canada for the purpose of illegal fishing, I think this law would apply and we could punish our own nationals.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Has my hon. friend read the treaty under which this resolution is framed? It will be found. I think, that there was entered into between Canada and the United States an agreement which gives to Canada, under the treaty, authority to seize United States' vessels which are found in Canadian or American water if they are violating the provisions of the treaty, and the Americans are to have the same powers regarding Canadian vessels found in Canadian or American waters. If Canada seizes United States vessels, she must hand them over to the United States for trial, and the same thing would apply in regard to Canadian vessels seized by the United States, the United States would have to hand them over to 
Canada for trial. If power were given to seize vessels only in territorial waters, you would not get them at all, because it is only in extra-territorial waters that the offence is committed.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Perhaps in a spirit of great national charity I was not designating the people of the United States as foreigners. As regards foreign ships, I was thinking of ships other than those of the United States. I had in mind the provisions of the treaty as my hon. friend has them in mind, although Pm blessed if I know whether there is a treaty or not. Perhaps my hon friend knows.
, Mr. MARTELL: There will be.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Oh, there is to be.


Lewis Herbert Martell: It is in esse. It only needs ratification.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I have no objection to a treaty. The only thing is that this treaty appeared as a New Year's gift in some of the newspapers, and it has appeared several times since with little strings, tails, fins and little wiggly things all around it. A few days ago it came into this House as a subject of ratification. It did not matter if we were riding chariots through the Civil Service; it did not matter if we had forgotten how to cut down rates; it did not matter if we had stagnation in the Maritime provinces, a subject in which the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) ought to be interested-the great constitutional thing, the great light that had developed on the world, the great beneficence m the twentieth century was that a Canadian could sign his name upon a piece of parchment and bind some part of the British Empire; that is, if the thing was unilateral, or bilateral, or quadrilateral, or based upon some other angles that were not defined. My hon. friend wants to take great comfort out of this signature. I will tell him that I very much prefer to get down to something that has real meat in it.


Ernest Lapointe: This is fish.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It is all very well to indulge in flights of imagination, but really nobody cares a bit whether we sign treaties on this side of the Atlantic or on the other side; what we do care about is that we shall get something out of them. That is the real point.

Supply-Public Works


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will my hon. friend
allow me to interrupt him for a moment? I understand that when speaking in the Maritime provinces he took the ,view that reciprocity would have been of great benefit to us but we took the national view.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am not going to be diverted from my course by any more of these remarks of my hon. friend. I want to be as complimentary to him as I can, but I do not think he should interrupt me in the way he has done. When he interrupted me a few moments ago I really thought that it was the Prime Minister who had shifted his seat and so I deferred to him. I see now he is not the Prime Minister. However, in all seriousness I would ask the minister to consider the suggestions I have made, which are offered entirely with the idea of assisting him to perfect the measure as far as possible.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, to amend the Northern Pacific Halibut Fishery Protection Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Pubic 'Works-Chargeable to Capital
Public Buildings-
Ottawa Parliament Buildings	$ 600,000
Ottawa, addition to Dominion Archives
Building	 275,000
London, England, Canadian office	 1,300,000


Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works):: When we were last in committee we had under consideration the estimate for completion of the tower and there was a suggestion that the government should explain to the House what delay in this work would mean not only in the actual cost but also from the point of view of the deterioration of the tower itself and of the buildings that have been used in its construction. I indicated at that time that the architect's commission was fixed at 5i per cent for completion and that we had an arrangement with him to complete the construction. The plans have been prepared and are being submitted to the department under that arrangement. If we should decide to
cancel our arrangement with the architect he would be entitled to receive from us 3 per cent on the plans to date, and at the end of five or six or ten years, whenever we might decide to complete the construction, we should either require to make a new contract with the present architects or engage another architect. In that case our expenditure would involve an additional 7 per cent in all probability, following the usual architectural fees, because we could not have the benefit which we should otherwise have in having the present architect complete the work. The first item of 3 per cent on the completed tower, on an expenditure of $565,000, would be $16,950; and the commission which it would be necessary to pay if we started to work over again, would amount, at 7 per cent, to $39,550. In regard to the contractor's commission, our arrangement is that he should complete the work at the old commission of 7 per cent. I believe that those who have had experience with contractors and who are familiar with work of this character will realize that the completion of, this tower is probably one of the most difficult portions of the construction of the parliament buildings, and I have no doubt that if it became necessary some years later to enter into a new contract the builder would expect a larger percentage than even 7 per cent. Indeed, the officers of the department are of the opinion that it would cost at least 10 per cent; and on an expenditure of $480,000 that additional 3 per cent would mean an addition of $14,400. Now, if we should decide to delay construction for five or six years,
I think it must be evident to all who know anything about	the	surroundings	of	thesebuildings that it would be necessary to clear the debris from the grounds and do other work of that kind, and we should have to have the grounds sodded and put into proper shape. The estimated cost for the removal of buildings used in construction, and of stone, brick, sand and other material, in addition to the cleaning up of the ground and	completing	the work	of	paving	grading	and	so forth,	is	$20,000.We have a very large workshop on Sussex street which was erected primarily for carving and cutting the stone to be used in this	building.	It	is built of	substantial
timbers and equipped with cranes and other machinery necessary for the handling of heavy stone. When built in 1916 it was not expected that it would be required for more than four or five years, and I am informed that last year it was discovered that dry rot had attacked the foundation timbers, neces-
Supply-Public Works

sitating the insertion of concrete blocks to maintain the structure in place. If we should decide not to proceed with the programme now contemplated, it will be necessary to tear down the workshop and from the timber construct a shed of sufficient size to store the stone and other material that will eventually go into the tower. That is estimated to cost $82,000. This figure includes the cost of removing the machinery and either installing it in a new building or else taking the stone to Montreal or some other place to be cut and carved, which means heavy cartage and freight charges. It will be seen therefore that any delay will entail a very considerable expense, in fact it is estimated by the department that about $172,000 will be the price of delay. It was suggested a few nights ago in discussion that so many hundred thousands of dollars at five per cent interest would mean so much money, and by delaying construction there would be a saving of this interest. But as a matter of fact instead of being a saving there would be a very considerable loss. Besides this, hon. members will no doubt have noticed that the sandstone used in this building darkens on exposure to the weather, and if we should delay construction for a period of years, there will be a marked difference between the new and the old work. In the course of years the two would probably blend harmoniously, but for some years after completion we would have the upper third of the tower sticking up like a sore-thumb.
Now, I think it would be unwise for the committee to entertain delaying this construction. It is part of the scheme undertaken years ago after the fire, and I hope hon. members will be of the opinion, after the information I have just given, that we would be ill advised to delay the work. I might say that when the estimates for my department were first submitted to me by the officials they asked for a vote of $800,000. We have since reduced this total by $200,000. In my summary of expenditures last week I suggested certain lines that might be followed this year, but since last discussing the matter with departmental officers, I find that if we complete the tower in the manner described, installing electric wiring and elevators, and also doing what is necessary for the clock chimes, and complete the memorial chamber, we shall require an expenditure of $564,OCX)! So the expenditure this year of the $600,000 will be largely confined to the tower itself.


Mr. BOYS:: Will the minister explain why it is necessary to revise these' figures? The

other night we were very particular about this and we understood that the $383,000 for the completion of the tower covered the exterior, elevators and electric wiring.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: No.


William Alves Boys: I really believe a reference to Hansard will show that that is what the minister stated to the committee.


John Warwick King: No.


William Alves Boys: And he advised us that the
memorial chamber would cost about $80,000.


John Warwick King: The masonry.


William Alves Boys: Yes, the masonry for the tower and the interior improvements. I remember the first figure was $293,000, which was for the masonry, and then I understood it was increased to $383,000 to provide for the completion of the tower. Here is what the minister said, at page 576, of Hansard:
I gave the figures for electrical equipment, masonry and so forth, but the masonry is $293,808.
And at a later stage of the discussion-I do not know that I can lay my hand on it' at the moment-that amount was increased to $383,000 to provide for these other additions. Then the further cost of the memorial chamber was given at $80,000 odd. On that occasion I said that I thought the tower should be completed and I still think so. I also think it would be desirable to complete the memorial chamber, for the reasons given the other night. Anyway, it is a feature of this structure that we should not neglect, and I am quite prepared to support whatever expenditure is necessary to do the work. I took exception to the cost that would be incurred for cutting the fiat stone that we see in this chamber. It is expensive work, and I think it might well be left in abeyance. If it is a fact that the amount required to do the work suggested is nearly $600,000, I would hesitate to support any reduction of the item; but unless I am assured of that I certainly think it should be reduced to whatever amount will be required for the work.


Mr. WHITE:: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Parliamentary committee that had to do with the settlement of the architects' and contractors' claims, I probably had a better opportunity to get acquainted with the facts and to examine the buildings that have been referred to than hon. members who were not on that committee. At the time I noted with particular satisfaction the large amount of machinery that had been provided to take care of the stone work. One of the terms of settle-

Supply-Public Works
nient of the contractors' claims was that they should complete the tower at a commission of seven per cent. It appears to me that that was a very wise arrangement, the character of the work being such that if it were placed with another contractor the commission would probably be considerably higher. It seems to me that the work should be carried on by the original architects and contractors. There is a particular reason for adopting this course. There is a certain responsibility for the work already completed. In connection with the building of the tower a great deal of extra weight is to be placed on the present structure, and if any defects develop it will be easy to place the blame in the proper place. On the other hand, if some other contractor subsequently does the work it will be easy for one contractor to blame the other and it will be difficult to fix the blame in the case of defect. The minister gave two lists of items of proposed expenditure-page 558 of Hansard-and the second list, involving a total of about $81,000, was for stone carving, electrical work, special lighting fixtures, changes to doors, and so on. It seems to me that that amount of $81,000 odd could be struck out, because the building may very well remain as it is for a number of years. The outside work, the necessary electrical work and the elevators should be provided for, as well as the completion of the memorial chamber and all stone work in connection with the tower.


William Alves Boys: May I put myself right with
the minister? If he will look at page 574 of Hansard he will find what took place. In referring to the matter I said:
Before the committee rose at six o'clock I took down some figures but I do not know whether I got them correctly. I understood the minister to say that the masonry work .on the tower amounts to *293,000.
Mr. King (Kootenay): That is right.
Mr. Boys: And the completion of the tower, with elevators, wiring, and so forth, made a total of $383,0 Mr. King (Kootenay): The total is *383.898-
Mr. Boys: There is no question, then, that $4UU,UUU would cover everything in connection with the tower.
Mr. King (Kootenay). Without the memorial chamber.
At a later stage in the discussion the figure for the memorial tower was given at about $80,000.


John Warwick King: The figures included in the first statement I gave were as follows:	.
Masonry as per bill of quantities, Memorial
Chamber	
Main Tower	
Elevators: push button elevator, etc.. [DOT][DOT] [DOT][DOT]
Electric wiring: interior wiring for lighting, power, clocks, illuminating four clock dials, etc	
Roofing	*	:* '* 'j
Ornamental iron: elevator enclosures, spiral and straight stairs, ladders in tower-flag pole..
16,500
7,640
That amounts to $383,000 for the tower and $81,820 for the memorial chamber, a total of $465,000 in round figures.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The total of the figures
just read by the minister is about $443,000.


John Warwick King: Yes, but I gave
additional figures later.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They had nothing to do
with the tower.


John Warwick King: Just to clear the
thing up, I will give the figures again:
Masonry as per bill of quantities, memorial
chamber	
Main tower	
Carving, main tower.
Roofing	
Ornamental iron.. ..
Elevators	
Heating	
Electric wiring

That is $465,718.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does that not absolutely
complete the tower, clock and all?


John Warwick King: No. Including
the $81,820 for the memorial chamber, the total is $465,000, and when you add the clock and completion of the memorial chamber, it makes a total of $564,000. These are all connected with the tower; they are all within the estimate of the architect and to a great extent under the control of the contractoi.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I confess that it is difficult to harmonize the figures given to-day with those given the other day. We do not wish to harass the minister with captious criticism about this work, but it is the view of members on this side that any work that is not absolutely necessary might very well be left undone this year. Generally speaking we have no great objection, I think, to the completion of the tower and the memorial chamber and any other really necessary work, but there are some items, even among those mentioned by the minister to-day, which seem to be unnecessary. Take, for instance, the $28,950 for electric wiring, flood lighting projectors, wiring for flood lighting, four lamp standards for lighting fixtures in tower reflectors, and so forth: I agree that it would be very nice indeed to have the tower illuminated, but I think we could very well afford to let that work, involving an expenditure of $28,900, remain over for this year. If the minister will take his figures for the masonry work of the tower, with such fixtures

Supply-Public Works
as it may be necessary to put in when the masonry is completed, he will find that he can very easily keep within $400,000; then if he adds to that the finishing of the memorial chamber, about $450,000 or $475,000 should be ample. If the figures given by the minister to-day are correct-and I am not doubting his word, though I do doubt the accuracy of his addition-we have not anything like enough money in this vote to do the work which is contemplated, because the other day he had on his list $50,000 for interior lightings, quite a sum for carvings, and. some other items, all included in the $600,000. How he is going to apply $540,000 to the tower and then squeeze in all these other items and keep the amount down to $600,000, I do not know But I do suggest that $475,000 will give him ample to finish the tower, including the work on the memorial chamber. By the way, the minister himself told us the other day that the stone and all the material required for the finishing of the memorial chamber is already here, and that undoubtedly is included in the estimates he gives us today, although the material is here and paid


John Warwick King: No.
STEVENS: They are not included in that? In any case, the material is here and can be placed in position without any delay and be paid for. I want to suggest to the
lTv'nsmmnlteTSfri<?'ISly that he CUt this item
by $125,000 I took occasion to go round the
building and examine the fixtures. I am not an expert but I can see this, as anyone can who cares to cast his eyes around, that the so-called temporary electric fixtures in this building are good for a number of years, without causing the slightest offence to the artistic taste of anyone, and certainly so far as utility is concerned they are just as good for a number of years as permanent fixtures. In a few years, of course, their usefulness wil be gone, and then they can probably be replaced, but I think it is a decided waste of money to take $50,000 now to remove these fixtures that are perfecly good and replace them with permanent fixtures when the money is needed very much more in other directions, and when the present fixtures are such that no one can possibly take offence at their appearance. I would therefore suggest once again to the minister that this item be reduced by $100,000 or $120,000. That would still enable him to complete the tower properly.


Robert Forke: I quite agree with the statements that have been made by the hon. 
member for London in connection with the finishing of the tower. The member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) the member for London (Mr. White) and myself, with the Minister of Public Works, were appointed a committee to look into the matter ol the charges made by the architect and the contractors in the construction of this building. It was a rather difficult proposition to undertake, and it was not easy to arrive at conclusions that would be satisfactory both to the architect and contractors and to the people of this country, but a settlement was made that I think upon examination will be found to be very satisfactory. It was not entirely satisfactory to the contractors, nor to tlie architects, and perhaps it will not be altogether satisfactory to the people of this country, but I think it was a fair and just settlement. The contractor and the architect were to go on and complete the tower. They agreed to do that on the terms that have already been stated by the minister. I need not recapitulate the arguments in favour of completing the tower. I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind that it would be economy to get the main work m connection with the tower done now. I realize the need for economy. I realize that people all over this country might wonder why should we expend thousands of dollars to finish the tower when there is a dire need for money in other directions, but I think it can be conclusively shown that it would be a waste of money to wait for five years before starting to finish the tower. There is a vast amount of machinery lying down there that at the end of this year will have to be removed, or paid extra for if it remains there. There is also depreciation to be taken into account. I pointed out to some of my friends before the minister spoke just a few moments ago that if we left it over for five years there would be quite a difference for a number of years between the different sections of the tower in the colour of the stones There is another point that has not been emphasized. I have never seen the plans in regard to the tower, and I would not understand them if I did see them. I question if they are down on paper yet. I think they are probably in the architect's head, and they would not be available to anyone starting in to finish that tower some years hence. I do not think any other architect coming in would be able to complete the tower exactly on the lines projected by the present architect.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a model.

Supply-Public Works


Robert Forke: Yes, but that is of the outside of the building. It does not show the interior. I do think, after listening carefully to all the arguments that have been made, though I am as much in favour of economy as anyone, that it would not be a mistake for the government to take the advice of the opposition, supported I think by a good many members in my part of the House, to cut off at least $100,000 from that estimate. I think everyone would like to see the tower finished and everything done up nicely. When it is finished the building will be a show place not only for the people of this country, but for visitors from other countries. I would ask the minister if he cannot conscientiously cut off $100,000 from this estimate, and I would then be prepared to give him my hearty support,


John Warwick King: I should like to meet the wishes of hon. members, but with the knowledge I have I do not think it would be wise to cut this estimate and say: There, that is all; after that you can let your architect and your contractor go. We are under contract and we have architects fees to pay, and I want to get this building out of their hands just as soon as we can. The sooner we get them out the less expense there will be. During the last two or three years we have had many votes under which we might have spent considerable sums of money, but we have not done so, and it is not the intention of the department to do so, in the future. We shall spend only what is necessary. We have a certain staff around this building, and there are times when we can utilize that staff to carry on important work, and if we are given a little leeway, I can assure hon. gentlemen, we shall not be extravagant. We never have been, and we do not propose to be. With a vote of $600,000 this year we shall be able to carry on and if it is not necessary to expend that amount we shall not expend it. But to say that we should cut off $100,000 from an estimate that the departmental staff originally recommended should be $800,000 would be hardly fair, considering their judgment and the care they have given to this last report. I can assure the House that great care will be taken in any additional expenditure that may be considered, and the money will be expended only if it is considered to be in the interests of economy to spend it.
I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to express my appreciation of the very valuable assistance I received from the hon. member for Brandon, (Mr. Forke) the hon. member for London, (Mr. White) and the hon.
member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) in arranging the settlement between the architect, the contractor and the Public Works Department. They gave a great deal of time and attention to this matter, and I wish to assure them that this was greatly appreciated by myself as Minister of Public Works.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions. First, does he really think it is necessary to do stone carving around this building at the present time?


James Horace King: (Kootenay): We are not doing any now, I think.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course, the minister is not doing it now, but the money was voted last session and that work has been going on. There is an item for stone carving again this year. Does the minister really think it is necessary at the present time to throw away money in stone carving?


John Warwick King: The carving done last year was considered necessary. It was done above the throne in the Senate; it was necessary to put up the canopy and complete the work there. There has been no large amount of stone carving done, and we do not propose to do any except in places where it is considered necessary it should be done. In connection with the memorial chamber, of course, it will be necessary to do considerable carving.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a different thing entirely. We challenged the stone carving last year. Gentlemen who are interested in this subject, if they would go over to the Senate some time and observe some of the incongruous heads that are being carved there, out of all keeping with the general plan of the building and the general scheme of architecture, will see just exactly how necessary that work was. If anything further illustrating the throwing away of money were wanted it seems to me all my hon. friends need to do is to proceed to the next floor, go along the general court, and observe the tremendous amount of money that is being spent for the purpose of getting the proper architectural effect with the gothic arches we have there. They are supposed to be some of the finest gothic arches in the world. As to that I do not pretend to be a judge, but there you see the gothic arches and they are absolutely ruining the tracery by setting up the most expensive kind of modern, up-to-date bank fixture grilles, that are entirely out of keeping beside
Supply-Public Works

this architecture of the centuries that have gone by. I do not think that sort of stuff is necessary. If it is the work ought to be done by somebody who has an idea of the general scheme or spirit of the architecture of this building. The one reason that appeals to me for going on with the tower at the present time is in order to secure harmony, in order that the original conception or design can be adhered to.
Now, the minister says he cannot do this work for less than $600,000. I have not been able to accurately follow his figures at all. I was not here when the matter was discussed on Friday, but we have two sets of figures to-day and I confess that I am not enlightened by them. If the minister is wise he will realize that the sense of the committee is that the only thing that ought to be done is to finish the tower and the memorial chamber- that and nothing else. If he is wise he will- without haggling over a few cents here and a few cents there-consent to a change in the wording of this vote, so that this money shall be used for the completion of the tower and the memorial chamber only. If that is done I have no objection.


John Warwick King: That is practically the purpose in-


Henry Lumley Drayton: If it is practically the purpose there is no reason why you should not change the wording of the vote.


John Warwick King: Take the one
item of $8,000 for the electric wiring of the library. Now, any hon. member who goes into the library will see the absolute necessity of that work being done. Then there is the pay list, which represents a very considerable amount, for the work which may occur about this building from time to time. I think the estimate is a close one for the work that should be done this year. If the vote is not necessary it will not be expended.


Henry Herbert Stevens: An estimate for any work that cannot be foreseen cannot be included in this item, because the minister has given to us-unless he is misleading the committee, which I do not suggest-a definite list of the items for which he is asking this money.


John Warwick King: Not at all. It
is the proposed list, the proposed expenditure, that I outlined.


Mr. SI EVENS:: Is this list a joke or is
the minister sincere? Let me again draw the items to my hon. friend's attention, I have spoken of them three times already. There is the item of $50,000 electric fixtures. That is wholly unnecessary. I say it is absolutely unwise-and it has nothing to do with the

tower at all-to tear down perfectly good electric fixtures and replace them with ornamental permanent fixtures. This work undoubtedly will have to be done ultimately, but in the meantime the present fixtures are apparently effective and perfectly good. There is $50,000 in one item.


John Warwick King: What item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: .' I have it in my hon. friend's own words "Special lighting fixtures." And then I asked for an explanation, and he told me what it was for-they were for the corridors. While speaking in regard to this matter the minister advances the view that the government have certain contracts to consider. Well we asked the minister to lay the contracts on the table. Here let me say that I do not like to waste the time of the committee by talking to deaf ears. If the minister will be good enough to listen-


John Warwick King: I am listening.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I asked the" minister the other day if he would lay the contracts on the table. What was laid on the table was an order in council with the report of the special committee, to which my hon. friend has referred in some kindly words of gratitude, and I think well earned. This is all the information we have, and it does not give us the particulars we desire. Perhaps the minister may have more information and if so he should produce it. The only clause in the return that indicates a settlement is the second last paragraph which I will read:
Under the circumstances and without reference to the technical legal aspects, the undersigned believes that a settlement with the architects, if it can be made on the basis of $123,004.20, covering Mr. Pearson's services in full, and $19,142.50 covering Mr. Marchand's services in full, or a total payment of $484,335.63 to both architects, of which Mr. Pearson would receive $412,344.92 and Mr. Marchand $71,990.71, is advisable and that it is probably quite as good a settlement as would be obtained by further delay and litigation, particularly as an interest charge would likely be added to any amount recovered, whereas in the settlement proposed above interest is not contained in Mr. Pearson's statement.
Now we have this recommendation of the committee-I think a perfectly proper recommendation^ and I am not questioning it * but the minister has not brought down any indication from the architects that they accept it. I asked the minister for a copy of the contract with the eon-
5 p.m. tractors, and also for a copy of the settlement with Mr. Pearson, and I suppose with Mr. Marchand as well. At present we do not have these documents. All we have is the recommendation from the

Supply-Public Works
spceial committee, and no indication that the settlement is accepted by Mr. Pearson.
If the minister has any further information the committee is entitled to have it.


