1924-07-18

[Stage Direction]
Air. H. B. McGIVERIN (Ottawa) presented the twelfth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette) presented the sixth report of the special committee appointed to consider questions relating to pensions, insurance and re-establishment of returned soldiers.
Industrial Relations

Hod. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment):: I beg to present the fourth and final report on the second part of the investigation of the royal commission on Pensions and Re-establishment. I have already informed the House that I have received an advance report *of this final report from the royal commission, that is the part which deals with canteen funds, and in this connection legislation has been introduced in this House. I beg to move:
That the fourth and final report of the royal commission on Pensions and Re-establishment be printed for bound sessional papers; and 1,000 copies in the English language and 250 copies in the French language for distribution, and that Rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton):: I beg to move:
That the second and final report of the select rtand-ing committee on Industrial and International Relations be concurred in.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg):: I move.in amendment:
That the report be referred back to the committee with instructions to add the fallowing words to the
6aid report:
"It is further recommended that the government should limit the hours on Dominion works and undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week.
And further, that the government should submit to the House legislation declaring that such works as may be advisable should be for the general advantage of Canada pursuant to the power by the British North America Act in that hebalf provided and thus bring such works within the control of the Dominion for the purpose of limiting the hours of work to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week."
The eight hour day is a matter concerning which labour has had very strong convictions for many years. It has been one of the great objectives of the organized labour movement. Few people realize that the Peace Treaty of Versailles deals, not merely with questions of boundaries, armaments and finance, but with principles that should underlie our industrial life. The labour sections of the Peace treaty open with a general statement in the following terms:
Whereas the League of Nations has for its object the establishment of universal peace, and such a peace can be established only if it is based on social justice. 
And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; and an improvement of these conditions is urgently required; as, for example, by the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum working day and week, etc.
Here there follow an enumeration of most of the ameliorative measures after which labour has been striving for many years.
In view of the high contracting parties, as of special and urgent importance, there are enumerated for the guidance of the International Labour Organization certain general principles among which is included "the adoption of an eight hour day, or a forty-eight hour week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been obtained."
We in the labour movement thought that when the treaty was signed we were assured that the eight hour day had been secured, and we were confirmed in this view by what took place at the Washington conference. Among the draft conventions and recommendations adopted at the first session of the international conference held at Washington in 1919 and concurred in by Can::da's representatives, the first is that which limits the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in a day and forty-eight in a week. The convention was not concerned with agricultural labour; it confined itself to industrial undertakings.
One difficulty in securing legislation in Canada in accordance with this Washington convention lies in the fact that we have a federal constitution. According to the Treaty of Peace,
In the case of a federal state, the power of which to enter into conventions on labour matters is subject to limitations, it shall be in the discretion of that government to treat the draft convention to which such limitations apply as a recommendation only, and the provisions of this article with respect to recommends-tions shall apply in such case.
On this point the Minister of Justice in a report confirmed by order in council passed on November 6, 1920, made the following statement:
The government's obligation will, in the opinion of the minister, be fully carried out if the different conventions and recommendations are brought before the competent authority, dominion or provincial, according as it may appear, having regard to the scope and objects, the true nature and character of the legislation required to give effect to the proposals of the conventions and recommendations respectively that they fall within legislative competence of the one or the other.
Of these draft conventions adopted at the Washington conference, five, including the eight hour day, are declared by the law officers

Industrial Relations
of the Crown to fall within provincial authority. Notwithstanding this fact it was felt that the Dominion government was not altogether clear in the matter and that something further should be done to give effect to these conventions. Hence there was called in 1923 a conference of the representatives of the Dominion and provincial governments to consider the obligations of Canada arising out of the labour section of the Treaty of Peace. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), stated that one of the objects of the conference was:
To assist the provinces, by consultative conference, in determining their attitude towards the labour principles of the Peace Treaty to which the parliament of Canada has already given its assent, and to which our country is plighted in agreement with the other nations.
The House will note that we have here a frank admission that our country is plighted to the eight hour day in agreement with the other nations. No resolution was adopted in regard to the eight hour day at this conference but it was agreed that the federal Department of Labour should proceed as promptly as possible to ascertain the present position of the eight hour day movement in industrial undertakings in Canada, the information obtained by inquiry to be submitted to all the provincial governments for their consideration. This I understand has been largely carried out and the information in so far as it has been secured to date, has been submitted to the various provincial governments.
Now we come to the question of the report before the House. The Minister of Labour Mr. Murdock, two weeks ago made the following reference to the newly constituted par- . liamentary committee on Industrial and International Relations:
That it is expedient that a certain draft convention which was adopted at the first session of the International Labour Conference of the League of Nations in 1919, limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week Ibe referred to the Select Standing Committee on Industrial and International Relations for examination and report, having regard to the labour provisions of the treaties of peace and to the order in council of November 6, 1920 dealing with the jurisdiction of the provincial parliament and the provincial legislature.
After holding a number of sessions the committee recommended " that measures be taken to refer the draft convention "
-to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration under section 60 of the Supreme Court, together with such questions as will serve to secure an advisory judgment from the court on the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament and of the provincial legislature respectively.
Some of us tried to have some definte action taken by the committee, and the report actually incorporated something of this kind. But notwithstanding the fact that the report was to have been presented to the House in that form the chairman of the committee left the city without having submitted it, although he had an opportunity to do so, having been in the House the day after the report was agreed upon. Then the committee was called together and the whole matter reconsidered, the report was adopted concerning which the motion of concurrence has been moved today. This would seem to indicate that the government is not very serious in its efforts to give effect to the eight hour day in Canada. We have had the Washington conference; we have had orders in council; we have had the findings of the law officers of the Crown; and we have had a joint conference of federal and provincial representatives. And we have now had the investigation by the committee on Industrial Relations. Surely all this should have been sufficient. But we find that the matter is to be referred to the Supreme court, so that we are no further ahead than we were five years ago. There are certain classes of workers in Canada who are still toiling away eleven and thirteen hours a day and seven days of the week. In this House I have repeatedly called attention to the conditions that prevail in the steel works jn Nova Scotia and elsewhere in Canada. There was an excuse advanced during a good many years that as in the United States they had the long hour shifts, the men in that country working a twelve hour day, that if we reduced the hours of labour in this country our steel manufacturers could not cope with the Americans. That excuse is gone as they have adopted the eight hour day in the steel works of the United States, whereas the steel companies of Canada continue to maintain the twelve hour day and seven day week.
We have had trouble especially in Nova Scotia year after year. In this connection the Robertson commission in its report presented a few months ago urged that as one of the grievances of the men was the eleven and thirteen hour day and the seven day week there should be a reduction made to an eight hour day and a six day week. Notwithstanding that recommendation the government has taken no action, and, as I have suggested, it would seem as if there is a general desire to shirk responsibility. Several years ago the world protested because an important treaty was reduced to "a scrap of paper." I would call attention to the fact that in this case we are concerned with the Treaty of Versailles, to which Canada with the other nations party to that treaty is definitely committed. Are we
Industrial Relations

to reduce that treaty to a " scrap of paper?" Already other countries are embodying this convention in legislation, and we have the edifying spectacle that having adopted this advanced legislation they must compete with Canada which maintains a lower standard of working conditions.
In the evidence presented to the committee we have the following statement made by an official of the Labour Department:
As to the action taken on this subject in other countries, it has been ratified by Bulgaria, Czecho-Slovakia, Greece, India, Roumania. Ratification, as we know, of course means a formal acceptance of the agreement as a matter of treaty.-the convention being identical with the treaty. Bulgaria, Czecho-Slovakia, Greece, India, and Roumania have signed the convention. In addition to that Great Britain has intimated its intention of taking steps looking to ratification at once and the matter was understood to be under way. Great Britain has probably led the world in the adoption of the eight hour day.
Again:
These other countries have adopted legislation dealing with the subject, matter: Belgium, Spain, India, Sweden, Italy and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slavs.
And still again:
These countries I have just read, in reply to your inquiry, have adopted legislation carrying out the provisions of the Washington Convention and have not yet in all cases ratified the convention. France and a number of other countries have also been moving in the same direction. As to the trades that are referred to in the draft convention, industrial undertakings, Bolivia. Norway, Germany, Denmark, Chili and the Argentine have already bills before them.
Now, it does seem as if in view of the action which is being taken by other nations 10 carry out the draft convention which embodies the principles of the Peace Treaty, Canada is recreant to her duty if she does not [DOT] take action at this time. The government is inclined to say that nothing can be done, that this is a matter for the provinces, and to shift its responsibility. But I would point out that the government is not doing what is clearly within its power to do at the present moment. In my amendment I suggest that the government might limit the hours on Dominion works and undertakings to the eight hour day and the forty-eight hour week. This requires no further legislation. We may easily insert such a clause in every contract which we make. It does not need a reference to the Supreme court to decide that, it does not even need any further legislation; it is already within the jurisdiction and power of the Dominion government. At the present time the confessed policy of the government with regard to such Dominion works as are undertaken, in so far as the hours of labour are concerned, is to conform with the conditions

from time to time prevailing in the district where the particular work is being carried on. I submit that the least the government could do would be to act as a model employer on its own works. Let me repeat, no one questions the jurisdiction or power of the government in this regard.
I should like to direct attention for a moment to the second clause of this amendment :
Tha.t the government should submit to the House legislation declaring that such works as may be advisable should be for the general advantage of Canada.
The British North America Act is quoted as being the stumbling block:	" We cannot
do anything because of the British North America Act." While the provincial legislatures have exclusive power in local works and undertakings, the following classes, among, others, are specifically exempt by section 92, subsection 10 (c):
Such works as, although wholly situated within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada, or for the advantage of two or more provinces.
The evidence submitted to the committee shows that frequently railways, although wholly situated within one province, have for certain reasons been declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. Last year we had a case of certain water-powers connected with the Lake of the Woods level being declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. I submit there is no reason why other works should not be similarly declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. In fact the law officers who were present to give evidence admitted that this procedure might be taken. Mr. Edwards, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice, in referring to this matter answered several questions which I put to him. Part of these questions and answers I shall now quote:
Q. All that would be necessary to secure an eight hour day under those circumstances would be to have-such a clause inserted in the contract. Further, with regard to any subsidized undertakings, railways, steamships or anything of that kind, X presume that too could be arranged directly in the agreement?-A. I think it could be made a condition of the subsidy.
Q. In a case where the government is under contract for the delivery of any goods from any firm, I presume the government might insist that these goods should be produced under fair conditions, including the eight hour day.-A. I think that again is a provision which, if properly drawn, could be made a part of the contract.
Q. Then coming to this question, which w'e have-been discussing. Dominion works and undertakings. As far as you know, are there any actual cases which have come before the courts, other than the one you mentioned, which would seem to indicate any limitations of the powers of Canada to declare anv work of general advantage to Canada?-A. My attention has not been directed to anything specific on that subject-

Industrial Relations
Then I went on to speak of certain manufacturing works, mining, and so on, and the witness said that he saw nothing in the act to prevent any such work being declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. Why could not the steel works, which have been so very heavily subsidized in the past by the government of this country, and which are receiving contracts from the Canadian National Railways,-why could not they be declared to be for the general advantage of Canada and so be brought within the control of the Dominion for the purposes of the eight hour day convention.
One further suggestion. A large number of manufacturing industries in this country are receiving protection from the coimtry. Surely it is presumed that they are for the general advantage of Canada. If they are not for the general advantage of Canada, why should we give them protection? If they are for the general advantage of Canada, then they may be so declared: by this parliament, and if so declared by this parliament the eight-hour day can be enforced in such undertakings.
It is not my intention to do anything more than to state this case. I do not purpose ;o plead the eight-hour day. I do not propose to show the disabilities under which the men are working because of the lack of the eight-hour day. I take it for granted that the principle of the eight-hour day was settled once for all by the Peace Treaty of Versailles. But I do ask that the government no longer continue to allow this question to be made a football ajid to be kicked or thrown backward and forward between the provincial and the federal authorities, the workers being allowed to suffer in the meantime. It seems to me that a case for definite action on the part of the government is clear. There are means indicated by which this convention may be enacted into law and whereby the eight-hour day may become effective. I venture to quote the old proverb: " Where there's a will there's a way "; and I may add, where there is no will there is no way.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the arguments just
made by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) were before the committee on Industrial and International Relations at each meeting. On the 23rd of May the committee had referred to it the draft convention emanating from the Washington conference dealing with the eight hour day in industrial undertakings, for examination and report having regard to the labour provisions of the Treaty of Peace and
to the order in council of November 6, 1920, with regard to the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures. That order in council indicates the view of the Justice Department that the provincial legislatures have power to enact and apply generally and comprehensively hhe eight hour day in industrial undertakings. The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg is aware that the Labour Department has undertaken to press this question upon the attention of those competent to deal with it, that is, the provincial governments. Last September a conference was held of representatives of all the provinces and the federal government, and this question was fexhaustiively discussed. We found material Objection on the part of the representatives bf some of the provinces to any action by the federal government that might be prejudicial to what they regarded as their right to deal with this matter. While I might personally be in hearty accord with my hon. friend's proposal that we should here and now determine that on federal works and undertakings the eight hour day should apply, I am not sure that to do so would be consistent or would involve a recognition of the proper partnership which should exist as between the federal authorities and the provincial governments. For example, in connection with the Welland ship canal, where work has been proceeding for a number of years. Some two years ago it was necessary for the Minister of Labour under the fair wages policy to determine the length of the day that should be applicable to the workers on that undertaking. In dealing with that question we were required by the fair wages policy to recognize the wages and the hours current in the district, and in that connection we had to take into consideration the somewhat similar work that was progressing on the Hydro-Electric power ditch. The Labour Department believed it was proper to keep abreast of the wages and conditions then prevailing rather than to prejudice the rights of the provinces by fixing better wages or better hours of labour than were in general effect in the territory. I have not found on the part of any labourers on the Welland ship canal a desire to be held down to the eight hour day; I have rather found that their chief desire in many cases was to have the eight hour day fixed in order that they might get overtime or time and a half for working nine, ten, eleven, or twelve hours. I do not for a moment hold that that is the general view, or that is uppermost in the minds of those who are speaking for labour. For many years I have been personally com-
Industrial Relations

mitted to the principle of the eight hour day and know something of the battles that have been necessary in order to secure its recognition. But in connection with the application of the eight hour day to public works and undertakings in Canada I am bound to say that the adoption of the principle is only too often demanded-and this can be proved by a review of the files- in order to obtain time and a half for working longer than eight hours.
My hon. friend intimates that the government is not serious. That " listens well " to labour generally throughout Canada, but it is untrue; it is not in accordance with the facts The government is distinctly serious in its desire so to handle this question as not to encroach upon the rights of the provinces or upon the rights of industry-and I think hon. members will agree that each have some rights. The government wants to deal with it in an orderly way and with due regard to the rights and interests of all concerned. We have had before us for several years a ruling of the Justice department that the question of applying the eight hour day to industry must be dealt with by the provinces. The government is serious in its desire to ascertain through a Supreme court ruling if that is or is not the case. The government believes that is the case, but the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg and others in various parts of Canada who want to present something that will listen well to the uninitiated labouring man hold otherwise. They know it is popular to hammer the government about this, that or the other thing. The government is serious in wanting to get from the Supreme Court of Canada, or from some fur' tner tribunal, if necessary, something that will be final and conclusive upon this important question, and so it was unfortunate that when this question came up before the Industrial and International Relations committee, at almost every meeting of the committee, there was a bare quorum. It is true, as my hon. friend has said, that at a meeting held some days ago-at which only ten members were present out of thirty-three, a bare quorum of ten including the chairman-a report was adopted which partially carried with it the proposal that my hon. friend has moved this morning. It was believed, though, by many of those connected with the committee that it might not be consistent to adopt and press that resolution on the attention of the House. It was the desire of the members of the committee that the question should be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, so that in that way the government would 
be placed in a position to know prior to the next session of parliament just what its rights were.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Would my hon. friend state by what majority that report was adopted by the committee at the meeting at which only ten members were present?


James Murdock: The vote was five to four, with the chairman not voting. At the roost recent meeting, held the day before yesterday, the committee, I think, were unanimously of the view, including my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg, that the Supreme court should pass upon this important question. But my hon. friend wants to go further; he wants to have this parliament declare that any work or undertaking, any industry in Canada, may be held to be for the general advantage of Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Just as a matter of accuracy, may I say, that is not what is incorporated in my resolution.


James Murdock: I realize that is not
what the hon. gentleman has moved in his amendment, but that claim was repeatedly made-as I am sure my hon. friend will admit-before the committee. And I am sure too that he argued that way before the committee; in other words, he proposes that this federal government should pick out this industry in Nova Scotia, that industry in British Columbia, or as many industries as you like in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, or in other provinces, and declare them by the action of this parliament, to be, for the general advantage of Canada, and then apply the eight hour day to such industries in disregard of any provincial rights, and regardless of the evident intent and language of the British North America Act. That might be all right from the viewpoint of my hon. friend, but such action would be held by many others in this country as altogether selfish and unfair. So, Mr. Speaker, my earnest desire in the matter would be that the report which was placed before the House the other day be adopted, in which it is recommended that measures be taken to refer the "Draft Convention limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week " to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration under section 60 of the Supreme Court Act together with such questions as will serve to secure an advisory judgment from the court on the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament and of the provincial legislatures, respectively.

Industrial Relations
The language of that last clause was purposely prepared and placed there, so that in numbered and proper order the questions in which my hon. friend is interested could be placed before the Supreme court and a ruling secured on each and every one of them, so that the parliament of Canada would be in a position to know just what were our rights and what were the rights of the provinces.
If the views of my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg were to prevail here this morning, it would simplify materially the work of the Minister of Labour while he occupies his present position. It would be very much easier for him to say:	The eight hour day applies
at Edmonton; it applies on the Welland ship canal, and everywhere else. At the present time we have to carefully inquire as to what are the current hours and conditions of labour in the area where the work is to be performed, and then we have to be very careful to see that as nearly as possible we arrive at the current wage and the current hours. Personally I think that under our constitutional rights, yes, and in view of our constitutional restrictions, the action which is now being taken is the proper one if we are going to play the game fairly with our partners, who are the provinces in this confederation. So, regardless of how much I might personally desire to see the amendment proposed by my hon. friend prevail, I do not think that it would be fair at this particular time to go to that extent, and I hope the House will finally adopt the report which was submitted to it by the committee on Industrial and International Relations.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: As a declaration in favour of the eight
hour day as applied to Dominion government works, I am unqualifiedly in favour of the first proposal of the amendment. I have taken that stand before, repeatedly, in this House and on the platform in this country. If I understand the amendment aright, its application is limited to government works, or works constructed or carried on by the Dominion of Canada.
It is all right for my hon. friend the Minister of Labour to say that this amendment of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg may be used before the uninitiated in Winnipeg as a vote catcher at elections, but I can tell the Minister of Labour that this motion will appeal very deeply to the initiated in the city of Guelph where I live. I am satisfied that labour throughout Canada is in sympathy with this proposal, and the proposal in my judgment is right. I do not think there is any doubt ns to the jurisdiction of this parliament in regard to Dominion labour. But there is
more than a doubt in regard to our jurisdiction to apply the eight hour day principle generally throughout the Dominion. I have not a doubt upon the subject; I am satisfied that the ruling of the Department of Justice is right in that respect, and that the provincial legislatures have jurisdiction in such matters; but I am just as sure that this parliament has jurisdiction in regard to Dominion works, and if parliament or the government is in sympathy with the proposal of the eight hour day as applicable to Dominion operations and Dominion works, there is no reason why this proposal should not be supported. I do not see the difficulties which the Minister of Labour fears in the application of this principle. We take upon ourselves how to insert in our contracts a fair wage clause and our right to do so has always remained unchallenged. We disregard provincial law and provincial conditions in this respect and in contracts made by this government for the construction of works in any part of this Dominion we always insist-


James Murdock: May I interrupt? Do we disregard provincial rights and provincial hours and wages when we say in that fair wage clause that the current wages and hours shall govern?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes we do, we take it
upon ourselves to say what the wages shall be in that respect.


James Murdock: The current wages.


Hugh Guthrie: Whether current or otherwise we make a declaration as to the scale of wages in our contracts. If we can validly make that declaration in our contracts in respect of wages we can do the same thing in respect of the hours of labour. I only support the amendment on the ground that as regard to Dominion works, it proposes to apply the eight hour principle which I believe to be the correct and proper principle. I would not support the amendment if it proposed to extend that principle into provincial jurisdictions over which I am satisfied we have no control. But as the amendment is purely applicable to Dominion works I think it is in the right direction and I shall support it.


Mr. R. J. WOODS (Dufferin):: I want to
voice my opposition to the amendment as it has been presented. I know a little about labour because as a young man I did a lot of manual labour on different public works and other undertakings, and I never found that working even ten hours a day was detrimental to my physical energies and powers. Since I discontinued working for other concerns I
Industrial Relations

have been engaged in farming. In that occupation there is no restriction on the hours of labour, which usually run from ten to twelve or fifteen or sixteen hours. Still we manage to pull through, and some of us attain to a fair age without much diminution of physical strength and energy. I believe the labouring class should be paid a fair wage, but I also believe that they should do a fair day's work for that wage. From what I read and hear in connection with the labour movement I am afraid there is a tendency on the part of organized labour to get labour into such a condition that it will not do a fair day's work for fair wages. Now, I have watched the attitude and the demeanour of labouring men on public works and I am forced to the conclusion that in a great many cases men do not want to earn their wages; they want to get paid for a minimum amount of work. It would seem as though they tried to do as little work as possible while they were on the job. For that reason I am opposed to the amendment. Another cause of objection is this: In this country to-day we are suffering from the high cost of living; we are also suffering from the cost of agricultural implements, high transportation rates on our railroads, and other conditions. We believe that the high cost of labour-possibly because a lot of 12nioon labourers are not doing a fair day's work for the money they get-is largely responsible for the high cost of living, the high cost of implements and the high railroad rates. If we are going to get any reduction in these costs the first point we must strike at is the cost of labour. We must have a reduction of prices in some way, either in the wages paid or in an extension of the hours of labour, so that we may get better returns for the money that is spent.
Another question to be considered is this: The farmers are up against a serious problem in connection with labour. They have to engage a good deal of labour, and if their needs cannot be supplied in that respect they cannot produce. Now, if the hours of labour in the cities are to be restricted to eight hours a day it will be impossible for the farmer to get labourers to work for ten or twelve hours on the farm. And yet these hours are indispensable, otherwise farming cannot be carried on profitably. I am opposed to the amendment and shall support the adoption of the report.
Mr. A. IV . NEILL (Comox-Alberni): I congratulate the mover of the amendment upon having, even if only on the last day of the fMr. Woods.]
session, got away from the expression of vague, academic theories, and having at last brought forward a subject of some practical concern to Canada. This is not a question as to what some government should do in the Ruhr or in Bulgaria, or in Mesopotamia, this is something that is actually, for once, at least, a question of importance to this country. At the same time I consider that the introduction of the amendment at this day and at this hour is particular^' ill-advised. There is every reason to believe, in view of the opinion of the Justice department, that the matter of the control of the hours of labour, rests with the provinces and not with the Dominion. We have evidence that the provinces in great part have accepted that view. I might point to my own province of British Columbia which, in the consideration of that fact, went ahead by itself and passed an eight hour law, and I am proud to think that we gave the rest of the Dominion a lead in that regard which I hope will be followed. Moreover I understand that the main recommendation in the report of the committee is to refer this matter to the Supreme court for a further and final decision. Therefore it would seem wise to go slowly in this matter in the meantime.
I particularly object to the second feature of the hon. gentleman's amendment, I refer to his proposition to give power to this government to go out into the industrial field all over Canada and say "This industry over here is for the general benefit of Canada and therefore its employees shall only work eight hours a day", but that another industry perhaps a competing industry, should not be interfered with at all. Look at the tremendous opportunities for the abuse of political power such a provision would give the government, either this government or any future administration. For this reason and for other complications which would result, I would be strongly against that feature of the amendment.
At the same time, I was elected on a platform containing an eight-hour-day plank, and therefore I shall express my sympathy with the general principle of that policy by voting for the amendment. But I must reserve to myself the right to oppose at any future stage the suggestion to enter any man's private business, or industry of any kind, and declare such industries to be works for the general advantage of Canada.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I only have a word to say on this subject. I had the honour of presiding at the last meeting of the committee in the absence of



IS, 1924

[Stage Direction]
Industrial Relations
the chairman, the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll). In my constituency the people do not limit themselves to eight hours a day; the majority do not work less than eight hours, and quite a number of them much longer than that. However, the proposition here is to apply the eight hour day to public works which I understand will add twenty-five per cent to the cost of such work. It is largely a question of economy. Are the finances of Canada in such a condition as to justify the payment of an additional twenty-five per cent? It is up to parliament to decide what shall be done.
Another phase of this matter which is more likely to affect Quebec at the present time, is that a large number of industries, chiefly in pulp manufacturing in Quebec, do not observe the Sabbath day. These works continue in operation in districts where the observance of the Sabbath is very general. The violation of the Lord's Day Act is fairly general by these mills, and municipalities in the province have adopted resolutions at public meetings, township meetings and so on, protesting strongly against this want of respect for the Sabbath day, a day which should be generally observed throughout the whole of Canada. Some years ago I had the honour of doing my share in having legislation passed to enforce the observance of the Sabbath day; but when the Senate dealt with the measure, they placed an amendment at the tail end of it, in two lines, stating that the enforcement of the act would rest with the provincial authorities. Therefore, the enforcement of the act rests with each province. I am glad, however, to see in this reference to the Supreme court, there is also included the question of the forty-eight hour week which means six days a week and not seven. For that reason I am glad to say a word in favour of this report, everything that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) has said, and the action being taken now in referring the question to the Supreme Court of Canada. When we have their decision on this point and when we know exactly the powers of this Dominion and the powers of the provinces as well, we shall be able to deal with the matter fairly and as it should be dealt with in the interest of the labouring classes and of a Christian country such as Canada is.
Mr. J. L. STANSELL (East Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, before being called upon to vote on this question, not having had an opportunity of studying the amendment, I should like to ask the Prime Minister or some other 301
member of the government qualified to give a legal opinion, if, in the event of this amendment carrying applying the eight hour day to Dominion public works and undertakings, it will apply to hours of labour in this parliament.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to get an eight-hour day by legislation, or by appointing a committee on industrial relations, or by getting an opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada, or by sending delegates to Geneva to discuss labour questions and to pacify Europe. We are certainly not going to get it by placing it on the bill of fare two or three hours before the close of a five months' session. The only way to secure an eight hour day is by educating the public. I may point out an example and I would ask the government to follow it. There are 12,000 employees in the city of Toronto, from which I come, who are working an eight hour day. That applies to the street railway, all public departments, including the police and fire departments, and public utilities. The eight hour day will come by education first of all, and not by legislation.
We have a department presided over by the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), who has been to Geneva assisting in pacifying Europe and the world. If the government want to get a national eight hour day, in which I am a believer, let them do something in a practical way:	let them, before they pacify
Europe, first of all pacify their own employees and give them an eight hour day, fair wages, proper working conditions and proper salaries -a fair day's pay for a fair day's work-and all this without any reference to the Supreme court. The Minister of Labour should work to pacify the employees in his own department and in all the government departments, and let the good work continue. Let him get his colleague the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Stewart) to assist him in giving a square deal to a few postmen. In that way something will be done to educate public opinion in advance for a general eight hour day. The government should let charity begin at home in this matter by beginning this amongst their own government employees who are badly in need of it. and they can carry out this pacification and fair dealing themselves along these lines in the recess of parliament if they want to assist in bringing into effect the eight hour day throughout Canada. Let them stop preaching and practise what they preach. While the question is one for education, and while it may be all right to get the opinion

Industrial Relations

of the Supreme court, still no eight hour day for Canada will come until the government help their own employees and are fair to them.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary):	Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) has two parts. First of all, he proposes to apply the eight hour day to Dominion public works. As the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has said, there surely cannot be any question of the power of this parliament to decree that, in the carrying on of public works, the eight hour day shall apply. The eight hour day has been an election cry for many years; this is a good opportunity for the friends of labour to pass judgment in this parliament at this time whether or not they favour an eight hour day. An hon. gentleman to my left says that he is going to vote against the eight hour day because some men do not work enough, because they do not give sufficient value for their money. Moreover, he wants to reduce the cost of labour. He thinks the cost of labour is the cause of all our troubles, although he brings forward not a single fact or circumstance to justify his opinion. He gives the high cost of labour as the reason for the high cost of living, for the high transportation costs, for all the difficulties from which we suffer. He must have been absent from the House the other evening when, I think, the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg presented facts and figures to show exactly what relationship wages have to the high cost of living. Certainly those figures are far from establishing the imaginative statements of the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Woods).
The second part of the resolution does not ask this parliament to do anything. It asks the government to introduce legislation for the purpose of picking out from the industries of Canada those which are for the general advantage of Canada and which will, therefore, automatically come under the provisions of the eight hour day, if effect is given to the first part of this resolution. That as I understand it, is all that the amendment calls for. It simply says that the government shall introduce legislation, I presume at the next session of parliament, fixing these particular industries, and therefore, automatically, as I say an eight hour day shall then apply. I think both parts of this amendment are highly desirable and commendable, and labour in this country will be able on reading the vote in this matter to determine who their real friends are.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment is in itself a very

small concession to the demands of labour throughout Canada. I have been amazed at some of the things that have been said by some hon. members in objecting to this amendment, and much more amazed at the attitude of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). The Minister of Labour has had, I think, thirty-six years of training in the front line of labour struggles, as he says, and there he has been initiated and understands their movement very well. Now when he gets to be a cabinet minister, he promptly forgets all about that; contents himself with telling labour how much he used to fight for them. The labour people of this country are sick of that kind of thing and they are looking for some definite little bit of action. Verbose promises do not get us anywhere. The Minister of Labour has here an opportunity to put into practical effect all the splendid ideals and the enthusiasm and inspiration of thirty years in the Labour movement. But when that opportunity presents itself to him what does he do? He begins to make excuses. Excuses of the Minister of Labour are many, and seemingly one is always ready. In the one instance we have the Privy Council; he cannot do anything because the Privy Council stops him. The next time he cannot do anything because the Supreme Court of Canada might say something about the question. Then he cannot do anything because the provinces have to be protected and there is certain provincial jurisdiction. The next time he cannot do anything because Moses, some 4,000 years ago, fixed the laws and, therefore, nothing can be done in the parliament of Canada. That is not a caricature, that is in reality what the Minister of Labour is saying. One of the reasons given by the minister for inaction on the part of this government is that if we do anything we may interfere with provincial jurisdiction, and so on. But as pointed out by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), one of the things which the amendment seeks is to have the government put into practice the principle of the eight-hour day in the case of any undertaking that falls entirely within the federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court could have nothing to do with any such matter and no provincial rights would be encroached upon.


Mr. HUGHES:: Does the hon. member
advocate that there shall be privileged classes in this country?


William Irvine: We have already endorsed
the principle of the eight-hour day inasmuch as our signature has been appended to the Treaty of Versailles. This being the case there is no reason whatever why the Dominion

Industrial Relations
government should not apply that principle in all cases that come within its own jurisdiction. If the provincial governments do not wish to adopt the principle that is their business, and they must assume the responsibility for whatever course they pursue. But the Minister of Labour cannot advance, as an argument to justify failure on the part of the Dominion government to observe the very principle which this Dominion has adopted, the fact that the provinces have not seen fit to ratify it. That is no excuse at all. I was surprised-not very much but somewhat surprised-to hear gentlemen who claim to be farmers opposing the amendment on the ground that they themselves have to work sixteen hours a day. Well, -any man who boasts of working sixteen hours a day may have a mighty strong back but I would not say the same for his upper end.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are forced to.


William Irvine: No man should be forced
to work sixteen hours a day for the benefit of the big interests. And as to the agrarian population, if they will bring some organizing genius into play they ought to do away with the necessity for working sixteen hours a day.


Mr. VIEN:: Does my hon. friend not think that we should make hay while the sun shines?


William Irvine: That is what I am trying
to do right now as well as I can. Now, it is not the principle of the eight-hour day that is under discussion, for that principle has already been adopted; there is no question about that. All that we want is to have the Dominion government apply that principle to labour which is engaged in its own works and over which it has absolute jurisdiction.


Thomas Vien: What warranty has the hon.
member for assuming that the provincial government has no rights, so far as the eight hour day is concerned, jointly with the federal government in Dominion works and undertakings?


William Irvine: I will answer with another
question: What reason has the hon. gentleman for even entertaining the idea that the provincial government has any such rights?


Thomas Vien: That is not an answer.


William Irvine: It is an answer to the question which the hon. gentleman asked.


James Murdock: When speaking I indicated in what way the provincial government 3011
had some right. Does my hon. friend think that my view in that respect was right or wrong? If it was wrong, will he tell us in what way?


William Irvine: Does the Minister of Labour mean to say that the Dominion government has not the absolute right to say what shall be done in relation to its own contracts.


James Murdock: I did not say that.


William Irvine: I am not saying that the
provincial governments have no rights, but I do say most emphatically that they have not the right to dictate in regard to what is distinctly a federal affair.


James Murdock: That is not the point.


William Irvine: It may not be the minister's point, but it is the point I have raised myself.


James Murdock: The question is this.
Should the Dominion government, in disregard of certain provincial rights, decide that an eight hour day shall apply in connection with public works and undertakings even though the adoption of that principle should seriously prejudice certain constitutional rights of the provincial government?


William Irvine: What are those rights? It is all very well to make a bold, bald statement of that kind, but it does not mean a thing.


James Murdock: The question is a simple one if the hon. member wants to answer it.


William Irvine: I am prepared to give the minister an opportunity to show what obligation the federal government has in relation to the provinces in this matter. Does he say that the federal government has no authority at all?. If it has any authority in regard to the eight-hour-day principle, then let that principle be applied in so far as the federal jurisdiction will allow. I am not so foolish as to suggest that the Dominion government should try to exercise any power which it does not possess, but I certainly do not think that the Minister of Labour and his government are going to the extent that they might go in this regard.


Thomas Vien: Does the hon. gentleman wish the federal government to do anything that would disturb the prevailing conditions in a province?


William Irvine: I am not advocating anything of the kind.


Thomas Vien: Surely.
Industrial Relations


William Irvine: All I ask is that the present government shall exercise the power which unquestionably it has and apply the principle to works that come under its own jurisdiction exclusively.


Thomas Vien: Even though that may create a disturbance in local conditions?


William Irvine: If it were a matter of upsetting the equilibrium of the universe I should hesitate-


Thomas Vien: Nobody is talking about the universe.


William Irvine: It is as reasonable to suggest that anything we might do would upset the equilibrium of the universe as it is to suggest that the exercise by this government of its jurisdiction in this matter would disturb provincial jurisdiction. The provincial governments are quite capable of looking after themselves and will very soon let this government know when it infringes on their rights. Why scream before you are hurt? Why should the Minister of Labour be so zealous about provincial rights, and send this matter to the Supreme court? Let the provincial governments go to the Supreme court if they want to. The minister says that the government are serious. If he means by that that they are in a serious condition I agree with him; but certainly they are not serious in their professions in regard to this particular matter.
I hope that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) the leader of the Progressive party, who told us the other day that he represented Labour equally as well as does the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), will add his voice on this occasion in support of the view which has been advanced in behalf of Labour.
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette):	This
question, for the time being at least, is a very simple one, however acute it might become later on. What was the submission to the committee? It was a draft convention limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week; that is the question which was submitted for consideration. The first duty of the committee was to inquire as to what power it had in the matter; and parliament must consider the same question. We are governed in this country by the British North America Act and the first question to be settled on this subject is as to whether or not, under that act, legislation giving effect to this draft convention could be enacted by the parliament of Canada. Would such legislation be within the powers of this parliament or would it constitute an encroachment upon the rights of the provinces?

Now, we have the necessary machinery to determine this question-the Supreme Court of Canada. It is the most competent body, I take it, to determine whether or not this legislation can be passed under the British North America Act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the hon. member not aware that I am in favour of passing the resolution referring certain matters to the Supreme court? My amendment does not affect that point. It is simply requesting the government to use what powers it already possesses.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: I will answer that
point in a minute. Therefore the committee, very rightly in my opinion, declared that this question should be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada under section 60 of the Supreme Court Act, which provides:
Important questions of law or fact, touching (b) the constitutionality or interpretation of any Dominion or provincial legislation; or (d) powers of the parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces or of the respective governments thereof, whether or not the particular power in question has been or is proposed to be executed.
This case is exactly covered by (d). Therefore the committee very properly said, "We cannot take that matter into our hands, but we will leave it to be determined by the Supreme Court of Canada under section 60 of the Supreme Court Act." And they passed a resolution to that effect, in these words:
It is accordingly recommended that measures be taken to refer the "Draft Convention limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week" to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration under section 60 of the Supreme Court Act together with such questions as will serve to secure an advisory judgment from the court on the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament and of the provincial legislatures, respectively.
This was absolutely correct and logical on the part of the committee; but not so the last paragraph in the report, wherein they say in effect, "Now, having referred the whole matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, we will take into our hands and decide a part of the same matter." I repeat, this action was entirely illogical. Consequently, at the final meeting of the committee that paragraph was struck out. Now, my hon. friend tries to revive that paragraph and to add something to it. I have not had time to study what is new in his amendment, in fact I have had no opportunity to read it carefully, but what in his amendment tends to revive the paragraph struck out by the committee is to my mind inconsistent with the decision of the committee to refer the whole matter to the Supreme court for adjudication, and therefore I shall vote against the amendment.

Industrial Relations


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The House has before it at the present time the report of the committee and an amendment to that report. The report, I take it, has been drafted in such form as in the .opinion of tihe members of the committee will in some way further the principle of the eight hour day, and to my mind any hon. member who supports the report will be supporting the broad principle that an eight hour day is a desirable condition to have prevailing in industry throughout the country, in so far as it relates to any matters with which this parliament may have to do. I make that statement because I hope hon. members will not feel that with respect to the principle the amendment does something other than the report itself does.
The League of Nations, which has considered this matter very carefully, has never thought it advisable to do other than indicate that, while the principle is most important, it should be applied by the parties concerned in the light of conditions as they may exist in the different countries, having regard for differences of conditions in different countries, in different industries, and in relation to varying situations. The broad principle of the application of the eight-hour day is embodied in the report of the committee, and it is to enable this parliament to appreciate more clearly exactly where its jurisdiction begins and ends in the matter that the committee are taking the first step necessary to have that settled once for all in the only manner in which these matters can be settled, namely, by judicial determina-tian in the last analysis.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the Prime Minister suggest that the federal parliament has not jurisdiction in respect to its own undertakings?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not for one
minute. I say to my hon. friend that it has the fullest jurisdiction.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then, why cannot we exercise that jurisdiction? That is all the amendment asks for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, the amendment goes very much further. If that were all the amendment sought to accomplish I would be prepared to discuss it much more fully. But the exception I take to the amendment is that it asks for the exercise of a control which no government in this country would for one moment think of permitting itself to be committed to. The amendment proceeds:
And further, that the government should submit to the House legislation declaring that such works as may be advisable should be for the general advantage of Canada.
Will my hon. friend name one class of works that he would bring within the scope of his own resolution and that to-day lie outside that scope which this government should declare to be for the general advantage of Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I have already mentioned one. Men are toiling, as I have said, on eleven and thirteen hour shifts down in the steel works of Nova Scotia. This government is quite free to send troops down to quell any trouble that arises, but it will not lift one little finger to relieve those men. Now, I say with regard to that, Mr. Prime Minister, if the government wishes to help those men, there is a way by which the British Empire Steel Company could be threatened and forced to give the eight hour day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very glad my hon. friend has given the statement in the language he has used because I think it helps to illustrate his method of reasoning. He says that this government is free to send troops down to deal with industrial problems in the steel works, but is not free to extend relief. I wish to say that this government is not free to send troops down to Nova Scotia. When tropps have gone there it has been at the instance of the municipality and the provincial government, not at the instance of this government at all. My hon. friend is entirely wrong when before the labouring people of this country he endeavours to hold this government responsible for something with which it has nothing whatever to do. That is exactly the method of proceeding he asks us to commit ourselves to in this amendment. He is saying that we should go into the provincial jurisdiction, take works that under the British North America Act are controlled according to the factory laws of a particular province, wrest those industries away from the province, declare them to be works for the general advantage of Canada and put into application respecting them whatever laws this parliament see fit to pass. Do hon. members think that the friends of labour are going to assist the cause of labour by provoking that kind of controversy between the provinces and the Dominion in these matters? That is what my hon. friend suggests in his amendment. I asked him to name one set of works to which he would apply that principle, and he mentioned the Sydney works. The Sydney works may be doing some work for the federal government. They are doing work for laree numbers of private industries, for the province of Nova Scotia and for other provinces and
Industrial Relations



concerns with which this government has nothing whatever to do. Yet my hon. friend says: Let this government, in virtue of its might, regardless altogether of its jurisdiction, ask parliament to legislate that these works, which are provincial works, be declared to be for the general advantage of Canada and thus be brought under the general jurisdiction of this parliament and this government. I say that any friend of labour who wishes to proceed in that way is taking a mistaken course, a course that is going to make far more difficult in the long run the general application of the principle of the eight-hour day. It is because I wish to see the principle of the eight-hour day made as widely applicable as possible that I should like to see Lis parliament proceed along a line that will neet with approval, along a line that can be defended every step of the way and which is not open to the kind of exception which can be taken to the amendment of my hon. friend.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the Prime
Minister be willing to accept the first clause in my amendment, where there is not the slightest doubt that the Dominion government has jurisdiction?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have already said that I favour the application of the principle to works which are controlled by this government, but the principle must be applied in the light of conditions as they are. If I wanted to make a literal application I would have to start with the eight-hour day and the forty-eight hour week ini relation to the employees of the Government Printing Bureau, who would then work four hours longer than they do now, because they work an eight-hour day and a forty-four hour week. The men working now on this very building are working an eight-hour day and a forty-four hour week. Does my hon. friend say that this government should make them work a forty-eight hour week, which would be along the line of his resolution?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think it is very
generally recognized that what is aimed at is the maximum-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is the hon. gentleman
asking a question?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. I would like to know whether the Prime Minister does not understand that what is aimed at is simply a maximum week?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point I am making is that in the application of the principle you have to have some regard to

the conditions that exist where you are trying to apply it. Here in Ottawa the civil servants generally get a forty-four hour week and the labourers and employees of the Printing Bureau therefore get a forty-four hour week. There may be some other places where a different condition prevails, and the government, seeking to protect its own employees, must have some regard to the relation of their work to other work in the communities in which they are located. All I am asking is that in the application of this principle we should be as reasonable in one direction as we are prepared to be in another. As a matter of fact, by the first clause of this amendment, as it will be read throughout this country, my hon. friend would create the impression that the direct employees of the government, or most of them, were not already on an eight-hour day basis. I think my hon. friend will find that all through this country those directly in the employ of the government, those in the government departments, are on an eight-hour day basis.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How about the
engineers in this building, who are working much longer hours and seven days in the week?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have stated
that there are individual trades that have practices that are in some respects different from those of others. There are considerations that relate to the nature of the occupation; there are seasonal occupations and the like, and what may be a good principle to apply at one time or to one class of employment or in one place may not be an equally good principle to apply at another time, to another class of employment or in another place. Would my hon. friend say, for example, that farm labour should be restricted to eight hours a day in the summer and during the winter as well? Or does he recognize that with respect to certain occupations, depending upon the seasons, upon the weather, upon geographical location, it is only reasonable that there must sometimes be a longer period of work and at other times a shorter period where you are trying to apply the one principle?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Is the House ready for
the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would

Industrial Relations
like to oblige hon. members by voting silently on this matter, but I do not think I would be doing my duty so to do. The question of the merits of the eight hour day is not now before parliament; indeed, it is not before this country. The eight hour day, as an objective to be worked for not by mere words but by acts and legislation, has been recognized in the Geneva convention, to which Canada is a party, to which Canada must be loyal and in respect to which she must show her loyalty by earnest efforts to reach the goal. Were the question of the merit of the eight hour day before us I would say this:
I am not an advocate of short hours in general ; I think we are overdone with short hours in many classes of occupations. But so far as the hard labour, the physical toil of the world is concerned, the effort of legislation should be to reduce the hours of labour there rather than the hours of labour in those clerical and lighter occupations where now it most prevails. I stated that we were bound to be loyal to the convention, bound to move as rapidly as we reasonably can be called upon to do. We did not bind ourselves in the convention to enforce the eight hour day without regard to what other countries did, without regard to special conditions of our own. But we did bind ourselves not merely to accept it as a vague principle and by words of loyalty to the principle to claim we are doing our duty, we bound ourselves to take every practical step we reasonably could to fix the eight hour day as a standard of living. I think the world's physical work can be done if an eight hour day should prevail throughout the universe. The advantages of machine production are such that this surely is possible, and it surely is the due of those who earn their living by the sweat of their brow. Now we have to decide whether we are doing our full duty or not, or, can we, by accepting what this amendment calls for, make a definite move to do more?
The amendment consists of two parts. But perhaps before speaking of the amendment I should speak of the motion, of the report itself. This report calls for submission of the question to the courts. I am not going to say there is not something to be submitted, although really I do not know myself what it is. I was not on the committee; there may be some twilight zone where there is doubt as to jurisdiction. But I really think the question of jurisdiction is very well determined. I would have been content to accept the Justice department's view as to where our jurisdiction ends and where that of the provinces commences. I have my own opinions and I do not know that they differ from those of others on this subject. However, if there is something still in doubt, if particularly the Justice department has doubt, I have no objection to the submission to the Supreme court. But the submission itself is not really any progress. It cannot be stated that by the submission we are taking any very effective step to carry out our undertaking.


