1924-07-03

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo) presented the fourth report of the select standing committee to which was referred for consideration and for report to the House the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Government Merchant Marine, recommending that item No. 138 of the estimates, providing an amount of $900,000 by way of loan to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, be passed by the House, and also making certain recommendations with regard to the following services of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine:	the
Atlantic service; the Pacific service; the Atlantic-Pacific service, via Panama; the Great Lakes service.

Mr. G. H. BOTVIN (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the select standing committee to supervise the Official Report of Debates beg leave to present the following as their second report:
Your committee recommend that for the balance of the present session of parliament and for all subsequent session until otherwise ordered by the House, an additional copy of the Votes and Proceedings be supplied to every member, said copy to be distributed daily when issued through the post office of the House of Commons.
The whole respectfully submitted.
Guo. H. Boivin,
Chairman.
If I may have the unanimous consent of the House I beg to move that the second report of the committee to supervise the Official Report of Debates, presented to the House this day, be now concurred in.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Has the hon. member
unanimous consent?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McGIVERIN (Ottawa) presented the seventh report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.
[Stage Direction]
Fifteenth annual report of the Civil Service Commission of Canada.-Hon. Mr. Copp.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 218 (from the Senate), to change the name of La Banque d'Hochelaga to "Ban-que Canadienne Nationale".-Mr. Mercier.

Questions

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

Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Who has been appointed Administrator of the province of Manitoba for the period of the absence of the Lieutenant-Governor?
2.	On whose recommendations?
3.	Is the appointee the Chief Justice of the province and if not, why was the Chief Justice passed over?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Hon. Thomas G. Mathers, Chief Justice of King's Bench Division.
2.	The hon. Solicitor General.
3.	There was no intention of nor reason for passing over the Chief Justice of Manitoba in making the appointment.


LAMBTON AND KENT-OIL
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Has the Geological branch of the Mines Department, or any other department, conducted an investigation as to the conditions of the oil industry in the counties of Lambton and Kent?
2.	Has a report been made by Dr. Hume dealing with the said oil industry or in an way relating to the production of crude petroleum in Ontario?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: I have been waiting to give an oral statement with respect to this question. Dr. Hume visited the oil fields, but not for the purpose of making geological investigations. We have a private letter from him written to the deputy minister, and there will be a report from Dr. Hume upon this oil field this year. He has instructions to make such a report.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Do I understand that it is merely a private letter?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How can it be
piivate about public business?


Charles A. Stewart: The letter
is of a private character. It was not intended to be used by the department or anyone else.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Probably that is more nearly correct.


WATERHEN LAKE DRAINAGE SCHEME
Mr. KNOX:: 1.	What is the total cost to date of the Waterhen
Lake Drainage scheme?	[DOT]
2.	How much of this amount is attributable to engineers' salaries and expenses?
3.	How many acres were reclaimed irrespective of previous existing hay lands?
4.	How much of this land is now leased, and to whom?
5.	What is the annual rental and for how long does the lease run?
6.	Does the government intend to make any further expenditure on this project? If so, for what purpose?
7.	At whose request was the work undertaken?
8.	How is the land to be disposed of when the present lease expires?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	$179,410.21.
2.	$12,248.17.
3.	13,881 acres.
4.	Names and acreage are as follows: Messrs. Balcovske and Wadlinger, 5,270; J. Guillet, 105; R. Peterson, 142; E. M. Pearce, 93; W. Skene, 148; L. Barbey, 30; M. Welsh, 55. Total 5,843 acres.
5.	To avoid the expense that would be entailed in conducting comprehensive experiments extending over a number of years to ascertain and establish the agricultural suitability of the reclaimed land, the department decided to lease portions of the dewatered areas to the above named, who have undertaken to carry out all the necessary research work without expense to the department. These lessees pay the usual lease rental rate of two cents per acre. The lease of Messrs. Balcovske and Wadlinger runs for ten years, and the other leases for five years.
6.	The only further expenditure to be made is for the purchase of the land required for the right of way of the drainage canal over private land. The amount involved will approximate $2,000.
7.	In the working out of the Soldier Settlement scheme, it became apparent that there was a shortage of free land suitable for homesteading within reasonable distance of transportation facilities. It having been brought to the attention of the administration that the Waterhen Lakes Drainage scheme offered exceptional advantages for demonstrating the feasibility of reclaiming Dominion land by drainage and especially in view of the fact that the project is situated only a very short distance from the railway, the department decided to proceed with the project under the provisions of the Reclamation Act and the Dominion Drainage Regulations.
8.	By public auction in accordance with the provisions of part IV of the Dominion Drainage regulations.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. SPEAKMAN:: 1.	Is the Vancouver Harbour Commission empowered by act of parliament to issue bonds or debentures to persons other than the Dominion government?
2.	If so, when was this act passed?
3.	Have bonds or debentures issued to the public priority as to payment of interest or principal over those held by the Dominion government?
Questions

4.	If bonds or debentures have been issued by the Harbour Commission to the public, through what bond house, or houses, were such sales made?
5.	Were tenders invited in connection with each issue?
6.	What is the total amount of such issue offered for sale?
7.	What amount, if any, of such issue has been actually sold?
8.	What price was received?
9.	For what term do such issues run?
10.	What rate of interest do they carry?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	1913; 3-4 George V., chapter 54.
3.	No.
4 to 10 inclusive. All outstanding bonds or debentures issued by the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners are held by Dominion government as security for advances on loan made in pursuance of the various statutes in that behalf.
PAYMENT TO THE TORONTO GLOBE Mr. CHAPLIN:
What amount was paid by the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Globe Newspaper Company of Toronto for a full page advertisement that appeared in that paper during the month of December, 1923, or the month of January, 1924?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING (for Mr. LOW):: Advertising, $488; reprints, $15.90; total, $503.90.
DATE OF PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLING Hon. Mr. BAXTER:
1.	In the opinion of the government, is it possible and desirable for parliament to assemble in the future early in January, preferably on a permanent date?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to endeavour to approximate a fixed date for the assembling of parliament?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The date of the assembling of parliament is necessarily contingent upon many circumstances none of which can be foreseen; the fixing of a permanent date for assembling is therefore inadvisable. The government is, however, of the opinion that it is desirable, circumstances permitting, for parliament to assemble as early in the year as may be possible.
2.	Answered by the answer to No. 1.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
SALES TAX REBATES Sir HENRY DRAYTON:
1.	To what amount have rebates of Sales Taxes been claimed under the legislation of last year?
2.	How many claims have been made?
3.	How many claims have been checked and paid and resulting in what total amount?
4.	How many claims have yet to be dealt with?

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I have been waiting for
many weeks to see what was going to transpire in connection with this famous Pulp-wood Commission. I have had many put-offs from the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). Can he not give some definite statement to-day; I do not mean in the style of "in a few days," or "a few weeks," or "very soon,"; but can the minister not state when we may expect the report of this commission? We hope we are nearing the end of the session, and the minister knows the circumstances under which the commission was appointed.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) I have been hoping for some time to receive the report from the Pulpwood Commission. I understand they are working at it but it has not been brought to me yet. I will direct the attention of the commission to the fact that its early submission is urgent.


WEST HASTINGS BY-ELECTION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader
of the Opposition): The definiteness is not improving any. May I ask the government also, in view of the terms of the letter of the late hon. member for West Hastings, Mr. Porter, whether they purpose issuing the writ for the by-election as requested in that letter, and if not why it cannot be done?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government purposes issuing the writ for a by-election and will determine the date later on.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask why the writ cannot be issued now in view of the purpose for which the election is being held? The circumstances demand an immediate election.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no necessity for that. The member could not possibly be returned for this session of parliament.


Arthur Meighen: That may be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
law provides that the writ must be issued within six months. With all due respect to my right hon. friend no one takes very seriously the purpose of the hon. member who has resigned.


Arthur Meighen: There was a time when the Prime Minister, in another post, took very seriously appeals to the people against the conduct of parliament.

Civil Service Superannuation


LIQUOR AND NARCOTICS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton):: Are we to understand that the resolution on the order paper in the name of the Prime Minister in reference to the treaty with the United States against smuggling operations along the international boundary is being dropped, and if so why?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The United States Senate has not, as yet, ratified this treaty, and it is hardly probable they will consider the matter until next year. Under the circumstances the chances are that this parliament will have ample opportunity of dealing with the question at another session.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister knows the United States Senate could not ratify it. After the minister went down only a few
more hours of the session of congress remained.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They will deal with it at the next session of congress.


CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 122, to provide for the superannuation of civil servants.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On clause 1-short title.
Mr. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce):: This bill is based on a recommendation contained in the report of the special committee appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the operation of Chapter 12, 8-9 Geo. V; an Act respecting the Civil Service of Canada which report was presented to the House on June 22nd, 1923. The committee's recommendation regarding superannuation is as follows:-"The general principles on which modern superannuation schemes are based appear to be fairly definitely agreed upon. The basis most favoured is that under which both the employees and the employer contribute to the support of the scheme, the entire cost as a rule being borne approximately equally by both. The benefits derived or provided for include allowances on retirement after attainment of a stipulated age; allowances to widows and minor children in the event of the death of the employee during service or after retirement, the widow's allowance being usually one-half of the employee's allowance; and allowances to the employees on retirement
from disability regardless of age. There is also usually provision made for the return of the employee's contributions without interest in the event of his voluntary retirement after a minimum period of service had been rendered.
Your committee is of the opinion that the adoption of a superannuation scheme substantially on the lines of that above described would remove one of the greatest deterrents to efficiency and curtailment of staffs in many of the departments of the public sendee and it therefore commends that such a scheme be adopted by parliament at the earliest possible date."
On account of the short time remaining before the end of the session after the presentation of this report it was impossible last session to give effect by legislation to this recommendation but it was announced by the Prime Minister that a bill embodying the committee's recommendation on this point would be presented1 at the present session. This bill is the fulfilment of the Prime Minister's promise.
It is desirable to outline at this stage the present situation respecting superannuation.
The original Superannuation Act was passed in 1870. This act provided for contributions at the rate of 4 per cent of salaries and for superannuation benefits of one-fiftieth of the average salary for the last three years of service, not exceeding, however, thirty-five-fiftieths. In 1873 the rate of contribution was reduced to 2 per cent, the benefits remaining the same. This act contained, among other provisions, a provision by which, in the case of persons who joined the civil service after a certain age, at first forty, but later changed to thirty, an addition of a maximun of ten years might be added to the period of actual service for the purpose of computing the superannuation allowance, and it was not long before charges were made in the House of Commons that this provision was being abused and that the allowances of retired officers were being unduly increased by this abuse.
In 1893 the basis of contribution was again changed to 3J per cent and a new fund, Superannuation Fund No. 2 was created to be composed of the contributions at the new rate by new entrants to the service. From that date onwards therefore we have the two funds, Superannuation Fund No. 1 and Superannuation Fund No. 2, the former fund embracing all permanent civil servants, appointed prior to April 1, 1893 and the latter fund, all permanent civil servants appointed thereafter.
In 1898 both funds were closed to new entrants, the principle of superannuation was abolished so far as new entrants were con-

Civil Service Superannuation
eerned, and there was substituted by the act of that year the Retirement Fund, composed of contributions from future entrants to the service of 5 per cent of their salaries, to which contributions the government added interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. According to the Public Accounts as at March 31, 1923, the number of contributors to the various funds were as follows: Superannuation Fund No. 1, 614; Superannuation Fund No. 2, 189; Retirement Fund, 19,953.
The Superannuation Fund provides a retiring allowance for the contributor on his reaching old age or becoming disabled. It provides no allowance for his dependents on death whether before or after retirement. It provides no allowance on voluntary retirement from the service. The Retirement Fund is inadequate because no addition to the contributor's contributions is made by the government and the amount in the fund to the credit of any contributor is inadequate as a provision for retiring allowance. It is also to be noted that the benefit under the Retirement Act is the payment of a lump sum, there being no provision for an annual allowance. At the present time, as a result of the operation of the superannuation funds, men are dying in the service after having served 30, 35 and 40 years and about to be granted superannuation. These men, on their death in many cases, leave widows in a practically destitute condition. Men who have retired and who have drawn their superannuation allowance for a few years die leaving no benefit whatever to their widows. It is this latter contingency which men most fear, and the result is that they remain in the service for the sake of the larger income they receive as employees as compared with their allowance as annuitants.
The ideal superannuation scheme is one based on the principles set forth in the committee's recommendation and these the present bill provides.
The present bill contains the following provisions:
1.	The bill will apply to whole-time permanent civil servants receiving an annual salary of S600 or over.
2.	The rate of contribution is 5 per cent of the salaries, limited to the first 35 years of service.
3.	The superannuation age is 65 optional and 70 compulsory, with a modification applicable for the next ten years to persons now 60 years and ovef.
4.	The superannuation allowance, assuming at least ten years' service, is one-fiftieth of the average salary for the last ten years multiplied by the number of years of service,

not exceeding 35. This applies to new appointees. The committee recommends that a change be made in this provision as regards those already in the service, reducing the time from ten to five years.
5.	The retiring allowance available after ten years' service on disability or retirement from abolition of office is computed on the same basis as the superannuation allowance.
6.	The withdrawal allowance available after ten years service on voluntary retirement is the total amount of contributions without interest.
t. i he widow's allowance is one-half the allowance the contributor received or would have received if superannuation at the time of death.
8.	The children's allowance is 10 per cent of the contributor's allowance payable to each child until age 18, the total children's allowance not to exceed 25 per cent of the contributor's allowance if the widow survives. If the widow does not survive each child's allowance is 20 per cent, the total children's allowance not to exceed 50 per cent of the contributor's allowance.
9.	In the event of disability or abolition of office before ten years' service has been rendered, a gratuity of one month's pay for each year of service may be granted, and, in the event of retirement on marriage being required, a gratuity of the contributor's contributions without interest. In the event of death in the service before ten years' service has been rendered a gratuity equal to the disability gratuity is payable to the widow and children.
10.	In the event of dismissal from the service at any time the contributor's contributions may, in the discretion of the Governor in Council, be returned without interest.
The foregoing applies primarily to persons hereafter entering the service. Provision is made, however, for the optional transfer to the new scheme of permanent employees now in the service.
11.	Persons now under the Retirement Fund having contributed thereto for their whole period of service may, at their option elect to come under the new act, and on such election the amount now standing to their credit in the Retirement Fund is transferred and they will become entitled to all the benefits of the new act to the same extent as if it had been in force from the date of their entry to the service. If they have not contributed for the full period of service the non-contributing period will be counted to the extent of one-half in computing all the benefits but such period may be counted in full on payment of arrears of contributions without interest.

Civil Service Superannuation
12.	Persons now on the Superannuation Fund may, at their option, elect to come under the new act, and on such election contributions, if any, will be thereafter at the rate of 5 per cent and the period for which contributions have been made to Superannuation Fund No. 1 or No. 2 will be counted in full in computing the contributor's superannuation and retiring allowances but only to the extent of one-half in computing widow's and children's allowances. Such period may be counted in full for the latter allowances on payment of the arrears of the difference between the rate actually contributed and 5 per cent. The period of service, if any, in respect of which contributions have not been made to the Superannuation Funds will be counted only to the extent of one-half in computing all allowances, but may be counted in full on payment of arrears of contributions at the rate of 5 per cent without interest.
13.	Permanent civil servants who have never contributed to either the Retirement Fund or the Superannuation Fund may, at their option, elect to come under the new act and on such election they shall thereafter contribute at the rate of 5 per cent and their period of service shall be counted for all allowances to the extent of one-half, but may be counted in full on payment of arrears of contribution at 5 per cent without interest.
14.	In all cases arrears of contributions may be paid in one sum or in equivalent instalments as may be prescribed by regulation.
It is believed that the cost of the benefits proposed by the bill will be equally borne by the contributor and the government; that is, that the government's share of the cost will be 5 per cent of the salaries. There will be in addition an initial liability created in respect of the past service of persons^ now in the service who elect to come under the provisions of the act. The amount of this liability will depend upon the numbers transferring, their length of service and their dependents. On being ascertained, the amount of this initial liability can be extinguished by an annual charge extending over the probable period of service remaining to those contributors.
That amount can be spread over a period of 25 or 30 years. In the case of the British Local government scheme it extends over 40 years.	>
The committee which dealt with this matter was somewhat unfortunate in not being able to have the assistance of all of its members, so many other committees were meeting at the same time, and we never had a full meeting of the committee to discuss the question. After reviewing all the evidence submitted by civil servants, by the deputy ministers, and the Civil Service Commission, who assisted the committee in obtaining information in regard to the matter, the committee caime to the conclusion that the payments to be made to civil servants under this bill were as great and as fair as could possibly be made with the amount of money provided by the government and by the civil servants themselves. In other words, it was the desire of the committee that this bill should be framed on a strictly actuarial baas, and hon. members will observe that there is a .provision in the bill for actual bringing down to the House a memorandum of the amount paid by the civil servants and of the cost to the government, so that if it be found that the bill will not work out on an actuarial basis, the House will have the full information early each session that the bill is not working out as contemplated, and steps may be taken to rectify, *hther the allowances to be paid to the civil servants, or the contributions to be paid by the civil servants to the fund. There is a feature in the bill which does not seem to meet with the approval of all the civil servants; that is the provision that they will have to serve ten years' time before they can get their money back. The feeling of the committee last year, and the feeling of the committee this year, was that if the bill had any virtue, it was in the fact that it would stabilize the service, and would provide that those who remained in the service would be able to retire with some gratuity and would also make some provision for their dependent children. If we would consider the amount to be paid on retirement to those who remained for one or two years in the service, there would be nothing gained. It would leave it open for any employees who objected to this feature to deposit five per cent of his salary in a savings bank and withdraw it when he liked. This provision is for those who remain loyally in the service, and those who, at a stipulated age feel compelled to retire, and in the case of those people provision is made for their children.


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: In view of the remarks of the hon, gentleman (Mr. Malcolm) who so ably presided over the destiny of this bill in committee, I will deal with only one of the aspects of this case. It might not be amiss for me to review briefly the history of superannuation. Superannuation was initiated here in 1870 by Sir Francis Hineks. That legislation was carried down until 1898. In the meantime superannuation was carried on with


Mr. CARROLL:: Is it not a fact that
certain employees who were brought in before 1896 paid only two per cent into the fund?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Those who came in
under the old act paid but two per cent. In 1893 the amount was increased to 3j per cent; and in 1898 when the Retirement Fund was created, the amount was raised to 5 per cent, each one of the civil servants remaining in the category in which he or she had been placed at the start.
It might be wise to see if this measure meets with the approval of the people, and one might say that some of the newspapers that have commented upon this matter should be heard. The Ottawa Citizen said:
It is unnecessary to point out that the enactment of an adequate superannuation measure is the first step towards a rehabilitated service. It is the basis on which all^ other forward-looking reforms must follow. Nor is it necessary to emphasize the advantages which a superannuation act will bring to the service as a whole.
The Ottawa Evening Journal has this to say:
There should be little opposition in parliament to a just superannuation measure. The principle has been admitted for many years by both Liberals and Conservatives that systematic superannuation is advisable for the sake of efficiency and economy. It is, in truth, one of the most reasonable and unharmful roads to Civil Service reform.
Lately the necessity has been more marked because of the unrest in the midst of many dismissals from the service and because there is such confusion of retiring measures, some employees coming under one, some under another, and many under none at all.
Again the Ottawa Citizen, whom my hon. friends immediately opposite will recognise, had this to say:
There are special circumstances to justify a superannuation act. Apart from the economic necessity of proceeding with the reorganization, there is the re-

Civil Service Superannuation
cognized fact that many capable civil servants work for dess than they could earn in private employment, because there is supposed to be a better assurance of permanence in the civil service. The reasonable hope, too, of a pension has on numerous occasions deterred men from looking for more lucrative opportunities in private enterprises.
But even without the admitted fact that salaries are kept purposely lower, so that the government may not be charged with competing extravagantly against private enterprise for the best men, superannuation should be established on the broad principle of justice. In recent years, many large corporations, like the Canadian Pacific Railway, have introduced pension schemes. It is good business to keep down the percentage of changing personnel, as well as to eliminate the fear and worry of being thrown out of work without means of support in old age. Such humane measures as pensions are a sound investment in efficient service.
When the private corporations are setting the example, the government need have no fear of being taken to task for extravagance in bringing in a superannuation measure. It can be demonstrated that superannuation as a complementary measure to Civil Service reorganization, is not extravagance but economy.	,
Besides these-and this is the most interesting one-I should like to quote from the Financial Post of March 28, 1924, and I think I recognize in the Financial Post the twin sister of MacLean's Magazine:
" There should be no idea of turning out old servants who have played their part, without making provision for them. Any effective plan of re-organization should entail a superannuation arrangement for those who have served their time and also a promise for those in the service that they will be taken care of in their old age.
Of course it will mean a call upon the public funds to provide superannuation allowances, but it is the only fair way to take care of those who have served their time faithfully. And only by the elimination of the aged and the ineffectual can the service be put on an efficient basis.
A properly organized civil service will, we believe, provide as large or larger salaries for a smaller staff and take care of an adequate appropriation for a superannuation fund with a much smaller total outlay than that now being made with a large staff, a halftime schedule, and low efficiency. It is simply a case of organizing the government staff along the 'lines successfully employed by the banks and other big financial and industrial corporations."
Now, that I have shown the necessity of this Civil Service reform in the minds of the public, what do those who would benefit immediately by this measure have to say? The Civil Service Association was heard before the parliamentary committee in 1923, and I would just briefly state their reasons for asking for a superannuation measure:
1.	It would stabilize and unify the service.
2.	Keep the service clear of deadwood by retiring those rendered inefficient by age.
3.	Promote efficiency by assuring every consistent worker of maintenance in old age should he survive, with due provision for dependents.
4.	Automatically attract to the service, the right kind
of people.	.	.
5.	Maintain the " flow of promotion " which Sir George Murray, the British authority on Civil Service matters said was so important.
6.	Facilitate the constant changes in every office, which are made necessary by constant changes in the work to be done.
The Civil Service Commission had no hesitation in expressing its views on the subject and in 1921 that commission made a report from which I quote these few lines:
It is not possible to give the total saving in salaries, nor is it possible to estimate the great benefit resulting to the work of the country as a whole. This opportunity may, however, be taken of directing attention to the great improvement in the morale of the Service necessarily resulting from the clearing of avenues to promotion, and the benefit to the administration of public affairs in granting to younger employees opportunities for the display of ability.
So much did the Civil Service Commission feel that this measure was imperative that in 1922 it came back again with another recommendation :
No system of classification or improved methods of administration will be operated satisfactorily in the Civil Service until a comprehensive measure of superannuation is in force. The advantages of superannuation in the public interest are apparent inasmuch as it relieves the government of the embarrassment and extravagance of retaining the services of officers who have outlived their usefulness; creates a proper flow of promotions; renders the service more mobile", deters efficient officers from leaving the public service for private employment where emoluments and opportunity may be greater; helps to attract a better class of applicants for positions in the service and in general tends to promote efficiency in every way.
I quote further from the report of 1923:
The administration of the Public Service Retirement Act has shown how necessary is a general superannuation scheme and it was with a feeling of gratification that the Public Service and those concerned in its administration heard the announcement of the Right Honourable the Prime Minister at the end of last session that a general superannuation bill would be introduced early in the next session. For years the Civil Service Commission has recommended that such action should be taken, and the service itself has been petitioning foT a Superannuation Act. That it is good business is evidenced by the facts stated above.
T-wo striking facts in regard to this matter are that the country at large is apparently satisfied that the proposed bill is a good one, while the Civil Service ICommission itself recommends it. No doubt it would be advantageous to the Civil Service, for the associations themselves have ardently asked for it, and so far as the public interest is concerned, the Civil Service Commission has made a very lengthy report as to the benefits that would accrue to the country in the savings which would be effected if a measure of this kind were enacted. I desire to put on record certain figures which possibly may be tedious. But after all a bill of this kind before it is adopted must be proved to be actuarially sound and also in the interests not only of the Civil Service itself but of the country at large as
y	COMMONS
Civil Service Superannuation
well. And this can be demonstrated only by figures. Let me quote from the Commission's report of 1923:
A glance at those who have gone out under the Public Service Retirement Act will indicate the (prevalence of this tendency. Of a total one thousand two hundred and eighty-nine (1289) retired, five hundred and fifteen (515) were seventy or over four hundred and seventy (470) were between sixty and seventy; and three hnudred and four (304) were under sixty years of age; and five hundred and ten (510) positions were abolished, being further conclusive evidence of the tendency. After three and a half years during which this Act has been in operation a survey of the service reveals the fact that at present there are one thousand three hundred and thirty-three (1333) employees in the Federal Service, exclusive of temporaries and part time workers who are of the age of sixty-five, or who will reach sixty-five on or before the 1st July, 1924, the date upon which the present act becomes inoperative. Of these, only one hundred and sixty nine (169) are contributors under part 1 of the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act. Furthermore, approximately one thousand two hundred and sixty-three (1263) employees are sixty years of age and under sixty-five, and of these only one hundred and ninety-six (196) are contributors under part 1 of the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act. Therefore, it appears that besides the three hundred and sixty-five (365) contributors who are sixty years of age and over and who could be superannuated under the old act there are now in the service two thousand two hundred and thirty-one (2231) employees who may be said to have reached or will reach in a few years superannuation age, whose only provision for retirement is the Public Service Retirement Act which expires on the 1st July, 1924.
During the first eighteen months of the operation of the act, after having provided for annuities to the amount of two hundred and twenty-eight thousand and twent-five dollars and eighteen cents ($228,025.18) a saving of one hundred and fifty thousand seven hundred and eight dollars and seventeen cents ($150,708.17) was effected through the abolition of two hundred and sixty-four (264) positions. At the end of the year one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two it w^s found that as a result of abolishing three hundred and ninety (390) positions two hundred and four thousand and forty-eight dollars and eighty cents ($204,048.80) was being saved annually in salaries, and again at the end of one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, with the abolition of a total five hundred and ten (510) positions two hundred and ninety thousand one hundred and eight dollars and eighty-eight cents ($290,108.88) is being saved annually. This annual saving in the matter of salaries after meeting annuity obligations more than offsets the cash payments made of two hundred and sixty-two thousand one hundred and seven dollars and fifty-three cents ($262,107.53) in retiring gratuities so that actually the Public Service Retirement Act has cost the country nothing and its application has resulted in a saving not only of the two hundred and ninety thousand one hundred and eight dollars and eighty-eight cents ($290,108.88) annually as noted above-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was that under the Calder Act?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Yes, this refers to the
Calder Act which was then in operation.
'but also of the amount of the difference between salaries paid annuitants and salaries paid those appointed in their places, which it is not possible to estimate here.