John Warwick King: I understand from the officials that the papers filed are those that were asked for. It is true there was further correspondence with Mr. Pearson regarding the continuance of the work.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend wholly
misunderstands me. The other day we asked the minister for a copy of the contract showing the settlement between the government and Mr. Pearson, or the architects represented by the gentleman. The minister said there was such a contract, and he again stated that to-day.


John Warwick King: The contract is
not the settlement. You have the terms of the settlement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the document I have in my hand is not a settlement, it is the recommendation by the special committee, and there is no evidence whatever that Mr. Pearson has accepted it.


John Warwick King: That is really
the recommendation to council and the basis of the settlement, and Mr. Pearson accepted it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has Mr. Pearson accepted it? In that case would the minister let us have the letter, or contract, or agreement, or whatever he likes to call it?


John Warwick King: I have not the
official receipt. But I may advise my hon. friend that Mr. Pearson did accept and signed a receipt for the money in final settlement. That receipt can be brought down i? my hon. friend wishes it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We ought to have it, it
is exactly what we are asking for.


John Warwick King: A copy of the
receipt will be tabled if my hon. friend wishes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What does the minister
mean by "receipt?" I notice that Mr. Pearson challenges a statement made once before, made not by my hon. friend but by the department, that he had accepted a certain settlement. The committee entered into quite a discussion of whether or not that is correct. The minister says, "Mr. Pearson has signed a receipt." It would not necessarily follow that Mr. Pearson had accepted the settlement that I have just read. The receipt might be an. interim receipt accepting this money on account. It may not disclose a settlement at all. The reason I am pressing this matter is this: We do not want to vote $600,000, or $500,000, for the completion of the tower, on the assurance the minister has given us that it is necessary to do the work in order not to run into expense in the future, and then next session to be told: "Mr. Pearson has not made a settlement and we want a vote to settle with him."
If Mr. Pearson has accepted this settlement recommended by the committee, which settlement I am not questioning at all, then his letter is on file and the committee is entitled to have the letter.


John Warwick King: Certainly.


William Alves Boys: The minister was to let us
have a copy of the contract. I understand some arrangement was made whereby the machinery is to remain until 31st December of this year, and if the work is not proceeded with by then, the machinery is to be removed. I asked the minister whether or not we would be liable to the contractor if the work was not proceeded with, and his answer was that he presumed a claim would be made. I understand, if these arrangements have been completed with the contractor, they are not all oral. I presume they have been reduced to writing. I should think the contractor himself would want some protection, and whether he does or not, one would certainly expect that the department would want it. That is not made apparent. If, in accordance with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, this vote is reduced to $500,000, that would furnish all the money required by the minister for the work on the tower and the memorial chamber, with the exception of $20,000. If the minister's own figures are' right and final, it would be proper to cut the vote down, perhaps not by $100,000, perhaps only by $75,000. But we ought to be sure of the accuracy of those figures as far as we can be sure of estimates. We have only to take the figures the minister has given us as reported on page 558 of revised Hansard and add them up, and we find at once that, according to his own estimates, $525,000 will do that work. I quite appreciate that below the first list there are items which I have also added up, and they total $81,000. If those figures are correct, only $519,000 is required to complete the tower and the memorial chamber.
Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: Has the hon. member allowed anything for the architect's commission or the contractor's commission?


William Alves Boys: Has the minister?


John Warwick King: Not there.


William Alves Boys: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: Does this item in elude the wiring for the Library? If so, couh such wiring not be done without putting ii very elaborate fixtures?
, r S>EItCE: 1 think the minister is at fault. We should have a detailed statement showing the different expenditures and items. If we had that, there would not be so much cross-questioning. I am not criticizing the minister, but the strictest economy should be practised in this House. It is very easy to spend money and it is very difficult to make it. I am in favour of finishing the tower as regards the stone and brick work, keeping in mind the electric conduits and the beams in connection with the operating of the elevator, but we should not do anything at all that is not an abso-
lute necessity. To say that $50,000 should be spent in electric lighting fixtures throughout this building is an absurdity, and such an expenditure should not be tolerated by this committee. I hope the committee will take this item into careful consideration. We should not pass this item to-day until we have a detailed [DOT] statement and are able to see what we can take off. If $550,000 is required, then I say: Spend that amount, but do not spend any unnecessary amount in the work. In different governing bodies, it is often said, " You can never do the work as cheaply as now." That is wrong. You are doing it at the highest pitch, and to say that you can never do it as cheaply as now is pure imagination. One reason given for finishing the work now is that the present architect, if we delay the work, will not remain on the job to finish it. Surely we can get another architect just as efficient and good as the present one.


John Warwick King: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: I entirely concur that we should have any necessary wiring done in the library. That is something that can be looked after by an appropriate vote. Nobody would object to that. It can be added here or in the supplementary estimates. That work ought to	be	done;	butthat ought	not to be made	an	excuse	forleaving a vote of $600,000 open which can be used in any way the government sees fit around	these buildings.	I	think	thesense of the committee is that we should do only that	which is absolutely	necessary;
that we should not do any more fancy carving or put any more expensive steel grilles,

Supply-Public Works
hand turned work or anything of that nonsense, at the present time. The one thing we think is necessary and proper to be done at the moment is to complete the tower and the memorial chamber. Therefore,, I beg to move:
That the wording of vote 139 be amended by adding after the word "building" in the first line the words "for completion of tower and memorial chamber only."
The minister told me only a few minutes ago that that is practically all that is wanted. If that is all that is wanted, there ought to be absolutely no objection on the part of the government to accepting this amendment. The little question about the wiring in the library can easily be looked after.


Mr. SPENCE:: Would the Minister of
Public Works be willing to let this item stand over until to-morrow? I do not wish to obstruct at all, but I would like a detailed statement of what this item is for. I am sure the matter would be disposed of to-morrow in five minutes if we had that information.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I have studied these estimates carefully and it appears to me that in regard to these various items the same scrutiny with a view to economy should be exercised as would be practised in the case of any ordinary business. The people in the country in their private affairs are bound to exercise the most rigid economy and the same should be done in parliament. I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Spence) that the government should submit a detailed statement of these matters so that hon. members migh be in a position to consider them to better advantage. If that were done the estimates would be disposed of more readily. As things are, we have to worm the information from ministers* sometimes apparently against their will. I have a very vivid recollection of the last nights we spent in this House during the last session of parliament when supplementary estimates were being rushed through with lightning rapidity; and apparently we are being asked to pass these items in the absence of adequate information. I do not think it is at all wise for the government to ask for money at this time to do something that is not vitally necessary, while it neglects other things that are imperative. The government are economizing today in regard to matters which in my opinion are absolutely essential and for which the various provinces will have to incur expenditures. I do not think that the people will approve of our spending money on something
that can be postponed, when works that are absolutely needed are neglected. I think the amendment is a reasonable one. If it is necessary, as I believe it is, that the outer part of the tower should be completed in order to obviate a loss from possible deterioration, that I think is as far as we ought to go at this time.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: We have
surely discussed this matter at sufficient length to know our minds and I hope the committee will take a vote upon it without undue delay. The amendment is not, in my opinion, in order; but even if it were I contend that it does not carry out what is indicated by the general trend of the discussion opposed to the vote, namely, that we should not go the length of spending $600,000 on the tower and the memorial chamber. If I have gathered correctly the view of hon. members generally it is that the amount is too large for the purpose for which it is designated. The money is intended for work in connection with the Ottawa parliament building, and besides the tower and the memorial chamber it takes in some other matters such as the wiring of the library which are imperative and should be attended to at the present time. The minister could cut down the vote by, say, $50,000 and1 brin^ in supplementary estimates for the work in the library and the other purposes he has in mind. But I submit that it would be unwise for him to do so. There are staffs employed about the building, some of whom while work is in progress, are idle for a day or two at a time and have to be brought in whenever the contractor is ready to go on with some part of the work. It is very much in the public interest to allow the minister a sum sufficient for what may be necessary for the buildings as a whole, because, as he tells us, out of that sum he can take what is needed for the tower and the memorial chamber. What he has submitted to the committee makes it clear that he is not asking, for the tower and the memorial chamber, more than the technical officers and those who are in a position to advise him have recommended. When this matter came before the cabinet first, the estimates that were submitted to us were $200,000 greater than the amount which the government is now asking parliament to vote. We have gone through the estimates with a fine tooth comb and taken out every cent which we thought could be saved to the country. No one is more anxious to make a showing of economy than each member of the govern-
Supply-Public Works

ment. It is to our credit and interest alike to save every cent we can, and the estimates which we have brought down show that the government has done its utmost to economize. To restrict this vote by limiting it only to the tower, when we have asked for enough to build the tower and do what other extra work may be necessary, would be in my humble opinion a mistake. We shall require the amount we have asked for. I hope the committee will soon take a vote on the question, for if we keep on discussing it we shall soon use up enough public money to pay for the greater part of the tower.


George Newcombe Gordon: With regard to the
amendment of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), that item 139 be amended by adding after the word "building", in the first line, the words "completion of tower and memorial chamber only", I have reached the conclusion that the motion is out of order. Section 172 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms reads:
It is not allowable to attach a, condition or an expression of opinion to a resolution in the Committee of Supply, or to change the destination of a grant.
This is confirmed by May. At page 480 the following appears:
The committee may vote or refuse a grant, or may reduce the amount thereof, either by a reduction of the whole grant, or by the omission or reduction of the items of expenditure of which the grant is composed : but the committee have no other function.
And in the footnote there is the following observation:
Though undoubtedly out of order, amendments of this nature have been moved, but the proceeding has been either withdrawn, or subsequently negatived, such as the amendment of a building grant for the University of London, by a proviso, "That no part of such sum shall be applied to the erection of any building according to either of the designs now exhibited," which was omitted on report.
On these authorities I rule the proposed amendment out of order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to say a few words in reply to the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King), who, I think, is in error, The Prime Minister evidently did not have before him the figures which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay) gave. We have a detailed statement by the minister, set forth when the vote was introduced, or during the course of the discussion the other day, and reported at page 558 of Hansard. The total as given by the minister is $525,000 odd, and included in that, is an item of $50,000 for special lighting fixtures, which

the minister himself tells us is intended to replace temporary fixtures of which I have spoken on several previous occasions. Now, I positively object to that,-as I think most hon. members do. In addition to that, there is an item of $10,000 for carving, which we claim is unnecessary. There is an item for grille work which is also unnecessary. So that there is a sum of $525,000 embraced in the description. That means that the minister can take $475,000 and complete the tower and memorial chamber, the wiring in the library and all these other items which we are not objecting to, and even that expensive and extravagant reflector lighting system which is included in that sum. We object to going beyond that. I shall move an amendment which I think you will admit, Mr. Chairman, is in order, and in moving it I think we on this side are offering something very generous to the minister, in that we are going beyond what we consider to be necessary to carry out the minister's request that the tower be completed. Seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters) I move that item 139 be reduced by $75,000 in respect . of the item of $600,000 for the Ottawa parliament buildings.


Mr. WOODS:: Mr. Chairman, while listening to the discussion the other evening I was inclined to agree that the completion of the tower might very well stand over for a few - years, but after hearing the explanation given by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) this afternoon, I have come to the conclusion that sometimes it is a very serious mistake to indulge in hairsplitting. It looks to me as though there was a little of this attitude in the discussion. If this work is necessary-and I presume from what the hon. minister has told us that it is,-I think we would be very unwise not to undertake it. We know very well in connection with our own houses that if we let some necessary repair go by default, ultimately it costs us a great deal more than if it had been attended to at the proper time. Therefore I am in favour of putting the estimate through as it stands.
Amendment (Mr. Stevens) negatived: Yeas, 46; Nays, 96.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Before the item is carried, I wonder if the minister could now give us a clear statement of how much money he is going to spend on grille work and carving?

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: That I cannot
give. It will be entirely in the control of the department, and will be just as little as possible.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has not my
hon. friend any estimate at all? Does he not know anything about the details?


John Warwick King: We have one
estimate-parliament building, $600,000-before the House. In making up that estimate the department has suggested certain expenditures, which are left to the judgment of the ministry, and there will be just as little expenditure as possible on grille work and other fancy frills which my hon. friend seems to fear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Again I am
going to ask the minister:	Has he any estimate at all, no matter how vague or misty it may be, either on carving or grille work?


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the item carry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have asked
the minister a question.


John Warwick King: I have submitted certain estimates to the committee, and I think my hon. friend has had an opportunity to hear them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I ask the question again-I do not mind at all what the answer is so long as I get some sort of answer: Has the hon. minister any estimate of any kind as to the amount of money to be expended on stone carving and grille work? It is a perfectly plain and simple question.


John Warwick King: I have no doubt
that my hon. friend understands this very well. The estimate is for $600,000, and the money is to be expended within the judgment of the government as advised by its departmental officials. I have in my hand a suggested expenditure of $10,000. That does not mean that the government are going to spend $10,000. It is made up by departmental officials, but the total expenditure is left within the judgment of the government or of the department which recommends the ex' penditure to the government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon.
friend mean to say that the figures which he gave the House the other day were a joke?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are the details of expenditure left simply to the government?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then does my
hon. friend concede that he is bound by the item of $10,000 for stone carving?


John Warwick King: We are not bound to do it, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman,
I do not think it is necessary for me to show further the absurdity of the position. The whole of this money can be spent on the stone carving or anything else the government may choose to apply it to. We have not the slightest particulars to help us out at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman,
since we have not had any detailed statement of how much it will take to preserve the tower against deterioration, or to install the wiring and carry out other repairs included in this item, I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss MacPhail):
That the item No. 139 as it stands be struck out.


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendment requires to be in writing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I am
surprised at the minister's statement that there is no limitation on the expenditure of this money so long as it is spent within the vote for the parliament building. In all good faith we accepted his statement that the vote was subdivided. Noiv, he tells us that there is nothing binding about the subdivision. If the completion of the tower costs $600,000, without any interior fixtures, he is at liberty to spend $600,000 upon it; or if the memorial chamber costs $200,000, he is quite at liberty to spend it if he so chooses as long as the total expenditure is within the $600,000. That, I think, is not treating the committee fairly. An hon. member said a moment ago that we were hairsplitting on this matter. I submit to the government that we are not hairsplitting. This is a big vote and we have a right to scrutinize it. Unless the minister's statement on page 558 of Hansard is a fair and accurate statement showing the direction in which this money is to go and the amounts to be expended on the items mentioned, then he has misled the committee, whether deliberately or not I am not stating. But I do not say that the committee were wholly misled and misinformed the other day.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I want to say one word in support of the motion to strike out the whole item of $600,000. I am against the principle of a memorial chamber. I know
Supply-Public Works

that is not a popular attitude to take, nevertheless that is my view. I think we have too many stone memorials throughout this country and not enough sympathy in the hearts of the people for the wrecked humanity that is the living memorial of the late war. If this money were spent in helping the soldiers and their dependents; if the Pensions Board and some others were advised to treat the soldiers sympathetically; if the money were put into a fund that would be used to help desperate cases against which the law seems to be almost too hard, it would be more sensible. The tower, of course, looks as if it were not finished, but there are a lot of things in Canada not finished. I think sometimes it is hard enough on us to have to look at one another's faces without having to look at carved faces on the walls-I am thinking now particularly of the men. Electric lights and fixtures seem to cost more in the parliament buildings than in private houses. What sort of special lighting fixtures will it take $50,000 to pay for? Are there so many people using the library that there is not light enough for them now, or what is the difficulty? I never noticed that the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod had dinted these doors at the end of the Chamber. I know they are only temporary, but they are doing very well. They are used by very many people besides the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod who enters two or three times a session, and I think they will do another year or two. The fact of the matter is that in this chamber we are apt to get too far away from the people, even those of us who pride ourselves on being near to them. The people not only want economy, they will have it, and if we do not give'it to them they will send people here who will. The whole thing is atrocious and silly, the amount of money that it takes to do government work. I am against this vote of $600,000.
Amendment (Mr. Woodsworth) negatived: Yeas, 14; Nays, 124.


David Spence: May I ask the minister
when this work will be started and when he intends to have it finished?


John Warwick King: I hope to have
the work under way shortly. In fact, the [DOT] architect's plans have been submitted and are in the department. It is hoped to have the masonry work completed before fall.


Donald Sutherland: I still think we are setting a bad precedent at the beginning of this session. Did I hear someone say, "Obstruc-
tion?" I do not like to hear anyone use that word, because I have not taken up very much of the time of the House. But there is one thing I am going to insist on, if we have to sit here the whole year, and that is that there shall not be a repetition of what we had the last night of last session. There is need for economy and for paring down all proposed expenditures, and the government might just as well realize that first as last. If the minister thinks he can come before the House and get his estimates passed without granting reasonable requests for information, he is very much mistaken. The statement that was given to the committee the other night is at variance with the statement made to-day by the minister that $600,000 is required for this item. If you take the list given and go over it item by item you will find that it does not come to that amount, and the minister has now virtually admitted that he has no definite estimate from his department as to what this expenditure is for. That is what I rise to emphasize: a definite statement should be placed before the committee as to what is intended to be done in connection with the proposed expenditure.


Mr. BRETHEN:: Is it necessary that the
chimes be placed in the tower while the remaining construction work is proceeding?


John Warwick King: Not necessarily. We are providing for the chimes; whether they will install them this year or not I cannot say. Replying to my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland), I think I have tried to be courteous and to give all information asked for. Put when members take an estimate and say that you are confined to that estimate as your expenditure, that is not what is intended at any time, and never has been. If that course were followed in connection with all amounts voted in parliament we would be here not five months but the year round. The amount asked for is what is considered necessary for the work, and the departmental organization must be depended upon as to how and when this money can best be expended; we must be guided by those officials. The estimates, of course, are those that are suggested by the department, but that does not mean that we are going to spend $50,000 in lighting fixtures. I can tell the committee we are not going to do that; at least, it will not be with my consent, I will advise against it. So, for the work this year in connection with the completion of the parliament buildings, it is necessary that we should have $600,000. The main item of expenditure will be for the masonry for the completion of the tower, the masonry in the memorial chamber,

Supply-Public Works
the electrical wiring, the installation of elevators, roofing, and so on. I have tried to make it clear that it is the government's desire to curtail expenditures wherever possible, and that is evidenced by the fact that we reduced the amount submitted by the officials as the necessary expenditure for this year. I have no desire not to meet the wishes of my hon. friend or of any hon. member, but to say that we must be tied down to the estimates given by the departmental officials, that has never been the policy in this House. It has never been suggested before.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to help my hon. friend. He points out that he does not agree with the estimate for lighting which has been submitted by his staff. I would like to strengthen his hands, and I propose to move that resolution No. 139 be reduced by the sum of $50,000, being the amount estimated for special lighting fixtures. That is something which ought to help the minister if his statement is correct, and I am quite sure that it is.


George Newcombe Gordon: I am afraid the amendment is out of order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like to say something on the question of the right to move such an amendment. T quite admit that a member would have no right to change by an amendment the destination of a grant; there is no doubt about that, but I submit with very great deference that he has a right to limit the destination of a grant, that he has just as much right to limit the destination of a grant as he has to move to reduce a grant. Here is an estimate; so much to build the tower, so much for the memorial chamber, and the rest. We really want to get the tower built and to limit the vote to that. But however that may be, I just want to point this out to you, Mr. Chairman; it does not make any difference whether the words "being the amount estimated for special lighting fixtures'' are in the amendment or not. That is one of the ways in which you can test whether a motion is in order. There can be no objection made to a motion that resolution No. 139 be reduced by the sum of $50,000. That is not qualified by the simple statement "being the amount estimated for special lighting fixtures."


George Newcombe Gordon: I would call the hon. member's attention to Rule 172 of Beauchesne's Rules: "It is not allowable to attach a condition or an expression of opinion to a resolution in the Committee of Supply or to 42
change the destination of a grant". I am rather inclined to think that the hon. member in expressing an opinion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am merely stating what I am taking off. I do not think that is an opinion.