Mr. MARTELL:: May I ask my right hon. friend a question, not for the purpose of interrupting him, but as a lawyer? Where does he think the power rests to enact an eight hour day, in the provinces or in the federal authorities?


Arthur Meighen: It rests certainly with the federal authorities so far as federal works are concerned. I do not know myself of any sphere where else it rests. I think the rest of the spheres are the provinces, and I never knew there was any real question of doubt in the matter. But there may be some clause as to which there is doubt, and if the Justice department so holds, the submission is right, but if the submission is merely for the purpose of delay, it is wrong.
The amendment then calls first, for the immediate enforcement without qualification of the eight hour day in all public works of the Dominion of Canada. I do not think we can immediately enforce the eight hour day in all public works. I do not know that I am convinced we are enforcing it where we should. We certainly are bound by our obligations under the Geneva convention to enforce it everywhere we reasonably can. Now then, are we doing so, for example, on the Welland canal? The minister says he does not dispute at all that we have jurisdiction there. We certainly have the legal power in this parliament, indeed, the government itself has the power to limit the hours of the work on the Welland canal to eight hours a day. But the minister says that would upset the equilibrium in the district, and especially, he cites, the Chippewa canal, which is being constructed indirectly under provincial control. He states that if we were to enforce the eight hour day on the Welland canal the effect on the labourers on the Chippewa canal would be such that it would be unfair to the province.


James Murdock: If my right hon. friend will pardon me, he is mistaken in making any such statement, and just to clear his mind I will repeat what I did say. Under the fair wage resolution which his government had in effect, and under which the contracts on the Weddanl ship canal were let,-contracts Nos. 1, 2 and 3,-at least, the provision was that the current wages and hours of labour should govern in the employment of workmen. In the application of that principle on the Wei-
Industrial Relations

land canal I stated that you must, of necessity, take into consideration the wage rate and hours of service for the various classes of employees working on the Chippewa or HydroElectric ditch, in order to arrive at what would be the current wages and hours to be applied on the Welland ship canal.


Arthur Meighen: I quite agree the minister said that, but I understood him to go further. If he went no further than he states now, he merely says that because the contract of the company enables them to observe only current hours and current wages, consequently by the contractor's contractual right, the government has no right to interfere and reduce the hours. I quite agree. If contracts are let under which the terms are that the contractor is bound only by what prevail in the district as to wages and hours, than we must certainly yield him his rights under his contract. But this government has let contracts since, and they have inserted the same old clause, so if they wanted the eight hour day in those contracts they could have provided for it. Do not understand me as saying they should have done so, but the minister cannot get away from his responsibility by saying W|e are bound by contracts we did not give.


James Murdock: I have never undertaken to do so.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has taken the ground that he would not be justified in enforcing the eight hour day in new contracts which this government has made on the Welland canal, and I understood his reasons to be that if he enforced the eight hour day, then, having regard to other conditions prevailing in the neighbourhood, it would be unfair to those who wanted to have their workmen work longer.


James Murdock: I said it might be so held.


Arthur Meighen: It would never be so held legally.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend suggest that it would be in the interests of the application of the eight hour day to have two sets of workmen on government contracts, one working on one scale of hours, and another on another scale?


Arthur Meighen: I have not said so. I have only tried to say that that is the minister's defence, but he interrupted me and tried to say that he was bound by contracts to yield the contractor's right to the eight hour day. The real reason this clause is in the contract is, as intimated finally by the minister, and again by the Prime Minister, that the govem-
ment does not feel they would be justified, not in law, but as a matter of policy-for the law certainly would never interfere-in inserting in their contracts provision for the eight hour day while on provincial and private works in the neighhbourhood longer hours prevail. Now I think the House will see I was pretty fair in my statement of the matter in the first place. This is the real basis: Whether, as a matter of policy, we ought to do it. We are certainly under no restraint at law, and nobody would suggest it.


James Murdock: Nobody has, on this side of the House.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I hope not. We
are certainly under no restraint at law; it is merely a matter of policy; we have the right to it if we will. I do not know but that we ought to review the subject and see if it is possible to go further than we have gone. I know we went just the distance that this government has gone: I am not arguing that we took any different course at all, but I do not think we will be able permanently to stand behind those ramparts and argue that though we have committed ourselves to the eight-hour-day principle ourselves, and bound ourselves to work toward it, we cannot work toward it on our own works for the sole reason that it is likely to disturb other works. It seems to me we have to consider very seriously in the not distant future whether we should either get from under the Labour Convention to which we are now bound, or go some further distance in regard to our own public works.
But the first clause of this amendment is not the only one. The last clause makes it utterly impossible for me to support the amendment, utterly impossible to consider supporting it. The last clause calls for a policy of declaring, under the British North America Act, certain works to be for the general advantage of Canada, describing them as "such as may be advisable," and so declaring them for one definite purpose, the purpose of enabling us to dictate the hours of work which such works and undertakings shall adopt. I do not think this second part has been very fully considered. We have power, it is true, under the British North America Act, to look at any work in this Dominion and declare it to be for the general advantage of Canada, but our only right to exercise that power is because parliament is of the view that Dominion jurisdiction for the good of the whole people is essential. We have no right to so decide because we think our opinion on the eight hour day is better than the opinion of the province. We have no right in the world to

Industrial Relations
invade jurisdiction where provincial jurisdiction is clear, and do so under the guise of declaring this work or that for the general advantage of Canada. To do so would be the grossest abuse of the powers of this House, and I would not for one moment consider any such suggestion, no matter from what side of the House it emanated. This expresses my general idea of a most embarrassing question, and I give it, not in any spirit of criticism, but merely as my understanding of what this country is pledged to under the Geneva convention, and as well of what we are pledged to keep away from under our obligations as a party to the contract of confederation.


Mr. R. A. HOEY (Springfield):: I have not read the amendment nor have I heard it read; consequently I am speaking under a disadvantage. I took the position in the committee, and moved an amendment to the effect, that inasmuch as we had been a party to the Treaty of Versailles and had re-endorsed the principle of the eight hour day at Washington, we ought, if we would escape the charge of evasion and hypocrisy, to carry out that principle with respect to our own undertakings. That amendment was carried in committee, but at a later meeting it was deleted.


Mr. McDONALD (Timiskaming):: By how many votes was the amendment of the hon. member carried in the committee?


Robert Alexander Hoey: I do not remember the numbers of the vote; it is not of particular importance at this time. As to the second section of the amendment, I opposed it in committee. Apart altogether from the legal objections to which the leader of the opposition has referred, to me it seems a most vicious demand. If we declared certain works to be for the general advantage of Canada we should be showing discrimination. That is to say, if we declared the British Empire Steel Corporation a work for the general advantage of Canada the eight hour day would apply there. On the other hand if an industry immediately adjoining it were not so declared, the latter could work ten or twelve hours. That would appear to me to be discrimination. Now, let us suppose that owing to the application of the eight-hour-day law the British Empire Steel Corporation became financially embarrassed. Or let us suppose the farm implement industry, being declared a work for the general advantage of Canada, became financially embarrassed for a similar reason. Look at the position we are placing ourselves in. Could these industries not come to parliament and say?-"We were declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada, consequently we have a
peculiar claim upon parliament for protection for subsidies". Or the claim might be advanced in a thousand and one ways. I think if the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) had been really anxious, after his experience in the committee, to further the principle of the eight hour day he would have dropped the second part of the amendment and submitted only the first part to parliament for consideration and en-dorsation.


Arthur Meighen: Let me add something
which I overlooked in my early remarks. The mere fact that a work was declared a work for the general advantage of Canada would not give jurisdiction to fix the hours of labour on that work.


Robert Alexander Hoey: No, not necessarily.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In order that it
may be rendered possible to take some action on this matter I ask that my amendment should be withdrawn.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to withdraw his amendment?
Some hon. MEMBERS Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: The question now is on
the main motion.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Do I understand that
the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg has withdrawn the whole amendment?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


William Irvine: I move that the report be referred back to the committee with instructions to add the following words:
It is further recommended that the government should limit the hours on Dominion works and undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member having already spoken cannot move this amendment. The question is on the main motion.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: As I have not yet spoken, and as I believe the application of the principle laid down in the first clause of the amendment of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg would be an excellent one and would be an incentive to other provinces to adopt the principle which has been sanctioned by the Geneva convention and by many other states in the world, I have pleasure in moving the amendment
Industrial Relations

which Mr. Speaker has just received. In support thereof may I quote from a report issued by the Labour Department in 1923, page 17. Where I find the following in reference to the action of the United States in this matter:
Bv a law passed in 1868, the United States Congress provided that eight hours should constitute a day's work for alii labourers, workmen and mechanics who might be employed by or on behalf of the government of the United States. This act failed to prohibit agreements for overtime work and was ineffective in actually reducing the hours of any considerable number of government employees.


Thomas Vien: I rise to a point of order.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at three o'clock.
Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at one o'clock, I had proposed an amendment. I wish at the outset to say that I am going to take only one or two moments in this matter as there was the fullest discussion this forenoon. I was referring to the fact that in the United States the whole principle as suggested in this amendment had already been adopted. I had quoted the legislation of 1868, which was improved in 1892 and the law made more effective. I will not go on and quote the entire extract, but I will refer simply to the various ways in which it gradually evolved. In 1912 an act was passed requiring that provision for an eight hour day be inserted in all contracts which might involve the employment of labourers and clerks when made by, for or an behalf of the federal government in the territories or the District of Columbia. Exception was made to contracts for transportation by land or water, for the transmission of intelligence, or for the purchase of supplies which could be bought in the open market, except armour and armour plate. Provision was also made for "emergencies caused by fire, famine or flood, by danger to life or property or by any other extraordinary event or condition." In 1913, apparently the whole circle was completed by the inclusion of dredging and rock-excavating in rivers and harbours, these works being brought under the operation of the new law. The act was suspended temporarily during the war. With some exceptions, all employees engaged on federal public works have an eight hour day and also all persons employed on public printing. That policy has been adopted in that great country to the south of us where industrial conditions are said by some hon. members to 
my right and, indeed, by some opposite, to be such as to result in serious competition with this country. Without any further delay in the matter, as the principle of the first portion of the amendment of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg, (Mr. Woodsworth) this morning appeared to me to meet with fairly general approval in this House, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), qpeaking in favour of it, I have pleasure in repeating the amendment that I moved:
That, the report be referred back to the committee with instructions to add the following words to the
said report:
"It, is further recommended that the government shouild limit the hours on Dominion works and undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week."


Hewitt Bostock: In my opinion, the
amendment of the hon. member is out of order. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, paragraph 428, on page 113, reads:
Occasionally a motion or amendment is, by leave,
withdrawn-
As was done this morning.
-and another motion or amendment substituted, in order to meet the views of the House, as expressed in debate: But that course can only be taken with the general assent of the House.
The amendment now moved is an exact reproduction, with the exception of the last paragraph of the amendment which was moved this morning by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), and which was withdrawn by leave of the House. The amendment should have been drafted in this way that the last part of the former amendment be struck out. This amendment could be put only by leave of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary):	Mr. Speaker, you will notice that according to paragraph 428, to which you have referred, it is intended to withdraw a motion or an amendment for the purpose of substituting another one, and if you are going to substitute another one, of course you must get the consent of the House. I would, however, direct Your Honour's attention to the fact that paragraph 430 reads:
An amendment which has been withdrawn, or which, for want of a seconder, has not been put, can be moved again. For this reason, leave to withdraw is frequently refused.
Again, paragraph 431 reads:
In case a motion has been withdrawn it may be again proposed as the House has not previously determined the question, and it is only in the latter event that the same question may not be revised.

Pensions
In other words, where you want to substitute a motion for an existing motion, or an amendment for an existing amendment, of course the consent of the House must be secured; but when an amendment has been withdrawn, it has not been disposed of by the House and, consequently, the motion or amendment may in that event be moved again.


Hewitt Bostock: If the amendment had
been moved in full, it might have been so moved again by leave of the House, but in the present instance it is a repetition of the first part of the amendment; there is no leave of the House and this is attempting to do indirectly what could not be done directly. Under these circumstances, I rule the amendment out of order. The question is now on the main motion.
Motion (Mr. Kennedy, Edmonton) agreed to.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Mr. Speaker, in order
to clarify the record I wish to move:
That the motion adopted by this House on the seventeenth instant with respect to the message to the Senate disagreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the Bill No. 04, an act respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from the end of China Clay Branch to St. Remi d'Amherst, in the province of Quebec, be rescinded, and the following substituted therefor:
"Resolved, that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House agrees to the first and second of their amendments to the Bill No. 64, an act respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from the end of China Clay branch to St. Remi d'Amherst, in the province of Quebec, but disagrees to the third of their amendments to the said bill, for the following reasons:
That the reduction from $105,000 to $59,500 of the amount to be expended on the total mileage and from $52,500 to $29,750 per mile renders it impossible to proceed with this work as the estimate in detail will show, and that the Clerk do carry the said message to the Senate."
Arthur Meighen: Will the minister tell us the effect of the two amendments that we now adopt?


Mr. GRAHAM:: In making the objection
to the amendment passed by the Senate the matter was wrongly stated in the motion adopted yesterday. The Senate has dealt with it as if it were the description that was intended to be made, and this is merely to correct the record of the House of Commons.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has missed my question, I think, or I have missed his reply. The previous motion was a motion to
reject the amendments; now we accept two and reject the third. I asked the effect of the two we accept.


George Perry Graham: The effect of the two we accept is really to prevent the construction of the road until such time as assurance is received that the subsidy that was granted by the Quebec legislature to another company would become due on account of the construction of this line.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I beg to
move:
That the second report of the special committee appointed to consider questions relating to pensions, insurance and re-establishment of returned soldiers be now concurred in.
He said:	Before the motion is disposed of
I desire to bring to the attention of the House some general considerations regarding the work of the committee, of which I had the honour to be chairman. On the 15th day of April of the present year this House resolved :
That a special committee be appointed to consider questions relating to pensions, insurance and re-establishment of returned soldiers, and any amendments to existing laws in relation thereto which may be proposed or considered necessary by the committee, with power to send for persons, papers and records, etc.
This committee comprising 29 members commenced its sittings in the beginning of May. It held 29 sittings and the evidence which it heard covers more than 500 pages. During the month of May the first report of the committee was submitted to parliament asking that the quorum of the committee be reduced to 9 members. That first report was concurred in by the House and thereafter the quorum consisted of 9. In the course of its deliberations the committee received several deputations and heard a good many witnesses. The first deputation which waited upon the committee represented the Amputations Association of Canada and they were heard on the 8th. The committee was exceedingly pleased to receive these gentlemen and assured them that whatever lay in its power would be done to meet the just and equitable demands which they made. Twenty-five witnesses were heard, and among the subjects which were considered the Soldier Settlement Act of 1919 was examined in all its various aspects. The chairman of the Soldier Settlement Board, Major Barnett appeared before the committee and was ex-
Pensions

amined extensively regarding the activities of the board. He was invited to offer suggestions and in this respect he was assisted by Mr. S. Maber, the acting chairman. On June 5 a motion was made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) with a view to providing for relief to soldiers who had settled on the land, and on June 13 another motion to the same effect was brought forward by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw). I shall not comment on these motions at the present time inasmuch as the determination of the committee concerning them will be under review by the House later on when concurrence is moved in the fourth report of the committee.
The committee examined into the Pension Act and amendments proposed thereto and in that connection received evidence from Col. Thompson, the chairman of the Board of Pension Commissioners. Mr. Newcombe, the Deputy Minister of Justice, was examined regarding the drafting of the " meritorious " clause, and other witnesses whose evidence was taken included Dr. Kee, the Assistant Chief Medical Adviser to the Board of Pension Commissioners, and Mr. J. A. Paton, the secretary. I need not tell the House that the activities of the pension board are quite numerous and a good many people are given pensions under the Pension Act. The amount spent under that act is enormous and for that reason the committee deemed it wise to give every possible consideration to the amendments which were proposed.
Last year as a result of complaints on the part of returned soldiers an act was passed creating what is known as the Federal Appeal Board, whose function it is to revise the judgments of the Board of Pension Commissioners, Major Topp, the secretary of the Appeal Board, Colonel Belton, the chairman, and Mr. C. B. Reilly, the vice-chairman, were invited to appear before the committee. They did so and gave evidence regarding the activities of the Appeal Board, offering at the same time suggestions as to how the law might be amended to advantage. The committee then inquired into the general activities of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and evidence was heard from Mr. N. F. Parkinson, the Deputy Minister and Mr. S. H. Scammell, the Assistant Deputy Minister.
'So much for the officials who were asked to appear before the committee. The returned soldiers themselves were not lost sight of; the committee saw to it that they were represented from among their own number and they submitted certain suggestions for conrMr. J. J. Denis.]
sideration. As I said a moment ago, we were happy to receive a deputation from the Amputations Association; that body was represented by Messrs, Myers, Dobbs, Lyons, Lambert and Miss Joffrey, and stated their case quite clearly. I must not forget to mention that certain members of parliament and senators also appeared before the committee. We had the pleasure of hearing from Senator Major-General Griesbach, Mr. W. G. McQuarrie, the member for New Westminster and Mr. T. L. Church, the member for North Toronto, who all made suggestions which in their opinion were likely to afford relief to the returned men. The returned soldiers were more particularly represented by Mr. C. Grant MacNeil, the secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association, who gave evidence at considerable length, touching upon the various subjects regarding the welfare of returned soldiers. He made numerous suggestions some of which were gone into; the committee did not consider it necessary however to investigate certain others in view of the fact that the same or similar suggestions had been brought forward from other sources in connection with other phases of the investigation.
Regarding the Land Settlement Act, the committee heard the evidence of Major McPherson, representing the Great War Veterans of Regina, Mr. Alexander Walker, representing the Great War Veterans of Calgary, and Mr. A. E. Moore, representing the Veterans of Winnipeg. These gentlemen gave valuable information which assisted the committee to a large extent in reaching its conclusions. In the interests of the Tuberculous Veterans' Association, Mr. E. S. B. Hind, Dominion Secretary Treasurer of that organization appeared before the committee and was examined.
The activities of the Board of Pension Commissioners were inquired into and on July 3 the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Humphrey), a member of the committee, made a motion for the purpose of removing the Board of Pension Commissioners. To that motion there was an amendment moved by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Black) and a third amendment was brought forward by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman).
All the witnesses were reecived by the committee most sympathetically. One can hardly realize the situation of our returned soldiers unless one has the advantage of sitting on this committee and learning at first hand many details which never reach the public.

Pensions
The committee dealt with the various matters brought before it-all relating to returned soldiers but dealing with different phases-in separate reports, six of which are now before 'the House. I am moving concurrence in the second report. In preparing material for these divers reports the committee has been impressed with the magnitude of the undertaking involved in carrying out the re-establishment provisions as laid down from time to time by the government. It has also been impressed with the large volume of work entailed in continuing this re-establishment six years after the conclusion of the war. These two features are of such importance and of such general interest as to warrant a statement concerning them.
The work of re-establishmemt of ex-members of the Canadian military and naval forces is carried on by two main agencies of the government-the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and the Soldier Settlement Board. The Board of Pensions Commissioners and the Federal Appeal Board are entirely judicial bodies. The number of loans now being issued by the Soldier Settlement Board is practically negligible. In order to present to the House within a small compass the activities of these boards I have had prepared a summary of the detailed accounts. For instance, the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment expended on pensions to March 31, 1924, including pensions paid by the Board of Pension Commissioners prior to the date of amalgamation, $336,810,014.20; on war service gratuities approximately $165,000,000; on loans issued under the land settlement $100,325,851.34; on the return of dependents from overseas approximately $2,960,000. These various expenditures give a grand total of $604,795,865.54.
I wish to thank the members of the committee for according me .the honour of the chairmanship. When the committee sat two years ago its chairman was the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Mar-ler), who discharged the onerous duties very ably indeed, and it was a matter of regret to us all that he was unable to continue to act as chairman because of the enormous amount of work which the position involved and which he had not the time to give attention to. As his successor I have had an opportunity to appreciate the magnitude of the work which the hon. gentleman imposed upon himself. I have also to thank the members of the committee for their very generous support. Our transactions have been most cordial and absolutely free from political
feeling; in fact every one of us apparently forgot his party affiliations and had but one object in view, to do his best to give the returned soldier full justice and to present to this House amendments to legislation dealing with returned soldiers which would 'be commensurate with their needs and with the capacity of the country to pay. I wish to thank the officials of the different departments who gave generous help, and particularly do I wish to do that as chairman of the committee. I wish to pay a special tribute to the Deputy Minister of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, Mr. Parkinson. His department is being conducted in a businesslike and intelligent manner. I have heard no complaints about the way that work is done and I cannot speak too highly of his ability and devotion to duty.
In conclusion I wish to say a word with regard to the returned men. If I should say that what they have done cannot be estimated in figures, my voice would be but the feeble echo of many other voices which have expressed the same feeling but much more eloquently than I can. The returned soldiers have the gratitude of this country and they deserve it. True, the country is passing through a financial crisis and this we only share with all other countries which were involved in the Great War. Nevertheless the returned soldier is also passing through a crisis and it is all the more serious to him because of the fact that his ability to earn his living has in a great many cases been considerably diminished. We must not forget that the man who left this country for four or five years and returned after the war was tremendously handicapped so far as earning power is concerned, and for that reason he deserves the very best consideration on the part of the government. Those who were disabled are receiving pensions which I hope are reasonable and commensurate with their needs and with the capacity of the country to
pay.	_____
Questions of very great importance were brought before the committee. Sweeping recommendations were made. We have not adopted all those recommendations but we have adopted those which we thought could be carried without inflicting too heavy a burden upon the country. If I were to summarize in two or three words the action of the committee, particularly as to the recommendations made with regard to the returned men, I might be allowed to quote the words of one who was a great soldier and a great statesman in the republic to the south of us: I refer to Theodore Roosevelt. He was a man of
Pensions

eloquence and he had the facility of coining phrases. One phrase that he coined and that will always remain part of the English language was the expression "a square deal". When Theodore Roosevelt said that men had received a square deal he meant that they had been done justice. To him a square deal meant justice in the fullest sense of the word. So I say to the returned soldiers, to parliament and to the country that our committee have done their best to give the returned men a square deal and I do not think the returned men themselves are asking for more than that. Motion agreed to.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by Mr. Humphrey, that the third report of the special Committee on Pensions, Insurance and Re-establishment of Returned Soldiers be concurred in. This report simply has reference to school taxes on salvaged lands. It is not a very important matter.


Arthur Meighen: I have already entered
my objection to this rapid-fire acceptation of reports. Really it is making a burlesque of parliament. We are not doing our duties. We cannot decide on courses in just a few minutes, and we have not time now, I know, to discuss the matter fully. It seems to me that the practice of having committees and reports has been overdone. But, aside from that question, any reports that are brought in now, seeing that the close of parliament is virtually fixed, should not be submitted for acceptance. I say this without taking any exception to this special report, because really I do not know what it means; I do not know the whole effect of others that have gone before.


Jean-Joseph Denis: This report was
tabled on Tuesday, and the motion for concurrence was then made. The report is regularly before the House now.


Arthur Meighen: Tuesday is not very
long ago. The report was tabled on Tuesday, it is true, but how do we know what reports are going to be moved adoption of, and what not? What I abject to is the practice of having policies initiated and determined in this House by the one single act of the motion to adopt a report.


Ernest Lapointe: It is not a peculiarity
of mine to agree with my right hon. friend in many instances, but I must say that I endorse his remarks in this regard to the fullest extent. [Mr. J. J. Denis.l


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think probably as a rule, I am even less inclined than my colleague to agree with my right hon. friend opposite, but in this particular instance I am entirely in accord with his point of view.


Mr. L. W. HUMPHREY (West Kootenay):: I believe we should have another point of view presented with respect to the committee's report. I am thoroughly in accord with the views that have been expressed by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and others, but I would like to say that the chairman of the committee on Pensions, Insurance and Re-establishment of returned soldiers, and the members of that committee, have endeavoured to do the very best they could under the circumstances. There were very many important questions to be discussed before a report could be made, and in the time at the committee's disposal practically the only way open to them was to bring in separate reports. I believe that if this committee had been appointed earlier in the session, which would have given them more time to hear and analyze the evidence presented, we could have had a more full discussion. If there is any fault to be found with the bringing in of different reports, it is due to the fact that the committee was not appointed and therefore could not get busy until late in the session. It was not until May that the committee was able to hear evidence, and the reason why the committee's reports have been coming in separately is the shortness of time at their disposal, and the need, as the committee believed of getting the reports down to the House as early as possible.


Arthur Meighen: I hope the House will
permit me to make myself clear. I am not criticising the conduct of the committee, nor am I criticising the report; at the moment,
I am not criticising the lateness of its being brought before the House. The principle I am trying to state is this; that reports foreshadowing legislation should be used in this House for the information and guidance of the government in determining what legislation it shall introduce, and, as well, by hon. members in the treatment of that legislation after it is introduced. These reports should not be flung into the forum of parliament and asked ro be accepted holus-bolus after one debate. And this is doubly true as the end of session approaches.


Henri Sévérin Béland: As regards the
appointment of the committee, it was not

Pensions
asked for until about the end of March, and the committee was appointed before Easter, which may be considered quite an early date in the present session. So much for the appointment of the committee.
As far as the presenting of reports from committees to the House is concerned I am inclined to agree with the right hon. leader of the opposition. In one particular instance, in the case of the second report of this committee, its recommendations involve very considerable and very important legislation, and it seems to me that we cannot expect the House to accept, without a very extended discussion and careful consideration, a report which involves a financial liability to the extent of millions of dollars. When the motion was made on Tuesday last to concur in the second report of this committee which had to do mainly with amendments to the Pension Act, the right hon. leader of the opposition suggested that we lay aside the report for the time being, and that the government consider what legislation they were in a position to bring down, and then introduce it, when it could be discussed completely and the judgment of the House be passed upon it. That course I readily decided to accept, and the second report of the committee, which deals mainly with pensions, was laid aside. The legislation was prepared and introduced, and was discussed and passed in due course. This, I think, should be done in every case where the exchequer of the country is to be committed to a substantial expenditure. As far as this report is concerned, I do not know whether it involves what some hon. members have said, as it does not come under my department, but the principle ought to be accepted by this House that no report of a committee should be concurred in without the fullest consideration and an extended discussion in all cases where the treasury of the country is to be committed to a large expenditure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jean-Joseph Denis: I move that the
fourth report of the special committee on Pensions, Insurance and Re-establishment of returned soldiers be now concurred in. I shall not speak on this motion, leaving the explanation to the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw).


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil) (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization) :: This report involves the expenditure of a very considerable amount of money.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How much?


Charles A. Stewart: It is very
difficult to say just how much, but I think in the neighbourhood of $38,000,000. I have every confidence in the members of the committee who have been entrusted with the arduous task of hearing and analyzing the evidence presented by the returned men, and bring in a report. This report applies only to soldier settlers. I knqw the committee have given the matter a great deal of consideration, and that they have heard a great deal of evidence with respect to it. I also know that a very serious situation exists in so far as the soldier settlers are concerned. But what I wish to state before I go further is this:	I regret that I did not become
acquainted with what was to be the report of the committee until I accepted the position of Acting Minister of Immigration on the departure of Hon. Mr. Robb for the Old Country. So that I came upon the scene at a very late date. Perhaps I had better read, for the sake of clarity the recommendations of the committee, which are to be found in the Votes and Proceedings of July 15. They are as follows:
Your committee recommends as follows:-
1.	That the Soldier Settlement Board shall immediately make -provision for reduction on the price of all live stock advanced to soldier settlers and purchased prioT to the 1st of October, 1921, as follows:-
(a) If such live stock was purchased previous to the 1st October, 1920, a reduction of 60 per cent of the purchase price thereof.
(b)	If the said live stock was purchased after the 1st of October, 1920, and previous to the 1st of October, 1921, a reduction of 40 per cent of the purchase price thereof.
2.	That the period of interest exemption provided in section 1 of the amendments to the soldiers' Settlement Act of 28th June, 1922, be extended until the 1st of October, 1934.
3.	Your committee further recommends that, in the event of any prepayment of principal the soldier settlers shall be entitled to and shall receive a discount at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from the date of such prepayment to the due date of same, but this discount privilege shall not extend beyond the 1st of October, 1934.
4.	Your committee further recommends that the
Soldier Settlement Board shall have discretionary power to relocate bona fide soldier settlers who are found to be located upon manifestly unsuitable farms; such relocation to be made without financial loss to the
settlers.
5.	If after the interest exemption period provided for herein expires, a capital loss is clearly indicated, the question as to whether the government shall bear the whole or part of the loss can then be determined and if decided affirmatively appropriate action can then be taken for a readjustment on any instalment remaining unpaid.
Now, I have a statement from Mr. Maber that clause 1 involves-


Henri Sévérin Béland: Who is Mr. Maber?
Pensions


Charles A. Stewart: The secretary; I believe at the moment he is acting chairman. I have a statement from him that clause 1 of the recommendations will involve a capital reduction of $7,700,000; that the extension of the interest payment period which is now in effect will involve a further amount of some twenty odd millions-I have not the exact figures at hand but that is about what it will amount to-and that the removal of the settlers, in which I heartily concur, will involve an expenditure of three or four hundred thousand dollars. I do not want to go into an involved discussion of the matter, but having talked it over with the committee and with Mr. Maber, it is pointed out to me that the evidence all goes to establish that in so far as the live stock is concerned-purchased and given to the soldiers within the period mentioned-there is an actual reduction of sixty per cent over the prices prevailing as against those established in 1921. That being the fact I am not disposed to take serious objection to that adjustment, I believe, however, from what I have been able to gather-and I must confess that it has only been from the committee and the Soldier Settlement Board itself with whom I have not been associated for over a year-that a serious state of affairs seems to exist with respect to the extension of the interest payment period; but notwithstanding the fact that the ample evidence taken seems to establish the fact that something will have to be done to maintain these men on the land if they are to remain there- and 81 per cent of them are still on the land- and to render them more assistance in this direction-I do not believe that at this time we should undertake to accept the finding of the committee with respect to the extension of the interest payment period as suggested in clause 2 of the recommendation we are discussing. If I felt that the effect would be serious for the present year I would recommend that the soldiers concerned be given some relief, but the amendment to the act of 1922 provides that interest payments are suspended on all three classes: On the first class up to October 1, 1924 of this year; on the second class up to October, 1925; and on the third class up to October, 1926. All I am proposing now is that the report of the committee be amended. Next year when this matter has been fully dealt with, and when the government has had a chance to make an examination into the situation-we can take the necessary action. I wish to say that so far as I have been able to ascertain the committee have ably dealt with matters appertaining 
to the soldier up to date, and it is not my intention on behalf of the govem-
4	p.m. ment to interfere with that committee. But I do think, particularly in view of the fact that in a former report there was a reduction of interest amounting to some $11,000,000 all told; that under the bill of Hon. Mr. Beland we have made certain pensions permanent which will involve adding to the pension list $6,000,000; and have made further provision,-we might well take the recess to thoroughly study this matter and prepare to give it further consideration at the next session of parliament. I urge this particularly in view of the fact that the soldiers themselves, even if these recommendations were adopted, would not be any more advantageously situated than they will be by the provisions in force under the amendment of 1922. For that reason I move:
That the following words be added to the motion: "With the exception of paragraph 2 thereof."
That means the acceptance of the balance of the report.


Arthur Meighen: It will be recalled that
this session, certainly last session, and I think the session previous, I raised a point of order before this House as to motions initiated by private members which, if adopted, really bound the House to the expenditure of money. I felt it was necessary for me to do this for the protection of parliament from just such a condition of affairs as now faces us. It will also be recalled that Your Honour ruled that if the motion took the form of a pious aspiration and not a motion by direct words to spend the money, it might be tolerated, at least, in parliament. It seems to me that this course which we then launched upon has brought us into the morass in which we find ourselves now. I take exception again, and I raise the point, that the motion before the House is out of order and that, conse-quentljq there can be no amendment to it. The motion before the House is to adopt the report, and if after adopting the report, the will of parliament as expressed in accepting the motion is carried out, it will involve this country in an expenditure of $38,000,000 or the whole amount of our revenue not many years ago. The government alone can be responsible for initiating in this House anything which, if accepted, involves expenditure.
* Mr. SHAW:	The right hon. member says
that this will involve an expenditure. It really does not involve an expenditure; it involves a loss; the expenditure has already been made.

Home Bank


Arthur Meighen: It is the same thing. It makes it a money transaction. The same effect is produced and the same principle applies. Let me make my position very clear. I took the action I did a year ago, two years ago, out of regard for a principle which I consider important in the conduct of public affairs. I take it now for the same reason, and certainly not in hostility to any single line of the whole report. No one knows more acutely, indeed more distressingly, than I do how the difficult times into which agriculture has come have reacted upon the returned soldiers upon the land. I do not think they have suffered more than others; the only fact is that they started further back than others and, consequently, the agricultural depression has come most heavily upon them. Nevertheless, we are not going to remedy their situation by the adoption of this report. We can remedy their situation, if it is one that calls for remedy and to which remedy is applicable, only by legislation initiated by the government. I think the Speaker would be well advised to have the motion ruled out or order. That does not in any way dispose of the question, but it leaves the matter in such shape that the government can review the report, and having regard for the whole general condition of the country, initiate in a constitutional way such reforms as may be advisable.


Hewitt Bostock: I hold very strong views
equally on the question raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). I even took notes the other day on a similar point which did not come up because the question was left in abeyance. I have not them by me just now. If the motion is allowed to stand, a little later on I shall be able to give a decision.
Motion stands.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I hope there will be no opposition to the motion which I will now make. This morning I tabled the last report of this committee, the report asking simply that the proceedings be printed and be made part of the papers of the House. I therefore move that the sixth report of this committee be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon.   GEORGE@: P. GRAHAM (Acting
Minister of Finance) moved the first reading 302
of Bill No. 263 (from the Senate) to amend the Bank Act by changing the name of La Banque D'Hochelaga to "Banque Canadienne Nationale".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Thomas Langton Church: What action, if any, does the government propose to take regarding the resolution passed by this House last night in reference to some aid to the Home Bank depositors on compassionate grounds.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the House is aware the report of the Banking committee which deals with the matter just referred to was passed unanimously last night. There are two significant clauses in that report. One reads:
Your committee consider that the facts therein brought out and the evidence therein referred to clearly establish that the depositors of the Home Bank have no claim under the law of the land for compensation by the country on account of any loss they may suffer by Teason of the failure of the Home Bank.
The concluding paragraph reads:
Your committee consider that the facts brought out in the interim report submitted by Mr. Chief Justice McKeown, and the evidence therein referred to, establish that the depositors of the Home Bank have a moral claim in equity for compensation by the country on account of any loss they may suffer by reason of the failure of the Home Bank.
The government will take into very careful consideration the report which has been accepted unanimously by this House, and at the opening of next session will make an immediate announcement to the House as to the extent to which in their opinion parliament should be asked to recognize the moral claim which in the report it is stated the depositors of the bank have in the circumstances. I think it is desirable, before the government makes a final statement on the matter, that it should be in a position to give to parliament in very full detail and as nearly in a final form as possible what amount will be involved in any recognition of the claims of the depositors. The report, as will be observed, states that the claim is a moral claim in equity for compensation by the country on account of any loss the depositors may suffer by reason of the failure of the Home Bank. I should hope that by the opening of another session the liquidator would be in a position to indicate more clearly than is possible just

Home Bank

now to what extent the present assets are likely to be realized upon, so that the government may have before it sufficient information upon which to give parliament a full statement not only of the motives which may have governed it in its action, but of all that its action may necessarily involve.


Thomas Langton Church: Is it the intention of the government to introduce during this present session any legislation in the matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will have gathered from my remarks, if he heard them, that it is not the intention of the government at this session to introduce any legislation.


Mr. ANDERSON:: In the opinion of the
Prime Minister is the double liability of the stock regarded as part of the assets of the Home Bank?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no
opinion to express at the moment regarding the question; I shall have to consider all that is involved before undertaking to reply.


Robert King Anderson: Will the Prime Minister give any consideration to a measure to be brought down at the next session of parliament to provide for compensation to depositors of the defunct Farmers' Bank who lost money in the same way?


William Irvine: In view of the fact that the question of the Home Bank depositors is one of urgent public importance I would move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the necessity for immediate action by the government with a view to reimbursing those who have lost their money.


Hewitt Bostock: Ample opportunity was
afforded last evening for the discussion of the subject. The report of the committee having been laid upon the Table, a motion was made for concurrence and was carried unanimously. I am afraid I should have to rule the motion out of order.


Mr. SHAW:: A moral responsibility on the government or on parliament must I think be considered in the light of a legal responsibility on any one else, and on this principle I would ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be possible for him to devise some means by which he could provide a partial compensation to the depositors of the Home Bank, or otherwise give some assurance before the end of the session that something will be done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It seems to me that in deciding what moral responsibility
	,
involves, the government is assuming, in that decision itself, a grave responsibility. The government will wish to consider the matter very carefully before making any final statement to parliament concerning it. There is no opportunity at the present time for the government to weigh the situation sufficiently in order to be in a position to make any definite pronouncement, but I have made it clear that as soon as parliament reassembles a statement will be made. In saying that, I think I am going as far as the government should be expected to go in the circumstances.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to be
taken as agreeing with all that has been said with respect to the motion of last night. I am one of those who feel with the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) that a moral obligation, if such exists, has the same binding force on parliament, and to the same extent, as a legal obligation. But I hope, in view of the protests I have made repeatedly this week, that it will not be held that any one who does not speak on a motion to adopt any of these many reports is necessarily acquiescing in every finding of the report. This I think is the only frank stand to take before the House. It must not be interpreted as opposition to any relief which parliament in the future, or now for that matter, may consider it advisable to make.



FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Burrard):: In view of
the fact that foot and mouth disease does not exist and has not existed in the states of Oregon and Washington, is it the intention of the Minister of Agriculture to permit the entry from those states of horses for exhibition purposes into Canada this year?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: It is not our intention to permit -the importation of animals from any country until the 60 days have expired after the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease.


John Arthur Clark: I do not think the minister
heard my question. I want to know whether from certain states where the disease has not existed it is the -intention of the minister to permit the entry for exhibition purposes of horses into Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: There are two
buffer states we must recognize-Oregon and Nevada. The same regulations hold good in respect to -them as in respect of California.

Privilege-Mr. Boivin



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
John Lawrence Stansell: I wish to call to the attention of the House an evident error in the printing of Bill No. 2 relating to the readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons. It will be remembered that when the bill was before the House in committee I offered an. amendment having reference to the names of certain constituencies, which amendment was passed. I observe in the printing of the bill that so far as it applies to the west portion of the county of Elgin the amendment has been made effective; but in the case of Norfolk, to which was to be added a portion of the county of Elgin and which was to be designated Nor-folk-Elgin the word "Elgin" has been dropped. I understand that the clause as amended by this House in accordance with my motion has been adopted by the Senate and therefore, 1 take it, this error in the bill is purely typographical. I should like to have an assurance from the government that this will be corrected. [DOT]


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: The committee the other day adopted the resolution of my hon. friend changing the title of the constituency of Norfolk to "Norfolk-Elgin." The error is, as the hon. gentleman says, only typographical and can easily be corrected in the final editing of the bill. '



INCOME TAX BRANCH EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: 1 would ask the Acting Minister of Finance whether it is .the intention of the government to consider the question of the revision oi salaries of civil servants who are employed in connection with the income tax. I believe some four years have elapsed since anything was done and many of these employees are receiving unfair treatment. In British Columbia particularly where five per cent of the population pays income tax as compared with three per cent in the other provinces the work of the staff is considerable and we have had many complaints.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, the matter
to which the hon. gentleman refers is now before the Treasury Board.
302$



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- BRANCH LINES CHINA CLAY BRANCH

Hewitt Bostock: Before I call the Orders
of the Day, I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate acquainting this House that the Senate doth no longer insist upon its third amendment to Bill No. &4 respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway Line from the end of the China Clay branch to St. Remi d'Amherst, in the province of Quebec, and doth now propose the following amendment instead thereof:
In the Schedule: Under the heading "Mileage including existing grading" 'for "2" substitute "2.3".
Under the heading "Average Expenditure per mile" for "$52,500' substitute "$45,652".
PRIVILEGE-Mr. BOIVIN On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. G. H. BOIVIN (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a word to say upon a question of privilege. I read in Le Devoir, published at Montreal on Wednesday night, an article signed by its parliamentary correspondent, Mr. Leo Paul Desrosiers, entitled:
M. Boivin sc signnle de nouveau-
Mr. Boivin again in the limelight
With the following sub titles:
He tries to explain, in his quality of chairman of the Redistribution committee, that it is as a measure of justice that an extra English seat is added to Montreal.
The French Canadians are robbed of their influence as a reward for their broad-mindedness.
These statements are repeated and amplified in the body of the article, which concludes with an attack upon the government for having abolished the position of assistant statistician formerly held by a French Canadian.
If the young correspondent of Le Devoir would follow the good example of his confreres in the press gallery and base his articles upon what actually takes place in the House instead of drawing their subject matter from his own imagination, he would know that his statements concerning any injustice to the French Canadians of Montreal are absolutely and positively untrue. If the article was only an attack upon myself I would read it with the silent contempt with which I have treated previous articles of the same kind from the same venomous pen, but as the article reflects upon the honesty and integrity of the entire Redistribution committee and, indirectly, upon every member of this parliament, I want to nail the falsehood here and now.

Privilege-Mr. Stewart (Humboldt)
According to the last census the island of Montreal had a population of 724,205. The French Canadians numbered 439,653, and persons of other origins 284,652. Each of the eight French Canadian members will represent 54,955 persons, and each of the other five will represent 56,830 persons, a difference of 1,875 per member in favour of the French Canadians. In other words, the French Canadians are strictly entitled to 7.8 members out of 13, and they have 8 under the new law.
In case Mr. Desrosiers should contend that the French Canadian members are better entitled to represent the Chinese and Italian population than the hon. members within whose constituencies these people reside, let me make another comparison, leaving out those citizens of all origins who are not directly represented in this House. The last census, as I stated during the course of my remarks on the Redistribution bill, shows that there were then in Montreal:
Persons of	French origin	
439,653Persons of	British origin	
197,912Persons of	Hebrew origin	
45,792
With twelve electoral districts on the island of Montreal, the proportion should have
been as follows:
Persons of French origin	 7.7
Persons of British origin	 3.5
Persons of Hebrew origin	8
12.0
The seats were divided as follows:
Persons	of	French	origin	
8Persons	of	British	origin	
3^Persons	of	Hebrew	origin	
1
With the additional seat provided for by 'the recently adopted Redistribution bill, the *exact proportion should be:
Persons of French origin	 8.3
Persons of British origin	 3.8
Persons of Hebrew origin	9
113.0
The seats have been so arranged that they will in all probability return:
Persons	of	French	origin	
8Persons	of	British	origin	
4Persons	of	Hebrew	origin	
1
I cannot imagine how a more equitable division could possibly be arrived at, and I resent the accusation that I have in any way been a traitor to the race to which I belong or that this parliament or this government has been unfair to any race or group in the country. It has been said in certain quarters

that the article referred to is only part of a campaign which is being waged to stir up racial prejudice. I desire to be more charitable, Mr. Speaker. I prefer to attribute the article to the youth, inexperience and narrowmindedness of Mr. Desrosiers, and I am sure that his youth and inexperience will gradually diminish as the years roll by.
PRIVILEGE-MR. STEWART (Humboldt)
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. C. WALLACE STEWART (Humboldt) :: Mr. Speaker I rise to a question of
privilege. On Wednesday last when the House divided on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox), known as the Hudson Bay amendment, I was present and voted yea. The report of Hansard for Wednesday, July 16, and also the official record in Votes and Proceedings for the same date do not contain my name among those who voted. I have conferred witih the Assistant Clerk of the House, and he confirmed my assertion that I was present and voted for the amendment. I ask you, Sir, to use your authority to have the report corrected in the revised Hansard, and also to have a correction inserted in the Votes and Proceedings.