This may appear all right on the surface and possibly it would work satisfactorily for the purpose for which the act was intended. But I do not think it would be advisable to continue the Calder Act; a large number of civil servants, some 2,000 or more, would be eligible for retirement in a few years under that act and this would mean a tremendous drain on the finances of the country. The Calder Act was never intended to be permanent; it was never intended as a superannuation measure, but was purely and simply a matter of expediency for the relief of a temporary situation. It would not require much figuring to discover that the Calder Act was not placed upon any basis which might be said to be actuarially sound. Then, of course, notwithstanding the marked result that has been achieved under the act, the superannuation feature is not taken into account.
It may be said that the Calder Act is a very generous one; and so it is. But what is most essential to the stability of the Civil Service? What is required is superannuation for old age and not merely an 4 p.m. arrangement whereby there is a compulsory deduction from salary of 5 per cent for say fifteen or twenty years and then the withdrawal of the accumulated savings. The idea is that a civil servant should be provided for in such a way that, while he might receive probably a smaller consideration immediately, he would enjoy the permanent benefit of superannuation. The Calder Act is very generous in the way of immediate cash payments but it does not provide for old age.
Now, having said this much; having pointed out that the general public apparently has no hesitation in endorsing this measure; and having shown that the Civil Service organizations for years have requested that something of this kind be passed in the better interests of the Civil Service, I do not think there is very much more that can be added. This bill has received the approval of the Civil Service Commission through its commissioner who appeared before the committee, and the government is satisfied that it is actuarially sound. And the Civil Service itself is satisfied with the provisions of the bill. The committee which was charged with the study of the bill has made a unanimous report. So that, to my mind, taking all these facts into consideration, there seems to be very little to be said against the bill.
In studying the superannuation scheme we have run across a number of anomalous situations. For example, let us take the case of

Civil Service Superannuation
widows of contributors who paid to Fund No. 1 or to Fund No. 2-in the first case they pay 2 per cent and in the second 3i per cent. In these cases, on the death of the contributor before retirement, the whole of the amount paid in during 20, 25, 30 or 35 years-35 years is the limit-is forfeited; his widow obtains nothing. If, however, he lived after the period of retirement the civil servant would receive a pension for the rest of his life. It has been brought to our attention that in certain cases-the exact number the committee could not ascertain-after having contributed 2 per cent or 3^ per cent for thirty or thirty-five years the contributor died after retiring and receiving from the fund two or three or six or eight months' pension. In that case the whole of the remainder of his contribution is gone, and it does not seem to be quite a humanitarian disposition of the matter, in such cases there would seem to be a moral claim on the government in respect to the contributions made. But the committee felt that this matter did not come within the purview of the present measure; they simply submit it to the generous consideration of the government.
Another class of employees that this bill cannot touch is the prevailing rate men. It has been found impossible, because of the fluctuations in wages, to extend the benefits of this act to those who are under prevailing rates. There are a large number of persons who have served the government faithfully for years but who on account of the change made a few years ago under the reclassification were placed under the prevailing rate system, and it does seem to be a hardship that they should not be entitled to superannuation. However, the committee could not see its way to make a recommendation in that respect, though they suggest that the government should' take steps to inquire into it.
Another class of employees, rather a large class, is made up of former employees of the Printing Bureau who were retired under very special conditions which I shall not go into at this stage. But again these people are certainly entitled to some consideration. I take great pleasure in associating myself with the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Mc-Giverin) in supporting the report which has been presented, and trust that it will meet with the favourable consideration of the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The general
policy of retiring allowances and annuities has for a long time been recognized as sound, and it still remains the policy that ought to be followed wherever possible. It is a policy
which, I think, the House as a whole is committed! to. Unfortunately the Liberal government of an earlier day thought differently and cancelled the measure of superannuation then prevailing. A superannuation system which runs continuously and regularly, which commences with employment and which is operative when that employment ceases, is something which is fairly simple and fairly economical. The only question that arises to day is this: The country having been deprived of the superannuation system- the government on the one hand having been deprived of the revenue for the purpose, and the service on the other hand having been deprived of the benefits of superannuation- just what does it mean to start it up again? Speaking from recollection, I think we have three schemes at present. There was the very old superannuation system which applied to civil servants of a certain date; there was another one, and I think there was a third. What are the balances to the credit of each of the schemes that have not been interfered with?-what is the cost of each scheme to the taxpayers?-and what have been the benefits to the employees?


Mr. ROBB:: The present retirement fund
amounts to approximately 812,000,000, and that is the estimated initial liability of the government if all on that fund transfer. The annual apportionment over thirty years to extinguish this amount, at 4 per cent, would be $680,000 a year. The annual salaries of contributors to the retirement fund amount to $28,000,000 ; 5 per cent thereof, being the government's annual contribution, $1,400,000, and the total cost on the basis of present salary would be $2,080,000 annually.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON; Is that the government cost or the employee's cost?


James Alexander Robb: That will be the annual cost
to the government if all transfer. Of course if they do Dot all transfer, it will be 5 per cent on the basis of the salaries of those who do.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister tell the committee just what is the state of the funds relating to the systems now in effect?


James Alexander Robb: I will put on record the facts with respect to present superannuation and retirement funds. Superannuation Fund No.
1	was created in 1870 and closed to new entrants in 1893. The rate of contribution is
2	per cent of salary, and the rate of benefit one-fiftieth of the average of the last three years' salary for each year of service up to thirty-five years; retirement age optional at 60; no age fixed for compulsory retirement.

Civil Service Superannuation
The number of employees in the fund on March 31,1923, was 614, and the annual salaries amounted to $1,443,668. In 1922 there were 625 in the fund; in 1921, 579; in 1920, 663.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How could the
number be increasing when no one could join after 1893? I do not think that can be correct.


James Alexander Robb: There must be an omission;
these are taken from the public accounts. Superannuation fund No. 2 was created in 1893.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have got
the amount of the salaries. What was the annual contribution by the employees to the fund? And what was the annual cost of administering the fund?


James Alexander Robb: There was no separate account kept of No. 1 funds, but I can give my hon. friend the figures for No. 2 funds.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it a fact that we cannot tell from the experience we have had just what these funds have been costing us? '


James Alexander Robb: Not as regards Fund No. 1,
without a detailed investigation. We have it for Fund No. 2.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would have
thought it would have been perfectly simple, knowing as we do what the salaries are from year to year, to compute 2 per cent on those salaries, on the one hand, and on the other band, to keep track of the payments we have been making. We would then at least know what we are doing.


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend is right about that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The information must be available.


James Alexander Robb: I will give my hon. friend the
data about Fund No. 2, which is separate. This was created in 1893, closed to new entrants in 1898; rate of contribution 3J per cent of salary; rate of benefit the same as under Fund No. 1, that is, one-fiftieth of the average salary for the last three years; retirement age the same as for Fund No. 1; number of employees in the fund and annual salaries on March 31, 1923, 189, and $416,980 respectively. The amount of the fund on March 31, 1923, was $1,445,576, and the income of the fund $194,953, including a transfer from consolidated revenue. Payments from that fund in 1922-1923 amounted to $36,326.87; total amount transferred from consolidated revenue up to date, $750,200.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
has given me the total amount paid from consolidated fund, but he has not given me thq total amount of payments out of the consolidated revenue fund for annuities.


James Alexander Robb: Payments for 1922-1923
amounted to $36,326.87.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But that is for one year. Then he gives me the total contribution from the country, which is $750,200, We have no basis of comparison there. In the one instance my hon. friend uses the year, and in the other instance he gives the total. In order to judge the situation, we have to have both either in years or in totals.


James Malcolm: Superannuation Fund
No. 1 never had any contributions from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but Superannuation Fund No. 2 has received a payment of $750,200 to put it on an actuarial basis.


Henry Lumley Drayton: To start with?


James Malcolm: No, the fund was started with provision that it should be on an actuarial basis and contributions were made to maintain the fund.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
annual contribution asked for?


James Malcolm: No annual contribution
was made to Superannuation Fund No. 1, or to No. 2 either.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then how was
the $750,200 paid?


James Malcolm: That is made up of
payments from time to time to put the fund on a sound actuarial basis.


Henry Lumley Drayton: To make it
self-supporting?


James Malcolm: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think it would be interesting to know what the annual charges were.


James Malcolm: In 1922-23, $100,000 was
transferred.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How does that
compare with other years?


James Malcolm: That was the largest
year of all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if we
can find out why the cost went up that year?


James Malcolm: It would be affected by
reclassification and increases in salary.

Civil Service Superannuation


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the
chairman of the committee can tell us what the underlying basis was in connection with Fund No. 2. Was it that the government were to maintain that fund on an actuarial basis, and if on an actuarial basis, what were the considerations that went to arriving at that actuarial basis-in other words, as to the rights of civil servants to retire, and the like? What rights did the employees have that they could enforce? The actuarial basis is arrived at in view of certain factors; what were they?


James Malcolm: Section 18 of the Civil
Service Superannuation and Retirement Act, chapter 17, of the Revised Statutes of 1906, provides:
" A deduction shall be made from the salary of every person appointed to the Civil Service on or after the first day of April, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three, at the rate of three and one-half per centum per annum on such salary, if it is six hundred dollars or upwards, and of three per centum per annum thereon if it is less than six hundred dollars, and such deductions shall be carried to the credit of a fund called the Civil Service Superannuation Fund, number two, to which shall be added by the government annually such a sum as, upon an estimate or valuation thereof based upon the H.M. Mortality Table of the Institute of Actuaries of Great Britain and a rate of interest of six per centum per annum, may be sufficient to make the amount thereof equal to the value of the prospective annuities payable therefrom.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the
factor taken into consideration was the matter of the age, sixty years. Was retirement compulsory at sixty years? I did not think so.


James Alexander Robb: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When was it
compulsory, or was it compulsory at any time?


James Malcolm: Not under that act.


James Alexander Robb: There was no limit.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If there was no limit we would have to take an arbitrary age, and not sixty yearn. What age was taken for the purpose of arriving at an actuarial
basis?


James Malcolm: I cannot answer that
question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is important
to see how it worked out; in other words, we do not know what we are doing unless we have that age.


James Malcolm: There is no doubt the
average age would be taken as around sixty-five.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That sounds like a guess. >


James Malcolm: It is the natural age
to judge by, being the average age of retirement of most employees.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course, we
can get it by working back. The actuary has his results, and his results show a specific sum as necessary for the purposes of his calculation. Having that result, and knowing the number of employees covered, it is merely a matter of working back to see what was the age that was adopted for the purposes of the original calculation. We could get that information.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I think I can safely
say that from the act of 1870 down to the present the average retiring age has been about 65. I cannot put my finger on the particular section of the act of 1870 at the moment, but my recollection is the age was 65, and has been ever since.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Taking it at
65 under that act, how many employees have we been able to retire, and at what cost to the country?


James Alexander Robb: The cost is $750,000, plus
the interest on that amount.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think it is fair to the service to put it that way. You see what is done there; that is a fund on hand to which the service have equitable rights. That fund has not been exhausted, by any manner of means, in connection with the retirement already made.


James Alexander Robb: That has been necessary to
place the fund upon an actuarial basis.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is quite
true, and the fund is augmented from time to time for that purpose of maintaining it on an actuarial basis. For example in 1922-23 we apparently voted $101,000 in order to maintain the fund on such a basis. We are going on doing that, and as payments become due out of the fund there is a relation between payment and cost. It is perfectly true that that relationship is disturbed from time to time by the increase in the number of beneficiaries and with the increase you have to make further contributions to maintain your actuarial basis. But with that qualification it is also perfectly true that there is a ratio between cost and result. So that we should have some idea how much in the way of contributions has come from the service and how much has come from the country. That is what I want to get at.



Civil Service Superannuation


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is right about that. We have not the accumulated figures of income and outgo here but they are all available in the public accounts as my hon. friend knows.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes but what
I am trying to get at is what the costs really are to the nation. We may form an idea, by ascertaining what the costs have been in the past, as to what we are doing now. Unless we know what it costs to provide an annuity on a basis of 3J per cent of salaries, it is rather hard to arrive at any definite conclusion as to costs.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Three and a half per
cent is the rate in Superannuation Fund No.
2.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the one we are dealing with.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: For the present we are not concerned with that-with all due deference to my hon. friend; we are concerned with the Superannuation Act, to see whether the fund we are now creating may be placed on a sound basis, and at what cost to the service and to the government respectively. As to fund number two that, I am afraid, is ancient history. That fund has cost the government $750,000; that is the amount the government had to put in. Now, as I understand it, and I think I am right, Superannuation Fund No. 1 was constituted wholly by the contributions of the civil servants at 2 per cent, but under the act which the hon. gentleman has just read the contribution was raised to 3i per cent and this fund number two was established. According to the latest information I have there is in that fund at present about $1,100,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Actually $1,445,-
000.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That $1,445,000 is made up of two sums-contributions at 3-J per cent by civil servants and the further sum of $750,000 which the government transferred at various times and in various amounts. So that up to the present the cost to the government, in the case of this fund is the sum of $750,000, and the loss of interest from the time the payments were made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend may be right in his conclusion, but he is wrong in saying that my suggestion was not to the point. I was suggesting a method of finding out what the costs are. Instead of theory we have a practical illustration of how superannuation-however limited in its scope, altogether too limited-works out. Will the

minister please follow these figures-and I shall like him to say whether they are right or not. We find that for the purpose of looking after 189 employees a cost of $750,000 has been entailed.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That 189 represents the number actually in now but a large number have been taken care of and have now disappeared.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
number of employees when we started Superannuation Fund No. 2?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It would be the number of civil servants that joined the first year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us get the average number.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I should like to have
that information myself. I suppose the number would be the number of civil servants that joined the new fund. I repeat that I do not see where we can get the information as to the number of those who went in the first year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I simply mentioned the first year because my hon. friend said the figure of 189 was wrong, due to the fact that a lot of employees had been looked after.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. The 189 as I understand it, is the number of employees now being looked after under Superannuation Fund No 2.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many have been looked after in the past?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I do not happen to have that information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If we had that figure it would show the usefulness of the scheme.	.


James Alexander Robb: I have no figures here of those who have come in from time to time or of those who have died.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have a
record of our cost under the scheme though?


James Alexander Robb: Yes we have that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We know it has cost a total of $750,000.


James Alexander Robb: That is right. That was the
cost to put it on an actuarial basis but part of that $750,000 is in the fund yet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I pointed that
out.

Civil Service Superannuation


James Alexander Robb: That has placed it on an
actuarial basis. For instance in the public accounts of 1923 my hon. friend will get the records of Superannuation Fund No. 2. He will find that the receipts for that year were $194,953.10 and the payments $36,326.87.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That might be
a characteristic year. How were those payments earned?


James Alexander Robb: Those were retiring allowances. The $194,000 includes the $101,000 referred to a few minutes ago.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is obvious. That would leave us with a net ordinary income of about $93,000. How much of that came from interest and how much from contributions from the staff?


James Alexander Robb: The contributions would be
3i per cent of $416,980 or $14,000 and the interest 6 per cent on the mean fund or about $S0,000. May I add that if all under this fund transfer to the other fund on the basis we are placing it on $93,000 would be the annual cost to the government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The presenf
scheme fixes a definite allowance from the government of 5 per cent of the salaries?


James Malcolm: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much
then?


James Malcolm: That is what it. is estimated it will cost the government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is what I say, the government is to put up 5 per cent and the civil servants are to put up 5 per cent.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, that is estimated upon an actuarial basis.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What becomes
of the credit which those which have entered into Superannuation Fund No. 2 now have?


James Malcolm: It either stays there, or
they can transfer to the new scheme by paying up the difference over 2 per cent of 3| per cent, to equalize the 5 per cent that they would have paid if they had been under the new fund from the beginning.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that fair to
the civil servants? We are starting something new now7. Anyone can come in, although he has paid nothing, by paying 5 per cent per annum? Or does the scheme of the act run back to the time of first employment?


James Malcolm: Oh yes. Section 17
covers that. In general the bill is framed to cover new entrants to the service. But section 17 makes provision for those who are now in the service and gives them the option of coming under this measure. If they are under Superannuation Fund No. 1 they will have to pay up the difference between the 5 per cent and what they have paid. The same will apply under Superannuation Fund No. 2. If for any years of their service they have not contributed at all and do not wish to contribute for those years the bill provides that they shall be allowed half of those years of service under this act. If they come in without payment, they sacrifice benefits for half of their years of service.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: If a civil servant has been thirty years in the service, and it is only within the last ten years that he has contributed to any fund, but for the previous twenty years he contributed to no fund, he may either pay up 5 per cent on his former twenty yearn, and get the benefit of the complete thirty years; or he will transfer the 5 per cent paid during the last ten years, and will only be given the benefit of ten years of his former twenty years. Now the objection immediately is made; why not allow the same benefit to one who wants to purchase? This act is based on mutuality-5 per cent by the employee and 5 per cent by the government; it is not based on generosity, but based on equality. But in the case of the temporary employee, the one who has given long faithful service and would be unable now to make up for the deficiency, the government will allow him to come in on paying 5 per cent, but they will allow for half his years Pf non-contribution-in this case ten years. In that provision the bill is generous. But for one who pays the 5 per cent, and who wants to enjoy benefits as for the full thirty years, the act says he will have to pay up. If he cannot pay up he will get the benefit of his last ten years-for which he has already contributed to the Retirement Fund-and half of his former years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The first fund is one maintained entirely by contribution from the service?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That is Fund No. 1.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That costs the government nothing. What is the amount to the credit of that fund?


James Malcolm: There is no separate
account maintained?

Civil Service Superannuation


Henry Lumley Drayton: How can we
do justice to those who are in that fund unless they are separately maintained and we know they are entitled to it?


James Malcolm: Any balance that exists the government has to pay.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does Hie hon. member mean by "Any balance that
exists," if there is no balance now? The point about that would be this: Under the old act, while you say the government did not contribute, as a matter of fact they did contribute, and what has been said in that regard is incorrect. They contributed in this way. The employee had to put up 2 per cent of his salary. Under the act he was entitled to an annuity on a specific basis. If the amount at the credit of the fund which was created by the 2 per cent was insufficient to hover the annuity, the government paid something.


James Malcolm: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that it is not correct to say the government was at no expense in regard to Fund No. 1.


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend is
quite right in that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: With the 2 per cent, what was the annuity? It was an annuity of one-fiftieth of the average salary for the last five years.


James Malcolm: Three years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What do we
pay in order to supplement the 2 per cent paid by the annuitants under that fund?


James Alexander Robb: They have never kept that
on a proper basis. It has never really been kept separate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then we cannot get at that. We would not get at it by simply saying that $750,000 represented that because that payment of $750,000-


James Alexander Robb: That is Superannuation Fund No. 2.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That sum was added for the purpose of putting Fund No. 2 on .an actuarial basis. The expenses in connection with Fund No. 1 are apart from that entirely, and the minister tells us he cannot say what those expenses were.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That would all show
the necessity of doing away with that system and introducing a new system.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As far as Fund No. 1 is concerned, we do not know where we are, whether it is costing nothing, or whether they have been paying too much or too little.


James Alexander Robb: We know they were paying
too little.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is hit or miss. Fund No. 2 is exactly the same as the other, with the distinction that it is 3i per cent instead of 2 per cent. If I have understood my hon. friend correctly as to the position of the government its contribution is not a fixed percentage but the government puts itself in the same position as it did with regard to Fund No. 1, except that it is now doing it in' a more businesslike way-contributing such amounts of money as will maintain Fund No. 2 on an actuarial basis.


James Alexander Robb: We believe the contribution
made will maintain Fund No. 2 on an actuarial basis.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The cost of
maintaining that fund on an actuarial basis for thirty years has been $750,000.


James Alexander Robb: Plus interest.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You cannot count that. I do not think it is fair to charge the fund with interest. I treat that just as a payment of $750,000. The next thing we ought to know is how many members of the Civil Service are covered by that. We know that last year there were 189. Is that a fair average number, or were there less or more before?


James Malcolm: The number has been
gradually decreasing from year to year from retirements. This is since 1898. It is twenty-five years since the method1 was changed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In the committee we had some figures which showed the contrary, that the number first decreased and then increased. I am quite sure that that must be a clerical error.


James Alexander Robb: I am informed that it was
a clerical error in the public accounts.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have no
balance in Fund No. 1. We have a balance of $1,445,000 in Fund No. 2. What is the balance that we have in the third fund?


James Alexander Robb: 


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought that
included the $1,445,000.


James Malcolm: No, that is a separate
amount.

Civil Service Superannuation


Mr. CANNON:: I find this discussion most extraordinary. This is a bill based on the unanimous report of the committee, all parties in this House being represented on that committee. The hon. member did not go to the committee, but his friends must have been there to safeguard the interests of the people. If we continue to proceed at this rate, we shall be here probably all winter. My hon. friend is not the only member in the House. He should have confidence in his own friends who were members of the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thank my hon. friend.


James Alexander Robb: I think the observations of the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) are very illuminating and will help us to make progress later on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I cannot please both the Acting Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) at once, although I would like to. If I am saying anything which is not strictly in order, I hope the hon. gentleman will call me to order in his efficient way. He has very efficient, taking ways with him, and anything I can do to provoke him to speak will be a pleasure to me, because I always like to hear him talk.


Lucien Cannon: The hon. member's answer to the question I asked is about as clear as mud. I should like to know if he has separated himself from the rest of his party, or if he has confidence in those members of his party who were on the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not found anything from my hon. friend requiring an answer. When he gets down to something on the bill, I shall have much pleasure in replying to him. I want to find out if I can how much of that $12,027,000 has been put up by the Civil Service and how much has been contributed by the country.