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendment moved by the hon. member for West York "that Item No. 139 be reduced by the sum of $50,000, being the amount estimated for special lighting fixtures" is in my opinion out of order 'in its present form, and comes under section 172 of Beauchesne's Rules. On page 480 and following pages of May, there are given a large number of instances where that rule has been applied. I must rule this amendment out of order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I bow to your
ruling, Mr. Chairman. I will just remove the explanatory line and move to reduce this vote by the sum of $50,000, and I will tell the House what the motion means, which is perfectly in order. I think most of us have the idea that $50,000 is not necessary for this ornamental lighting, and that part of the estimate that goes to make up this $600,000, an insufficient total at that, includes this item of $50,000 for lighting fixtures. It is all very well to talk about cutting out things that are unnecessary and the like. Here is a chance to vote on it.
Amendment negatived. Yeas, 44; Nays, 84.
Item carried on division.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



REDISTRIBUTION BILL

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (.Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
He said:	The bill before the House is
identical with the measure which was introduced at the last session, with the exception that an alteration has necessarily been made in the year. That bill, as hon. members will recall, passed its second reading, and was referred to a select committee of the House which reported at the end of the session as follows:
The special committee, to whom was referred the Bill No. 15, an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, beg leave to present the following as their third report:
[Stage Direction]
Redistribution
[Stage Direction]
Your committee held several meetings since its appointment on the 22nd of February last. The preparation of the schedules to be annexed to the said Bill was entrusted to sub-committees. The greater number of such sub-committees accomplished considerable work and have, from time to time, reported progress to your committee. It has been found, however, that differences of opinion exist, and your committee have decided that it would be unable to complete the schedules before prorogation.
They therefore have agreed to report back the Bill without amendment, and recommend that a similar committee be appointed at an early period at the next session of parliament to consider such Bill.
Your committee also recommend that the letters, maps secured from the Department of the Interior and papers produced in the course of its proceedings remain in the possession of the clerk of the committee until the next session of parliament, and that the same be produced by him at the first regular meeting of the newly-appointed committee.
Your committee also submit herewith a copy of the printed proceedings and evidence taken before them for the information of the House.
This report is to be found in the votes and proceedings of June 29, 1923. On the motion of Dr. Beland (for Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) the third report of the special committee to whom was referred Bill No. 15 to readjust the representation in the House of Commons was concurred in on June 30.
I need scarcely remind the House that the government, in bringing forward this measure, is not exercising any discretionary power, but is simply discharging the duty which is imposed upon it by the constitution. The law, as hon. members know, provides that after each decennial census there shall be a redistribution of the seats of this House, and since confederation there have been several redistributions some complete and others in part.
When introducing the bill last session I dwelt upon this matter at some length, and it is hardly necessary to go over the entire ground again, but as some of the questions that are likely to come up in this debate may perhaps be best answered by anticipating them, I may repeat to the House a few of the essential facts that bear on the question of redistribution.
First then, as to the redistributions which have already taken place: There have been since confederation several redistributions. The first Was made in 1872, the next in 1882, the next in 1892, the next in 1903; the last redistribution was made in 1914. There have been partial redistributions for the purpose of providing for the representation of provinces which were not in the Dominion when confederation was originally formed. There was a partial redistribution in 1871 to give Manitoba representation; a partial redistribution in 1887 to provide for the representation of the Northwest Territory; and there [Mr. Mackenzie King.)
was a partial redistribution in 1907 to provide for the representation of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta which were subsequently formed out of the Northwest Territory.
In 1915 an amendment was passed to the British North America Act relating more particularly to the province of Prince Edward Island. It was in the nature of a partial redistribution, and added to the British North America Act as section 51a the following provision :
Notwithstanding anything in this act a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators representing such province.
By section 1, subsection 1 paragraph 2 of the Act to Amend the British North America Act, 1867, being 56 George V, Chapter 45, the representation of Prince Edward Island in the Senate was fixed at four members. The census prior to that partial redistribution would have affected the representation of Prince Edward Island to the extent of the loss of one member, but for this amendment which provided that no province shall have in the House a smaller representation than it has in the Senate.
Another partial redistribution was made to give the Yukon territory representation in the House of Commons. The Yukon territory obtained its right to representation under the act known as the Yukon Territory Representation Act, 1902, assented to on the 15th May, of that year. The clause that relates to this matter reads:
The Yukon territory as that territory is defined and constituted by section 13 of the schedule to chapter 41 of the statutes of 1901, shall be an electoral di3tiict. and shall return one member to the House of Commons of Canada.
The Yukon territory received its representation under the redistribution of 1903.
Perhaps it would be well also to put on record for the convenience of members the sections of the British North America Act which bear specifically on this matter of redistribution. The pertinent sections are as follows:
Section 37. The House of Commons shall, subject to the provisions of this act, consist of one hundred and eighty-one members, of whom eighty-two shall be elected for Ontario, sixty-five for Quebec, nineteen for Nova Scotia, and fifteen for New Brunswick.
Section 51. On the completion of the census in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such a manner, and from such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules.
(1)	Quebec shall have the fixed number of sixty-five members:	.

Redistribution
(2)	There shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of Quebec (so ascertained) :
(3)	In the computation of the number of members for a province a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number requisite for entitling the province to a member shall be disregarded; but a fractional part exceeding one-half of that number shall be equivalent to the whole number:
(4)	On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at
the then latest census to be diminished by one-twentieth part or upwards:
(5)	Such readjustment shall not take effect until the termination of the then existing parliament.
Section 52. The number of members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the parliament of Canada provided the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by this act is not thereby disturbed.
With the permission of the House I should like to incorporate a tabular statement giving the general and partial redistribution of federal constituencies from confederation down to the present time. This is a statement I gave to the House in full last session:

[Stage Direction]
Year	No. of Constituencies	Ont.	Que.	N.S.	N.B.	Man.	B.C.	P.E.I.	N.W.T.	Yukon1867	181	82	65	15	19	*1871	185	82	65	15	19	4	J1872	200	86	05	21	16	4	6	11882	211	92	65	21	16	5	6	6	*1887	215	92	65	21	10	5	6	6	4	11892	213	92	65	20	14	7	6	5	4	tl903	214	86	65	18	13	10	7	4	10	1Sask.	Alta.	*1907	221	86	65	18	13	10	7	4	10	7	111914	234	82	65	16	11	15	13	3	16	12	1*1915	235	82	65	16	11	15	13	4	16	12	1
Partial Redistribution. tGeneral Redistribution.
May I now say a word as to the application of the recent census to the redistribution about to be effected? First of all, I would point out that the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, which was passed in 1912 and which enlarged the boundaries of Quebec at that time, contained a provision under which the population of the additional territory brought into the province was not to be counted,, for the purposes of redistribution, as part of the province of Quebec in determining the unit of representation in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act on that point. The Quebec Boundaries Act contains the following section:
That the population of the terriitory hereby added to the province of Quebec shall be excluded in ascertaining the population of the said province for the purposes of any readjustment of representation of the other provinces consequent upon any census.
Account of this provision must necessarily be taken in determining the unit of representation according to the census. The popula-
42i	-
tion of the province of Quebec,-exclusive of the area added by the Quebec Boundaries Act of 1912-enumerated in the sixth census, June 1, 1921, numbered 2,358,412, which, divided by 65, gives a unit of representation of 36,283;-the unit was 30,819 in 1911. The quotient obtained by dividing the population of each province, except Prince Edward Island, as shown at the date of the census, by the unit 38,283 indicates, except where section 51 subsection (4) of the British North America Act applies, the number of members to which each province is entitled. The result is as follows. I shall give, for the sake of comparison the figures of redistribution effected after the census of 1911 as well as the figures of the 1911 census, and the figures of the redistribution to be effected under the last census, that of 1921, and the census figures themselves. Here again, if the House will permit me, I will put the tabular statement in the record. I gave it in full at at the last session:
[Stage Direction]
Redistribution
	Census 1911 (Unit 30,819)			Census 1921 (Unit 36,283)		
Province	Population	Quotient based on Linit	Actual Repre- sentation	Population	Quotient based on Unit	Actual Repre- sentation93,728 492,338 351,889 2,527,292 461,394 492,432 374,295 392,480 2,005,776 8,512	3-04 15-95 11-	40 81-90 15-95 15-96 12-	13 i2-72 65-00	4	88,615 523,837 387,876 2,933,662 610,118 557,510 588,454 524,582 2,358,412 4,157	2-44 14-44 10-69 80-86 16-82 20-88 16-22 14-16 65-00	Nova Scotia	4 14 11 82 17 21 16 14 65 1New Brunswick	11 82	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	16	
British Columbia	 Quebec				13			
Yukon							
						
I will not delay the House now by referring to the provision of the British North America Act having a bearing more particularly on the representation from Nova Scotia and Ontario. This I referred to last session, and hon. members will find my remarks of record in Hansard.
Let me now say a word as to the method which the government proposes to adopt in effecting this redistribution. In the old days, the government of the day brought into the House a bill in which the several constituencies were already delimited or defined. The government itself prepared the redistribution map, if I may so name it. As hon. members who have followed the political history of the country know, this method was looked upon as more or less arbitrary, if not indeed very arbitrary, and as giving to the government of the day, in virtue of its powers, opportunity for shaping constituencies pretty much as it wished, and thereby effecting what was commonly known as a gerrymander of the constituencies. In 1903, a different principle was introduced. Sir Wilfrid Laurier when in opposition had always contended that this was not a fair method of arranging the redistribution of the House of Commons. He contended that this arrangement should be made the subject of conference between the different parties in the House, and that both the government and the opposition should choose from their membership, a certain number to serve on a select committee, to which committee the bill dealing with this subject of redistribution would be referred. In the bill the number of members to which each province was entitled was set forth; but the actual defining of the several constituencies was left to the select committee with instructions to report back to the House after they had made out the redistribution map. That practice, which was adopted in 1903 for the first time, seemed to work so well that it was again followed in a 
subsequent redistribution after the census of 1911. That would be the redistribution of 1913 when Sir Robert Borden was Prime Minister of this country. We propose, as we did last session, to adopt that method this year, and to have chosen from both sides of the House a limited number of members as a special select committee to whom will be referred the bill in the form in which it has been presented to the House, with a space for the actual constituencies in blank to be filled in by the committee. We will ask the committee to fill out the schedule and to report to the House its negotiations in this particular.
In this connection, I think it ds well that we should make clear the lines on which we would expect the committee to proceed. There are guiding principles wihich have been observed in the past and which, experience would seem to indicate, it is advisable should be strictly adhered to. The first of these is the principle of following county municipal organization as a basis in whatever may be done in arranging the constituencies. There are obvious reasons why this should be a guiding principle. The municipal organization is the basis of our entire judicial system, of our municipal system, and by holding to the county unit, municipal organization, we are following a basis that is familiar to citizens of the country generally. It might be of interest to the House for me to quote briefly a word or two from former political leaders in this House as to the particular motive which they have had in advocating that this principle be followed. It was first asserted by the Right Hon. Sir John A Macdonald in 1872, at the time of the redistribution of that year. I have copied from Hansard of June 1 of that year-page 928-the remarks of Sir John A. Macdonald at the time, and they are almost as applicable at the moment as they were in 1872:

Redistribution
It is desired, as	much	as	possible,	to keep therepresentation within the country so that each county that is a municipality of Ontario should be represented, and if it becomes large enough, that it should be divided	into	ridings-that	principle is
carried out in the suggestions I am about to make.
It is obvious that	there	is	a great	advantage inhaving counties elect men whom they know. Our municipal system gives an admirable opportunity to constituencies to select men for their deserts. We all know the process which happily goes on in western Canada. A young man in a county commences his public life by being elected, by the neighbours who know him, to the	township	council.	If he shows
himself possessed of administrative ability he is made reeve or deputy reeve of the county. He becomes a member of the county council, and as his experience increases and his character and abilities become known, he is selected by his people as their representative in parliament. It is, I think, a grand system that the people of Canada should have the opportunity of choosing for political promotion the men in whom they have most confidence and of whose abilities they are fully assured. All that great advantage is lost by cutting off a portion of two several counties and adding them together for electoral purposes only. Those portions so cut off have no common interest; they do not meet together, and they have no common feeling except that once in five years they go to the polls in their own township to vote for a man who may be known in one section and not in another. This tends towards the introduction and development of the American system of caucuses, by which wirepullers take adventurers for their political ability only, and not from any personal respect for them. So that, as much as possible, from any point of view, it is advisable that counties should refuse men whom they do not know, and when the representation is increased it should be by sub-dividing the counties into ridings.
That, Mr. Speaker, is, I think, good, sound doctrine. Unfortunately, although it was enunciated by Sir John Macdonald, his government, I am afraid, did not always act in accordance with it. They departed so much from the principle that it became necessary later	to get back to	the principle
originally intended, and in 1899 a bill was introduced in this House by Sir Wilfrid Laurier for a partial redistribution, or in other words a redistribution to undo the wrongs that had been perpetrated on the electors of Canada in 1882 and in 1892. In bringing in that measure Sir Wilfrid Laurier enunciated the same principle, in the following words:
I may say at once that the object we have in view in presenting this bill is not to make a total redistribution of the electoral districts under which the House of Commons is now constituted. We deem that it would not be -expedient at this time to do more than undo, so far as we can, the most glaring violations of a principle which we have always held, and which has always been universally held by public opinion in this country, to be the fundamental principle of representation. We think it is a principle which will commend itself universally to public opinion, that the basis of representation in this House should be the municipal county organization. It is in the recollection of all the members of this House that this principle was to a large extent interfered with
by the Redistribution Act of 1882. That act was a violation of the principle which had prevailed up to that time, and had been maintained not alone by the Liberal party, but by the Conservative party as well. There are many well-known reasons why the municipal county organization should be preserved as the basis of representation.
It is upon that basis we shall expect the committee to whom the present bill will be referred to proceed.
There is another principle which has been followed in previous redistributions, recognized by all governments from the time of confederation down to the present, and that is that, as respects the unit of representation, the unit for the urban constituencies should be larger than the unit for rural constituencies. The reason of that must, I think, be apparent; indeed, there are several reasons, the most obvious of which I shall mention. In the first place, the people in rural areas are scattered over a very much larger area. It is not possible in a widely scattered community to organize public opinion as readily as it can be organized in more thickly settled parts. Moreover, in the urban centres there are recognized organizations ready to hand, for the purpose of focussing public opinion at any particular moment. For example, there are the boards of trade that exist in the cities, and such institutions as the modern clubs and associations of business men which we have to-day. Again, the press of the cities is a much more potent, or, at 'least, is a more constant, factor than the press of the rural communities; it has a power of influencing public opinion and of keeping the urban, point of view continuously before the people-of the country. Further, it is I think a recognized fact that many rural constituencies are represented in parliament by members who reside in urban centres and who have a knowledge of urban conditions, perhaps in some cases even more intimate than they have of rural conditions. The reverse of that is not, I think, equally true; it is not often that a city is represented, at least in this parliament, by a member who resides for the greater part of his time in the country. These are all reasons which in the past have caused committees which have had to do with the work of redistribution to recognize the justice of permitting a larger unit for the urban constituencies than for the rural. I confess that the introduction of parties representing a class, if they are rightly to be so regarded, would be to my mind a reason for departing from that principle; but I hope that parliament will not become representative of classes as distinct from representatives of the people as a whole. It is important, I
Redistribution
[Stage Direction]
think, that all classes should be represented; but class representation would be in my opinion opposed to the point of view *that-a candidate when elected to parliament represents all the people from the community from which he comes, irrespective altogether of the classes to which they belong.
And that brings me to the third consideration which should be a guiding principle in the shaping of the electoral districts, that, namely, of the compactness of districts. An effort should be made, within county boundaries or within recognized defining lines as between urban and rural centres, to have constituencies as compact as possible so that public opinion within one given area will be as nearly true to the feeling of the whole community as it is possible to get it.
I think the one remaining important principle is that of maintaining, both in the case of representation in rural areas and in the case of urban areas, an equalization of population as between constituencies. The reason of that is obvious. It is desirable that the different constituencies should be, so far as may be possible, very much on an equality in regard to the numbers of the persons who compose them.
It will not, be possible of course, for the committee to work out a redistribution, following county municipal organization along the lines which I have indicated, with mathematical exactness. That has never been found possible, and never will be; but in this as in all matters common sense and fair play should be our guide. That is really the purpose of having a bill of this character referred to a committee, and it is also a reason why such a committee should not be too large in size. The idea is that a few members, well inten-tioned, may sit down around a table and work out a scheme to be presented to the House. It is not the intention to take away from the Commons their right to pass upon whatever may be the outcome of the committee's deliberations. The intention is to relieve this House as far as possible of a cumbersome load, of a duty which, with such a large membership, it could not begin satisfactorily to discharge. We want to get a few hon. members together around a table, actuated, as I s&y>
by principles of fair play and justice to all, and have them work out a schedule of constituencies, and then to present it to the House for endorsation, amendment or rejection. It is with this end in view that I shall later on if the second reading carries, as I expect it will, move the appointment of a committee to whom the bill will be referred.
The government has but one object in view,-that the committee, following broadly [Mr. Mackenzie King.}
the principles which I have indicated, shall work out on the basis of the new unit of representation the electoral districts for the representation of this House on lines which will commend themselves to the sense of fair play and justice of hon. members and of the people generally, so that this House of Commons may be, as far as possible, a true mirror of the public opinion of our country.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the right hon. gentleman allow a question for the purpose of information? He invoked as a principle which the committee ought to follow that the electors in rural districts would necessarily be fewer than those in urban districts, and he gave several reasons for this principle. I should like to know just how he thinks that should be worked out-what fraction ought to be followed as nearly as possible? For example, is one county vote to be worth as much as two or three city votes? Or is one county vote only to be worth as much as one and a quarter city votes? I do not want to tie my right hon. friend down to any particular fraction, but I think we should have some general idea as to what this committee is to do, not merely the general principle that the counties as a matter of course are to get whatever extra representation they may require. Then another question. My right hon. friend's second principle was county representation; his third, equalization of the population of the different constituencies. How can we work one without offending the other?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I may answer my hon. friend's last question first, apparently he did not catch the exact words I used when I spoke about equalization. I said that, having regard to the differences between the urban and the rural districts, we should seek an equalization in rural constituencies of rural representation, and in urban constituencies of urban representation. As to the otfier question of my hon. friend, it illustrates I think the importance, as I said a moment ago, of referring this matter to a committee. It would be impossible for me to suggest offhand what the relative figures should be. For one thing, I would want to know what the total urban population is and what the total rural population is; I would want to have regard for a mass of statistical data which I have not had any opportunity of looking into.
It would be for the committee to decide the point, and in deciding it to use their best judgment. If later the House thought that the committee had not exercised its discretion wisely, it would be open to the House, of course, to amend the findings of the committee.

RedistribuI on


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my entire agreement with the Prime Minister when he promised to adhere to the county boundaries.
I think that is a sound principle. I can go back in my memory, Sir, to the time when the counties were cut all to pieces and some constituencies were of the most grotesque territorial description. If we adhere to county boundaries we are following a safe and just principle. I am glad to hear the Prime Minister say that we should exercise common sense and fair play in fixing the boundaries of ridings. But I would call his attention to a good old Liberal principle which, I judge from his remarks, the government intends to depart from, a principle that was fought for over a long period of years in this country, but which has of late not received the respect that it deserves.


Mr. HALBERT:: "Rep by pop".


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, you know it-the good old principle of representation by population.
I would ask my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) and also my friend of the group here (Mr. Halbert), whether we are going to proceed upon the basis of property rights or of human rights in fixing the representation and electoral influence of the people of this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am all for human rights, myself.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Then we will have representation by population.


Mr. BUREAU:: That is your view.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I know what your view is. Mr. BUREAU: What do you know now?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It is not very many years ago-in my lifetime, Mr. Speaker-when it was necessary to have property in order to vote; for a long time the chief qualification for voting was the ownership of property. And if we go a little further back we shall find an exceedingly restricted franchise based upon the ownership of property. Well, we have been getting away from that, and the ownership of property does not now exercise so much influence as it did in earlier days when we had a much more limited franchise which led to very many and grave abuses.
My right hon. friend gives us some reasons why there should be a higher unit of representation in the cities than in the rural districts. One is that, in the latter, population is scattered and is not easily organized. That argument might have been good enough twenty-five or thirty years ago, but it is not
of any weight to-day. T1 f rural districts of every province enjoy goi d roads and the people there own motor oars; the press is scattered daily by the rural mailmen to every home in the farming districts; and I presume that by the time we have another general election radio will be added to these means of communication. So the farmer will be able to sit in the comfort of his home before the grate fire and listen to the speeches of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) and some of the other spellbinders of the Liberal party as well as of those of this party.
"The Prime Minister suggested that the cities could be organized more easily than the rural districts. I doubt that very much. What with farmers' clubs and the widespread distribution of daily papers, the rural districts can be organized about as quickly as the cities. We have had proof of that: The hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Halbert) knows it very well. He could go out and organize a rural riding in the course of a month or less, and get it working intensively, unitedly, and, as we have evidence on this side of the House, effectively. The argument that the population is scattered, therefore, entirely loses weight. As to some rural ridings being represented by men who live in the cities, why, that is a matter of choice for the electors themselves. No man can go out from a city and steal a seat from a man living in a rural district, against the wish of the electors. If the electors prefer to have a lawyer represent them rather than a farmer, that is a matter for themselves; so I do not think that argument can be used in favour of a difference in the unit of representation.
My right hon. friend refers to the class organizations that we have now. Well, they are before our eyes. How long that will last * is a matter of conjecture. It did not last very long in Ontario; it may last longer in the western provinces. But whether it lasts or not, the fact that those interesed in the agricultural industry are so organized, places them, I submit, upon a parity with those who are organized in industrial life, and they should not ask, and should not receive, any greater favours in the way of added influence than the people who live in the city. Why should a mechanic have less political influence than a farm labourer? Why should his vote count for less? He is just as intelligent a unit of this population; he works just as hard and contributes just as much to the welfare of the country. Why does it take two men living in the city to have the same influence as one farmer? Well, the unit of population is 36,283 as applied to the rural
Redistribution

districts, and if I understand the scheme properly, the unit for the cities is about 67,000. Why, we will have rural districts with a population of probably 26,000 or less. Upon every ground of justice to men and to women I submit that there should be the same unit in the cities as there is in the rural districts.


Mr. KELLNER:: How long has the hon.
gentleman had that idea?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I have always had that
idea. I believe in the good old Liberal principle for which George Brown fought-representation by population. I think that a business man in Toronto or Montreal is entitled to just as much influence as a man who is farming twenty acres out in the county of Glengarry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interject one remark? With regard to the matter of representation by population, there was one point I omitted that, I think, has a bearing on what the hon. member is just saying. Population in the rural communities-and this, I may say, was the argument that Sir John A. Macdonald used in defending the policy of giving the rural area a larger vote- is for the most part a stable population Families remain on the land from generation to generation, occupying for the most part the same areas over long periods of time. The population in the cities is, in large part, a floating population; it is constantly chang-mg. If my hon. friend will stop to reflect he will see that having regard to persons in the community over an equal period of time, say five years, the rural population would be entitled to a smaller unit in order that there should be true representation by population.	^


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not agree with my
right hon. friend's argument at all. Population m the cities may change. For instance, a man may move from Hamilton to Montreal, or from Montreal to Hamilton, but still he is a man, he is a Canadian citizen, and should exercise just as much influence in the election as a man who has been living on the same piece of land a considerable length of time. Take my own city, because I know more about it than about any other large city: so far as the discussion went in the committee last year it was proposed to give Toronto nine seats and Montreal a proportionate number-eleven, I think. Toronto ought to have fifteen seats and Montreal nineteen or twenty. We should look upon people as human beings, we should not deal (Mr. Hocken.]
with the matter simply from the point of view of the length of time they have lived on a certain piece of land. People are born m the cities; they live in the cities all their lives, and in my judgment they do not move about in any greater proportion than do the people in the farming districts. We have heard a great deal from our friends to the left about the exodus from western Canada. Well, if the population is maintaining its size, there must be as many coming in as are going out, so that the population in the agricultural districts in the West is changing just as it is in the big cities. I believe that that change takes place to as large an extent as it does in any of the urban centres.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this point should be taken into consideration by the committee. The government ought to lay it down as a policy that there should be an even unit of population for the cities and the rural districts; otherwise you increase the influence of one class of the community, \\hich, I submit, is not fair. I have no thought in my mind that any man living in the agricultural districts should be discriminated against, and I would not for one moment suggest that his influence should be minimized or lessened as compared with that of people m other parts of the country. But I do not think it is fair to those who live in cities and who contribute as much as they can to the welfare and progress of this country- as much, I think, as any other class of people that there should be this difference in the unit of representation. From the results of their labour come the great bulk of the taxes that pour into the national treasury, and if their work can produce the revenues necessary to keep this country going I do not see why they should be discriminated against when it comes to their casting their ballots m a general election.
I know that there are so many more members here representing rural constituencies than there are representing urban constituencies that my argument is not likely to prevail with them. But if they are fair, if they have a mind to be just and to deal fairly with Canadians in all parts of this country they will give the cities the same representation in proportion to population that they ask for themselves. That is all I have to say, Mr Speaker; I simply wanted to present these views before the bill went to the committee in order that, before it was too late, they might be presented for consideration.