Hewitt Bostock: The remarks of the hon. member will doubtless serve his purpose. I would remind him, however, that the vote was taken in the morning, at the end of a long, protracted debate, after which the result was transmitted to the Printing Bureau, and it is not surprising if under the circumstances a slight mistake was made. This morning's Votes and Proceedings contains the following correction:
The name of Mr. Stewart (Humboldt) should have appeared in the division list at page 575 among the yeas instead of the name of Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).
Therefore this erratum having been published, the attention of the country and of the House has been called to the mistake.



HOME BANK

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, arising naturally out of the declaration made a moment ago regarding the policy of the government in the matter of the Home Bank, the government is doubtless aware, the Prime Minister is certainly aware, that in the West particularly there are a very large number of practically destitute persons-widows, children, minors and old men-who will now be left helpless in the face of the coming winter. Will the government not consider-

Home Bank


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am asking the government a question.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is reviewing a debate which was concluded yesterday; and, besides on the orders of the day questions can only be put on matters of public importance. I would ask the hon. member not to argue but to put his question.


Edward Joseph Garland: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I am just about to put my question. Will the Prime Minister in view of these facts not take into consideration the possibility of bringing in a supplementary estimate to provide relief, as is done now in the case of agricultural people?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I think on reflection my hon. friend will agree that if this House is to be asked to vote any money for the purpose which he mentions, it will want to know pretty fully the extent of the obligations proposed by the government. I do not think it would be in the interests of the very persons to whom my hon. friend refers for the government to ask parliament at this stage to vote a sum of money without being able to give to parliament the basis on which the government had arrived at its opinion in the matter. This is a very serious responsibility and it has to be met in the light of its importance. I think the government is taking a course which will commend itself to the people of this country.
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
would like to ask the government if they have been given any figures with regard to the amounts that the Home Bank depositors are asking for and also if they have any statistics as to the number of depositors of the Home Bank who are on relief in Fernie, Toronto and other cities?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am unable to speak
offhand with reference to my hon. friend's question. I think he will have as good an idea as I have with regard to the information the government has on these matters. The government has all the information that has been placed before the commission and before the committees of the House. He will realize that that is rather an extensive amount of data.	i



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- RETIRING GRATUITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: A year ago
this session I asked the following question of the government:
1.	Did Mr. D. B. Hanna, former President of the Canadian National Railways, receive on his retirement, a bonus, grant or gratuity of $35,000 in addition to his salary to date of retirement?
2.	If so, why, and on whose authority?
3.	Did Mr. A. J. Mitchell, former vice-president of the Canadian National Railways, receive a similar gratuity of $20,000?
4.	If so, why, and on whose authority?
5.	Did any other retiring official or director of the Canadian National Railways receive any such gratuity or bonus on retirement?
In the closing days of the session the government promised a commission to investigate this matter. I think the reply indicated that some $400,000 was involved, having been voted these men on retirement. I desire to ask the government if that appointment was made; if so has the report been submitted to the government, and if the report has been submitted what was the result?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	My hon. friend is
incorrect; there was no suggestion of a commission or committee to investigate the payment of retirement allowances to the gentlemen he has named. There was question as to the legal right of the Grand Trunk to give gratuities to its employees who were retiring or who in some other cases were not retiring. The government promised to appoint a commission to investigate this. The commission was appointed and made its report, and that report was laid on the Table of the House in the early days of this session.


Arthur Meighen: With what result?



INTERALLIED CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to communicate to the House an announcement which was made this afternoon in the House of Commons of Great Britain by the Secretary of State for the Colonies regarding the representation of the dominions at the InterAllied Conference. The statement made by the Right Hon. Mr. Thomas was as follows:
There have been several communications with the various Dominion governments concerned and it was found impossible to arrive at definite arrangements before the Inter-Allied Conference opened. I have now -the great pleasure of announcing that it has been
Inter-Allied Conference

settled that representatives of any of the Dominions so desiring and of India shall become members of the British Empire delegation at the conference on the panel system and it has also been arranged for the representatives so appointed to be present at the meetings of the conference on the days when it is pot their turn to sit as members of the British Empire delegation. This will ensure that they are fully acquainted with all that goes on in conference.
The plan adopted is a special one for this particular conference and is not to be regarded or quoted as a precedent.
That is the end of the statement. His Majesty's government have consented to our laying on the Table of the House the correspondence which has passed between His Majesty's government and ours on the subject of the representation of Canada at the Inter-Allied Conference, and with the permission of the House I will place this record on the Table.


Arthur Meighen: It will appear, of course, from the correspondence, but in order that hon. members may get the right idea now I would like to know what is meant by the Statement of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the Dominion representatives shall have the right of attendance at the conference on the days when they are not sitting as members of the British delegation. That is the way I heard it read and to me it does not seem to mean anything.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The British
Empire delegation will consist not only of representatives of His Majesty's government but also of such Dominion representatives as are in attendance at the conference. The entire British delegation will therefore consist of seven or eight and from that number there will be selected for each day's session three persons to represent the British Empire delegation. Two of these will be members of His Majesty's government and one will be chosen from the Dominion representatives who are members of the British Empire delegation. They will be the active members, but representatives of any dominions not of the three who participate in the business of the conference from day to day will have opportunity to be present and hear the general discussion.


Arthur Meighen: The arrangement seems
to me to be quite satisfactory. I am very glad indeed that the matter has been settled.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT, 1867 AMENDMENT CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and

concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to the following resolution:
That it is expedient that section ninety-one of the British North America Act, 1867, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection in lieu of that set forth in the Address of the Senate and House of Commons to His Majesty the King, adopted by the House and Senate, respectively, on the 24th and the 26th June, 1920:-
"2. An enactment of the parliament of Canada, if
expressed to operate extra-territorially, shall have and be deemed to have had, that operation, if and in 60 far as it is a law for or ancillary to the peace, order and good government of Canada."
He said: The language of the resolution adopted by this parliament in 1920 was to the effect that an enactment of the parliament of Canada otherwise infra vires should have extra-territorial effect in the same manner and to the same extent as if enacted by the Imperial parliament. Those last words were objected to in certain quarters as having too wide a meaning and after agreement the language of the present resolution was accepted for the purpose of limiting the matters to which extra-territorial	effect would be
granted to matters evidently within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. That is why the words "otherwise intra vires" were eliminated as superfluous. During the discussion of this resolution in the House the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) suggested that the same words or words to the same effect should still be inserted. This opinion has been endorsed by the Attorney General of Ontario in a letter which he addressed to me a few days ago. I do not subscribe to this interpretation and the officers of the Department of Justice share my opinion in that regard. I do not see that by the present language of this resolution the powers of this parliament could in any way be extended or the powers of the provinces be restricted. However, as it can do no harm to add superfluous words I do not object, and I even suggested to our representative in the Senate that he agree to the insertion of the words "intra vires" after the word enactment." It will now read:
An enactment intra-vires of the parliament of Canada, if expressed to operate extra-territorially, shall have and be deemed to have had, that operation, if and in so far as it is a law for or ancillary to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
I now desire to refer to a statement which has been made concerning this matter by the hon. the Premier of Ontario, at a meeting held at Prescott on the 12th of July last. He stated that the adoption of this resolution was a blow to the constitution and an infringement of the rights of the provinces, which ought to be consulted every time

Criminal Code
an amendment to the British North America Act was sought. The charge is not justified, and is not altogether fair. My only answer is that the provinces were in no way interested and in no way concerned in our demand of the Imperial parliament to recognize that our purely federal legislation has an extraterritorial effect. I might add that the protest, if it had any value, has been registered three years too late, because the resolution I wished to amend was fathered and introduced by the government of which that distinguished gentleman was a strong supporter, and his voice has remained silent on the matter until the present Minister of Justice assumed some responsibility.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
He said:	The amendment made by the
Senate is to change the name of the constituency of Missisquoi-Brome to read Brome-Missisquoi. Knowing how keenly bon. gentlemen of the Senate feel in matters of this kind, the government have decided1 it would not be advisable to ask for a conference over the matter and thereby possibly delay prorogation, and have therefore thought it well to let the amendment pass. But in doing so, I think it ought to be pointed out that we feel so far as the House of Commons is concerned that questions relating to representation in the House of Commons are our matter entirely, and should not be interfered with by the other Chamber.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 64, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from the end of China Clay branch to St. Remi d'Amherst in the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT On the Order:
Second reading of Bill No. 259 (from the Senate), to amend the Criminal Code (evidence as to games of chance).
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister
of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who is not in his seat at the moment, wished me to explain in his absence that this bill should not be in his name, but in that of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw).


Mr. STEVENS:: Has this bill been distributed?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Yes, it is on the file. I move the second reading of the bill. This bill is one that I am sure will commend itself to the House. It originated in the Senate, and is now before this House for consideration. Hon. members will undoubtedly be aware that in various parts of Canada we have a machine called a gum vending machine. It has been decided in the appeal courts of at least two provinces, Ontario and Quebec, that this is an illegal device, but unfortunately in the province of Alberta is has been held, in a case in which judgment was given in the year 1915, that it was not an illegal device. The result is that while it is perfectly proper to use this machine in the province of Alberta, its use is entirely illegal not only in Ontario and Quebec, but in some other provinces. An effort was made last year to secure an amendment to the Criminal -Code, providing that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where there was a difference between the appeal courts of any provinces, in the event of an acquittal, but the Senate took objection to that particular means, and so an effort is now being made by this bill to amend section 986 of the code, so that this particular gum vending machine shall be prima facie evidence of a gambling device, and consequently it will allow the courts of Alberta and any other province that may be interested to eliminate this machine. I think this amendment must meet the judgment of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Certain automatic machines to be deemed means or contrivance for playing games of chance.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: I beg to move the following
amendment, to be added after section 1:
This act shall come into force on the 1st day of October, 1924.

Supply-Soldier Settlement
The reason is that this gambling device is legal now in the province of Alberta, and this will give those who are interested an opportunity to save themselves in some part.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 169, to amend the Militia Act.
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Advances to soldiers settling upon the land, and cost of administering the Soldier Settlement Act, including salaries, $6,000,000.
Charles Wallace Stewart: This is the vote for the purpose of carrying on the work of the Soldier Settlement Board. We have discussed it pretty thoroughly this afternoon. If any further information is desired I shall be glad to afford it.


Arthur Meighen: This afternoon?


Charles A. Stewart: We have
been discussing soldier settlement this afternoon.


Arthur Meighen: I have been here all the afternoon and I did not hear it discussed. The amount this year is $6,000,000 as against $8,400,000 last year. Can the minister tell us how many men were settled in the last fiscal year?


Charles A. Stewart: Loans were approved on account of 1,038 new settlers.


Arthur Meighen: How many are there
altogether now?


Charles A. Stewart: The number is 23,700.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, more than that?


Charles A. Stewart: The total
number of soldier settlers is 23,743.


Arthur Meighen: The total number was
27,000 three years ago. I presume this is the total on private lands?


Charles A. Stewart: That would be about the number we assisted. A great many settlers have been added to the list who have not been assisted financially; I am speaking from memory now.


Arthur Meighen: I fancy the minister has not included homesteaders.


Charles A. Stewart: The total
number of settlers who. received loans is 23,743. The number of soldier grant entries without loans is 6,435.


Arthur Meighen: But the soldier grant
entries get assistance too? A man is entitled *to assistance even though he is a soldier grant entry.


Charles A. Stewart: He is entitled, that is quite true, but the six thousand odd I have mentioned have not received any.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: What is the prevailing salary for a field supervisor under the Soldier Settlement scheme?


Charles A. Stewart: The average salary is $1,832.66.


Milton Neil Campbell: I believe that low
salary is responsible for a good deal of the trouble that the Soldier Settlement Board have. No loan company can secure a good appraiser, a qualified land valuator, for such a price as that. The most of these field supervisors are young and more or less inexperienced men, with very little knowledge of the quality of soils or of general farming conditions. Those men are placed in positions of great responsibility. Yet they not only have to pass pn the quality of the soil and its productive capacity, but they also hlave to appraise machinery, cattle, horses, material for building, fencing and so on. That is a very important responsibility, and you cannot get qualified men for any such salary as that mentioned. Such a position needs the very best man that can possibly be secured. He should have had some farming experience in the first place, and possibly, a considerable amount of business experience He should be a good judge of
5	p.m. soil, live stock and machinery and be in a position to advise the /soldiers. He should not only be able to locate them in the first'place, but come to their assistance afterwards, and give them advice. A great many of these young men,
I repeat, are more or less inexperienced yet are supposed to act in a supervisory capacity. If the blunders and mistakes .of the past are to be avoided in the future it is necessary

Supply-Soldier Settlement
that a better class of men be employed, and to that end larger salaries will have to be paid, certainly not less than $2,500 a year.
1 believe the general plan of the Land Settlement Board has been an excellent one on the whole. I can say without fear of successful contradiction that in my own constituency to-day the average soldier settler is making better headway and is in a better position than the average farmer. I know that is not in accordance with the sentiment usually expressed here, but I attribute it in the first place to the fact that very few soldiers were settled in my constituency up to the time of the depreciation of land values in 1920. Those who were settled before that naturally paid more than the land was worth. Most of the men that I know of were placed after the fall in the value of land. I consider that men placed at the low values of land, the lower vaiues of machinery, horses, cattle and so on, have a better chance to make headway to-day than the average farmer, because they have only one-quarter section each, they are held down to the limit as regards machinery, cattle, horses, and equipment, and their interest rate is only 5 per cent spread over many years. If this government wanted to assist the farmers in the West to-day in the financial position they are in, there is no way by which they could do that more effectively than by substituting some such plan as that, I do not care whether it is called a rural credit system or not. That system is working well. I know many hon. gentlemen have pointed out that the soldiers in their particular districts are in a deplorable condition. We have heard many tales of woe in connection with soldier settlers. But this may be attributed to two other reasons, one of them being that the particular districts are not very good farming districts, where, perhaps, they have suffered from drought, hail, grasshoppers and various other troubles that affect the farmers in the West. That is not the case in the really good farming districts, and my district of Mackenzie is an excellent farming district with good soil and abundant rainfall. Under conditions of that kind the average farmer, if his debts are not too great and are spread over a term of years, and if the interest rate is reduced, has a better opportunity to make good than in most of the other parts of the province. I would heartily recommend to the minister that he consider carefully my suggestion to him regarding the salaries of appraisers. That is very important. I see men located on land that is hardly worth anything, land on which
it was most difficult to make a living at all and land that was bought, perhaps, at considerably more than it was worth. It was not the natural value of the land at the time, but the value placed upon it was simply an error of judgment on the part of the man who appraised it. The appraisers did as well as they could under the circumstances, but on the whole-they were not qualified men and it is impossible to secure qualified men for $1,800 a year.


Mr. COOTE:: In view of the report which
was brought down and in which concurrence was moved to-day, which the minister said would entail a loss to the country of approximately $38,000,000 if it were adopted, does the government feel justified in investing more money in this soldier settlement scheme by placing more soldiers on the land? The scheme has been in operation now for about six years, and any returned man who wishes to go farming has had plenty of opportunity to do so. The scheme has cost the country about all that we can afford to spend in this particular manner, and I think the committee is entitled to a statement from the minister as to the policy of the government and why they should bring down an estimate to carry on this soldier settlement any longer.


Charles A. Stewart: Land appraisers receive a larger salary than I mentioned. I mentioned the lowest paid officer. They get $2,400 a year. In the locality with which I am familiar I think the selections, of late years at all events, have been very carefully made and that fair value has been received. Inasmuch as the payment was a cash one, a great deal of land was offered for sale and it was bought at pretty good figures. Of course that was not the case in the early stages of the settlement and it was then that we had the difficulty.
In reply to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), I may say that no relief is offered or suggested by the committee for settlers established since 1921. The report of the committee which we were discussing, applies to settlers established prior to 1921. Last year we decided to take up no more applications and no more have been taken up since then. We are carrying out simply the obligations which we entered into with men who trained for the purpose of being established in this way.


George Gibson Coote: What training do they
undergo and where are they trained?
Mr. STEW'ART (Argenteuil):	They first
make application to the board, and they are
Supply-Soldier Settlement

trained usually with practical farmers. But by far the larger number of these men were young men who had practical experience in farming. They were not newcomers to the country; they were farmers' sons, young men raised on the farms. Many of them owned farms on which they had mortgages and they were farmers. If this scheme fails, I would have grave doubts of any scheme being a success in establishing people upon the land. I have no brief to say that this is the best scheme in the world, but I make that statement because of the large number of these men who have been farmers all their lives, so that, if they could not succeed, the newcomer would be doubly handicapped. This is simply cleaning up those whom the board had deemed eligible if they took further training. I know there was a large number on the list last year. A large number, of course, did not turn up. I do not know how many turned up to be established, but I presume not more than SO per cent of them. To those who are desirous of being established on the land, the board feel they are under some obligation, and those are the cases which the board are dealing with.


George Gibson Coote: How many are on the list
and how many were established last year, so that we can get an idea how much longer this is going to go on?


Charles A. Stewart: The number of men qualified by the board on March 31, 1924, was 48,037. Of these, 23,743 have been granted loans, leaving 24,294 qualified by the board to whom no loans have been made. There are 797 men who have completed their training under the supervision of the board, but who have not taken up land; there are 211 men at present in training, or a total of 1,008 who have already been trained or are now being trained with a view to taking up land under the board. Those are the men with whom the board will have to deal.


Milton Neil Campbell: In the remarks I made a few moments ago, I wished to be fair to the board. I had no intention of reflecting in any way on the administration of this department, which on the whole has been excellent; there is no other department that has in my opinion been administered quite so well. I am ready to admit too that the selection has been better recently than it was some time ago. But I am merely pointing out a danger which I think should be guarded against. The type of men who are engaged in this work are no doubt sincere but they lack the necessary knowledge of farm land and farming conditions, and most of 
them are unable to judge stock and machinery and give advice to the soldiers. I would therefore strongly recommend to the minister that he look into this matter and pay salaries that are commensurate with the responsibilities of the employees. I am not altogether prepared to agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Coote), because I believe that this is an excellent policy. With such a policy we can resurrect tens of thousands of farmers in western Canada and retain in the country hundreds of those who are obliged to leave it. If these people were able to wipe out their debts or to pool them at a lower rate of interest they could remain on the farm and re-establish themselves. I have in mind at the moment a policy which was carried out in my former province of Prince Edward Island. I think it was in 1867 or 1869 that the provincial government there was faced with a serious situation in regard to agriculture; in fact that industry was threatened with a complete breakdown, but it was rehabilitated by means of such a policy. It was difficult to secure money and men had to be sent to England to borrow; but the provincial government bought out the title to the land and re-sold it to the present holders or to their forefathers at a low rate of interest spread over a long period of years. These men struggled for a time but they made good and the province of Prince Edward Island did not lose a dollar.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I am inclined to agree with the member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). I realize that there is a great difference between the position of men established in the early years and that of soldiers who have been recently established. Our difficulty, as the minister has pointed out, has been due to the tremendous problem of deflation in the past which does not apply to the present settlers. There is a great difference between settlers established under this act and farmers who could come under any rural credit proposal. Any proposal for rural credits could apply only to a man who had a considerable equity in the land over and above the amount of the loan. But in this case the settler borrows practically the entire amount of the capital necessary to commence operations, and speaking frankly I doubt whether there is a business in Canada to-day that could successfully carry on if it had to commence by financing on a shoe-string and borrowing every dollar of its capital. At all events I am sure that the farming industry to-day could not do that. I am speaking now as one who comes from a fairly good district, not one that has suffered from

Supply-Soldier Settlement
drought or grasshoppers or any other natural pest. The district from which I come is a fairly good farming country; my neighbours have been there for twenty-five years and some of them longer than that, Most of them came without any capital and have built up farms. But to-day I do not know one of them, although they are all fairly good farmers, who is making interest on his investment. And if these people are not making the interest at present valuations it is not to be expected that the new and inexperienced man can. I think it would be absolutely impossible for him to do so.
In making these observations I have no desire whatever to put forward any rash statements. I think I know the situation, for I studied the whole problem two years ago as chairman of a small sub-committee; and I come from a district in which there are more returned soldiers who have been settled under this act than there are in any other district, as I believe. I made it my business to investigate conditions as thoroughly as possible so that if any question came up I should be prepared with first-hand knowledge. I have come to the conclusion that the men established in those early years cannot under any circumstances make good now, and I will give my reasons. In doing so I do not want it to be considered that I am criticizing those who devised the act at that time, but I have some doubts as to the wisdom of it. Of course, we all know that it is easy to be wise after the event; but I feel that these men cannot succeed. The men went on the land in 1918, 1919 and 1920 and they purchased not only high priced land, but as well expensive machinery, stock and equipment. They began operations in the expectation of being able to meet these high prices out of the productive value of their farms, but as a matter of fact, as compared with those years, the debt redemption ability of these settlers has decreased about 75 per cent. That may sound like a rash statement but it can be proved. According to the estimate of the board itself, as stated by its chairman, farm products in general are worth to-day about 50 per cent of their value at that time, and that statement can be borne out by any man in the House who is familiar with the conditions. But that does not mean that the ability of the settlers to pay their debts has been reduced only 50 per cent, because the operating costs on the farms have not fallen in proportion. Consequently after paying overhead expenses and cost of living the surplus available is less by at least 50 per cent than it was in those years,
and that surplus is so reduced in value as to be worth about one half. Therefore the actual ability of the settler to meet his indebtedness is about 25 per cent of his ability at the time the act was passed. That is a fair statement which can stand analysis.
Under these circumstances it is obviously impossible for the settler to succeed and when the committee studied the matter it went into it from two points of view. The first-and I mention it first advisedly-was this: The committee realized the responsibility to the men who came under the act, partly as a means of colonization,-because the cry was for greater production and we wanted more men on the land. It was therefore a measure partly of colonization and partly of re-establishment, to assist these men to regain their civilian status and become valuable citizens. We approached it first of all from that point of view, because it was only fair that we should make some provision to relieve these men from the disability which they had incurred. But from the other point of view we had to remember that we were trustees of the people's money and we had to consider the effect of any possible action upon the finances of an already overburdened country. Had it been proved to us that the men could eventually pay their indebtedness, even if it involved a hardship, I would have hesitated to make drastic recommendations. But it is because I believe that the treasury will not receive the money that, in common with other members, I impressed my views on the committee.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that a drastic cut, whether it takes the form of revaluation or of interest exemption or of capital cut-I am not wedded to any one method so long as we obtain the best results-will not only retain in their holdings and assist these men, but it will actually bring better returns to the country than if the men are allowed to leave the country altogether or drift to the urban centres. This would be simply acknowledging a loss which already exists, the wiping out of an uncollectable indebtedness-nothing more, nothing less. The statements produced to the committee showed that in many cases resales after salvage show no appreciable loss. This is accounted for by reason of the fact that while the purchases were made for cash the resales were made on twenty-five years' time, and if any one contends that the country is at no loss on such a resale I think his contention is based on a pure assumption. That every dollar of the twenty-five year indebtedness will be paid in full is not a fact on which a sound argument can be built. A

Supply-Soldier Settlement
disturbing feature of these resales is that they are usually to farmers in the vicinity who have unencumbered property so that they can offer better security for the loan. This means that the resales are made at the expense of a gradual transfer of the land from the original soldier settlers to other men in the district. And during the course of that transfer much of the land would lie unsold for a term of years. This has already happened, and in my opinion will continue to happen if, as I believe is the fact, the resales so far have been of the best and choicest parcels of land, and much of the remaining land can never be sold at any remunerative price.
As one familiar with the lives of these men-I know hundreds of them personally- and realizing his responsibility to the country as well as to the men themselves, I would impress upon the committee the seriousness of the situation and the absolute necessity of the government accepting as far as possible the recommendation and making a careful study of the situation with a view to dealing with it next session. I appreciate the statement of the minister that it is perhaps unfair to ask the government to accept such a drastic proposition without having had time to give it due consideration, but I appreciate also the fact that unless these men know they can look forward with hope to a final satisfactory adjustment, we will lose them by thousands. I have been reading letters from home these days and accounts in the local newspapers, and it is evident that the coming fall is going to be one of the hardest we have had for many years, for the crop returns are very disheartening, and in the face of these depressing circumstances I am afraid the men will be leaving the land by thousands. These are good, able and industrious men-the idle and inefficient were weeded out long ago. These excellent men will either have to go out of the country, to be replaced by immigrants, or else they will flock to our cities, and from ivhat I hear the problem in our urban centres this winter is going to be sufficiently serious without adding one jot or tittle to it. Therefore I would urge that the minister take action, not to give immediate relief, because I realize that no immediate action can be expected, but I should like him to assure these men that the matter will be carefully considered and dealt with upon its merits in legislation to be brought down next session.
I hope that it will be possible to provide such a satisfactory adjustment as will enable these settlers to continue upon the land as

self-supporting men and women, who will be an asset to the country and will contribute to the success of our transportation system by the tonnage which they will supply.


William John Ward: I congratulate the minister on the partial diminution of the policy of settling soldiers on the land. I was disappointed with the report of the special committee which was submitted to-day. I had hoped that they would see their way clear to recommend the establishment of some machinery for the revaluation of the soldiers' land. I have urged that for the last three years. Under the conditions that prevail in my constituency I am sure this will be a bone of contention with the department until revaluation does take place.
In the early part of this session a number of western members got together and prepared a questionnaire. I propose to place on Hansard the answers returned by a soldier in my constituency to the questions submitted to him in this way. I know this man very well and he is a good average settler. This is the questionnaire as returned by him:
Date of location? April 1920.
Distance from town? Twenty-five miles.
Those who are familiar with the Soldier Settlement Act will remember that it is quite contrary to that legislation to settle a returned soldier more than fifteen miles from a railway.
I do not blame this House, but we know that the people of many sections in the West have been deprived of railway facilities for many years. The people went into the section in which this returned soldier was settled under the distinct understanding that a certain railway line would be built, but owing to the action of the second Chamber they were deprived of this privilege.
What price did you pay for your land? 13,000.
What do you consider the value of your land in a raw state? $500.
This particular quarter-section-I know it well-was purchased in its raw state at $3,000 and I know that he fully values his land when he says it is worth $500. The purchase price, therefore, was six times its real value, and this soldier has a $3,000 obligation facing him, to say nothing of the likelihood of accrued interest, and a $500 proposition with which to pay for it. This is only typical of hundreds of cases in the northern part of the province, and I contend that revaluation is the only possible means by which we can save these people and keep them in the country- This same settler has a loan for live stock and equipment of $1,100 making a total

Supply-Soldier Settlement
of $4,100 to be paid for out of a $500 proposition. The questionnaire proceeds:
Amount paid to the Soldier Settlement Board to date? $175.
Mark you, this loan was made in 1920 and he has paid $175. I am sure he has paid all he was able to pay.
Amount of yearly payment to the board? $173.
One hundred and seventy-three dollars a year after he has provided for his family out of a $500 proposition.
Total amount owing on your yearly payments to date? $250.
Total amount of your yearly taxes? Average $65.
What do you at this date owe for taxes? $75.
You can understand my disappointment at the report of the special committee not providing for revaluation. At the commencement of this session I introduced a resolution asking the government to appoint this special committee and urging upon them the necessity for revaluation in order that we might save these men. Over 500 settlers, about 25 per cent of them returned men, have moved out of the east half of my constituency in the last twenty-four months. The honourable member (Mr. Campbell) has said that the returned soldiers in his constituency are really in better shape than the average farmer. Well, that is not so in my constituency and I do not think it is the condition that generally prevails throughout Manitoba. The settlers moved into Manitoba about a year earlier than they did into the other western provinces, and they became victims of land inflation, of high priced stock, high priced implements, lumber and other things going into the development of the farm. This is what they are carrying to-day and this is what is driving them out of the country. During the parliamentary recess following the last session I visited this district, spent nearly a month there and personally inspected over 100 of these farms. The thought that was uppermost in my mind when I was passing through there was this: "I wish I had the Minister of the Interior with me." I am sure he would have wiped the Soldier Settlement Board right off the slate and have cancelled every loan in the district. Had he visited there he would have found homes with three or four children, many of them with not half enough clothes to keep them warm. There are mothers in that district who have not seen a railway station for over twenty-four months. I hesitate to think how many of these people lived last winter, yet we ask that soldier tc meet a loan of $4,100 from a $500 proposition. The thing is so impossible that I do hope the
Soldier Settlement Board will in the near future, be advised by the minister to see that revaluation takes place. I know the minister cannot do all these things, but he has subordinates who will do it, and he should advise those subordinates to have a revaluation made not only of stock and equipment but also of the land. It would relieve me a great deal if some such action was taken, because the greatest problem I have in my constituency is that of dealing with the returned soldiers who are settled on the land.


Mr. BROWN:: I wish to support very
strongly those who have already urged the necessity of very radical measures in dealing with this question. I do not want to offer any criticism, nor have I ever done so, of those who initiated the scheme, but there is no question that many of the soldiers were led into accepting propositions involving obligations that it was utterly impossible for them to meet. As has been indicated, early in the session a number of us got together and prepared a questionnaire to be sent out to the returned soldiers. I have in my hand a very large number of these questionnaires filled in by the men themselves, and I would like to place them in the hands of the minister in order that he may see the hopeless situation by which they are confronted. This is not a question of spending money; it is a question of saving money, of how we can salvage the most for the country from this scheme and at the same time keep the men upon the land. It is generally conceded in the statements that have come to me as contained in these reports that at the very least the men paid a double price for their land. In some instances they paid more. I can endorse what has been said by the hon. member (Mr. Ward) in regard to his own district. I visited that district in order to satisfy myself in regard to reports that came from there. I am sure that many of the men in that district will never be able to carry on unless they get the land for nothing; their whole indebtedness as regards the land will need to be wiped out. I know something about the conditions of farming and how impossible it has been for these men to pay anything on the capital value of their land. I want to read a few remarks made by one of these settlers-because at the close of our questionnaire we asked the men to make some statements in a general way. Here is what he says:
I kept my payments up until last fall, although I have had to let other debts incurred on the farm go. Last fall I was only able to pay $100 out of the payment of $261.16. Next year my payments under
Supply-Soldier Settlement

the consolidated loan will be raised to $427.85, and I feel that I shall never be able to make such a payment, even under the most favourable conditions. If the land was revalued at its present day value and the amount paid in already by the settler deducted from it and the balance divided into twenty equal payments, I think that the soldier settler would be able to stay with his work. There are seventeen quarter-sections in the next municipality left by soldier settlers and not paying taxes.
The municipality he refers to is my own municipality. I took occasion to make inquiries from the municipal secretary before coming away, and seventeen is the figure he gave me. Remember, there were only thirty-five left. That means one-third of these settlers are already gone from the land, and after getting word from the municipal secretary I find four or five more are leaving, and by this time I am quite satisfied that half the men in that municipality are already gone. In company with one of the inspectors I visited one of these farms last fall. I admit that this particular district is the worst in our municipality. On that farm the soldier has a liability for land amounting, I think, to $4,200. I am making no exaggerated statement when I say that I would not take that land and live on it if they gave it to me as a homestead. It is an old worn-out farm, the best part of it, and half of it is lying along the Pembina hills. It is an absolutely impossible proposition for that man to pay $4,200 on that land. I have no doubt that those who are uninitiated will think the committee made a very radical proposal when it brought in a recommendation involving $38,000,000, but I say, Mr. Chairman, they were very conservative, and if I were to state the plan which in my judgment will be necessary to solve this question, it would be an infinitely more radical one than that, a much more radical one I know than this House would adopt. Another man writes to me:
As to my remarks I will make it brief. If I was free to start again there would be no land deal for me. There is no hopes of ever paying for this farm with the crops we get and the high cost of living. I have done all anybody could do to make ends meet, but they seem to be as far apart as ever, but I am, Like a good soldier, still carrying on.
I recognize the necessity, Mr. Chairman, of dealing with this matter calmly and judiciously, and yet the thing that seems to me necessary is that there should immediately go forth a statement from the government that will at least strengthen the morale of these men who are on the land. I know, as I have said, that we have made a proposal in the report of the committee that seems to be very radical, but there should go forth immediately an assurance from the government that what-

ever conditions will be necessary to keep these men on the land will be granted. I am quite satisfied that this country has to take a tremendous loss, and we may just as well face the fact now as in the future; but if a statement can be made to the men that will give them some courage and put some heart into them, I believe that a great many of them will say, like this man whose letter I have quoted, "Like a good soldier, I am still carrying on."
There is another letter here that I shall read in part for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to just one sentence, and perhaps it will make some hon. gentlemen. elsewhere reflect upon their conduct. I believe this man comes from the constituency of Dauphin. I might say that the hon. member for Dauphin and I collaborated in the preparation of this questionnaire. This man writes:
The homestead upon which I now reside was taken by me previous to the war. A small amount of improvement was done, but went back during the war, as I was away four and a half years. I would not have started in this country again after the war if we had not been given to understand we would have a railroad to haul out our produce.
I shall not read any further. "If we had not been given to understand we would have a railroad to haul out our produce," he says, and remember, in some of these districts that have been denied branch lines there are hundreds of returned soldiers, situated 25 miles and more from a railway, and yet hon. gentlemen in some quarters have seen fit to deny these men the right to that necessary railway accommodation, and have imposed upon them this additional burden; and with that additional burden, it will simply not be possible for them to carry on under the circumstances. They lived in hopes they would get these railroads, and now that the railroads are denied to them, the only result will be that these men will have to leave their farms, and they will be thrown back on the country. And here is the thing these men feel: When they give up their land the government will, of necessity, be compelled to sell it to others, who will buy it at a reduced price, and these soldier settlers will lose not only the four or five years of labour they have put in on those lands, but they will feel, as they will have a right to feel, that not only were their war years sacrificed in the service of their country, but that six or seven of the best years of their later life have also been sacrificed. I would like the government to take these questionnaires and look into them, and just allow the men to speak for themselves.

Supply-Soldier Settlement


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: We have listened
to a very blue picture of the men who have taken up the work of land settlement. I want to say that I am in sympathy with any assistance that can be given to them, but at the same time I would like to draw the attention of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken . to the luxurious condition in which some people very close to the minister are living. While you have absolute poverty on the one hand, it looks to me as if you have positive luxury on the other. I do not know whether these gentlemen were preparing for Wembley Exhibition or not, but it certainly looks to me as if they were prepared to take a very comfortable trip. In the public accounts of last year you will find, under the heading, "Expenses at Ottawa" the following: One gentleman in this department is given a wardrobe trunk costing $85; kit bag, $65; commercial trunk, $34.50; steamer trunk, $15; attache case, $10. The second gentleman on this board gets a wardrobe trunk costing $42; kit bag, $38; attache case, $11.75, and then he asked the government to put his initials on, and that cost $3. The next gentleman gets a wardrobe trunk costing $45, and kit bag, $28. The next gets a brown bag, $25, and two cases. $39. The next gets a wardrobe trunk costing $42, folio, $15, and his lettering costs $1. The next gets a suitcase costing $21.50; folio, $11.50, and he must have a long name because his lettering costs $2. The next gets a suitcase costing $21.50, and a folio costing $11.50, and the last gets a suit case costing $18.54. I do not know whether the government representatives who are going to Wembley are going to be any more bountifully supplied than this.


Charles A. Stewart: Are these
members of the board


Arthur Edward Ross: That is your board; that is in your expenses.


Mr. POWER:: What are the names of
these gentlemen?


Arthur Edward Ross: If you turn to
page Z-8 you can read them all; it is most interesting. It is almost six o'clock.


Charles Gavan Power: Read the names.


Arthur Edward Ross: The names are as follows: R. Innes, E. J. Ashton, B. E. Dabson, R. G. Barclay, W. M. Jones, T. B. Mallace, Thos. Smith, and A. E. Smythe. Now when these poor soldiers on the land are living
in such poverty, I think it is an absolute waste for the gentlemen close up to the board to run up an expenditure like this in the administration of the department.


Charles Gavan Power: If the hon. gentleman will ask the minister to dismiss all these men I will agree with him, and should he make a motion I will second it. They are all appointments of the former government.


Charles A. Stewart: May I say
in reply to the statements made by some of the hon. gentlemen who are deeply interested, as I am interested, in the success of the soldiers who are on the land, that since relinquishing the Department of Immigration I have not been actively in touch with the work of the Soldier Settlement Board, which is being administered through that department. The Hon. Mr. Robb, of course, has been extremely busy owing to the illness of Mr. Fielding, but the board undoubtedly have been given a free hand in this matter. As I pointed out this afternoon it was hoped to keep politics out of the administration of the Soldier Settlement Board. That is one reason why I am so intensely interested in the report of the committee; whatever we do we do not want political bias to creep into the administration of the Soldier Settlement Board, into the work of establishing soldier settlers, or in any way into soldiers' civil re-establishment. I confess that when I was in charge of this work, although of course I had some personal knowledge of matters in the province of Alberta, I did not, as minister, interfere very much with it. I may say that I have had some doubt, always had doubts, as to whether or not the soldier settlers in the early periods would be able to make good in view of the conditions which then prevailed. Any man who is engaged in agriculture knows the difficulties we have all had to undergo as a result of the deflation which took place in the after-the-war period, and naturally these men-many of them starting new, I fear on lands that at the moment perhaps were worth or were deemed to be worth money but have since depreciated very considerably in value-had many problems to contend with. I want to say this to the committee:	Whether I am entrusted
with the continuing of the work of this department or not I have a very vital interest in soldier settlement-or in the welfare of the soldier anywhere in Canada no matter \Vhat avocation he may be engaged in-and I propose to recommend to the board, and to the minister as well that a very careful analysis
Supply-Soldier Settlement

be ma-de of the complaints registered by the settlers themselves, as contained in letters such as have been presented by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), and of the report of the committee. I shall recommend that the situation be carefully studied, that in the light of whatever recommendations are made by the committee or the board and that whatever suggestions are brought down next year should be submitted early in the session and go to the committee, to be carefully considered. Afterwards when the recommendations come back to the House they can be thoroughly discussed by every member. Then we can act with a full knowledge of what the situation demands. I am saying this largely for the purpose of encouraging the men who are on the land and in the hope that they will remain there. I am glad to say that 81 per cent of them are still there. I know that many of them are having difficulties, but I also know that no inconsiderable number have made a splendid success of their undertaking. The great majority of those who settled on the land in the early stages of the scheme are undoubtedly having a very serious time for the reasons which I have explained.


Mr. FORKE:: "Hope deferred maketh
the heart sick."


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, but let me point out to my hon. friend that no proposition now made by the committee would have an effect on the soldier settler this year except the psychological effect of knowing that in future his case would be taken care of. No proposition made by the committee would better the existing conditions because there is at present a cessation of the interest payments as regards the men whom the committee had in mind, and this will continue until the next session of parliament. Let me say that the board have very complete control of the money voted, and have always had control. The minister has never interfered in that regard. As to the statement of my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Ross), in regard to trunks, I say very frankly to my hon. friend I do not believe in that sort of thing at all.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think it is a
shame that there should be any expenditure for any such purpose.


Charles A. Stewart: Personally,
I heartily concur in any reflections which my hon. friend cares to make in that connection.


Charles Gavan Power: There is time before six
o'clock to make the remarks which I wish to offer. I think that of all the extravagant, costly and pernicious schemes invented by the late government the Soldier Settlement Board was the worst. From its inception it never had a chance. I do not wish to say " I told you so " but from the time the estimates for the board were first brought down, until the present, I have opposed the expenditure. I was of the opinion then, and I think it has since been shown to be true, that too much money was being loaned to the soldier settlers for them to be ever able to repay it. As for those who went on purchased land we only took that land away from a real farmer and placed somebody on it who knew nothing at all about farming. We have lost I do not know how many millions of dollars, and we are going to lose more yet. If the government would take my advice they would wind up the whole thing as fast as they could, and endeavour to extricate the soldiers now on the land from the hole in which they find themselves.


George Gibson Coote: My reasons for objecting to the continuation of this scheme and putting more soldiers on the land are first, that it is not a kindness to the soldier; it is rather doing him an unkindness and subjecting him to a lot of misery. Secondly it is going to saddle this country with the expense of the Soldier Settlement Board for years to come. I may remark in passing that in speaking to one official of the board last year he said to me "I consider this is a life job." I do hope that the Soldier Settlement Board is not going to be kept up by this government as long as that man lives-that is if he lives as long as might naturally be expected judging by his looks.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Is he a very young man?


George Gibson Coote: Yes, he is a comparatively
young man. I could disclose some facts regarding the actions of certain officials of the board causing undue hardship to the settlers. Surely we should not go on any longer putting soldiers on the land. Do not let us deceive ourselves and think this is a fine scheme. As it is working to-day I think it is the poorest scheme this country has ever invested in, worse than the mercantile marine in fact. Judging from the minister's remarks the soldier settler will have to live on hope for another year and in that respect will be in the same position as the Home Bank depositors.

Private Bills


Charles Gavan Power: Branch lines.


George Gibson Coote: And as the farmers who are wishing for some amendment to the Bankruptcy Act will also have to live in hope until another year. May the interval until the next session be very short.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Personally I am convinced
that the chairman of the Soldier Settlement Board is a very competent and able person. I think he is thoroughly familiar with this work and renders good service to the country; I do not know about the administrative details to which my hon. friend from
6	p.m. Macleod (Mr. Coote) refers. I rose particularly to draw the attention of the minister to a plan for revaluation of soldier lands which I, after much consideration, presented to the committee. I should like the minister, in the interim between now and next session, to investigate the plan carefully. I think it has the merit of cheapness, will place these lands upon a satisfactory and solid basis, and will permit cases to be dealt with individually as the minister alone can deal with them, if he wants to have permanent satisfaction. In the long run this will go a great way towards solving the difficulty.


Charles A. Stewart: Is that contained in the committee's report?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I was just going to say to
the minister that the details of it, because I worked it out in detail in order that it might have some appeal to the members of the committee, appear in the proceedings of the committee and are available to the members.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I am opposed to this
bill. I may state for the information of the committee that when this matter was under consideration before the Senate committee the vote was 3 to 3. When it came before the Private Bills committee the vote was again even, being 12 to 12 and the casting vote of the chairman carried it. Now, I have nothing to say against the character of Mrs. Mullins who is applying for this divorce, but I do not think it is right and just that she should be able to blacken her husband's name when there is not one iota of evidence to prove that he has been guilty of any misconduct.


Mr. PUTNAM:: What do you call proof?


Thomas George McBride: If this divorce is granted it will not only blacken the character of Mr. Mullins, this woman's husband, but it will cast a blot on her own son. Furthermore, it will injure the reputation of the other woman who has been looking after the boy and keeping house for the husband; if this divorce is granted it will ruin the character of all parties concerned. There is nothing whatever in the evidence to substantiate the assertion that this man committed adultery and I think this House would be derelict in its duty if it did not turn this bill down.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the section carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Section agreed to: Yeas, 27; nays, 24.
Bill reported.
Mr. GORDON moved the third reading of the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Next sitting of the House.
CONSIDERED in committee-third	Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Win-
READINGS	nipeg): Mr. Speaker, I move that this bill be
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Florence Ethel	not now read a third time but that it be read a
Armstrong.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).	third time this day six months hence. As a
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Elgin Caughey.	member of the Private Bills committee I have
-Mr. Martell.	read the evidence with some care. Personally
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Charles Daw-	I have no objection to the granting of divorce
son Cariyle. -Mr. Duncan.	on the ground of incompatibility, desertion or
something of that kind; but, as I understand, ALMA ddcharme MULLINS	the usual practice has been to grant divorce
The House in committee on Bill No. 261,	only on the ground of adultery. As adultery
for the relief of Alma Dueharme Mullins,	is alleged in this case, I do not think it is
Mr. Gordon in the chair.	fair to grant a divorce, for there is not the
303	.