James Malcolm: All from the service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How is it proposed to handle those claims of the service in connection with this scheme?


James Malcolm: Those contributing to
the Retirement Fund are permitted to transfer to the new scheme within six months. That has been changed by the committee to a year. On transfer, the amount to their credit in the Retirement Fund is transferred to the consolidated revenue fund and the entire period of service for which contributions have been made to the Retirement Fund is counted in computing all allowances under the new scheme.
If for any period of service contributions were not made to the Retirement Fund, such period is counted only to the extent of one-half unless arrears of contributions at the rate of 5 per cent are paid without interest. That is the situation with regard to those who have been paying 5 per cent into the Retirement Fund. Contributors to the Superannuation Fund who have been paying a lesser amount have permission to transfer similarly to those under the Retirement Fund, and tho period in respect to which contributions have been made to the Superannuation Fund is allowed in full in computing the employee's own allowance, but only to the extent of one-half in computing widow's and children's allowances, unless they pay the arrears of the difference between the rate actually contributed and the 5 per cent without interest. If for any period contributions were not made to the Superannuation Fund, such period counts only to the extent of one-half in computing all allowances unless arrears of contributions at the rate of 5 per cent are paid without interest.
There are certain permanent employees who have never contributed to any fund. These employees are permitted to transfer to the new scheme, but their period of service is counted only to the extent of one-half in computing all allowances unless arrears of contributions at the rate of 5 per cent are paid without interest.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
percentage of payment making up that $12,027,000?


James Malcolm: 5 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then, it is just the same.


James Malcolm: They are all treated
equitably, justly, under the provisions of the bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In order to
treat them justly, they should be taken in absolutely without any further payment for the number of years they have paid.


James Malcolm: For the Retirement Fund, they are.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was the
only thing I was dealing with. If we have 100 per cent of the service coming in, what contribution should we now make in order to preserve the actuarial basis?


James Malcolm: It is estimated that an amount equal to the $12,000,000 now in the Retirement Fund will be sufficient together with 5 per cent of the salaries for the

Civil Service Superannuation
future. That $12,000,000 can be amortised over thirty years and will, as the minister has pointed out, cost the country about $680,000 a year. The British Local government has a similar proposition, and they amortised, over a period of forty years. It is considered by the minister advisable to amortise this over thirty years, and the payment would be $680,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Should we not cover the $1,445,000 so that the government would be in exactly the same position in regard to this?


James Malcolm: We may have to do
that, but the government has already made a contribution of $750,000 to put Fund No. 2 on an actuarial basis so that would1 take care of itself in the transfer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes: that is
practically one-half. I suppose the amounts are made up in this way:	The employee
pays 5 per cent and the government pays 5 per cent on the salary plus the amortisation fund of $680,000?


James Malcolm: Yes. To the Retirement Fund.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the
minister said that it was $2,500,000 as the annual contribution.


James Malcolm: Yes. The total annual
salary list is $50,000,000. I might point out that, in addition to those under the three funds, there are about 7,000 permanent employees contributing to no fund whatever and about 14,000 temporaries some of whom might be considered as permanent. It is pure guess work to estimate how many will come in under the new scheme, but if all that we have lined up come under the scheme, the salary list will be about $50,000,000, so that the minister's estimate of $2,500,000 is correct. It is very unlikely that all will come in.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
meaning of the change made in paragraph (c) by the insertion of the words "for the purpose of this act?" I suppose that would enlarge it so that permanent temporaries could come in?


James Malcolm: There is a similar provision in the existing act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am referring to the words, " for the purposes of this act."


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That is intended to take care of certain employees.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would cover what we might call " permanent temporaries"?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 4-Contribution.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it that as soon as the 35 years are up there will be no further charge, and the employee will get the maximum benefit?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 5-Superannuation to the contributor.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What does this section provide?


James Malcolm: There is no change
here.


Mr. HOCKEN:: I find that in subsection (b) of this section that provision is made for the payment of a certain amount to the widow of the pensioner after his death. This should be made to apply to any dependent. Suppose a widower has a daughter who has spent all her life looking after him; is she not in the same position as the widow would be?


James Malcolm: Section 7 takes care of such cases; it provides for the dependents of employees.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any change as to children?


James Alexander Robb: For the purposes of subsection three of Section seven of the act no account is taken of age if the child is dependent.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 6-Amount of allowance, how calculated.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the effect of the change?


James Malcolm: The amendment is intended to bring this section into conformity with section 16.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The superannuation is a certain percentage of the average salary received by the contributor during the last ten years of his service, multiplied by the number of years of service. Is this not the same basis as the other one?

Civil Service Superannuation


James Malcolm: No. The committee
considered that while the provision in regard to the ten year period might be advisable in the case of new entrants to the service it was not satisfactory for those already in the service, who had gone through a period of low salaries. The committee therefore thought it advisable to make it five years in the case of these civil servants, provision to that effect being contained in section 16.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any
reason for making the distinction between the two classes? Salaries usually have regard to the cost of living.


James Malcolm: Civil servants during the past few years have been receiving a low rate of salary which has been supplemented by bonus.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have the
point.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Gratuity when yearly allowance not earned.
James Alexander Robb: If the civil servant retires within a period of less than ten years he gets one month for each year of service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Subsection 1
provides for the civil servant-
-if he is required to retire on marriage-
What does that mean?


James Malcolm: Female employees are of course compelled to retire on marriage.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then why not say "she"?


James Malcolm: For the purposes of the act the pronoun "he" is used throughout.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was wondering whether under some new government regulations particular male civil servants were going to be required to retire on getting married, and it seemed extraordinary.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The pronoun "he" is used simply for the sake of conformity.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Report by the Treasury Board.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Certain changes are made in this section.


James Alexander Robb: It was considered that a person who might at the present time be deemed unworthy of the benefits of the act might later on be thought to merit its provisions.
The original section provided only for entire disallowance but the amendment will permit of suspension and later on, if it be deemed advisable, the restoration of the benefits of the act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the reason for enacting such a provision at all? If a man has paid his 5 per cent for years he should be entitled to his annuity and I do not see why we should withhold it from him.


Mr. McBRIDE:: If a man were in gaol for a term of years the government would not want to pay him during his incarceration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I can understand that; is that what the section is intended to cover?


Mr. McGIVERIN:: The committee thought that it would be rather anomalous for contributions to be going from the
5 p.m. public treasury to a man who was confined in gaol for bad conduct; and other things might be objectionable in his moral conduct. We therefore give power for the discontinuance of the gratuity and its restoration if that is deemed advisable.


Mr. LEWIS:: What about the wife and
children of a man who is in gaol?


James Malcolm: It is left to the discretion of the Governor in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Retirement compulsory.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Suppose a civil servant proves to be just as valuable to the country at seventy as he was at fifty, I suppose the government is retaining the right to continue his services?


James Alexander Robb: That is provided for in subsection 2.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
reason for the further limitation in subsection 2-
But no such extension shall be granted after the expiration of ten years from the date of the coming into force of this act.


James Alexander Robb: The superintendent tells me
that the committee had this under consideration. Later on the act will operate automatically at seventy years. I am bound to say, having regard to some men I know in the service, that the matter might be left for all time to the discretion of the government.


James Malcolm: We are following in this respect the wishes of the civil servants themselves, who were all of the view that a man should retire at seventy.

Civil Service Superannuation


Henry Lumley Drayton: That might well be, but I am thinking more of the government service. If it is right to do it now, it is right to do it in ten years' time so far as the government service is concerned. The provision for extension should either be struck out entirely or left for all time in the discretion of the government. Surely if the government have a man ten years from now who, though seventy years of age, is rendering valuable service, they would be right in retaining him. I am confident that the minister knows I am right.


James Malcolm: The objection taken by the civil servants themselves was that if there is not compulsory retirement, promotion is blocked. The committee were not particularly strong on the clause, whether it should be left to cover those now in the service or whether it should apply to all. Personally I have no objection to the power being granted, though there is always danger that the power may be abused.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
basis of my hon. friend's idea? Should the government have the right to retain an efficient servant or not? Should the country be put to a double cost, the cost of the annuity plus the remuneration to the new appointee, to say nothing of teaching a new hand to do the work? That is what it comes down to.


James Malcolm: The new entrant usually comes in from the bottom at a smaller salary. It is questionable whether it would cost the government more to replace a junior and move the others up.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As a general
rule, when they get to that age they have reached their maximum, and their retirement will be based on that maximum. To follow the bill as drafted would certainly be to duplicate expense in many cases.


James Malcolm: I doubt that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then why have this thing in at all? If the whole consideration is that there is a blocking of advancement, then everybody should be taken off at seventy, whether good or ill.


James Malcolm: There is a question of justice in regard to those in the service today who have been contributing to the superannuation fund or who are about the retiring age. If they are allowed to remain a little longer they may be able to enlarge their contribution and make their superannuation worth while.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not going to delay the bill, but this provision to do away with any extension after ten years doe6 seem to me absurd.


James Alexander Robb: I do not want to offer any
substantial amendment to the unanimous report of the committee, who have given so much time and study to this question, but I am bound to say that I agree with the exMinister of Finance. I know there are men in the service who have passed seventy years of age whom the government would not want to lose.


Mr. FORKE:: Strike it out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is only necessary to strike out the words following "not exceeding five years" on line 7.


James Alexander Robb: If it is the unanimous wish of the committee, I move that section 10 be amended by striking out of subsection 2 the following words, commencing on line 7:
But no such extension shall be granted after the expiration of ten years from the date of the coming into force of this act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 11-Regulations by Governor in Council.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is to be covered by (d) ?


James Alexander Robb: The committee thought there might be cases difficult to decide, and that it would be well to give the Governor in Council power to prescribe by regulations.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understood we were to have a general superannuation act applying to all classes of employees, even the permanent temporaries. Now apparently we have a provision which indicates that it will be only a partial superannuation.


James Malcolm: The intention of the committee was to make the act as broad in its scope as possible. There might be doubt in some cases in determining just the application of the act. In the vernacular this is really an omnibus clause to give the minister power to deal with those cases.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The idea is not to exclude any of them?


James Malcolm: The idea is rather to
bring others in under the act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should think that the Governor in Council would not want to change the basis for the computation of

Civil Service
Superannuation
instalments of contributions. I thought that was definitely fixed at five per cent. There would not be any right to change that, would there?


James Malcolm: Tf my hon. friend will turn to section 17, sub-section 2, he will find this:
Any payment made under this section shall be deemed to be a contribution under this act and shall be made in one sum or in instalments of equivalent value computed on such bases as to mortality and interest as the Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Really, what
you are trying to do there, although it is not quite clear, is not to change the general basis at all, but to enable you to handle the other classes that may come in.


James Malcolm: I explained when I was speaking a little while ago that there would be a hardship created for those who had to pay five per cent, if it was compulsory to pay it all in one lump sum, and this clause is to provide for that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-Consolidated revenue fund.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Should we not have this fund earmarked? It is a trust fund and ought to be carefully earmarked.


James Malcolm: Section 12 covers that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Section 12 simply says that it shall form part of the consolidated revenue fund. The two clauses would seem to be a little inconsistent, would they not? To my mind not only should it not form part of the general fund, but it should be looked upon as a trust fund, and should carry its interest.


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend is quite right, and the committee have carefully provided for that. Section 11 (c) provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the nature and form of the accounts to be kept of income and disbursements under this act, and of the statement to be laid before parliament by the minister. Then section 14 (c) provides that the minister shall lay before parliament within fifteen days after the commencement of each session:
A statement showing the amount received as contributions and the amount paid as allowances during the said year under this act together with such further information as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council by regulation made under this act. Under these provisions it is proposed that there will be maintained an account to which will be credited from year to year:
(a)	the contributions made by contributors under the act;
(b)	an equivalent contribution made by the government;
(c) interest on the mean fund for the year at 4 per
cent per annum;	...	.
(d)	a proportion of the initial liability created in respect of past service sufficient to extinguish such liability at the end of the period approximating the average term of service remaining to present employees who elect to become contributors. This period will be fixed by regulation after the period of election under the act has expired. It is probable it will be found to be not 'less than twenty years or more than thirty-five years. In a similar act in Great Britain the period was taken as forty years, but in that act the maximum superannuation allowance was reached at the end of forty years' service;
(e)	such further amount as is necessary to provide the full actuarial reserve for the current and prospective allowances as ascertained by an actuarial valuation. It is believed, however, that no addition under this head will be necessary.
There will be charged to this account the annual and other allowances and gratuitities paid under the provisions of the act.	.
If in the above account the actuarial reserve is provided by a contribution of less than 5 per cent by the government, the government will benefit to that extent. On the other hand, it has a corresponding liability for further contributions-under (e) above. The assumption made in the scheme is that the contribution of 5 per cent and interest will cover the government's obligations under the scheme in respect of future service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon.
friend referring to paragraph (e) of section 11?


James Alexander Robb: No, of the memorandum I am
reading.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Which section
throws that liability on the government? I have not seen it so far.


James Alexander Robb: That will be by regulations
to be provided.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think [DOT]fie government can very well increase the obligations of the government by regulation. It should be in the act. The minister read out that it was expected that the government's obligation would be covered by that five per cent, and that in some cases it might be less than five per cent, and he went on to say that under subsection (e) the government's liability might be extended. I would like to know what that means. I do not think the act properly covers it.


James Malcolm: It is a very difficult
matter to say that the government's liability will be actually five per cent, and that is why the clause is included providing for a statement being brought down annually. The estimate is that it will be five per cent, but if it does not work out exactly that way, it will be shown to the House each year exactly

Civil Service Superannuation
how the scheme is working, and provision can be made for correction of the contributions either of the government or of the employees. With the tremendous amount of estimating that has to be done in a thing of this kind, it is not possible to bring it to a strict actuarial basis, and the committee have felt satisfied that anything that may occur that would be irregular and away from the fifty-fifty basis, being shown each year in the statement that was presented to the House, could be corrected.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I do not think there is any question about the government not extending the liability under section 11 (e). That is simply to provide the basis for the computation of instalments of contributions provided under section 17, subsection 2.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is another point entirely; that is the contributions of those who are paying. I am speaking of what the minister was speaking of, the contributions by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-Income tax returns.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
effect of this? I suppose it is that the civil servant may deduct the amount from his salary. Has the minister considered applying that privilege to the ratepayer? An annuity is a form of insurance, that and nothing else. The premium may be paid for insurance payable on death, or at any given period. The principle here is that there should be no income tax on the moneys which are paid for protection. Is there any distinction in principle between this and the position of the general ratepayer? It perhaps should be considered some time.


James Alexander Robb: There is very much in what
my hon. friend has said. He has had demands of this nature presented to him, as I have had, and has been just as procrastinating as I have been, but I am bound to say it is deserving of consideration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is here giving in to it in part and admitting the principle. That is something I never did. If ever I admitted the principle for one,
I would admit it for everybody. I do not think there should be any favoured classes under income tax laws or any laws. I am not objecting to this at all, because as a matter of fact it does not amount to anything here; it is so small I do not suppose anything

turns on it either one way or the other; but that is not the point. There ought to be some rhyme, reason and principle in connection with Dominion legislation.


James Malcolm: This clause is simply
bringing the bill into conformity with the Income Tax Act, which has a similar provision.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is the first I have heard of it.


James Malcolm: Any contribution to a
pension fund is deductible, I believe, by the Income Tax Act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have had
application upon application from insurance companies and the like. There is no difference whatever between a pension fund or annuity and the position of the ratepayer who cannot get anything special for himself. He has to take a twenty or thirty pay life policy as the case may be. Does the hon. member seriously say that those payments are not taxable?


James Malcolm: Payments of annuities
are taxable.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course they
are.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is this but an
annuity.


Mr. CHURCH:: Could not the minister
consider some more modern method of funding this superannuation fund than mixing it up with the consolidated revenue fund?


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member is
dealing with the wrong section.


Thomas Langton Church: It should be funded otherwise than through the consolidated revenue fund.


George Newcombe Gordon: The section to which
my hon. friend refers has been passed. We are dealing with income tax return now.


Thomas Langton Church: We are on clause 12.


George Newcombe Gordon: No we are not, we are on clause 13.


James Alexander Robb: There is something in, what
my hon. friend says I will have it looked into.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-Application of part two.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
significance of the application clause there?


James Malcolm: The bill is divided
into parts. The part we have just finished with applies to new entrants. Part II is to

Civil Service Superannuation
take care of those under the Retirement Act. Part III takes care of those under the Superannuation Act; and part IV takes care of those who are under no scheme. This clause simply points out what part II covers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Under the first thought cannot officials come in even though they are not new entrants? We have officials who are not under any of these schemes.


James Malcolm: Yes part IV covers all
those.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will it cover
everybody that is in the service?


James Malcolm: Yes, every one who is permanent in the service and not contributing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-Election to become contributor.
Mr. LeSUEUR:	I should like to have one
point made clear. If a civil servant is under the Retirement Act I assume he could withdraw the funds to his credit plus the regular rate of interest allowed. Can he start under this new scheme from that date?
James Malcolm: A civil servant who remains in the service can elect to come under the superannuation fund, or he can continue in the service under the Retirement Act if he chooses.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In connection
with this same clause, the present fund I think is in the consolidated revenue fund is it not?


James Malcolm: It is a separate fund, I
understand.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We had a question put on the order paper and to the best of my recollection we were told it was part of the regular fund. It is a sub-account of the consolidated revenue fund, is it not? It is all in the general account.


James Malcolm: But in a separate account.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is just separate in this way, and I want the actuary to correct me if I am wrong; this is what I got in answer to the question asked some months ago: It is not separate in that there is an account which shows certain figures; it is not separate in that there are investments or anything of that kind. It absolutely forms part of the consolidated revenue fund.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As it is already
in that fund it does not seem to me that this wording works out properly:
In the event of his so electing there shall be transferred to the consolidated revenue fund the amount standing to his credit in the Retirement Fund.
It is there now, and it ought to be no more to the credit of the consolidated revenue fund than it is now. It ought to go to his credit in connection with the new annuity fund that we are creating.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: You could not change
the name of the fund, the Retirement Fund has been created by law. This is simply a change in book-keeping.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is all it
is. It is a change in book-keeping but I think it should be correctly stated. I just want the minister to follow me for a minute. The Retirement Fund is in the consolidated revenue fund now. There will be a new fund created which shall also be a part of the consolidated revenue fund. That new fund will be the fund which we will create with the employees under this bill. What we are saying here is that the amount to the employee's credit in the Retirement Fund shall be transferred to the consolidated revenue fund where it now is. It seems to me what really was intended was to transfer from the old fund, which forms part of the consolidated revenue fund, to the new fund which in turn will form part of the consolidated revenue fund. This section does not say that.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is right but
in the records it appears there now as in the Retirement Fund and I should think this language would be correct when we are making the transfer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon.
friend is going to obey this act he will have to have another fund, which he can call anything he likes, but which will form part of the consolidated revenue fund. I know that is intended but this language does not convey the intention. In saying that I know I carry with me the judgment of the chairman of the special committee.


James Malcolm: I quite agree with what
my hon. friend says. I think the wording would be clearer if the sentence had been phrased "There shall be transferred to superannuation fund account from the Retirement Fund account," or something of that sort. I think the wording should be as follows:
There shall be transferred to Superannuation Account No. 5.

Civil Service Superannuation
There should be something to distinguish this from the Retirement Fund account.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You might make it read:
To transfer to the Superannuation Fund hereby created.


James Malcolm: Yes, Superannuation
Fund account.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You are creating one now.


Thomas Langton Church: I call attention to section
19 which provides that any civil servant may at his option within one year after the date of the coming into force of this act elect to become a contributor, and so on. There are certain classes of civil servants who have not been on the permanent staff. For example, the postmen. Are they civil servants under the meaning of the act? They come under the old Retirement Fund I believe, and some are just temporary employees. Would they be affected by section 17 of the Superannuation Act? Are they officials under the meaning of this section, and the previous section, or under section 19? Would they come under the superannuation scheme? The superannuation is for members in good standing. Are they in good standing, and would they qualify under the new superannuation scheme? What is the status of those branch post office officials who have not a permanent position to-day?


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will read
section 17 he may find an explanation.


Thomas Langton Church: Has the Governor in
Council power to interpret section 19 to take care of them?


James Malcolm: Does the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) think it would be satisfactory to strike out the words "consolidated revenue fund" and substitute therefor, "fund arising from this act."


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that
would be all right.


Thomas Langton Church: I would like an answer
to my question.


George Newcombe Gordon: We are on section 16
and have not reached section 19 yet. The ion. member is out of order.


Thomas Langton Church: I was quite in order. Why was I not in order?


George Newcombe Gordon: We are on section 16.


James Malcolm: I move that the words
"consolidated revenue fund" in line 37 of section 16 be stricken out, and that the words "fund created under this act" be substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 17-Periods of non'-contribution.
James Alexander Robb: I desire to submit for the consideration of the committee a section to be designated as 17a, and I believe it will appeal to the judgment of hon. members of this House. The present Clerk of the House is 6S years of age. Should he avail himself of the provisions of the Superannuation Bill, he would of necessity retire at the end of twcr years at age 70. His annual allowance would then be about $960 per annum. Should he not avail himself of the provisions of the bill, but continue to contribute to the Retirement F'und, no adequate retiring allowance would be provided by his interest in that fund.
It is considered fitting that more adequate provision should be made for his retirement and my amendment is suggested to provide for an allowance of $2,500 payable annually throughout life on his retirement within two years from the coming into force of this act.
This allowance is the same as that granted to the former Clerk, the late Dr. Flint, upon his retirement in 1918.
I beg to move the addition of the following as subsection 17a.
The Governor in Council may within two years from the date of the coming into force of this act provide for the retirement of the present Clerk of the House of Commons, and may grant to him on retirement an annual allowance payable throughout life of $2,500.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not rise to object to the motion at all, but to make a few short observations. One of the ideas of superannuation and retirement ought to be economy. If the Clerk of the House avails himself of this pension, I see no reason why we should have a Clerk and a Clerk Assistant.
I see no reason why Mr. Beauchesne could not do all the work. He knows the work to be done perfectly well and is familiar with both languages.


An hon. MEMBER:: He might be ill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think there would be much difficulty in that event. He could arrange for someone to take his place if he were ill. Here is a chance to save a little money.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: And recognize a good servant.

Civil Service Superannuation


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, an excellent
servant.


James Alexander Robb: I am bound to admit that I raised the same point as has been raised by my hon. friend, and I think that the matter should be considered when the present Clerk retires. I think the observations of my hon. friend are quite correct, and I concur in them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-Application of part III.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Which one is
this?


James Alexander Robb: Superannuation Fund.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the same principles apply as in the case of the other?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
reason for any difference, if there be any difference?


James Malcolm: Under the Retirement
Fund there is nothing to pay. All the allowances are granted. Under this there is a payment only of the difference-
Sir HENRY" DRAYTON: Yes, it is 5 per cent in one and a less amount in the other.


James Malcolm: This is 3i per cent and 2 per cent as the case may be.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any
other difference except that?


James Malcolm: No other point at all except that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-Election to become contributor.
Henry Lumley Drayton: In reference to the periods of non-contribution, is that covered in the same way?


James Malcolm: Just the same way. In the case of half time they do not pay, and in the case of full time they pay the difference between what they have paid and 5 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certain payments are to be deemed a contribution. What is the idea there in connection with that section.


Thomas Langton Church: Will section 19 take care of temporary employees, such as postmen? Can they elect to become contributors under the act?


James Malcolm: The act covers all
classes of permanent employees. If they have been under the Superannuation Act, they come under section 3. If they have been under no contributory scheme, they come under section 4. They are all taken care of.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I asked a question as to what was meant to be covered by certain payments being "deemed to be a contribution." It did not seem quite clear to me.


James Alexander Robb: If a man transfers and later
resigns his office the contributions are returned to him.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The section
reads:
Any payment made under the provisions of subsections 2 and 3 of this section shall be deemed to be a contribution under this act, and shall be made in one sum or in instalments of equivalent value.