Mr. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.):: Just one question: when George Brown advocated

R edistribution
representation by population, did he not refer to the matter as between provinces rather than as between rural and urban districts?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The hon. gentleman's knowledge of political history of that day is somewhat inadequate, I am afraid. Hon. George Brown advocated representation by population before confederation.


George Perry Graham: That's what it is to be old.


Robert Forke: I have no doubt that we all want to do justice. We are all honourable men. But our ideas of justice may differ, and we may honestly differ about some of the matters which we are discussing. The hon. member has spoken of the rights of the cities and the dominating-


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The rights of the people.


Robert Forke: The rights of the people in the cities; it is all the same,-and the dominating influence of the countryside. Now, all the information I have been able to gather rather points the other way, that the cities of the world at large have a dominating influence over the rest of the population. I do not think that fact will be disputed. There are conveniences and advantages to be found in the cities, educational institutions, for instance, that give the cities with all their centralization a dominating influence over the rest of the population.
In regard to class representation, hon. gentlemen to my right are very fond of pointing this way and talking about "class representation," "class thinking," and "class legislation." I think that perhaps every man is to a certain extent influenced by his environment and by his interests; that is quite common, and only human. If I lived in the city probably I would be quite prepared to stand up and speak for the city, claiming at the same time that I wanted nothing but absolute justice. At the same time "If self the wavering balance shake, it's rarely right adjusted." Consequently I approach a question of this kind with a good deal of care to see that I am entirely unselfish when I am speaking of the rights of the country people.
I should like to point out to the House that we have in this group four or five members who represent constituencies where the candidate does not know the result of the election for about two weeks after polling day because the returns are not in until after that lapse of time. I might mention the constituencies of Springfield, Mackenzie, Nelson and Selkirk, all large constituencies stretching away right up to the Arctic Circle. Does the hon. member for West Toronto put a compact
centre like the city of Toronto in the same position as these constituencies scattered over such a wide area? Does he not think that in all justice and fairness they do want a little more representation per capita in this House than a centralized constituency like the city of Toronto? That is one aspect of the matter as regards justice.
The hon. member also referred to the fact that the country districts had been able to organize themselves. The only explanation I can offer for that is the justice of their cause and the absolute need for organization to protect their interests having regard to the interests of the better organized city centres. They are not organized in any spirit of antagonism to the cities. It seems to be taken for granted by some hon. gentlemen in this House that when we speak for the rural districts we are speaking in antagonism to the cities. I want to repudiate any such idea. I have no antagonism against Toronto or any other city;
I am proud of Toronto, proud of its progress, of its culture and learning and all its acquirements; I have no quarrel with Toronto or any other city in Canada. But I repeat once again that the prosperity and the future of Canada depends upon the development of our agricultural population. I made a statement in the House the other day, and I repeat it now, that if you let the agricultural population of Canada sink to the grade of a peasantry, I have not much hope for the future of Canada. I want to see our agricultural people an educated, cultured and intelligent people.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What has that got to do with it?


Robert Forke: A great deal. The very fact that you would restrict us shows it has a great deal to do with it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not propose to restrict the influence of the rural districts in this House. All I ask is that we should have equal influence.


Robert Forke: I am not imputing any unworthy motives to the hon. member.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You got that twisted.


Robert Forke: I did not mean to hurt the hon. gentleman's feelings in any way. In regard to representation, it might not do any harm for me to inform the hon. gentleman that my constituency is more than half urban, so you cannot exactly put me down as a representative of a constituency with a sparse population. A great many members in this comer of the House have a number of urban centres in their ridings, so we cannot be regarded as representing strictly a class organization. I
Redistribution

think I represent some 50,000 population, so after all we are not viewing matters from a purely class point of view. I know there are certain members in this part of the House who belong to a school where we do a good deal of independent thinking, and where one gets independent thinking you will get differences of opinion, and I want hon. gentlemen to remember that if we do not always follow one another like sheep it is because
9 p.m. we think independently and follow the dictates of our own intelligence.
In conclusion, I contend that in all justice and fairness the widely scattered rural populations in this country have a right to a smaller unit of representation than the highly organized centres of population.


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: It
would seem to me that there is very little doubt, when you look into the matter fairly, that the policy suggested or at least approved by Sir John Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier was eminently fair. I can well understand the contention of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) that if the opportunities were equal in the country and city, the unit of representation should be equal. Let me speak of the constituency of which I know most, and it is a fair type of the constituencies of western Canada. During the last election some of my constituents had to drive fifteen miles to the poll. That meant a drive of thirty miles to and from the poll. Fortunately for the rural districts on the last election day the weather was fine but when it happens that a blizzard comes up on election day, as it sometimes does, and the temperature is down to 30 below zero, as it sometimes is, what fair opportunity have the rural districts as compared with the urban centres where all the people require to do to register their vote is to step out and walk a few blocks to the polling booth? In my constituency, to vote means a drive of thirty miles for some- of my constituents. That alone, I think, is quite sufficient, without any further argument to show that the unit of population in the urban districts should be larger and in the rural districts smaller.
I was pleased to hear my leader say what he did about class representation. I have tried since I have been here, and I think every other member has done so-and succeeded remarkably well-to take a national point of view in matters that come before us.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Millar: Some hon. members to my right are inclined to laugh. That causes me to go a little further and say that if there is

any city whose representatives give me the impression of narrowness of outlook it is a city not very far to the west. I- think those who listen to the debate will be able to judge who takes the narrow view, and who looks upon questions from the broad and national standpoint. Personally, I feel that I represent Canadians in the cities as well as those in the country. I think as much of one as I do of the other, there should be no antagonism between them.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Give them equal rights.


John Millar: That is what I want to do. That is why I think the unit of representation in the rural districts should be smaller. It has been claimed that the people can be organized more easily in the country than in the city. I do not think that is the case. In the city, in the majority of cases, people are through work at five or six o'clock and can easily attend a meeting in the evening. On the other hand it is well towards eight o'clock before country people have finished their chores, and then they have to drive several miles to the place of meeting. In conclusion let me say I think it would be most unfair to make the unit of representation the same in the country as it is in the cities.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: I feel compelled to offer a word,
perhaps a suggestion. I am sure the Prime Minister, in common with everyone else in the House, realizes that Canada is top heavy with governmental machinery. I wonder, however, if the Prime Minister has ever thought what an opportune time this would be to reduce the representation in the House. As a result of that reduction I should perhaps be one of the first to fall by the wayside, but the constituency of Portage k Prairie would still remain. I should therefore like to suggest that the number of members be reduced by approximately one-third. It is true that the population of Quebec is really the pivotal point of our representation but in the course of events it is altogether possible-some may say it is not probable-that the other provinces will outstrip Quebec in the matter of population.


Mr. FOURNIER:: Does my hon. friend
think he can reduce the number of members of parliament without amending the British North America Act?


Robert Forke: Certainly he does not, he will deal with that point in a few minutes.


Harry Leader: I am coming to that
point in a moment. In the meantime I may say that I did some figuring while previous

Redistribution
speakers were talking. I find that if we reduce our representation in this chamber by one-third we will save the country $324,000. Surely that amount is well worth saving. Of course I know that such a change will require an amendment of the British North America Act. While doing that I would also reduce the membership of the Senate by one-third. By doing this we would save $256,000, so the total saving to the country would be over half a million dollars.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What my hon. friend suggests would amount to this: That the parts of the country that are in most need of representation in this parliament, the districts most sparsely populated, would have still fewer representatives in the House. My hon. friend, I think, instead of effecting an economy would be doing a great injustice to the newer districts of the Dominion.


Harry Leader: I realize that that result
may follow but those districts would be just as well represented. However, I make these suggestions. I intend to urge them when proposing the motion I shall submit later on in support of certain practical economies. If the government would reduce the representation in the House of Commons and the Senate, and also reduce the number of cabinet ministers, it would be entirely unnecessary for me to introduce the motion in- question which I contemplate doing at the first opportunity.


Mr. LANCTOT:: If you cut the indemnity by $2,000 you can have the same number of representatives in parliament that there are at present.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite appreciate the arguments presented by the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke), a few minutes ago, and I find myself in sympathy with some of his views. I do not think, however, that the hon. gentleman is quite correct in arguing for the preservation of the extreme difference that at present exists between the representation of the rural and that of the urban districts. I will give a few illustrations. This discrepancy does not exist at the moment but there are some instances in the country, perhaps, as aggravated as the one in question. From 1911 to 1917 I represented alone nearly 200,000 population, whereas at the same time my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) I think, represented about 17,000.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: No, 13,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There, I think, is one
of the most extreme comparisons that could be made. Under the new redistribution with
a member added to British Columbia's representation-assuming that the coast will benefit to the extent that was suggested to the committee last year-I would still be representing about 70,000 people. Now, there will be other ridings where the unit of population will be probably 20,000. I submit, perhaps there is too wide a discrimination in favour of the rural districts in cases of that kind. It is not, to my mind, a question of bringing the unit to an exact level, but I do say an effort ought to be made, if possible, to make the margin of difference a little narrower than it has developed into during the last twenty years, under the last two revisions. Quite a lecture was read to my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) because he put up a rather strong case. Naturally he was arguing from one particular viewpoint, and I think he put up a very strong case. It is in my estimation desirable that large cities like Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Hamilton, and such like, should have fair representation. I am quite prepared to admit that, as regards my province it would be unreasonable to expect an exact division or representation by population. For instance, the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride), who I see is in his seat, represents a riding, which, I think, is at least one thousand miles in length. He has in his riding alone, a territory larger than some of the provinces-larger than several of the provinces. It would be absurd to ask that the unit of representation there should be brought up to the level of that in the cities. The same thing, to a lesser degree, applies to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork), the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Mae-Kelvie) and perhaps to the members for East Kootenay (Mr. King) and West Kootenay (Mr. Humphrey). We have in British Columbia at least four or five ridings that would extend from 400 to 1,000 miles in length. Those are very extended territories and very difficult to get over. So, it would be absurd I think, to ask that the unit of representation should be the same throughout the province. On the other hand, we shall have, as I say, in the riding which I will represent at least seventy thousand, even under the amended law.


Mr. JACOBS:: The hon. member says he "will" represent. Is he not a little premature?	[DOT]


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think so. I am quite satisfied on that point. I invite my hon. friend to come out and view the constituency, if he will.
Redistribution


Samuel William Jacobs: I have been out West already with good results to my party, and disastrous results to our opponents.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would be a good thing if he would come out on behalf of some unknown and unnamed opposition candidate.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It would make your election sure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would make our "calling and election sure"-I think that is the scriptural phrase. I see the necessity of perhaps some, perhaps very considerable, discrimination; but I think care should be taken not to carry that to an extreme, and there is, I think, a tendency at the present time to carry it too far. I really feel some sympathy with the view taken particularly by Montreal and Toronto. They are large cities having very important interests, and I think some of those who represent those cities will represent upwards of 100,000 people even under the new redistribution. That is a very large number. I see some hon. gentlemen shaking their heads, but those figures were given to me. We do not know exactly; the boundaries have not been fixed yet; but under some of the proposals which have been under consideration, this will be the result according to the figures that have been given to me. In order to suit the wishes of my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs), I will say that whoever does represent my riding in the next parliament or after this redistribution, will represent about 70,000 people, a very large quota. Therefore, while we may admit the old principle which has been in vogue for so many years, that rural ridings shall have some advantage-and I am inclined to agree with that view-nevertheless, I think care should be taken that the discrimination between the two is not too wide; that at least the larger centres should have fair and reasonable treatment in regard to representation.


Mr. HAMMELL:: Could the hon. gentleman tell us what percentage of the votes were polled in those great cities, say at the last election?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I could not say. That
is another question which I do not think affects this at all.


William James Hammell: It shows the interest
these people take.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is true, but I can
recollect many rural districts where the number of votes polled has been comparatively small. That is a question of the sense of re-
sponsibility on the part of the citizens. I admit very candidly that, in many ridings, both rural and urban, too little attention is paid to the privileges of citizenship, and that not a very large vote is polled. All' I can say for districts that I know is that very large votes are polled in these large, populous centres.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): Perhaps what I am going to say will not bear much on redistribution; but my remarks are elicited largely by what my hon. friend (Mr. Leader) said a moment ago about reduction of representation, and particularly the suggestion that the ministers did not work.


Harry Leader: I would like to put the minister right there. I did not suggest that he did not work.


George Perry Graham: Well, if ten can do the work of seventeen, there must be seven that are not working hard. I drew the inference.


Harry Leader: The minister will, perhaps, know better than I.


George Perry Graham: I think I do. I admit the impeachment. A member can best represent his constituency the more frequently he can come into contact with his constituents and know their views. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), if he had room, can have every one of his constituents reach his central office in thirty minutes from his home. The hon. member can meet them every day. The representative for one of those larger constituencies has to bid his family good-bye, and the elector would also have to bid his family good-bye and to travel many miles to meet his representative.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The minister would not have me interview 70,000 people every day?


George Perry Graham: I would be more sorry for the hon. member than I would for the people. There is that essential difference, that a man in a city constituency can confer with his constituents very frequently on short notice, know their views and keep in touch with them, while the man in a rural constituency has a hard task to keep in touch with his constituents. Consequently, the man in the city can represent three times as many as the man in the rural constituency, and he can be in touch with their views all the time.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The minister is not going to increase the unit, is he?


George Perry Graham: One can never tell. I am afraid my hon. friend who referred to the ministers has not altogether grasped the situa-

Redistribution
tion. That section of the press, whose friends are now out, is very anxious that the number of ministers should be reduced. They compare the number of cabinet ministers in Canada with the number in the United States.


Harry Leader: I brought that out in the remarks which I made on this question last year, and I feel quite flattered that eminent journalists like Mr. Gratton O'Leary have been [DOT]publishing certain figures which I gave last year.


George Perry Graham: I am glad my hon. friend is flattered, but I want to put this viewpoint before the House,-Mr. O'Leary seems not to have published this-that no cabinet minister in the United States ever has to appear in congress; the cabinet ministers of Canada spend half their time in the House during a session of parliament. If you allow the members of the Canadian government to remain in their offices for twelve months in the year, not to have to appear on the floor of the House, not to have to prepare speeches, not to have to be responsible to the people, you can cut the number of .cabinet ministers in Canada in two quite easily and they will not have to work half as hard then as they have to work now. There is another point. The number of cabinet ministers in Canada has been compared with the number in Great Britain. The practice in Great Britain is altogether different from the practice in Canada. In Great Britain you will seldom see, except on special occasions, more than one cabinet minister in the House, and that will be when something under his particular charge is being discussed. The cabinet minister in Great Britain is represented in the House by an under-secretary who takes charge of all details of legislation. Furthermore, if you desire to interview a cabinet minister in Great Britain you are bound to make an appointment with him a long way ahead, whereas the cabinet ministers of' the Canadian government -and rightly so-are only too glad to meet members of parliament at any time, day or night, while the House is in session.
What I am trying to point out is that the comparison is not a fair one as regards the number of cabinet ministers in Canada, because the duties of the cabinet ministers in this country are far more arduous, so far as legislation is concerned, than those of the ministers of the Crown in Great Britain; while from the standpoint of general work those duties are far greater than the duties of members of the cabinet in the United States, comparing the sessions of our parliament with the sessions of congress.


Mr. J. W. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont):: The question of representation in this parliament is one of great importance and interest to the Canadian people, and of course it is well that the matter should be settled along certain definite lines and in accordance with certain definite principles. I agree with the principle that as far as possible county boundaries should be maintained, for the reasons as given already by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I might refer also to the fourth principle, that of maintaining as far as possible, as between rural constituencies, a uniformity of population. Where there is a conflict between these two principles, the principle of maintaining county boundaries and that of maintaining uniformity in population, the question arises as to which of them should be sacrificed, and whether or not it is to the advantage of the people as well as of the members that county boundaries should be maintained even though there may be a great disparity in population. The question often arises, if county boundaries are to be maintained, where a large town or a small-sized city happens to be in one county and a neighbouring county happens to be practically all a rural population. I am rather of the opinion that the people are more concerned in maintaining their county boundaries than they are in having population nearly equal as between county constituencies. So that in my opinion the fourth principle should be sacrificed to the first when there is a conflict between the two.
I am interested in the discussion that has arisen on the second principle, namely, that the unit for urban representation should be larger than the unit for rural representation. That has always been recognized; it has been recognized by all governments and all parties in this country ever since confederation. In the last redistribution, that of ten years ago, under the government of Sir Robert Borden, the unit of representation in the city of Toronto was 50,000, when the unit for the whole Dominion was in the neighbourhood of some 30,000.	*


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It is getting worse.


John Wilfred Kennedy: That was a disparity that was recognized at that time as a proper difference as between rural and urban population. If today the unit of representation is to be 36,000 for the whole country, the unit of representation for the city of Toronto in the same proportion would be about 60,000 which would not entitle that city to more than nine
Redistribution

members. There is another question that enters into a consideration of this matter, as referred to by my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. Hammell), and that is the interest which the people in a constituency take in public affairs. I remember that not long ago the question was debated in this country whether or not electors should be disfranchised when they neglected to use their franchise. If that is to be taken into consideration at all it will be instructive to see what interest the people of Toronto have shown in public affairs. I have just jotted down the number of voters who voted for candidates in the last general election. I do not know what the population of Centre Toronto is but I believe it is considerable, and of the large number of electors there only 11,161 took enough interest in the election to cast their vote. I represent a rather small rural constituency and in that riding 16,224 persons voted in the election. In another constituency in Toronto, East Toronto, just 15,002 electors voted at the general election in 1921. I do not know how many voters were on the list because I have not the figures with me; I just jotted down these facts a few moments ago. In North Toronto the people showed some more interest in the election, this being due perhaps to the popularity of one of the candidates running in that constituency. At any rate, 20,985 persons voted in that constituency. But the very popular representative from South Toronto (Mr. Sheard), and all the candidates running in that constituency, could not induce more than 7,566 electors to vote; while in West Toronto 11,764 persons voted. And in the beautiful city of Brantford, represented by my genial friend across the way (Mr. Raymond), 13,049 electors voted in that election. These figures I think give us an indication of the interest which the people in these constituencies tal e in public questions. I have taken at random a few rural constituencies. I do not know whether they are large or small as compared with other rural constituencies, but they will illustrate my pointy I have already given the constituency of Glengarry and Stormont. In the constituency of Carleton 13,473 electors voted; in Dundas, another small rural constituency, 11,225 voted; in Durham, 12,516; in North Grey, 14.996 and in Halton, a small constituency, 12,207 persons cast their votes. So that in all these rural constituencies, as compared with an equal number of urban constituencies which I have picked at random, the vote in the country was larger than the vote in the urban centres, with the exception of North Toronto; and although the dispar-

ity in population may be very great the disparity in representation is not so great after all. That is, I think, an added reason why in the coming redistribution the unit of representation for the rural constituencies should be very much smaller than that for the urban constituencies.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Mr. Speaker, personally, I do not want to enter into any very detailed consideration of our * cities or towns, but I should like to express my general accord with practically everything that has fallen from the last speaker (Mr. Kennedy). I hesitate, in discussing this subject, to touch upon any province other than my own. I believe if there is one matter more than another which we should endeavour to keep our hands off it is the very delicate question of representation, and that so far as it is possible to do it each province should rather settle that for itself. I do not mean through the agency of the local legislatures, of course, but through their representatives in this House. The problem of Toronto or of Montreal is a purely local one having relation to the population and representation of the rest of Ontario or Quebec. The conditions there cannot be thoroughly understood by a man in the Maritime provinces, and it would be presumptuous for me to discuss representation in British Columbia or in the three western provinces. The people there know the local conditions far better.
The conditions in my own province, of which I will Just say a word, are these:	A
comparatively stable population, changing not very much even in the cities, though changing there more than in the rural districts, with the cities of course constituting compact constituencies. All you- have to do is to ask any candidate whether he would rather run for a city or a rural constituency, and the answer unhesitatingly will be that he will run for the city constituency, because it saves him a tremendous amount of work and is much easier to keep in touch with. Therefore, so far as my province is concerned, I would favour, to whatever extent may be necessary, a larger unit for the constituencies that include cities, and a smaller unit for the purely rural districts.
But I would not stop quite there. I admit that if you apply pure theory to this matter, one man is just as good as another, and should have just as much to say as another, and in order to give him an equal opportunity, you ought to make everything mathematically equal. But you cannot do that in human affairs. That is the practical answer; and

Redistribution
in our form of government sentiment, to my mind, plays a far greater part than mathematics. There are one or two instances in my own province, small though it may be, where the people have grown around a certain centre and have their well-defined boundaries. There is, for example, the shire town towards which all eyes look; it is the political home of both parties. If, except under the greatest necessity in the world, you disrupt that and try to force those people into new relations with other parts of the province, you are going to cause far more dissatisfaction than you will confer benefit. You do not, at present, perhaps, have mathematical equality, but you do have a rough and ready measure of justice for the people who are accustomed to certain conditions, which conditions it is not worth while to disturb. Therefore in a province like my own, where there is no change in the total number of representation', I would say:	Let
conditions remain as they are. They have been fair enough in the past. My province has never had to protest against anything in the nature of a geriymander, and there is no reason for unduly disturbing conditions. Those are the principles that, so far as they may be applicable, I should like to see applied throughout Canada-simply a spirit of fair play and no more unncessary disturbance than you are obliged to make to fit new conditions.
Nor would I draw too strong an inference from the number of people who have voted at one particular election. Another element enters there,-the very human element. It is partly the issue, and it is also partly the candidate. Now, I do not think you can build up a very strong argument because in the city of Toronto a large number of people did not think it worth while to turn out to secure what was no doubt regarded as an inevitable result in that city. But when you get into other constituencies, whether rural or urban, in any of the provinces, you will find that just in proportion as you make the contest a doubtful one you will bring out a much larger voting strength; and a very great deal depends also upon the personalities of the candidates. Those are factors which are not always equal. Perhaps even deductions drawn from a number of elections would not have much value. All this can be dealt with, not under a basis of representation, but by a consideration of the suggestions put forward as to whether it is not time to treat the franchise as no longer a privilege but an absolute and imminent duty, and to regard a man as failing in the duties of citizenship who does not exercise his franchise. Even if he does not
care for any of the candidates, it is at least his duty to make a choice of the least objectionable of two or more evils-a duty which ought to be discharged by every voter.
But for the present all I would say is: Let us approach this matter of representation in a broad, fair, non-political spirit, not with the idea of jockeying for party advantage, but to give the people the fairest and best opportunity of getting representation if they can, and realizing that those candidates who have to travel hundreds of miles in order to seek the franchises of the electors, or those electors who have to travel scores of miles to record their votes, are entitled to some more consideration than those who have only to spend ten or fifteen minutes for the purpose.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A good deal has been said as to the
disadvantages of rural residents, and. as to . the necessity of giving them a larger representation, Might I point out that these disadvantages are not quite so real as has been suggested? In a good many countries there are several towns and occasionally small cities, but the greater number of the people are rural. That sometimes gives the rural people a decided advantage, because some candidate can be proposed who is very largely acceptable to them, and on the other hand there is no one living in the little town who is sufficiently strong to carry the whole majority of the people throughout the riding. It seems to me that there can be no real basis other than that of representation by population. But I would agree with the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) when he suggests that in certain peculiar constituencies where the geographical situation is such as to make the population very scattered there may need to be certain modifications. But certainly the idea ought to be as near as we can approximate to it that one Canadian's vote is just as good as another's, and should be as fully represented on the floor of this House.
There is another point, moreover, that I should like to mention. The Prime Minister said that as far as possible it seemed wise to maintain the county as the unit. We in the West do not know a great deal about counties, but I suggest that if this principle is to be applied to well recognized units such as eastern counties, it ought decidedly to be applied in the case of cities. That has not been the case in the past. I think now of one of our western districts where three constituencies centre into one city. In each the representative is a rural member, and that quite large city has been effectively deprived of any representation in this House.
Redistribution

It would seem as if, to carry out this principle of fairness* the city ought as far as possible to be regarded as a unit.