Supply-Soldier Settlement

slightest definite evidence to show that the man was guilty of adultery. He claims, and his evidence is corroborated by the woman with whom it is alleged he was living in very close relationship, that she is simply his housekeeper, and has been for some years, providing a home for his child. The mother of the woman concerned frequently visited the house. I think any one who is familiar with the manner of life of a considerable part of our population will recognize that it is quite possible for a man and woman to live together in this way without there being any improper relations whatever. Under these circumstances I do not think it is fair to the woman, to the man or to the child to grant this divorce.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I maintain that we should not now be discussing the third reading of this bill, for when the motion was put, "When shall the bill be read a third time?" a number of us called "Next sitting of the House", and I understand that in such circumstances the third reading must go over to to-morrow.


Hewitt Bostock: If I am informed that an hon. member said "Next sitting of the House," I cannot ignore his remark.


Mr. DUFF:: That was on another bill.


Hewitt Bostock: Rule 52 reads as follows:
Every bill shall receive three several readings on
different days previously to being passed. On urgent or extraordinary occasions a bill may be read twice or thrice or advanced two or more stages in one day.
Bourinot, in his Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, at page 540, comments on the rule in these words:
It is occasionally the custom to pass bills through t'heir different stages at one and the same sitting. That course, however, is never taken except in cases of extreme urgency and with the general assent of the House.
If it is said by some hon. members that there was objection to the third reading this day, the bill cannot be read a third time at this sitting.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, there was distinct dissent to the bill being read a third time; a number of hon. gentlemen called "Next sitting of the House."


William Duff: That was on another bill;
there was no dissent to the third reading of this bill.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry to contradict the hon. member. I was sitting near the
rMr Woodsworth.]
hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and I heard both him and the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet) object to the third reading of this bill.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the
House.

The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


George Newcombe Gordon: Vote 291, Soldiers'
land settlement. [DOT]


Mr. MILNE:: Mr. Chairman, I agree with
all that has been said in connection with the condition of the returned soldiers, and I think the recommendation made by the committee is not at all too drastic. There is another phase however, that has not been mentioned-the effect which the abandonment of the land by the soldier settlers has on a settlement. I have one settlement in mind where about fifty per cent of the settlers are returned soldiers. On account of their coming into that district schools were built and roads constructed; in fact a municipality was organized. I agree that they were perhaps a little energetic in their desire to make progress. Nevertheless that is the condition; at least fifty per cent of the returned soldiers, perhaps more, have vacated lands in those districts. The maintenance of schools and roads bears heavily on the remaining portion of the settlement, so much so that in many cases they are unable to carry the burden. Some of the settlers who were there before the soldier settlers came in have such a load on their shoulders to-day that I am afraid the whole municipality will go bankrupt. When the soldier leaves and the land reverts to the Crown the municipality cannot collect taxes, so that the extra load placed upon those who remain, and who in many cases were fairly well established before the soldiers came in, is almost unbearable. I simply wish to impress upon the minister the fact that the people remaining in those districts are suffering equally with the soldiers.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not
going to keep the committee at any length in this matter, but I do wish to express in a few words my views on the general question of the report of the committee. It is with deep regret that I find the government unable, in any more definite form than indicated by the acting minister, to carry out the apparent desires of the committee. I regret that no definite assurance is to be given to these men that they will be relieved of the

Supply-Soldier Settlement
tremendous burden that presses upon them. With the session so close to its end I shall not take it upon myself to read extracts from a very large number, somewhere between fifty and sixty, questionnaires that I personally sent to soldiers in my district to ascertain their actual condition. Two years ago I urged upon the government the revaluation of the land as well as of stock and equipment. I am still of the opinion that land revaluation will be of greater importance than the removal merely of interest.
There is more in this matter than simply the removal of interest. In the general reduction or remission of interest everyone is affected equally, whether or not he desires or deserves the assistance thus given. There are a large number of soldier settlers in parts of this country who are not doing too badly at all; indeed, in some districts I understand they have done very well. These men do not require revaluation; it would be an excessive burden upon the taxpayer to make either a revaluation or a rebate of interest. I had in mind a suggestion that I understand was made to the committee by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), namely, the appointment of a revaluation appeal board to whom requests could be made by individual soldiers who believed they had just claims, a board which on inspection would have power to revalue or otherwise. In this manner the difficulties now existing, would, I hope be largely met, and there would not be nearly so great a burden upon the people. That would be the most equitable manner of carrying out what I at least have in view. I say, therefore, that I regret exceedingly that no more definite position has been taken by the government with regard to the report of this committee.
There is one other matter I desire to draw to the attention of the minister. At present if a soldier abandons his land and it is taken up by the board and sold, together with his stock and equipment, and the result of the sale still leaves a balance due the board, that man's property, that man's future, are mortgaged by the board. Under the act they may take possession of land that he might then or subsequently hold. I regard that as a most iniquitous piece of legislation. Some members of the committee had hoped that the passage of an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act this year would obviate the necessity of any reference to this matter, but as these amendments are not to be introduced I wish to urge upon the minister that if an amendment to the Soldier Settlement Act is not feasible at this session he at least in-3031
struct the board to deal in the most lenient and patient fashion with men who may be in this position. In order to give the minister a specific instance I would like to quote part of a letter which I have received. The writer says:
My husband, Albert Lewis, 'bought a quarter section of land from the S.S.B. He farmed it for four years with no returns. Bills accumulated, my health gave way and in the fall of 1922, with everything dried out and no money, we threw up the place and went to Vegreville for the winter. Previous to this, in 1921, we had taken up a quarter near by as a homestead, which has not yet been patented. The S.S.B. sold the equipment and horses at about one-seventh of their original value, holding us responsible for the other six-sevenths of the debt. Their quarter has not as yet been resold. However it will bring perhaps about one-quarter as much as we are charged with it, leaving us responsible for the other three-quarters. Now [DOT] in order to protect themselves they are claiming our homestead to make good the balance of the debt. It seems to me this talk of balance is very one-sided. What about our balance? What about our years of work with no returns, only bills piling up against us and which my husband and I are both at work trying to pay up now. Besides our work, I went out to teach while on the place in order to buy feed for our horse and food for ourselves while living there. What about other settlers who owe a far greater sum than ours, yet who go out free, with no debt to make up because they have nothing for them to grab? Why make exceptions?
Now, this is what I wish particularly to call to the minister's attention:
We want that homestead. We are no longer young, being both past forty. We could make a home on it and live quietly and comfortably after a few more years of working out, as we are doing. It is a good hay quarter and this fall we want the hay on it to pay up our back taxes, amounting to $200. It is near my school and I could live at home and teach; The money would buy us cows, etc. I thought a homestead could not be taken for debt. Can the S.S.B. in this high-handed way take over our homestead for this debt? Do you think it is right?
And so on. The letter is signed by Mrs. Bert Lewis. I have no doubt that there is a full record of this ease on the files of the department. That is a painful case, but it is only one of many wherein the board have gone in upon a man's private property or subsequent land holdings and seized them to make up the debt he has incurred to the board, a debt which he has been unable to pay, usually through no fault of his own. I ask that the minister give sympathetic attention to this case and to similar cases.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my
hon. friend give me a memorandum of the quarter section? I notice it is unpatented.


Edward Joseph Garland: I shall be glad to do that.


Charles A. Stewart: In reply to the hon. member (Mr. Milne) I would say
Supply-Soldier Settlement

that the question of taxation is a very serious one as applied to lands that are under salvage. The matter is a very important one from the point of view of the municipality as well as of the school districts. It is also a serious matter for the government of Canada, because if taxes were to be collected on these lands it would create the precedent of Crown lands being under taxation by provincial or municipal authorities. That has never been agreed to by the government, and I doubt if it could be agreed to. This matter was pretty thoroughly discussed last year, and it is one to which the government and the board will have to give very serious consideration. 1 know that in some cases in the province of Alberta it has got to the stage where it is beyond being a hardship. One cheering evidence of a revival that I am furnished with is a memorandum of sales; I think 193 sales have taken place since the first of the year. There appears to be a considerable number of salvage sales going through, which, of course, would afford relief as soon as the land was sold. I think possibly some relief might be given by way of getting it from the renter, because most of these lands are under rental. Not many farms have been abandoned completely where improvements have been made.
With respect to what my hon. friend has said regarding a revaluation, or an assumption of interest, which is proposed in the report of the committee, as perhaps he was not in the House this afternoon, let me repeat what I said then. So far as I am concerned, as one member of this government, I am going to urge on the minister, or if I am in control and acting as minister, I will see that a valuation is made of as many of these localities in which there are abandonments and the settlers are having difficulty, as it is possible to have done during the summer, and then when we come back next session the government should be in possession of first-hand information. I have an absolutely open mind on the question of what is the best course to pursue, and I want to gather as much information as possible, that information to be obtained, not by the officers of the board, but through some outside source, probably in the manner suggested by my hon. friend. I can quite well conceive that in the same locality we might have very many cases in which there would be no necessity of rendering assistance at all, where the settler was making a success. Scattered throughout Canada there are a number of cases where perhaps with a little encouragement and assistance the settler would stay on the land and make good. I cannot 
go further than that. I am prepared to say that so far as I am concerned, and presumably I will have something to do with the matter, I shall endeavour to do what I have outlined during the recess and be prepared to discuss the matter in an intelligent way when we come back next session.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am delighted to hear these sympathetic expressions on the part of the minister. With reference to section 4 of the committee's report reading:
Your committee further recommends that the Soldier Settlement Board shall have discretionary power to relocate bona fide soldier settlers who are found to be located upon manifestly unsuitable farms; such relocation to be made without financial loss to the settlers.


Charles A. Stewart: I accept that at once. Just as it is good business to move settlers from a bad location, so it is also good business in the case of the soldier settler.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am glad to hear the minister say that. I wish specifically to call his attention, and I shall be glad to give him a memorandum later, to the Slade lease. I think possibly he is acquainted with the details. I know that Major Barnett in a conversation with me said that that was one set of units that should never have been taken up for soldier settlement. He said to me: "There is one real place where revaluation is justified if it is anywhere in the country." I shall be glad if the minister will give us his assurance that he will deal with these people during the year.


Charles A. Stewart: May I just say for the benefit of the committee that if members who are interested in soldier settlement in any of these localities will be good enough to write me or send me a copy of the particulars, I shall be glad as far as possible to give attention to these cases.


Milton Neil Campbell: I understood the minister to say that no further applications were being accepted. I know a great many young men who, anticipating taking up land under the Soldier Settlement Board, and finding they had to serve a couple of years, or something like that, on a farm, are now preparing themselves with a view to taking up land under this scheme. The board may have no record of them, but would the minister tell us if cases of that kind will receive sympathetic attention?


Charles A. Stewart: I would not like to hold out any promise. I took very strong ground a year ago on this matter. I

Supply-Cadet Services
told the board then that I thought it would be well to close out this scheme, that there were a great many applicants to be dealt with at that time, and we were putting a tremendous sum of money into this settlement scheme, and I said that until we had had eight or ten years' experience and saw how it was going to turn out, I thought it would be well to curtail the board's activities. I may say frankly that I am still of that opinion. We have a lot of serious difficulties in connection with soldier settlement yet to face, and we must try to keep the men we have on the land rather than accept new settlers. That was my feeling a year ago, and I must confess that it has not changed. I would hate to hold out hopes to any young men to train with the object in view of settling under this scheme until we have dealt with the men already promised, and have had some further experience with the scheme.


Milton Neil Campbell: I sympathize with the
attitude of the minister, but I would ask him not to forget this fact:	Most of the difficulties in the past have been attributable to deflation in 1920 and the drop in the value of land, not through the machinery of the board. I think the machinery and the system itself should be judged in the light of those facts.


Robert Milne: What proportion of this
grant is for administration?


Charles A. Stewart: $1,400,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
National Defence-administration, $301,000.
Mr. MEWBURN:: I have looked over the
estimates for the national defence pretty carefully, and the only criticism I can make is that they are inadequate to carry on the proper training of the force. It seems to me that the government are wiping out the whole department by a process of strangulation, and for the life of me I cannot see why they do not take the bull by the horns and put it out of business entirely. I cannot see how they can properly carry on any effective training by means of the militia vote which is now before the House. I should like to see this vote increased rather than decreased as it is under these estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cadet Services $400,000.
John Arthur Clark: I heartily endorse the remarks of my hon. friend from East Hamilton. I would also remind the government that the first duty of any country, the first duty of
the government, and consequently the first duty of members of parliament, is to look after the defence of the state, and I wish to voice the strongest protest of which I am capable at the fact that these estimates have been left over, without any consideration whatever, until the dying hours of the session. There is no question whatever that the defence of this country, from the point of view of equipment, is on a much lower plane than it has ever been at any time in the history of Canada. Even in 1812 the defence forces of Canada were better equipped than the defence forces of to-day could be equipped in comparison wtih the forces of other countries, il they had to go to war. Instead of a bona fide attempt to improve the situation we are neglecting it. As my hon. friend (Mr. Mew-burn) said, the process now going on is one of strangulation and the force is in a moribund state. Those members of the militia who could be of use to the defence forces of Canada have been obliged to quit in disgust for the lack of encouragement. I will admit that in some of the larger cities there are some efficient units, but that is because the members of those units are themselves putting up the money for their training.


Charles Gavan Power: Before the item carries I
wish to make a few very general observations. The item we are considering at present-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Cadet services.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not wish to speak on
the cadet services but if you will give me permission, Mr. Chairman, I will discuss the whole subject, and then will not bother you for the rest of the evening. With regard to the administration I think we have too many generals m the service and too many at headquarters. We have too many in the position of general who slftuld be drawing captain's pay, too many in the position of colonel who. should be drawing lieutenant's pay; and too many in the position of captain who should be buck privates in the rear ranks. So much for that. I also think there are too many superior officers both at headquarters and on the district staffs. On the other hand I agree to a great extent with what has been said by the hon. member for East Hamilton and the hon. member for Burrard, that we are cutting down our permanent militia to the extent that it passes the absolute danger mark. I quite agree with the hon. member for Burrard that we need this force for defence. I am not under the impression that there is any enemy near or remote who is likely to attack.
Supply-Cadet Services


John Arthur Clark: Were you in 1914?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes I think there was more danger in 1914.


John Arthur Clark: Before August 4?


Charles Gavan Power: If my hon. friend takes that ground I must reply that history proves that preparedness for war is of no avail in preventing it. What we need is some kind of a police force. I think there will be no denial that we need some kind of a permanent militia force in case of trouble, civil commotion or riot. I submit the non-permanent militia is of no use under those circumstances. If you call out the non-permanent militia in the locality where the riot occurs you are almost sure to have trouble. Either the local inhabitants are friendly to the rioters or they are not. If they are they will not perform their duty, and if they are not there is likely to be trouble. But we do need some sort of a permanent force. Unfortunately the pay of the permanent force has been reduced to such an extent that good men will not join it any more. I know a case where the pay of a married soldier has been reduced from $100 to $60 per month. Out of that sum, residing as he does outside the barracks, he has to pay rent and bring up a family. The good, steady, sober, respectable man such as we would need in case of riot or civil commotion no longer will remain in the force. The result will be that we will have to get a much lower class of citizen, a man who cannot be depended on at a critical time when we need him. The same remarks applies to the junior officers who used to be paid from $2,500 to $3,000 a year, but whose salaries have been substantially reduced. Some of these men possess highly technical knowledge, having been obliged to spend a considerable time in obtaining that knowledge. But they are unable now to live on the salaries they get and will be compelled to leave the force. One more point, a large portion of the grant of money is spent on the non-permanent militia for training which, I cannot help but repeat again this year, is absolutely of no avail. It should be handed over to the permanent militia in order to bring up the salaries paid that force to a living wage. I do not wish to go into the question of training camps. Nothing has transpired in the last few years to convince me that these training camps are any more useful now than they were before. I still contend that seven days' training for infantry does not do them any good, it does not teach them anything. In my opinion
[Mr. Power.l
the money spent on these training camps is wasted, is no good to the country, and will be of no avail if ever Canada should get into trouble.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The people whom I represent have expressed themselves in the very strongest terms against these military expenditures. I could read were it necessary to do so resolutions passed by the labour unions in Canada, and by the labour organizations in other parts of the world, with regard to votes of this character. There is not the slightest doubt as to where labour stands. It seems to me that looking -at the matter from the standpoint of our citizenship at large we must recognize the seriousness of the huge expenditures caused by war. We are bowed to-day struggling beneath the load of an enormous debt, we are wrestling with the question of pensions; even the Home Bank itself is to a certain extent a war casualty-the failure was caused indirectly by the war. On every side we have burdens imposed by the last war and yet in the face of this situation we are asked to continue military preparations. There are two statements I should like to read from the last report of the Department of National Defence. The first is this:
Over and above their functions as instructional corps to the non-permanent active militia, the permanent force units are liable to be called upon by the civil authorities to maintain order in strike areas. This duty -which is naturally Tepugnant to the instincts of a soldier but has nevertheless to be cheerfully borne- necessitates a larger permanent force than at present exists if the regular functions of the corps are also to be maintained.
There is here very clearly indicated the opinion of the military authorities that one of their chief functions in Canada is to interfere in industrial disputes. As a representative of labour, I desire to protest against this point of view. Let me read another statement of the report:
Lack of funds has unfortunately not permitted of the purchase of tanks and no training in that necessary branch of warfare has therefore been possible. For the same reason no equipment is available for training in chemical warfare (use of gas) either offensive or defensive. While the Washington treaty debars the use of noxious gases as between the signatories thereto no such restriction applies to other nations, and in future wars, in which such other nations are engaged, chemical means of crippling the opposing forces are certain to be employed.
Some of us can remember the horror which went over the whole civilized world when gas was first used. Now our authorities are deliberately preparing for the use of gas.

Supply-Cadet Services


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is not
fair to say that we are preparing for the use of gas. The report points out that we are not doing anything in that way in Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I accept the correction. The wish is expressed that we might have the funds in order that we could carry on our preparations for war with gas.


Arthur Edward Ross: Might that not
mean just as much preparation for defence against gas?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It might possibly
mean that. But if I understand the English language aright, it means without doubt that if another war breaks out, gas will be used, and I have not the slightest doubt that those who advocate this policy would advocate that gas should be used in offensive operations. Although we have the Washington treaty which, presumably, was to make war more humane, if that is possible, at the same time we do not ourselves propose to keep the spirit of the Washington treaty.
A word with regard to the organization itself. The army has been demobilized and I believe the time has come for demobilizing the officers. I am not going into the question in detail. I have some memoranda under my hand with regard to the large number of officers there are to-day as compared with the comparatively small number of men. The expense is altogether unwarranted, I am so informed by military men, who speak from the standpoint of the army.
We are told again and again that military preparations and armaments are an insurance against war. Without attempting to argue the point, I submit that the world war demonstrates the futility of wars as a means of settling international disputes. The world is bankrupt and yet we are to-day no nearer peace than we were in 1913. In all fairness we should ask our government in this case as in any other matter, the purpose of the expenditure. Against whom are we really preparing? We have the Atlantic to the east; we have the Pacific to the west; we have a friendly republic to the south of us, and we have a not unfriendly Arctic to the north of us. Against whom are we preparing? I do not tjiink for a moment that the people of Canada, of this generation at least, would sanction our troops being sent over to Europe into another European squabble. If that is true, then against whom in this country are we preparing?


James Murdock: One necessity for preparation is that in this Canada of ours there are certain organizations composed of so-called labour men whose principles and policies are directed towards their rising up and taking possession of the industries and of the people of Canada. It is necessary to be prepared, in case of certain eventualities, to cope with those.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad, indeed, that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) has stated the case so very clearly, and the applause which has come from, at least, the Conservative section of this House, indicates that there is approval of his position. It is most significant that this statement should come from the man who is supposed to be Minister of Labour. Evidently his function is to curb labour. I have never made such a statement before. Now I point out that it is very significant that this statement should come from the Minister of Labour. He himself must know that many of these bogies which he is trying to call up again have ceased to frighten people. Some of us know very well the labour movement from coast to coast. There is no doubt a good deal of dissatisfaction; but this idea that there is to be one class that very largely owns and con-9 p.m. trols things and that other people must be kept down by force, is the kind of thing against which I protest. Apparently, if the statement of the Minister of Labour is to be taken as the statement of the government, we are maintaining an army primarily, not to repel foreign foes, but to repress certain classes at home. I am glad that we have the situation set so clearly before us.
If we are to prepare for war and if war is to remain the means of settling international disputes, there is only one logical course that we can adopt, and that is to conscript, not merely men alone, but the whole of the resources of the country. We should not delay doing that until war has come upon us. We should begin at once. I should like to see a law placed upon the statute books- and I think some of us are prepared to introduce that at another session-that immediately, without waiting for the outbreak of war we should provide that when war breaks out and the man-power of this country if mobilized to repel a foreign foe or for any other reason, at the same time there would be mobilized' every dollar, every foot of land, every factory in this country. Surely life is worth more than property. We had thousands hurled to their deaths overseas, and
Supply-Cadet Services

yet we had men. who remained at home and profiteered. Although I do not agree with the reasoning of some of the men who went overseas, I have every respect for those who sacrificed themselves for what they thought to be the welfare of their country. Some of them today are carrying enormous loads, while at the same time there are men who have directly or indirectly made profits out of that war. I have suggested the only logical course if we are in earnest and we desire to be fair to all sections of the country. But I urge that there is a more excellent way. Throughout the centuries undoubtedly men have fought. But have we not left behind at least some phases of the brute life? After all the experiences that have come to us in the past ten years has it not begun to dawn on some of us that there are other ways than force of settling difficulties? The acknowledged cause of modern wars is that there are economic injustices and rivalries. Surely there is a way by which we may make such alterations in the economic system as will largely remove these injustices and so do away with future wars. I admit that war is caused in part by prejudices, national and racial. But as we are coming to know one another better racially and nationally these causes of war may be overcome. I admit too that there has been difficulty because of having antiquated machinery for settling international troubles. We have had secret diplomacy and all that sort of thing. This too might be done away with. Further we have had interested parties who have always been ready to profit by war. If the making of munitions were a government monopoly that might do away with this incentive to war.
I plead that we in Canada, instead of continuing in the old way which has been demonstrated to be false and ineffective, should spend these large sums in discovering new ways of settling international disputes. We in Canada are in a favourable position; I do not think that any nation is better situated to essay the new task. We are comparatively small in population and could not hope to dominate the world as some of the larger nations might aspire to do. We are on friendly terms with the inhabitants of the great republic to the south of us, people of the same speech and blood and traditions. Surely we can live at peace with that nation. Then I for one am not ashamed of our great British connection, and through that connection, and our relationships with the rest of the world, there is no reason why we cannot establish ties which will bind the world
rMr. Woodsworth.]
together in a way which hitherto has been impossible. The world to-day is facing its supreme task.
Switzerland and Holland and some of the neutral nations have in the past been more prosperous than some of their neighbours and have been able to occupy the unique position of an asylum for the people of warring countries. They have also been able to assist in settling disputes between these countries. Why cannot we in Canada adopt some such role and spend in these other ways this money which it is proposed to devote to military purposes? I fancy that every thoughtful man in this country must look forward to some other way of settling international disputes than the present antiquated and disastrous method. I think I am voicing the sentiment not merely of labour but of a very large majority of the people when I say that the time has come for a change in our national policy with regard to military affairs. I would therefore urge the government to reduce these estimates steadily year after year, so that without any undue hardship we could get rid of armaments entirely and work out a new and better policy.
Mr. iLAVIGUEUR: Is it the intention of the government to dispose of the Valcartier camp?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: A proposition has been made for the purchase of a portion of the camp and the matter is under consideration.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I am not in favour of
cadet training, and while I do not intend to make a speech I wish to make a few remarks on this subject. I want to read first a part of a poem which appeared in Outlook, entitled "The Unknown Soldier."
You cried across the worlds, and called us eons!
We came as sons, but what you made of us
Were bleeding shapes upon an altar, slain
To appease your god Inertia where he sits
Muttering dead words and chewing at old bones.
Because you would not think, we had to die!
Weep not for us, but for your own trapped selves.
We died. And there you stand, no step advanced!
That really is quite true, for we do stand where the war left us, "no step advanced." The fact that many men in high places declare that the last war could have been prevented by open and above-board methods, the slowing down of the industrial machine since the war, and the realization that scientific discoveries will leave no part of the world safe

Supply-Cadet Services
in future wars, has led many groups of people to seek the causes of war and to strive to remove them. That is to say, they are trying to advance past the place where the last war found us. Possibly one who has not been reading this sort of thing can scarcely believe the 4emendous strides which the peace movement of the world has made. It belongs to all countries of the world and comes under many different heads. And possibly the chief movements which have peace as their aim are the educational movement, the youth movement, the labour movement, the woman's world movement, the co-operative movement, the farmers' movement and social movements generally, embracing such clubs as the Kiwanis, for example.
The youth of the world are accepting the challenge of Sir James Barrie when he said that it was time for them to begin to think seriously and to find out the truth about war, that while their elders played for stakes the youth played for his life. Youth has nothing to gain by war and everything to lose. War is not glorious. The object has been to associate in childish minds these three things-soldiering and honour and glory. Those who have inculcated this idea have carefully kept out of sight the waste of human life, the lowering of moral standards, the increase in disease, the assertion of brutality, and the general falling-away from the high standards of the Prince of Peace-in short, the retrogression rather than the progress that results from war. All that has been carefully kept out of the childish mind while three things have been associated and stressed, namely, soldiers, glory and war. Recently I read a book which I found extremely interesting and which I think it would do every member of this House good to read. It was written by Private Peat, a Canadian soldier, and is called "The Inexcusable Lie." The effect of it is that we have not been fair to children in making them think of war as something which as a matter of fact it is not. It cannot be emphasized too greatly that war is not glorious. While it is true that men, through all the filth and mire and degradation and suffering and death that are inevitable in war, show their bravery, it is nevertheless true that there is nothing glorious nor desirable in war itself; it is something which is to be deplored and disliked and looked upon with anything but approval by every right-thinking person.
Cadets, to me, is the most terrible part of all this business of national defence. We are spending on national defence $11,000,000, and yet I hear to-day that the pensions bill has
again been spoiled by the Upper House. We build monuments to glorify war and to encourage young men to emulate the deeds of those who died in order, as we are told, that we might have liberty; but when it comes to something worth while that we might commemorate, parliament fails to measure up to the occasion. Eleven million dollars is a great deal of money. It is much too much money to spend on teaching Canadians to fear and dislike and distrust humanity in other parts of the world. The rest of humanity is just the same as we are; just as good; no better, no worse. If you read history, as I am sure all of you do-and I feel I am at a disadvantage because I do not know as much about it as a great many of you do-you know that the superiority of nations is really the sole excuse for war. In 1914 every schoolboy thought that his nation was unconquerable. We are all national egotists. Everybody thought his own country was right and the other fellow's wrong. That, you know, is bunk. Sometimes I feel inclined to ask the Minister of National Defence in the words of one of Harry Lauder's songs, "Who are you expecting?" You spend $11,000,000 on building up a defence against someone. But who in this world is any worse than ourselves, w7ho is any more foolish, who has any more nonsense going on in his country? We are spending $11,000,000 to prepare for another war, and at the same time we have failed to look after the poor fellows who are maimed in the last war.
And this cadet vote of $450,000 is a larger amount than England votes for her cadets, much larger; I believe England's vote is only about $150,000. We should be teaching our young boys to see the vision of what humanity really is, to think that the world is one, for we have made it by invention and by commerce. Instead of that we are teaching them the idea of war. This war thing is something that has been left over from the past ages, and we must get rid of it if humanity is to climb higher. But instead of teaching our youth the ideal of service to humanity we are, quite unknown to the youth, putting them down in the rut where this generation has been. Do you know that every one of us in this chamber has no right to ask young minds to stultify themselves and go down into the rut where older minds have been and still are in regard to this thing called war. Sir James Barrie sent forth the challenge to form a League of Youth. Certainly they are doing it, and doing it very rapidly. As he said, "The youth of all lands have more in common than youth and age can ever have
Supply-Cadet Services

with each other." I think that is perfectly true. Why should we take young boys, dress them in uniforms and teach them to strut along to martial strains with their foolish little guns and swords at their sides until they think they are manly? We are teaching them to get ready to kill some fellow in another country, some fellow who loves the same games and who is just as clean and just as mean as they are themselves.
What causes us to do this is a foolish, a cowardly, fear. We, older than they and better able to take care of ourselves, teach these poor boys to get ready to defend us at some future time. It is a cowardly thing, it is not a brave thing at all. There is no use in saying that the cadets are not a military body; they are indeed. You have only to read of the parades that took place this year in our different cities where these young boys in their uniforms and with their bands and all the paraphernalia of war were taught all the silly nonsense about the romance and glamour of war that never did exist and which they will find is a mere fable after they get into active service. Let me read from the Toronto Globe of the morning after Empire Day. Its account of the cadets' parade states:
Youths that marched thousands strong with rifles in even windrows, swelled with a common feeling of patriotism.
Patriotism 1
The parade of public and high school cadets- Public school, too.
-was, by common consent, the biggest and best ever held in the city.
If it was the biggest it was the worst, and if it was the best it was the smallest. If the getting ready to kill somebody in some other country, on account of some misunderstanding that may occur between rulers, be patriotism.
I want to say quite frankly that I am no patriot. If living each day cleanly and striving to the very last ounce of our ability to help our community, our province and our Dominion, to help youth see a vision of service to humanity,-if that is patriotism, then I want to be a patriot. The Germans were the greatest patriots we had in 1914, because after all patriotism is only over-confidence in one's own foolish, weak strength, depending on arms instead of depending on goodwill towards others. Germany was going to be a great nation, and we went overseas to overcome them, to kill Prussianism, and, like smallpox, we caught it, until to-day all over the world even young countries like the United States and Canada have been warlike. In the United States next September they are going to turn the nation loose, just as much as if war was 
on. I do not know whether they are looking for us or not.
That was not really all that took place in Toronto on Empire Day. I want to go into this because the reports deal with cadets only. They did not stop at having boys ij the parade, they had some 700 girls to walk with them. These girls carried flowers and were put through a certain amount of drill. The Globe says it was a very impressive sight and it thrilled hundreds of spectators who gathered to see these youths in scarlet march to the martial blare of cadet bands. I have witnessed the cadets drill in front of this building, and I have seen that this training, this stultifying of youth, has the sanction of the church, the state and the school. That only goes to prove that the church, the state and the school are very much behind the thinking of some people-the thinking of a large minority of people, thinking that will before long be the thought of the majority of the people. Military drill for boys-cadet training-is increasing. In 1912 there were only 12,000 cadets in Canada; in 1922 there were 105,000. So we are getting on very well. We will soon be ready to go to war with somebody, and I suppose when we are ready we will go.
This idea of being perpared and so avoiding war is just as sensible as on a very warm day to make a fire to cool yourself.


George Perry Graham: Or wear furs.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Exactly the same thing. Anyone who wishes to keep cool that way is welcome to do so; I do not. The United Farmers in convention assembled last year passed this resolution.
That we disapprove of military training in schools and positively repudiate the expenditure of every dollar spent by the government for such purposes.
I stand by the resolution. The teachers, however, are waking up to the fact that they must not let the youth they teach continue to think that war is right. Last year the first world conference of educators was held in San Francisco, and the delegates present represented five million teachers. This paragraph from the report of the conference gives quite clearly and succinctly the aim of that great gathering which represented about fifty nations of the world:
The greatest task which lies ahead of the school in all lands is that of preparing the way for a new order of international justice, frendship, and good will. Upon the instruction of the youth of the nations lies the responsibility of enlarging the national conceptions and Promoting good will among the nations of the earth. Entirely new values and standards of judging need to be created. The emphasis must be placed upon the valor and patriotism of peace.

Supply-Cadet Services
If it is possible <to set up a series of ideals such as a nation should and to teach them to the rising generation, these ideals could eventually be realized.
I think there is no doubt about that. It is true that what the schools are to-day the nations will be to-morrow. There is a definition of citizenship here which I want to give as my own:
Citizenship to-day must be broader than nationalism. There must be an international consciousness; there must be an "international heart" and a "world mind." This '"world mind" is largely an attitude or habit of thinking in the larger units of the world and the habit of regarding the nations as co-operating parts of the great whole.
They go on to say that the world is one. Science, invention, industry, commerce, communication, transportation, have made the world one. They claimed at this conference that the only hope of saving civilization was the school. The school is the place where you can make children into just about what you want them to be. If you want to fill them with distrust and suspicion of other countries, you can do that. If you want to teach them that other countries are much like ourselves, then the thing for us to do is to set about improving ourselves rather than to watch for all the faults of other nations. So I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) that item 85 of the National Defence estimates be reduced by the sum of $400,000.


George Newcombe Gordon: This amendment is out of order, because we are on vote 89 at present, not 85.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I will change it, then.
It should be 89.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have no
objection to the hon. member amending the motion; it was simply an error in the figure.


George Newcombe Gordon: If there is no objection, the motion is amended to read vote 89.
Mr. MACDONALp (Pictou):	I am sure
everyone who has listened to the hon. member (Miss Maephail) must realize that this subject of cadet training is one of her pet aversions, and must realize also that the hon. member is a very great idealist. When she said that the church, the school and the state were behind this cadet movement, she said exactly what was true. The government pay simply for the instruction of the cadets who come from the schools and from institutions organized by the people interested in them. My hon. friend therefore runs counter
to the judgment of the people of this country who are interested in education, who are interested in the church.


Mr. BIRD:: Did I understand the minister to say that the churches were behind this movement?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend (Miss Maephail) said so.


Thomas William Bird: I understood the minister to say that was true?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Thomas William Bird: Does he believe it to be true?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well I do not speak for the churches, but I notice that a great many boys' institutions throughout the country which are supported by the churches are very anxious to have cadet instructors sent there. They supply the boys with clothing and with all that is necessary to permit their training; these things are not supplied by the department but by the people of the country. It is all very fine to talk about internationalism and to advocate that we do away with nationalism. That is to suggest that we in this country have reached the stage that our people should no longer declare that they are proud to be Canadians, proud to be sons of the Empire, but should express themselves as willing to be mixed up with the soviets from Russia and people in various other parts of the earth. That is the kernel of the idea of this talk about internationalism. That is what internationalism means-the destruction of all the ideals, the ambitions and the traditions of a people. So far as I am concerned I do not believe the people of Canada will accept any such nonsense. I do not believe that is the way they want their young people to be instructed.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: How does the minister reconcile what the churches preach on Sunday with the fact that they lend their collective responsibility to this cadet training?


Lewis Herbert Martell: You had better go to
Russia.	,


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It might be better than Canada, at that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is an idealist. I suggest that she interview the churches, that she discuss the
Supply-Cadet Services

matter with the religious instructors of this country. There is no use in talking abstract socialism in this House, but that is what my hon. friend is doing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the minister
aware that at the last session of the Alberta conference of the Methodist church a resolution was passed protesting against the training of cadets in this country and pledging themselves to do all in their power to oppose :he practice?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am not
aware of the adoption of any such resolution; it has not been communicated to me as minister. The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mocphail) is quite right in the statement she has made about the interest that is being taken in this matter by the churches and by the educational institutions. It is not purely a military training that is given to the military cadets. One of the reasons why the churches and other institutions are in favour of cadet training is that it is the only way in which proper physical training can be given to the youth of the country in the schools.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is it the carrying of
the gun or the sword, or whatever it is they carry, that helps them in physical training?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It improves the carriage, trains the youth to walk properly instead of slouching along the street without any regard to his personal appearance. That inevitably results from cadet training, and the instructors recognize it. So far as the country generally is concerned with regard to this vote, I think the hon. gentleman who preceded me in this department will agree that of all the votes included within this department no other is regarded more favourably by the people. It is all very well for my hon. friend to say that the time is coming when flags will no longer be flourished and when the sound of drums will cease. But I would point out that there are 4,000,000 men in arms at this time across in Europe. However much we would like to see the reign of peace inaugurated in this world-and we all desire it-should we forfeit all the lessons of history in regard to maintaining those institutions which every self-respecting nation has always valued and which must be maintained, at least until the millenium comes, which my hon. friend thinks is very near but of which no signs are at present visible? The information coming to the department with regard to the situation in the Orient
fMr. E. M. Macdonald.]
indicates that aggressiveness and activity mark the attitude of the people of Japan in connection with their military operations.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Does the minister
know that Japan has discarded all her old school books and that in the new ones nothing of a warlike nature appears?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I know
nothing of the kind. All the information that comes to my department shows the aggressive military attitude of Japan to-day. This country would occupy a very humiliating position if it did not have a proper regard in maintaining the status quo. My hon. friend from Southeast Grey has entirely forgotten that with dlue regard to economy we hiave reduced the estimate for national defence by $1,444,000. She forgets that Canada is the most economical in military expenditure of any nation in the British Empire, or in the world. Our expenditure per capita is $1.46; New Zealand, $2.33; South Africa, $2.92; Australia, $3.30; Great Britain, $15.32, and the expenditure of the other European nations is far in excess of Great Britain's. Look at the large standing army the Mother Country maintains at home, and t'he army she maintains in the occupied territory in Germany.


John Arthur Clark: What are the figures for the United States?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not the per capita figure for the United States, but it is very much more. There is no cessation of expenditure on the army and navy of the United States; on the contrary, they are being maintained on much more expensive lines than ever before, especially the navy, whidh it is the boast of the American people to-day is the greatest navy in the world. Not only that, but nearly all the countries of the world are making large expenditures in military aviation. France is spending enormous sums for that purpose, and it is causing the gravest concern in the Mother Country, in view of the position she would be in, in the event of any difficulty arising.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I want to offer one or
two observations. As far as I have read the political history of this country, and from what I know of the administration of the old Militia department, now called the Department of National Defence, I must say that my old preceptor, the present hon. Minister of National Defence, is doing what I believe

Supply-Cadet Services
is in, the true interest of Canadianism in this country. We are not prepared to sponge upon Great Britain. We are prepared to look after ourselves, and we want to meet all obligations that are placed upon Canada iu a fair and equitable spirit, but we are not prepared to let soviet Russia either in this House or outside of this House give expression to that which is not iu consonance with the true spirit of British citizens resident in Canada and represented in the Canadian parliament.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I want to ask if I am the representative of soviet Russia. Were you referring to me?


Lewis Herbert Martell: I am not referring to you, but if the hat fits-not the Cap-you had better wear it.


Mis MACPHAIL:: I just want to say if the speaker who is on his feet is a good sample of Canadianism, I have no objection.


Lewis Herbert Martell: If you are an example of Canadian womanhood, then I say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I say that if my hon. friend from Southeast Grey is a fair sample of Canadian womanhood-


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I think I am.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I do not think so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: But, Mr. Chairman, I have on divers occasions disagreed with the Minister of National Defence. I do not know whether he is to blame for it, but I am absolutely opposed to the cutting down of the salaries of lieutenants in the permanent Canadian force. I believe that if the salaries of the Canadian permanent force are made too low, it becomes a place only for the sons of Canadian millionaires or people with a great deal of money, and it is not then made a career by the sons of people of small means, who have sacrificed in order to educate their sons and have them trained as army officers. I do not believe in militarism. The average person in this country does not believe in it, but it is absolutely necessary. If you examine the whole organization of our society, you will realize that we have to have police in our towns and villages for protection, and if you follow that along in absolute sequence you will see that it is absolutely necessary for us to have army officers and other people to protect us when our local police are not able to carry out that duty thoroughly. I believe
the Minister of National Defence in that respect is acting in the true interests of the country. I am one of his old students, though probably he is not very proud of that fact, and I say that the people of Canada are sick and tired of being spongers on Great Britain. We want to take our proper place in the Empire, and we want to pay what is necessary for the purpose of carrying on the affairs of this country, and so long as we are a portion of the British Empire it is incumbent upon us to see that we bear our proper share of the expenditure for the protection of the British Empire. I want to congratulate my old preceptor upon his courage in not being carried away by those who want to make Canada a soviet Russia.


Alfred Speakman: Mr. Chairman, the only reason I want to say just one or two words to-night is because of two or three statements that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite. I am not commonly in sympathy with all that has been said by the hon. member for Southeast Grey; I am not always in sympathy with the attitude she assumed. But when I hear statements made and motives implied, such statements as the hon. gentleman opposite has made and such motives as have been imputed from the other side of the House, I, as a man, resent it. I am a Canadian, and I am intensely national from that point of view; that is, I want to be a good Canadian. I am proud of my country, but does any hon. gentleman mean to say that because I am proud of my own country, because I am a good patriot within my country, therefore I am not in a position mentally to internationalize myself and think of other countries also? Does the hon. member mean to say, for instance, that because he loves his own family, therefore he cannot be a good member of a community, or that because he serves his community loyally he cannot be a good citizen in his province, or because he is a good citizen of his province therefore he cannot be interprovincial in his aspect and love his nation also? I say it is the most arrant nonsense when hon. members get up and talk about soviet Russianism, when members on this side of the House speak of the international aspect of affairs. It is the most arrant nonsense.


George Newcombe Gordon: That expression is out of order.


Alfred Speakman: It expresses my feeling, but if it is out of order, Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad to substitute any other word that means the same thing. That is pretty nearly all I have to say, except this: I have two pictures in my mind's eye at the moment.
Supply-Cadet Services

When those boy cadets were on that front lawn I went out to see them, and I must say that I felt a natural pride in looking upon them. I looked at those boys and I thought of their concept of what war meant. They knew nothing of what it really meant, but were looking forward to a sort of romantic, gilded impression of what it might be. I went back into the House to attend a sitting of the committee on Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, where we were endeavouring to bind up the broken fragments that had come back from France.


Mr MARTELL:: If those fragments had
not been broken up, my hon. friend would not have been able to sit in this House to-day.


Alfred Speakman: I think that is rather an unworthy statement. I was unable to go overseas but I was trying to do my best for our cause at home.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I did not refer to my hon. friend personally.


Alfred Speakman: I am as proud of the gallant fellows who went to the front, and as anxious to do the right thing by them, as any hon. member here can be. I appreciate what they have done. But seeing the other side of war, and how we have been labouring to bind up their broken bodies, I said to myself "This is the other side of war." It is something those boys did not realize when they went forth in such high spirits to serve their country. There is something I want to say in conclusion. I must say it before I get ruled out of order, and it is this: After all our efforts to care for the broken victims of -the war we see the child of our labour butchered to make a Senate holiday.


George Newcombe Gordon: 
Edward Joseph Garland: I must confess that a feeling of helplessness comes over me when I gather the attitude of mind of hon. gentlemen opposite, as expressed by their voices. My only answer to them shall be to quote the words of General Sir Ian Hamilton whose loyalty and patriotism cannot be questioned even by the hon. member 
for Hants (Mr. Martell). Here is what he said:
Do not listen to the men who made the war.
General Sir Ian Hamilton's warning
General Sir Ian Hamilton, unveiling the war memorial at Crewe recently, said the tears and blood of the old wars left no trace upon their memories. The late war itself was passing away from the minds of the new generation. Unless something entirely unprecedented entered quickly into the hearts of mankind the orphans they were now bringing up in their turn would go to war as if it were a game, and find it, as they have found it, a grave.
There was no getting over the fact that tragedies made good "copy" and that goodness made bad "copy". Therefore, a feeling of hopelessness came over the man who w'islhed to point out to his fellows the wonders and beauty of peace.
After the splendid remarks of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) I shall support the elimination of this vote for cadets. It is not necessary, not by any means necessary, in order to develop the physical fitness of the youth of the country, in order to straighten their backs and stiffen their muscles, that they should be arrayed in glittering uniforms and carry guns. I think it is a crime against the youth of the country that the Minister of National Defence should continue to train these boys of Canada in the carrying of guns and that they should be instructed how to shoot their fellow men, when they should be taught to develop the mind of peace, a love of their fellow beings, and a spirit such as would bring about friendly cooperation between the nations. I am not one of those stolid, unimaginative realists who cannot look into the future, who cannot see those ideals of peace to which we can, at least, aspire. When we hear the expressions we have heard from hon. gentlemen opposite it indicates how hard this movement for the encouragement of international peace is going to be. If only hon. members would cooperate with us in inculcating sentiments of peace and good will what progress we might make. By all means let us have a police force, but let us keep the youth of Canada away from uniforms and from guns.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I wish to say to my hon. friend who attacks the Minister of National Defence that the minister sent his only son overseas and he came back a cripple. He is a living monument to the loyalty of Canadians to the British Empire. That is more than the hon. gentleman opposite did.