James Malcolm: That is in all the sections.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the significance of it? I may have passed it over before.


James Malcolm: Section 5 (a) (iiil reads:
The Governor in Council may grant to any contributor who has served in the Civil Service for ten years and upwards and who, for any reason other than misconduct or those hereinbefore specified retires from the Civil Service, a withdrawal allowance payable in one sum equal to the total amount of his contribution made under this act without interest.
We want to be sure that any payments of arrears made will be included in the amount of contributions that he withdraws.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Any payments
of any kind?


James Malcolm: Any payments made to
equalize the years he has not been paying. It may be for arrears. It may be for contributions from current salary.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It did not seem to come in with an office being abolished.


James Alexander Robb: No this covers voluntary retirement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The underlying idea is that no matter how many changes there may have been in a man's rank, all those payments are to be considered as payments made by him in respect of his last office, because that would not mean anything unless it was in connection with his last office. It is rather hard to get the meaning from the section. No litigation can ever turn on this, and as long as it is understood what is meant, it is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Civil Service Superannuation
On section 21-Election to become contributor.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This covers
everybody that is not under either of the other two funds.


James Malcolm: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Those who want to come in under this fund have to pay arrears at the rate of 5 per ecnt?


James Malcolm: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Supposing you
have a man who cannot afford to pay 5 per cent and who has been in the service for twenty years.


James Malcolm: He can have half time
allowed to him-ten years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then he would
have to pay 5 per cent on ten years?


James Malcolm: No; he would be allowed the benefit of ten years without, the payment of anything. If he wanted the benefit of the full twenty years, he would have to pay 5 per cent for the twenty years without interest. If he wants to sacrifice ten years, the scheme will give him the benefit of ten years' service gratuitously.
Sir HENRY\ DRAYTON:	If he had not
any cash at all?


James Malcolm: The payments can be
made by regulation under the act. For instance. subsection (5) of section 19 takes care of that:
Any payment made under the provisions of subsections (2) or (3) of this section shall be deemed to be a contribution under this act, and shall be made in one sum or in instalments of equivalent value computed on such bases as to mortality and interest as the Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe.
The amount may be deducted from his salary through life; or he can pay it all in cash or in payments of equal1 amounts for five, ten, fifteen or twenty years. Several schemes are going to be offered to civil servants to take care of that difficulty 'by regulation in order to make the payment as easy as possible. That point was thoroughly discussed by the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What my hon.
friend refers to has nothing to do with part IV at all.


James Malcolm: The same clause covers each of the sections. I read that one just for convenience. Subsection (3) of subsection 21 is the same section as referring to employees covered under part IV.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All that does is to deal with the payments which are made?


James Malcolm: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And it says that payments which are made shall be deemed to have been contributed under this act?


James Malcolm: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not
what .1 was asking. What I want to know is this. WTe have a man working in the service for twenty years. He has no money and he wants to come in under this scheme. Would he be allowed to come in on simply paying 5 per cent with a ten-year allowance?


James Malcolm: If he has been in. the
service for twenty years, he may be allowed ten years' service without paying any arrears.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In that instance he need pay no arrears whatever.
Mr. MALCOLM. Nothing whatever.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If he pays ten
years' arrears, he gets the benefit of the twenty years?


James Malcolm: No. A man who has not contributed to any scheme and who has been in the service for twenty years may elect to come under the scheme without the payment of any arrears, in which case he will be allowed ten years' service gratuitously. If he wants the benefit of the full twenty years, he is allowed to pay in 5 per cent of his salary for that time without interest, either in cash or in instalments.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is, he gets the benefit of ten years' service without paying anything at all andi he gets the benefit of twenty years' service if he pays for twenty years? What is the idea of putting them on a different basis?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I thought I made it
clear before that the act was based on mutuality. Those who pay get what they pay for. If some people cannot pay the full amount, that is where the generosity comes in and we give them the benefit of one-half the term of their service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not
mutuality at all.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The basis of the act is
mutuality. It is and it is not, if the hon. gentleman wants to put it in that way. If you want to get the full term of your service,

Civil Service Superannuation
you have to pay for it. If you want the benefit of a certain portion of your service and you cannot pay for it all, this government will give that portion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: A man who has
been in the service for twenty years and who does not want to pay any arrears gets the benefit of ten years' service for nothing. If we are going to handle this on the basis of mutuality as the hon. junior member for Ottawa tells us is being done, the other man would get the benefit of his full twenty years' service if he paid for ten years. In that case each would be allowed the ten years' service on the same basis. It is perfectly clear.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I do not see it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know
whether we should discuss it, but it is just as well that we should see where we are. I should like to see if there is anything of fairness between different members of the service. I will take the same case of men having twenty years service.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The element of mutuality comes in when the government grants him the one-half and says: Pay up the other. That is the fifty-fifty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It does not do
that, if the chairman is correct. If my hon. friend (Mr. Chevrier) is right, then the chairman is wrong, because they both cannot be right. The chairman tells us that if a man wants to< get the benefit of his 20 years he must pay for the whole of the 20 years; he pays his 5 per cent, without interest. But the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) tells us the converse; he says that they both get the benefit of 10 years.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I got it
wrong, and I am perfectly right in what I said, namely, that one man gets 10 years for nothing while the other has to pay for 20. If they were both put on the same basis the man who got the 20 would pay only for the extra 10, because the other employee would get 10 for nothing anyway.
M,r. MALCOLM:	The hon. member
loses sight of the fact that the full cost of the benefits under this scheme is 10 per cent of the salary of the employee for the full 20 years he has been in the service, 5 per cent being contributed by himself and 5 per cent by the government. He is allowed to come in by paying his 5 per cent and he has this advantage over those who
have paid 5 per cent into the Retirement Fund, that he has not to pay interest. The employee has 20 years to his credit and in that time the total cost of the scheme is 10 per cent of his salary, half of which would have been paid by the government and half by himself. He is allowed to come in by paying his 5 per cent for the total period. If he does not want to pay anything, he is allowed half the period for nothing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 22-Temporary employees.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
effect of section 22?


James Malcolm: This is to enlarge the
scope of the act. The only employees covered by this section are those who come under the Civil Service Act or who have been exempted therefrom by order in council. This section provides that all sudh civil servants shall come under the provisions of this Act to the same extent as ordinary permanent employees unless they are assigned by the Civil Service Commission1 upon certificate of temporary employment and are still serving under such certificate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 23-Operation of act extended
Henry Lumley Drayton: When is the
act to come into effect?


James Alexander Robb: Upon assent. This section
applies to the Calder Act and the two acts will rim concurrently until November 1. If by any chance this bill is not passed by the Senate we may have to extend the Calder Act to March 31 to provide for the next year. It is hoped however that the bill will be passed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This provision is up to November 1. Why not make it March?


James Alexander Robb: I would rather leave it as it
is and it can be amended later on if that is found necessary. The Civil Service, I may say, is satisfied with it.
Bill as amended reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PUBLIC SERVICE RETIREMENT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
[Stage Direction]
Public Service Retirement Act
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that the operation of the Public Service Retirement Act shall be extended until the thirty-first day of March, 1925, and that the said act shall be deemed not to have axpired and ceased to be in force after the first day of July, 1924, but to have continued and to be in force for all purposes thereof whatsoever until the thirty-first day of March, 1925.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Arthur Meighen: The first question is
purely a matter of detail. Why is the minister choosing a fraction of the year instead of a year for the period of extension?


James Alexander Robb: This afternoon the Civil
Service Superannuation bill was reported from the committee of the House. The bill based upon this resolution will run until the 31st of March, 1925, but if the Superannuation bill, having got its third reading in this House, passes the Senate, then we will have this bill amended to provide for extension of the Public Service Retirement Act until the first of November of this year to correspond with the other act.


Arthur Meighen: Is that the date when
the Superannuation Act takes effect?


James Alexander Robb: No, the Superannuation Act
will take effect as soon as it is assented to. But we will allow employees until the first of November to decide which of these acts they will take advantage of, the Calder Act or the Superannuation Act.


Arthur Meighen: I would think it would
be well to allow a longer time than that.


James Alexander Robb: We could determine that
afterwards. We proposed in the bill as it would come down to let the act run to the 31st of March, but that might be modified.


Arthur Meighen: I would permit it to
run to the 31st of March in any event. I suggest that the word "and" should be "or" in the first line on page 13, if there is need of both expressions, namely "expired" and "ceased to be in force." If there is no need of both, one would do, but if there is need of both, then the word "and" should certainly be "or." I do not suppose both terms are necessary. I would say that "ceased to be in force" is quite sufficient, but if there is any difference in meaning between the two then certainly the word "and" should be "or."


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend is right, and I move that the resolution be amended accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 227 to amend the Public Service Retirement Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved the second reading of Bill No. 195, to amend the Immigration Act.
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Before the motion passes I wish to call the attention of the House to one section of the bill, I think it is section 3, which gives additional powers to the minister. At the present time he has power to issue a permit authorizing any person to enter Canada, and he now seeks to take further power to allow any person who has entered or landed in Canada to remain there. I think that is too much power and too great an extension of the already very extensive powers possessed by the minister. It is extreme enough surely to be able to say that he can allow anyone whatever, at his own sweet will, to enter Canada. It is surely not necessary to have it made law that anyone having entered Canada, illegally, as it may be, will be allowed to remain by application to the minister. At the very least I would suggest that the word "legally" should be inserted so that it would read, "having legally entered or landed in Canada."
I think also the bill should contain the provision that we find in so many other acts, that within ten days or a limited time after the opening of the session, the minister shall present to parliament a statement showing the number of people who have been allowed in under this clause and the particulars concerning them. But as the section reads now I protest against it, and I will endeavour to move an amendment in committee dealing with it. It may be made possible under that to allow any number of people who have entered Canada illegally to remain here by the mere expression of the will of the minister or of one of his deputies. What brings the matter more particularly home in this connection is this:	I wish to call the attention of the
House to what occurred in Nova Scotia this spring. In answer to questions in the House by the hon. member, for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), we were told on the 28th of April that the British Empire Steel Corporation had brought in 105 Chinamen to work on six of their boats trading between five named

Immigration Act
ports in Canada. I would just like to give the language used:
A bond for $105,000 has been deposited with the department (by the British Empire Steel Corporation), this bond to cover 105 Chinese.
I want to call particular attention to this:
These Chinese are regarded as non-immigrants, and the bond deposited by the British Empire Steel Corporation will be retained until the department is satisfied that all of the Chinese covered by the same have been checked out of Canada.
Checked out of Canada; I wish to call particular attention to those words. Again, in answer to further questions by myself on the 28th of May we were informed:
It must be remembered that in none of the cases referred to were these Chinese admitted to Canada within the meaning of the Immigration Act, but were simply allowed to come into Canada temporarily.
You will note the peculiar and invidious situation. These men are not in Canada, and yet when they leave they have to be checked out, and there is a heavy bond put up to ensure their being checked out. They are in, and yet they are not in.
Scientists tell us in their lighter moments that they like to dream or think of a phase of existence which contains four dimensions, as compared with three dimensions of this present life. Some scientists think the world to which we will go after death is one of four dimensions. One can readily conceive it would need to be of different dimensions to the one in which we are functioning now to have these Chinamen or anybody else at one and the same time in Canada and yet out of it. They can hardly be in both situations at once, and yet that is precisely the condition indicated by the answers to the questions 1 have quoted.
The boats on which these Chinamen are employed run between five ports in Canada: Sydney, Halifax, Montreal, Louisburg and St. John. They are all Canadian ports, and the boats are continually in Canadian waters. These Chinamen are not employed for a day or two, but possibly for years. They are permanent employees on these boats, Canadian boats trading in Canadian waters, and, as I maintain, their admission into Canada was perfectly illegal. The only justification given by the department, and surely it is the lamest of justifications in this case, is the good old-fashioned one of precedent. They say-I will quote the answer to one question:
There is nothing in the Immigration Act or in the regulations in the Chinese Immigration Act which applies in a case of this kind.
And yet they were allowed in? Because it has been done before. Precedent! Now, although I am not particularly fond of pre-253
cedent when it stands in the way of reform, yet there are occasions when precedent can be applicably cited-in logic, or reasoning, legal decisions, or even, perhaps, acts of legislation. In these cases it is, perhaps, applicable to quote precedent; but when it comes down to quoting precedent as a justification for an illegal action, then I think precedent falls to the ground and falls very hard. One cannot conceive that an illegal act can be justified in any way whatever by saying that it has been done before. If we are going to adhere to that principle all that criminals have got to do when they are prosecuted is to say "Yes, I robbed the bank but banks have been robbed before and therefore we have a precedent." That is an exact comparison with the condition in this case. I do not think there was ever a case where justification, on the plea of precedent, falls flatter than it does in this case.
There is another reason that makes it even worse than what it appears. It is said, and said truly no doubt, that Chinamen were admitted before under similar conditions during the war, and various cases that occurred between 1914 and 1921 are cited in which Chinamen were admitted. But there are two conditions which must be considered in that regard and which absolutely dissipate the idea that there is any force to the argument that Chinamen were brought in before. The first is this: Chinamen were allowed in during the war, and the expression "during the war" can be used to justify and explain a great many things. However, the war is not in progress now. But there is a still further reason. During the war the admission of Chinamen was legal on condition of paying a $500 poll tax. To-day it is not legal under any circumstances whatever either with or without the payment of a poll tax. But prior to 1923 the only thing that might have happened would have been the loss by the government of $500 per head unless a bond was given and it was provided that the employers would be responsible for this bond. If this were done one could well conceive that for that time at any rate no great harm could be done by allowing those Chinamen to come in. But that condition no longer exists. It is not legal now to bring in Chinamen by paying $500 or any other sum, and to say that a bond was given is no justification. I do not care if I give a bond for a million dollars; it is no justification for my robbing a bank. And when it is said in this case that a bond was put up I reply that there is nothing whatever in the act which justifies the putting up of a bond.

Immigration Act

Now, I want to consider all these circumstances. I heard the other day that a very worthy judge, now resident in the East, went out one Sunday morning in British Columbia and shot a pheasant, and by so doing he committed no less than four direct violations of the British Columbia statutes. I think the conditions are somewhat similar in this regard only they are very much worse. The first respect in which the statute was openly violated was this: I call attention to section 2 of the Alien Labour Act, being section 2 of chapter 97 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. Section 2 reads as follows:
It shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership or corporation, in any manner to prepay the transportation or in any way to assist, encourage or solicit the importation or immigration of any alien or foreigner into Canada, under contract or agreement, parole or special, express or implied, made previous to the importation or immigration of such alien or foreigner, to perform labour or service of any kind in Canada.
That is the section of the Alien Act which applies in this case. Now, it is openly admitted, it is not even denied, that these Chinamen were brought in by contract from China, via England, to work upon these boats. It is so stated both in the question and in the answer referred to; they evidently come under the scope of this section. They were brought in as contract alien labourers. So strict is the act in that regard that section 8 of the same act even imposes a severe penalty on the master of any vessel who brings them in and permits them to be landed from any foreign port. The language of the section is "Who, previous to embarkation, had entered into a contract or agreement" and so on. The law even penalizes the master of the vessel who is a party to any deal of that kind. I think it is abundantly shown that these men were brought in illegally-they were alien contract labourers.
But if that is not sufficient we can turn to section 5 of the Chinese Immigration Act of last year, the act of 1923. Section 5 says:
The entry to or landing in Canada of persons of Chinese origin or descent is confined to the following classes.
And the section names them: First, the diplomatic corps; second, children bom in Canada who have left for their education; third, merchants; fourth, students. These Chinamen that came to work on these boats at Halifax, Nova Scotia, were not members of the diplomatic corps, they were not bom in Canada, they were not merchants and they were not students. Therefore they came in in direct and flagrant violation of section 5

of this act which we passed last year in order to deal with such cases.
If that is not sufficient I will quote another section and another violation. Section 7 of the same act reads as follows:
No person of Chinese origin or descent other than the classes mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 5 and sections 23 and 24 of this act-
Neither of which applies in this case.
-shall be permitted to enter or land in Canada elsewhere than at the ports of Vancouver and Victoria.
These men did not land at the ports of Vancouver or Victoria. They landed at Halifax, in the province of Nova Scotia, and there again is a distinct and unescapable violation of that section of the act. Again there is another section, section 22 of the same act. This section deals with the case of Chinese in bond. It was said that a bond of 1105,000 was put up as a guarantee that these men would be deported, but there is no provision for that kind of thing in this or any other act. Here is the section relating to bonding privileges:
Persons of Chinese origin or descent may pass through Canada in transit from one port or place out of Canada to another port or place out of Canada-
Provided that it was in accordance with the regulations. These Chinks did not come from one port of Canada and pass through in transit to another port-they stayed in Canada. That is the only provision in that or any other act by which they could come in in bond, so that this bond that was to be given was illegal and I presume had no effect. I do not know about that, but it certainly was illegally entered into. So, there are four distinct violations each one of which would be sufficient, one would think, to ban any ordinary individual.
Now it may be asserted that a similar condition exists in Vancouver,, and why discriminate between the East and the West. In Vancouver there are a number of Chinamen employed upon the boats owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway which run to China and Japan. I am not here to defend the government in subsidizing these boats manned by Chinamen in any sense but the conditions are different. The Chinamen there are hired in China. They work on these boats and they stay on the boat in China for a considerable time. More than two-thirds of their total time is spent either in China or on the high seas. They are only in Vancouver whilst the boat unloads and reloads, only a few days each month and they can be easily guarded there-they are practically kept in gaol there until the boats sail again. They are not hired

Immigration Act
in China in defiance of the Alien Labour Act as were the men in this case. So the conditions can be truthfully said to be entirely different. The question arises why were these men brought here? Well, I have here a quotation from t. local newspaper, and I do not want to stress this particular man's plea because he was only a victim of circumstances along with other people. His name appears to have been Duncan McDonald. He was a fireman. He joined one of the boats of the British Empire Steel Corporation, desired to serve three years, and obtain a fourth class engineer's ticket.
With this view, I did my best and served from the stoke-hold to the engine room.
And so on. Then he says further:
I was at work in the engine room Saturday afternoon when the second engineer came in. He said: " The Chinamen are coming Monday, so I suppose you had better go out and look for another job." I am now pitching coal in the fires of an old rum-runner, very little bigger than a wash tub.
This man forwards to this paper certified certificates of his character, giving him the highest character for sobriety, intelligence and diligence. He was a young Nova Scotian trying to make his way in the country. That did not happen in Hong Kong, China; it happened right here at the Canadian port of Halifax. Why was this man fired? His superior officers did not want to discharge him,, but gave him the highest character. They discharged Duncan McDonald "only because it has been decided to man this department by Chinamen." The paper continues :
We ask in all the seriousness that can attach to the question, could anything be more tragic, could anything be better calculated to kill ambition and usefulness in a bright young son of this province?
The paper further says:
The very flower of the manhood of Nova Scotia has been pouring out of this country at an alarming rate; the exodus has assumed appalling proportions. These young men are leaving this province because they cannot find work in this province, and Duncan McDonald-conspicuous for his integrity of character and his aptitude for his work; perfectly sober and attentive to his duties-must go out and take a job on a rum-runner because someone wants to man " Canadian home trade " ships with Chinamen.
Why was Duncan McDonald discharged? Certainly not because he was a drunkard; certainly not because he was a ruffian and an incompetent. His superiors have set their hands to the statement that he is everything that an honest, sober, and intelligent workman should be. Duncan McDonald was discharged because " the Chinamen were coming." And why were the Chinamen coming? There can be only one answer; because they will work for lower wages than Canadian seamen receive.
It has been stated in answer to a question asked in this House that it is the purpose of 2531
this company to confine the employment of Chinamen to firemen and cooks, and they give as a reason for that that they cannot obtain firemen and cooks to man their boats. There is a large number of employment agencies in Canada, and I have no doubt such agencies exist in the eastern provinces. What record is there of these agencies being applied to to see if they could supply the necessary cotoks and firemen for this work, in order that Nova Scotians should not be fired out of the remaining jobs they have, and Chinamen placed in their positions? I think a number of men could have been supplied by the employment agencies throughout Canada if an attempt had been made to get them. But the real reason-and we must not shirk it- that these Chinamen were brought in is that they would work at a cheaper rate than Canadians, and their employers, quite properly from their point of view, chose to employ them; and so long as they kept within the law that was their privilege.
But they have not kept within the law. They have brought the men in, first in defiance of the Alien Labour law, secondly in defiance of the Chinese Immigration Aot, and thirdly in defiance of the section which prohibits them from landing at any point in Canada excepting Vancouver and Victoria. They were therefore improperly brought in. The' only method by which they obtained entry to Canada appeals to be a letter from the deputy minister, for which there is no sanction within the four comers of the legislation of Canada. This permission should be cancelled, the men should be deported, and steps should be taken to prevent anything of this kind happening again. I hope the minister will take the opportunity of replying in this debate; or perhaps when the ,estimates come up the matter can be discussed, in order to discover what steps can be taken to correct the evil. I am quite willing to assume that this was a casual error, but we do not want it established as a right thing, because it is not according to the law, and it may spread. It may be used to allow any number of aliens of any description whatever to be brought into Canada.
I might say one or two words more upoi the suggestion that they are not in Canada. They are in Canada. They could not get into Canada by any other means than by landing. They came out as passengers from England on a boat called the Cedric. That boat landed those men on the wharf at Halifax, and from there I presume they were put on board the company's boats. They were
Immigration Act

in Canada technically and actually. They are in Canada, sailing on Canadian boats and in Canadian waters, and displacing Canadian men. I cannot see that there is any way that the matter can be explained, except by frankly admitting that a mistake has been made, and I think that some steps should be taken to remedy this error in the immediate future.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.	.
On section 1-Amending paragraph (d) of section 2.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: This amendment is along the lines of an amendment introduced last year, and to a certain extent is a move in the right direction. It is an attempt to get rid of some of the vicious legislation that was placed on the statute books in 1919, during the period in which there was still more or less of a war hysteria. But I submit this amendment does not go nearly far enough, and I would urge that there should be some further changes at this time. The latter part of section 1 reads:
And provided further that no person who belongs to the prohibited or undersirable classes within the meaning of section 41 of this act shall be capable of acquiring Canadian domicile.
Now we must turn to section 41 to find out just who they are to whom reference is made. That section reads:
Whenever any alien advocates in Canada the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Great Britain or Canada, or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or the overthrow by force or violence of constituted law and authority, or assassination, or shall by word or act create or attempt to create riot or public disorder in Canada, or shall by common repute belong to or be suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization which extorts money from, or in any way attempts to control any resident of Canada by force or threat of bodily harm, or by blackmail; such person for the purposes of this act shall be considered and classed as an undesirable immigrant.
I think it is very clear that no one will urge that any of these crimes which are mentioned here are to be in any sense condoned, but I should like to point out the bearing of this section. The phrase is "Anyone who shall by common repute." I do not think we have any business to act on common repute. A man ought to be proved guilty of any crime: The minister ought not to act on common repute. Not only that, but the clause proceeds, "Or to be suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization." It seems to me that a man should not be declared guilty simply because some official
[Mr. Neill.l
suspects him of belonging to an illegal organization. I am not defending the man who belongs to an organization which resorts to these tactics, but I urge that we should have something more than suspicion on which to convict him. It would be most regrettable that section 41 should go through as it stands in the bill, although I frankly admit that it is a considerable advance on the old section 41. One point in which there is possibly an advance is that the old section 41 as contained in chapter 26 reads:	"every person," whereas it now reads
"every alien." I should like to protest against the aliens being thus singled out. The effort is being made in this legislation to protect people of British birth, and I think they should be protected. They should not be victims of suspicion; they should not be condemned because of common adverse repute, but aliens also ought to be protected. We have hundreds of thousands of alien-born people in the West. We have many who have not yet taken out their naturalization papers. I am not pleading for those of them who are guilty of the practices enumerated in this section, but if accused they ought to have a fair trial and that is not provided for in this legislation. Moreover, there still remain unrevised paragraphs (n) and (o) of chapter 25, section 3.