William F. Carroll: If large enough.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If large enough,
yes.-I say, as far as possible. In the particular case I have in mind it is large enough, yet it has been divided up as I have said with these three constituencies centering into it. I understand that a proposal was made in the committee appointed last year that, in regard to another city that there should be a division in that same way-uniting certain portions of the city with a country district stretching fifty or sixty miles away. It would seem to me that any such proposal as that is pre-eminently unfair, as it gives no chance whatever to the people of the city to express themselves.
I would further like to make a plea that at this time we should reconsider a question which was'discussed last year on the floor of this House, the question of proportional representation. Mention has been made of the fact that there was a very small vote in the city of Toronto and also in some constituencies in the city of Montreal. Surely the reason for that lack of interest is the lack of anything like proportional representation. When people are confident that one side only stands a chance of winning, they can hardly be induced to go to the polls. If there were grouped constituencies where the minorities would have some chance of electing a man to represent their special viewpoint, a great deal more interest would be taken in the election and the various cities would be represented on the floor of this House much more nearly in accordance with the real opinion of their people. Whether or not the system of proportional representation is generally adopted at this time, I would urge that it be given a fair trial in one or two cities. In the city of Winnipeg we have for some years been accustomed to proportional representation in municipal and provincial affairs, and I think I am correct in stating that the large majority of the people of that city are well satisfied with the proportional representation system. We are accustomed to it; we have found that it works well, and we can see no reason why it should not be tried out in federal affairs.
I would urge that-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I would remind
the hon member that the bill under consideration is for the representation in the House of Commons, not for the mode of electing. I understand, of course, that the two questions

might easily be confused, but the hon. member should speak on the bill, not on the mode of election.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that I was getting away from the purpose of the bill. I was discussing the outline given to us by the Prime Minister of the fundamental principles which should underlie the method of distribution. However, I will simply say this: I hope that during the discussion in connection with the mode of election we may not overlook any of these principles which seek to give us a fairer representation under the conditions that prevail to-day in our larger urban centres.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (East York):: Mr. Speaker, one point that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) brought out is deserving of consideration be. fore the House deals with this question. He said that it was easier at the present time to focus public opinion in the urban ridings than it was in the rural ridings. In my opinion that is not the case. The hon. member for Glengarry and Stormont (Mr. Kennedy) gave some figures in regard to the vote in the city ridings compared with that in the country ridings, and in my humble opinion he proved conclusively that it was not easier to focus public opinion in the city riding than in the urban districts. All these arguments which have been handed down from generation to generation with regard to representation in this House and as recited by the right hon. Prime Minister, are, we must admit, beginning to lose their weight. We are living in a new day now. When the Prime Minister cites the principles that were in vogue as long ago as thirty and forty years, I would point out to him that at that" time the means of communication in this country are not what they are to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not go back past 1870. It was the member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) who went back to 1830.


Joseph Henry Harris: Thirty or forty years, I said, and the right hon. gentleman went back to 1870. Well, I am a fair mathematician at that: we will say he went back fifty years, and see how that will suit him. The means of communication to-day are advancing very rapidly, and in my opinion it is time we got a little closer to the principle of representation by population. You will find, if you look through the report of the Chief Electoral Officer, that in the constituency of North York, for instance, with its 14,418

Redistribution
voters, 12,273 polled their vote at the last election. In the riding of East York, which is very largely a city riding, with its 48,783 voters, 18,536 polled their vote. So that explodes entirely the argument made by the Prime Minister when he said it was much easier to focus public opinion in the urban ridings. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that as time goes on we should get closer to representation by population with a view to satisfying the people of Canada generally.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I think the well defined principles enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the guidance of the committee are eminently fair, but it seems to me that some other principles that are also vital may have been overlooked and possibly will not be considered by the committee. One of these is that existing boundaries should be regarded as closely as possible, and another is that cognizance should be taken of the railway facilities. There are particular cases already, I understand, where it has been suggested to cut a small country town completely off from a large part of the country that it serves. I have one particular case in mind of a plan drawn up where the country on one side of this town is cut off right at the boundary of the town. I think that is not altogether fair. With regard to adhering to existing boundaries, I think that is very, very important. Take, for instance, a constituency that has about sixteen municipalities. I have one in mind at the present moment. We will say that there are four municipalities east and west, and four north and south, sixteen in all. Under the new plan it will still have sixteen municipalities, but two rows are taken off the north and added on the west, which would mean that the new constituency is half the width it was before and double the length. Now it is impossible to have that constituency properly served in such a case, and it seems to me that these two factors should be taken into consideration by the committee.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg to move:
That Bill No. 2 intituled "An Act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons" be referred to a special committee, the names of the members of which to be given at a later date, with instructions to prepare schedules to contain and describe the several electoral divisions entitled to return members to this House, and to report the same.
I am sorry not to be able to give the names of the committee to-night, but I would point out that on two previous occasions a motion was presented in this form.


Hewitt Bostock: Of course, the motion as it is drafted would not be accepted in the British House of Commons, because no question can be referred to a committee unless the committee is appointed and the members of the committee named. But as the right hon. the Prime Minister states we have two Canadian precedents. I have one just now which is fresh in my mind. On the 3rd of May, 1921, the right hon. the Prime Minister of the day referred Bill No. 2, "An act to amend and consolidate the law relating to Copyright" to a special committee to be subsequently named, after it had been given its second reading. The motion passed and the next day, the 4th of May, the special committee to consider the bill was appointed, consisting of several members. I presume the right hon. gentleman intends to follow that precedent, and under those circumstances I would consider that with the unanimous consent of the House the motion is in order, although it would not be in order in the Mother of Parliaments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it were not for the circumstance that the Whips and some of the members are absent to-night, I would have been able to arrange the committee. It is just a misfortune that they are absent to-night.


Hewitt Bostock: It is a case where we
make an exception to the British practice in favour of the Canadian precedent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Just to clear up one point, the motion as read states that the names are to be given at a subsequent date. I assume they .will be given in the ordinary way, that is by a motion in the House appointing members to that committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, certainly


Hewitt Bostock: That is in accordance with the precedent I have just cited.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr, Gordon in the chair.
Public Works-Ottawa, addition to Dominion Archive Building, $275,000.
James Horace King: This vote is to carry on and complete the contract let for the building of an addition to the Dominion

Supply-Public Works

Archives building. There was a vote of $150,000 last year, and of the $275,000 vote this year, $75,000 is a revote. The contract is let to P. Lyall & Sons, being the lowest tenderers, for an amount of $294,797.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What amount has already been expended, and what is the necessity for this building? What is it to provide for?


John Warwick King: It is expected that the sum of $75,000 will be expended on foundations, cutting stone and erecting steel work in the coming year. As to the necessity for this addition, I think it is 10 p.m. generally conceded that very valuable documents are in the care of the Dominion Archives, and it has been found necessary to enlarge rhe quarters in^ order that these documents may be carefully preserved. The advantage of a place of record of this character is recognized not only by the department at Ottawa but by other institutions throughout Canada. There are many people who use the Archives in studying the history of this country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How many tenders were received?
_ Mr. KING (Kootenay): There were nine in all.


John Millar: Where is this building? Is this part of a general plan to consolidate the buildings?


John Warwick King: The Archives
building is on Sussex street, and this amount is to provide for the building of an additional wing to give further room for housing the archives.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry & Stormont):: The total amount the minister is asking this year and last is $425,000?


John Warwick King: Yes. Outside of the. contract there are fittings, steel cabinets, supervision and contingencies, amounting to $55,203, making a total expenditure of $350,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the minister expect this will complete the building and furnish it?


John Warwick King: Yes, that is the intention.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do you expect the building will be completed this year?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
JUOOOOOBuiIdings-London. England, Canadian Office,
John Warwick King: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: Why the 4 per cent?


John Warwick King: The 4 per cent is the percentage we will figure on. We are so advised by the High Commissioner.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the government now borrowing money at the rate of 4 per cent, is that all money is costing them?


John Warwick King: I think my hon. friend the other night asked to have these figures produced, and we are advised by the High Commissioner that it should be figured at the rate of 4 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why?


John Warwick King: Because the money can be had for that.
. Mr- STEVENS: On that point, the minister does not mean to say that the money supplied for the purchase of this building will only cost this country 4 per cent. We are paying 5 or 51 per cent.


John Warwick King: During negotiations last year-and this indicates probably what the percentage will be-the bankers in the Old Country offered for the Dominion bonds a _ rate of 4 per cent and the High Commissioner^ in replying to our questions has figured this on a basis of 4 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We will take it at 4 per cent. What is the amount again?


John Warwick King: 
Mr. THURSTON:: Would the minister give us the number of staff at the present time?


John Warwick King: I have not that information here. However, there are four premises being occupied requiring in each case, I imagine, caretakers, charwomen, firemen, a separate supply of coal, and all the other costs there are in maintaining separate apartments. As a result of the consolidation there will be a reduction undoubtedly in the matter of door keepers, caretakers, charwomen, firemen and engineers, and probably, also under the head of contingencies. The High Commissioner himself states there will be a saving in number of staff, and also that the work will be carried on more efficiently.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the minister will give us the amount of saving the Commissioner is going to make each year, also what the staff numbers at the present time and what it will be reduced to?


John Warwick King: We have not
those details in our office. I do not imagine the Commissioner himself knows what the consolidation will actually accomplish. That can only be told when it has taken place.


Joseph Henry Harris: How much of the maintenance cost is sinking fund, and at what rate is the sinking fund figured?


John Warwick King: 
Samuel William Jacobs: What departments will be
housed in this new building?


John Warwick King: The High Commissioner's office, the Immigration Department, the Trade Commissioner's office, and Pensions.


Robert Forke: According to those figures,
it will cost about $40,000 more to operate this new building than to operate the old one.


John Warwick King: Roughly. The
figures carried out in dollars and cents are $36,229.


Joseph Henry Harris: 
John Warwick King: It is supposed
to wipe out the purchase price of the building at the end of the lease-one hundred years.


Arthur Meighen: The minister may be
out of power then. The minister has given us the floor space of the building. Will he tell us the floor space actually occupied by those various branches, including the High Commissioner's own staff, at the present time, and let us see if it does not aggregate far more than the floor space in the new building?


John Warwick King: I cannot say at
present.


Arthur Meighen: I think there will not
be room for any more than the High Commissioner's own staff in the building according to the space so occupied now.


John Warwick King: We are not so
advised by the High Commissioner.


Arthur Meighen: We would like to know.


John Warwick King: The plans do not show that.


Arthur Meighen: What advice has the
minister from the High Commissioner as to the space occupied by these branches now as compared with the space in this building.


John Warwick King: I have none as regards that.


Arthur Meighen: Then what good is the High Commissioner's advice?


John Warwick King: The High Commissioner has sent plans showing the alterations in the new building; he has sent specifications for those alterations, and he has stated that he is going to place certain departments in the building. That is the information the department has.


Arthur Meighen: We want to know how he is going to do that. My information is that he cannot get them in unless he can contract them very much, and I do not think that has been his practice. My infoftnation is that he has in this building just about as much space as his own staff occupies now. So this will mean that we shall be spending
43i
Supply-Public Works

about $36,000 more than we would be if all those were not housed in the building. As a matter of fact, they will not all be housed in the building-I am safe in making that prediction now from the information I have -and, as a consequence, this is going to mean the expenditure of a great deal more than $36,000.


John Warwick King: Oh, no.


Arthur Meighen: That is based on a 4 per cent interest charge. How in the world the High Commissioner justifies that, I do not know. The minister ought to advise Sir Henry Thornton and also the Minister of Finance about this source of money. If we can get money at 4 per cent there, I cannot comprehend, for the life of me, a number of the loans that we are making now. Why is this based on 4 per cent? There is no justification for that. The minister is not going to satisfy the committee by saying simply: "the High Commissioner told me this; he did not tell me how he was going to get all these branches in; he just says: 'I am going to do this.' " That leaves the committee in rather a blank position.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I might say to my right hon. friend that I had the privilege of going through this building with the High Commissioner and of having him point out just wherein he thought it was going to be possible to accommodate the different staffs in London at the present time. It is true that, with the numbers in the offices, as they stand at present, of the Trade Commissioner, Soldiers' Pensions, Immigration, and also of the High Commissioner, and the Union Club building remaining as it is at the moment, there would not be accommodation for all. It is, however, anticipated that once it is possible to assemble under one roof the several staffs, a material reduction can be effected in the numbers of the staffs. Some of these staffs have been perhaps, unduly large during the period of the war. The High Commissioner says that he can exercise no real authority or supervision over them, scattered as they are through different parts of the city. He feels that if the different Canadian offices in London were brought into one building, it should be possible, through the economies to be effected, to reduce considerably the number of officials overseas. In addition to that it is contemplated, under the affiount the government is asking for, to enlarge this building somewhat. I do not know whether an additional storey is to be added, but some material addition is to be 
made to the building as it stands, making it more suitable for the purposes it is intended to serve.


John Jabez Thurston: Is it possible to enlarge the building without purchasing too valuable property on the other side of it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is possible. One way in which it can be enlarged-and I understand the High Commissioner has in view alterations for that purpose-is to add another storey in part or addition in the rear. That whole matter has been carefully considered by the High Commissioner.


Mr. CLARK:: Are these additions included in this vote?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: What are they?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Provision is
made for alterations to the building necessary make it suitable for the purposes it is intended to serve. These alterations have been carefully arranged for by the High Commissioner in consultation with architects on the other side.


John Arthur Clark: Would the minister give us particulars of those additions and alterations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will hardly expect me to tell him where a particular addition is to be made. If I mention to him that the High Commissioner is a gentleman of wide business experience who has had, perhaps, more to do with business and commercial establishments than any dozen or more representative business men of our country, I think the House will feel it may be justified in taking his judgment in a matter of this kind.


John Arthur Clark: I appreciate that he may be a man of wide business experience; but at the same time I do not think he should object to furnishing the Prime Minister, his government and this House with particulars of the additions and alterations that are proposed, that apparently he is asking money for this year, and that are included in this particular appropriation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think he is objecting at all, but I think he assumes that the government in a matter of this kind will be prepared to trust his judgment and sagacity.


John Arthur Clark: We are not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to little
additions, where a room may be added or changed or what may be altered, I do not

think it would be worth the time of the country for the government to have exchanged too much correspondence in regard to that kind of thing. We should either trust a High Commissioner when we have him, or dispense with him altogether. If the hon. member really wants information that is important, I think he will be able to get it.; but I do not think the question of what particular form of alterations may be made at the present time to a building is one that the House is primarily interested in; I would think it was more interested in knowing that the accommodation was adequate.


John Arthur Clark: What proportion of this appropriation is for alterations? I was under the impression that probably a large proportion of this appropriation was for additions and alterations.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
John Arthur Clark: A very considerable amount, it seems.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: We ought to know what it is for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The site of this particular building is the finest site, not only in London, but in the world. To have that building put into shape for ofiices may require for purposes of alteration a good bit in the way of expense. Perhaps my hon. friend would allow me to complete what I have to say about the building, and I shall be glad to answer questions later.
For at least twenty-five years the government of Canada has been trying to secure in London suitable accommodation for the offices of the High Commissioner and such other officials as this country has in the capital of the Old World. Lord Strathcona, while High Commissioner, endeavoured unsuccessfully to obtain a suitable building, as also did Sir George Perley when he was overseas in a similar capacity. Since he has been High Commissioner, the Honourable Mr. Larkin has been endeavouring to find adequate and creditable accommodation, and although at first he also was unsuccessful he has been extremely fortunate in being able to acquire a building occupying one of the finest positions in the world. The building is situated on the corner of Trafalgar Square and Cock-spur Street; and notwithstanding an incredulous smile which I observe opposite, I repeat that it is the finest site that could be obtained in the world.
Supply-Public Works


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought that
the finest site in the world was occupied by the Scribe hotel.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The finest
site in Paris perhaps; but London is ahead of Paris. I repeat, it is something of which we may be proud that Canada has been fortunate enough to secure what may well be regarded as the finest site in London, and, being in London, the finest in the world, for its offices in England. In regard to the necessity for these offices, it is all a matter of how one wishes to view the status of the Dominion. Australia has exceptionally fine buildings in London; South Africa a couple of years ago acquired on the other side of Trafalgar Square a building known as Morley's hotel which it owns to-day. Canada, on the other hand, has been in an obscure position notwithstanding that she is the leading dominion; and, so far as she has been known to the people in London by any distinctive building, she does not appear to have been on the map, so to speak, until the change of position of which I have been speaking. I might mention that there are also in London at the present time offices of the provinces of Canada. The province of Nova Scotia has finer offices for its agent than has the Dominion for its High Commissioner; and British Columbia has a building which is infinitely superior to ours. Indeed, when we sought last year to purchase their building from the government of British Columbia for the Dominion of Canada we could not acquire it. A stranger visiting London to-day and knowing little about Canadian affairs might think, from the accommodation enjoyed by the respective governments, that Canada was a part of British Columbia instead of British Columbia being a province of the Dominion. When we tried to acquire from that province the building which it owns in London we discovered that the provincial government had found it so good an investment, notwithstanding that it was a very large building, that the province refused to sell it. _
A feature that should be taken into consideration in connection with the present purchase is the importance of the site, which of course is a most important element in the selection of a building.' And there is the further fact that this particular building happens to be on ground which is the property of the Crown in Great Britain, and that may prove an all important consideration should it come to a question of renewing the lease at some future time. So far as the Dominion government is concerned, I hope it may expect to receive from the British gov-

Supply-Public Works
ernment at all times fair treatment in the matter of the lease which it will hold, and the opportunity to acquire a property such as the one that we have secured might never come again. That was one reason why the High Commissioner asked the government at the time whether he would not be justified in taking an option immediately on the premises of the Union Club. It was a mere chance that the Union Club was prepared at that-moment to give up the site and move to another part of the city. Had it been generally known that the site was available it is extremely doubtful whether the Dominion government W'ould have been able to acquire it; but the matter having been ' negotiated quietly it was possible for us to secure this highly desirable accommodation.
Although it does not bear directly upon the matter under consideration, I might mention at this time that we have no official residence for the Canadian High Commissioner in London. It is my opinion that the country ought to own its own residence in London for its representative. It did originally own a residence, at the time, I think, that Sir Charles Tupper was High Commissioner. That residence was subsequently disposed of when Lord Strathcona provided one on his own account. However Mr. Larkin, the present High Commissioner, has purchased a very valuable residence in London and is u-ing it in the service of the country in a very generous way. He happens to be well-to-do and is prepared thus to use his money in the service of the country. I think Canada is under a great-obligation to him by reason of his willingness to further her interests in this way apart altogether from the important duties he discharges m connection with his office as High Commissioner. That is an additional reason m my opinion, why at this time, when Mr. Larkin is High Commissioner, we should do all in our power to assist him in carrying out a project which is obviously in the national interest, and m which he is taking a very special interest on behalf of Canada


Robert Forke: Who began the negotiatio for the building? Did the Union Club off it for sale?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. Mr. Larkin ascertained that there was a possibility of the Union Club moving to some other part of the city; it was while he had one of two or three other buildings in view that he learned this fact.