Robert Forke: I do not want to criticise
any of the remarks that have been made by any hon. member because probably hon. gentlemen are speaking exactly as they feel. However, I want to compliment the hon.

Supply-Cadet Services
member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) on. the address she gave to-night. She may be right or she may be wrong, but we were proud to hear many of the sentiments which she uttered. No one wants war. I think even the military men we have in this chamber do not want it; we are all agreed upon that. But there is some difference of opinion as to just how to prevent war from breaking out again. We hear a lot about preparedness, we hear a lot about educating and drilling soldiers. I want hon. members here to cast their minds back and think of what the result of drilling and preparing for war has been. It resulted in a calamity, in one of the most horrible wars the world has ever seen. That proves conclusively, to my mind that preparing for war does not prevent war. Is it not time we began to think about devising some other method of preventing war? Why should members be criticised so severely because they want to offer some suggestions as to other means to adopt than military preparedness? Certainly we cannot be very proud of what has happened in the years that have gone. I must confess that I have never been very much attracted by cadet training. I am a believer in the boy scout movement which fulfils every requirement as to physical training, obedience, and service. There may be necessity for some military training. We may need in this Canada of ours some school of training where officers can be trained.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: Hon. members to my right
may laugh.


Arthur Meighen: I was laughing at something opposite.


Robert Forke: Excuse me; I am afraid
the joke is on me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Robert Forke: I was just remarking that
I thought some school of training might be necessary. I want to be practical. And if we had officers trained in this country who were available for drilling soldiers if ever the necessity arose that might be advisable. Then we could soon have an army sufficiently trained to go into the field and do all the fighting that might be required. We had the experience of the last war when a great body of untrained men after six weeks' training became the wonder of the world by what they accomplished on the field of battle.


John Arthur Clark: When the hon. member says that a body of men went to the front six weeks after the outbreak of the war what force does he allude to.


Robert Forke: I am not going to enter into particulars. I will say six months if it makes any difference.	*


John Arthur Clark: I only suggest that my hon. friend should be accurate. Let him tell us who they were.


Robert Forke: I am not posing as an authority on war anyway.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Had not the first men
who went over been trained by the permanent force?


Robert Forke: I think I made some small concession. I admitted it might be necessary to have trained officers. If the hon. member to my right finds fault with my statement when I say six weeks, I will make it six months.


John Arthur Clark: What force was trained in
six months? Tell us that.


Robert Forke: The fact remains that a
great number of civilians went over to France and Flanders and made a name for Canada, and they never knew anything about drill until a short time before they went overseas. We all know that.


John Arthur Clark: WTe do not.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Who trained them?


Robert Forke: I should like to ask hon.
gentlemen if they have any other solution for war to offer the people at the present time than military preparedness.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I wish to tell my hon.
friend, for whom I have the greatest respect, that the men who went overseas were taught by the permanent force. They might have done a lot better work than some men who were in the permanent force had they got longer training. But they did get some training and the expense was borne by Canada. They got the training as a result of the expenditure made by Canada.


Robert Forke: My hon. friend has missec
the point of my argument. I have nevei denied the necessity of having men who are capable of giving training. At the same time I think you can train some soldiers until they
Supply-Cadet Services

get stale. You can overtrain them. Canada has no earthly use for a standing army of any large dimensions. We talk about being ready to defend ourselves. Where is the enemy coming from?
As regards patriotism, I am like the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman). When I looked upon those young fellows in front of this building the other day, I could not help feeling a thrill and feeling proud of them. I am not going to criticise them at all severely, but, perhaps, money could be spent in a better way. I am not attempting to set myself up as a critic; I am merely expressing my opinion. How has war been brought about in the past? If hon. gentlemen would post themselves as to how the last war came about, they would not be so proud of how things happened. I think with sympathy and feeling of those whose sons went overseas and the great sacrifice they made in the war, but there are many things in connection with the war that we do not like to think about when we know all the facts of the case, and no one should dare to get up and criticise hon. members because they find fault with some of the military systems in the world during the last generation.
What is patriotism? Some of the people who stayed at home, who never saw the battlefield, for instance, mothers who had sons overseas, carried on a much higher style of patriotism than any man who went on the battlefield. Patriotism does not consist in shouldering a musket and fighting and giving up your life. It is sometimes harder to live your life out than to give it up. Sometimes the burden of life is heavier than the supreme sacrifice. I know what patriotism is as we were taught it at school and I do not know that it is as bad as we think it is. When I was living in Scotland, we were always taught that whenever the Scotch appeared on the battlefield, everybody ran immediately. That is the kind of patriotism we were taught, and I do not know, that it does as much harm as we think. I have no use for those who do not love their country. For myself, I am prepared to say that I am a good Canadian; I love this country of Canada, and I love the Canadian people; but I have a pretty warm spot in my heart for the land that gave me birth. I never forget that.
What is internationalism? An hon. member says that it is Russianism. I deny that imputation absolutely. One of the great evils of the world is national hatred that teaches the people of a country to look with

hatred and a certain amount of jealousy towards a neighbouring nation. If we could know something about the joys and sorrows, the trials and troubles of the common people of other countries, the people who carry the burden of war, we would never have war; war would be an impossibility, and the more we can teach each other, the closer we can get together, nation to nation, the less desire there will be for war. I wish I could quote the words of Sir James Barrie in his rectorial address at St. Andrews University as the hon. member for East Grey (Miss Macphail) quoted it to-night. It was one of the grandest speeches I have ever read and one of the greatest condemnations of war. He made the statement that the old men made war and they sent the young men to fight. That is patriotism, bravery, great nationalism-the older men to sit at home around a table and create war, and then the young men who have nothing to do with it, to go out and sacrifice their lives! I do not know if I am in sympathy with cutting out the whole item, but I feel I shall have to vote against it.


Thomas George McBride: I rise, not to make a
speech on this subject, but to say that I am fully in sympathy with a certain amount of cadet training and indeed military training. That does not necessarily mean that we must go to war but rather that if the time ever came when we had to defend ourselves we should be able to do so. Why should we be slackers hanging on to the British Empire and expecting it to defend us as we are doing at the present time? Supposing the orientals came over with their fleet and landed on the Pacific coast, what have we to defend ourselves out there? Absolutely nothing. We have to realize that fact, and as regards this vote the only thing I am sorry for is that the minister has seen his way to reduce it. I think it should have been the same as last year.


Levi William Humphrey: It is seldom that I
cannot agree with the hon. member (Mr. McBride), but on this particular occasion, I must disagree with him. For fear that this committee may take it for granted that every part of British Columbia is in thorough accord with the remarks that have just fallen from the lips of the hon. member, I should like to state the position of one part of British Columbia. I do so with every respect to everything that has been said particularly as regards military training. Some remarks that have been made in this chamber to-night I really think should not have been made. The

Supply-Non^Permanent Militia
question of defence in this country is governed to a large extent by the way in which we look upon these matters ourselves within our country. If we look upon these questions in a cool and sane manner, I believe we can meet the war situation.
I should like to put my views upon record so that I shall not be accused of remaining silent in regard to this particular appropriation. I am whole-heartedly in favour of some means being taken to prevent war. Just what means we should take is a
10 p.m. matter of opinion and thorough investigation and consideration. If we can do away with war by cutting down our military expenditure in respect of training, so much the better. Let me illustrate that point in respect of a short period of war service. On the 11th November, 1918, an armistice was entered into. I am quite sure -and I think I can voice the sentiments of many returned soldiers-that hundreds in the war area were sorry to see that war come to a close on account of the different positions they were in.
As regards the attitude of the district which I have the honour and privilege of representing, an endeavour has been made in the last four years to form some kind of a nucleus for a military unit, and there is no point within the West Kootenay area where public opinion will support the formation of a military unit. Therefore, in that respect I believe I am voicing the opinion of the district which I represent, which is a district in British Columbia, in supporting any measure that will reduce our military expenditures. The people of that particular district have declared themselves as not being in accord with the formation of military units which cause expenditure for training. In that respect I am thoroughly in accord with a reduction of military expenditure, with a certain reservation as to how the reduction should foe made. I am in favour of some reduction in the vote, and while I do not think we can undertake to say how far we should go at any one particular time, I certainly am thoroughly in accord with the principle.
Item agreed to on division: Yeas, 73; Nays, 33.
Non-Permanen't Active Militia, $1,600,000.


Mr. BRETHEN:: What is the standard of physical fitness for members of the nonpermanent force?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They are subject to medical examination.



BEVISED

George Arthur Brethen: Are they supposed to be fit for active service?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They are not fit for active service inasmuch as they come to the militia to be trained. This year the training of militia in the country has been cut down materially and as compared with what it was ten years ago the organization is a mere skeleton.


George Arthur Brethen: I do not know when the change if there has been any, was made, but I do know that until very recently there have been admitted to training on the nonpermanent force men and boys who could not possibly be taken on the permanent active force, and it does seem strange that we should spend money training such persons.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What is meant by the Canadian Railway Corps? I would refer the minister to the following paragraph which appears in the report of the Department of National Defence for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1923:
The authorization of the Canadian Railway Corps makes provision for a very necessary branch in any future military operations, should such ever unhappily occur. It is true that the organization exists practically only on paper and that for the present no more than the posting of officers can be carried out, but the fact that an organization based on an approved establishment is in being, with officers appointed and mobilization store tables worked out, is a considerable step towards improving our preparations for defence. Hurried improvization on war occurring may be fatal to success and plans must be prepared in advance. The work of the personnel of a railway corps in war will follow the lines of their work in peace and military training is therefore not so essential in such a unit as in a purely military formation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is
what might be called an emergency organization which, should the necessity arise, could render expeditious assistance in the transporting of troops.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does it mean that the superintendents of shops might become colonels and the foremen elevated into captains?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Nothing of the kind.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, how is the corps organized?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is merely a skeleton organization; it is not operative, but in any case of emergency it is available for co-operation with the military force in the matter of transportation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do the heads of the shops become the heads of any military organizations?



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Permanent Force
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No. Let me illustrate. Everyone has heard of the services of General Jack Stewart of Vancouver in connection with the movement of troops behind the lines, and this organization is intended to serve a similar purpose.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: With regard to the question raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Brethen), concerning the standard of physical fitness required of men in the non-permanent force, I know that there is a tendency to abuse in this direction. In our own province in some cases it is hard to get men to fill up the camps and very often men are taken on the force who should never be admitted. I am not one of those who think that there should be no military training in this country but I do know that in order to get sufficient men to fill up the temporary camps the officers in command have taken on men of over sixty and boys who are barely out of school. I have in mind the case of an aged man who was seized with an epileptic fit on the parade ground. I do not know whether or not he was retained in the camp for the season but certainly he was unfit when he was taken on. There is little medical examination and in some cases little attention is paid to the fitness of the men. I should like to see the money spent on men who, in the event of military necessity, . would be of actual service. I think the minister might very well direct the attention of the officers of his department to this very point.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall be
rery glad to make inquiries. This year and last year there was no necessity to take men who were not physically fit, because the few men taken were so far below the number of those anxious to come.


John Arthur Clark: Is it a fact that on and
after August 1 next the pay of all officers above the rank of lieutenant is to be increased, whereas the pay of lieutenants and private soldiers is to be decreased?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is no truth in the statement. The pay of every man from colonel down to private is to be reduced on August 1.


John Arthur Clark: What about allowances of
those above the rank of lieutenant; are they to be increased or reduced?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is speaking about the vote for the permanent force.


Mr. GOULD:: Does the $283,000 decrease
in the vote represent less men in the nonpermanent force or less training?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Both.


Oliver Robert Gould: The same answer applies to the next item?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: What proportion
of the non-permanent militia is contained under this vote?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The money is divided between each military district, and the training varies according to the corps that may be in the district.


George Black: Is it a third or a quarter or 75 per cent of the establishment?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: About one-third.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am sorry to hear that there is to be a shorter period of training in the summer camps. I think it is better to train a smaller number for a longer period.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is both
ways.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Eight or nine days' training does not amount to anything. You would get better results by training fewer men for a longer period.


George Perry Graham: The more men you take
the nearer you Come to keeping up the organization.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: We can never hope to
have a trained force in Canada big enough to form an army, and I do not think it is necessary, but I do think it is important to have men trained in the technique of training other men. I favour the training of men who desire to become soldiers, but I object to cadet training because I think it is wrong to instil military ideas in the youth of this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Permanent force $4,800,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: In this connection
I beg to quote a short paragraph from the Quebec Chronicle of April 29, 1924.
The military authorities seem to forget that the war is over anid that cadres that were absolutely necessary in war time are now perfectly useless. The objects of a war force and a peace organisation are entirely different, for one is a fighting and the other an educational institution. It must be apparent that the ways anid means of achieving the desired end should be different if they are to be effective.

Supply-Permanent Force
And again:
By cutting down the staffs, both at headquarters and in the districts, an economy of over $200,000 of pay and allowances could be made without hampering in any way the administration of the force. At the present time we are paying and keeping a staff sufficient to administer an army of 300,000 men in any continental military force.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Quebec Chronicle does not know what it is talking about, for the percentage of officers to men has not changed for years. I quite agree with the criticism as regards pay, and that is one of the reasons why the vote is being reduced- we are reducing the pay of all men in the permanent force, from the higher ranks down to the private. I shall be very glad to give to Hansard a statement showing the change of pay which my hon. friend would desire to have.


Arthur Edward Ross: I place myself on record against the action of the department in reducing the pay of the men in the permanent service. These men were enlisted at certain rates of pay for a certain period of time. Instead of living up to the contract the government is breaking faith with the men. It will be absolutely impossible to keep up a permanent force if this practice is continued. It would be altogether different if the reduction was applied to new enlistments, but, it is poor policy to cut the pay of men already engaged.


George Black: Under general order No. 89 appearing in the Canada Gazette of July 5 by what percentage is the pay of a private soldier and that of a colonel cut?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend will see it in the list which I will give to Hansard. With regard to the suggestion of my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Ross) there are men in the service who came in at a low rate of pay, which later on was increased. We are merely reducing their pay which was increased.


Arthur Edward Ross: Did you not enlist these men under a certain contract? If so, it should be adhered to.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In cases where these men had the advantage of an increase over what they were to get when they signed on they have very little ground for complaint in the ultimate result.


Arthur Edward Ross: That does not
justify the action. The private and the lieutenant have suffered reductions whereas those of very high rank have been increased from 8500 to $1,300 a year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am anxious that the permanent force in Canada shall be in proper shape and I am desirous of encouraging military training. But the people of Canada to-day are being taxed as never before in their history and I felt it my duty to come to parliament with a reduced estimate. Accordingly I am asking parliament for $1,078,000 less than was asked last year. In order to make economies and save that million dollars we had to make some of these reductions.


George Black: I have no quarrel with the minister or the government in reducing the total amount, but what is the reason for increasing the pay of the higher ranks while decreasing that of the lower ranks, who are the real soldiers, who do the fighting and who, when war comes on, have the unpleasant task of going out and getting killed? The pay of the private soldier and of the lieutenant has been reduced by about 25 per cent by an order which will come into effect on the first of August, and the pay of the higher ranks has been increased up to about 25 per cent- in the case of the general up to about $1,300 a year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is not correct in that. I have not been able, on account of parliamentary duties, to give close attention to all the details of this schedule. My direction to the officers of the department was that there should be a reduction of pay in order to meet this reduction of the estimates. I do not think there is any such inequality, but if there is I shall look into it.


George Black: Does the minister say that it is not correct that the pay and allowances of lieutenants and private soldiers has been reduced by order 89 now running in the Canada Gazette, and that the pay of officers above the rank of lieutenant has been increased?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is my information.


George Black: I have no desire to see the pay of the higher ranks reduced. I think they are being paid too little now, and the force is too small. But I do say that all ranks should be treated equitably and alike.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall
undertake that any inequalities such as those to which my hon. friend refers will be care-full looked into.


John Arthur Clark: What is the present strength of the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry and the 22nd Royal Regiment?

Supply-Royal Military College


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Princess
Pats, 276 of all ranks; 22nd, 190.


John Arthur Clark: That is an instance of the policy pursued by this government with regard to our defence affairs. Both these units should have at least 1,000 men, four companies. It was represented to these men when they agreed to become part of the permanent force that there would be a certain establishment, but that representation has been ignored, although these are two of the finest units in the Canadian corps. Moreover, it is a further evidence of the lack of attention to the question of the defence of the country.


Arthur Edward Ross: What are the royal schools of instruction?
Mr. MACDONALD Pictou):	There are
schools of instruction in the different military districts where courses are given to militia officers and men. They include one at Winnipeg, one at Ottawa, one in Nova Scotia.


Arthur Edward Ross: Who is at the
head of the school in Ottawa?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Colonel
Walker.


Arthur Edward Ross: What instruction
does he give?


Mr. ARTHURS:: How many officers have been instructed by these various schools during the past year?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Colonel
Walker is in charge of machine gun instruction. I will look uip the other information my two hon. friends have asked for and will give it to them later.


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not wish to hold the vote up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Military College, $365,000.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: Would the minister tell us
li tne fracas that took place at the college has yet been adjusted?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think a
good deal of unnecessary publicity was given to an incident that occurred at the military college last winter. It attracted a good deal of attention, but really did not amount to much. I am glad that my hon. friend has brought the matter up, because it will give me an opportunity of putting a report on Hansard with reference to this matter. I asked a committee from the Advisory Board of the Royal Military College to personally visit the college, and go into the whole mat-

ter. This they did, and they have given to me a report which, with the permission of the House, I will place on Hansard, unless my hon. friend wishes me to read it.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Oh, no.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Agnes Campbell Macphail: I wish to give the committee some facts regarding the cost of maintaining students at the Royal Military College. The cadets at the Royal Military
College cost the college about $1,750 each per year and that is not taking into account the interest on the capital cost. The Royal Military College cadet is there at a cost to himself or his parents of less than $400 per year. He receives his military clothes, maintenance and recreation as well, for that sum. The government cuts his hair, washes his laundry, pays his dentist and doctor bill*., gives him horses, boats, canoes, 9kis and a swagger stick, but not a motor car. All told, it seems true, as a Kingston resident told the Star-I am quoting from the Toronto Star of March 22, 1924-that the Royal Military College is the cheapest college in Canada and yet the most exclusive. Each cadet, unless he lives too near the institution, or unless he takes French leave, gets his railway fare paid. So also do his parents when they bring him to college, or come to see him graduate and the board of visitors when they go their rounds. A recent academic statistician gave the cost of the cheapest of all university courses, the theological at about $800 a year. Canada makes the military calling more easy than the ministerial. There is more state aid for soldiers of the king than for the soldiers of the cross.
In view of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that we are suffering from great economic stress, in view of the further fact that the chief object of the Royal Military College, with some exceptions, is to produce a class of snobs, and first-class snobs, whose chief duty it is to carry the swagger stick with which the state provides them, in view of the further fact that the vote on tuberculosis has been cut, and there is a threat of cutting out altogether the vote for venereal disease, in view of the further fact that the question of rural credits has not been taken up this year on account of the cost, and that the Home Bank depositors have not been reimbursed, and it looks to me as if they would not be, in view of the further fact that the Pensions bill was killed by the Senate, or at least spoiled, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, that item No. 96 be reduced by the sum of $100,000.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How many boys or young men have graduated from this institution since the beginning?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 1,387 have attended the college since it was instituted.


James Arthurs: What proportion went to the front in the late war?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg and my hon. friend from Southeast Grey must not run

Supply-Royal Military College
away with the idea that all the boys who attend the Royal Military College become soldiers. It is true they receive a military training, in addition to a good education, but a large number of the best engineers who have been produced in Canada have come from that college. Men are to be found in every walk of life in Canada who have been trained at the Kingston Military College, and they all make good citizens.
Replying to my hon. friend from Parry Sound, I have forgotten for the moment the exact number who enlisted from the college, though I had occasion to attend at Kingston about a month ago at the unveiling of a memorial arch to the sons of the college who had fallen overseas, and my recollection is that seventy-five or eighty per cent of the graduates of the college went overseas and fought in the war.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Has the minister any idea of the number of officers of the Canadian army to-day who are graduates of that college?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We do not keep data of that kind. I do not think there would be a very great percentage, although there would be a considerable number. The total number of officers of all grades in the. Canadian army does not amount to more than three hundred.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I asked that in view of the statement that was made to me by one of the officers of the board some years ago that a considerable number of the graduates of the college applied for commissions in the British army, and that we received very little benefit indeed, if you call it a benefit, so far as the Canadian forces are concerned.


George Perry Graham: I have kept out of this
military discussion although it has been hard work. If there is an institution in this country that ought to have the unanimous support of hon. members it is the Royal Military College. Should there be any members here who have got the idea that there is something repulsive about the military college, or that it is an institution that should not be supported by the Canadian people, I would advise them to pay a visit to it. To my mind there is no institution in this country that develops an all round manhood like the Royal Military College does; it develops young Canadians mentally, physically and morally. The knots are knocked off the boys who join in a few weeks. It is true that sometimes the treatment is a little rough,

but any lad who goes to the Royal Military College and stays there comes out a real man. You will find throughout this country men in different walks of life who have been trained at the military college, and they are fit to take their places anywhere.


Mr. MART ELL:: They are well equipped for civil life as well as for a military career.


Oliver Robert Gould: I am afraid they would not be of much use in stooking grain.


George Perry Graham: The physique of the
graduates is such that they will easily match a man at stooking grain or anything else.


Oliver Robert Gould: I will accept that challenge.


George Perry Graham: I have always been
strongly in favour of the Royal Military College ever since I visited it. Before that time I did not believe in it. I met boys there who had gone in ungainly youths and had been converted into perfect gentlemen. At the Royal Military College they have a severer physical test than at any other institution in Canada, and there is no other place where they get such an all round training. I have a strong and abiding faith in the belief that a man to be mentally strong must be physically fit, otherwise he is top heavy and not of much use.


William Irvine: How long has the Royal
Military College been in existence?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Before you came to this country.


George Perry Graham: I do not know; I suppose it was established nearly fifty years ago.


Arthur Edward Ross: During the time
of Alexander Mackenzie.


William Irvine: If it has been in existence
for fifty years and has produced such great mentalities why is it the graduates are not to be found occupying positions of eminence in this country?


George Perry Graham: But they are. They are occupying some of the highest positions in Canada. I do not carry a list of the graduates in my pocket, but I will guarantee to my hon. friend that if he obtains a list of the men who have passed through the college he will find that a great many of them are occupying high positions not only in Canada but in other countries. I met several of them in the Old Land, men who had taken positions that were a credit to Canada and a credit to themselves. I must not mention war because there will be trouble. I hate war as much as any person

Supply-Royal Military College
else does, but let me tell my hon. friend this: Such is the training given at the Koyal Military College that when the war broke out hundreds of men engaged in engineering and other walks of civil life throughout Canada were the first to say "We are ready"; and if you follow their record, either in the engineering corps or other branches during the war you will find that the deeds of the graduates of the Royal Military College are emblazoned in letters of gold upon the banners of their country. I know something about the college and what it does and I say this, as a man who has had years of experience: If I had to cut all these items but two, the votes I should retain would be those for the Royal Military College and the cadet service.


Arthur Edward Ross: Do not imagine that the Royal Military College is in my constituency because it is not.


George Perry Graham: It is close.


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes it is close. But I know something about the college and I can say about it that those who criticise and decry, live to praise. One only needs to visit that institution to ascertain its value to Canada. Some 1,300 graduates have come from that college and 900 of them served in the great war. No other institution has such a splendid record as that.


William John Ward: I understood the minister to say that some 1,300 had graduated from this college since its establishment?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My deputy tells me that is incorrect. Those are the graduates for a period of ten years.


William John Ward: Even at the reduced period it seems like a lot of money to be spent on it.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think that record is good enough.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is 135 graduates a year. It is a pretty good record, I think, for the college.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is not altogether a military institution; it is not for the purpose of training for military service altogether. The students graduating from the military college now have the privilege of entering Canadian universities and they are doing so. But they have all had a military training so that at any time they are capable of serving as officers either in the Canadian forces or in the forces of the Old Country. Some hon. member said they did not go into
the Canadian force. A large number do. A great many of the artillery officers throughout this country are graduates of the military college.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I want to ask this question for information. (My hon. friend suggested that the graduates of this college go into Canadian universities. Do I understand that if a student graduates from the Royal Military College, I will say in engineering, he can go into one of the universities?


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Is their training comparable to that of a high school?


Arthur Edward Ross: The Military College graduate is allowed three years off the university training, that is his standing. Most of them take up scientific and engineering courses in the university and they get a three years' standing as a result of graduating from the military college. Now, I want to draw attention to a certain number of men who have graduated from this institution in order to show that they are not all going into military life and that the training has been of value to Canada. I went over a number of the names myself. First there is Colonel Bishop. He took up training in the flying corps, and to-day he is in charge of our aviation force. That is not altogether doing military work but it is going to do a great deal of work which this country will have to do if it is going to keep up. Flying is a work that is of great service in our forestry development and in many other ways.
There is another family, known as Carr-Harris, every boy of which has entered the military college and has graduated. There are doctors-and I want to draw the attention of the committee to this-there are missionaries and there are military men. There are members of that family in every walk in life.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Lawyers?


Arthur Edward Ross: No, they escaped
that affliction. There is Iieut.-Colonel Cassels -and this will be of some benefit to the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell)-who is a man who did get away from the ordinary work of the military college and who is a barrister and solicitor in Toronto. In the Great War there is no profession so marked as the legal profession. Many sons of lawyers and sons of judges took part in the Great War.
I do not think, of the outstanding graduates of the military college any one has brought so much credit to Canada as Sir Percy

Supply-Royal Military College
Girouard, the bridge builder. What is this man doing and what has he done? He is managing director, Sir W. G. Armstrong, Whitworth Co., Ltd., Elswick Works, New-castle-on-Tyne, England; president, Armstrong Whitworth of Canada; director, Armstrong and A. J. Main, Glasgow. He began as a lieutenant in the Royal Engineers. He was traffic manager of the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich. He was director of railways in the Soudan expedition. He was president of the Egyptian State railway. He was director of railways in South Africa. He was Commissioner of Railways in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony. He was High Commissioner and Governor of Northern Nigeria. He was Governor of British East Africa. During the late war he was Director General of Munitions' Supplies.
Another graduate who is not in military life is Captain William Harty, who is to-day connected with the Canadian Locomotive Company at Kingston. He also served in France and he received not one, but two decorations.
Another name is that of Lieutenant-Colonel Kingsmill. Again this may give a little comfort to my hon. friend to know that, as a graduate of the military college, he afterwards was called to the bar.
Other names are Kirkpatrick and Lackie, Still another name that will appeal to many people in Canada is that of Colonel Leonard who had so much to do with maintaining industries in Canada. A name that is well known to the people of Montreal is that of Lieutenant-Colonel Bartlett McLennan, who was killed in action in France. Another name that has made Canada famous is that of General Nanton, a graduate of the military college.
These are only a few names that I have picked out, and I think they will serve to give she committee some idea of the development sf men, great men that Canada has produced and who have become famous through their training in connection with the military college. I did not take part in the discussion on the question of military service and training, but it is easy to get up and read a clipping out of the paper written by some man who has some particular object in view of calling "snobs" and talking about people going around with canes and so on. Every university has a certain amount of hazing; a military college is not the only one. Ladies' colleges have the same thing. The boys go through a certain amount of training, and those who come out of that training, who live to carry out the fMr. A. E. Ross.]
discipline, are men of some qualities, who have some stuff in them, and who Will become famous. I was at the military college a few weeks ago when the minister was there at the unveiling of a monument, and I listened to some of the remarks.	One man-I do not
know who he was-came along and said to one of the officers of that institute: "Before I go away, I want to thank you for what you have done for my boy. I have two more boys and both are going through the military college." I am not going to justify anything in connection with the sarcasm that has been heaped upon the military college. I have given names that are worth a great deal to Canada of persons who have put Canada very high on the map as compared with other countries in the world. I am a believer in training. I am a believer even in the old military camps that we have had
11 p.m. and I have, perhaps, had more experience in the training of troops than any one else in this chamber. I have seen the results more than any one else, and I have a very different idea of what fitness means. I have seen in the first division men over sixty years of age who gave excellent service to this country. I have seen men who got through examinations with great disabilities and who performed many months of service in France. Therefore my idea of fitness differs from that of other men. My idea of fitness is the courage, the spirit and the will that is in a man, no matter what his age may be. If I were going to put down what fitness meant again, it would be the spirit, the courage, the willingness to serve. Rather than have members pour criticism upon this institution, I should like them to visit it, and I should be glad if the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) would visit the military college at some time and go through it. Some day that she, I hope may have a boy, I trust she will be willing to see him in that institute rather than any other institute in Canada.


Mr. GARDINER:: I do not know very
much about this military college and, therefore, I should like to get a little information from the minister, because we have received very little to-night. Are the expenses of students in this college met by the government? Do they enter the college after competitive examination? Once they have received this training and passed through the college, are they at the disposal of the country and do they enter the forces?
481b

Supply-Royal Military College


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The government maintain the buildings, the quarters generally and the instructors, the same as any other institution is maintained. The students who enter do so wholly on the strength of competitive examination and there is no such thing as discrimination against any one no matter in what station of life he may be. The boy passes his entrance examination and whether he be t'he son of a poor man in any walk of life or a rich man's son he receives the same education. The poorest boy gets the same treatment as does the son of the wealthiest man in the land. The object of the institution is to teach the boys to be true men and there is no such idea as snobbery about it at all. And I can speak from personal acquaintance with some of the graduates. One, a contemporary of mine and a relative, attended the college thirty years ago and although he was a poor boy he received the excellent education and training which the college affords, and received it because he was able to pass his examination. He attained great distinction as an engineer and was employed in a very important capacity in connection with the construction of railways in the Andes in South America. And he is typical of the men who leave the institution. The boy who comes from any home in the country and can pass his examination receives a splendid education and a training which is calculated to fit him for his lifework.


Robert Alexander Hoey: They pay their tuition fees?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes; every boy has to pay his fees and pay for his board just the same as in any other institution. And as regards the utilization of the men who graduate from the college, any man who leaves the college is qualified to become and may become an officer in the militia; but no further demand is made upon him. In past years at various times graduates of the college have entered the English army by reason of some special distinction, and reference has been made to such men as Sir Percy Girouard, who was a great engineer and who in public life became governor of Nigeria. The record of the college is one of the most remarkable in the country and, as I say, its graduates include men from the humblest homes as well as from the mansion.


Arthur Meighen: I should feel ashamed if I let this vote, and some of the comment which has been made upon the college, pass without a word on the question. I have given some attention to the character of training given at the military college. The purpose
as I have always conceived it has been to lay a foundation of training such as will primarily equip the lad for military service, should it become essential, but at the same time to use that period of training which necessarily must cover some years, to the best possible advantage to equip the lad generally for the work of the world. Military training is of course paramount, otherwise we should not be justified in entering the field of education at all, for that would be the work of the provinces. But from what I have observed, the training of the boys, and the central purpose is the most efficient and general training to make a man of him, is just about all that the fondest parent could desire. The arts education is naturally not quite so wide nor varied as it is in a university. In the classics there is virtually none; in the English classics the training is very fair; in French it is now better than it was, I think I should say it is very good; in the engineering phases of the education it is of course excellent. Speaking particularly of the mathematical branch I can say that the military college curriculum is well on a level with the honours mathematical work of our best universities. Indeed, it is little below the highest standard achieved by the best universities of Canada. Hon. gentlemen will see then that from the point of view of mental training the curriculum is excellently designed. I myself was surprised at the standard demanded particularly in mathematics.
Now, the main purpose to which all this converges is of course to develop in the lad those principles of conduct and that outlook on life and as well to develop that physical equipment which will form the foundation upon which he can serve his country should the necessity of service in the military field be demanded of him. If there is in a boy, when he goes to the college, anything of innate manliness that quality is going to come to the surface and be developed. And few there are who ever enter it who come out without such qualifications and such elements of manhood pre-eminent and manifest. The sense of discipline is impressed so indelibly that no one ever can lose it; and what is better still, the sense of honour is so implanted that he is bound to carry it through his life. So highly is the boy trained to realize the value of time and to realize what duty means that I can well conceive that the graduate of that college would be more in demand in the business world than perhaps the graduate of any other institution. I may say that the head of one of the
4814	COMMONS
Supply-Royal Military College
largest institutions in this Dominion told me some years ago, before I had any personal acquaintance with the institution, that there was always room in his organization for a graduate of the Royal Military College; they could always find room for him.
I have given an idea of what the college is for; and I do not see how any country can have a military organization at all unless there is some such institution as this. And because we have a military organization it is not to be assumed that we are looking for military trouble. I cannot get the attitude of mind of a man who, because he is convinced that he does not want any war, argues himself into the belief that he does not want any militia nor any fortification against war. And jusft as difficult is it for me to understand those who are continually saying-"Preparation for war has not avoided war, therefore why prepare?" Well, preparation against the burglar has not stopped burglary, but I do not hear anyone suggesting that we should abandon our police. I do not know of any country on earth which has not some preparations for its own defence and at least some preparations for maintaining the law of the land at home. Let me remind hon. gentlemen to my left, in all kindness, of this fact' There was in England many years ago a party which indulged in language very similar to what I hear from some hon. gentlemen to my left to-night, indulgence in very much the same class of argument and the same statement of principle as to what ought to prevail and what would prevail if they attained the reins of power. That party is now in office, and I notice one of their principal characteristics is a very frank acknowledgement that in all these things they were wrong, and I observe as well that when they come to face the realities of this world in posts of responsibility one of their greatest difficulties is to devise a course of conduct in this respect that is in the least degree distinguishable from that of all their predecessors of the ather parties.


Oliver Robert Gould: 
Arthur Meighen: Yes; and many a government before has reduced estimates. But you do not alter a principle by reducing estimates, and I venture to say that if they are there much longer, like every other government, they will be able to show they have increased the estimates, too, in just this respect. The best feature I can see in them is the frankness with which they acknowledge [Mr. Meighen.J
that in the irresponsible post of opposition, when they did not see realities face to face, they committed themselves to a course of conduct which later they found was entirely without defence. These things we have to realize, and I agree with the former Minister of Militia, the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), that if every other dollar of all our military vote were cancelled-and I would vote against every cancellation myself- the last two votes to be done away with would be just the votes that have been most bitterly condemned in the debate to-night.


Charles Gavan Power: Much as I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and to admire her courageous attitude, I am sorry that I have to differ from her in this case. If there is one agency for democratizing our Canadian army it is the Royal Military College. As' the Minister of Militia has said, boys from every walk of life on passing their examinations may enter the college, and when they complete their course they go into the army, and there they do much to destroy that feeling which, if I am to believe the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), exists,-that the officer class is a special class in this Dominion. Another reason is that graduates from the Royal Military College have done perhaps more than any other class of citizens to develop the country; in every great public undertaking there have been engineer graduates of the college. Anybody who is at all familiar with the construction of the Transcontinental railway will remember that in almost every survey party there was a graduate of the Royal Military College. So far the reason that they have helped to develop this country, and for the reason that, in the eloquent words of the right hon. leader of the opposition, the college turns out graduates to be men, strong men, noble men, and in every sense of the word but the snobbish sense gentlemen, I shall support the vote.
Amendment (Miss Macphail) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Transport and freight, $160,000.
Oliver Robert Gould: Are the automobiles in the
various military districts kept for the use of the men at other times than when they are in training?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is
one automobile at the disposal of the District Officer Commanding in each military district.

Supply-Naval Service


Oliver Robert Gould: The information which I
have before me, and which I do not quote as disputing the hon. minister, shows a total of twenty automobiles. Are these for the use of the men except when in training?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Among the
twenty must be included motor trucks used for the transportation of supplies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Naval Service-to provide for the maintenance of the ships and establishments of the Naval Service, including the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve and the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, $1,400,000.
William Irvine: Will the minister state
briefly what is included in this item?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is for
the upkeep of the various vessels which belong to the Canadian government-the torpedo destroyers, Patriot and Patricia; the minesweepers Ypres, Armentieres and Thiepval; the light cruiser Aurora, which is not in commission; and the submarines which are laid up in reserve at Halifax; the officers and men forming the complements of the above fleet; tha naval executive staff at headquarters, Ottawa; the naval barracks and training establishments at Halifax and Esquimalt; the naval dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt; officers and men of the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, and of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How much of the vote was used last year?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We used
81,354,527.


William Irvine: In looking over the report
of last year it seems to me that we paid pretty high for what appears to be a very small service. Apparently the two ships in commission last year were used as sort of jolly boats trading between Lunenburg and Pictou, carrying picinc parties, receiving visitors, and that sort of thing. It reminds me of Jerome K. Jerome's "Three Men in a Boat." I will give an extract or two from the report. It states that the Patriot and Patricia were the only two ships in commission. Then it proceeds:
On September 19 Patriot was sent to Lunenburg to take part in the celebration of Fishermen's Day. From Lunenburg the ship proceeded to Halifax for refit.
I do not know what they did at Lunenburg to necessitate this refit
During October the ship was placed at the disposal of the Fishing Schooner Race Committee to assist in
the elimination races in preparation for the international schooner race. The vessel rendered valuable assistance in the regulating of the race, generally, and continual use of her services was made.
That is the second stage of the naval service rendered by this vessel-the superintending of a sort of picnic on the water.
The ship was opened to visitors at each of the Canadian ports at which she called and was on such occasions continually crowded with visitors. The visitors, particularly those following the sea, were very interested in the ship's appliances and in many instances requested to be taken on cruises.
That is the next step. It does not say whether or not these requests were complied with. The report goes on:
Upon returning from the international schooner race the Patriot remained at Halifax, while her ship's company took their summer's leave.
So much for ship No. 1. Now let us look at ship No. 2.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend, in order to be fair, should at once proceed to state that the Patriot sailed for Bermuda and remained there in training and working generally with the North American squadron of the British navy for a considerable period.


William Irvine: Yes; I did not intend to
read the whole report. I said I was going to read only excerpts from it. I have read the report of that ship from September 19 until December, and that is a considerable period of the year. Now we will take the Patricia.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is not fair there. He admits the cruise of this vessel all along the various ports in the Maritime provinces. When he speaks of her participating in the arrangements for the fishermen's races I may tell him that the United States government sent a destroyer, and that is why this vessel was sent there.


William Irvine: The Patricia accompanied
the Patriot in all these jaunts. I quote:
The Patricia also acompanied Patriot to Pictou on September 13, for the celebrations there-
Another picnic.
-and then proceeded to Lunenburg for the fishermen's day celebration on September 20.
Another picnic.
She then returned to Halifax to prepare for her voyage to Esquimalt, on which station she has been placed.
Continuing:
On December 5 she proceeded on a cruise to Prince Rupert. This cruise gave the officers and men an opportunity of obtaining local knowledge of the west
Supply-Air Services

coast. The distance covered was approximately 1,100 miles. The inland shipping route was followed and valuable knowledge obtained, as the currents and tides of this route are intricate.
That is rather jocular to anyone who knows anything about the sea.
Stops of one day were made at each of the following places.


Thomas George McBride: Has my hon. friend ever
been up to Prince Rupert?


William Irvine: Yes, but this is rather
a peculiar task for a man-of-war, to be examining inland routes of that character.


Thomas George McBride: Has my hon. friend ever been through the Yonkatar rapids?


William Irvine: I am quite certain my hon. friend has not been through anything that is very rapid. I have not been through this particular rapid to which he refers. Does he mean to suggest that the Patr.cia was in the Yonkatar rapid?


Thomas George McBride: That indicates what my hon. friend knows about the cruise along the coast. She would pass through these rapids.


William Irvine: If my hon. friend will
undertake to defend the voyage of the Patricia on the ground of naval service, he will be able to tell us just what valuable service to navigation was rendered as referred to in this report. However, he may do so when I am through. I have just quoted excerpts from the report, which hon. members may read for themselves. I want to give the cost of these trips to Canada. In the case of the Patriot the cost was $180,904.21 and in the case of the Patricia $203,693.17; pay and allowances, $533,493.17. I do not have to say to the committee that this has nothing to do with naval service; it can scarcely be called a laval jaunt. At a time when we are cautioned to practise economy and when the government *efuses even to consider seriously the urgent demand of 60,000 Home Bank depositors, we can spend lavishly on picnic jaunts for a few individuals. I am not speaking against the navy; that is not the navy. These are a couple of jolly-boats used for picnic purposes and to receive visitors. I do not think it will make for the training of very brilliant seamen to receive visitors at Pictou or any of these other ports. This is really humorous as the report of a naval service for which we have spent so much.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Air services-purchase of aircraft, technical equipment and provision of ground services, $300,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the minister give us some information respecting this item?
Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou); The aircraft service is hardly military in its character; it performs services for all the departments. The planes belonging to the department have grown very old and some of them have been out of commission. In 'addition 12 airplanes were burned at Camp Borden some three months ago, which almost paralyzed the service. It is necessary to purchase some additional airplanes and provide for their equipment. There is a vote also in the supplementary estimates for the carrying out of an arrangement made with the Department of the Interior, who are extending their service in regard to air patrol. Only last week very valuable service was rendered in connection with the fires that took place in British Columbia. It is for the purpose of putting the service in proper shape that this vote is provided.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What was the cause of
the fire at Camp Borden?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The circumstances in that connection are of a peculiar character. We have had two fires there, one earlier in the winter and another about two months ago. It is imagined that some firebug living in the vicinity is responsible, but we have not been able to locate him. A close investigation has been held and we have engaged the services of outside detectives with a view to discovering the offender.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contingencies-Additional amount required to provide for legal fees and expenses in connection with litigation. re Dead Man's island and Stanley Park, Vancouver, B.C., etc., $5,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What are the particulars of this item?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is some litigation which was started quite a number of years ago when General Sir Sam Hughes was minister of this department, to set aside a lease that had been granted of Dead Man's Island in British Columbia. The proceedings went to the Privy Council and the case was decided in favour of the government, but notwithstanding the decision, the men who were on the island would not give up possession, and suit was brought some three years ago to eject them. This suit was decided in favour of the government, and these

men. have appealed to the Court of Appeal in British Columbia. They represent, I think, in this litigation some banks who advanced money to the original holder of the lease, and that is the cause of the protracted litigation. The government have succeeded in every step so far. This island is regarded as of very great importance by the people of Vancouver, and it is most desirable that the title should once more be vested in the government, having regard to future development.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Can any court in British Columbia set aside a verdict of the Privy Council?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The point is this: The Privy Council decided that the lease which had been granted, by the government was void. That was one proceeding, but the people who had got possession of the island through some claim from the original lessees refused to give up possession and the present proceedings are to eject them. They are asserting, I think with absolute futility, the right to still remain there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Non-permanent active militia training-Additional amount required for training non-permanent active militia, $10,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What are the particulars of this item?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was
found in view of the big cut we had made in the main vote, that a small additional amount would be required in order to make both ends meet. This was estimated at $5,000. Then there was another expenditure in connection with the celebration that was held at Belleville a month ago to celebrate the coming to Ontario of the United Empire Loyalists. One of the features of that celebration was a military display, and the militia of eastern Ontario were mobilized for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Naval Services-Grant to Florence Walker, widow of the late Franklin Walker, formerly labourer, Fort Clarence, Halifax harbour, $1,200.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General services-Amount required towards the construction of a magazine, other buildings and services in connection therewith at or near Halifax, N.S., for the joint use of Militia and Naval Services, $50,000.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: Will this work be done by
contract or otherwise?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: By tender
and contract. It is represented to me by the officials of the department that on account of the proximity of the refinery, which I mentioned a moment ago, a similar explosion may take place at any time unless this magazine is constructed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government-National Defence-salaries, $694,555; contingencies, $50,000.
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: We have heard a
good deal of criticism to-night of the items which have been before the House, partciularly of those relating to military training. The minister has made it quite clear that he is anxious to reduce the amount for militia purposes. So far as the item under civil government is concerned, there is little or no reduction, and it is quite evident that large items have been provided in the estimates for services that cannot very well come under the head of national defence. For instance, I do not think it is fair to include the air service as at present constituted under national defence. It may be part of national defence to put out a fire, but the air service of this country to-day has been degraded to the position of being hired out to the provinces for fire ranging purposes. As it is it really should not come under national defence at all. If this service is going to be absolutely ruined by reducing it by such an amount that it will not be of any service whatever, I would suggest that the whole department be abolished. To reduce the services in this way is to make them non-effective, and if the government are going to continue catering to an element in this House who apparently have not backbone enough to stand up and admit that they are going to defend themselves when necessary, I think we should know it. I believe the minister, and the ex-minister, and others know that the proper thing to do is to increase the amount rather than decrease it in the way in which it is continually being decreased. There are items here which should not come under national defence at all. The air service in this
4S18
Supply-National Defence

country does not come under that head at all ito-day, and there are other services as well. If you will look back, you will see that the item undej the head of Civil Government has remained the same as it was about two years ago.