James Alexander Robb: Before my hon. friend leaves
that point, will he refer to section 42, subsection 2? I think he will find that ample provision is made for an inquiry by the department.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is true there
may be a departmental inquiry, but it is to that that I obj ect. A mere departmental inquiry is not sufficient. Such a case ought to come before the courts of the land. If I may pass to paragraphs (n) and (o), these are among the prohibited classes:
(n) Persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Canada or of constituted law and authority, or who disbelieve in or are opposed to organized government, or who advocate the assassination of public officials, or who advocate or teach the unlawful destruction of property.
Again these are very serious evils that are aimed at, but the phrase-
Those who are opposed to organized government.
-is very broad.


James Alexander Robb: These persons under the
act are excluded from Canada. They are never admitted. Does my hon. friend want them admitted?

Immigration Act


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not, I know the ostensible purpose is to exclude these people, but if they get past the gates they can still be dealt with under this clause as immigrants. These are the prohibited classes: Those who disbelieve in or are opposed to organized government.
That phrase is too broad because, in practice, it may very easily be interpreted to mean those who are opposed to some particular organized government. We have heard all sorts of governments proposed. We even advocate in this House certain changes of government. If a man is an alien and advocates some government that is not familiar in this country, he may come under this section. The same is true of the other phrase:
Those who advocate or teach the unlawful destruction of property.
No one would reprobate more than I would the unlawful destruction of property or any destruction of property, but this phrase may be and has been very broadly interpreted. If during an industrial dispute a striker might advocate the leaving of the pumps and the safety of mines be threatened, he might be said to be teaching the unlawful destruction of property, because his action might result in certain losses to property. That is the line of interpretation which was actually taken in one case in Canada. That is the danger in this legislation as has been pointed out by the Trades and Labour Council of Canada and their legal adviser. I would suggest that if wr. are to have sections of this character in the act, they ought to be more definitely phrased. This section, so loosely drawn, lends itself to broad interpretations under which almost anyone might be convicted. Paragraph (o) reads:
Persons who are members of or affiliated with any organization entertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government. .	.	.
And so on. That is the same style of phrase, and it may very easily be interpreted as meaning those who are dissatisfied with the particular kind of government which prevails at the present time. The viciousness of the legislation in my judgment, lies in the fact that anyone who is suspected of doing this kind of thing, if he is an immigrant-and I may say with regard to paragraph (n) or (o), whether he is an alien immigrant or a British-born immigrant, because there is no limitation
___is declared to belong to the prohibited classes.
Although he may have gotten past the immigration gates, he still belongs to those prohibited classes. We are told in the introductory paragraph that anybody who belongs to those prohibited classes is not allowed to establish domicile in Canada. This means that any of those people who are suspected of acting or thinking along these lines may be deprived of the right to trial by jury.
I agree with the objects aimed at in this legislation, that we ought to keep out of this country undesirables. But I believe, when a man comes into this country, when he lives for a time here, when he commits or is suspected of committing a crime against the country, his trial ought to be, not a mere departmental inquiry, but a trial before a judge and jury. We owe him that. Our general conviction is that every man in this country ought to have a fair trial, and I would urge that the minister consider the advisability of so redrafting this legislation as to ensure to every man in Canada a fair trial and not merely a departmental inquiry.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I do not think there is anybody in this House who is not desirous that people of undesirable character should be kept out; but I would urge upon the minister that it is un-British, un-Canadian and unfair to turn a man out of this country because he may have a common repute of being undesirable. It would be so easy for some unpopular person among a certain class to be condemned because people who do not like him said that he came under one of those undesirable classes. That a man should be liable to deportation, whether he is an alien or a British subject just because he is suspected of entertaining certain undesirable beliefs, surely is very far from the ideals of justice and fair play. I feel that if we pass any law which does not measure up to the ideals of fairness and justice which we all should hold, we only lower the law, and the appreciation of the law, in the minds of the people. I believe that the legislation should be modified along these lines. I do not condone these offences nor do I desire the people entertaining these views to have asylum in our country; but they should not be kept out, nor should they be turned out if they do get in, simply because by common repute they hold certain views and because they may be suspected by some one or other of harbouring undesirable doctrines.


James Alexander Robb: The laws of this country are
enacted for the protection of the Canadian people, and there is no hardship in any respect in this legislation nor has any hardship been caused hitherto to the people of the classes referred to. Let me read the law to hon. gentlemen who I am sure will agree that no hardship is imposed upon any of the people
Immigration Act


James Shaver Woodsworth: Why does the minister object to a fair trial by the courts of the land?


James Alexander Robb: Does the hon. gentleman not
think that this is a fair trial?


James Shaver Woodsworth: A departmental inquiry, with an appeal to the minister the only appeal, is not a fair trial.


Mr. MILLAR:: I think that very broad
powers for the minister and the department are required just at the present time. At certain seasons of the year, particularly in harvest time on the prairies, it is quite possible-and indeed at times it does occur-for workmen to cause trouble and even terror. It is the easiest thing in the world just when the grain is being threshed, and when there are large gangs working together, for a man to put stones in the sheaves and so wreck the threshing machines; and it is not at all improbable that they would go the length of putting a bundle of matches in a sheaf. This is not imaginary, for I have had an experience of this sort myself. On one occasion I engaged two men who came from the province down by the sea of which we hear so much, and they deliberately put stones in the sheaves. They admitted having done so and when asked the reason they said that they wanted a rest; that was all. There may be something in the suggestion of the hon. member (Mr. Woods-worth) that these people should have a trial 
by judge or jury, but in many cases it is difficult to convict those men who belong to the I.W.W. and who are agitators. I noticed very recently that in a settlement in the Peace river country-I do not know just where it was but it was in the southern part of the district-a number of men of this class got together and made certain threats, and in fact even drove out the only two Canadian families that were in the district. They simply defied the powers. I have nothing but a newspaper report for this.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: I do not
think the hon. gentleman should take the newspaper report too seriously; I know the district well and I do not think there is any foundation for the allegation.


John Millar: The hon. member knows
the district better than I do, and as I said I have just the newspaper reports for it. I know however for a fact, which no one can deny, that in the harvest season when men are gathered together from the United States and from eastern and far western Canada, there is very grave danger of machinery being destroyed. It is necessary at such times to rush the work through and one has to engage almost any able-bodied man who offers his services. It is difficult to weed out the undesirable ones and these men working among the others very often start an agitation; they will burn buildings and destroy threshing machineiy and' generally cause a great deal of trouble and loss of property. A law of this kind may possibly be required in the industrial centres; but speaking from this standpoint alone in regard to the western provinces I think it is highly necessary for the minister and the department to have broad powers to enable them to deal severely with this class in Canada.


James Alexander Robb: And swiftly.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am in entire accord with the measure as explained by the minister. I am a friend of labour but I am a friend of the man who wants to work and who desires order in this country. I am an opponent down to the ground of anarchy and anarchists, and I know that men have come to this country with no other intention than to cause trouble and stir up agitation, thinking they could subvert order in the towns or cities in which they settled. We had a group of harvesters from Seoland or England-


Mr. CHISHOLM:: Not from
9 p.m. Scotland.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Well, they were from England, Ireland or Scotland, but the

Immigration Act
man's name I want to mention particularly is Leslie, which I venture to say is a Scottish name. He went on the prairies with a group of harvesters and as soon as the harvest was over he made his way to Winnipeg and from Winnipeg to Toronto, and he caused more annoyance and was a more violent anarchist I suppose than we have ever had in our city. He stood up in the dock in the police court and declared himself a revolutionist who was proud to have been able to shake hands with Lenin of Russia; and' he wanted the city of Toronto turned into a Moscow. He led a party down to this city this session, having walked all the way from Toronto to intimidate this government, and one thing I can commend the government for most heartily is the fact that there was no surrender to that bunch of Bolshevists. There were not very many of them. I think it is only right that we should have a law to deport a man like that or any group of men who will create disturbance in the country. I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Millar) that the minister should have wide powers to deal with men of that type. I think I may fairly say that we have in this country among the masses of the people a larger proportion who are orderly and law-abiding than perhaps can be found in any other country in the world. I think that is largely due to the fact that our agricultural population is large. Nothing makes a man steady, sober and- orderly like having some real stake in the country he lives in. In this Dominion of Canada every man can have some stake here; if he will practise thrift and make a few sacrifices in his young manhood he can have land of his own and a home of his own.


Mr. GOOD:: Miay I ask -my hon. friend
whether the stability depends on the amount of stake a man has in -the country? If so, would that apply in superlative degree to a millionaire?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not quite get the
drift of my hon. friend's question. I do not know that any millionaires are going around like Mr. Leslie, declaring themselves in favour of revolution. I do not think millionaires make revolutionists, although some of my hon. friends will disagree with that. I do not think a man is a revolutionist unless he has evil in his heart. I do not think any healthy man need starve in this country. Any man who is industrious and thrifty can -make his way and gain a competence in Canada. But men who come here with a different idea, that of stirring up strife, ou^ht to be deported, and the more quickly they are deported the better it is for those who
remain. There are men in this House, on every side, who began their lives with no more money than Mr. Leslie had when he came out to this country, but they did not attain a competence or a comfortable livelihood without effort. Are we who desire to work, are people who are sober, thoughtful, steady and orderly, to be subject -to the agitations of men who pride themselves on their acquaintance with Trotsky and Lenin and declare for revolution in public places in this country? I think not. And as far as I at least am capable, my voice and my vote and my influence, though they may be very little, will be directed against that class of people, and I will support this or any government in taking whatever measures are necessary to get such people out of the country without delay.


Arthur Meighen: I am going to address
myself to a very brief effort to alter the viewpoint of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and possibly of others Who may agree with him. But before doing so I commend the government for coming so close to, indeed entirely into, our ground on this subject, as they have on many others under the enlightening influence of office. What a few yeans ago was considered rank and bold autocracy is now considered wise and sane administration. The deportation powers of a minister or of a government are not powers that are exercised for the purposes of punishing offences. They do not imply a, crime; they do not imply an offence against the law. They are simply a power, one of many, exercisable for the purpose of selecting the immigrants who come to Canada. This is their purpose and no other. Before any citizen of our country or any alien on our shores is to be deprived of his liberty or his life he is entitled to a trial by judge or by jury. But why is this? Because his liberty and his life are his natural rights, rights that no one can deny him unless he forfeits them in whole or in part by his -own misconduct, by offences against the law of the land. But to live in Canada is the natural right of nobody until his citizenship there is established It is not the natural right even of any man from England, even of any man merely because he is a British subject. We are not prepared to admit a man simply because he can raise the British flag. His indefeasible right to live in Canada we have never admitted, and we are sorry we cannot admit it. Much less have we ever admitted that any man from anywhere else on earth has a natural right to have a habitation here.
Immigration Act

So when we deny him what he never had a right to, what he never established his right to, and when we do that by the means of deportation, we are not committing any wrong against him. It is essential, in order that this instrument may be exercisable for the purpose of properly selecting immigrants, that the powers of the minister be summary. It is essential that they be capable of swift and immediate execution in appropriate cases. But to suggest that we must give a man a trial by jury before we dfecide whether he has a right to come to Canada and] stay here after he has arrived is to my mind absurd. We are not denying anything to which the man ever became entitled. We are merely exercising in the only way we effectively can, and with the least possible injury to him, an essential power of government.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Does the hon. member
think it wise that people should be deported on general repute or suspicion?


Arthur Meighen: Not as a rule. But there do come cases where the repute itself is so notorious as to amount to a conclusion. I do not know that ever within the period in which this clause has been in force there has been a case of deportation because of mere repute. I am not certain that there has; if there has I fancy the cases were very few. But if it were a notorious case where the man's reputation was world-wide as an anarchist, why would the minister need to have some other proof? He might exercise his power in such a case merely on the basis of the .repute or notoriety of the individual. It seems to me it is not unwise to have the law such that he can.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: What about the suspicion?


Arthur Meighen: The word "suspicion"
does not appear to me to be necessary at all.


Mr. MARTELL:: When the minister is
acting in this way is it not the case that he is acting judicially? I mean, that he is taking tognizance of whatever evidence is before aim? Moreover, a trial by jury might mean .hat a man would have to be in this country i year before he could be brought to trial.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly the minister's
powers under the act are judicial powers.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Although the ostensible object is that of selecting immigrants, this power may be exercised to secure the punishment of people who have committed or who are suspected or reputed to have committed crime. As I understand the amend-
ment, whether a man has been here one year or twenty years makes no difference; under this legislation it is simply impossible for such a man to establish domicile. An Englishman who has come to Canada and lived here for twenty-five years and is suspected by some of his neighbours or by some over-zealous official of being a member of this particular class or having tendencies along this line, might conceivably be called before a committee of inquiry appointed by the minister and summarily deported to Great Britain. I say that is an intolerable situation.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is building
up a straw man to knock him down.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not knocking down a straw man, as an attempt was made in 1919 to do just that thing, and had it not been for a general protest across the country it would have been done.


Mr. COOTE:: I would just like to ask the
minister, and the question is brought to my mind by the leader of the opposition, how long an Englishman would have to be in this country before he would have the rights of Canadian citizenship?


James Alexander Robb: Five years.


Arthur Meighen: I fancy the minister is
hardly right in his answer. I do not say the period is wrong, but his rights of citizenship are immediate. His right of residence is defeasible within the five years.


James Alexander Robb: That is what I meant.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Am I not right
when I say that any one who belongs to one of these prohibited classes could not establish domicile, no matter how long he has been here, whether it is five years or twenty years?


James Alexander Robb: He could if he were a person
of good character.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is the point
at issue.


Mr. LADNER:: Some time ago I
addressed to the Secretary of State a letter dealing with the question of naturalization by those who retain the naturalization of their country of origin when making application for naturalization here. It is a question of dual nationality, and it affects a number of countries, particularly Japan. I took occasion when raising the matter in the House of placing on record the views of people on the coast who are well informed on this question, and perhaps one of them was the best informed person on naturalization questions in western Canada.

Immigration Act


George Newcombe Gordon: I am rather inclined to doubt whether the hon. member's remarks are relevant to this particular section, which relates to those who are confined in penitentiaries, gaols, reformatories, and so on.


Leon Johnson Ladner: My remarks referred to
section 1 of the act, which contains a number of subsections.


George Newcombe Gordon: Section 1 before the
committee deals with certain classes of criminals.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But there are other classes in section 1. I merely wish to ask the minister if consideration has been given to the question of doing away with dual citizenship; in other words, of making the law so that an immigrant coming into this country who retains the citizenship of his country of origin will not be able to acquire citizenship in Canada. That is a matter of great importance, and I thought the department had looked into it, and would have some views upon it now that these amendments are being brought down.


James Alexander Robb: I am bound to say I have
not considered that feature. The matter brought up by my hon. friend is one that might perhaps more appropriately be discussed with the Secretary of State.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the minister tell us what is meant by the term "undesirable classes." Take an im'migrant who can speak neither French nor English, who is without means, and has not enough skill or ability to work at anything. Would he be held to be undesirable under this section?


James Alexander Robb: If he is an illiterate he would
not be admitted to Canada at all, under the Immigration Act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I am
afraid my hon. friend is not enforcing his regulations, because we have up in northern Ontario now a very large number of men who are illiterate, who can speak neither English nor French, and who are being maintained largely by the charity of the people up there. There are 150 Finns up there.


James Alexander Robb: How long have they been in
Canada?


Henry Lumley Drayton: They got here
this year, and applied for work, but it was found they could not work. They are uneducated, can speak neither English nor French, and are being supported by charity; at least they were a month ago


James Alexander Robb: Mokt of the complaints coming to us are that the department is too strict in the matter of examining immigrants.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Members of family accompanying rejected person.
Henry Lumley Drayton: 
James Alexander Robb: There is no charge against
them unless they are wrong.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There certainly is under this act, absolutely. Now if they are to be insurers and are to be put to all these charges, the transportation of officials, not only Dominion but provincial, and all that sort of thing, of course they are going to continue to make these tremendous charges against immigration. Would the minister let us know what the rate is now?


James Alexander Robb: The passage costs from sixteen to eighteen pounds, according to the ship. The Commissioner of Immigration tells me that had the total detention charges of last season been charged against the transportation companies it would not have amounted to 25 cents per head on the immigrants carried.


Henry Lumley Drayton: These proposed sections were not law then.


James Alexander Robb: There is a measure of fairness in this, I submit to my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
James Alexander Robb: passengers, nor proportionately more than freight rates. It is due to the general increased cost of operating a ship, higher wages, higher cost of coal, and everything else that goes into the operation of a ship.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the increase in this particular rate is out of line pretty nearly with everything.


James Alexander Robb: I admit the rate is high.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We did have an increase of 50 per cent in our grain rates, and from Saskatoon 32 per cent-


James Alexander Robb: Those are rail rates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
James Alexander Robb: I would not think so; my
hon. friends opposite did not build them for that purpose.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
James Alexander Robb: Before the section passes I should say that we have arranged with the transportation lines whereby they give a remission on the regular rate of $15 to each third class passenger coming from the United Kingdom to Canada.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: That mainly applies to
passengers from the United Kingdom.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, from the United Kingdom.


Hugh Guthrie: I hardly agree with my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) that the ocean rate has much to do with the number of immigrants that come from Canada. We could get a very heavy immigration to this country, entirely apart from the ocean rate, if we so desired. What stops immigration is the restrictions which we have seen fit, rightly or wrongly to impose upon immigration, and I am satisfied that the ocean rate has very little to do with it. If we come to the conclusion that we want people, selected people, I think we can get them very readily in almost overwhelming numbers. But on the one hand we hear the objection "We do not want artisans and mechanics" and on the other hand we hear continually even in this House "We do not want any more farmers". What class then are we going to get.


Arthur John Lewis: Lawyers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What about
Finns?


Hugh Guthrie: My own opinion, speaking only for myself, is that we might relax a good many of our present restrictions. We must remember that at all times immigrants to this country come from a class of people who are not wholly successful in their home lands. The successful classes, the contented classes, do not emigrate as a rule. They remain at home. The love of home is implanted in the human breast and operates equally, I think, on all nationalities. It is the unsuccessful, the discontented, those who have more or less made a failure of life, who desire to change conditions; and I think were we to go back to the early days of this country and see some of our own forebeiars when they originally landed in Canada we would find that they- coming from England, Ireland, Scotland and from the continent-were not the happy, prosperous contented classes of. that day, but were just from the same classes who are inclined to leave their home land to-day. But notwithstanding all that, we find in this country and in this age that those who came a generation, or two generations, or three generations ago, did make a success of life and of conditions in Canada, and succeeding generations have improved on the standard of the old days until we have a nation we are proud of on this part of the continent at the present time. My own view is there should be a material relaxation in the restrictions which we have imposed on immigration coming into Canada.
You read in the newspapers, you hear on almost every political platform, and you hear

Immigration Act
time and again in this House during every session, that the greatest want of this Dominion to-day is people; we must have population. I have heard leaders of political life in Canada twenty and twenty-five years ago predict, that in ten years we would have from ten to fifteen millions of people; in twenty years we would get probably twenty millions of people, and so on. But how have those predictions been fulfilled? It is over twenty-four years since I entered this parliament, and I am not satisfied with the growth of population that has taken place in that quarter of a century. I do not think any Canadian is satisfied, and there is a consensus of opinion that we want people. There never was an opportunity such as is presented to-day for getting them. The great trouble in the past in getting people to this country was the competition of the United States. Immigrants were drawn there by the tales of prosperity they heard and, of course, by the large population abiding there. Now the doors are closed, the quota law is in effect, and it is most difficult for people to leave European countries and enter the United States. The law will become more stringent as time goes on. Now is our opportunity to choose, to select, to reject if we so desire. But if on the one hand we are told we cannot bring any people into this country to work as artisans or mechanics or labourers, and on the other hand that we cannot bring any in as farmers what are we going to do? What class are we going to bring in, I ask you? I do not believe that the ocean rate has any appreciable effect upon the question of immigration to this country to-day. I have been informed by officials of the department during the present session that if the bars were raised we could bring to Canada any number of people we desired. It is true, there is no doubt about it. But we keep the bars down, and I think the time has come when there should be some very great relaxation of these restrictions.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister no comment to make? I do not know that there is a more important subject before the people of Canada to-day than the one we are now considering, and yet we have had no discussion on it to amount to anything this session. I should like to know from the minister what classes we could admit to Canada now were we willing? Perhaps I had better put my question this way so as not to embarrass the minister at all: If we raise the bars now in any way what classes would he first admit to this country who are ready to come? The
minister understands what I mean. There are certain classes that we all know would come, of course.


James Alexander Robb: My right hon. friend means
what classes are ready to come?


Arthur Meighen: No. I know pretty well what classes are ready-some of them anyway. What I want to know is this: If the minister were to raise the bars now, and had his chance of selection, what class ready to come would he first admit who are now rejected. I mean to say were he opening the door just a little who are those now rejected that he would admit?


James Alexander Robb: General labourers, without going into nationalities.


Arthur Meighen: Of what country?


James Alexander Robb: General labourers.


Arthur Meighen: Not all general labourers.


James Alexander Robb: Well, my hon. friend from
South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) was quite right. If we relax the restriction and allow people to come in and take care of themselves -regardless of those who say they do not want any more people on the land and those who say they do not want any more labour to come in-there are many people of all nationalities prepared to come to this country, nationalities that have made good in Canada, that have paid their way, have paid their municipal taxes, and have produced traffic for the railways; a fair type of citizens from Germany, Ukrainia, Galicia and Hungary. My right hon. friend was in the department and he knows the type that come in.


Arthur Meighen: I never was in the
department although I have acted as Minister of Immigration. Immigration was not under the Interior department in my time. We will concede, to get closer to the point, that so far as geography goes, and nationality too for that matter, the immigrants we want are those from northern Europe.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Because that climate
breeds the stock which does best in this northern part of America. Very well, what classes could we get from northern Europe which we do not admit? The minister says there is an agitation against artisans, an agitation against farmers, even, and there is an agitation against the common labourer. Could we get artisans? Could we get the common labourers? I know that the minister
Immigration Act

admits farmers. Could we get artisans and common labourers from northern Europe today if the government were ready to open the door wide enough to admit them?


James Alexander Robb: Undoubtedly.


Arthur Meighen: In large numbers?


James Alexander Robb: I should think so.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister
estimate how many a year?


James Alexander Robb: No, I would not go into that.


Arthur Meighen: I am certain that the
minister's official, who is sitting close to him, could tell him. That official should know how many per year could be obtained from all the northern countries in Europe.


James Alexander Robb: The way to do would be to
take an average of the past few years. My hon. friend knows the average for ten years.


Arthur Meighen: No, that would not answer, because there have always been restrictions. Suppose we were to remove these restrictions on artisans from the northern countries, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Holland, Belgium and France, about how many would the minister estimate would be ready to come in the first year?


James Alexander Robb: I could not say that, but if
my hon. friend wants the record he could refer to the past history. I think they were coming in at the rate of a thousand a day during the peak of immigration prior to the war, and I think at one period over 400,000 a year came in.


Arthur Meighen: Were artisans admitted
without limit?


James Alexander Robb: I was not administering the
department.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I do not think there was much limit at that time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Fifty dollars a head.


Arthur Meighen: There were restrictions
even then on artisans.


James Alexander Robb: The money test.


Arthur Meighen: The minister will say that a very large number of those artisans from northern Europe would undoubtedly come to Canada if the bars were raised.


James Alexander Robb: I believe they would.


Arthur Meighen: What other classes?


James Alexander Robb: I have told the hon. member.


Arthur Meighen: Common labourers.


James Alexander Robb: I presume so.


Arthur Meighen: I presume they would
come over in large numbers.


James Alexander Robb: I do not know the conditions over there, but I think they would.


Arthur Meighen: The minister will realize, although he does not say it, that what we need in this country is work for the common labourer and artisan.


James Alexander Robb: I thought my hon. friend was
leading up to that; but let me say that during the period, 1911, 1912 and 1913 they were building cities in western Canada, and they required artisans to build railways. They were paving streets and putting in sewers. I think the largest demonstration of unemployed that I ever saw in my life was in Regina in June 1914.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has not
travelled far. That was very, very brief, and the minister's experience was limited. It would not amount to anything.