Robert Forke: Personally I think it is
rather unfortunate that this should have

occurred at this particular time when there is so great a cry for economy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not share that view. On the contrary, I think it is rather fortunate that the transaction did take place this year, because, among other reasons, this happens to be the year of the British Empire Exhibition, and every Canadian who goes to London this summer will feel a sense of pride as well as of relief in the fact that Canada has in the heart of London a building of which he may be proud. This building is conveniently situated in relation to important railway, banking, commercial and business institutions, and it can be reached from any part of London by underground railway. In short, a better site could not possibly be obtained. I might add-a matter that came to my attention while I was in England- that the building which South Africa purchased only a few years ago had a lease of ten years to run; the Corporation of the City of London have decided to widen the space at the entrance to the Strand and have arranged for the expropriation of the necessary ground, which means that the Morley's hotel building is to be torn down, and the width of the Strand as it approaches Trafalgar Square will be considerably greater, than it now is. The Canadian building will then face that splendid approach. I mention that because it is a factor, once this alteration is made, it will vastly enhance the value of the building which we have secured. I submit that the building is a good one, the value is good, the site is good, and the time is opportune; so that altogether it is very much in the interests of the Canadian people that we should acquire this property without delay.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, my right
hon. friend a year ago observed on this subject of the acquisition of a building in London :
We felt that it was desirable to acquire a building in which all these offices could be brought together and which would be large enough also to accommodate the representatives of the different provinces.
That was a "rather reasonable aspiration, and was expressed in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). Now, if I gathered correctly what the hon. Minister of Public Works said, it is a question whether all these offices can be accommodated in the new building.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When I made the remark which my hon. friend has just quoted I was referring to a building known as the Cox Bank building, which is much larger than the Union Club building. It

Supply-Public Works
would have accommodated the offices of the different provinces as well as those of the Dominion, but it would have cost very much more. For Dominion purposes the present self-contained building is perhaps better.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But my point is this.
From the statement made by the Minister of Public Works it is a question _ whether this building will accommodate the various departments referred to-Trade and Commerce, Immigration, High Commissioner's and the Soldiers' Overseas Work. Apparently the minister is not sure whether this expenditure of $1,300,000 will give us a building that will accommodate the offices of the federal government.


John Warwick King: I have not expressed any doubt.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Can the minister tell us
that it will?


John Warwick King: I am so advised
by the High Commissioner.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister seemed
doubtful a little while ago.


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, my hon. friend has misconstrued my remarks. I would ask him to compare his feelings had he turned up at 17 Victoria street, where the old building is, with what they would be at being able to point out the particular site which Canada has now obtained. Then he will have in mind what I tried to express.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think many visitors are likely to go to Victoria street and then over to Trafalgar Square to see a building which is undergoing extensive repairs. We may dismiss that particular advantage, whatever its value may be. I submit that for this expenditure of $1,300,000 we are not getting the accommodation that was anticipated. Certainly the minister cannot give us any assurance that the building will accommodate the federal offices now in existence in London. The most he can say is that the High Commissioner hopes it will. That was the word my hon. friend used'-the High Commissioner "hopes" it will. But we have no information upon which to base such a conclusion. Will the minister tell us the names of the agents who negotiated the sale, or alleged sale, or proposed sale?


John Warwick King: The vendor's
agents are Messrs. Collins & Collins, who will be paid by the vendors the usual commission of 2i per cent. It is proposed to make an addition to the rear of the building. The present floor space is 25,000 square feet; on the completion of the addition the floor space will be 30,000 square feet. I have no personal knowledge as to whether the High Commissioner will be able to consolidate his staff in the new building, but he informs me that it is his intention to do so.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Mr. Chairman, last year I was rather favourable to the provision of Canadian offices in London. My idea was that we would, in a measure, emulate Australia in gathering together all our offices in one building. When you go down the Strand you see a large white building which is known as Australia House, and it contains all the offices of the states of the commonwealth. When you look for a Canadian House, you have to go down the Strand where you find a small building'that you might pass a dozen times before you would know that it contains the offices of the provinces of Ontario Then you go up by Trafalgar Square and down another little street to find a splendid building representing British Columbia. flhe attraction is not so much architectural as the ex-
Supply-Public Works

hibition made by British Columbia and the interest which their agent is taking in his work. Then you go by Westminster and eventually reach Victoria street, and there you nd in an out-of-the-way place the offices of our High Commissioner. Last year my idea was that we were to get together with the provinces and gather all the offices, both federal and provincial, under one roof and have a truly Canadian House, similar to Australia House. Now we are asked to vote a large sum of money. For what? To remove the offices of the High Commissioner only from away down at 16 Victoria street up to Trafalgar Square,-to a site where the traffic is very small. We are simply expending this large amount of money for the removal of the offices of the' High Commissioner from Victoria Street to 1 rafalgar square, and we are making no effort whatever to co-operate with the provinces in the matter. This is an expenditure which I do not feel like supporting, and I do not intend to support it. I have not been in consultation with anybody else, but I do think it is a scheme that Canada will not be very proud of. The offices of the soldiers-a very small affair, I think-will be removed from somewhere about Oxford street, but these offices will gradually go out of existence. It seems to me that Canada should co-operate with her provinces with a view to federal and provincial officers being located in a building that Canadians can be proud of. If a Canadian from Ontario goes over he finds his own little provincial house on the Strand and then he will find the Dominion house up on the far side of Trafalgar Square. I say it is not a condition that we should be proud of, and I do not think any person who has been in London will be proud of it either.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I am most pleased to hear the remarks that have been made to-night about the British Columbia building. When that building was erected the provincial government was ridiculed from one end of the province to the other. It was alleged that there had been graft in connection with the transaction and that the property would be a white elephant on the hands of the province. But here to-night it is held up as a sort of example of good business and as something that Canada has reason to be proud of. I am more than pleased to hear what has been said and I have no doubt that if this building is purchased for the purposes that have been mentioned it may have the same history.


George Perry Graham: The British Columbia building, as my hon. friend (Mr. McBride) says, is something of which his province may be proud. I am inclined to think that the

representative of British Columbia had something to do with the business ability that has characterized the activities of British Columbia m London. That building now-and I would like hon. gentlemen to be sure to hear this- is carrying itself.


Arthur Meighen: Did the representative
who is there have anything to do with the purchase? .	y


George Perry Graham: I was not saying anything about that.


Arthur Meighen: The minister might tell us who made the purchase.
GRAHAM:	1 imaSine it was the
McBride government that made the purchase but if the purchase had been made and nothing else had been done, they would never have attained the success that they have attained. There are two reasons why Canada cannot have a building which would include the offices of all the provinces. First, there is no chance in the world that British Columbia would leave their present building in connection with which they are making a profit, and move into another. The provinces, I believe-at least some of them__
are not in favour of joining with the Dominion in the erection of a general building for all. In the second place, you can imagine wliat a building would cost that would accommodate all the provinces and the Dominion, with all their activities-even if you could get it; and I doubt if you could go into London to-day and either purchase outright or secure a lease of a building that would accommodate all the provinces and the Dominion. And what would happen to an estimate for a building of that kind when this moderate estimate for a building for the federal activities meets with so much opposition? Now, I am not going to compare Canada with Australia, because I think Canada is away ahead of Australia, to put it mildly; the various activities of Australia are not nearly on so large a scale as those of Canada would have to be in any building.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is Australia not
getting a pretty large percentage of immigration from the Old Country?


George Perry Graham: We might have had
greater immigration if we had had an attractive building and adequate offices. But last year Canada got greater immigration from the British Isles than all the overseas dominions put together.


John Arthur Clark: From Great Britain?


George Perry Graham: From the British Isles.

6S1
Supply-Public Works


John Arthur Clark: That does not correspond
with what the minister read a few days ago from a book which was called, I think, the Parliamentary Journal. Those figures were not shown there.


George Perry Graham: That statement was made and not denied at the Imperial Economic Conference during the discussion of the plan of the British Empire Association for emigration to Canada.


John Arthur Clark: Can the minister give the
figures?


George Perry Graham: Surely I cannot give the
figures.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister mean
the calendar year 1923, or the last fiscal year?


George Perry Graham: I cannot say that; I did
not charge my memory with it. But I know the statement was made and it has never been denied. Perhaps I shall be able to produce the figures. We were discussing immigration there at close range, and the figures were given in that connection. Now, I have seen this building on Trafalgar Square, and, more than that, I have done what the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) has done: I have hunted up and down the street to find the Ontario office. Not only did I have trouble in finding it, but I could not come across anybody who could tell me where to find it. I walked up and down the street for an hour; I knew I was within two or three blocks of the place. I looked into a window and saw some preserved fruit or something of that kind on display; I went in and discovered that it was the Ontario building. The building on Victoria street was not a fit building for representatives of the Dominion of Canada. People who went in there had a good deal of difficulty in finding the High Commissioner. The High Commissioner in former years was charged with not seeing people who went to call upon him. The fact is that the offices were to my mind altogether inadequate. The High Commissioner himself has a small office that no member of the Canadian parliament would trade his office in this building for. At present the High Commissioner has some rooms in a building on a corner of the Haymarket. I drove down there to hunt up the High Commissioner and I discovered that I had to find him out among a lot of other people who were occupying the building. He is the only representative of an overseas dominion whom it is difficult to find in London. Canada loses immensely by having her High Commissioner housed in a building which is altogether unfitted for
a representative of this great country. I went into this building on Trafalgar Square. It has a splendid location. I do not know whether you could build another storey on it or not, but I do know that it looks out on Trafalgar Square and that the daily traffic past this building is such that more people will be brought in touch with Canada in a few months than would be the case in ten years on Victoria street. Surely it is not a bad investment for Canada to have a building of her own in the heart of London if we intend to continue to do business in the metropolis of the world. Australia has her representatives disposing of her products in London, and I think the same applies to New Zealand. We have not gone that far, but perhaps we shall want to go that far before very long. Our first step, however, is to provide a building worthy of this great Dominion and to let the people of London and the people of the world who go there know, through our High Commissioner, through our Trade and Commerce department and through our Immigration department, just what we have in this country. I have enough faith in Canada to believe that when the people of the world know what Canada is and what we have, we shall have no trouble in filling up our vacant spaces in this great country. British Columbia has made money on her investment, and I have no doubt in the world but that Canada could in a few years sell her equity in this property for much more than she is paying for it to-day. I do not look upon an investment where you are getting value for your money as throwing ^way your money at all. It is not an expenditure in the ordinary sense of the word; it is simply transferring cash into its equivalent in real estate, and the real estate in this case will bring to the people of Canada, to my mind a return in every way. Our citizens when they go to the great metropolis will not be ashamed to say, "I am from Canada", for Canada has now a suitable place for her representative. If it were a private concern acting under the same circumstances I think they would consider it a good investment, both nationally and commercially.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I am one of those who would like to see a Canadian building in London. I have always harboured that hope, and I do not want it to be represented that the reason it was not acquired under the late government was that we could not find one. That was not the reason according to my recollection. The reason was that we had so much other expenditure to take care of that we thought it would have to wait. The hope at that
Supply-Public Works

time was-and I did not know it had been abandoned, apparently it has only been abandoned during the last few months-that we would be in the fulness of time, when we could afford it, get a building in which the representatives of all the provinces could be held. I know that British Columbia now has a building in London and a fine one. I suppose they made a good real estate investment. I do not want to withhold credit from them, but really I do not feel like falling down in adoration before the financial or commercial discretion of a government merely because real estate has gone up in value. Nor do I share the argument of the minister that this is going to be a paying thing because real estate in London is going to go up more in value. I do not know whether it will or not; I do not think anybody else knows whether it will. A great many people have often thought real estate would go up, and now are very sorry that they thought so, and the experience of Canada may be the experience of England. No one knows. In my judgment-not that I think it is worth anything, I do not think the judgment of anyone here is worth anything on this matter-but for myself, knowing present real estate values in London compared with what they were before the war, I would rather be on the bear end of the market if it were the right and proper duty of the government of Canada to be speculating in real estate.
But, coming to the right course to pursue to-day, it is not to buy with the idea that real estate is to go up; that is not our function at all. Our functidh is to get, at the proper time, a site for the purpose worthy of our country. Now, I would not want to give up hope that Canada could have a building in which the provinces yet would come,-and possibly British Columbia, which has a little debt, might be disposed to apply its profits upon its real estate in London to that debt. They may not be so disposed. They have a perfect right to decide themselves what they are going to do with it. But I do not like the idea of the provinces of Canada being separately represented over there in separate buildings scattered all over the city of London, to appear in adverse fashion before various departments. I would like to see them all together, and I would like to see a whole lot more cohesion in the representation of this Dominion in the capital of the Empire. Surely it is not too big a thing to look for that Canada will have a unit representation there, not nine-representatives there, not ten representatives there, some working not in consonance with but in competition with the others-striving for the highest seats in the

synagogue and all the rest of it. It is not a spectacle that is alluring and it does not seem to me consonant with the structure of confederation that this individual representation should continue, and especially in isolated fashion in the Motherland.
Now, even according to the minister's hopes, based on the unspecified predictions of the Commissioner over there that he is going to be able'to house four different departments in this building, though upon the best information we have here- 11 p.m. for the minister has none at all-
_ it is only the size of that now occupied by his own department, one of the four, and is going to cost us $36,000 a year more than the other four together. Besides, notwithstanding the encomiums passed upon the building by the Prime Minister, I learn from other information maybe not as good, and I may as well mention one of my informants and only one, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black), who is pretty well acquainted with London, that this building is on a street close to a heavily travelled street but not itself heavily travelled. It is near to being a good site but it is not the best by any means. But would it not be better to wait and try to work out what we have been struggling towards, and also wait till we are in a better financial position than we are in this year of grace? Do not let the minister imaging that he is going to get this in shape by spending $300,000 on it. It is not going to be in a very alluring condition when the British Empire Exhibition is on. I hope we will have a display at that Exhibition which will be a credit to Canada, without our having to buy a $1,250,000 or $1,500,000 building in order to have a side attraction.
It seems to me the part of wisdom to get along as we are for the present. We managed in other times and right up until the war was well on, to entice a- large volume of immigration here, even though we had no very pretentious office in London, and I fancy that it we have good wholesome conditions in Canada we will get immigration here. The volume of our immigration is not going to be enlarged by the size of the window panes of a building in the middle of London, but by the letters home of the people who get work in Canada. That will affect immigration much more rapidly than the character of the building we happen to have in any section of the capital. That is my suggestion to the government. I do not yield to anyone in the pride I feel in the fact that some day we will have a home there worthy of the whole Dominion, and not merely one that

Supply-Public Works
is going to be a sort of fairly well placed edifice, but which after all will take second place even to the building that represents the province of British Columbia.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
first part of my right hon. friend's remarks perhaps affords the strongest of reasons why the government should purchase this very property. He has intimated that he hopes to see the day when the offices of all the provinces of the Dominion as well as of the Dominion itself will be housed under the same roof. It so happens that this building adjoins the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, and had the government felt that parliament would be prepared at this time to purchase the entire frontage facing Trafalgar Square, and which would give to the Canadian building an entrance on Cockspur street and also on Pall Mall East, I think the government might have proceeded with an effort to secure the building of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons as well.


Arthur Meighen: I am told it cannot be secured.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has been told that possibly it can, although not immediately. The College of Physicians and Surgeons building is held under lease from the Crown, just as this building is. I think the Dominion has reason to believe that the British government would aid it in furthering any object of the kind it had in view; and it is not unreasonable to expect that in the course of a little time, perhaps, when the country is in a better position to incur additional expenditure, the adjoining building -the building which this immedately adjoins but which is really part of the same structure-will become available. That 'is one reason, I think, why we .ought to take this site while there is a chance to take it. More than that. As to postponing the making of a purchase I might call the attention of the committee to the fact that our lease of the building on Victoria street expired a year ago. We could not renew it unless we were prepared to take it for another term of years. The government did not feel it would be justified in leasing such a building for another five or six years; it was long out of date many years ago, and at the present time we have come into temporary quarters. We are there only for the period of a year with the right of renewal for another year; there is no certainty we will be able to stay there any longer. All these circumstances have to do with the
considerations which, in the government a mind, make it imperative to purchase the site at once.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 
Arthur Meighen: In the world.
Supply-Public Works


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The finest site in the
world, that is his description of it. I think that will reflect upon the judgment of the Prime Minister. I think the public-certainly in London who know this building, and the public in Canada who also know it-will say it is not a question of veracity, but a question of judgment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend tell me a finer site in the world than Trafalgar Square?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Tell me.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I certainly will. There would be a beautiful site for this building where the British Columbia building is on Waterloo Place. But, talking of Trafalgar Square, this building will be on the dead side. There will certainly not be so many people passing on that side of Trafalgar Square or Cockspur street as pass 17 and 19 Victoria street where the offices of the country were before.


Mr. LOGAN:: Nonsense!


Edmond Baird Ryckman: My hon. friend says
"nonsense". He has certainly not had experience or he would not make that remark. At this time when the country is being asked to save money where it can this purchase should not be made. How was it Lord Strathcona could live and carry on business on Victoria street, also Sir George Perley? But we have a new High Commissioner now and the idea is that money should be spent and spent in large amounts. I am against this vote, and I think that everyone who knows the location and the facts will be of the same opinion. In conclusion, I pin my judgment to the letter of Messrs. Knight, Frank & Rutley whom the government got to support this purchase.


John Arthur Clark: I am once more amazed to find the great interest taken by hon. members to our left in expenditures. We have two expressions from that quarter on this vote; one from the leader of the party in his usual critical terms, to the effect that it is unfortunate that this vote came this year. Well, if it is unfortunate that the government proposes to spend this money this year, surely it is unfortunate that the party to our left sit quiet, without protest, prepared to allow the vote to go through.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Do you not want a
chance to speak?


John Arthur Clark: No, I was not looking for
a chance to speak. All I was looking for was a chance to vote against this item, and I am going to see that I get it. Like my leader (Mr. Meighen) and the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross), I do not think any member is more anxious to see the government properly housed in London or more anxious to see justice done to Canada in Great Britain than I am. Canada has done very well as the leading British dominion for a great number of years, with immigration that largely exceeds the immigration of today from Great Britain, with immigration that largely exceeds the immigration that we can look for from Great Britain for a period of years to come, and I think we can reasonably say that that business was fairly well handled by our former High Commissioner. As I stated the other day, w'hat we are here for, particularly this year, is to see that every item of capital expenditure that is proposed by the government and that we can do without this year or for a period of years to come, should be cut out ruthlessly from the estimates. What is the effect of passing these various items of capital expenditure that we can do without? It means that the promise contained in the Speech from the Throne for a reduction of taxation cannot be carried out, unless that reduction in taxation is the mythical reduction in taxation on agricultural implements by reducing the tariff. That, to my mind, is not a reduction in taxation at all. That will increase what is commonly undersood by the people of this country as taxation. The other day the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred to taxation in this country as compared with taxation in Great Britain and other British dominions. The comparison which he gave, with all due respect to his opinion, was not at all applicable to our present condition, because the system of government in those dominions is entirely different, and it is almost an impossibility to arrive at the per capita taxation in this country as compared with that in New Zealand1, for instance. The Minister of Justice shakes his head. He knows that we have a federal government-


Ernest Lapointe: What about Australia?


John Arthur Clark: I am talking about New
Zealand just at the moment.


Ernest Lapointe: I see.


John Arthur Clark: I will come to Australia.
The Minister of Justice was referring to New Zealand and Great Britain where the system of government is entirely different.


Ernest Lapointe: I said that, too.

Supply-Public Works


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Arthur Clark: I can surely give my
reasons.


George Newcombe Gordon: I think the hon.
gentleman is out of order because he is referring to a debate which took place previously during this session. That has been disposed of.


Mr. CLARKE:: I quite understand that, and what I propose to do is to give my reasons why this vote should be struck out. If the Chair rules that I cannot give my reasons why this vote should be struck out, I will bow to the ruling of the Chair.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member cannot refer to a debate which has been carried on during the same session at a previous time of the session. That is the point exactly. There is no question at all that he can give his reasons.


John Arthur Clark: I was saying that if we do not reduce expenditures in this country, we cannot reduce taxation. I was about to compare the taxation of the country, which is our real competitor, namely the United States, with that of Canada. The Minister of Justice,
I think, stated that our federal taxation was $37 per capita. The taxation in the United States, our real competitor for capital and for industry, is S29 per capita. Until we can approximate the taxation in the United States, we cannot hope to encourage capital to invest in Canada. Capitalists in this country will not invest in industry to-day. They are investing in bonds, tax-free bonds where they can get them. I know of capitalists to-day who are investing in western Canada in investments which they know will not yield an income, relying upon the increased value in the properties they are purchasing in the next ten, twelve or fifteen years, in order to get away from taxation. They (absolutely refuse to invest in any industry to-day on account of, first, taxation and, second, lack of stability in Canada owing to the fiscal policy of this government. For those reasons chiefly, I am opposed to this vote, and I would, therefore, move that resolution No. 139 be reduced by the sum of $1,300,000.


Mr. McMASTER:: I do not wish to support this resolution by a silent vote, and I would like to make an appeal, futile though it may be, to hon. members on the treasury benches not to force this vote through the House. I think more and more the people of Canada are feeling that if there is possible for us an independent national existence, our
governmental expenses must be cut and cut to the bone. I cannot, for the life of me, see why it should be necessary to make more ample provision for our representation in London than what has proved, perhaps, not sufficient or perfectly adequate, but at least practical, for the last ten or twelve years.
I have no desire to see this government embarrassed, but I have a desire to see them not place themselves flatly in opposition to what I believe to be the views of this country on the question of governmental expenditures. There is only one policy that will satisfy the Canadian people, and that is that anything that we can possibly do without, we should do without in attempting to balance the budget.
I am not familiar witl? the situation in London of these buildings. This may be an excellent building that is proposed. I am not going to deal with the question whether the scheme under ordinary circumstances would be a good scheme or not. The question with me is what expenditure should be incurred of anything but an absolutely essential nature if the country's finances are in the-conditions they are in. I would ask the government to realize that non-essentials must be cut out. I would like to raise my voice in protest against the idea that the prosperity of this country in the future, its importance in the world, is going to be judged by the size or the grandeur of our offices in London or Paris or any other place in the world. The sensible people of this world will think a great deal more of Canada's balance sheet than of Canada's architectural or building possessions in this, that or the other city. I do not wish unduly to take up the time of the committee, but I would implore members on the treasury benches to realize the temperate spirit of the country as regards expenditures and not to endeavour to force this vote through.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
desire on the part of the government to force anything, but as I intimated a moment ago the lease of the building in which the offices were formerly situated has expired and we are now in temporary quarters. There is not the least doubt that if we go on renting accommodation as we are doing to-day it will cost us much more in the end than if we purchased a building outright. By the purchase of the building we shall save in the way of rents. As pointed out by the minister in charge of the estimates (Mr. King, Kootenay) there will be economies the moment that the different departments are brought within one building. It is perfectly
Supply-Public Works

clear that offices scattered in four different parts of London, none of them in a position at all comparable to this, involve a great deal of waste both in money and time on the part of those engaged in public work in England on behalf of the Dominion and on the part of people who go over to transact business there. The government have gone into this matter very carefully and if we were not convinced that it would make for economy in the long run we would not venture at this time to make the purchase. I think I have given to the House reasons sufficient to show why the chance we have now or a similar chance might not come again. I intimated first of all that a site of this kind is not always available. An hon. member said that the Morley's hotel was a much finer site. I do not know whether he heard me say that that building is to be destroyed; as a matter of fact it is being pulled down to afford a wider space at the entrance to the Strand. The moment that building is removed the value of the property we are acquiring will go up materially. One side of Trafalgar square, as hon. members may know, is occupied by the National Art Gallery, and on the other sides there are the main approaches of London, one down the Strand to the east of London, the other towards Westminster, and yet other approaches to the west of London. Altogether for our purposes there is not a finer site anywhere. An hon. member spoke about the greater part of the traffic being on the other side of the street. Well, that only makes the position of this building all the more advantageous. It is office accommodation that will be required, and it will be very much to the advantage of those who will occupy the building, as well as convenient to persons looking for it, not to be on the crowded side of the street. Moreover, it presents to persons searching for the offices a view of the building much more conspicuous than if the building were located on the congested side
There is another feature of the situation which perhaps is worth noting. My hon. friend who spoke a moment ago (Mr. Mc-Master) is aware of the state in which London exchange has been in the last year, and I can say to the House on fairly good authority that so favourable has the exchange been towards us that having regard to our financial transactions in London we shall save enough out of the difference practically to pay the cost of purchase of the entire building. I have here a communication addressed to me from Mr. Larkin dated February 16, 1924. It is written from the office of the High Commissioner for Canada and reads:

My dear Prime Minister,
Union Club
The enclosed is copy of a letter I have just received from Messrs. Charles Russell and Co., which speaks for itself.
Since the purchase of the building we have saved about $30,000 by not having to pay the money out, as exchange has dropped from 4.70 odd to 4.43, and I think it will come down further. Anyway, I think it would be worth while not sending the money over here until we need it which, as you will see, will be on the 25th of March next. The amount is as set forth in the letter to the Minister of Public Works dated 19th January.
This letter is signed by Mr. Larkin. He points out that since the purchase of the building there has been a saving of some $30,000; that is to say, since the time the option was taken. This is a factor that might be taken into consideration. I see my hon. friend shaking his head. Now, I do not urge it as a reascta, but at least it is a consideration which I think might well appeal to hon. members. In any event the government is committeed to take this building and is prepared to stand or fall by it.