George Perry Graham: If my 'hon. friend will
permit me, there were three staffs amalgamated, and if he will turn back and compare the amounts for these three services with the total amount provided now for national defence, he will find there is a larger reduction.


Donald Sutherland: I have just been
pointing out that the air service should no longer be a branch of the Department of National Defence if it is to be utilized for the work which it is now doing. In so far as the Canadian navy is concerned I do not think the minister will seriously contend that it is of any service as at present constituted. The naval college has been abolished and the Canadian navy-if it can be dignified by that term-has been utilized in protecting trawlers, or something of that kind, in connection with fishing. Surely if the service is going to be degraded in this way then the civil branch should also be reduced; we should not keep a staff of officials who cannot render any effective service owing to impairment of the means of service. I have sat here to-night and have heard things said that are a disgrace to the people of this Dominion.
I have heard branches of the service criticised in a way that the people of this country, upon serious reflection will live to regret. I was glad when the ex-Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) rose and spoke in defence of the cadet service and the Royal Military College. Personally I cannot imagine where any money could be spent so effectively as it is in connection with the cadet service in Canada. Hon. members may sneer at national defence, they may sneer at anything of a military nature, but the day eventually comes in the history of every country when the nation will look to the men who have had military training to stand between them and ruin. It has been so throughout the world's history. Human nature has not changed; it is just the same in that respect as it was a thousand years ago. There will be war as long as there are human beings dwelling on this sphere. Human nature will have to undergo a complete change before you will eliminate war. I must protest here-late as it is and much as I regret its necessity- against crippling everything in the nature of national defence in this country, and then making the pretence that we have a branch of 
the government which merits the dignity of such a title. It is not national defence at all. Everything in the nature of national defence in this country has been absolutely ruined, yet we have a Minister of National Defence, we have deputy ministers, and we have the whole paraphernalia in connection with the department. If the government are sincere in their efforts to reduce expenditures why do they not cut down the cost of civil government? The cost is increasing in every branch of the service. I see ministers here who have estimates yet to pass to-night. They have been increasing their departmental expenses by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Officials are being appointed by the hundreds in various branches. But when it comes down to something that may mean preserving the very life of the nation there is a tendency to say " Oh, there is a big element in this country who do not believe that we should defend ourselves even though the enemy might be at our gates. What is the use of training men to wear the uniform and to be able to handle a rifle they say. That is something that should be removed from the minds of the people of this country." Speaking personally, and on behalf of those I represent,
I protest against the policy which has been enunciated by hon. gentlemen to my left. As I saw them standing up here to-night and voting as they did for the reduction of some of these items I could not believe it was possible that you could find so many men in any assembly who would get up and advocate any such policy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health Pollution of boundary waters, $5,400.
Henry Elvins Spencer: We would like to have
some further particulars about this?


Henri Sévérin Béland: This appropriation is for
the enforcement of the regulations concem-ing water for drinking and culinary purposes on vessels navigating the great lakes and inland waters, approved by order in council on June 19, 1923. The details are as follows:
Salary of one sanitary engineer, $3,600 per year. Travelling expenses and sundries, $1,800.
We are carrying out an agreement we have with the United States in connection with navigation on the great lakes.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Why is there an increase of a hundred per cent in this item over last-year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Last year the sanitary engineer served only for six months. He was appointed about the middle of the year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Health
Venereal diseases, $150,000.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: I notice there is a reduction
of $50,000 in this vote. I take it that all other members in common with myself have received protests against this reduction. I would ask the minister 'the reason for it?


Charles Gavan Power: Every day we are getting
better and better.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I trust so.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It seems to me this vote should be increased rather than decreased. We have voted a lot of money for purposes that are not nearly so important as the present one. I think we should have an explanation from the minister as to why the amount has been reduced?


Henri Sévérin Béland: When a grant for this
purpose was first voted by parliament it was made clear that the appropriation would be only for five years at the rate of $200,000 per year. The first appropriation was only $100,000. For the second, third and fourth years $200,000 was annually voted. This vote is to complete the $1,000,000 which was intended to be appropriated in order to help the provinces in combating venereal diseases. We were only called upon to appropriate $100,000. this year but representations were made to the government-to myself in particular-from the different provinces in favour of .maintaining the vote as it formerly stood. We have cut the difference in two and are making the appropriation $150,000. The object of the appropriation in the first place was to enable the provinces to establish a service to combat venereal diseases. This was a new work and the provinces were called upon to furnish of their own money an equal amount, as they did. After five years it is now found that the service is well organized throughout the country, and it is felt that the federal exchequer should not be called upon to pay as much money as it did before.


William Irvine: Will the work of this year
be done as adequately under this sum as the work was done last year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I would expect so. The
first year the work was naturally one of organization and this required a good deal more work than it will in the future. All the clinics now are established.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Should the duty of looking after this disease be left entirely to the provinces, or would it not be in the best interest of Canada that the Dominion government should vote a large sum each year to help the provinces in this great work?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am rather of opinion that this is a work for the provinces. It may be that next year we contribute to a certain extent, but that matter can be decided then, and sufficient for the day is the trouble thereof.


John Livingstone Brown: I think the public sentiment of the Dominion of Canada will uphold the action of the Dominion government in continuing to help in carrying on this work.


George Gibson Coote: The Dominion government
should not overlook the fact that it has a very distinct liability in assisting the provinces in carrying on this work on account of its policy in bringing immigrants into this country, because a number of people afflicted with this disease are amongst those brought in under this immigration propaganda.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
add my voice to what has been said in urging that the Dominion government should recognize its responsibilities in this matter. Whilst we are spending money on many items, we in this House are not helping to carry a load that is already too heavy for the provinces and municipalities at the present time. Public health is one of the most important things for the country at large, and we are taking a retrograde step if we cut down expenditures in this regard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-Federal Appeal Board, $150,000.
Levi William Humphrey: Will this appropriation provide for the increase of the personnel of the appeal board if dt is seen fit to increase it?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My impression is that it
would be possible to cover one more commissioner, perhaps two. We could not increase the number by more than two. We have five at present and the statute provides that the number will not exceed seven. The idea would be, perhaps, to appoint one more so that we can have two quorum boards sit. A quorum is three.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions-European war and active militia, $32,990,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Could the minister give
us some particulars as this is a very large item?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The expenditure of this
money is authorized exclusively by the Board of Pension Commissioners. Whatever pen-

Supply-Civil Re-establishment
sions are awarded, we pay. There is nothing in this amount that goes for administration or for salaries of any kind. It re-12 m. presents the amount of pensions paid to pensioners. We have 43,300 disability pensioners and 19,971 dependent pensioners, making a total for the whole of Canada of 63,271. The liability for that number of pensions is thirty-two million dollars odd. The amount that we propose is a little in excess of what is actually required, because sometimes pensions may be awarded in larger number and the appeal board may award new pensions which had heretofore been refused.


Levi William Humphrey: A royal commission
was appointed a year ago to inquire into the pension question. That commission toured the Dominion and inquired into this question very thoroughly. I wish to congratulate the government on the position it took in appointing that commission to try to get at the facts in connection with circumstances and conditions that were supposed to exist throughout the country. The appointment of that commission was a step in the right direction. The results so far have been unsatisfactory. The Ralston commission, after touring the country and taking a considerable amount of evidence, submitted a report last year which a parliamentary committee during the present session has studied exhaustively. But we find now that the lateness of the day is given as a reason for no action being taken in regard to that report. The committee has gone thoroughly into the recommendations of the report and has considered various questions relating to pensions, and it is indeed unfortunate that after so much money has been spent on this commission, and after the members of this committee have inquired into conditions in an effort to reach some satisfactory conclusion, it should be found necessary to postpone action in the matter. It would have been highly desirable for parliament to have given effect to such recommendations in that report as would serve the interests of the returned men, and I respectfully urge the government to take steps to bring down at the next session of parliament, and bring down in ample time, such a measure as will give effect to the recomendations which it is considered will provide for the widows and orphans of returned men.


John Arthur Clark: Just a word in reference to the subject which the hon. gentleman has discussed.


George Newcombe Gordon: I hardly think that the Ralston commission can be discussed under this item.


John Arthur Clark: I have no desire to discuss the commission; I merely want to refer to the question of pensions. I understand that as a result of the action of the Senate the pensions amendments are practically nullified, and I wish to protest vigorously against that action.


George Newcombe Gordon: I understand that there has come from the Senate an intimation that certain amendments have been made by the Senate to which this House may be asked to give its concurrence, or, in the alternative, to confer with the other chamber. I am very much in doubt that the matter can be debated.


John Arthur Clark: I do not intend to debate that question. I want to ask the government what it proposes to do in the premises.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question relates to a subject which is on the order paper and I should have to rule such a discussion out of order as anticipating that subject.


John Arthur Clark: The leader of the government in the Senate suggested the appointment of a committee in the Senate on this matter and I should like to know what action the government proposes to take. Will anything be done at this session to give effect to the amendments which this House has passed?


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. gentleman no doubt is aware that he cannot anticipate a matter which stands on the order paper. I do not like ruling him out of order but the debate must be relevant to the question before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions payable to militiamen on active service North West Rebellion, 1885, and general pensions, $45,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the explanation?


Henri Sévérin Béland: There are 91 pensioners under the act, and I am not responsible for any new pensions that have been awarded.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pension to Alice Morson Smith, $600.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the minister give us a blanket explanation of all these various pension items?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have never had anything to do with the fixing of these pensions which were decided upon some years ago, but I understand that they have all been awarded for special meritorious reasons. This one,

Supply-Justice
for instance, is given to the widow of a gentleman who lost his life on his way to England between the two armies, so to speak. He had taken his discharge from the Canadian army to enlist in the British army and on his way overseas he was drowned. His widow could not get a pension under any statute and it was therefore provided in this way. The other pensions are all meritorious.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Some time ago I brought to the attention of the minister the case of the widow of a volunteer who went overseas in 1915. In trying to work her husband's farm she lost an arm and an eye and was badly gashed in the face. The minister told me that nothing could be done; but when I see so many pensions being granted other people I wonder why such a deserving case as this is ignored.
Salaries and contingent expenses of the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, $85,000.


Henry Elvins Spencer: We have heard a great deal of criticism of the Pension Commissioners lately. Why this increase?


Henri Sévérin Béland: This increase is to provide for three or four more clerks. We never questioaea the request of the board. They have been very conservative in their expenditure-some people think too conservative.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Penitentiaries, $1,651,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are any steps being taken to carry out the recommendations that from time to time have been made to provide more work for the inmates?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, all the recommendations are being considered.


James Shaver Woodsworth: According to the
reports there is still not sufficient work for the inmates. Is it not possible to provide suitable work for them?


Ernest Lapointe: The people whom my
hon. friend is supposed to represent have at times entered objections to the inmates of penitentiaries competing with labour outside.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think it is necessary for me to answer the implication. The point of objection taken by labour is that penitentiary articles should not enter into competition with similar articles made outside. That seems to me to be a reasonable objection. But the labour people are anxious that the welfare of the inmates should be considered by at least giving them suitable work.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend may be
sure that we are giving the inmates all the work they can do without hurting the feelings of the labour people. They do necessary government work in such a way as not to "enter into competition with labour.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not referring
to interference with labour; the minister himself introduced that objection. I am referring to the successive reports made by the wardens of penitentiaries that sufficient work is not being provided for the inmates; hence demoralizing influences are operating. I am thinking entirely in terms of the penitentiary people.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the reason for the increase of $10,000 in British Columbia?


Ernest Lapointe: It is on account of the
construction programme and covers land, buildings and equipment for the penitentiary.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Has the minister considered the advisability of utilizing the penitentiary farms for experimental and illustration work in the interests of the local community? I am thinking particularly of the penitentiary at Stoney Mountain, Manitoba. It is situated in the centre of a farming district and the farm comprises two or three sections of land, past which run a railway, an urban street car line and two trunk gravel roads. It would be an ideal spot to carry on such work in cooperation with the experimental farm branch, and it would provide healthful occupation for the inmates.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be pleased to
consider the suggestion of my hon. friend and discuss it with my colleague of the agricultural department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of justice-Miscellaneous expenditure -Additional amount required to provide for Eskimo trials in, Northwest Territories, $16,000; Yukon-To provide gratuity to widow of late Sheriff George Brimston, $666.67.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: What was the total cost of the Eskimo trails?


Ernest Lapointe: This is to provide the
necessary expenditure in connection with the trial of an Eskimo. The cost is estimated at $12,000.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it true as reported in the press that the party that went out to try these men carried with them the equipment necessary for conducting the hanging?

Supply-Customs


Ernest Lapointe: I should be very much
surprised if they did. I am not aware of it.


Leland Payson Bancroft: I have been informed
by the warden of the Stoney Mountain penitentiary that the Eskimo now imprisoned there is threatened with tuberculosis because of the change in climate. It has been requested that he be pardoned and sent back to his people, the idea being that the law has been satisfied and that no good can be served by keeping him there until he becomes a wreck. He has been there a year or more.


Ernest Lapointe: I will inquire into the
matter and give my hon. friend the information.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is that $16,000 for money already paid out, or is it for anticipated expenditure?


Ernest Lapointe: It is anticipated. The
expedition is going to start shortly.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister a few moments ago mentioned a sum of $18,000.


Ernest Lapointe: There is a remaining
$4,000 to cover an additional amount required in connection with a similar trip last year to Herschell island.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-expenses of litigated matters-Department of Justice, |J8,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the minister explain?


Ernest Lapointe: This is to cover the
expense of conducting litigation by the department. The amount varies from year to year, according to the amount of business transacted. The annual vote is $13,000 but an additional sum of $20,000 is asked for to provide for the expenses of the reference to the Privy Council of the Newfoundland boundary case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs and Excise-Additional amount required for Board of Customs and Inspectioni to provide for salaries and expenses in connection with the Advisory Board, including chairman of the board with salary at a rate not exceeding $10,000 per annum and two commissioners with salaries at a rate not exceeding $7,500 per annum each, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, $28,800.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Queen's):: I move that
this item be amended by substituting the following :
Board of Customs and Inspection-Amount required for the investigation and study of various modes of taxation, with a view to simplifying and improving the existing system, $28,800.
IMr. Woodsworth.1


Robert Alexander Hoey: How long is this investigation to continue?


Mr. BUREAU:: They cannot investigate
for more than a year, because that is the amount voted. The objection taken the other day when I proposed to have a board was that it might last for years and be a permanent affair. I looked over the debate, and everybody seemed to be in favour of such a board if it was not permanent. We can go on for a year, and if the results do not justify continuing the board, it will be dropped. On the other hand, if the board show results we can come to parliament and ask for the board to be continued for another year.


Thomas Langton Church: I am afraid the result
will be that the board will devise new ways of taxing the people, and that instead of relieving the burden of taxation new taxes will be imposed. In the United States, congress has abolished what are called the nuisance taxes, and I hope that when this board is constituted they will make a survey of what is being done in other countries, with a view to lightening taxation in this country rather than imposing new burdens.


Robert Gardiner: Will it be possible for
the information this board gathers to be made available to the members of the House?


Jacques Bureau: The object is to use all
that information to simplify the system of taxation, and the House will certainly have the benefit of any suggestions that are made in the legislation that will be brought down as a result of the information that may be gathered and the recommendations made.


Robert Gardiner: I take it, then that
the actual information will not be made directly available to members of the House, that it will only be available through such legislation as the minister may bring down.


Jacques Bureau: I cannot say what will
be done before the board is in action. I am not going to lay down any line of conduct for them. They are experts, and have the information we want to get. It will all depend on the kind of work they are going to do. The object is to get the best informed men we can.


Robert Gardiner: This is a new departure for the government of this country. I understand that if this board is to be kept in existence another year, the minister will have to come to parliament for the necessary appropriation. I would suggest to the minister

Supply-M iscellaneous
that if he is going to justify the expenses of this board, the members of this House should certainly have the privilege of getting the information that is gathered, either in the shape of an annual report or something of that nature.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister said these
men were all capable and experts. May I ask if he has already made a choice of these officials?


Jacques Bureau: No choice whatever has
been made so far. We were not going to pick out people and engage them until we had the money voted. Now we have the money, we are going to look around for the best men available.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister stated that
these men were experts, and I took it that he had already chosen them.


Jacques Bureau: For fear I may make further mistakes in my English, Mr. Chairman, je dois dire que ceux qui seront choisis con-naitront parfaitement ces questions-la; ce seront des experts.


Robert Gardiner: That is quite satisfactory, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government-Secretary of State-Salaries, $129,395; Contingencies, $25,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What are the details of this item?


Mr. OOPP:: They will be found on page
75. The staff has been reduced from 88 to 85, and there is a reduction in the expenditure of both salaries and contingencies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-Expenses under the Canada Temperance Act, $10,000.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: What is this for?


Mr. COPP:: This amount is voted in case
there may be an election. There was one last year, and there will probably be one or two this coming year. The money is required in making preparation for a referendum when it is applied for.


Mr. SALES:: Does the government pay the expenses?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: This is the Scott Act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the purchase of 650 copies of the Parliamentary Guide, 41,950.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Would it not be
sufficient if this guide were published after every parliament instead of being published annually?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I might take that suggestion
into consideration.


Jacques Bureau: It has been published every year since it first came out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses in connection, with the armorial bearings of Canada, $500.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What is this for?


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is to provide for any
copies of the coat of arms that may be required by members or others for distribution among public institutions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government-Public Archives-salaries, 468.260; Contingencies, $14,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: I understand that a considerable improvement is being made at the archives, and that a new building is being added. Can the minister give us any particulars of what has been done, and the cost?
, Mr. COPP:	This comes under Public
Works. The details have already been given ,by the minister in charge.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public archives, $75,500.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the total annual cost to this country of the archives?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It was $78,000 last year and
we are asking for $75,500 this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Service Commission-salaries, 4195,615; con-tiriigencies, 460,000.
Robert Gardiner: When is the increase
in this department going to stop? Almost every year since I have been a member there have been increases in this department. It seems to me that instead of increase we should be looking for decreases.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There is the same number of employees as last year but there was a very large reduction last year in the number of temporary employees. The staff is now down to 137 the same as last year. The increase in the vote for salaries is due to statutory increases.
Supply-M iscellaneous

Mr. GARDINER. May I suggest the possibility of using this staff to man some other department when it may require help. If that were done a good deal of money would be saved the country.


Jacques Bureau: You would have to apply to the Civil Service Commission first.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Civil Service Commission is kept pretty busy and is not in a position to lend its staff to any other department. Moreover as my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) suggests the permission of the commission itself would have to be sought first.


Thomas Langton Church: The Civil Service Commission is not performing the function for which it was appointed and in my opinion the sooner it is abolished the better it will be for good government in this country. It has fallen down all along the line.


George Gibson Coote: I suggest the minister might take into consideration the suggestion made by the hon. member for North Toronto.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: When so many suggestions are coming from other sources I suggest to the minister that if instead of abolishing the commission he would strengthen its hands and enable it to be a really efficient instrument for the elimination of patronage from the public service he would earn the grateful thanks of his countrymen.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think my hon. friend's remarks should be allowed to go unchallenged. The Civil Service Commision has full authority to destroy patronage, and if the government has interfered with its action at all it has been but to a very limited degree. I have found cases where exception has been taken to some of its appointments and in some of the departments over which I have control we may yet have to deal with them. There is undoubtedly too much delay after appointments are made but I think in making the appointments the Civil Service Commission is given a pretty free hand.


George Gibson Coote: I should not like the minister to get a wrong impression from the few remarks I made. I do not want to interfere with the work of the Civil Service Commission, but I think we have enough civil servants at present without appointing any more for a couple of years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. tMr. Copp.]
Department of Public Archives-salaries-Amount required to increase the salary of assistant keeper of public records from 1st July, 1924, owing to the rearrangement and reduction of the staff, $375.
Thomas Sales: How much did this official get before this increase?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The salary is $4,200.


Thomas Sales: But before the increase what was it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This brings it up to that
amount.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Labour-Salaries, $162,355; contingencies, $25,000.
Thomas Langton Church: An amount of $162,000 is being voted for the Labour department and yet that department could not settle a small strike among a few postmen without employing big stick methods. There was a lack of any semblance of conciliation. What is the function of the department; what is it for? The people of Canada want to know whether they are getting value for the money which is being spent on this department. The Minister of Labour may be a good pacificator at the Geneva convention in pacifying Europe but when there is a small strike on in this country of his own poorly paid employees he employs the big stick and fails to use any conciliation or diplomacy as he does over in Europe. In the case of the striking postmen in Toronto he told them "to stay out until hell freezes over." If that is a method of conciliation the Department of Labour employs in industrial disputes the quicker it is abolished the better. In my opinion this particular department, under various administrations, acts first upon the principle of what :s good for the party. The interests of labour occupy a secondary place. I have had some experience with the Labour department for the past seven or eight years and when a strike occurs they simply wire to the municipal authorities and ask them to settle it. If ever the people of Canada had occasion to be disappointed in this department it was on this occasion because of the lack of tact and conciliation used in this dispute between the government and a few postmen, a number of whom were returned soldiers, some of them being amputation cases. The main body of the men was composed of veteran employees of a good type who were badly advised to strike, in spite of that they were turned adrift by the Minister of Labour and the Acting Postmaster General, the two great conciliators of all time. I should like to know of one practical instance

Supply-Labour
where the department ever rose to the occasion and did anything for the working classes of this country. Part of this vote relates to the administration of a new act passed a year ago relating to trusts and combines. If ever trusts and combines flourished anywhere it is in Canada. We asked the other day how many prosecutions there had been and we learned that not one had occurred since the act had been brought into existence by the Department of Labour. I have the utmost respect for the minister himself, he may not be altogether to blame with regard to the trusts and combines but I think the people of this country are expecting to get a little more action for their money than they got from his department in the post office strike.


James Murdock: I am under obligation
to, my hon. friend for the outburst he has indulged in with respect to the postal strike in Toronto. Now, deliberately and with what I believe to be a full knowledge of the facts. I want to state that in my best judgment there would have been no postal strike in the city of Toronto if it had not been for the efforts of the hon. member for North Toronto to bring that strike about. There would I think have been no postal strike in Toronto if it had not been for the efforts exerted by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) to bring about a strike. I would very much appreciate an investigation made by this House to ascertain if that statement can be substantiated. I think the hon. member for North Toronto is the gentleman who, unfortunately, as I think, gave the postal workers' committee advice that brought them to the point where they believed a strike should take place. If my hon. friend will look at Hansard for the second day of July, he will see certain questions asked as to what conciliation was used to prevent a postal strike. He will ascertain that this government did not get one intimation from the postal workers' federation indicating their dissatisfaction with the award brought down by the Civil Service Commission until the morning of June 17, when a telegram was received from the chairman of the federation intimating that the postal workers regarded the situation as serious. At once, within an hour, we replied to the postal workers stating that the matter would be considered by the government. At council that day the matter was taken up and the government suggested that the postal workers' committee should come to Ottawa. They came ,to Ottawa, arriving here on the morning of the 18th June,
and they were met by four members of the cabinet who discussed the entire situation with them for several hours. Unfortunately we had to leave them and let them go out on the street alone to meet the hon. member for North Toronto between one and three p.m. of that day.


James Arthurs: Is it not a fact that for many days before this occurred, the matter was one of public comment by the press?


James Murdock: It is a fact, as my hon. friend suggests, that on April 1 or thereabouts, notice was served upon the government that a strike was going to take place on April 15 unless certain things were done. What was done? The government undertook to suggest to the Civil Service Commission -and we have under the law no other authority than to suggest-that prompt and effective steps should be taken to investigate the claims of the postal workers. I a,m one of the members of the House who believe that the postal workers have 'had some serious grievances that may not have been adjusted even yet. All steps that could possibly be taken, were taken, to press the proper claims of the postal workers to the consideration of the Civil Service Commission. Hon. gentlemen all know that from early in April until June 9 the Civil Service Commission, the Board of Audit, the deputy ministers and others were handling the matter. The Civil Service Commission made, I think, three recommendations to the cabinet, the third one of which was no different from the first, but which was signed and approved by the Governor in Council and which, in that way, became effective under the law.


James Arthurs: What about the Board of Audit?


James Murdock: The Board of Audit made a recommendation a few days prior to June 9, its recommendation being in fifteen or sixteen classifications of postal workers somewhat higher than the: Civil Service Commission's recommendation. If the recommendation of the Board of Audit had found favour with the Civil Service Commission, it is my opinion, which is not necessarily correct, that there would have been no strike. I think the postal workers would have been satisfied if an additional rung in the ladder had been put upon their respective scales of wages which in my judgment, should have been done.


James Arthurs: Did the minister not agree with the recommendation of council?
Supply-Labour


James Murdock: The Governor in Council agreed to it and as one of the members of the government, of course, I agreed. I am bound to agree. Had the Governor in Council not agreed to it, the hon. member for Parry Sound knows that there would have been no revised wage schedule made effective for the postal workers. There could not be under the law. So the hon. member for North Toronto, in my judgment, gave unfortunate advice to the postal workers, advice that was detrimental to their interests. I would respectfully suggest that if there is any doubt about that, this parliament should insist upon an investigation into all the facts and circumstances in order that we may ascertain all there is to the postal workers' recent strike, which I personally regret as much as any member of this House.


James Arthurs: The hon. member knows perfectly well that this is about the last night of the session. He is making in regard to the attitude taken by the hon. member for North Toronto, remarks which he knows and I know the hon. gentleman cannot reply to for various physical reasons.


James Murdock: My hon. friend will
realize that I had no opportunity to make this statement before and I certainly would not have refered to the matter now had the hon. member for North Toronto not invited it.


Thomas Langton Church: If the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Murdock) thinks he can get away with a rash and untrue speech like that just at the end of the session, he is very much mistaken. I was not in Toronto the day the strike started, but in Ottawa. I did not hear of the strike until about an hour after it happened. I was never consulted by the men before they went out nor took any part in their action. This just shows how unfair the minister is to me, and, as I said before, how much use his department is to the public service in Canada. We in this 1 a.m. part of the House, this evening, have said little or nothing all night and have been trying to get the session closed up and we have taken very little part in the discussion on the Militia and other estimates. If the minister thinks he can put that kind of talk over in this House, he cannot put it over on me. I was not consulted ly the postal workers in Toronto' before the strike took place, and when it did occur, I irnmedately endeavoured to get the parties t-gether. I found, however, that I could not do so, because of the lack of judgment and
[Mr. Arthurs.!
tact used, and because the Minister of Labour had told the men's secretary that as far as the government of Canada was concerned they could stay out until hell freezes over. Further, the day after the strike the men's committee sent for me to help negotiate for them. And as representing the city of Toronto I did what I could. I have known these men for many years although I was never consulted about the strike or the reason for it. I think the strike was a mistake. If the men had come to me in the first place, I would have advised very strongly against the strike. They went out in Toronto without consulting me and while I was in Ottawa I was positively never consulted before the men struck.


Charles A. Stewart: Did the hon. member give that advice to the committee that he went back to Toronto with from this city on the night they left here?


James Arthurs: What date was that?


James Murdock: The 18th June.


Thomas Langton Church: The strike was on for hours before I got on the train.


Charles A. Stewart: Did he advise the committee not to go on strike then?


Thomas Langton Church: The strike occurred in
Toronto at five o'clock. I was in Ottawa. I went back at eleven to Toronto myself, not with the men, although they were on the train. As a conciliator, the Acting Postmaster General is second best to the Minister of Labour.


Charles A. Stewart: That _ is an unfair statement, because I want to inform my hon. friend that is the information we have and I shall be very glad if he will deny it. I do not think that sort of thing should stand against him. The information that we have- we might as well have it out now-is that that night that was not the kind of advice the hon. member was giving to those men. If he was giving that advice I should be glad to know it and accept his statement.


Thomas Langton Church: I repeat that I never heard of this strike until after it had occurred. I never took any part in the committee's deliberations.
IMr. STEWART (Argenteuil):	Did the
hon. member not go back from this city to Toronto with the executive committee of the postal employees on the night of the 18th June, and was he not on the train with them when they were going back after interviewing the government?

Supply-Labour


Thomas Langton Church: I was on the train myself
going home anyway. The men did not consult me. I did not know there was a strike on until after it had happened. I took no part in the deliberations. I was not a member of the committee. I did not attend any of the meetings. The train has nothing to do with it. I was going home anyway, was travelling alone. Many people were on the train and a lot of them were talking to the men and I asked them if a general strike was on. The strike had been on they said since five o'clock -it was then nearly twelve.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
want to accuse my hon. friend of this, but he has accused me of using the big stick, and I want to know from him whether or not he did go back with these men on the train *that night. I may be misinformed, but I have been told that he did go back with them and that if he did not give them certain advice, at all events he led them to "believe that they would have his support if they went on etrike. We may just as well be fair on this matter.


Thomas Langton Church: You are most unfair and
what you say is not true. I took absolutely no part in the strike, and I did not know there was going to be a strike until two hours after it happened. I never saw the men's committee until six o'clock and they will bear me out. The strike happened at five o'clock in Toronto and I was in Ottawa. I am not going to allow the minister to sidestep the issue. I was not in their confidence. I met them casually in the rotunda of the Chateau Laurier and they told me there was a strike on in Toronto and they could make no headway with the minister. I did what I could to adjust things.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
sidestepping it at all. Will the hon. gentleman-


Thomas Langton Church: I must protest against
being interrupted at every sentence without my consent. If there is one minister of the Crown in the present government who interrupts on every and all occasions and unduly it is the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Stewart). I did not go back with the men, I was going back home myself as I do weekly. Now, to come back to the question under discussion. I reiterate that I never knew of the strike nor took part in it, nor was I ever consulted by the men. The committee acted themselves and of their own volition without consulting me. I did not see the committee until six o'clock. The strike was on at five and I advised them against it. I went to a meeting in the city, on my return for a week end, and in the presence of thirty-five of the men's committee, Mr. Stapells of the Board of Trade being also present. On the second day of the strike-Friday-I advised them strongly to go back at once. I argued With them for an hour and tried to show them the wisdom of this course. They did not like the advice I offered and felt that the advice I was giving them was bad. I can call upon Mr. Stapells, the president of the Board of Trade, who was present at the time, to bear me out in this regard. The men from the days before the strike consulted him, not me. I was not even in Toronto the day of *the strike. Let me say that during my association with the council of the city of Toronto I was faced with many a strike in almost every department of the public service and in .private enterprises, and I always did everything in my power to prevent strikes and settle matters amicably. My record in the city *hall, as the taxpayers of the city of Toronto can testify, has consistently been that of a conciliator, and an advocate of a fair deal for labour. I always did my best to bring about a satisfactory settlement of every strike that occurred during my term of office, and some of the larger strikes that took place in .the city of Toronto were satisfactorily adjusted during my regime. The Minister of .Labour and the Acting Postmaster General are very much exercised over this matter, but .they need not become so heated. Of course, I realize that the Acting Postmaster General has a department of his own to look after that will keep him busy; he has merely taken *charge of the Post Office Department as a sort of side line, and has had no experience *in industrial disputes. But this is not very satisfactory, for we have had no consideration this session yet of postal affairs nor so far of .postal estimates. So far as the strike in Toronto is concerned, it was unfortunate for the men themselves that they took the advice of certain outside leaders and went out, because I think that under the circumstances they should have waited a few days longer. When I was mayor of the city of Toronto the question came up as to the advisability of the men in the post office allying themselves with the union of the United States, and I took .a firm stand against it not only in regard to the Post Office Department but in the Police Department and in the Fire Department as well. Colonel Denison, the late
Supply-Labour

Judge Winchester and I, as Police Commissioned!, took strong ground against any affliction between the police force of our city and the American union but notwithstanding our attitude the men went on strike, and after two weeks we had a hard time inducing them to come back. The same thing happened in -the Street Cleaning Department and in other branches as well. But what did we do under the circumstances? We had to use a little diplomacy, because you cannot talk to labour men to-day in the same tone that you could adopt 25 years ago; high-handed measures will not go down with them. If -the Acting Postmaster General were better acquainted with the work which he has under his supervision and if he knew more regarding whiat he is talking about, above all, if he had a little more experience in the handling of a labour situation, he would not wield the big stick as he has done in this instance. The Minister of Labour and some other ministers can take a trip over to the Geneva Labour Convention to pacify Europe, and here we see them absolutely unable to pacify a few -postmen. I think it is very unfortunate indeed that some ten or fifteen amputation cases have been let go without any consideration, and something should be -done to take care of these men. There is no doubt that the average citizen of Toronto is unsympathetic to men in a public utility going on strike, but we must not forget that some of the returned men among the strikers are in very needy circumstances and have been t'he victims of unwise advice. But I would urge the -government to provide better wages for the men. The government ought to be fair in this matter. They are making $6,000,000 out of the city of Toronto in postal administration and they should certainly be able to afford the men more reasonable wages. The municipal council of Toronto employs some 12,000 men and certainly they could not afford to talk to their men in the way this government has done. We gave those men an eight hour day and fair working conditions.


Thomas Vien: Order. The item under discussion is No. 22 relating to salaries and contingencies and the hon. member is out of order in discussing the strike.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not intend to transgress the rules, Mr. Chairman, but as the charge has been brought against me of influencing these men I think it is only fair that I should be given an opportunity to repudiate it. Having said this, I will resume my seat.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Printing bureau-Plant, new, $37,500.
James Murdock: This item is $28,500 less than the vote of last year. There is in a large plant such as the Printing bureau a permanent necessity for the renewing of certain machinery and this estimate is to meet these purposes.


Arthur Meighen: The government took
the vote last year to build a new bureau. Was anything done in pursuance of that?


James Murdock: No.


Arthur Meighen: Surely these men are
not labouring under the dangerous conditions which the minister pictured at that time?


James Murdock: The situation now is
practically the same as it was then.


Arthur Meighen: Then I take it the minister has decided that the opposition of that day was rigjht.


James Murdock: No, I have not so decided. Personally I think it would be better to go ahead but the desire to spend as little money as possible and try to get along under the circumstances explains the situation.


Arthur Meighen: It is a case of the rest
of the government coming to the point of view of the opposition and the minister being dragged along unrepentant.


James Murdock: No; I do not expect
and never have expected to have my own way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous printing, $20,000.
-Mr. SPENCER:	Explain.
James Murdock: This	is to cover the
cost of printing and binding all books or publications issued by order of either or both houses of parliament or of any department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-To provide for compassionate allowance to the widow of the late Harry G. Andrews, $1,080.
Arthur Meighen: Was	Andrews	killed
while in the government service?


James Murdock: He had been in the department since it was established. He was suffering from tuberculosis, and before we could retire him he died. This is to give the widow -the benefit of his allowance on retirement.


Arthur Meighen: I understand there is no item in this year's estimates for the new Printing bureau?

Supply-Public Works


James Murdock: None whatever.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-Chargeable to income-Sorel-Reconstruction of high level wharf, $30,800.
Arthur Meighen: Last year the vote was $14,500. This is a very high wharf all right.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: This is to continue the work of reconstruction in concrete. It was commenced in 1920. Last year we spent $14,345.24. The wharf is in very poor shape. The Marine department asked that it be rebuilt.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-Chargeable to collection of revenue -Telegraph and telephone lines, $921,500.
George Black: There is one amount of $273,500 in this item that even at this late hour, at this late date in the session concerning which I must make some remarks. The Yukon telegraph system is a hardy annual. It ought to have disappeared to a large extent from the estimates some years ago. For the year ending March 31, 1923, the item was $255,5G4, for the year, 1924, it was $277,000; for the year ending March 31, 1925, it is to be $273,500. Last year I pointed out to the government that by installing a couple of wireless stations, one at Dawson and another at Mayo, and abandoning the land line from the Yukon boundary south the government could save in the first year $175,000, and each succeedmg year $200,000. In these hard times that is too much money to overlook. I also pointed out last session that over $150,000 of this item is charged up to Yukon that has nothing whatever to do with the Yukon service. For the year ending March 31, 1923, the cost of maintaining the lines in Yukon was $41,858, and half the cost of the line in British Columbia $65,147; there was properly chargeable to Yukon not more than $107,000 instead of $255,000. That is $148,000 was charged up to Yukon which had nothing to do with the territory whatever. Take some of the items, Ashcroft-Lillooet, $2,065; 150-mile House- Bella Coola, $5,919; Hazelton-Prince Rupert, $34,743; Terrace-Stewart, $16,598. None of this expenditure had any more to do with Yukon than if the line it covered were in Prince Edward Island.


Thomas George McBride: Where do you get your
Yukon line connected up with the outside world?


George Black: With the main
telegraph line. But you would not charge the
telegraph line in Nova Scotia against Yukon just because we have telegraphic connection with Halifax.


Thomas George McBride: Was not that main line
built for Yukon in the first place?


George Black: Yes. I say charge part of the cost of the main line to Yukon, but where you have in British Columbia branch lines with a mileage many times greater than the main line, and out of all proportion to the length of line in Yukon, why charge all the cost of the service to Yukon any more than you would charge the transcontinental telegraph line from Halifax to Dawson city to Yukon. It would be just as reasonable to charge that to Yukon as to charge the line from Prince Rupert to the main line against the Yukon Territory. Moreover the total cost of the branch lines in this item is $71,300, which branch lines have nothing whatever to do with Yukon. Last year I pointed out the absolute waste of money in the duplicate telegraph lines from Fort Fraser to Prince Rupert. There you have the old government telegraph line parelleling t'he Grand Trunk Pacific Railway telegraph line.


John Warwick King: That has been partly attended to. We have abandoned and handed over to the Canadian National a portion of these lines.


George Black: I hope it will show in the next year's estimates; it does not show this year. That entails a duplicate line for 159 miles and an expense of $50,000. Evidently no saving is anticipated this year. Take another item charged up to the Yukon, the superintendent's office at Vancouver, involving an expenditure of over $12,000; in the last Auditor General's report it appears as $14,470. The mileage of this line is as follows:	The main line in t'he Yukon is 511
miles and there is a short branch line of 60 miles, a total mileage in the territory of 571, whereas the line in British Columbia is 1,226 miles long and the branch lines in British Columbia 1,491, making a total mileage in British Columbia of 2,717 as against 571 in Yukon Territory, and a total length of line in Yukon Territory and British Columbia of 3,288 miles. The mileage in Yukon is less than one-fifth of the total, yet the territory is charged with the whole cost. After all that is not the main point. The line is not selfsustaining; it is being kept up by public money. It is maintained by taxation. It is not necessary to abandon the service. The parts I advocate cutting out produce no
Supply-Public Works

business and are most expensive to maintain. The government could improve the service and save money. I would suggest that the government would be well advised in combining or co-ordinating the government services of communication, that is, telegraph, telephone and radio, and getting them all under one management. At present the Departments of Public Works, National Defence, Marine and Fisheries, Interior and Railways are all in the telegraph, telephone and radio business, each running a show of its own.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is not quite correct. We did vote the money for the Yukon service, that is, for construction of the radio equipment, but it is operated by the Defence department.


George Black: The Department
of the Interior is in the telegraph business, it is true, to a less extent than the Departments of Public Works, Defence, Marine, and Fisheries or Railways. But these departments are all in it in an extensive way and there is duplication of effort, duplication of expense and overlapping of service which results in huge unnecessary expenditure. Up in the Yukon Territory the Public Works department are running a land line, and the Depart-of the Interior find the money with which the Department of National Defence operates the wireless. The wireless in the Yukon is a boon to the people up there, but even it is unnecessarily expensive. A return to the House shows that to establish those two stations, one at Dawson and one at Mayo, the cost was $11,438 for the Dawson station and for the little temporary station at Mayo, $8,621. At Dawson they have four men running that little wireless station, a superintendent, two operators and an engineer, and at Mayo they have two operators and an engineer, whereas one man in each station would be quite sufficient. At present in Dawson City they are maintaining both wireless and telegraph stations and a duplicate staff. There is no reason why employees of the wireless "ervice cannot handle the telegraph offices as well. Thousands of dollars could be saved on that one item alone. The through business could all be handled by wireless; there is no need for duplicate staffs at Dawson for the local business. They could discontinue the land line north of Forty mile in Yukon and use the wireless at Dawson for Alaska business. Turn that northern telegraph line from Dawson to Forty mile into a telephone line and hand it over to the mounted police to be used in connection with their detachment.

I understand that the Department of National Defence or the Department of Marine and Fisheries are installing a continuous wave set at Prince Rupert which can reach Dawson, and Dawson has power enough to reach Prince Rupert. If they have not, then build another wireless station at Whitehorse. The government is installing wireless stations throughout the Northwest Territories and Dawson and Mayo will be in communication with them. With wireless to Prince Rupert and through the Northwest stations to Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg they will have a splendid service. They do not get good service at present from the land line. For instance, on one stretch of that land line last winter, from Telegraph Creek to Hazleton, the wire was down in December for 25 whole days, which means that it was out of business continuously during that period. In January it was down 13 days and in February, 6-and that does not include the days it was down and up. The government should abandon that stretch through the wilderness which is so expensive to maintain and earns no revenue. Turn the line over, if you like, to local people for a telephone system and use the wire in the Yukon for local service, with a mileage of less than 600 miles and use the wireless for through business, thus effecting a saving of upwards of $200,000 per annum. The average cost to the country at present is $275,000. If that was done you would have more money for legitimate grants. Reduce this unnecessary expenditure on the telegraph line and put the money into roads to the mines, which are the greatest aids to development in that country.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend complains of the wording of this item- " Yukon system, Asheroft-Dawson." That phraseology has been used from the time of the establishment of this line and I do not think there is anything offensive about it. It is known as the Yukon system starting from Ashcroft and going north. However, if it would please my hon. friend to have it read " British Columbia and Yukon system " next year, we could put it that way. In regard to the co-ordination of the service I may say that a committee of the Departments of Public Works, National Defence, Railways and Marine have gone very carefully into the matters of duplication and their report has been filed. With one or two exceptions it was found inadvisable to combine the services of these departments. The militia service is for militia purposes. I do not think we would be wise in handing the system over to the

Supply-Public Works
National railways. The systems of telephones and telegraph services in Canada was not built with a view to making a profit but rather to give service to certain sections of country that could not be served by private interests or by those who would take the work up with a view to making a profit. We have transferred some of our lines especially along the Grand Trunk Pacific, to the Canadian National and we have been relieved of expense in that connection. The suggestions made by my hon. friend as t^>
savings are not new; in fact, they are fairly well worked out in the department. I was in hopes that we might cut this vote this year, but that is not possible. There is a large section in between Atlin and Whitehorse that is uninhabited except in and about Atlin and that section requires to be served. Then there is a section about Mile 47 in the Yukon where the maintenance of telegraph and telephone lines and wireless would not serve the people and I am advised that a telegraph and telephone service will have to be maintained within that area. The matter is receiving the attention of the department. I had hoped we would be able to make a considerable reduction this year, but it was not possible. I hope it may be next year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alberta-Dominion public buildings-Improvements, repairs, etc., $17,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Has the government decided to do anything with regard to building a new post office at Calgary?


John Warwick King: We have not made plans for early construction.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the rent being paid for the temporary offices?	,


John Warwick King: We will come to
that under the vote for rentals.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is there any prospect, in the near future, of the completion of the post office building in Calgary?


John Warwick King: We have consolidated our offices there, and no doubt in time the government will be required to put up a building there. It would be a rather expensive building, and we will carry on for the time being as at present.


Edward Joseph Garland: Have we [DOT]not already purchased the site?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are the taxes paid annually on that site?


John Warwick King: None.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Have plans and specifications been prepared for the new post office?