James Alexander Robb: I will admit a limited experience.


Arthur Meighen: He will have more experience, I think, this winter.


Mr. MARLER:: The question raised a few moments ago by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) regarding restrictions on immigration is a subject to which I think the government and also the House has given a great deal of attention and study. On various occasions, not only in this House but also in the city of Montreal, I have spoken in regard to the subject of restriction relating to immigration. Last year in this House I advocated the open door. Last fall in Montreal I advocated the open door again as regards immigrants who are mentally sound; but in advocating the open door I have always done so having in view at the same time whether, that door being open, there was sufficient work to go around in this country to supply those who did come here with work and with a livelihood. That is the qualification which I always added when I advocated the open door, which I have done from time to time. As to whether these restrictions which exist at the present time should now be raised is a question which to my mind needs the most careful and the most mature consideration, because the emigration from Canada to the United States has been very serious indeed.

Immigration Act


Mr.   McM ASTER@: But can we provide
work for them?
Mr. MARiLER: This matter is so serious that we cannot close our eyes to the figures as they exist, and that emigration would not have taken place, as I have held before in this House, if there had been sufficient work and sufficient remunerative employment in this country to keep those self-same people at home. My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) anticipates what I am about to say. Now business in the United States in the past few years has been rising and has reached the peak. It is now going down. Some of these self-same emigrants

not all of them, I do not think even the majority, because I do not believe the majority will ever come back to the country, I believe they are gone forever-are now coming back. They are coming back in considerable numbers. Have we work in this country to supply these self-same men who went away? I question very much if, at the present time we have the work to give them employment. I question very much, if they do come back in large numbers, whether we can give them employment; and an immigration policy to be successful in this country must be based on something a great deal more than merely getting the people into Canada. There must be something here for the people to do when they arrive, and until we realize that fact, and realize it to the full, I do not know that we are doing this country any great amount of good by bringing artisans, mechanics or other classes of people into Canada in large numbers. In addition to that-and I think this is quite germane to the subject-owing to the condition of business in the United States we will have in the next few years sent into this country hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars' worth of goods, to be sold at prices at which we cannot manufacture those goods here, and if we are to allow those goods to come in at slaughter prices-and I am not talking on tariff matters just now-


James Alexander Robb: You are very dangerously near it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Then I will get off the subject at once.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Will the hon. member tell me if the dumping of slaughtered goods into this country would not reduce the cost of living?


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, it absolutely would not, and it is utterly impossible, it seems to me, for some people to get it into their heads
that the more goods that come in here by this means the greater the cost of goods manufactured in this country. That is a question on which we do not all agree, but perhaps I had better not debate it at any great length.
It may bring up a discussion similar to the discussion on the banks.


Milton Neil Campbell: Would the hon. member not apply it to what the farmer has to sell, as well as to what the manufacturer has to sell?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I will not take up that question, but we are going to be faced with the condition where we will have a large amount of American goods coming in. My hon. friends must make up their minds-I have made up my mind and I intend to persist in it-that if these goods come in there will be less work for people to do, and we may as well acknowledge that without question. Let us make up our minds-and I have made up mine pretty well-that we had better start on a solid foundation, and realize that if we want to get people here, it is not a question of restriction or of ocean rates, but it is a question of whether they can get work here.


An hon. MEMBER:: They can.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Perhaps they can, and that is the basic question we should decide, and not a question of ocean rates or restrictions.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We ought to decide whether or not there is room at the present time for more workers, an open-door policy has been advocated on the floor of this House tonight, but this preliminary question should be answered before we decide whether we wish to introduce a larger immigration. A little while ago the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) suggested that any man who was willing to work could earn a living in this country; that the men who had not work were men who were no good. I should like to bring to the attention of the committee a letter which was recently sent out from the city of Toronto by the mayor and board of control to the mayors of other Canadian cities:
Toronto, May 1st, 1924.
Toronto-the second largest city in the Dominion of Canada in point of population-has during the recent winter months passed through a serious unemployment situation, created and prolonged, in very large measure, by reason of an unusually heavy influx of immigrants, chiefly of the unskilled classes in so far as labour is concerned and which could not be readily absorbed in ordinary industrial and trained employment. As the months passed, the conditions of unemployment became more intense until at the (present time, when seasonably
Immigration Act

there should be few out of work, the reports issued from the government Employment Bureau here are not at all encouraging as a barometer indicative of relief to any appreciable extent in the near future.
The experience of this city has doubtles been the experience of every other city in Canada; just as acute in comparison with population and the volume of employment which could be afforded.
The board of control of this city feel that the time has arrived for the cities of the Dominion to notify both the federal and provincial governments that if they brought immigrants to this country they would have to look after them until they found employment, or in the alternative, that the municipalities insist that it is imperative to adopt a new policy in regard to immigration, if not to entirely put on a speedy stop order. Recent despatches from Europe published vn papers throughout the Dominion announced that aver eight thousand immigrants would sail from European ports for Canada within the next few weeks to swell the number of thousands now idle for lack of the opportunities to earn a livelihood. On the other hand, thousands of our best trained mechanics are leaving Canada and entering the United States, where work is plentiful and where high wages are being paid. The United States immigration records show a monthly average of 17,000 Canadians entering the United States. In June, July, August and September of last year the figures ran from 16.000 to 18,000 per month. This movement, if maintained, would mean a loss exceeding $00,000 a year.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order.
I did not wish to interrupt the hon. member sooner, because I think he was entitled to reply to hon. members who have also been out of order. But I would draw your attention. Mr. Chairman, to the fact that we are dealing with section 2, the purpose of which is to give authority to an immigration agent to deport at the expense of the transportation company members of a family accompanying a person who has been rejected or who is about to be deported. I do not wish to suggest any impoliteness to the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), and that is why I did not interrupt him sooner before he had read that letter. But the last several speakers have been entirely out of trder in discussing, in connection with the luestion whether members of a family iccompanying a person who has been reacted shall be deported, matters in regard to the tariff, and so on.


Hugh Guthrie: What about Chinese immigration?


Alan Webster Neill: I will discuss Chinese immigration under its appropriate section, but I am not trying to discuss it under a different section or discuss the tariff on a section such as this.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Pelletier):: I think the point of order is not well taken and the hon. member may proceed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would not object to stopping on a point of order, because I am inclined to agree that the point is well taken.


Alan Webster Neill: I think I will appeal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But since this question has been raised at this juncture I could not let go unchallenged the statements which were being made. Right across the country from coast to coast at the present time are coming resolutions with regard to the bad conditions that exist. I have them from Port Arthur, the border cities, my own city of Winnipeg and points further west. Within the last day or so I was forwarded a resolution as far east as Sydney Mines, urging that something be done:
To relieve the distress amongst our women folk and starving children, as we have not had one day's work since 1st May. They managed to keep the mine open on 1st May, then closed her down although the government had an order for 1,400 tons per week from our colliery.
Such reports suggest that we are really faced with a serious condition across the country. For the past two years officials at Winnipeg have come down urging that if the government persists in its policy of dumping people in Winnipeg without there being any possibility of work, the government must accept the responsibility of caring for those people. At the present time meetings of unemployed men are being held on the market square of the city of Winnipeg. I had an interview only a few days ago with the mayor of Winnipeg who was visiting the capital on other business, he referred to the serious situation which prevails at present in that city with regard to unemployment. It does not seem reasonable that this government should continue to import people into these very centres which are keeping people on charity. If there is any further discussion with regard to opening wide the doors, we ought first to consider the condition of the people at home.
I am not opposed to immigration; I am not opposed to people coming to Canada and taking their chance; but I do oppose assisted immigration which is often bringing in people who are not fitted for the country, who have not even sufficient to pay their way to Canada and who, therefore, have not sufficient to get a start. I oppose further the spending of large sums of money through the Immigration Department in spreading abroad literature that, whether or not it may be technically true, gives a false impression to those who have no previous knowledge of conditions which prevail in this country.

Immigration Act


James Alexander Robb: I am inclined to agree with
both the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) and the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) on the point of order, but I have no desire to stop the debate. It is quite interesting. And I am not going to prolong it more than to say this to my hon. friend who has just told us of conditions of unemployment which prevail in Winnipeg.
I have also some record of the unemployment situation in Winnipeg and it is about up to date. In the Toronto Globe of July 3, this item appears:
The Winnipeg strike ends. The strike of the Winnipeg bricklayers and stonemasons which was called on Monday ended abruptly to-day when an agreement was reached with the employers which will bring the union scale of wages to $1.25 an hour.
These men were being paid $1.15 an hour, and when they got the employers started and the buildings partly up, they demanded an extra ten cents an hour. They are now being paid $1.25 an hour. How are you ever going to get down the cost of rents to the people of this country when you are paying men that scale of wages?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would submit
that that is another matter altogether and has nothing to do with the unemployment situation. I was discussing unskilled labour which is to be found in such large numbers with no work. If the minister wishes to enter upon the question, I could point out that stonemasons and bricklayers are highly (skilled craftsmen and in the West they are employed often for only four, five or six months of the entire year. Throughout the years in the past there has gradually developed for bricklayers and stonemasons a much higher scale of wages than that which prevails in any other section of the building trade and much higher than in any other section of the ordinary mechanical trades. Further than that, I would point out that although $1.25 an hour seems a high wage, it is not nearly so high a wage as has been paid in the building trades just south of the line. This has had the effect of depleting the ranks of our mechanics in Winnipeg, almost every one who can get out going south to Chicago and Detroit. So far as building homes is concerned, let me point out that the question of wages constitutes only one of the vital facts; the enormous ground rent that has been charged, by which a great many people through inflation of land values have made fortunes in Winnipeg and in most of the other cities in the West, is a larger factor in the situation than the wages paid mechanics.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not want it to
be inferred from anything I have said that I consider the present a particularly good time to bring labourers or artisans into Canada.
I realize as everyone else does that there is to-day especially in the cities a great deal of unemployment. We all regret this but we recognize the fact, and I do not suggest that the present is the most opportune moment for pursuing a vigorous policy of immigration; nor would I think the autumn of the year favourable under any circumstances, spring being much preferable. As regards the situation in Winnipeg, I have no doubt that a large part of the congestion there, in regard to labour, arises from the fact that so many of the immigrants who do come to Canada to-day are brought across the continent and practically dumped in Winnipeg. There they are supposed to await farm labour, or they are supposed to become farmers there themselves. My information is that a very large proportion of these people simply remain in Winnipeg, and if that system is persisted in the conditions will become worse instead of improving there. My own vdew is that immigration as it lands should be more spread out than has been the case in the past. I had the benefit of an interview with some of the immigration officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway one day last week and I also saw a representative of one of the American shipping companies. These officials told me that to-day you can obtain from northern Europe, not only in the countries enumerated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) but in such places as Poland, Czecho-SIovakia, Esthonia, Ukrainia and parts of Austria, a splendid class of imfmigration. The people want to leave those parts of Europe and as they cannot go to the United States there are only two alternatives now open to them, namely, South America and the Dominion of Canada, because they do not very readily take to the idea of going to Mexico. This I submit is Canada's opportunity, and so great is the desire of people to come to Canada that we can pick and choose, taking the best and rejecting the undesirables. I do not however suggest that the present is the opportune moment to bring these people; I do not suggest that as unemployment becomes acute we should bring in more immigrants to add to the army of unemployed which we already have with us. But surely there will be a time when this country will welcome a tremendous immigration. I have heard it stated by United States officials that a country can absorb annually without inconvenience 5 per cent of
Immigration Act

its population by way of immigration. If our population is nine millions at present then four hundred and fifty thousand a year would be the maximum that we could absorb in immigration. These figures are based on the experience of the United States, but I fancy that they would apply to this country as well. I am satisfied that we shall not reach anywhere near that mark this year; indeed, I doubt whether we have ever come near it. I think however that we should seriously consider the question. We all seem to agree on this point, that we want more people in this country. I doubt whether we are retaining to-day the natural increase of the country, and immigration is the greatest need of Canada. Now that the opportunity has come through the operation of the quota law in the United States, which enables us to pick and choose our immigration, let us see to it that we do not miss that opportunity but that we shall at the right moment make a wise selection.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I would suggest to the
minister that some extraordinary efforts be made to bring out young boys from sixteen to twenty and place them on the farms of Canada. Some hon. gentlemen are suggesting that these boys are no good. I do not agree with that. I know as a fact that a certain British society brought out 200 boys to this country and as a result of the placing of 40 of them on farms in Carleton and adjacent counties applications were made for 200 more. The farmers when they saw the kind of boys that had been brought out -were glad to take steps to have more brought out. A boy between sixteen and twenty could remain four or five years on a farm, and if he had reasonable intelligence he would be a fair farmer by the time he came of age. More than that, if he remained that length of time on the farm he would have become accustomed to farm life and would no doubt desire to acquire some land for himself. If he were placed with a man of good repute and of ability as a farmer he would be trained not only in this desirable occupation but he would have a moral education as well; he would lead a good social life and become a creditable citizen. According to the statistics that have been presented to me there are hundreds of thousands of boys of this age in the Old Country who find it extremely difficult to get work there. I am told that most of the trades unions in the United Kingdom compel the employer to pay to a boy over 10 p.m. sixteen years of age a man's wages.
That is done in order to prevent boys from displacing men and it makes it im-
possible for young fellows of seventeen and eighteen to get work. There are therefore available any number of boys who could be brought out here and trained as agriculturists and put in the way not only of doing well for themselves but of adding materially to the prosperity of the country. I would urge the minister to have a thorough investigation made into the conditions I have mentioned with a view to bringing out, not a few hundreds, but ten or twenty or a hundred thousand boys and properly placing them with people who would give them the right sort of education in their lifework and bring them up under wholesome influences so that they might become good citizens.


Arthur John Lewis: Are we to infer that boys of over sixteen who are given men's wages in the Old Country will receive men's wages when they come here?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not think that boys would expect men's wages here, because they would not have had the training.


Arthur John Lewis: Would they get any wages at all?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Oh yes, they do get wages when they come out because one of the stipulations of the society in placing them is that they shall receive some compensation. More than that, before any boy leaves the Home there is a place for him to go to. His parents know where he is going; they are in correspondence with him from the very day he lands here so that they are able to keep track of him and he keeps track of his relatives. Under the operation of this plan I think the very best results ought to be obtained. I do not say that a boy coming out here should get a man's wages; he should not. He is learning something. He is serving an apprenticeship, but he is getting a good living; he is learning a trade and he will not go hungry or without clothes. He will also have a certain amount of social life that will develop him as the kind of citizen we want in Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order.
Under the happier auspices of your presence, Sir, and encouraged by the support I got from the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Rofofo) when I raised the question previously, I submit that this discussion is out of order. We are dealing with section 2 of the bill, which is confined entirely to the question whether this government can compel a transportation company to deport the family of a deported man. I have no wish to curtail the expression of

Immigration Act
views on the part of hon. gentlemen, but I wish to see the work of the session gone on with.


George Newcombe Gordon: Rulle 13, section 5,
says:
Speeches in committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
The general principle of the bill may not be debated upon a section. In my opinion the point of order raised by the hon. member (Mr. Neill) is well taken.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Under what
circumstances would the transportation company be compelled to return members of a family?


James Alexander Robb: Where one member of a
family is suffering deportation it might work a hardship to send that one member of the family back without the others-a younger child, for instance. It may be extremely desirable that that person be deported-^ t may be a case of tuberculosis, trachoma or something against which we wish to protect our people. We a.re going to ask the transportation companies to see to it before these people embark for Canada that they are a fairly 'healthy family, and if they are not the company is to take all the family back.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Permit to enter Canada or to remain therein.
M.r. NEILL:	I have two or three small
amendments to submit to this section. I suggest to the minister that the word "legally" be inserted after the words "or having" in the fourth line on page 2. That is to ensure that the man will have landed legally in the first place.
James Alexander Robb: I would point out that the
definition of "landed," as set out in clause 2 of the act, is as follows:
"Land," "landed" or "landing," as applied to passengers or immigrants, means their lawful admission into Canada by an officer under this act, otherwise than for inspection or treatment or other temporary purpose provided for by this act.
So my hon. friend's amendment is quite unnecessary.


Alan Webster Neill: If that is t'he 'interpretation
of the word "landed" I will omit that amendment. I suggest also two other amendments: First, that after the word "only" in line 8 the words "not exceeding six months" be inserted, so that it will read:
Such permit shall be in the form A of the schedule to this act, and shall be expressed to be in force for a specified period only, not exceeding six months.
That is to put some reasonable limit to the operation of these permits, which are of a very loose character in any case. The third amendment I suggest is that section 3 be amended 'by adding at the end thereof the following words:
A return of all such permits, with particulars and reasons therefor, issued during the year shall be made by the minister to parliament within ten days of its meeting.
That is simply to follow the example that we have in a great many other acts, where exemptions applied in the discretion of the minister shall be given the necessary publicity by their reference to parliament at the next ensuing session. I presume that these amendments will have to be put singly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: With regard to my hon. friend's amendment limiting the period of the permit to six months, I would point out that the six months' period, according to the section, may at any time be extended by t'he minister in writing. In order to attain the object my hon. friend has in mind 'he will 'have to put the words "not exceeding six months" after the word "writing."


Alan Webster Neill: I will ask that that change
be made.


James Alexander Robb: The commissioner points out that when you give a man a permit you lift him out of the immigrant class, so that the period whereby he may acquire domicile does not count while the permit is in force. That is the reason for the permit.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does the minister say about the six months?


James Alexander Robb: I do not see why we should
be limited to that. I think we can trust the government of the day to administer it fairly. I would rather my hon. friend would not press t'he amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: My experience has been that the permit system is rather a good one. In the cases in which permits have been granted in the county in which I reside they have been granted, I think, for a year. I know one or two cases where, after a year, an inspector of the department has come to the city of Guelph, made full inquiries, found the probationer has done well, and has allowed him to remain. I think the minister should be given discretion to grant a permit for as long as he desires. It only applies to doubtful cases, tod if a man has made good, and the permit is only for a year, as they are now being granted, I see no reason why the immigrant should not be permitted to remain.

Immigration Act

Under this clause, could the minister give a permit for the entry of a Chinese? The language is pretty broad. Of course, the Chinese Exclusion Act is in force, but the section says the minister may issue a written permit authorizing any person to enter Canada,


James Alexander Robb: The Chinese are governed by a special act.


Hugh Guthrie: But under this section permits might be granted to Chinese to enter.


Alan Webster Neill: Under section 79 of the
Immigration Act, it is specially provided1 that where its provisions do not conflict with the Chinese Immigration Act, they shall apply as well to persons of Chinese origin. So as the hon. member for South Wellington says, this section would give the minister power to allow any man, black, brown, white or yellow, to come into this country and stay for any unlimited period. There are no limitations whatever. The hon. member for South Wellington says, it may only be used in doubtful cases, but it can be used in any case whatsoever. It is a very wide and a very drastic power to put into the hands of any minister. The hon. member for South Wellington said that the time might come, if it had not come yet, when we should lower the bars of immigration, but you do not need any further reductions when you have this. This gives the minister a perfectly blank cheque to sign. All he has to do is to write at the bottom and he can let anyone in for two, three, four or five years, without any question whatever, without any qualification, without any appeal. He may issue a written permit authorizing any person to enter Canada, or having entered to remain therein, without being subject to the provisions of this act. As I have said, it applies equally to the Chinese also, and I do think it is not asking too much to restrict the power in such a very moderate way as I have suggested. It is not even restricting the minister's powers; it is only limiting them to this period. There is nothing to prevent him at the end of six months from renewing that permit for reasons validly given. What I would suggest as an improved amendment-it is really the same thing-is to add after the word "writing" the words "the whole of such period, including extensions thereof, shall not exceed six months in all." I am willing to leave it, of course I must leave it, to the judgment of the House, but I fail to see where any harm can be done by inserting this amendment.
[Mr Guthrie.1


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think I know cases that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has reference to, and there is a great deal in what he sayg; but there is another kind of case which affects us more down here in the East, and which probably would be adversely affected by the application of that principle without any qualification at all. I have in mind the case of a young man from Germany, who had no proper entry into Canada; he was here on probation. It developed that he knew all about dyes and was an expert tanner. He is now engaged in introducing a new process of tanning hides. The minister has given him the right to stay here for a year for the purpose of completing this work. I think it is good the minister had the right in that case.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not deny giving him the right, but with some limitations.


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friends are unduly alarmed. The practice of the department for many years has never been to give a permit for more than a year at a time, and generally it is for a much shorter period; so I think my hon. friend is placing unwarranted restrictions upon those whose experience has satisfied them that this is the proper thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are they ever used in case of the Chinese? That is the real difficulty.


James Alexander Robb: Not that the commissioner cftn recall at the moment.


Alan Webster Neill: I would ask the minister if this section we are discussing is not the only possible way by which the presence of these Chinese in Nova Scotia can be justified? Their presence can be justified under no other section that I know of.


James Alexander Robb: The Chinese Immigration Act
neither permits nor prohibits what has been done in the case of those men on the Atlantic coast. But may I point out that those men were not landed in Canada. They are working on the ships and a bond of $105,000 was given that they would not land in Canada, but would be returned. I am not so sure that it is a detriment to the people of Nova Scotia who are working in the mines producing coal to have these Chinamen working on these boats if that means the boats can run and carry that coal to market. We looked into the McDonald case my hon. friend brought up very carefully, and found that therp hid been a misunderstanding and that McDonald had been reinstated and was quite satisfied.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister has told us that these Chinese were not brought into Canada. Therefore, they are not in Canada now?

Immigration Act


James Alexander Robb: They were not landed in
Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: Then how did they get on the boats they are on now from the Cedric which brought them here? They must have landed on the wharf, and they are now in Canadian boats, in Canadian waters, travelling between Canadian ports. If they are not in Canada, where in God's name are they?


James Alexander Robb: I will read again to my hon.
friend the definition of "landed" in the act:
"Land", "landed" or "landing", as applied to passengers or immigrants, means their lawful admission into Canada 'by an officer under this act, otherwise than for inspection or treatment or other temporary purpose provided for by this act.


Hugh Guthrie: I would think, Mr. Chairman, that even under the language quoted by my hon. friend, these men are landed in Canada. They are in Canadian territory, and under our jurisdiction in every way. They are here undoubtedly.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend object
to that?


Hugh Guthrie: I would prefer they had
been excluded. My only object in mentioning Chinese immigration under this section is that I think it should be amended to make it plain that this act shall not over-ride or come in conflict with the Chinese Exclusion Act. We have an act that excludes Chinese immigration, and I am heartily in accord with the provisions of that act. I do not think it would be proper to pass another act to permit the minister to do what the Chinese Exclusion Act says he shall not do. I think there should be a limitation to this section, to the effect that it shall not come in conflict with the Chinese Exclusion Act.


James Alexander Robb: We never attempt to do that,
and I venture to say that since the act of last year came into force it has been fairly administered. As regards these men who come in on the Atlantic coast, if this government is wrong, every government for the last ten or fifteen years has been wrong.


Hugh Guthrie: The fact that we have
done wrong hitherto does not justify our doing wrong now. I understand that it is the conviction of the great majority of this House that Chinese immigration should be absolutely excluded from Canada. That is the sense of the Chinese Exclusion Act. We used to allow them in on payment of a poll tax. We stopped that.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.
254i


Hugh Guthrie: I do not take it as good legislation, I do not think it is logical to exclude them by one act and allow the minister to admit them under the clause in another act.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friends had made
a careful study of the act we would have less of this debate. Now the section which bears on this matter reads:
All provisions of this act not repugnant to the provisions of the Chinese Immigration Act, 1923, shall apply as well to persons of Chinese origin as to other persons.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is what
is objected to. That makes good the point raised by the hon. member (Mr. Neill):


James Alexander Robb: Not at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, because as I followed his reading the section says it shall apply.


James Alexander Robb: The provision shall apply but if the Chinese Act excludes them it does not apply.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suggest that
if a provision of this kind is inserted it will meet the case raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni:
The provisions of this act shall not in any instance extend the rights of any immigrants subject to the provisions of the Chinese Immigration Act.
That is a plain short declaration.