Robert Forke: I regret very much that the Prime Minister saw fit to make the statement with which he closed his remarks, that the government would stand or fall by the purchase of this building.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have to. We cannot be a government and enter into contracts which we are not prepared to carry out.


Robert Forke: Well, if the vote is taken
I will vote against the item.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to make clear
one or two points which I think the committee should take note of. First of all, there is absolutely no satisfactory evidence before the committee that the building wjll serve the purposes which it is alleged that it will, that is to say, accommodate the federal offices. That is not clear to me, nor has it been made clear. There is another point. We shall pay $36,000 more per annum than we are paying for the existing accommodation. Again, this is a case where the money is going out of the country and is not serving to relieve in any way distressed people in Canada. The Prime Minister tells us that we shall save rents. I do not think we shall;
I rather think that this will add to the present cost.


William F. Carroll: What is your evidence
of that? [DOT]


Henry Herbert Stevens: The evidence of the
Minister of Public Works, for whatever it is worth.

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
(Mr. Stevens) is of the opinion that the federal offices will not be accommodated, but that is merely a repetition of statements that have no foundation in fact. The High Commissioner advises us to the contrary. As regards the question whether the dominion government should allow its present offices in London to remain scattered or should consolidate them in a proper building, I do not think it will be disputed that it would be in the financial interests of the country to take the step which is proposed, and I am satisfied that the people of Canada will approve of the action of the government on the ground that it is desirable that we should have proper quarters in London.


Arthur Meighen: There are some particulars which I still desire and which the minister has failed to give to the committee. Before I ask for them however I should like to emphasize this fact. The minister should never have come for a vote of this magnitude without being able to demonstrate by actual facts which were easily at his disposal that there is enough space in this building to take care of the offices which at present occupy the various other buildings. The minister cannot give us the space we occupy, or the space we require; all he can give us is a hope of Mr. Larkin's that everything will come out all right. There is no evidence that Mr. Larkin has measured the space; he has looked at the building and he thinks that if he gets it it will provide the necessary accommodation. He does not know what the office requirements are in regard to immigration, or pensions or any other branches, but apparently he has an idea that if he can acquire this building he will be able to_ crowd these offices into it. That is really what he has told the minister in effect. Is not that simply a pig in a poke? When does the government's ground rent agreement run out?


John Warwick King: 
Arthur Meighen: More?


John Warwick King: No, sixty years
more.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I know. But if the government took over merely the present lease it would run for thirty-nine years. Is the minister sure it is thirty-nine and not twenty-nine?


John Warwick King: It is thirty-nine
years.


Arthur Meighen: But, as I understand it, a new lease has been made for ninety-nine or one hundred years?


John Warwick King: A lease will be
made, yes.


Arthur Meighen: What will be the rent
then?


John Warwick King: 
Arthur Meighen: For ninety-nine years?


John Warwick King: Yes, certainly.


Arthur Meighen: Has the government any information at all as to when the term expires for the building next door, the College of Surgeons' headquarters?


John Warwick King: It is freehold. It
is held on a peppercorn lease.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is held on a nine hundred and ninety-nine year lease.


Arthur Meighen: Is there not a rent of
so much a year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A penny a
year.


Arthur Meighen: [DOT] So the freehold really has to be purchased, that is what it amounts to, and all that possibly exists there is the hope that it can be bought; there cannot be anything else.


John Warwick King: The Crown holds the fee.


Arthur Meighen: I know but the Crown
does not own the building. The building has to be purchased from the present tenants. So all we have got is this one building which, according to the hope of Mr. Larkin, will hold only our own federal offices, but which the government has not any data assuring us that it will. The government has signed a contract and bound the honour of Canada- this government that has been boasting for months that they took no steps to bind the country without the authority of parliament.


John Warwick King: It is an option.


Arthur Meighen: Then the option need not be taken up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We would lose the deposit we have paid.


John Warwick King: A small amount.


Arthur Meighen: This is a new feature altogether. We ought to know the amount of the deposit.
f>88
Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: A hundred pounds has been paid.


Arthur Meighen: We are pretty hard up if we cannot afford to lose one hundred pounds. Although the government's existence is not worth a great deal, surely they should not stake it on a hundred pounds! All we have at stake is a hundred pounds; the honour of the country, I am told now, is not bound at all. So hon. members can surely see themselves free to save this dive into the dark for the purchase of a building that at best is not going to be any great credit to us. Certainly it is not going to serve the purposes we have had in mind for years, and its purchase will alienate from Canada $1,300,.000 in a year that is perhaps the worst in decades in which to send money out of the country.


William Alves Boys: When does the option expire?


John Warwick King: On the 25th March -to-day.


William Alves Boys: Then it is no longer an option. If it expires to-day, and has not been accepted, the opportunity of getting this building is gone.


John Warwick King: No.


William Alves Boys: If the option has been accepted, then I presume we are bound and the honour of the country is at stake. Has the option been accepted?


John Warwick King: Yes, we carry on for the time being at a 5 per cent interest rate.


William Alves Boys: I do not know what the minister means by saying, "We carry on". Has the option been accepted?


John Warwick King: The High Commissioner has accepted the option.


William Alves Boys: There should not be any mystery about this. It is a very simple proposition. We are told there is an option, and that it expires to-day. If an order in council has been put through authorizing the acceptance of the option, when was it signed? If it has not been signed, the country is not liable at all and our rights will be gone in about twenty-three minutes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The option has already expired.


William Alves Boys: Yes. That may raise the
question whether the time is up in Canada or in London.


John Warwick King: The Dominion
government paid one hundred pounds as a deposit on the purchase price at the time of 
the signing of the agreement, and the balance of $1,224,900 is payable on the 25th day ot March 1924. That is the situation apparently, and if the balance of the purchase price is not paid on the 25th March instant, interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum is to be paid the vendor.


William Alves Boys: Mr. Chairman, I do not like to be too positive about anything I have not seen, but if I may draw what seems to be a natural deduction from what the minister has just read, it looks to me as if it never was an option. What is it?


John Warwick King: Really an agreement to purchase-the same thing.


William Alves Boys: Then why are we told it is an option one minute and an agreement the next?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I notice in the letter read by the right hon. Prime Minister that the High Commissioner advised that the money should not be sent forward until March 25th. Has it been remitted to London?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, certainlv not.


Mr STEVENS:: The money has not been sent forward?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Mr. DOUCET:: Although I have been
following the debate pretty closely, I am yet without certain information. First, we are told that we have an agreement to purchase, then that we have an option. It seems to me that this obscurity should be cleared up for the benefit of the committee. It is either an option or an agreement to purchase. I would ask the minister not to press this vote until 'he has given the committee the floor space of this building with the addition contemplated, and the floor space of the four buildings now occupied as Canadian offices in London. Only then will we be in a position to say whether this proposed building will be sufficiently large to accommodate our offices. Up to now we have nothing to rely on but the hope of the High Commissioner that the building will afford the necessary accommodation. The hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryekman) seems to be in possession of valuable information as to the location of the building in question, much more possibly than that possessed by many hon. members who have already spoken and who have advised as to the necessity of hurrying forward the purchase. Before any hon. member can give an in-

telligent vote upon this enormous expenditure of $1,300,000-at a time when we are all preaching, and wish to practise, economy-we must have the information called for this evening.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It seem3 to me that we are in danger of overlooking what is actually a very grave departure from proper practice in connection with this transaction. Does anybody know the date of the order in council under which the contract was made? Does anybody know under what pretended authority the country was committed to a contract involving the expenditure of this large sum of money without the slightest expression of opinion from parliament? I would ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), what is the legal justification for this alleged contract? Can he tell me? He cannot, simply because there is not any. And this from the party that was going to be so very constitutional, the party which was going to do nothing of which parliament did not first approve-this party pledged the honour of the country and themselves without the slightest parliamentary authority. And it is not as if this were the only case of its kind.. We were given an illustration of it last session when we had the case of the Scribe hotel; and here we have another purchase apparently without the slightest authority. If there is any, can we get it? Is the cabinet absolutely dumb?
I would like to refer them to their own protestations, to what they themselves said hundreds of times when they were on this side. I would refer them to some of the utterances of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister about autocracy, about the usurpation of power, the responsibilities of government, the rights of the people, control by parliament, and the iniquities of orders in council. Yet here we have these very same gentlemen apparently ready to spend over a million dollars absolutely without authority. I am going to ask again-perhaps I can get an answer this time

what is the date of the order in council authorizing this agreement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has spoken about consulting parliament in the matter. If he will take the trouble to refer to the debates of last session he will find that when the estimates of the High Commissioner's office were before the House I referred to the necessity of our purchasing a building in London. The matter was discussed, and the occasion was alluded to by two or three speakers this evening who mentioned that at that time it was intimated 44
Supply-Public Works
that we were going to get a much larger building. If the House had any objection to the purchase being made, that was the time the objection should have been offered. The matter was brought forward purposely at that time in order that the High Commissioner might receive instructions whether he should proceed with the negotiations which, as I mentioned to the House at the time, were in progress. Having brought the matter up in the House and having had it discussed here, the government instructed the High Commissioner to proceed with the negotiations. As I think I mentioned on that occasion, it was not advisable to have undue publicity in connection with the effort to obtain particular buildings; that if they were to be purchased at a satisfactory price it would not be wise to^ advertise the circumstances too freely to intending vendors. The whole matter was discussed in the House last session, and the government certainly took it from the discussion that the members of the House were in favour of the purchase of a building in London; indeed, the expressions of opinion given were practically all to that effect. The High Commissioner was instructed to go ahead with the negotiations. He kept the government fully informed, step by step, of what he was doing. The government authorized him to enter into an agreement which would give us the right to obtain this property. We have not yet put through an order in council acquiring the property, but one will be passed as soon as this amount is voted.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely my right hon. friend is not serious when he says he has no authority for the making of this contract. There was talk about purchasing something- it might have been about the purchase of anything. There was no vote, there was nothing which anyone coming into this House for the first time in his life could refer to as an authority for anything. So we now learn that Mr. Larkin was instructed to sign the contract; it is a contract which Mr. Larkin has entered into on the authority of instructions of the government. How did the instructions get to Mr. Larkin? Which department looks after that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Department of Public Works.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that there has ever been a precedent for this situation in the history of this parliament. It is apparent from the confessions of the government, although some of the confessions are wholly contradictory to others previously made, that

Supply-Public "Works

they have actually a contract signed, an absolutely binding contract under which this country undertakes to pay 11,300,000 in England. I do not think a member of the government dares to get up and dispute that. That is the position we find ourselves in tonight-not even a contract in which there is a clause making it subject to the vote of parliament and thereby relieving us of damages in the event of the vote not being taken. And the Prime Minister says, "We have authority to do it, because I mentioned it a year ago; because I said we were thinking of buying a building somewhere in London." This is the responsible government for which the battle was fought in 1921. Let us all be careful; let us listen to-every word that falls from the lips of the Prime Minister and from every member of the government; for if they venture to express the hope that some day we will own something we may expect the next year to find ourselves bound hand and foot and the money practically sent over. Really I cannot conceive of a member of a government making a plea of that kind before an intelligent committee. Talk about responsible government! Certainly a government must make contracts. Sometimes it is bound to do so in emergencies; sometimes it even has to call in the aid of Governor General's warrants. But in a case of that kind it makes its contract subject to the will of parliament. It does not come to parliament and say, we are tied hand and foot and we have either got to stand or fall-and "O, what a fall was there, my countrymen!" if this government actually fell. The government has no sense of its responsibilities when it ties the hands of this parliament, making us mere automatons, putting us in a position where we have no say at all, binding us to an investment overseas in respect of which not a single member of parliament outside the government had the faintest knowledge and with regard to which we have mighty little knowledge even yet. That is the position the committee finds itself in now, landed there by a government elected to restore -mark the word-to restore responsible government in Canada, to gather the shattered remnants-


Samuel William Jacobs: We have not yet spent five million dollars on graving docks to elect a minister of the Crown.


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not think you have spent $5,000,000 on graving docks, but you are spending it as fast as you can on that graving dock, and your minister says you should have spent it sooner.


Samuel William Jacobs: That dock only elected a member of the government which was in office for but a few months.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and the Minister
of Public Works censured us a year ago because we had not gone ahead with it sooner, declared that we had thereby lost a lot of business for Canada, declared that was the only fault he could find with it. However, we had better not get slid off into a graving dock. Whatever we did we had the authority of parliament for, and I would like to see the authority of parliament produced for this.	.. ,
' . J5. [DOT]


Samuel William Jacobs: We are getting it now.


Arthur Meighen: After the purchase is
made. That is the hon. member's idea of responsible	government-have	ourselves
bound with chains and then told, you have to do it, the honour of the country is bound, and all you are here for is to do it; and the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) is slave enough to come right Up to the mark and do it.


Samuel William Jacobs: The hon. gentleman and
his cohorts have the right to vote against it now.


Arthur Meighen: And anyone who has
some real interest in responsible government is likely to do so, but those who talk the loudest about it trifle with it the freest. We have a beautiful illustration of that to-night. We did not know until we arrived on the scene that we were in this position.


Mr. HEALY:: May I ask a question?


Arthur Meighen: I see the hon. member
for "Belle River" is here.


Albert Frederick Healy: More rude than clever!
Might I be permitted to ask the right hon. leader of the opposition a question?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Albert Frederick Healy: Had the vote passed the
House and the contract been entered into, what would have been the attitude of the right hon. gentleman?


Arthur Meighen: I would not have needed to take an attitude. If the vote had passed the House they would not be back here for another. There was an instance like this once before, and I will remind hon. members when it was. It was when another government that doubtless boasted of its sense of responsibile government tied us hand and foot to a railway running into the Yukon ter-

Supply-Public Works
ritory, tied us to a railway contract in which there was no clause exempting us in the event of the money not being voted by parliament. Parliament refused to pass the vote, and parliament was mulcted in damages to the extent, if I remember correctly, of about $12,000,000.


Mr. PARENT:: Does the right hon. gentleman not remember another case when he was in power, when the Quebec and Saguenay railway was bought before parliament was ever consulted?


Arthur Meighen: Never; not at all. The
hon. member's memory is very weak. There was nothing done there except it was expressly stated to be subject to the vote of parliament.


Georges Parent: But the contract had been
entered into.


Arthur Meighen: That clause left parliament free. Is parliament free to-night?


Georges Parent: Undoubtedly.


Arthur Meighen: Free? When the minister tells us there is an absolutely binding contract and that the country will have to pay damages if the money is not voted, and we are liable to specific performance? That is the position we are in to-night.


Samuel William Jacobs: Where does the hon. gentleman get his law for that?


Arthur Meighen: I get it principally from the fountains of common sense.


Samuel William Jacobs: The hon. member thinks
law and common sense are one and the same thing, and he is a lawyer.


Arthur Meighen: My sense of law is common sense; I am afraid the hon. member's sometimes is not. The position is this:If we are bound and there is no relieving clause making it subject to the vote of parliament, why are we not liable to specific performance?


Samuel William Jacobs: Whom will they sue?


Arthur Meighen: Sue us unless we refuse
a fiat, as the Minister of Justice did last session in the Marshall case. That is the only way we could get out of it, and it is not a very honourable way. Now we know the position we are in, and we know who have placed us in this position.


Donald Sutherland: We have to-night
the remarkable spectacle of the Prime Minister making the direct statement that this country is committed to the purchase of this property, and immediately afterwards the 44 i
Minister of Public Works, under whose department this matter comes, informing the House that the country is not committed, that it has an option and the option is going to expire in about three minutes. Now we are given to understand that the functions of this parliament are simply to ratify what the government does. This
12 midnight is their sense of responsible government which we have heard so very much about. We all remember how the Prime Minister and those associated with him toured this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific a short time ago denouncing the autocracy of hon. members who now occupy this side of the House. If ever there was a clear case of autocracy and of contempt for parliament it is exhibited in the action of the government in this matter. I am surprised that certain members of the government can sit in their seats and listen to the directly contradictory statements that have been made by their colleagues and expect parliament to vote this $1,300,000 through without any further discussion.
We have heard arguments advanced why this vote should be passed. The Prime Minister himself admits that the property is not a desirable one unless the property adjoining it can be secured at some time in the future, and he has no assurance that it can be secured. He has not been able to show the House that it can be secured. We have heard the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) telling the House that it is going to be a good investment. You would think that this government were annoyed with all the money they have on their hands for investment, and that they had no idea what to do with it. We have been told that it is going to be a great advertisement for Canada, that there are many people over in the Old Land who have not heard of Canada, but who when they see this building in the middle of London will be coming out here by the thousands. Immigration is going to be furthered, we are told, by this purchase. I notice that the estimates for Immigration and Colonization this year are $2,000,000 more than the estimates for the same purpose in 19211922. We are dealing in millions to-day as we used to deal with thousands formerly. Have the government lost all sense of the position of this country at the present time? Have they forgotten about the enormous deficits which have daily to be met? I quite agree with the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) that it is our duty to pare down to the bone everything that can possibly be pared. We must cut expenses as fine as we possibly can.
Supply-Public Works

In view of what happened with regard to the item for $600,000 which was put through the House a few hours ago, I should not be at all surprised if the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), after a night's rest, would vote a different way from what he has intimated tonight. He did that on the $600,000 item, and will probably do it again.


Robert Forke: I challenge the hon. member's statement that I voted differently from what I said I would do.


Donald Sutherland: I understood the hon. member to say that if he was going to vote on this he was going to vote against it.


Robert Forke: I want your ruling, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member said that I voted differently from what I said I would do on the $600,000 item. I never made the statement that I would vote against that item.


Donald Sutherland: I may be a little in error in that. I think the hon. gentleman intimated that he would support a vote to reduce the item by $100,000, as I think Hansard will show; but he could not support a motion to reduce it by $75,000 or $50,000.


Robert Forke: I made the statement that the government might reduce it by $100,000, but I never made the statement that I would not vote for the $600,000 item.


Donald Sutherland: We have extracted, practically with a corkscrew, so much information from the government during the last hour that if the matter stands over for another day we may be able to get some more information regarding it. If this option was to expire to-night it shows why the government are so anxious to have this vote pass, the first item of the estimates they introduced into the House. Why were the government not frank? Why did they not inform us that an option had been secured on this property, and that it would expire at a certain time? But we have the assurance of the Prime Minister that the government are committed to this enterprise absolutely, and all that parliament is called upon to do is to vote the money. Is that treating parliament as it should be treated? Is the function of parliament merely to ratify what the government bring forward, even though the House is in session and has a right to be informed of all that has transpired? And the Minister of Public Works informs us that the option expires on the 25th March. Who are we to believe, the Prime Minister or the Minister of Public Works? One or the other is not correct in his statements. Consequently I say we are entitled to have the contract in 
this matter placed before us so that we may ascertain the facts. If we cannot take the word of members of the government in regard to a subject of this kind, we ought to have in our possession the document under which the country is committed to the expenditure before we pass this vote.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Coming back to a question we discussed earlier in the evening, namely the facilities for gathering round this building the various provincial offices, I should like to ask what is the size of the adjoining lot, the lot occupied, I think, by the building of the College of Physicians. I have been in that building and my recollection of it is that the lot is not a large one. I should like to have information on that point if the minister is in a position to give it.


John Warwick King: I have not the dimensions of the adjoining lot. Some hon. members who have seen the building may be able to give that information.


Murray MacLaren: I did not hear the
minister, will he please repeat his statement?


John Warwick King: I say I have not the extent of the adjoining lot, that information is not here.


Murray MacLaren: Well, that is a very
important omission. If it is a small lot it will not be sufiiciently large to permit the grouping of the various provincial offices of the Dominion and that, I believe, would cause profound disappointment in the country. I should like to have a clear understanding of the question as it stands. Has this property been bought or is it under option?


John Warwick King: There is an agreement to purchase.


Murray MacLaren: If the sale is not completed by March 25, what will happen then? Will the sale be off or are we still liable?


John Warwick King: We have agreed
to buy.