John Warwick King: There were plans prepared some time ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental Farms-new buildings, replacements, repairs and improvements, etc., $200,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: I notice an increase in this item. What is the explanation?


John Warwick King: This amount is
required towards the construction of new buildings, additions and alterations, at the several experimental farms, at Charlottetown, Kent-ville, Nappan, Fredericton, Goderich, Lennox-ville, Morden, Brandon, Indian Head, Ros-thern, Scott, Lethbridge, Lacombe, Summer-land, Agassiz, Invermere, and Sydney.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Installation of fuel saving devices for public buildings, $12,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: Is this a
revote, or are we continually putting in fuel saving devices?


John Warwick King: We have been
installing these in various places, and the reports from our janitor service are that the devices are very good. They are installed now in some forty or fifty buildings. The device is not only effective in saving fuel, but relieves the smoke nuisance to some extent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Flags for Dominion Public Buildings, $5,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Is this a revote or an annual charge?


John Warwick King: This is an annual vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa public buildings and grounds-Water, $45,000.
Robert Gardiner: Are we paying more
for water, or using more of it?


John Warwick King: This amount is
required to pay the corporation of the city of Ottawa. We are buying water on a meter basis. The charge is 13 cents per 1,000 gallons for the first two hundred million, and 10 cents for each 1,000 gallons over and above that. The expenditure last year was 839,335.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Public Works
[Stage Direction]
Yukon public buildings-Rents, repairs, fuel, light water service and caretakers' salaries, $40,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the explanation
of this increase of $13,000?


John Warwick King: When the estimates were made up to the amount required $40,000, we found that the foundations of the administrative building and the post office building had gone bad and were in need of repair. Since the estimate was made up. as a result of further inquiry, we have decided not to repair the post office building, and I am asking the Acting Postmaster General to move to reduce the estimate by $5,000. After this year there will be a consolidation of the post office, telegraph, customs and administration branches in one building. It is necessary to vote $35,000 for maintenance and repairs of the administration building.


George Perry Graham: I move that the vote be reduced by the sum of $5,000.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.	[DOT]
Hull-Public building-Government's share of cost of local improvement, $2,204.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the minister inform us what the government's share of the cost of local improvements is?


John Warwick King: This is to provide for the government's share of the cost of local improvement by the municipal authorities in front of the public buildings on Main street, Hull.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa-Paving Connaught place, $20,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?
. Mr. KING (Kootenay):	Connaught place
is in a very bad condition. We cannot get any assistance from the city in making repairs. On both sides it is government property, and this is to carry out the work.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Will it be done by contract?


John Warwick King: Yes, the work
will be done by contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Colborne-Public building, $35,000.
Robert Alexander Hoey: Will the minister explain
this item?


John Warwick King: The construction of the canal has necessitated the tearing down and removal of the post office. This vote is for the purpose of rebuilding the post office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pigeon River bridge-Immigration office, $3,500.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Is that for repairs?


John Warwick King: This money is
required for erecting a building for immigration purposes at Pigeon River on the international boundary. It will be a one storey frame structure and will be located on property leased by the Department of Customs and Excise from the province of Ontario. The erection of this building was asked for by the Department of Immigration and Colonization.


Robert Gardiner: Is there much immigration coming in through that port at the present time?


John Warwick King: I think there is a considerable movement back and forth.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa Rideau Hall-Alterations and improvements, $13,900.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: In addition to this item in
the supplementaries there are two other items for Rideau Hall in the main estimates. What is the trouble with Rideau Hall that it requires such an expenditure every year?


George Perry Graham: It is an old historic building.


John Warwick King: This is for an
improvement in the heating system by the substitution of three new self-feeding boilers for the ten existing hot-water boilers. The heating system is obsolete and very expensive. There are ten furnaces scattered through the building. It is proposed to take out the smaller furnaces and install these self-feeding boilers, and to complete improvements to the palm room.


Milton Neil Campbell: In respect to Rideau
Hall, in addition to the item of $13,900 in the supplementaries, there are two items of $60,000 and $19,000 in the main estimates, making over $90,000 for repairs of one kind and another. It hardly seems that there is any justification for such an amount of money as this to be expended.


John Warwick King: I have already
explained to my hon. friend the items in the supplementary estimates. If he wishes a further explanation regarding the main estimate which is passed, we will look it up.

Supply-Public Works


Milton Neil Campbell: There is $92,000 altogether in the estimates for Rideau Hall this year. How much was spent on this building last year?


John Warwick King: One item is for fuel, $19,000. The item we passed a few minutes ago was for replacement of the furnaces. The third item is for maintenance of grounds and care of the building, fuel, light, the usual items.


Milton Neil Campbell: Some day we shall have to face this situation and face it fairly. I know that a member is liable to be misunderstood and put in a false position in attacking these estimates. But the position of the Governor General is, after all, a 2 a.m. purely social one, and the time is nearly here when we have to face the situation and endeavour to out down this expenditure. I wonder if the government, when the time comes for the appointment of a new Governor General, would suggest to the Imperial authorities that they confer whatever powers go with the position of Governor General on the Chief Justice of Canada.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I rise to a point of
order. This is not the time to discuss the question whether we should have a Governor General sent over from the Old Country or whether the Chief Justice of Canada should be given those powers. This item has been already passed, and in any case every Canadian wants to see the Governor General put in a position to discharge his duties in a manner that will be in keeping with the dignity of the high office he occupies.


Milton Neil Campbell: The hon. member is
not speaking for all Canadians. I am a Canadian and I come from the same part of the country as he does. I look forward to the day when we shall not have to bear all this expense. It is not that I object to anybody being sent out from the Old Country. I simply want this position conferred on somebody who is designated here, for instance, the Chief Justice of Canada, who could fill the essential part of the position. The social end of the position could very well be done away with.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms-new buildings, replacements, repairs, improvements, etc.-Further amount required, $24,000.
Robert Gardiner: I thought that in the
main estimates we had provided enough money for experimental farms.


George Newcombe Gordon: This is Public Works.


John Warwick King: This is to complete the payment on three contracts at the Central Experimental Farm which could not be completed during the year 1923-24.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why could this not have been provided for in the main estimates?


John Warwick King: When the main
estimates were made up, it was hoped that the work would proceed so rapidly that we might pay these contracts from last year's vote. That did not happen and tlhe vote of last year lapsed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-'Nova Scotia, $233,480.
Arthur Meighen: What is the explanation of the supplementaries containing, I think, even more than the main estimates? Was there a rebellion in Nova Scotia?


William Duff: Secession.


Arthur Meighen: I am led to believe that, because the hon. member for Lunenburg stands very well in the front line.


William Duff: Where else would the right
hon. member expect me to be?


Arthur Meighen: Nowhere else when it
comes to getting things done for his constituency. As regards the item " Lunenburg-dredging-further amount required, $30,000," is this for the purpose of the boat race? I notice a number of wharves in this list, many of them new. It seems to me there has been a flank attack from Nova Scotia.


John Warwick King: I think the supplementaries are much less than they were last year and much less than they usually are.


Arthur Meighen: For Nova Scotia?


John Warwick King: Yes; all through. The item for Lunenburg is to continue dredging in the harbour in order to provide berthage for schooners that frequent that harbour in the fishing trade. This item will permit us to continue this work which is quite extensive, but which is essential.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: There seem to be some
familiar names in this list. I notice some that are of annual recurrence apparently. What is the necessity for wharf renewals and repairs at Kingsport involving an expenditure of $18,000, and why was that not in the main estimates?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: It is a new item. This is an important wharf being the terminal of a railway system, and it is used very extensively for the shipment of apples and potatoes. It is absolutely essential to the community. It was hoped that we could carry it along for another year, but it was found dangerous for trains to go upon, and this expenditure is strongly recommended by the district engineer.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: May I ask in the words of
Sir Richard Cartwright: " Is there a cove forgotten?"


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-New Brunswick, $38,100.
Mr. DOUCET:: The appeal I made some
time ago along with a letter written to the minister on the 26th May last did not bear very much fruit. It is the only item that was asked by me in connection with my constituency. It has been under discussion for the last four years. My predecessor for three years suggested and urged that the department should build a protection at Maillet's Gully or Ruisseau des Millets, Buctouche bay. The minister has been very lavish in his expenditures on buildings, bridges and various other public works throughout the country but he has not provided even a small vote for the necessary protection in this county, and I fear that this will only convince the electors of my constituency that the threat made by the party organ in the by-election campaign has been implemented. That organ expressed the view that it was unwise to oppose the election of a supporter of the government as the defeat of the government candidate would be a notice to the federal authority to quit work in that county. And this is in keeping with the promises of the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) who declared that if the electors of that county wanted a building from the present administration they should return my opponent, Mr. Bourgeois. The action of the government in ignoring the constituency in these estimates will only convince the people that the pork barrel system was invoked for the purpose of securing support for the government candidate. If it is to late now to include a vote in the estimates this session I hope at least that the government, at the next session, will bring down an estimate to give to the people of that county the protection that is needed. Whereas some of the neighbouring provinces are getting votes of eight and nine hundred thousand and, in the supplementary estimates, $230,000 odd, the province of New Brunswick

gets only some $30,000, and a small vote of ten or twelve thousand dollars which would provide the protection necessary for the fishing industry in that section of the coast line is entirely omitted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec, Pentecost river-Dredging, $40,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Why is this not included in the main estimates?


Arthur Meighen: Is this in the county of
my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain)?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: No, it is not in that
county.


Arthur Meighen: It will be in the hon.
member's constituency after the redistribution goes into effect.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I was not consulted in
regard to the item but in any case it will be so much less that I shall have to do myself.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I notice in this
vote for Quebec there is provision for river bank protection on the Gatineau. What is the policy of the government with regard to the protection of river banks?


John Warwick King: This is for the
protection of government property. We have booms in that vicinity and the vote is recommended by the district engineer.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What are the
booms for?


Arthur Meighen: I do not understand this myself. What is the government doing with booms?


John Warwick King: For a number of years the government has maintained a system of slides and booms in connection with the various lumbering operations. A toll is collected and goes to the maintenance of these booms. The slides under the bridge crossing the Ottawa are under the control of the department for example.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is this a free gift
to the logging companies?


John Warwick King: No, a toll is
charged. This policy was adopted many years ago. The charges are settled by order in council and are revised from year to year.


Thomas Sales: 
John Warwick King: Some are while
others are not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia-Harbours and rivers, $68,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I want to know
something about the government's policy on river bank protection. We have had considerable trouble with the erosion of the river banks on some of the prairie rivers. We have been told that the federal government could not assume responsibility, but I notice an item, "Columbia river below Burton, bank protection." Is it the policy of the government to afford protection of river banks in one province and not in another?


John Warwick King: No. Generally
speaking, the government does not spend money unless government property is in danger. That is the first consideration; but other considerations arise from time to time, and where the public interest is affected the policy is that those people along the river bank who are primarily interested in its protection should bear the first cost within their means; where the cost is too large for the individual the municipality should step in, then the provincial government and last the Dominion. We are not doing very much bank protection work unless we have the municipality and the provincial government contributing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is some government property concerned down near Burton?


John Warwick King: No, this is to save repeated dredging owing to the bank sliding into the river. It is in our own interests to do the work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-Chargeable to capital-Public buildings-Canadian office in London, England-Further amount required, $289,000.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: Will the minister give the
details of this vote?


John Warwick King: A sum of $132,000 is required in case exchange is against us; the other details are-Architects's fees, $29,000; clerk of works, $2,000; legal charges $1,946; ground rent $13,894; maintenance charges, three months $4,659; contingencies, $45,119.


Milton Neil Campbell: What is the total capital investment?


John Warwick King: 
Milton Neil Campbell: What is the annual
[DOT]cost of maintenance?


John Warwick King: About $18,639.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Quebec harbour improvements, $500,000; Toronto harbour improvements-Further amount required, $178,000.
Thomas Sales: May we have a little explanation of this? I was under the impression that the harbour commissioners attended to improvements.


John Warwick King: No. The government entered into an arrangement in 1913 or 1914 with the city of Toronto and the harbour commission to carry on certain undertakings in the harbour. We found that if we did not [DOT]increase the item of $400,000 in the main estimates there would be a loss to the government of about $40,000 for rental of plant, insurance, and staff and office expenses. So I am asking for $178,000 more to carry on the work.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Has the minister any explanation of the Quebec item?


John Warwick King: This amount is
required toward the following work:	The
initial development at the Fly Bank commences at a point a little more than a mile from the Champlain market and consists of deep water berths for ships of the largest size; two additional berths for ships of 600 feet in length and a berth for lake boats for unloading grain. The situation at Quebec is changing very rapidly. It is a landing point now for large liners carrying passengers. The larger steamers of the Canadian Pacific, Cunard and other lines find that it is safer for them to land their passengers at Quebec, and there is no space for other lines desiring to make that their port of entry on this side of the Atlantic. The matter has been brought to the attention of the government throgh a letter from the Shipping Federation of Canada, from which I quote as follows:
1.	Whereas the accommodation at the port of Quebec for the larger class of vessels is entirely inadequate, and the draft of water available will not permit using ports above Quebec, and
2.	The berths available for ocean going vessels at the port. o<f Quebec are now all allotted for the coming season of navigation and accommodation is unavailable for any other vessels which may desire to trade to Quebec, and
3.	At the present time a large passenger liner company is seeking accommodation for its vessels at the port of Quebec and none is available, and
4.	Fully two-thirds of passengers and cargo arriving at the port of Quebec is destined to other provinces in the Dominion, and

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
5.	The St. Lawrence route is the principal artery of the trade and commerce of the Dominion, and any trade diverted to ports to the south of us through failure to provide adequate accommodation would be a national loss, and
6.	The government have already spent large sums of money in improving our aids to navigation, and the increased trade which has resulted therefrom during the past twenty years has fully compensated the coun-t>y for the expenditures made.
The memorandum goes on to set out the advantages of this port for the larger passenger liners and also states that other liners would come if accommodation could be secured. The Quebec Harbour Commission have been carrying on the work of developing the port of Quebec and if this further improvement is carried out legislation would eventually be brought down in order that they might be enabled to go on. For this year we are asking for this vote in order that the Department of Public Works may confer with the harbour commission and carry out certain preliminary works. The suggested improvements have the support of Sir Henry Thornton, of the Canadian National, and, Mr. Beatty of the Oanadain Pacific, which are large users of this port; also of the Shipping Federation of Canada.


Robert Gardiner: Will these improvements come under the control of the harbour board when completed?


John Warwick King: I think they
should, yes. The vote for this year is to carry on and to come to conclusions with the harbour commission as to the nature and extent of the development. I should think that legislation would probably follow.


Robert Gardiner: Is it going to cost this country half a million dollars to come to conclusions with the harbour board?


John Warwick King: No.


Robert Gardiner: I do not think the
minister has given an adequate explanation. Do the harbour board pay the interest on the loans already made by the federal author ty?


John Warwick King: I have not that
knowledge. The Public Works department have done a considerable amount of work at the port of Quebec. If we find the conditions urgent we may start certain works there this year.


Milton Neil Campbell: We are spending
money upon improvements with a view to the development of Quebec harbour and at the same time we are putting up an artificial barrier against that very development in the form of grain rates that are discriminatory against the port of Quebec. Let me quote

some of the rates: From Goderich to Halifax, 1,305 miles, 12i cents a bushel; Armstrong, on the Transcontinental, to Quebec, 959 miles, 20.7 cents a bushel; 'on the prairie, from Edmonton to Port Arthur, 1,305 miles, 15.6 cents a bushel. I had intended to deal with this matter very fully, but on account of the lateness of the hour and the desire to wind up the session I shall not do so. It is my intention, however, to bring the matter up next session. Something should be done in regard to these rates. We in the West want to use the port of Quebec for shipping our cattle, because the facilities at Quebec are very much superior to those provided at Montreal. It has been figured out by representatives of the United Grain Growers who sent a trial shipment of cattle through that port last year that there was actually a saving of $5 per head on cattle shipped through Quebec. It takes less time to get there-the saving in time was about 18 hours. But we cannot use that port for our cattle unless we are able to ship some grain there and the rates in effect on grain are simply prohibitive; it is impossible to have any grain go forward under the present condition. I have given this question a good deal of study and it seems to me that there are some influences at work which are preventing us from using the port of Quebec. I am sorry the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) is not here to-night; I do not like to raise this issue in his absence. I will reserve some remarks I had intended to make until some time he is here. But it seems to me that the steamship combine on the lake -because after all it is a combine-must have something to do with it. There is a considerable saving in insurance in shipping from Quebec. I understand that a large part of the insurance rate between Montreal and Liverpool is based on the risk on the St. Lawrence river, and that is overcome when you reach Quebec. We in the West are anxious to use Quebec for our cattle; it seems to be the only hope we have of developing any cattle trade in the Old Country. With the present rates, however, it is impossible for us to develop that trade. When we secured the lifting of the embargo in the Old Country we thought a. considerable cattle trade with England would then develop, but we see now that it is impossible.


Charles A. Stewart: Why say it is impossible?


Milton Neil Campbell: Well, it does not pay.
In connection with the shipment that was sent to the Old Country last year through the

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
port of Quebec, the United Grain Growers had to make arrangements with a vessel leaving Montreal to stop at Quebec and pick these cattle up, and I understand that it was necessary to put up a bonus of $600 to have that vessel put in at Quebec. They have to pay the additional rate from Montreal, including insurance, and until their shipments of grain can be made from Quebec it is impossible to make up mixed carloads, and that is what we want to do. It is this discriminatory freight rate that is preventing us from using the port of Quebec. I am sorry it is so late, because I should like to quote some figures in support of my argument.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend mean that a ship would have to take grain as well as cattle to make up a carload? Is that the difficulty?


Milton Neil Campbell: Yes. It is impossible
for a vessel to take a straight cargo fii cattle, because the vessel needs ballast and has to be loaded below with grain. The cattle are put on the decks. But if we could make up mixed shipments at Quebec, we could use that port for our cattle, but we cannot do it so long as this discriminatory freight rate is in effect. Some may say that the railways would lose money carrying our grain to Quebec at the prevailing prairie rates, but an examination of railway statistics will prove that the railway's are making money handling our grain at these rates and any fair unbiased person studying the figures must admit that.
There is also another very important factor.
I secured some figures a short time ago from the Canadian National showing the tonnage out of various divisional points between Winnipeg and Port Arthur on the main line of the old Canadian Northern, and also between Winnipeg and Quebec on the transcontinental. The average tonnage from Winnipeg to Port Arthur via the old main line is 2,600 tons, while the average from Winnipeg to Quebec is 3,205 tons; in other words, the same engine and train and crew can handle 25 per cent more between Winnipeg and Quebec, and yet we have a rate which is about double that applying to Port Arthur.
Is there any reason for that? The minister mentioned Sir Henry Thornton as giving his approval to this expenditure. I wonder if he would give his approval to the removal of this discriminatory rate on grain. I wrote Sir Henry Thornton early in the session and asked for an interview to discuss lh:'s matter, but I have not been able to secure an interview; I do not know why. This is a very serious matter and I would strongly impress 306



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
on the government the necessity for discussing it with Sir Henry Thornton and see if something cannot be done. I am not pleading for Quebec. Many hon. members know more about it than I do, and are better qualified than I to put its claims forward, but I do say, speaking from the standpoint of the farmers of western Canada, we want to use that port, and we must use it if we are going to develop any cattle trade at all. This is the key to the whole situation. Get rid of that discriminatory rate and I will wager that inside two or three years we will be shipping three times the number of cattle to the Old Country that we are doing to-day.
Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased at the
remarks of my hon. friend from Mackenzie. There is no doubt that the shortest distance between the West and the St. Lawrence river and ocean ports from Winnipeg to Quebec over the Transcontinental, and the very arguments which my hon. -friend has just brought forward were advanced years ago by the representatives of the West in the House of Commons and in the Senate. The same arguments have been advanced also by the Quebec, official bodies, but theTe has always seemed to be somebody or something between to prevent the wishes of both Quebec and the West being realized. I sincerely hope, and I am going to do my best, so far as I am concerned, to see that justice is done in that regard.
As far as this particular item is concerned. I must say that it is rather at the request of the .Shipping Federation the big transAtlantic lines, including the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, that these preliminary works are being undertaken. The accommodation at the port of Quebec needs enlarging. New shipping lines have adopted Quebec as their terminal this summer, and one shipping line has been refused accommodation because there was not space available. The tendency is for -the tonnage of vessels to increase, and the -larger vessels cannot go further than Quebec on the St. Lawrence river. It is the deep water port, and it it necessary for the development of the St. Lawrence that greater accommodation should be provided for the largest vessels. It cannot hurt Montreal in- any way. Quebec is rather the complement o-f the port of Montreal, and that is what the most of the newspapers in the city of Montreal have said in that regard. The Shipping Federation is demanding that these works should be carried on. The amount will have to be determined when all the



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
plans are -prepared and the preliminary works are executed. That is the reason why the Department of Public Works has placed this amount in the estimates. It is in prevision of the legislation which parliament will be asked next session to enact in order to execute the works which are asked for and which are needed at the port of Quebec.
Arthur Meighen: Is this to initiate a new harbour?


Ernest Lapointe: It is to build new piers in the harbour.


Arthur Meighen: In the present harbour?


Ernest Lapointe: Further on.


Arthur Meighen: That is the point. Is
this to improve the present harbour or to initiate a new one?


Ernest Lapointe: The present harbour cannot be enlarged at the spot where it is. This is a little further up the river, but the government has already acquired all the shore and all the lands necessary for these works. This is not a new plan by any means. All the lands are the property of the government and were acquired for this purpose years ago.


Arthur Meighen: How many years?


Charles Gavan Power: Years and years ago.


Arthur Meighen: How many?


Charles Gavan Power: When the right hon. gentleman's grandfather came to this country he landed where the harbour we are trying to develop is now. After that, when the Tory party came into power in 1911, for some reason or other, on the advice of engineers who probably at that time were right, they decided to dig up the St. Charles river instead of building where God Almighty intended the harbour to be, along the St. Lawrence river. It is the same place where General Wolfe landed. We are trying to build the harbour in the natural place for it. Along the St. Charles river the extension would have had to be up a creek, instead of along the great St. Lawrence river. On the right hand, as I look to my right hon. friend-I do not know whether he can follow my gestures-there is a great big bay, from under the Chateau Frontenac-which probably my right hon. friend knows better than he knows the voters underneath-up towards Sillery. There has been since 1911, and long before, a scheme for its development. It is all deep water, and there is no necessity for dredging there year after year. It will make a perfectly safe harbour, free from wind

and tide and other nautical contingencies. I would ask the right hon. leader of the opposition if he does not wish to help Quebec. I know he is sincere, it is one of the things I like him for. Even if he fights he fights in a fair manner. I want him to fight for this project because he has considerable influence in the country. If his opinion is adverse to this proposal we must seek to change his point of view. I ask the right hon. gentleman not to look at this question from a sectional point of view but to look 'at it from the national standpoint. We must not forget that Quebec was the original port for the whole of Canada. Some h-on. members passed through Quebec when they landed in this country. Others did not, but that was their misfortune; they did not see the best city in the whole of Canada. I hope those hon. members from the material West who have materialism inscribed on their banner, and who are willing to make materialism their god, will have some sympathy left for old Quebec. I hope they will give us the credit of trying to develop the countiy and of being on the threshold of a new era. We ask hon. members for all the support they dan give.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Quebec is not asking
for any favour, she is asking for what is due to her under a contract entered into between the city and the federal government in 1910. The government bound themselves to carry out certain improvements at Quebec and purchased three miles of frontage on the St. Lawrence extending to Champlain market. In return for this the city handed over the Champlain market property which was valued at the time at about $2,000,000. Sir Robert Borden came to Quebec to lay the corner stone of certain work which had been commenced, and at a banquet tendered him gave an assurance that the works in question would be carried out not only in the interest of the city but also in the interest of Canada as a whole. A change of government took place in 1911. A contract had been given for the erection of a railway station on the Champlain market site and all the projected plans seemed *to be in a fair way of execution. But the change of government upset all those plans -and their execution was suspended. Nothing further was done for the city and1 to-day the various interests concerned-the Harbour Commission, the Shipping Federation, the Canadian Pacific, and the Canadian National railways-are asking that these works be proceeded with. An item of $500,000 is being

Supply-M iscellaneous
voted here, but we require a great deal more than that. I hope that the estimates next year will contain a sufficient amount to complete these works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public works-
Salaries	 $631,520
(Contingencies	 75,000
James Shaver Woodsworth: With respect to the large number of engineers, architects, and so on, I would ask whether any effort has been made to consolidate these services. I understand there are several distinct branches within the general department. Then we have also the Department of Railways and the Department of Marine all covering, more or less, the same class of work. Is any attempt being made to consolidate these staffs of engineers and architects and thus save expense?


John Warwick King: Consolidation of
the architectural and engineering branches has not worked out in practice; they are different classes of work. Although there have been reductions in the staff, experience has shown it to be essential that each staff should have the kind of officers which the work calls for. Architectural work is entirely different from civil or railway engineering. There has been a gradual reduction in the inside permanent service. In 1913-14 there were 346; to-day there are 266. The total number of positions is 319 as compared with 326, a reduction of 7.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I asked some
questions with regard to this matter. I asked if it was not possible to get these grouped together and if the departments could not be consolidated. There are engineers in each of three or four departments. Is their work absolutely distinct in character?


John Warwick King: I thought I had
answered my hon. friend. Consolidation has been and is going on now in the various departments. A careful survey is being made with a view of bringing about consolidation wherever possible. *


James Shaver Woodsworth: With regard to
certain men on the staff engaged as engineers and watchmen, many of whom are working seven days in the week, and some working twelve-hour days, has the minister any plan for seeing to it that these men's hours are made reasonable?
Mr. KING (Kootenay); We have been trying to work something that would give the engineers better hours and also better 3061
conditions as regards days of employment. It is true the watchmen are on duty seven days-a week. Their work is probably not very strenuous. This is a matter of cost and I have given it a good deal of consideration. It would be of advantage if we could work out some scheme that would relieve these men and give them one day off a week. We find that, as regards watchmen and firemen, this would cost probably an additional $11,000.	[DOT]


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am told that
there are men who work for nine months without having a single day off. There is no justification for that kind of an arrangement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	,
Department of Public Works-salaries-to hereby appoint A. T. Mineau, clerk-typist at $1,800.	*
Mr. SIMPSON:: Is this a new appointment?


John Warwick King: This party has
been in the service since 1911. Unfortunately for ffim he was not appointed by order in council and he is known as a temporary. When the reclassification was made, he was drawing a salary of $1,800, but because he was a temporary he could not retain that salary. It is only fair and just to him that this amount should be voted in order that he may continue to draw the salary that he had in 1917 or 1918.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Post Office-outside service, $29,586,118.94.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What were the profits of the Post Office Department this last year?


Charles Wallace Stewart: I shall have to look that
up.


Arthur Meighen: The minister could assure the hon. member right now that there are no profits. A surplus may be shown, but. that is without taking any account of the capital cost and interest.


William Irvine: Is there in this sum sufficient money to build the Calgary post office?


Charles A. Stewart: There is
not. My hon. friend and I think very much alike with respect to the Calgary post office. If there were an item, it would be in the Public Works estimates.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The other day when the
Minister of Railways and Canals had his estimates under consideration, he told hon. members to turn their guns upon the Acting Postmaster General with respect to the mail, services and the distribution through the
Supply-Post Office

two railways. Many of us have been, importuned from different sources, apparently with justice from the point of view of service to the country and the public along the lines of these railways. The Minister of Railways placed the proposition soundly and squarely before the House when he said that the basis of awarding these contracts should be primarily upon the service which these railway companies give to the people concerned in the mail services. Has the minister under consideration and does he intend to alter the distribution of contracts in such a .manner as to conform with the basis of service that I have indicated and, at the same time, to give greater consideration, particularly in the western portion of Canada, to the Canadian National Railways?


Charles A. Stewart: There is
at the moment going on in the Post Office Department a thorough investigation. It is true that the Canadian Pacific, being the first railway on the ground, enjoyed the privilege of carrying the mails 3 a.m. across Canada. As my hon.
friend knows, they 'have an excellent transcontinental service and naturally the older settled districts and towns are on that railway. Although they have less mileage, their mail business is greater in volume than that of the Canadian National. We have, however, our own Canadian National Railways, and just as I am anxious to build up our park system in order to encourage tourist traffic on the Canadian National, the same attention will be paid to the mail service. The departmental officials inform me that from a strictly mail service point of view, certain changes could be made, but She heavier volume of mail can be more ndvantageousfy and economically handled [DOT]over the Canadian Pacific. The whole matter is under consideration with a view to making changes wherever practicable, and if the cost is not too great, in the near future to establish a transcontinental service on the Canadian National Railway line. A great agitation is going on just now. I am being inundated with telegrams from every town along the Canadian National line asking for a mail service, and I know hon. members are being treated in the same way. Every board of trade is very anxious that this service should be established. But we have to keep in mind the cost. Where practicable changes will be brought about which will to some extent give more of the business to the National line and give the service the people are asking for. Even in the short period I have been Acting Post-
[Mr. Ladner.)
master General several changes have been made in the service on the Canadian National line but that does not mean that there is a complete through service from coast to coast. I trust we shall find it not impossible to put on the through service which the people along the Canadian National lines are so desirous of obtaining.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is, a through train
from Montreal to Vancouver?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mail taken
on at Jasper may go by one of two ways; it can be taken back to Edmonton and down to Calgary and through on the Canadian Pacific, or it may be taken westward to Kamloops on the Canadian National line and then changed over to the Canadian Pacific. Why should you switch over to the Canadian Pacific a service that originates on the Canadian National?


Charles A. Stewart: There is no doubt that a great many seeming anomalies exist in the service, but the Jasper case seems to be the most aggravated. If so it will have to be remedied. Naturally the short route is the most advantageous and the speediest, and all these matters will have to be carefully looked into.


Edward Joseph Garland: The sentimental aspect of the thing should be forgotten; the mere fact that the Canadian Pacific was the first line and these are the oldest towns along the way is no sound argument why there should be no consideration for the residents of towns along the Canadian National line. I would urge the minister to take very much to heart the discussion that took place the other day. A delay in the delivery of mails is a most serious impediment to business and we know, from the evidence adduced before the com-mitte on Railways and Canals, that in many cases there is a delay of some 24 hours. I would recommend that the transcontinental service be divided between the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National at least fairly enough to give the service which is required by the residents of towns that lie along each line.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Confirming the statement
cf the hon. member for Bow River, I want to put a few figures on Hansard. Like the minister, I have been inundated with telegrams in this matter and I think it will readily be conceded that we should have as good service as possible particularly when mails can be

Supply-Post Office
carried by our own railway. The delivery of eastern mail at important stations west of Winnipeg would be greatly expedited, as follows :
Rivers, Man. 24 hours.
Melville, Sask., 24 hours.
Watrous, Sask, 24 hours.
Saskatoon, Sask., Noon delivery instead of 3.4 p.m., which would enable letters to be answered and reply mailed on the day received.
Biggar, Sask., 24 hours.
Edmonton and all points west of Edmonton on C.N.R., 24 hours.
Eastibound mail from points west of Winnipeg to Ottawa, Montreal and East thereof would arrive destination in nearly all cases 24 hours earlier than at present.
Locally in western Canada the handling of all mail traffic would be greatly expedited.
Mail between Winnipeg and every important business centre west of Winnipeg and east of Edmonton and all C.N.R. local stations east of Edmonton, on the one hand, and all C.N.R. stations west <yf Edmonton, on the other hand, would be expedited 24 hours.
The handling of mail between Vancouver and Edmonton and the delivery at Vancouver or Edmonton as the case should be will be expedited from 8 to 24 hours, varying according to the time at which the letter is posted, all such mail now being handled via Calgary.
I hope that the minister will use his influence to give the Canadian National Railways their fair share of the contracts.


Thomas Sales: The people in my constituency have been pressing this matter on my attention ever since I was elected and the people of the town of Melville have been worried over it for a considerable time. I hope the minister will arrange for as speedy a service as possible for all the towns west of Winnipeg. It takes my mail 24 hours longer to come to Ottawa than it takes me to get here, by reason of the transfer at Winnipeg. Speed in the delivery of mail is most essential and I should like the minister to do all he can to have, as the Minister of Railways said the other night, both cooperation and co-ordination in his department.


Mr. LAPIERRE:: As a representative of a district in northern Ontario which has suffered during the last 25 years from a deficient mail service, I must urge upon the minister the great importance of providing better accommodation in this regard. On our National Railways at the present time we have a three-foot unit on the baggage car with closed bags between sortation stations. The whole situation could be easily remedied if we had an apartment mail car on Nos. 1 and 2 from Montreal West and Nos. 3 and 4 from Toronto. In the older parts of the western provinces which have been served by the Canadian Pacific there has been no complaint but in northern Ontario we have the same situation to-day that existed 10 or 15 years ago. Closed mail bags are carried past their destination to a sortation station thus involving a delay in the delivery of mail. I would suggest to the Acting Postmaster General that on 1 and 2, and on 3 and 4, there be provided an apartment baggage car which could1 be added to the service as it is at present without any extra cost to the government, This could be done without depriving the Canadian Pacific Railway of any privileges which it has enjoyed and would give to the north country a service which the people have been crying for during the past quarter of a century. Mail is carried past the point of destination and taken on to a sortation station and then returned by an accommodation train, and this situation should be improved. This could be avoided by adopting the suggestion I made last year for an apartment car on these two transcontinental trains. There is no reason why the train from Montreal and the train from Toronto should not have the same postal facilities. All we ask from the government is that they give a postal apartment car on Canadian National trains Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.


Mr. LUCAS:: Why should not the department divide the mail equally between the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific? I understand that the Canadian National have these mail sorting cars and are prepared to put them on the road.


Charles A. Stewart: At thirtyfive cents a mile.


William Thomas Lucas: Is that any more than the
Canadian Pacific charge?


Charles A. Stewart: No, the
same price.


William Thomas Lucas: I have received a number of wires from people along the National road complaining that their mail goes to the central points and is there re-sorted and sent back again, causing great delay. What is to be the future policy of the department?


Charles A. Stewart: A special
study is being made as to what amount of mail could be diverted from the Canadian Pacific to the Canadian National without injury to the people in the localities affected. A complete postal service from Montreal to Vancouver on the transcontinental trains will cost 35 cents a mile, or about $300,000, plus the salaries of the mail clerks. This service was started on the Canadian Pacific and
Supply-Post Office

grew lip with them, and offshoots were made to the other line, but no definite and extensive changes have been made up to date. If this can be done within the limits of our appropriation I shall be favourable to it.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: In common, I presume, with
many other members, applications have been forwarded to me for the establishment of rural mail routes that would appear to be paying routes and would furnish splendid accommodation to a great number of farming communities, but apparently this accommodation cannot be granted. What is the policy of the department, and what change is proposed in the immediate future?


Charles A. Stewart: I had nothing to do with the preparation of these estimates. Since I have been Acting Postmaster General nearly every member of this House has come to me and pointed out that it would be very desirable to extend the rural mail service in his constituency. But there is no item in the estimates for such extension. The Deputy Postmaster General informs me that he is anxious to get the postal business on a paying basis before he extends the rural service. Speaking purely personally, I sometimes wonder whether or not at the stage of our development it was wise to commence this service. Undoubtedly it is a great convenience to rural communities, but it is pretty expensive, although the delivery men are doing the work at very small cost. Under the mileage system in the United States the service is costing just double what it costs us under our contract system.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: Until this government
remedies the abuses of the previous government and gives opportunity to those who were debarred because of their political faith from the rural mail service to which they have always been entitled, we will have this trouble.


Robert John Woods: The minister has referred to the cost of the rural mail service. I have had no complaints from our rural mail carriers in regard to the tender system, although they are serving us faithfully at very low remuneration; what they do complain of, and very strongly, is the absence of holidays.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: Were they not aware of those conditions when they tendered for their Contracts?


Robert John Woods: That may be true. But
there would be no complaint from the box-holders in regard to the mail carriers getting their holidays. If there is any possibility of
1 
giving these men the allotted holidays it would be a great relief for them and it would be an assistance in the matter of getting tenders for contracts in the future.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I realize the extra cost involved to the country in putting these rural mail delivery routes through. But where the mail carriers cover a distance of twelve to twenty. miles and there is no rural delivery it is pretty hard on the people of the district to have to travel six to ten miles to the post office for their mail. How many of these rural mail delivery routes have been asked for and are at present in abeyance?


Charles A. Stewart: About 125.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is there much difference between the cost of the services of the ordinary mail carrier who does not deliver mail into the boxes and the cost of having say the same man deliver mail into the boxes on the same route?


Charles A. Stewart: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. In all probability the cost would not be more than 25 to 30 per cent more. These tenders fluctuate greatly. In some localities the men will do the work for almost nothing while in others they ask a pretty fair price. Altogether it works out at about $45 a mile. The association represented to me some time ago that they were not pressing their request at this time for the $70 a mile to put them on a parity with the United States but that they would press for the holidays. They have in mind, of course, a higher price for their services. I promised to bring their representations to the attention of the Postmaster General upon his return.


Mr. ELLIOTT (Waterloo):: The hon. member (Mr. Woods) pointed out that the mail carriers were not receiving any holiday. To give you an illustration of how the department treats the men in this respect I wish to read a letter which was sent to me by a mail carrier in my constituency. This man got the permission of every boxholder on his route to take Christmas Day off. He took it, and on January 23 he received the following letter:
Dear Sir,-This is to advise you that the department has authorized a pro rata reduction for the trip missed by you on December 25, which amount will be deducted from your next cheque.
Yours very truly,
D. J. McLean.
That is rather harsh treatment when everyone on that route was satisfied that the man should have the holiday.

Supply-Post Office


Thomas Sales: I suppose Mr. McLean got
a holiday?


William Elliott: Yes, he looks out for that part of it. The department could give these men the holiday without adding a single cent to the cost of the mail service.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: Do the trains stop on
holidays?


William Elliott: We are not
dealing with trains; we are dealing with the rural mail service at the moment. I think this is one improvement that the department might very well make. It will go a long way towards satisfying these men if they are given some consideration in this matter.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: Are these mail contracts not based on a daily service?


William Elliott: The contracts are made for a year. Personally I think the tender system is wrong. The man who is willing to work for the lowest sum gets the job whether he is qualified or not. These contracts should be let on the same basis as in the case of the letter carriers in the towns and cities. Instead of calling for tenders in the first place, make certain salaries applicable to certain routes, then call for tenders and give the best man the contract. That would improve the service and bring into it a better quality of men. This matter has been repeatedly brought to the attention of the government and I would strongly urge that it be considered.


Charles A. Stewart: The United States government have put this plan into effect and the advice of every United States officer is that we stick to our tender system, because in the other case the costs are too great. If we are to have the service we must keep down the cost. A man's qualifications are taken into consideration as well as the amount of his tender.


William Elliott: I am aware
of that. I know of instances where the man who made the. lowest tender was approached by the official in charge and told that his tender was still too high and that if he would decrease it further he would get the contract. The system does not make for the most efficient service. Undoubtedly this service costs a lot of money but when you consider that these men get an average of only $45 per mile, or something in the neighbourhood of $600 or $700 each, out of which they have to maintain themselves and keep a horse and buggy, I think it
will be admitted that they are getting entirely too little money, even if the service does cost a lot. I think this matter is worthy of attention and should be gone into very carefully.


Mr. MALCOLM:: I want to bear out the
remarks of the hon. member for South Waterloo on the question of holidays, but before supporting that contention, I want to say that I do not think there has been that reasonableness on the part of the farmers of this country who are being served by rural mail routes that there should be. I have heard complaints of couriers because they missed one service on account of a snow storm or on account of a holiday. As a matter of fact, the rural communities would be very well served if they got no mail on holidays in any part of Canada. What business house gets its mail on a holiday? Then in the winter time we have climatic conditions in Canada which make it practically impossible for a courier to maintain his six or seven hour service in deep snow. What community suffers if it gets its mail in the winter only every other day? There are times in the cities when our mail is delayed for a day on account of bad weather conditions, and it causes no suffering to anybody. I think a service of three times a week on these rural mail routes during the winter would be sufficient. WThile I support the tender system I think there is a hardship on these couriers on account of the daily service in winter time, and the regular service on holidays. I have always maintained this to Mr. Anderson, who is a very efficient public servant, and I would point out to the acting minister that if he wants to do something for the couriers he can easily take the stand that holidays should be granted to them, and in the stormy winter months the service should be every other day instead of daily.


Milton Neil Campbell: With regard to discrimination, against the Canadian National in the carrying of the mails the minister's remarks imply that the removal of that discrimination would perhaps mean an added cost. I am not entirely clear on that, and I would ask the minister to explain a little further. Suppose I post a letter here in Ottawa for Cochrane, and that letter goes over the Canadian Pacific to Winnipeg. It must come back from Winnipeg to Cochrane, and that means not only a considerable delay but unnecessary handling on the Canadian Pacific. I am not sure that that is true in that particular case, but it is true in many other cases.
Supply-Post Office


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is hardly correct in that statement.


Milton Neil Campbell: Perhaps not in that
particular case, but there are a great many similar cases.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think so. The mails are moved locally to Cochrane.


Milton Neil Campbell: 
George Arthur Brethen: I would like to support the hon. member for South Waterloo and the hon. member for North Bruce regarding the advisability of the minister granting the rural mail carriers holidays. I do not think it would be advisable, however, to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for North Bruce and give only every other day service in the winter. I find in my riding that if the roads are difficult or anywhere near impossible to travel the mail carrier takes a day off, and nobody raises very much complaint; in fact, there is little or none. So I think it might be left at a daily service. I think the mail carriers themselves will see they do not suffer very much on that account.
I have found people very reasonable in that respect.


James Malcolm: I have not.


George Arthur Brethen: You are in a different
riding. There is another aspect of this question. There are some mail routes where there is a mail being carried between points, say, twenty miles apart, and in that territory you will find a couple of small rural post offices where these carriers stop to deliver mail. I find the upkeep of these post offices is higher than if the rural mail service were given right along the line. In fact, I have had mail carriers tell me they would give the mail service all along the line for less monejT than it costs to keep up these offices. But still the department refuses to make a change, claiming that it would be a new service, which they refuse to give. I think when it does not cost the department any more money to give a better service to the people, they should be willing to do it, and they should accept a proposition like that.


Charles A. Stewart: I move that the item respecting J. J. Hayes be amended to read as follows:
To hereby superannuate J. J. Hayes, formerly supervisor of letter carriers, Calgary post office, as from the 14th September, 1922, under Part I of the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act, and the living allowance which might have been granted to him if he had not been dismissed from the service and notwithstanding his dismissal from the service, payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Henry Elvins Spencer: I wish to call the minister's attention to the fact that very few new rural deliveries have been allowed during the last three years so far as I know, and I would be glad if he could assure this House that the department will be a little more generous in the future, for it is a great advantage to the people in the country to have this mail delivery.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think there is no
public service rendered to the people which they appreciate quite so much as rural mail delivery. While the minister says it will cost money, I think when the whole question is taken into consideration it is the very cheapest method which can be devised by which people can get their mail. Take the case of a rural community, especially in the busy season, although in farming it is always a busy season. Is it not cheaper to hire one man to cover twenty miles of route, delivering the mail, than for every farmer to drive in five or six or seven or eight or nine miles to get his individual mail? They are all driving to get the mail over this road, and I think it is a service the public will not begrudge paying for. I do not

Supply-Post Office
think they could possibly get it as well in any other way. It would be like the condition when they used to have cheese factories in our country. If the fanner had to haul his own milk he could not do it at all. So they got one man to haul from the end of the route to the factory. The rural mail delivery is much on the same principle. I think, possibly, we do not all realize the difficulty of instituting the rural mail service due to the very bad surveys in a great many portions of Canada and the laying out of the roads. The trouble is that there are very many small cross roads with people living on them, and it is impossible for the carrier to reach them all. For that reason there are sections where it is almost impossible to establish a rural mail delivery and serve everybody. Hence the impossibility in some cases of cutting out the little post office. I realize the difficulty because I do not think the surveys anywhere are as bad as they are in New Brunswick. When complaints are made about not getting a rural mail service I should like the people who complain to consider this feature of it. I think possibly that we have the most efficient man in charge of the rural mail service that there is in the public employ and doubtless his troubles are endless. Probably there is no official in the employ of the government that gets as many requests for a public service as Mr. Anderson, superintendent of the rural mail service.