James Alexander Robb: When we come to section 29
we will consider that.


George Newcombe Gordon: What about the amendment limiting the time of the permit to six months?


James Alexander Robb: I would rather not accept that.
Amendment (Mr. Neill) negatived.


Alan Webster Neill: I have another amendment
and I do not think the minister will find it in his heart to object to it. It is one found in a great many of our laws, and in every one of these cases where extraordinary powers are given to the minister. It is simply that he shall present a record of his transactions in that regard to the House annually within ten days of the meeting of parliament.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is moved by Mr. Neill that section 3 be amended by adding thereto:
A return of all such permits, with the reasons therefor, issued during the year shall be made by the minister to parliament within ten days of its meeting.


James Alexander Robb: Would my hon friend make
the period 30 days?
Immigration Act


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 7-Medical treatment.
Hugh Guthrie: Section 7 provides as
follows:
Section thirty-four of the said act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
A passenger or other person seeking to enter Canada or who has been rejected or is detained for any purpose under this act, who is suffering from sickness or physical or mental disability, may whenever it is so directed by the deputy minister or officer in charge be afforded medical treatment on board ship or in an immigrant station, or may be removed to a suitable hospital for treatment-
And so on. The whole cost may be charged to the transportation company. Now the present law provides as follows:
If, in the opinion of the Superintendent of Immigration, or of the officer in charge, the transportation company which brought such person to Canada failed to exercise proper vigilance or care in so doing, then the cost of his hospital treatment and medical attention and maintenance shall be paid by such transportation company-
There is a vast distinction between the section as it stands in the act to-day and the amendment which is now proposed by the minister. The amendment simply provides that if any passenger reaches a Canadian port and happens to be afflicted by any mental or physical disability all the cost of his hospital treatment or nursing, if such is necessary, shall be charged to the transportation company whether that company has been at fault or not. Let me draw to the attention of the minister the case of a man landing in a perfectly healthy condition at the port of Halifax and suddenly being taken with an attack of appendicitis. Why should 'the transportation company be put to the cost of medical treatment, hospital treatment, or nursing treatment of that patient? The law as it stands to-day provides that the transportation company shall be liable if they have not been vigilant, if they have been careless in permitting a passenger to come on board their ship; but the amendment simply imposes upon the transportation company the full obligation of caring for these people no matter what the ailment may be. Why, if a man breaks his arm on board ship under this clause the transportation company would have to pay for everything. If a man contracts pneumonia by exposing himself in inclement weather the transportation company, under this clause, must bear the whole cost of that patient's treatment, notwithstanding the fact that these patients when embarking or going on board ship in the first instance were perfectly healthy,

were perfectly well and had no ailment that could be ascertained by medical or other examination. I think the clause as it stands to-day should remain in the statute books. If a shipping company has been careless, if its medical officer has been careless, if it has been imposed upon, if it has been neglectful then I think it should pay and that is the law to-day. But to render it liable in every case is going beyond the realm of reason in my humble opinion, and I would ask the minister if he can give the committee some reasonable excuse for the proposed change. Why should the transportation company- having acted vigilantly and carefully, having had its passengers medically examined-now be asked to pay for the medical, hospital and nursing treatment of a man who takes sick after the voyage say from an attack of appendicitis or pneumonia, or who suffers a broken arm or a broken leg?


James Alexander Robb: 
Hugh Guthrie: The transportation' companies of course are making a profit; but we want the immigration, and the law as it stands is so equitable that I see no reason to change it. The law provides that if the transportation company is to blame it shall pay, and if it is not to blame the passenger pays for his own medical bills, and if the passenger has no money the government pays. The minister proposes to put the whole burden on the transportation company, whether it is to blame or not. Surely one has only to state a case of that kind to show how unreasonable it is. This is the actual proposal of the minister, and the answer is that it only amounts to twenty-five cents a head. I would like to know under what circumstances the government will pay the medical bills of any other class in the country. They will not and they should not pay such bills. If the passenger has the money he should pay his own medical bills, and if he has not the money under the present law the government will relieve him. But why saddle the transportation companies with all the cost? They are not to blame No matter how careful they are, accidents will happen. The minister has not given a reason for changing the present law. It is sound and backed by principle and reason; the amendment proposed is entirely without reason and without justice.


John Millar: As the law stands at present, are we safe in inferring, if an immigrant suffering from a disease is allowed to pass an examination and brought to Canada, that either the transportation company or the government are responsible? The minister will know to what concrete case I am referring.


James Alexander Robb: I think under the case my hon. friend has in mind the transportation companies are wholly responsible. Is that the case of trachoma?


John Millar: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, the transportation companies are wholly responsible.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I have read the
amendment three or four times and it looks pretty severe. The government's official can go in when the boat lands, take a patient, and decide where the government will place that patient, and whether the transportation company is responsible for the illness or not. The government official has a right to decide where a patient will be placed, and then compel the transportation company to pay the expense. That is rather drastic, it seems to me, if I read the amendment correctly.


James Alexander Robb: It is in keeping with the other clauses which impose the deportation charges upon the company. Let us bear in mind that we are here to look after the interests of the people of Canada. There are some companies that will deal fairly and look after these matters; but I say frankly to my hon. friend, that there are other transportation companies that the department has to keep its eye on all the time.


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not think the amendment is just to the companies who do play fair.


James Alexander Robb: They will look after themselves on the other side.


Arthur Edward Ross: The illness may
have nothing to do with the other side.


James Alexander Robb: That is very rare.


Arthur Edward Ross: Still it is easy for the government to protect the immigrants and take care of them, without being unjust to the companies. The present law protects them, but it seems to me rather drastic for the government officials to have the power to come in, take a patient, decide where they will place him and then say that the transportation companies shall pay their bill.


James Alexander Robb: We are anxious to see that the transportation companies are not unduly taxing the people of Canada.


Mr. BOYS:: I suppose the transportation
companies are familiar with this proposed change?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Have they objected to it, and if so to what extent? Do they all object? As far as I have been able to understand it I agree with the hon. member for South Wellington, (Mr. Guthrie). It seems to me manifestly unjust to hold a transportation company liable when they are guilty of no neglect whatever.


James Alexander Robb: There has been no considerable objection to this section. My hon. friend knows very well that the transportation companies object to every additional charge that is put upon them. All they are looking after particularly is getting earnings for their steamships. If we were running steamships probably we would do the same thing. But we are here to look after the interests of the taxpayers of Canada, and any transportation company that is careful in its selection of passengers brought to Canada will not suffer any undue burden under this section.
Immigration Act


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend does not so limit it at all. If we are to treat this matter logically, with a view to seeing what ought to be done, we will go back and see what the present law is, and find out what is wrong with it. The present law really makes these companies liable, as I see it, in every case of negligence.


James Alexander Robb: This has been the United
States law for some years. Under changed conditions vessels that were formerly plying to New York are now running to Canadian ports. We are not putting them under any greater handicap than they had been under when running to United States ports.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was wondering what would be the fair thing, and I am not concerned with American laws, because I think some of them are unjust. I do not think they help the American taxpayers, and, on the contrary, they add to the burdens of the taxpayers. You can have foolish restrictions that do not help anybody.


James Alexander Robb: I admit that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is not the present law that the company is liable to look after everybody in cases where there has been negligence? Is there any doubt about that? I do not think there can be any doubt about that, from what I have heard this evening, and it has not been contradicted by the minister up to date. If there is no doubt about that, I take it the proposition is that the company is to become insurer of people's health. It must be either one thing or the other. Are they to become absolutely the insurers of health?


James Alexander Robb: I am not sure that that is a
fair way to put it.
What is really intended was that they should oe more careful in their selections.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am content
;o go absolutely to the full extent. Put it in any way you like, as to diseases originating or troubles originating that they ought to have known about. But we have to take the act as we find it. Under the act as we find it, so far we have reached this point that the companies are liable if there is any negligence of any kind. Under the proposed legislation they are to be liable without negligence of any kind; they are to become insurers. Are they absolute insurers? Are they insurers against the action of my hon. friend's department? One has only to ask the question to see how ridiculous the answer would be if it was answered truthfully according to this section.
tMr. Robb.l


James Alexander Robb: Would there not be negligence at least to a degree on the part of a booking agent who sold a ticket to a person who could not pass the medical examination when he reached this country?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would) agree
with that immediately.


James Alexander Robb: These people are not properly in charge of the department until they are passed by our medical examiners at the port of entry in Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree with
that, but that is not what the section says at all. I will go back to my old query. Are the transportation companies to be absolute insurers? Are they to be insurers absolutely when these people are in the hands of the department?


James Alexander Robb: They are not in the hands of our department until they pass our medical examiner at the port of entry in Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The section
reads:
A passenger or other person seeking to enter Canada or who has been rejected-
He is to some extent in the hands of the department.


James Alexander Robb: Not at all. He has been
rejected.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let me read a
few more words:
-or is detained for any purpose under this act.
That detention is a detention worked by the department. That detention is something which has absolutely nothing to do with the steamship company. That detention may continue, under the permits and other things we have in this legislation, for six months.


James Alexander Robb: That detention might be for
the benefit of the steamship company. The department might decide at once that they would deport the man, but they might allow a reasonable detention in order to find out if they would admit him or not.


Arthur Edward Ross: Supposing the case is a proper one, the man being sick, but later on he passes. He has been detained. The transportation company have fulfilled their duty and the detention may be an improper one, but it has been earned out under the act.


James Alexander Robb: May I remind my hon. friend of this, that if the passenger comes to Canada perfectly fit, he is admitted at once; we are glad to get him through the immigration

Immigration Act
quarters and started on his way wherever he is going to establish himself in Canada. But if the transportation company who sold him his ticket have been negligent or careless to the degree that they have sold the ticket-


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the
existing law.


James Alexander Robb: -we are placing the responsibility upon them.


William Alves Boys: The minister has already told
the committee that he had cases last year and' the year before. I think he said $2,000 odd and $6,000 odd. In other words, where the company was negligent under the existing law, the company paid. Where the company was not negligent, that fact being established, I presume, after an inquiry, the department paid. Why did the department pay the $2,000 odd and the $6,000 odd which the minister referred to a moment ago? I presume it was because on inquiry it was found that the transportation company had not been guilty of negligence. If that be so, I would ask the minister on what ground he now undertakes to hold the transportation company liable if they are not guilty of any negligence, carelessness, or wrongdoing of any kind? For example, a passenger is admitted in perfectly good health. Perhaps during the voyage he develops disease. Why, under those circumstances, should the transportation company be held responsible. What has given rise to this change?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has just
touched the point. It is the diversion of steamship business that formerly would go to the port of New York where, for years, the transportation companies have been paying on this basis. Now, that they are coming to Canada, why should we put them in any better position than that in which they have been in the United States? They have been perfectly satisfied with that.


William Alves Boys: It was considered proper before that the guiding principle should be one of negligence, and that appeals to me. If they are guilty of negligence, they ought to be responsible; but if they are not, it is hard to see how they should be held responsible, and I do not think it is a good argument to say that some other country treats them differently. The more burdens you impose upon them, the higher become the freight and passenger rates.


James Alexander Robb: No.


William Alves Boys: What were the amounts that the department paid out?


James Alexander Robb: In 1922-23, the department paid $6,795. In 1923-24, that was reduced to $2,577, although there was more business. That shows that the transportation companies have been more careful and they will be still more careful if we put the whole responsibility upon them.


William Alves Boys: Personally, I am with the
minister in exerting every effort to make them careful. My sole point is that if they are not guilty of negligence, it is not fair to make them pay. As regards the $6,795, no doubt in the first instance the transportation company was held to be guilty of negligence, and after an inquiry was made to find out whether it was guilty of negligence, it was found that it was not, and therefore the department paid. If so, why should this change take place? If any good reason is given for the change, I will accept it at once; but if no good reason is shown, it is unfair to any transportation company. It is simply placing upon the company a burden which it should not be asked to bear and in the end, with other burdens, it is increasing the cost of transportation, freight and passenger charges to the people of this country.


James Alexander Robb: May I repeat again that the total cost last year was less than 25 cents a head? Who has made any money in any way out of these people prior to the time when they have passed the medical examiner and entered on their way to Canada? I will answer that myself. The transportation company, as my hon. friend knows. Why then should the transportation company not be held responsible?


William Alves Boys: In the first place, we are seeking immigration and we want the companies to assist us in getting immigration. If they in their assistance, do anything wrong, they should be held responsible; but if in cooperating with the department in securing immigrants, they do nothing wrong, on what proper basis can you hold the companies responsible? That is my point.


James Alexander Robb: We are paying a great deal of money to advertise the advantages of this country and that is of advantage to the transportation companies. Why should they not share up to this extent? Why should they put up a fight against this?


William Alves Boys: They are doing more than
paying their share. The minister's figures indicate that they paid $60,000 where we paid $6,000. I am not asking that they should not be-called upon to pay their share so far as that
Immigration Act

is concerned. This is purely a question of negligence. It is not a question whether it costs 25 or 50 cents or a dollar a head; it is purely a question of principle.


James Alexander Robb: It is on the principle that the Immigration Department places the responsibility on the transportation company in regard to the persons whom they transport to Canada. The transportation company are the only people who have made any money out of the business until the intending immigrant reaches the port of entry in Canada.


William Alves Boys: Therefore, no matter how careful the transportation companies are, no matter how much they co-operate with the Department of Immigration, if they are guilty of no negligence or carelessness whatever, but a disease or trouble of some kind develops on the voyage, they are held responsible. I should think that is a change which might, to some extent, check the ardour of any transportation company, and in that way it would not enure to the benefit of Canada.


John Millar: This legislation may or
may not go too far, but a case which I had to deal with very recently inclines me strongly to the belief that we require some more advanced legislation than we have had. Let me point out what a hardship it means in the case of a certain Polish woman whom I know about, who saved money for some years and sent out for her sister who it was discovered afterwards was suffering from trachoma. This was only a few weeks ago; I have seen the minister several times on the subject and he has done his best. But the girl had to be deported. Another hundred dollars was spent to see that she should receive proper medical assistance. Now, here is an amount of hundreds of dollars which this woman spent to get her sister out here all the way from Poland and as a result of this disease she had to be sent back to her former home. This is a very great hardship and while theoretically there may be something in the objection that has been raised, I believe that some legislation is required to prevent steamship companies from bringing out people who eventually have to be turned back.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The effect of this legislation is to make the steamship company a sort of insurance agency. Will the minister tell us what the theory is that exempts the passenger from liability for his own illness and makes the company responsible?
fMr. Bnvft.1


James Alexander Robb: The transportation company
knows the regulations that are in force in this country and it is more than possible that the passenger does not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And that is the reason why a passenger who is taken ill should get free medical treatment. That is a truly unique principle to set up.


James Alexander Robb: The transportation company
sell him his passage to Canada and they are the only people that make any money out of it up to that point. This will be an additional obligation on the companies to advise people to whom they sell tickets just what the regulations are. The hon. gentleman need not fear that it will keep immigrants from coming to Canada, because the whole thing will mean less than 25 cents a head.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why would the companies want to advise people? Does the minister think that the transportation companies are going to go out and say to people, ''You had better all come out, because if you get ill we shall have to pay your bills"? But let us take the minister's statement, that the company is the only one that is making any money out of the business. I will not suggest, by way of illustration, hon. members travelling on the train on their way west, because they travel on passes; but let us take any one else who has to take a railway journey. Now, there is no difference in principle between a railway journey and a steamer trip so far as this particular question is concerned. The minister's statement is that the company is the only one that is making any money out of the transportation of immigrants; but there is no difference in principle between a movement of immigrants on sea and on land, and if the steamship transportation company is to be made the guarantor against the illness of passengers, why not carry the same principle into the carriage of passengers by railway companies? A man develops appendicitis at sea and under this legislation he is taken to a port, placed in a hospital and is attended by a doctor. And the transportation company has to pay the bill. The minister cannot point to any exception in this pro-
11 p.m. vision; the company must pay the cost of the operation even if the trouble developed on the ship. Why should the company be compelled to pay the bill in this case any more than a railway company should be obliged to pay the expense in connection with an operation for appendicitis performed on a person who has developed this complaint on a railway journey? In both cases the company makes money out of the passage. What is the distinction?

Immigration Act


Mr. PUTNAM:: Does it weigh with the hon. member, that the onus we impose on the transportation company is no more severe than that which is enforced by our American cousins?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not in the slightest.


Harold Putnam: It does with me.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It may with the hon. gentleman because he is supporting the bill, and I do not suppose he has even read it.


James Alexander Robb: If we allowed everybody to
come in without medical examination the hon. member's argument would be sound. But inasmuch as we impose certain medical restrictions on immigrants, then we say to the transportation companies that they shall be responsible if these immigrants when they come here are not physically fit.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, suppose
the minister allowed the bill to stop there, with the inspection? But the bill goes past that.


Mr. BELAND:: It does not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Minister
of Health is wrong; the bill goes past inspection and includes illness developed on board. It covers illness during the period of detention.


Charles A. Stewart: The immigrant is not inspected during detention.


Henri Sévérin Béland: If an immigrant is medically inspected, is found fit and is passed, then, of course, if on his journey to his destination he falls ill the government is liable for his treatment. But until am immigrant has passed the medical examination, why should he be a charge on the country?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No one has
suggested that for a moment.


Henri Sévérin Béland: A man leaves Europe; he
is in the charge of the transportation company that brings him here. The moment he lands in Canada he is inspected by the immigration authorities and the medical officials. If he is considered to be suffering from any disease he is rejected and the transportation company is held responsible for whatever expenses may have been incurred on his account. And why should they not be held so responsible? Is there any reason why Canada instead of the transportation company, which is paid to bring out immigrants, be made responsible for the expenses involved in oases of illness? Shall we draw the line at Liverpool, at Antwerp or at Quebec?


William Alves Boys: Where he boards the ship.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is a point we may
dispute. That point of view may be held by my hon. friend but I do not share it myself. I say that so long as the immigrant has not landed in Canada and has not been medically inspected and passed as physically fit, all expenses incurred in the treatment of any illness from which he may be suffering should be borne by the transportation company which has brought him out. There is no reason whatever why we should bear that cost. My hon. friend advances the view that the company having exercised all possible vigilance in the matter, they cannot be accused of negligence. Very well; are we then to be charged with negligence, or are we to pay the co^t of any illness in regard to which we have no responsibility? Obviously, either the company or the government must be responsible, and as between the two I say that unquestionably the responsibility should rest with .the company.


William Alves Boys: Why not go a step further and make the transportation company responsible for any illness which the immigrant may develop on his way between St. John and Winnipeg after having passed the author! ties at St. John?


Charles A. Stewart: The company could not be responsible then because the country would have accepted the immigrant.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So far as I can understand hon. gentlemen opposite, the Minister of Health (Mr. Beland) says that there is inspection before detention while the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) says that the inspection is made after detention.
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil); I did not say anything of the kind; I said that the company could not be held responsible after the immigrant had been passed at inspection.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What my hon.
friend said was to the effect that if he passed inspection he was not detained.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely he
is not, but if he does not pass inspection he is detained, and he is not permitted to enter Canada until he can pass inspection.
Immigration Act


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend knows
there are two inspections, medical and civil, and when we say a man has been examined and passed that means he must have passed both inspections.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Suppose the
civil inspection does not take place, for some good reason and the man is held two months. After he has been held two months and is still under detention he takes some disease. Under this bill the transportation company is liable. Does my hon. friend think that is right?


Charles A. Stewart: If a man is detained he is detained for cause; if there is no cause he is passed. If there is reason for detention he is held until the cause is removed or the steamship company takes him back. My hon. friend shakes his head, but that is the course that is pursued.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


Charles A. Stewart: Absolutely; if he is not permitted to enter Canada the steamship company takes him back. If he is detained) it is usually on account of his health-nine times out of ten.


William Alves Boys: They should take him. back if there is negligence.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
iriend is continually mentioning negligence. You cannot say it is negligence if the ship's doctor examines the passenger before he goes on board1. The passenger may take ill on the ocean and he is detained when he lands in Canada, either because he is ill or for some other reason. That is the only time that the cost is paid by the transportation company that brought him to Canada.


William Alves Boys: Why is the responsibility of
the passenger entirely removed? The former act said:
Then the cost of his hospital treament and medical ittention and maintenance shall be paid by such .ransportation company, and otherwise the cost thereof shall be collected from such person.
_ The last two lines are left out. There is no airther liability on the part of the passenger; :he transportation company has to bear it all. Why should that be? Why should the transportation company at least not be permitted to look to the person, if the person is worth it, to pay for the cost of his own sickness or disease or whatever it is?


James Alexander Robb: Is it fair that someone should have the responsibility of taking care of these cases. Perhaps the passenger is not 
able to finance it himself, and the people who are making the money out of him are the people who are responsible and who should pay. We have been building up straw men and talking of possible cases all evening- of appendicitis that might develop, of pneumonia that might develop. Suppose a transportation- company was a bit careless and typhoid fever developed on the ship, who would be responsible?


Henry Lumley Drayton: They are, of
course. That is negligence.


William Alves Boys: I do not think the minister
is quite fair in suggesting that we are building up straw men; I am taking his own figures. Under the former law if the transportation company were guilty of negligence -they were responsible; if they were not guilty of negligence they were not responsible. The minister told us that in 1922 -the department paid $6,000 odd, I presume because the transportation companies were not guilty of negligence.


James Alexander Robb: In 1923 we paid only $3,980.


William Alves Boys: What was the year of the
$6,000, then? Anyway, we are only quibbling as to that. If the minister did not say 1922 he said 1921. I think he said 1922.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is correct;
in 1922-23 the amount paid was $6,000.


William Alves Boys: The department paid that because the company was not guilty of negligence. That show's that it is not a case of building up a straw man. All I am trying to find out is why this change is made. There are two changes. In the first place, you are departing from the proposition of negligence, and in addition you are relieving the passenger who, if worth it, certainly should in the first instance pay. If he is not worth it, that might be a different matter. I think the condition with respect to negligence should still prevail. Why is the provision giving the right of recovery against the individual not maintained?


James Alexander Robb: The companies are making a profit out of carrying these people; why should we impose that burden upon the passenger? With regard to the amounts paid, the department paid $3,980 and the immigrants paid $2,577, making a total of $6,557 for 1923-24. We have not the details here, but it is just possible that part of that $3,980 which the department paid was because the immigrant was not able to pay. Is it not fair that the company, which makes so much money out of them, should assume the responsibility?

Immigration Act


William Alves Boys: The minister will not say there is any money in carrying people over and then carrying them back without charge.


John Millar: It has been stated that the immigrants receive a medical examination by doctors representing the steamship companies. Do they receive a medical examination from anyone representing the government before they go on board ship?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Mr. SPENCER:: Is there any medical examination made on the other side?


James Alexander Robb: Not by Canadian officials.
Mr. MEIGHE.N:	Nobody wants to see
something that is obviously unjust in a law, no matter whether the injustice extends to $100 or to $10,000. If you get a law the principle of which is wrong you are bound to have gross injustices coming out of it and consequently discontent. There is nothing in the law as it has stood that is in the slightest degree unjust. The principle is sound; you can understand it. But something like this is sure to come, perhaps in dozens of cases. A man comes across. He is inspected by the companj' before he gets on, and everything is all right. He lands, and that is all right. He is not a poor man; he is well off. But perhaps some report has reached Canada that he is an anarchist or that he is of a class that we should not admit to Canada, for some reason. He passes his medical examination on arrival, but he is detained on account of this report, perhaps two, three or four months. It is found that the report is false. But in the meantime the man takes seriously ill, perhaps with smallpox. Who has to pay the expense? According to this bill the minister says the company has to pay it, and the man never has to repay the company.


James Alexander Robb: I am afraid my hon. friend
is building up an impossible case. He would not be detained if he passed the medical and civil examinations.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that at all. I say he did not pass the civil examination; that he is detained on account of a report that he belongs to an objectionable class. He is detained because of a report that he belongs to some class that should not come in, say the anarchist class. He is detained two months pending investigation of that report, and in those two months he takes an illness that results in large medical fees. He is quite able to pay them, and this government passes a law which says that the company which brought him over has to pay.