William Alves Boys: There are two or three matters I should like to submit. In the first place I can hardly think the minister, or the government, will want to put this item through without supplying some needed information. I think it will be admitted by everybody that we have a somewhat unusual situation in connection with this property. I am going to assume now that what we have is an agreement; if I am wrong I may be corrected. I think we ought to know the date of it, and who signed it. I presume the minister has a copy of the agreement before him, and I certainly should like to see it. I should

Supply-Public Works
also like to see who signed the document on behalf of Canada. Further I should like to find out who sent the authority to London, if it was sent there, for the completion of this agreement. I presume, in the first instance that some person on behalf of the department, or the government, had an investigation made regarding this building, and the terms upon which it could be purchased. I also presume that information was sent over and was duly considered. I understand there was no order in council passed. Was there even a letter signed by the minister, or by any responsible person on behalf of the government, authorizing the closing of this contract? Now, who signed it pursuant to that letter, and under what authority? I think before we are asked to pass an item involving 11,300,000 we are entitled to this information. If it cannot be given now-the minister I see nods his head so I will be pleased to sit down in order to get the information. If there is no objection I should like very much if the minister would be good enough to let a copy of the agreement, or the agreement itself, be passed over here for us to look at.


John Warwick King: There was an agreement signed on the 26th June, 1923, between Charles Drummond, 49 Charing Cross, and General Sir William Henry Mackinnon, Sir Bertram Blakiston Cubitt, and Sir Lawrence Edward Halsey, on behalf of the trustees of the Union Club, and the Hon. Peter Charles Larkin, High Commissioner, on behalf of Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
date?


John Warwick King: The date was 26th June, 1923.


William Alves Boys: I appreciate that information which answers my question as far as it goes. But the minister has not given me any in-foAnation regarding the nature of the authority sent to Mr. Larkin to sign the agreement on behalf of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If hon. gentlemen opposite really wished to get the true position of the matter they would have ascertained from my remarks a moment ago that in a transaction of this kind it is necessary for the government to trust to some agent and to have the negotiations carried on as quietly as possible. If you are negotiating a purchase for the government it does not do to proclaim the matter from the house tops, it is necessary to trust your agent or your representative in matters of the kind. I mentioned that last session the government
discussed in the House the intended purchase of a building in London. The building we were trying to acquire at the time, or that we thought of acquiring, was Cox's Bank, the price, however, was much higher than we expected. It would have been a building that would have accommodated the different provinces as well as the federal government. We found that a commission was being claimed by a certain party in London on the purchase of that building, and as soon as the High Commissioner learned that a commission was to be made by someone he immediately ended the negotiations without further discussion. He then continued to see what might be possible with respect to the Union Club; he had been negotiating with respect to different buildings. In case the Cox building should not be acquired he had been inquiring also about the Union Club building, He did not know whether we could get the Union Club building. In connection with the acquisition of the Union Club building, it was necessary to have arrangements made with the club itself involving the taking of a vote on the part of the members whether they would dispose of the Club building. Matters of that kind rendered necessary the giving of some assurance on the part of the government that the building would be acquired subsequently, and the government authorized Mr. Larkin to proceed with the negotiations, to keep us informed as to the price at which the building could be obtained, and he would receive further advice as the government got additional particulars. At each step of the negotiations, Mr. Larkin kept the government informed by cable and he received his replies by cable. He made the agreement for the purchase. He is the High Commissioner for Canada. If any government official is entitled to the confidence of the government and the country, it is surely the High Commissioner of this country in England. If there is one business man above another who has had experience in large transactions of the kind and who knows values in the matter of the purchase of a building, that person is the Hon. Mr. Larkin. The government had entire confidence in his judgment, business ability and acumen in this matter, and we therefore entrusted him to make what was necessary in the way of agreements to secure the purchase of the building.


John Arthur Clark: I have one observation to make on the Prime Minister's remarks. The government knowing that Mr. Larkin was going to purchase this building, knowing that he had been authorized to purchase and
Supply-Public W orks

knowing that he had actually signed a contract to purchase it, before the House prorogued last session, it seems a remarkable thing to me that the Prime Minister did not take the House into his confidence and tell us that a contract had been entered into.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I answer my hon, friend right there? I think I said a moment ago that, in a transaction of this kind', several stages were necessary. Before Mr. Larkin could get the Union Club to vote on the question whether they would move to some other premises or not, he had to give some assurance that the building would be taken by the country if it were disposed of. That vote had not been taken while parliament was in session; if my recollection is correct, it was some little time before the matter was finally concluded.


John Arthur Clark: It appears from the date the minister gave us the contract was actually signed on the 26th June before the House prorogued.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No contract was signed. There was an agreement that the building would be purchased.


John Arthur Clark: An agreement is a contract and Canada was committed before the House prorogued, according to the information the House has in its possession now. If Canada was committed to an expenditure of $1,300,000, I still submit it is an extraordinary thing that the House was not so informed before it rose last session. Knowing the Prime Minister's declared policy, in regard to forcing votes or measures through this House without due consideration, I am sure he will be the last one to attempt to force this vote through to-night. Knowing also his distaste for sitting in the early hours of the morning, and knowing the great desire of our Progressive friends, who have all gone home, except eleven, to vote on any measures which will save the country-


Thomas George McBride: I would like to call the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Clark) to the fact that on one occasion I took the count in this chamber only two of his bunch were present.


John Arthur Clark: I would like to call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the tables are turned to-night. I will venture to say that on that occasion a million dollars were not at stake.


William Irvine: Let me point out that the Labour party is present in full force.
[Mr. Clark.3


John Arthur Clark: In fairness to my hon. friends to my left who, I understand, are great economists and whose great ambition it is to see the expenditures of this country cut, I think proper opportunity should be given to them to gather here, to express their views on this subject and to vote. Therefore, I will move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. HANSON:: In view of the last remark made by the Prime Minister, I should like to ask him if we are in this position with regard to this purchase. Is it true that on the 26th day of June last the Hon. Mr. Larkin bound Canada to a contract for the purchase of this building, and that in that contract is contained a clause that it was subject to the ratification of members of the Union Club, but not subject to the ratification of parliament?


George Newcombe Gordon: I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that there is a motion that the committee rise and report progress, a motion which is not debatable, and a vote must be taken on it.
Motion (Mr. Clark) negatived: Yeas, 30; Nays, 62.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to repeat the question which I put to the Prime Minister and which you ruled was out of order a few minutes ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think hon.
members will hardly expect me to be able to remember what took place on one particular day, the 26th or 29th or other specific day of the month.


Arthur Meighen: The contract is here.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why cannot the contract be read?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have in my hand Hansard of last year which will show that the matter was being discussed at the time and what was under discussion. I read this at page 4630 of the House of Commons Debates:
Mr. Meighen: Has the government taken an option for the purchase of a building in London.
Mr. Mackenzie King: Not that I am aware of. As I said before my right hon. friend came in, negotiations were under way for the possible acquisition of the Cox Bank building. Those negotiations have been dropped, however, and I think the High Commissioner is at present considering the possibility of securing another building, but has not taken any official action upon it. Mr. Meighen: No option has been secured ?
Mr. Mackenzie King: I cannot say that an option has not been secured. I think the High Commissioner has arranged that at any rate before a certain building is disposed of he will be given the refusal of it. More than that I cannot say.

Supply-Public Works
That was the Union Club building that I was referring to. I am reading from Hansard of June 29, 1923:
Mr. Baxter: Sir Henry Thornton may possibly have bought a castle or two in London, and perhaps the thing may come in that way.
Mr. Ross (Kingston): May I ask whether the question will be considered of assembling all the Canadian offices in London? It seems too bad that the Ontario office should be in the Strand, the British Columbia offices in Pall Mall, and the High Commissioner's office in Victoria street. In the Strand one finds practically all the Australian offices combined in one building, the result being splendid advertisement for Australia. It struck me as being too bad that a similar situation could not be created for Canada.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I am glad my hon. friend asked that question because he has reminded me of the fact that last year we tried to acquire the British Columbia building. The federal government would have been prepared to take that building over had the British Columbia government been willing to part with it, but they have found that in that large building, which is so favourably located, they have an excellent investment; as a matter of fact I think they are making money on it. The present situation is that Canada has a much inferior building to that maintained in London by one of its provinces. The federal government rents part of the British Columbia building for offices connected with immigration work. The government has felt that Canada has been handicapped as compared with the other dominions in having its offices scattered about in various buildings throughout London-not only the offices of the different provinces, but the different federal offices that were created during the war. The office which has to do with the soldiers' overseas work is in one part of the city. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has offices for his agents in another part of the city. The immigration offices are in still another part and the High Commissioner's offices are elsewhere. We felt that it was desirable to acquire a building in which all these offices could be brought together and which would be large enough also to accommodate the representatives of the different provinces, but that kind of a building in London is not easily acquired, and rather than make a purchase which would not meet with the general approval of the country we have proceeded slowly in the matter. But the object is to do the very thing my hon. friend has 'said-to acquire a building that will serve all these purposes in a way that will reflect credit on the country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was three days after the contract was signed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The contract was not signed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The committee will see the difficulty we are in. One moment we are told that the contract was signed on the 26th and now the Prime Minister says that on the 29th the contract was not signed. We are trying to get at the truth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me quote again from the same page:
Mr. Meighen: No option has been secured?
Mr. Mackenzie King: I cannot say that an option has not been secured. I think the High Commissioner has arranged that at any rate before a certain building is disposed of he will be given the refusal of it. More than that I cannot say.
More than that I could not say then, because I had not the knowledge. These matters were under negotiation in the way I have indicated. My point is that the matter was discussed in a frank, open manner, and in view of the fact that the government having tried the year before to purchase the British Columbia building, but without success, and then having endeavoured to secure the Cox building, it was the duty of hon. gentlemen at that time, if they considered that we were not proceeding in the right way, to have said so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps it would help matters considerably if we could see the contract. What mystery is there about the contract? We asked for its production an hour ago and while hon. gentlemen opposite have been reading it we have not been able so far on this side to see it. Why cannot it be produced?


Arthur Meighen: We have a fine exhibition to-night of the authority of parliament. The Prime Minister was asked a year ago whether an option had been secured and he answered, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He did not answer, "no". Please tell the truth.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister is getting excited.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all. The Prime Minister is by no means excited, but he has the right to ask any hon. member, not to say the leader of a party, to stick to the truth.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is hard for him to do that.


Arthur Meighen: Let me read what the
Prime Minister said. I asked the following question:
Mr. Meighen: Has the government taken an option for the purchase of a building in London?
Mr. Mackenzie King: Not that I am aware of.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let my hon.
friend read further down:
Mr. Meighen: No option has been secured?
Mr. Mackenzie King: I cannot say that an option has not been secured.


Arthur Meighen: Apparently the Prime
Minister has two or three ways of answering a question, but it does not matter a fig what particular words he uses.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see that there is much reason for the hilarity of hon. gentlemen opposite-evidently a million dollars does not matter much to them. The question
Supply-Public Works

was asked whether an option had been secured, and it does not matter whether the Prime Minister answered yes or no, or whether he said, "I do not know," or " I am not aware." It does not matter at all, because we have the sense of his answer. He goes on to say that there were negotiations in regard to the British Columbia building, and so on, and that because he had talked in that frank, open way, therefore there was the authority of parliament to go ahead. Now this is seriously addressed to people who are supposed to be intelligent. I would not say that it was tvrong for the government to negotiate for a building, but they could have come last session and asked for a vote. It would not have injured them in the least in their negotiations had they done so. Or they could have done something else in regard to which very little criticism could have been offered: they could have secured an option which could have been subject to approval by parliament. They could have done any of these things. They had no authority to do any of them, but there would have been no great criticism, because such things are frequently done. But this government has tied parliament hand and foot.


Samuel William Jacobs: No.


Arthur Meighen: Let us see the contract.


Samuel William Jacobs: Parliament is not bound by the contract. Until parliament votes the money the contract is not worth the paper it is written on.


Arthur Meighen: The money cannot be paid until parliament votes it, but the binding is there. Does the hon. member mean to say that parliament cannot be bound, and the honour of Canada bound, if the contract is not observed?


Samuel William Jacobs: That contract was made subject to the money being voted by parliament.


Arthur Meighen: Is that stated in the contract?


Samuel William Jacobs: That is the law, and my hon. friend knows that it is not necessary to mention it in the contract.


Arthur Meighen: I know it was necessary in the Yukon case.


Samuel William Jacobs: We are not talking about the Yukon.


Arthur Meighen: I am.


Samuel William Jacobs: We are not discussing a post mortem.


Arthur Meighen: I know that this country had to pay damages in that case; a government which my hon. friend supported paid damages just because there was no relief. But is it not remarkable that we cannot have a look at the contract? The honour of Canada is bound in this matter and the government has virtually admitted over and over again that the excuse is that there was some talk by the Prime Minister last session about the wisdom of getting a building. That is his authority to go ahead. Hon. gentlemen opposite are very much interested in the contract. One after another reads it, but hon. members on this side of the House are not allowed to see it. Why can it not go on Hansard to-night? Surely the people's representatives have a right to see just what the contract is.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If the contract is to be read at all let it be read audibly.


John Warwick King: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: It is to be
observed, Mr. Chairman, the fidelity with
Supply-Public Works

which the trustees of the Union Club discharged their trust, it is to be observed that they took very good care that their shareholders were to have the opportunity of saying whether they liked the contract or not, and this is all the more noticeable when we observe the absolute failure on the part of our representatives to incorporate a similar provision for securing the approval of the parliament of Canada. The case is worse than where there has been an ordinary overriding of parliament, because not even ignorance can be pleaded here. You have gentlemen on the one side who are looking after the people whom they represent and are making sure that their rights are protected, while no such degree of consideration is given in connection with Canada. The hon. member for George Etienne Cartier said a good deal about the country not being bound. In one sense he is quite right, but in the other sense is there anything at all in what he says? There is an absolutely hard and fast, carefully drawn agreement which entirely binds the Canadian High Commissioner. Why the country is without any plea, the government is without any plea as against him. They told him to do it, so that the commissioner certainly is bound, and the government is in honour bound to make good any loss that he might suffer in connection with a transaction which he put through under their instructions. So we know what this contract is; it is exactly what was suggested before. I wonder if the Prime Minister thinks he should force a vote on this question now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I felt for one moment that hon. members had not had ample opportunity to discuss the matter I should certainly say that such further time should be granted as might be necessary for the purpose. I am very sincere when I say that the government is anxious to get on with the business of the country. We have spent a good deal of time over one or two items and we would like to get this estimate through to-night. I am not going to try to force it through, but I do submit that in the interests of the country, in the interests of economy, of which my hon. friends opposite have been speaking so much, it is desirable that the government should get the estimate through. The government will take the full responsibility for its action in this matter. This building could not have been acquired in any other way and the government, having all the circumstances before it, took the course which it believed to be in the public interest. My hon. friend says that the Union Club protected

itself, and asks why some clause was not put in the agreement under which the parliament. of Canada at such and such a time should exercise certain rights. If that clause had been put in, the agreement never could have been signed. There was just one chance of the government being able to secure that property, and it was a question of the government giving the High Commissioner the latitude which was necessary to enable him to make the purchase. We believed that the purchase would commend itself to the country, and knowing all the circumstances we felt that we were taking the right course in authorizing the High Commissioner to make the agreement that was entered into. If that agreement is not honoured certainly the country is not honouring its obligation. The government feels bound to stand by its obligation. As I say, we cannot be a government if we have no authority. If I had not discussed the matter fully last session and intimated what we were contemplating at that time, I would bow in a moment to what has been said about trying in any way to ignore parliament. But I submit that we have gone very fully into the matter; we have taken parliament into our confidence and have made a bargain which I believe the people of Canada will regard more and more as the years go by as one of the best investments which could have been made for the country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon.
friend appeals to me on the ground of economy. If I answered him from the same point of view I would have to tell him frankly that the cheapest way out of this difficulty is to pay your damage and refuse the vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We need the building; we have no premises. My hon. friend forgets that the lease of the building we were in had expired, and that we had to rent temporary quarters in the meantime. These are all factors that bear on the situation.


Donald Sutherland: Could the lease not have been renewed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It could have been renewed for another seven or eight years, but it was thought unwise in the interests of Canada to renew a lease on Victoria street for that further period.


Donald Sutherland: Could it not have been renewed for five years?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.

Supply-Public Works


Donald Sutherland: I think the Prime
Minister intimated earlier in the discussion that it could.


John Millar: There is one matter on
which I would like some information, and it is information upon which my vote in the matter will depend. Could this property have been secured on an option.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: From what Mr. Larkin has told us I do not think the property could have been secured in any other way. I think he had to be in a position to assure the Union Club that the' government would take the property if the membership of the club gave the executive permission to sell. That was the only way he could get it. The property being what and where it is, situated, as has been intimated to-night, on Trafalgar Square, the leasehold being from the Crowntaking all these facts into consideration, and having in mind that we were getting a site not for a day but for years and possibly centuries to come, the government felt justified in authorizing Mr. Larkin to proceed.


Arthur Meighen: Was a copy of the
contract-I mean a duplicate-handed over to the trustees of the Union Club at the time of execution?


John Warwick King: I suppose so.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister seeks to persuade us that the government simply had to proceed as it did; that otherwise a great chance might be lost forever; that we had to do it, though we had not the vote of parliament, though we had not the slightest semblance of authority. Well, it does seem to me that the correspondence that led up to what finally authorized the execution of an agreement on that basis should be brought down. I must admit for my part that it does not matter what the correspondence is, no government had the right to tie this country to an expenditure of that sort, placing the High Commissioner in a position where he had to put up every cent, having no authority from parliament to proceed. The government knew that the lease was expiring; if they felt it was a fearful thing to stay on in this place why did they not come last session and ask for a vote of parliament? That is the procedure that is followed every session. We may plan to erect a public building here or there, we do not know just on what site; a vote of parliament is asked for, and on that vote the government proceeds. In this case nothing is asked for at all; the government, in effect, affixes the seal of this Dominion to a contract involving the expenditure of a vast sum of
money, and parliament is in the position of helplessly having to support it-except as regards those who want to protest against that method of carrying on the public business.
I think we ought at least to have the correspondence, and further I think that every hon. member owes it to the country to record himself in this matter. We should not come to a decision to-night but rather at a time when hon. members can be present and record themselves yea or nay.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: What was the date of the contract?


Arthur Meighen: The twenty-sixth of June.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The House will remember that a year ago last November or December the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was in England; he had been at the conference in Geneva and was subsequently in London. While in London he took this matter up with the High Commissioner. The Minister of Finance was himself very strongly in favour of the purchase of the Grand Hotel, which is on the other side of Trafalgar Square, and that was one of the buildings which the government thought of acquiring. We found, however, that to purchase the Grand Hotel would mean an expenditure away out of consideration, and that project was not pursued any further The Minister of Finance, I think, is as careful of the honour of the country, of the responsibility of the Ministry to parliament, as any hon. member of this House has ever been or ever will be, and the Minister of Finance was present in the cabinet when all these transactions were discussed, was a party to the communications that were sent to Mr. Larkin, and I think he would have been the first had he thought it was in the public interest to disclose the fact that Canada was seeking to make this purchase, to have placed a sum in the estimates at the time .My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) asks why we did not put it in the estimates. He knows why we did not. We were trying to make the best bargain possible for this country, and if a cable despatch had gone from Canada to England that the Canadian government was appropriating $1,500,000 for the purchase of a building in London that would have ended in five minutes all the negotiations Mr. Larkin was making with any hope of getting a contract consummated at a reasonable figure. I ask hon. members as business men to concede to the government the right to proceed in these matters with the same degree of caution and in the same manner as they would
Supply-Public Works

proceed in their own private business transactions when carried on in a large way. If they are prepared to do that, I think they will agree that the government in this matter have had the public interests to the fore at every stage of the transaction.
As to the matter of bringing down correspondence there is no reason why all the correspondence should not be brought down, but unless hon. gentlemen are merely seeking to obstruct this vote there is no reason why it should not go through to-night. If there is anything in the correspondence or in the transaction for which the government should be condemned hon. members will have the rest of the session to bring in a resolution in regard to that, but I do submit that if we are to save the money of this country by getting through with the business of parliament, and we have spent a good part of the day on this one item already, it would be quite justifiable to have this vote go through to-night rather than have the<matter held up further.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I point out to the Prime Minister that any delay there has been was the result of the government not being frank with us. Let me give to him exactly what we were told when this discussion opened on Thursday. After reciting a lot of matter that was not germane to this immediate point the minister went on to say:
Investigations were carried on in regard to that building but the price was considered higher than we were prepared to pay. Later on the High Commissioner suggested that the Union Club building could be secured, and this estimate is for the purpose of purchasing that building.
A very innocent remark, but why did not the minister produce the contract and tell us exactly what the Prime Minister has told us in the last half hour or so. If he had done so, I venture to say there would have been far less discussion, whatever our views may have been. It has not been by obstruction but only by persistent cross-examination that we have been able to get the information that should have been produced by the government without a question being asked as soon as the vote was called. This information and this contract should have been before parliament at that time and the Prime Minister must bear me out in this,
' that it is only by the most persistent crossexamination that we have been able to obtain only the most ordinary information that is given upon all items that come up for discussion. That is what we complain of, and that is what our criticism of the government is, as much as the other phase of the question, the inadvisability of the purchase as well as

the fact that the purchase does not represent what the government hopes it will accomplish. That I persist in reiterating. If it did, there might be some justification for the government's persistence, but it will not accomplish it, and personally I think the government deserves censure for the manner in which this whole vote has been handled on Thursday and to-day. There has been nothing but a resistance against getting the most ordinary information.


Arthur Edward Ross: I wish to say that my vote in opposition to this is not with the intention of obstruction. I 1 a.m. took the position last year, and I think my question last year will show it, that I considered the proposition was to enter into the purchase of a building which would represent all Canada and combine all the provincial offices. That was distinctly stated. Now we are not told to-night that any effort has ever been made to get together all the provinces except the province of British Columbia. I wish to point out further that if this building is purchased it forever prevents us realizing the vision we had of all getting together, because there is not accommodation there for the provincial offices, and it will simply mean that the Dominion government will be in one office and the provincial offices will be spread all over London. If we purchase this building we are preventing the realization of that vision we had, and which we all want to see realized. Amendment negatived. Yeas, 31; Nays, 56.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is on the main motion.


Arthur Meighen: The item includes the
three figures?


George Newcombe Gordon: The first two items have passed, and the question is now on the last item for the Canadian building in London.


Arthur Meighen: I wish to have a vote
on that.


Mr BOYS:: I understood the Prime
Minister to say that he would lay the correspondence on the Table to-morrow if a vote was taken to-night. Is it understood that that correspondence will be laid on the table tomorrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.
Item carried on division. Yeas, 57, Nays, 32. Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 1.01 a.m. (Wednesday).

Questions
Wednesday, March 26, 1924