James Alexander Robb: I never heard of such a case.


Mr. POWER:: Are the transportation
companies supposed to make the civil examination over there?


Arthur Meighen: No, we make it.


Charles Gavan Power: On the other side?


Arthur Meighen: An examination into
the qualifications altogether? I presume they do, and if they make a mistake they have to pay for it, and that is right, but where pending investigation on our own account, after we have passed him medically, when we are holding him for our own purpose and he takes ill -I am taking an extreme case, but there will be piles of them in between-though he is entirely able to pay for his illness-


Charles Gavan Power: I understand what the hon.
member means, and I think there is a good deal in it, but what I want, to know is this: Is it not the duty of the transportation company, before allowing any passenger to embark, to be sure that he fulfils all the civil qualifications? I am not discussing medical requirements.


Arthur Meighen: I think so.


Charles Gavan Power: Then would not the transportation company be responsible for allowing a person who was an anarchist or a suspected anarchist to come to Canada?


Arthur Meighen: I agree that they should.


Charles Gavan Power: Then they have committed
a certain negligence if they allow an anarchist or a suspected anarchist to come here, have they not?


Arthur Meighen: I do not say suspected,
no. If, as a matter of fact, they have done everything they could, have absolutely complied with everything, and not the slightest criticism of any kind can be levelled against them, if the man is all right and the department's information turns out to be wrong, if it turns out also that the man can pay his own medical fees, in the name of all common sense why should we pass a law that says the company has to pay them?


Charles Gavan Power: I agree, if such a case is possible.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend infer that if the man passes the medical examination and is detained for some other purpose, the cost falls on the company?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, that is the whole clause.
Immigration Act


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will read the next clause, it seema to me it means the inspection on his entry and does not refer to a later inspection.


Arthur Meighen: It is inspection on entiy, but not medical examination.


Charles A. Stewart: If the man passes his medical examination and becomes ill later, would my hon. friend infer from this clause that the medical fees are to be paid by the steamship company?


Arthur Meighen: It not only implies that, it absolutely compels it, provided he is detained for inspection for any other purpose.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have known of two or three cases where an immigrant after arrival was detained for a bond which took a week or so to arrive. Does the government say that if he takes ill while waiting for the bond the responsibility rests upon the transportation company, or is the government responsible? I know one immigrant who did take sick while waiting for a bond. Does the government say the transportation company should be responsible in such a case as that?


James Alexander Robb: A bond is required where the immigrant comes in against the law of the land. The companies will be a little more careful about bringing that kind of people in, or they will have the bond ready when they land.


Arthur Edward Ross: The immigrant arrived here to go on a farm, and a bond was required by some person here that he would stay a year on the farm, which he did, but he was detained over a week waiting for that bond.


James Alexander Robb: That was a case, probably,
where the immigrant represented himself to be a farmer, but the officer on inspection looked at his hands, perhaps, and said: "This man is no farmer," and he required a bond that he would go on the farm. The transportation people should look after that before they bring the man in.


Arthur Edward Ross: He went on the farm and remained there but yet he was detained a week waiting for the bond.


James Alexander Robb: And as soon as the bond expired he left the farm?


John Millar: The minister stated that steamship companies have at times refunded certain sums when they brought in immigrants not medically fit to enter Canada. I would ask, 
as a matter of information, under what conditions they refunded this money. Who made the representations, and what representations were made?


James Alexander Robb: I do not see what my hon. friend is driving at; I made no such statement. I said the steamship companies gave a refund of $15 a head to passengers from the United Kingdom.


John Millar: Was I wrong in understanding that when they brought in immigrants not medically fit they made a refund? I understood the minister to say that refunds were made in such cases.


James Alexander Robb: There is a penalty.


John Millar: Have they paid any money in consequence of that penalty?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


John Millar: Under what conditions, and who made the representations?


James Alexander Robb: I will give my hon. friend all that information when we get into the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Certain aliens deemed to be undesirable immigrants.
Mr. McMAiSTER: I shall not detain the committee long, but I would ask the minister whether the department and the country would not be amply protected if the clause should read as follows: "Or shall belong to any secret society or organization which extorts money," and so on. I do not like to give the right to anyone to deport a person on mere suspicion, or mere common repute. It would seem to me that if the law stated that when a person belonged to a society of this undesirable character he could be deported, that would be quite sufficient. The officers of the department would make an investigation, if necessary, and if in their opinion proof existed of the man belonging to such an unworthy organization, he could be deported. I make no objection to swift justice being meted out to such people. I make no objection to the department having this power, because prompt action may be and quite often is necessary, but I do not think it is consonant with the traditions of this country and British traditions generally that people should be exposed to deportation on mere repute, or what is even worse, on mere suspicion.

Immigration Act
James Alexander Robb: May I point out that the question of repute comes in in connection with the examination, but it is provided further:
If upon investigation of the facts such board of inquiry or examining officer is satisfied that such person belongs to any of the prohibited or undesirable classes mentioned in sections 40 and 41 of this act, such person shall be deported forthwith, as provided for in section 33 of this act, subject, however, to such right of appeal as he may have to the minister.
Now, I repeat again what I said earlier in the evening that we are here to protect the people of Canada and I am going to see to it that they get that protection.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I am not going to divide the committee on this question, I would merely repeat what the leader of the opposition said a few moments ago: That if you have a law that is wrong in principle you are likely to have injustice arise from it. If the investigation was for the purpose of determining that the man was guilty, and if after that determination the man would be deported, I would make no objection; but the investigation is to determine whether he comes within this undesirable class, and the undesirable class is defined as those suspected of belonging to such organization. Under those circumstances it seems to me it is not in consonance with our tradition that a man can be deported from this country just because somebody suspects that he belongs to an undesirable organization.


Arthur Meighen: Really I am not often
found complaining of the sternness of an immigration law, but I think there is something in what the hon. member argues. I do not know how the former act read, it may have read in this respect in the same way, but those were different times from to-day. That act was passed in very serious years. Really I do not think we ought to pass a law now which makes an immigrant finally declared undesirable merely because he is suspected of belonging to a certain class. I would not have any objection to a law which enabled the minister to detain a man pending his inquiry into the case of one so suspected; but to declare finally and conclusively that once it is established that a man is suspected then he is undesirable per se seems to be fundamentally unjust.


Charles A. Stewart: I may say
for the information of the committee that this section has not been changed except that it omits the following proviso from section 41:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any person who is a British subject either by reason of birth in Canada or by reason of naturalization in Canada.
The rest of the section is just the same.


Arthur Meighen: What is left out?


Charles A. Stewart: It applies
now only to aliens.


Arthur Meighen: What is the minister
reading from now?


Charles A. Stewart: I am reading from the section of last year and that is deleted this year. That is all the change.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: That does not meet my objection at all. The fundamental injustice is just as bad in respect of an alien as it is in respect of a British subject. As a matter of fact some of the undesirable people who have been carrying on extreme agitation in this country have been from the British Isles. That is not the point. The point is that by this section certain classes are defined as being undesirable, and among those classes so defined are people who are suspected of belonging to an undesirable association. The point I wish to drive home to the committee is that it is not fair and it is not just to classify a man as undesirable and turn him out of a country merely because he is suspected of belonging to an undesirable association.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, but my hon. friend forgets that he gets a board.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: He may get a board but that board is not going to determine whether he is guilty or not but that they suspect he is guilty.


William Alves Boys: That is the present law.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I know it is. I object to the present law and I object to the proposed law. Because I do press upon the committee-I am sorry to take up time at this late hour of the session-that it is fundamentally undesirable and fundamentally unjust.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Would my hon. friend wait until he has actually committed some crime?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I should not wait until he has committed a crime, but we should have some proof before the action which is contemplated is taken.


Herbert Meredith Marler: How can we get proof in a matter of that description?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Then do not act. It is a principle of British law and British justice that a man should not have any untoward action taken in respect to him unless there is actual proof. To say that because John Sobienski, who has come from Poland, is

Immigration Act
suspected of belonging to some undesirable association-that merely because he is suspected he should be subject to deportation shocks my sense of justice.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend's argument is wanting in one particular. First of all an immigrant coming over has to acquire British citizenship or Canadian citizenship.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: But supposing he is not guilty.


Herbert Meredith Marler: It does not affect the
situation very materially. It seems to me this matter can be very properly left in the hands of the department. Very possibly a few instances may occur where the suspicion is unfounded, but cases of this description may properly be left in the hands of a competent minister. The provision may shock the susceptibilities of my hon. friend from Brome in certain ways, but we have to take a reasonable chance in matters of this description.


Arthur Meighen: I do not quite get the
minister's distinction. I do not want to press the matter further, but really in these times I would agree with the hon. member for Brome. I am ready to give the minister every possible latitude so that if he himself comes to the conclusion that there is reason to believe, even though it is not proven, that a man is of that class he may send him back. But what class? Anarchists'-under the class defined here somebody suspected of being an anarchist. However, I did not rise for the purpose of pressing that question. The Minister of the Interior stated that the only difference between this bill and last year's act was that in the statute there was a clause which stated that this should not apply to anyone-


Charles A. Stewart: To British
subjects.


Arthur Meighen: And that is deleted.
Well, if this is deleted the act will apply to a person from Britain or anywhere else.


James Alexander Robb: No. WThat is deleted is:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any person who is a British subject either 'by reason of birth in Canada or by reason of naturalization in Canada.


William Alves Boys: What section is that?


James Alexander Robb: The balance of the section
was placed in the act by my right hon. friend. He thought it was pretty good and I agreed with him at that time.


Arthur Meighen: I am very glad indeed
but we had to take considerable criticism for it. I am prepared to provide the same thing still except in that one respect; I do not think we ought to go quite that length in these more peaceful times. But my point is this: As I understand the minister even yet he reads something which he says is no longer part of the act, but the something which he reads is to the effect that the act shall not apply to a certain class of British subject. When he deletes that it makes it apply.


James Alexander Robb: No, I will read what the bill
says:
Whenever any alien advocates in Canada the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Great Britain or Canada, or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or the overthrow by force or violence of constituted law and authority, or assassination, or shall by word or act create or attempt to create riot or public disorder in Canada, or shall by common repute belong to or be suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization which extorts money from, or in any way attempts to control any resident of Canada by force or threat of bodily harm, or by blackmail; such person for the purposes of this act shall be considered and classed as an undesirable immigrant, and it shall be the duty of any officer becoming cognizant thereof, and the duty of the clerk, secretary or other official of any municipality in Canada wherein such person may be, to forthwith send a written complaint thereof to the Minister of Immigration, giving full particulars.
Then the Minister of Immigration starts an inquiry under this, and if the facts are proven justice is swift and sure, and he goes back.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has read
out the section of the act and he is passing it-the same section.


James Alexander Robb: Yes. The previous act applies to British and Canadian subjects.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister read
the exact part he refers to?


James Alexander Robb: The amendment reads:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any person who is a British subject either by reason of birth in Canada or by reason of naturalization in Canada.


William Alves Boys: That is not the vital change.


James Alexander Robb: I will admit the hon. gentleman is right. I have been wrongly advised. This is the act that I have read.


William Alves Boys: That is not the vital change
in the act. The first line or two of the proposed section reads:
Whenever any alien advocates in Canada the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Great Britain or Canada.

Immigration Act
And so on. The opening words of the former section were:
Every person who by word or act in Canada seeks to overthrow by force or violence.
And so on. The proposed amendment would accord in measure with the former section if the words were left out which the minister says are to be stricken out, namely:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any person who is a British subject either by reason of birth in Canada or by reason of naturalization in Canada.
The proposed amendment goes very much further, and would apply to a resident of Great Britain.


James Alexander Robb: No.


William Alves Boys: Perhaps I am wrong.


James Alexander Robb: If he was a resident of Great
Britain and not a British subject.


William Alves Boys: The former section applies
to a British subject.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Who was not by reason of
birth in Canada or naturalization in Canada, and so on. The present act applies only to aliens. That is really the change.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


William Alves Boys: It would seem to me that if
there was one person who should be deported above all others, it would be a British subject who was coming to Canada for the purposes mentioned in the act. I do not know why that change should be made. I personally would be more inclined to forgive an alien for an offence of that kind than a person from the British Isles.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The hon. member thinks
the new clause is not strict enough?


William Alves Boys: I do not see any reason for
the change. Surely a resident of the British Isles coming here and advocating such a proposition as is referred to in this section should be treated as severely as an alien. Why is it necessary to make that change?


Charles A. Stewart: He was disqualified under the act of last year.


William Alves Boys: Pardon me, the language of
the previous act was "every person." That would apply to everybody, no matter where he came from. The exception is found in the last two or three words, as follows:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any person who is a British subject either by reason of birth in Canada or by reason of naturalization in Canada.
These are the only two exceptions. Surely it cannot be argued that that would apply to a resident, of the British Isles? It certainly would not. Why is it necessary to exclude him? I would forgive an alien much quicker than I would a British subject for an offence of this kind. What prompted the ntinister to make this change?


James Alexander Robb: I aim bound to say that, now
my attention has been directed to it, I share very largely the views of my hon. friend.


William Alves Boys: I am glad I am right for
once.


Arthur Meighen: The minister will now
come to the conclusion that when the late government passed legislation it was not very far out.


William Alves Boys: I agree with that.


Mr. GRAHAM:: It took the hon. member
for Simcoe (Mr. Boys) to show it.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Would there not be
a way to meet the desires of the leader of the opposition, the member for Brome and the member for South Simcoe all at the same time? Make this law apply to British subjects as well as to aliens.


William Alves Boys: It applies to them now.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Or strike out the provision in reference to suspicion, and do not have British subjects or aliens deported on mere suspicion. Make the one law apply to everybody, and have it a law which meets our idea of justice.


Mr. HOEY:: Give them a trial by jury.


William Alves Boys: I must admit I share the views of the member for Brome in regard to finding any one guilty on suspicion. Personally I think this law is a move in the right direction, and I would be willing to take a chance on it; so that if the minister can accede to the request I would have no objection. I read the act more or less hurriedly, but it seems to me the words are exactly the same. The former section read:
Or who, by common repute belongs to or is suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization.
And so on. I think the words are identical in the proposed amendment, and for my part I do not seek to make any change, although I appreciate the argument that nobody should be found guilty of an offence
Immigration Act

or deported merely on suspicion. However, the other feature seems more important than that, and I would! make it apply to a British subject.


Alan Webster Neill: If I might venture into the field of law, I would suggest that there is nothing very much wrong with the section as now drafted. Formerly it applied to every person who committed any of these offences. That was a general provision, but it exempted British subjects by reason of birth In Canada, or by reason of naturalization in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Canadians.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. But it did allow deportation by means of a summary investigation of an alien or British-born subject?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Now they are going to
amend it and1 leave out the last few words, and the British-born subject and the Canadian subject will he entitled to a trial. That is the change and it seems to me desirable. The hon. member for Brome wants to go further and give the alien a trial as well.


Arthur Meighen: If he comes from Britain he is of that class and the law does not declare him to be undesirable at all.


Alan Webster Neill: Which law?
Mr .MEIGHEN:	The old law.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the hon. member
explain that again?


Arthur Meighen: Under the old law if
he came from Britain and was of such a class he would be declared undesirable, the same as if he came from any other country. Under the law as proposed to be amended if he comes from Britain he is not declared to be undesirable at all. He is presumed to be desirable.


Alan Webster Neill: And the act does not apply
it all.


Arthur Meighen: No.


James Alexander Robb: I am advised that substantially the same amendment as is now proposed was passed twice by this House, but was thrown out by the Upper House. For that reason I do not think I would like to change it, but would like to put it through as it stands.


Charles A. Stewart: It has always been held that this was drastic action against a British subject. That is the fight we have had every year. I assume the department is now trying to get away from that.


Arthur Meighen: It was contended'-and
a terrible row was raised over it-that we had perpetrated an offence against the individual, but there was nothing in it; it was all pure fudge from beginning to end.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Arrest or prosecution of rejected or deported person remaining in or returning to Canada except in case of inability to comply with rescinded order in council.
Arthur Meighen: What is the difference
between this law and the .previous law?


James Alexander Robb: Under the present lajw he
was not prohibited from returning, but under this amendment he will be prohibited from returning if convicted under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-CosSt of maintenance of le-jected immigrant pending return.
Arthur Meighen: What is the difference
between this and the previous law? The explanation is longer than the change.


James Alexander Robb: The amendment to section
44 is in keeping with the amendments to sections 19 and 34. As the law now stands, the transportation company is not responsible for any maintenance during detention, that is prior to rejection. Where a large number of passengers are waiting to be examined, it sometimes happens that passengers are held in the immigration building for a period involving maintenance cost. The amended section places upon the [DOT]transportation company all costs from the time of arrival until the time of admission or time of deportation, as the case may be.


Arthur Meighen: This is just of a piece
with the other. If the department detains a man even though it finally turns out that there was no case at all, all the expenses of detention shall be paid by the transportation company.


James Alexander Robb: I am informed that the transportation companies are now paying this cost. This is only putting in the law what they

Immigration Act
are actually carrying out. This is supposing that a number of boats come in and passengers are detained for a time before they are passed. The period may be half a day or more. My hon. friend will see how this will work out to the advantage of the transportation people. This is where they are detained in the immigration hall before they are passed on and examined and cleared. It suits the transportation company to get them out of the boat into the immigration hall because the boat may clear and proceed to another port. If we did not have this provision, we might hold the boat out in the stream until the passengers were cleared, so that this is not costing the transportation companies so much.


William Alves Boys: The former section read:
The cost of his maintenance, while being detained at any immigrant station, as well as the cost of his return, shall be paid by such transportation company except as provided in section 19 of this act.
That was the old section. It is rather difficult just at a glance to appreciate the change. What is accomplished by the proposed section which repeals the former section?


James Alexander Robb: This will apply to cases where
he is rejected. Section 44 reads:
Every immigrant, passenger, stowaway or other person brought to Canada by a transportation company and rejected by the board of inquiry or officer in charge, shall, if practicable, be sent back to the place whence he came, on the vessel, railway train or other vehicle by which he was brought to Canada.
When he comes in now, the liability dates from the time he arrives. Prior to this, the transportation company was not liable between the time he had arrived and the time he was rejected.


William Alves Boys: The minister may be right.
The language of the old section is:
The cost of his maintenance, while being detained at any immigrant station.
Again I ask:	What does the new section
provide which was not taken care of by the former section?


James Alexander Robb: It provides for the period between his arrival and his examination. The old section provided only for his expenses after rejection. This provides for his expenses prior to bis rejection as well.


William Alves Boys: I have read the minister the
former section.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will read
the first part of it.


William Alves Boys: I will read the whole section:
Every immigrant, passenger, stowaway or other person brought to Canada by a transportation company and rejected by the board of inquiry or officer in charge, shall, if practicable, be sent back to the place whence he came, on the vessel, railway train or other vehicle by which he was brought to Canada. The cost of his maintenance while being detained-


James Alexander Robb: After rejection.


William Alves Boys: What is the distinction?


James Alexander Robb: Now they will pay for him
from the time he was landed to the time of rejection.


Arthur Meighen: They will have to do
that anyway in any case. The only distinction that I can see is that under the old act he had to be finally a rejected immigrant to come under this at all, but if he did come under it, then all the costs before rejection or after it, if there were any, must be paid. But if he never became a rejected immigrant, then under this change, the transportation companies have to pay the costs of detention during examination.


James Alexander Robb: No, they only paid after he
was rejected. Prior to this they were not responsible.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the act as
read by my hon. friend.


James Alexander Robb: That is the interpretation the
officials have placed upon it.


Arthur Meighen: If they go home and
look it over, they will see they are wrong. I see the difference and it is a difference right in line with the difference which the minister has enacted in the previous legislation about the sick people.


James Alexander Robb: Exactly.


Arthur Meighen: The difference imposes
this extra obligation upon a transportation company. It says:	You bring a man over.
He is all right. We examine him through, for a while, to be sure that he is all right. We find that he is all right. Previously, you did not have to pay the expense during the examination; now you have to do so. In the name of common justice, why should they have to? It is penalizing the company for bringing in the right kind of people.


William Alves Boys: Personally I appreciate very
much the new method of explaining these amendments. They are most useful and without them I do not know that we could do as well as we are doing at present; we find the previous clause quoted and in some cases the amendments are outlined. That is very

Immigration Act

helpful. But when we come to this section we find that splendid system which has been recently adopted, and which I most heartily approve of, forsaken entirely. We do not find anything in the section underlined to show what the new part is, nor is there anything on the opposite page giving an explanation. I am yet unable to grasp the distinction. between this section and the other one. I think the former section applied to detention, at time of rejection,- and, after rejection, the cost of return, and it seems to me that the new section does exactly the same thing. If the immigrant did not return, under the old section there was responsibility for the period of detention and no longer and under the new section the responsibility is for the period of detention.


Arthur Meighen: The old section is premised, the presumption being that the man is ultimately rejected; but the new section is not. The new section applies to cases where there is no rejection and makes the company liable nevertheless; that is to say, the company performs its duty perfectly well, and brings in the right class of immigrant. But the government detains him for some purpose of its own and ultimately finds that he is perfectly acceptable; yet it makes the company pay the expenses incurred during that detention. That is the new law. It would be exactly the same if the responsibility were put upon one of the churches or upon the liquor board or any body of that kind. Why make the company pay?


James Alexander Robb: They pay on the principle that they are responsible for all charges until the man is admitted to the country.


Arthur Meighen: I can understand that
there are certain things for which the company would be responsible. But why make them responsible for doing right? That beats me. There is no soundness or sanity in the princi-jde; it is not founded on anything that appeals to the mind at all. If the country for its own purposes examines a man, and the minister, exercising his judgment, says he is perfectly acceptable and that the company did the right thing m bringing him, having taken every precaution that was necessary, why make the company pay because the man has been detained?


James Alexander Robb: They are paying now. up to the moment that the man is admitted. The companies have been paying these charges in New York for years.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose they would if they had to. I would far rather make them pay what they are entitled to pay. The thing ought to be put on some common sense basis.


James Alexander Robb: It is on such a basis now.


Arthur Meighen: Dear me.


William Alves Boys: The only change I see in this section seems to be that the words "except as provided for in section 19 of this act," which appear in the old section 44, seem to be left out of the new section. In the old section this language appears but it does not appear in the new one. . Is that the only change? Section 19 deals with the appeal from the board, and possibly this change is all that is intended by the amendment.


James Alexander Robb: The amendment to section 44 is in keeping with the amendments to sections 19 and 34. As the law now stands the transportation company is not responsible for maintenance or detention charges prior to rejection. Where there are a large number of passengers to be examined it sometimes happens that passengers are held in the immigration building for a period involving maintenance cost, and the amended section places all costs from the time of arrival until the time of admission or deportation, as the case may be, upon the transportation company. As to detention costs, it will be of interest to note, as I pointed out before, that last year they amounted to less than 25 cents per head on the total.


William Alves Boys: I do not think that statement can be quite correct because under the former law the transportation companies were not responsible for all costs: they were responsible for all costs in case of negligence but not otherwise. I do not think that is correct, but even that does not explain the point I have brought to the attention of the minister.


James Alexander Robb: The whole language has been re-drafted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Application of act to Chinese.
Arthur Meighen: What is the effect of the change?


James Alexander Robb: The only change is to amend section 79 by inserting after the word "act" in the second line the figures
12 m. " 1923." The hon. member for Cqmox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), made some observations a moment ago which I said I would take into consideration.

Immigration Act


Arthur Meighen: I presume that the act of 1923 repealed the former act and consequently this change is necessary.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

James Alexander Robb: If there is no objection, there
is a resolution regarding Finland that we might advance to the stage of introducing the bill. It is order No. 56.


Arthur Meighen: What does it do?


James Alexander Robb: It gives us the benefit of their favoured nation treatment. As to the business done, they sold us last year $6,000 worth and we sold them $1,754,000 worth. We can discuss the principle when we get into the bill.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I would not object to the matter being advanced to the second reading so that no time will be lost, but I would prefer not to have the resolution pass in the absence of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton).


James Alexander Robb: All right.
On motion of Mr. Graham, the House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. Friday.