Thomas Sales: You must be getting some
new ones.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not get many. I believe that in a great many cases it would be possible to put on a free delivery without costing any more money than it does at present. That is where the roads are so laid out that it is possible to cut out the local post office and so effect an economy. I know that has been done in some cases in New Brunswick and a saving effected'. I would also like to join in the request of other hon. members that the rural mail carriers get the legal holiday. I think last Christmas was the first holiday the rural mail carriers have had, and they appreciated it very much. With regard to delay in the mail delivery the people in our section of the country do not complain if the carrier fails to come on a stormy day or if the roads are bad. If we get a service five or six days a week we know that we are getting mail oftener than we would if the service was only three times a week.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: Would you favour
cutting out the trains on Christmas Day?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is a different
proposition. People travel a great deal on trains then and they do not have very much time to read their mail. I do not think the two things are comparable at all. I think every rural mail carrier is entitled to have Christmas and a few of the other holidays, and I do not imagine the public would suffer very much if they were granted the privilege.


Thomas Sales: I sympathize with my fellow members who have rural mail deliveries and cannot get their mail on holidays. I come from a constituency where we have not anything-we have not a stick, nor a brick, nor as far as I know any rural mail delivery-consequently my troubles are very small compared with those of my colleague in this House.


Thomas George McBride: I would say I am fully in favour of the contract system in connection with mail delivery. Some ten people in my constituency asked the highest pay for mail delivery. I told some of them that if they were not satisfied with what they were being paid they had better arrange to have fresh tenders called for which was done. Mr. Anderson called for tenders and there was not one instance where he failed in getting the mail carried for less than the old rate. Indeed a number of the people who had been complaining sought my aid to try and get back the contract at the rate of the lowest tender. I believe that mail carriers should be given a holiday; I see no reason why they should not be granted the privilege. I hear some people from the prairies complaining about going ten miles for their mail. I have to go twenty-six miles for my mail. In winter I have to travel thirty-four miles by another route. I am not complaining about it I do not think the government can be expected to provide a mail delivery for every district where, perhaps, but very few people reside. I know one place where a post office was petitioned for by thirty people. I made investigation and found that while there were thirty-two names on the petition for the office it would only have served five people, and four of them were old bachelors.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Perhaps that is the
reason they were old bachelors.


Mr ROSS (Simcoe):: Just a word or two
at this late hour. Last year I took occasion to speak briefly on the subject and advocated a holiday for the mail carriers. To-night I advocate it again. Holidays are granted to the letter carriers in the urban centres, and
Supply-Post Office

I know I have the endorsation of the people who are served by the rural mail delivery in my constituency in urging that the carriers should be given holidays. They were granted a holiday last year on New Years Day, it was the only holiday they had in the year, and I want to urge strongly again that the government consider granting them holidays. I said last year that I was not in favour of the proposal to change the tender system to one on a mileage basis. I endorse the tender system because I believe it is a sound practice to follow in the expenditure of public money. I believe there is very great discrimination between the mail carrier in the rural districts, and the man who delivers mail in the urban centres. The latter is not placed on the tender system at all.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: How many holidays in
the year would you be in favour of.


Mr ROSS (Simcoe):: For the rural carrier?


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: All the legal holidays. I am prepared to do without my mail at such times in order that they shall get these holidays, and I know all the people in the country feel very much the same. The letter carrier in the city not only gets two weeks vacation, besides the regular holidays, but he also receives a uniform. These are privileges that are not granted the rural man at all. I understand the minister to say that 125 applications had been made for rural mail delivery and that none had been granted. I hope the time will come when further extensions will be possible. I observe an item in the post office estimates of $15,504 to provide for the payment of letter carriers in cities and towns. Is that for an extension to some place?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: And it is for letter
carriers?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am not opposing
it, only I feel there is discrimination all along the line. If $15,500 can be found for the letter carriers in the urban centres why cannot we get a grant for the rural districts? In the cities the people to be served live within a mile or a mile and a half of the post office, whereas in the county of Simcoe-and it is characteristic of rural Ontario-the people live from seven to eight and ten miles from the post office and cannot get an extension of mail service at all. I sincerely hope that next

session further provision will be made for mail deliveries in rural districts. I have in mind a locality where they have rural mail delivery where the people are seven miles from the nearest post office. There are forty persons living in this district, and the one who is nearest to his box, which is placed where the carrier comes along, is yet a mile away from it. The others vary from that up to two and one-half and some of them three miles away from their boxes. The needs of these people should have been considered long ago. I do not favour the suggestion that was made that, in the winter time, the service should be just every other day or every third day. I am strongly in favour of keeping the service as it is, because most of the time the carriers can get along, and on days when they cannot get around, no complaints come from the rural people.


John Lawrence Stansell: As regards the request
for holidays, a gentleman representing himself as the secretary of the Rural Mail Carriers' Association has many times interviewed me stating that one of the things that the rural mail carriers desired was all1 the regular holidays, but the mail carriers themselves have not made many requests of that kind, and I am inclined to think that the mail carriers are more concerned about getting a living wage for what they do than about getting numerous holidays. This can be easily understood when one knows that the delivery of mail does not require a full day, so that the mail carrier has a part of each working day which he can use as a holiday or in such other manner as he sees fit. We have also to consider the rights of the people who are getting mail. There is a great difference between the man in the city or town and the man in the country. If the mail was not delivered daily in the city or town, the people would get their daily papers just the same. But when the rural mail carrier does not make his trip, the man in the country does not get his daily paper. If we are going to make farmers and rural dwellers generally satisfied and contented on the land, they must have some of the conveniences, and the daily mail is one thing that makes life partly worth living in the rural sections. I am not inclined to agree with the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Stewart) when he states that this rural mail delivery was adopted too soon. I am surprised to hear that 125 applications for rural mail routes have been made and that nothing is being done to create them. I understood the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) to say that they have nothing of that kind in his constituency.

Supply-Post Office


Thomas Sales: If there was any chance of
getting them, we would have two hundred applications.


John Lawrence Stansell: With the amount of
money that is paid for rural mail contracts, the granting of these 125 applications would not cost over $75,000. We have passed in just a few minutes items ranging from $20,000, $40,000, $50,000 up to $500,000 for various other things, and many of those
4 a.m. large items would not be as good an investment as one in rural mail delivery. We are spending large amounts for immigration although the money might be better spent at home in this and in many other ways than in bringing foreigners in to take the place of those who are living here. We were told, in answer to a question, that as a result of $100,000 spent in an immigration scheme, to which was added another $100,000 by the railways, we got in about 35 settlers. If that had been spent in bettering conditions for farmers in outlying districts, and if in nothing else than in giving them mail deliveries, we would have done more to advance the national interests than by spending the money on immigration.
Something should be done to see that rural mail carriers have a uniform outfit that is not a disgrace to our country. Many of them, owing to the extremely low price they get for their services, have to go with a disreputable outfit, and they are working under such conditions as it would be difficult to find other men in other places willing to accept. When we remember that on from $500 to $700 the average mail earlier has to keep one or two horses and endeavour to support an average family, we can see the injustice under which he labours. He should have a living wage and he should also receive a few days holidays in the year.
There should be some examination as to fitness in connection with applicants for rural mail carriers. If this service is to be profitable, only such men should be accepted as are qualified to give satisfactory service in connection with the delivery of mail and the handling of money orders. Unless the latter is taken care of, the service cannot be profitable to the government. Where a man is not qualified for doing that work satisfactorily, he will not be entrusted with money order work which is a service that brings in money to the department. This very important work, instead of being held up, should be extended in the national interest.
The contract system is probably a good one, but the way in which it is handled by some
officials of the department is not to the greatest credit of the department. There should be some provision also in the case of the man who renders satisfactory service that his contract should be extended at a reasonable rate and that he should not have to compete with others under the tender system. He is better qualified to serve the people and to extend the advantage of the service than a new man would be and, therefore, he should be given the encouragement of a renewal of his contract. Comparing the conditions in the country with those in the town and in view of the difference in the remuneration that is paid,
I think our sympathies should go to the rural letter carrier as well as the letter carrier in the towns.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Has an appointment been
made to fill the vacancy at La Tuque, Quebec?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Mr DOUCET:: The minister has no doubt
received complaints, as I and others have done, with regard to the dismissal of Mr. Willie Juneau from the position of postmaster at the town of La Tuque, as a result of a charge brought against him on October 10, 1922 of having been guilty of active political partisanship. The charge was laid on that date and it was not until the fall of 1923 that the government decided to ask Mr. Oscar Drouin, of Quebec to make an investigation. As a result of that investigation Mr. Drouin decided that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a decision in the case and he asked the department to make inquiries to find out whether Mr. Juneau had signed the nomination papers of a Mr. Dueharme who ran as a candidate in the election of 1921. That information could not be secured, and four or five weeks after the inquiry had concluded Mr. Drouin came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence on which to render a decision, which held Mr. Juneau guilty of active partisanship. Some few days later a petition signed by over 1,300 residents of the town declaring, that Mr. Juneau had always performed his duties as postmaster quite satisfactorily to everyone in the locality and that he had not been guilty of any partisanship, was forwarded to the department. Unfortunately, however, by order in council this gentleman had already been dismissed. It must be apparent to the Acting Postmaster General and to everyone in the department who has followed the evidence which was adduced before the commission appointed to investigate the charge, that this man had not been guilty of any active partisanship at all, but he was dismissed nevertheless. Now, there is a pro-
Supply-Miscellaneous

vision in the Civil Service Act that no employee who is dismissed can be taken back into the service within twelve months of his discharge and I would submit to the minister that in view of the fact that this is not a position in any ordinary rural post office where the incumbent receives a compensation of $60 a year, but is a position carrying with it a salary of $4,335, the matter is of sufficient importance to justify a careful review of the circumstances and a reconsideration of the decision which has been arrived at. I chal-;enge any hon. member to peruse as minutely as he can all the evidence that was submitted in the inquiry and he will be absolutely unable to put his finger on any piece of testimony which will support the charge that was brought against this man. I do think that under the circumstances some redress should be given and the Acting Postmaster General should certainly take the matter into the most serious consideration with a view to having justice done in this case, for there is not the slightest indication in all the evidence that this man had ever shown any political partisanship.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The minister made an amendment to the item respecting Mr. J. J. Hayes which provides an allowance of $1,857.87. Is this intended to be annual?


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
gentleman raised a question concerning Mr. Hayes last year, I remember, and this is to compensate him for what was perhaps an undue prosecution. It is annual.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supplementary Estimates-Post Office Department- to increase the salary of L. J. Gaboury, Deputy Postmaster General to $8,000 per annum, $2,000.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: How long has this gentleman been a deputy?


Charles A. Stewart: He has been in the service about 20 years but he has been a deputy only one year. This is to put him on a parity with those who hold similar positions in other departments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine and Fisheries-lighthouse and coast service- agencies, rents and contingencies, $228,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: The increase should be
explained.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: Statutory increases.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for breaking ice in Thunder bay, lake
Superior and other points deemed advisable in the interests of navigation, $30,000.
Arthur Meighen: Will this be done by
tlhe Mikula?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, under contract.


Arthur Meighen: The Mikula does everything but cut ice.


Ernest Lapointe: She -does it on the St.
Lawrence; this is on Thunder bay.


Arthur Meighen: She is usually in dock.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patrol of the northern waters of Canada, $10,000.
Milton Neil Campbell: Where does the patrol take place, and what is the nature of the work done?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: To provide for the compilation and publication of reports of the Canadian Arctic expedition.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The answer does
not seem to bear much relationship to the item.


Edward Joseph Garland: Where
does the patrol take place, and by what boat?


William Duff: The Arctic.


Edward Joseph Garland: (Bow River):	I am
glad we have a new minister.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is the Stefansson expedition.


Edward Joseph Garland: In connection with Wrangel island.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The whole north.


Edward Joseph Garland: This vote is for the purpose of publishing the report of the expedition?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction of lights and aids to navigation; amount required to reimburse E. H. Shockley for extra work performed in connection with the construction of two double dwellings at Prince Rupert, B.C., $1,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: What did Mr. Shockley do?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He built two double dwellings for the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries-salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protection service, $880,000.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There is nothing more important than the protection of our fish especially on the rivers where the salmon

Supply-M iscellaneous
spawn, but the service is very poorly paid, and possibly we get service in proportion to the pay. I understand these men are paid about S2 per day, out of which they have to provide their own boat, board themselves and provide a tent and in some cases haul their supplies forty or fifty miles on the railway to where they are patrolling the stream. Notwitstanding the small pay we have a number of good men in the service; but I think it has been made clear to the minister and his department that in some cases we have not had very good protection.
I think this has been remedied in some degree in particular instances; for example, people interested report to me that there has been a great improvement in the protective service on the Miramichi river. I would urge very strongly upon the minister that these men should get sufficient pay, for the protection of our fish is a very important matter.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is not the first time
the matter has been brought to my attention.
I shall be very glad to see that the men receive wages commensurate with the work they accomplish.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To assist in the conservation and development of the deep sea fisheries, and the demand for fish, $95,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What does this
involve?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is to provide for the
operation and maintenance of a publicity and marketing division to distribute information respecting the fish of Canada, their food value, methods of cooking and so on, with a view to the creation of a wider demand and greater consumption.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How is this wider
demand stimulated?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: By carrying on a campaign of newspaper advertising, lectures and so on.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What newspapers
are used for the purpose?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is almost impossible to get fresh fish inland from the coast. We who live near the seaboard do not relish the fish that we get in the centre of Canada; it i3 not carried under good conditions. Much could be done to stimulate the consumption of fish by providing better facilities on trains for shipping fresh fish from the seaboard inland.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Replying to the hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth) the list of newspapers includes the following: Halifax, Chronicle-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Just there, do we need to advertise in a Halifax paper to stimulate the demand for fish?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We think so.


Arthur Meighen: It is to stimulate the
Chronicle.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Echo, Halifax; Herald,
Mail. St. John, Globe, Telegraph-Journal, Times and Star. Montreal, Gazette, Star, Le Canada, Le Devoir, La Patrie. Quebec, Telegraph, L'Evenement, Le Soleil. Ottawa, Citizen, Journal Dailies, Le Droit. Toronto, Star, Telegram. Winnipeg, Free Press, Tribune. Regina, Leader, Post. Saskatoon, Phoenix, Star. Calgary, Herald. Edmonton, Journal. Vancouver, Province, Sun, World.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I see no reason
why one particular article of food should be picked out and advertised across this country, even at the places where that food is produced. There is no reason why ten other articles could not be picked out and advertised.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for investigations into practical and economic problems connected with the fisheries, $10,000.
Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I would ask the minister if in view of a resolution adopted by the committee of the House on the 17th June the department has decided whether the fall season for the lobster fishery on the Northumberland strait will be advanced ten days as suggested by the committee?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No decision has yet been reached.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Two or three weeks ago it was decided by the department to extend the spring season by ten days, and the decision was made on the very day or the very morning on which the season was supposed to close. I have communications from my constituents as well as complaints from other constituencies -if the hon. member for Yarmouth and Clare (Mr. Hatfield) were here he would bear me out in this respect-that that extension of the spring season came rather late. I will cite an instance so as to impress the minister with the advisability of taking action immediately if any change is to be granted so that the fishermen may be able to provide for it. The extension to which I have referred was granted on the forenoon of the 25th day of June. The fishery inspector went around the coast and reaching Richibucto Cape he told the fishermen they would have to get their gear ashore on the morning of the 26th.
Supply-Passports

The 26th was an ideal summer day and all the fishermen but one, who had eight boats out fishing for him, got their gear ashore. On the morning of the 27th at about 11 o'clock the same fishery inspector came along and told the fishermen that they could have a ten day extension. All the fishermen at this time had their gear ashore except this one person. Now, as this is only an experiment, in view of the fact that the recommendation was made that officers of the department should visit that district and hold an inquiry as to the desirability of starting the season on the 8th of August instead of on the 16th, owing to the fall storms in October, I submit that if this change is granted-and I hope the minister will see his way clear to grant it- the information be given immediately so that the fishermen may be able to get their gear in shape to start fishing on the 8th of August as suggested by the committee.
Canadian representation in the United States, $60,000.


Arthur Meighen: Who is the incumbent
of this office?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the present time Mr. M. M. Mahoney is representing Canada in the United States. As my right hon. friend knows, he was appointed during the time he was in office, and we have retained him.


Arthur Meighen: He is not representing
Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He acts as an agent for us at Washington. He keeps in touch with the departments and furnishes the government with information.


Arthur Meighen: What does he receive?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Five thousand dollars a year.


Arthur Meighen: Is the Canadian representative to be appointed, or what event is that waiting on?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government is giving very careful consideration to the selection of the right person. It is a little difficult to name just the one one wishes at the moment.


Arthur Meighen: Three years is a pretty long moment. I would be really alarmed whether the government could stand the mental stain of careful consideration of that subject much longer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We shall be
glad to be relieved of it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and expenses, Passport Office, $24,200.
Alan Webster Neill: I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister, in whose department I presume this comes, to the weird, prehistoric rites a man has to go through in this country to get liberty to go to the land of his birth. I am not referring to the offcials mentioned in this particular vote. They are the junior officers, and I wish to give them credit for carrying out the absurd system with such skill and devotion to the task as they can. I am referring rather to the gentleman at the head of the department, who is the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs. I suppose it would be more appropriate if I brought this matter up under the vote for his salary, and I intended to do so, and to move to reduce it. The passport system is objectionable in this country, and also I find by a quotation from a British paper, in the Old Country. It seems the British government desire to keep up the passport system because they wish to keep out aliens; they are not concerned with any other feature. Let us concede that we are not able to do away with the system in its entirety. The next thing to consider is the method by which we should conduct this passport system. One would suppose that common sense would lead us to ask that the regulations under which we would be governed would be such as would tend to a maximum of efficiency and a minimum of expense and inconvenience and trouble to the public. I think I shall be able to show that these regulations have failed in every one of those respects. There is no occasion to take a partisan view of this matter, because the leader of the opposition was the technical head of this department when he was in charge, just as the Prime Minister to-day, and if they ever had been made sensible of these absurd regulations I am sure they would have wiped them out very speedily. They appear to have been adopted at the whim of some individual utterly uninformed or utterly indifferent to the convenience of the general public. They form a very fine example of the extremes to which bureaucratic tyranny and autocratic, hidebound1 red taped and mossgrown officialism will go. I will read some of the regular tions to show how unsupported in law or in sense they are, and how irritating and delaying and useless and unnecessary they are. I took this matter up with the department when I first came down here this session in an endeavour to get the regulations modified along the lines of common sense, and failing to get any satisfaction I addressed a request to the department, to which I received the following reply:

Supply-Passports
With reference to your request to be furnished with a copy of the act or regulations under which this system is carried out, I beg to say that the procedure to which you refer is not specifically covered by any act or regulations.
I draw attention to the following:
What we work under is simply the sum of our experience.
I wish I could interest the hon. leader of the opposition, with that wonderful gift he has of epitomizing a situation in one vital sentence, in describing a situation under which an official writes to a member of the public and says:	"We work under the sum
of our experience." In other words, we do exactly as we please, apparently owing no allegiance to God or man in the matter. It is, however, inaccurate. There are regulations he works under, and I propose to quote them. If the Prime Minister will allow me I will send over a copy of them so that he will be able to follow my remarks. I have here a large and important looking sheet entitled "Form of Application for Passport- Form A." The back of it is chock-full of regulations, and is stamped with a big stamp to the effect that the fee for a passport is now $5, and for a renewal $2; that is 250 per cent of an increase since the previous year. If they did away with a lot of red tape they might be able to reduce the charge. One of the conditions is this:	Section 4
says:
Passports are granted in the case of natura'l-foorn British subjects upon the production of a declaration-
I will show it is not a declaration at all.
-by the applicant in the authorized form, verified by a declaration made by the manager of any bank or by any mayor, police magistrate, minister of religion-
And so forth. It goes on:
The applicant's certificate of birth and other evidence may also be required.
Picture yourself having complied with all these red tape conditions, and then suddenly they require you to produce your certificate of birth, which may be six thousand miles away. Another condition is found in clause 6, which reads:
A passport cannot be issued by the Department of External Affairs on behalf of a person already abroad. Passports must not be sent out of the Dominion of Canada by post.
But if you pay the expense of using a messenger, you can send it, but you must not post it. Can the human mind conceive why that regulation is inserted there? Again, I find that these regulations are dated the 17th of September, 1915, right in the middle of the war, and naturally one would suppose they would be carefully calculated to prevent the
evil aimed at, which I presume was the ingress and outgo of German enemy spies or undesirable people of that character. I would undertake in half a day to formulate a scheme under these regulations by which a steady stream of aliens, Bolsheviks or people of any other character, might steadily go out, and there would be no way of checking them, and no way of punishing them, because there is not the slightest penalty provided for those who might engineer the thing improperly. There is no affidavit required from anybody at all, and there is no undertaking to do anything. If I engineered this scheme and was arrested for doing it, all they could say would be that I had been lying. They could not punish me. They could not step these men going out. It would be as easy as falling off a log as the saying is, and these regulations were framed in the middle of the war when the strictest regard should have been paid to this matter. No penalty is provided, no affidavit is required, no one has to take an oath; there is no provision for anything except signing your name.
Turning to the other side of the document, where a declaration is to be made by the applicant, the word "declaration" suggests to the legal mind, to any mind, something being declared before somebody, before a magistrate or a justice of the peace, or someone else. And there always was a clause inserted to this effect " This declaration shall have the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act". Does he have to do that here? Not on your life.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Does my hon. friend know that, through a little more red tape possibly, they will not accept the signature of a justice of the peace to-day?


Alan Webster Neill: I know that. This document that he is supposed to declare he does not declare. All that he does is to sign his name That is not declaring a document. All he does is to simply sign his name; he does not even have it witnessed though the document is to allow him to enter Great Britain. Then we come to the little safeguard that there is. It says " This document must be accompanied by a declaration to be made by a voucher." I always thought a voucher was a document by means of which you drew money out of the government of Canada, but in this case it is used in a sense of one who vouches. So this document has to be accompanied by some one who vouches. And what does he vouch for? That he the undersigned has personal knowledge of the said Mr. or Mrs. So-and-So and that the statements made in his or her de-
Supply-Passports

claration are true, and that he can with his personal knowledge vouch for him or her as being a proper person to receive a passport. He does not do anything more than that; he does not make an affidavit or make a declaration, he simply says that of his own persona! knowledge Mr. and Mrs. So-and-So is a fit and proper person to receive a passport. It is a matter of opinion as to what constitutes a fit and proper person. For instance there are a number of very desirable and intelligent people in the district I represent who are of the opinion that I am not a fit and proper person to represent them. It is a matter of opinion. I know people who think that a man who is learning to play a violin is not a fit and proper person to stay in a vicinity. Some people think that those who fought for, or against, church union are very undesirable characters. Yet this man certifies to the person seeking the passport as being a fit and proper person. I would be quite willing to give passports to a lot of people who do not think the same way as I do. There are people who believe in giving Japs the vote. They would be eminently suitable persons to give a passport to; I would let them have a passport in order to get out of the country. You see how diversified the point of view is, and how absurd and diffuse the thing is. There again that does not have to be witnessed.
Then again if I were born abroad I would have to declare that my paternal grandfather was born in His Majesty's dominions and where I would have to get somebody to certify to that fact of his personal knowledge. I do not know exactly where my paternal grandfather was born. He died a hundred years ago and I should have considerable trouble in getting somebody to certify of his own personal knowledge where he was born. Another section says that in addition to British nationality I may possess another nationality. I thought the British nation boasted they only owned one nationality at a time, and when they ceased to be a British subject they adopted some other nationality. That dual nationality was the system invoked by the Germans, and also by the Japs, that their subjects could possess two nationalities at the same time.
I now come to another feature of this remarkable document. You have to give a description of your wife, and I presume the unhappy husband has to do the describing. These are some of the painful details. This is a case in which all married men ought to stick together. The passport just says "face." Under other passports or systems you are asked to describe the type of face or the com-
plexion. The Chinese Immigration Act calls for " facial marks." Here it says " face." One had better not put a "sullen type" or he is liable to get into trouble. Then it says "colour" of hair." What is the use of asking women the colour of their hair now-a-days? Would it not be more to the point to require a person's height such as is demanded in the Chinese registration. In the case of a Chinese registration they make a good deal of fuss about complying with the regulations but it is not so obnoxious or humiliating as the regulations contained here.
Then we come down to special peculiarities. In almost every other passport system in the world marks of identification are called for. The Chinese system says " any physical peculiarities." This one says " special peculiarities." That, I presume, is either physical or mental; I do not know which. We will suppose, for instance, that it is my wife. Suppose the only identification mark that she has is a scar, two inches above her left knee, which she received when she was a little girl. I do not know whether I mentioned before that the principal people who can vouch for this certificate are lawyers, bankers and magistrates. Now I am on friendly terms with my lawyer, my banker and my magistrate, but I am not on such intimate terms with them as to ask them to certify of their own personal knowledge to that particular scar. Or, it m;ght be a case of mental special peculiarity. I know some people who faint at the sight of a corpse. Will a corpse have to be packed around for the purpose of identification to see whether they do faint? That is a mental peculiarity. Take it in another light. Suppose truth compels me to admit the special peculiarity of a violent and uncontrolled temper. Where would I get off? I get a passport, what else would 1 get? It is like this all the way through. The whole proposition is like what was said about the beginning of the world, it is "without form and void."
Now to go back again to the back of the passport. It says here that the people who vouch for it can be " a magistrate, a minister of religion, a barrister at law, a physician, a surgeon or a solicitor." Not one of these has been put into a position of trust either by their fellow men or by the government. They are not officials in any sense of the word; they are not suitable for the convenience of the people. Bankers and doctors live in town; their number in the country is very limited To give you an illustration. In British Columbia you must make an affidavit to get on the voters' list. That requirement has been in force for, I think, twenty years, or

Supply-Passports
fifteen years anyway. There are no less than twenty-one officials before whom you can take an oath or make an affidavit if you desire to get on the voters' list. I will just mention a few of them: Justice of the Peace, alderman, provincial constable, government agent, government assessor, mining recorder, Indian agent, postmaster, postmistress, and so on. There is a penalty if you make a false affidavit even before a postmistress. If you are found guilty of perjury the penalty is fourteen years' imprisonment. That system has worked very well indeed. Would that not be a more sensible proposition to have people like that who are always available in country districts before whom you can make these affidavits, which in the case of the passport is not an affidavit at all.
In addition to all these objectionable requirements they have a horrible system called "verification," and I will give you a sample of it. A friend of mine was going to the Old Country and he had to make out this form. He asked me to certify to it and I signed my name. I saw he did not declare it so I did not take his oath; I simply signed my name. In order to bring myself within the list of people qualified I signed my name as a notary public and that I lived in British Columbia. Along about the time this gentleman was expecting his passport back I got a letter to this effect: Dear Sir,-
There has been presented to this department an ipplication for a passport on behalf of ... . which ourports to have been signed by you as voucher. For further assurance of the department and for further reference as to your signature, when vouching for ipplicants, I should be pleased if you would kindly jonfirm the fact of your signature by filling in the iccompanying card and mailing it to me.
And here is a nice little card reading: " This is to certify that I signed as voucher for So and So on his application dated so and so." They spent three weeks writing to me asking me if I were A. W. Neill. They asked: Are you a notary public, and did you sign that name? What is the sense of that? If I had not been a notary public, would I not have had wit enough to lie about it, if I were a fraud? What was the use of writing to me to ask if I was myself? They did not have the sense to look up the list of notary publics for British Columbia. They did not consult the chief of police of the town to see if there was such a man. They wrote to me and asked me if I was myself, and they spent three weeks in doing so while that man was waiting for an opportunity to get overseas. If a man wanted to deceive, all he had to do would be to rent a box in the post office and collect my mail 307
and write back and say, Yes, I am So and So, and I am a notary public.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend1 has mistaken the purport of that particular question. I understand that request is to ascertain whether someone else is guilty of fraud. The department have had numerous cases where they have written to an individual to ask if he has signed a passport and he has written back saying he has not.


Alan Webster Neill: In that case, if I were the
guilty party, I would be very careful not to give the name of a real notary public. I would give the name of a fictitious one and would rent a box in the post office and collect the mail. I would give the name of Tom Jones, notary public, and rent a box in the name of Tom Jones. When I received the mail I would reply: Yes, I am Tom Jones. No attempt was made to check the list of notary publics. In this case I wired stating that I was indeed myself and that I had signed this document. I said that my friend was going to lose his passage in consequence of the delay in writing to British Columbia and back, and that I would be much obliged if they would mail the passport to the office in New York from which he was sailing. They wired back that it was impossible to do that, that they could not mail the passport out of the country. That meant another delay. If I ' had been putting my signature as a notary public on a transfer of property worth two or three hundred thousand dollars, my signature would not have been questioned. Why should it be questioned in a case like that?
Calculated in the most ordinary and modest way, allowing only two days at each end which would be an unusually short time,fora man to start in British Columbia and apply for a passport, with no hitch occurring, it would take him thirty-five days before he got it. If they demanded that he should produce his birth certificate, as they have the power to do, it would take three months, and there is no provision that that might not happen. I understand that a number of people have protested. Amongst others I have one from Winnipeg and I should like to quote a letter which I get from British Columbia and which is really typical. This man gives three instances in the small town in which he lives. He says: Mrs. So-and-so, bom, married and widowed in the Old Country came here and lived with her daughter afterwards marrying an American but the American had been a naturalized subject for fifteen years. When she applied for a passport she could not pro-

Supply-Passports

duce her husband's naturalization papers and the consequence was she was refused a passport and she has not. been able to go and see her children. The second case was that of a Scotch widow born in Scotland She made application on the proper form. She lost her passage by that boat-she got it by a later one-because the minister who vouched for her was not accepted until he had, as in my case, written and said that ire was indeed a minister of the gospel. The third case was that of a British woman who had married a German. Her boy had gone to the front and she had been very prominent in Red Cross work. But because she could nut produce the naturalization papers of her husband, who had been dead for twenty-five years,
5 a.m she was not able to go and see her children at all and to tins date she has not seen them. Of course she had been married to an alien, but he had been dead twenty-five years and she naturally could not produce his naturalization certificate. I do not think the regulations of Great Britain extend to things of that kind.
It is easy to say that you can start ahead of time and you will be all right. That is true. You can start six months ahead. But sometimes people are in a hurry; sometimes they want to run across to the Old Country to consummate a business deal or to see ltlations who are very sick, and it is necessary to go in a hurry. It may be easy for hon. gentlemen here who know how to do this sort of thing, to go to the Passport branch and get a passport in an hour or so, but it is different in a case of plain people in small country places who are visiting the Old Country-the event of their lives-and who find all of a sudden that these regulations come in the way and prevent them from going. It is said, with a certain amount of truth that these regulations are based upon the British ones. They resemble in some degree the British ones, but they are much more stringent in the way they are being carried out. For instance, Britain is a small country, geographically speaking, and in that country they have two passport offices where this business is transacted readily and quickly as I have occasion to know. Two members of my family who recently left Scotland decided in a hurry to come out. In one case they had only a few days, and within about thirty-six hours after the application and photograph were put in, the passport was received. There was nothing of this nonsense about verifying people, and if there had been, the short distances in that country would allow this to be readily done; it would not
[Mr. Neill.)
take thirty-five days, and I do not think the British people expect us to carry out our regulations under any such system as that. Our laws do not require it, and I do not believe the British laws require their regulations to be carried out in that foolish way. Why then should we be the victims of this unnecessary system? What makes a government unpopular is when people cannot go about their business without being harassed unnecessarily. The Prime Minister, I think, could effect an improvement immediately. If he wishes to make a change, he does not need to hire the services of a superman or an expert lawyer. Let him take one of his own officials, a man of ordinary or even mediocre ability, and so long as he is not on a pedestal of his own fatuous self-importance, he can readily devise a system whereby this can be done easily, simply and cheaply, in a way that will enable the charge to be reduced a *third. Between a five-dollar charge for fees paid and five or six dollars for photographs, this means an item of ten or twelve dollars. This may not mean much to us, but to people who have to go steerage,-and there are still people who go steerage-twelve dollars on a steerage ticket is something like twenty-five per cent of the value added on for this absurd regulation.
Supposing one of ourselves were concerned in this thing and we were hurrying home to the Old Country to see a dying wife or child. What would we think of these almost criminally stupid regulations that would prevent us from getting there until it was too late?
There is nothing spectacular about this reform. It is very simple and modest, but it concerns us all as Canadians. If the government can see their way to clearing up this mess and making it easier, simpler and cheap to get passports to go to the Old Country, they will be doing something to make things easier and pleasanter for the common people of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The passport regulations are framed, not so much with a view to meeting any requirements of our government, as with a view to conforming with the requirements of governments of foreign countries to which persons may be going who are obliged to have passports with them in order that they may be admitted. That is the explanation of the cumbersome character of the regulations. I agree with my hon. friend that they are vexatious in their delays, but I am told that the form as drafted was based upon a form prepared and sent out by the League of Nations as a result of its careful

Supply-Miscellaneous
inquiry into conditions in countries to which persons might be travelling. They adopted what was supposed to be in the nature of a model form to be used by foreign Countries to avoid the possibility of a traveller landing in a foreign country and then finding that his passport was of such a character as would not permit him to be admitted. Moreover, I should say that not only was the League of Nations' form the basis, but it was submitted to the Imperial authorities and they themselves suggested the regulations which should be put into the passport. It is the Imperial authorities who require the use of passports; we do not require it. As a matter of fact we have on several occasions drawn the attention of the British government to the fact that in our opinion it is an unfortunate obligation to be imposed on British subjects residing in Canada to have to secure passports in order to enter the British Isles. Only within the last few weeks I repeated to the British government the protest we have several times made during the past two or three years against the imposition of this obligation, but so far the British authorities have not seen their way to change the regulation and we are helpless in the matter of securing a reform. I shall have pleasure in directing the attention of the officers of the department more particularly to the subject of my hon. friend's speech this morning, and if it is at all possible to have the regulations simplified I shall be happy to see that this is done. The regulation appears to have been drafted on September 17, 1915; that was during the war when owing to the peculiar circumstances of the time it was no doubt imperative that the regulations should be rigid. But now that we are so far removed from circumstances of the kind it may be possible to secure a simplification of the regulation.


Alan Webster Neill: That fact, that the regulations were made in the middle of the war was one of my complaints as they are so lacking in efficiency to prevent illegal passports. I hold in my hand a passport issued by the British authorities and it resembles those we issue; it is also similar to the standard form. It is not the passport itself that I find fault with but the cumbersome and inefficient method which is in vogue in obtaining it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for Canada's contribution towards the maintenance of the Permanent Secretariat of the League of Nations, $168,353.29.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the minister state in a few words what has been accomplished by the League of Nations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid I could not do it in a few words.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I suppose we cannot do more than protest against an important item like this being left to the last few hours of the session. As a matter of fact the Prime Minister promised that there would be an opportunity to discuss this subject.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were before the House there was ample opportunity for the discussion of these matters. The House, however, spent the greater part of the day dealing with the Lausanne treaty and there was no restriction upon any hon. member who wanted to take up any item that related to that department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to International Bee Keepers' Congress, $2,500.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: This is a new item. What have we to do with the International Bees?


William Richard Motherwell: A conference is to be held at Quebec in August or September of this year and this vote is a contribution thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government contracts, supervision committee, salaries, including that of L. R. La Fleche, secretary, $6,000, and that of L. H. Beer, salvage officer, $5,000, telephones and telegrams, travelling expenses, stationery, etc., $30,000.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: This is an important item. What relation has it to the purchasing agents of the various departments?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The purpose of this estimate is pretty well expressed in the vote itself. There is a sub-committee of council which exercises supervision over all contracts and purchases of the government. To state the facts in a word, the committee exists for the purpose of supervising purchases and effecting economies and uniformity throughout the different branches.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How may any firm have its name placed on the list of those eligible for orders?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: An effort is made, in calling for tenders, to get the names of as many firms as can be obtained, and any firm can send in its name to the government!


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the tender principle followed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; the law requires that tenders shall be called for in all contracts above a certain amount.
Supply-Miscellaneous


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for repayments to His Majesty's government of expenses incurred in connection with the transportation of Canadian delegation to and from Geneva in connection with first assembly of League >f Nations in 1920. $1,848.56.
Mr. WOOD0WORTH: This dates back to 1920; what is the reason?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This happens to be the expenses of three Canadian ministers, my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) included, who forgot to pay their accounts to the British government. The British government has sent the bill to us.


Arthur Meighen: It is nothing of the
kind. The accounts were taken care of in the regular way by the secretaries of the respective ministers. What is the item for?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not think the right hon. gentleman was one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Arthur Meighen: The explanation is not correct, for I certainly never was asked.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
statement given by the deputy minister of the department.


Arthur Meighen: Sir Joseph Pope?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I am informed the department has a letter from my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: There is no such letter
from me, for I knew nothing about it. I can not conceive how it could have been omitted. How could they get the return tickets?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The British
government bought the tickets from Liverpool to New York. This relates to item 356. Item 354 is a refund of a similar character to cover the expenses of Sir George Foster, Mr. Rowell and Mr. Doherty from Geneva to London. Apparently they thought they were travelling as guests of the Hospitality League in Britain or His Majesty's Hospitality Fund, but the league rendered the bill to the British government.


Arthur Meighen: There might be an error in England as to who was responsible, but it could not possibly be so as to these tickets, because our secretaries purchased them. I would ask the Prime Minister to be good enough to send me a copy of that letter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant towards the expenses of the International Mathematical Congress to be held in Montreal in 1924. $25,000.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: What are all these congresses, and why are they subsidized by the Canadian government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The British
Association for Advancement of Science and the Mathematical Congress are two of the most important scientific gatherings in the world. They meet in a different country each year, and it has been the custom of all countries to help meet the expenses of the scientific men attending from all parts of the world. I think my right hon. friend opposite had intimated to the British association, and very rightly so, that if they were to meet in Canada in such and such a year, and he were in office, he would give them a grant. The government is taking the same course that my right hon. friend said he would take if in office. The province of Ontario is giving a like amount to the Mathematical Congress.


Arthur Meighen: I have some recollection of being advised of the visit of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, but as to the Mathematical Congress I certainly have none.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is correct; it was to the British scientific association that he gave the promise.


Arthur Meighen: There was no promise.
I recall being advised in conversation that they would probably come to Canada. But the British Association for the Advancement of Science is a well-known institution the world over, and undoubtedly its meeting

Supply-Miscellaneous
should be encouraged by the government. But I take a rather different view of the Mathematical Congress.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Professor J. C. Maclennan of the University of Toronto wrote my right hon. friend in' this matter, and I have the correspondence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the salary of a private secretary to the Speaker of the Senate, $600.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Why does this
salary come in this place? Is this not recommended by the Senate itself?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are simply following precedent; this salary has been voted from time to time under this particular heading.
Grant to Jhe Canadian Tuberculosis Association, $15,000.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I notice the grants to the blind and to the Tuberculosis Association are cut down. Why do we spend such an enormous amount for a mathematical congress and cut down grants to provide for the needy here in Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The explanation is that the Mathematical Congress meets once every twenty-five years; the other grants are annual.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Why are they cut down in each case?


James Malcolm: I think there is a misapprehension; the grant to the blind has not been reduced at all. The grant last year was larger because it had been forgotten the previous year and the deficiency was made good. This year the grant is normal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How about the
tuberculosis grant?


Henri Sévérin Béland: About two hours ago we voted $5,000 in the supplementaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To cover Governor General's Warrants 1923-24-to provide .for the expenses of investigating claim and negotiating treaty for cession of Indian title to 10,719 square miles in the province of Ontario (Governor General's warrant, 5th January 1924), $12,000.
Arthur Meighen: Is this Colonel Thompson's investigation?


Ernest Lapointe: I think so.


Arthur Meighen: A pretty barren investigation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unprovided items, 1922-23-to cover unprovided items 1922-23, as per Auditor General's report, part b, page 4, 1922-23, $368,783.39.	[DOT]
Arthur Meighen: Could we get a list of all those items in not too great detail?
The item seems new. Was there a oorre^ sponding item in other years?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Of this magnitude?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think so. It is to cover unprovided items for 1922-23.


Arthur Meighen: I presume certain payments were made that were not authorized and now they are being authorized.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not got the report here.


Arthur Meighen: Has the Prime Minister a list of them or any definition of their nature?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not a copy of the Auditor General's report here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agriculture-live stock, $1,280,000.
Mr. WALLACE:: May I ask if the regulation recently issued by which no further applications would be received for record of performance tests has been rescinded?


William Richard Motherwell: Just for a short time while we were getting the new inspectors appointed.


Milton Neil Campbell: There seems to be a very considerable increase here.


William Richard Motherwell: The increase of $50,000 is due to the fact that the testing of dairy cattle for butter and for production has been transferred from the Dairy branch to the Live Stock branch. The rest of. the increase is due to the natural development of livq stock activities throughout the country,


Milton Neil Campbell: According to the Auditor General's report the amount spent last year was $1,057,000. Now we are asking for $1,280,000.


Arthur Meighen: That would be for the year before last.


George Gibson Coote: Is there anything in this vote for a grant to the Western Stock Growers' Association, who, I understand, made a request for a grant this year?


William Richard Motherwell: No. The grant this year goes to the Western Live Stock Union.
Supply-Miscellaneous


George Gibson Coote: Does the minister not think it might be a better use to make of the money than to give it to the International Beekeepers' Association?


William Richard Motherwell: We did not think so.


Mr. TOLMIE:: What amount is included for travelling expenses under this vote?


William Richard Motherwell: A considerable part of it would consist of salaries and travelling expenses. It would be pretty hard to classify it.
Seed, feed and fertilizer control, $295,000.


Mr. HARRIS:: Does this $295,000 include the cost of the publication known as Seed and Fertilizer Markets?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. We get the information through telegraph and cable despatches, and also by mail, from the various parts of the world.


Joseph Henry Harris: You would hardly go outside of Canada; these would be all domestic prices. Is it not a fact that you get the prices from the Canadian Fertilizer Manufacturers' Association in the case of fertilizer?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Joseph Henry Harris: What about this board that advises the minister with regard to fertilizer?


William Richard Motherwell: I have no doubt that would be a natural place to get part of the information.


Joseph Henry Harris: Has any attention been paid to the fact that not all manufacturers are members of this association? Is it the policy of the department to listen to the Canadian manufacturers of fertilizer and publish their results?


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend lias any wider circle of information we shall 'be very glad to consider it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salary and expenses of agricultural produce marketing agent in Great Britain, $10,000.
Arthur Meighen: Who is this gentleman?


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. W. A. Wilson.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister got Mr. JFeston in his employ?


William Richard Motherwell: No. If my right hon. friend is suggesting that there is anything improper in his appointment he is on the wrong track.
[Mr. Motherwell.!


Milton Neil Campbell: Does the minister think he is getting any results from the work of this agent? We are losing yearly our market in the Old Country for these products.


William Richard Motherwell: We have weekly reports from Mr. Wilson with regard to cheese, butter, bacon, eggs and other such farm products.


Arthur Meighen: And that ought to be ample compensation for losing the markets.


Milton Neil Campbell: It seems to me there is something wrong in the Old Country when we are losing our markets for all these products. The minister should be able to suggest some other means for trying to re-establish that market.


William Richard Motherwell: The market for cheese has improved amazingly during the last twelve months, due partly to the grading system inaugurated over a year ago and to the publicity given to it by Mr. Wilson.
Mr. IRVINE; If we are losing our markets through an agent that costs us $10,000, it might be well to reduce the item by $5,000 and save some of our markets.


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon.
friend mean the producer is losing?


William Irvine: I am talking of markets.


George Arthur Brethen: Whiat is a live stock
promoter?


William Richard Motherwell: A gentleman who pro-motes the desire to go into live stock, and encourages the farmers to produce better live stock.


George Arthur Brethen: In the Auditor General's report there is an item for J. C. Stewart, live stock promoter, salary $1,920 with expenses $3,536.30. In looking over these accounts I find this live stock promoter has more expenses than the minister and some of the branch heads, even those who go over to Great Britain. I would like some explanation of the expense account of this live stock promoter in the city of Ottawa.


William Richard Motherwell: He spends most of his time travelling, looking into marketing difficulties and other activities connected with live stock. He is on the road nearly all the time.


George Arthur Brethen: How far does he travel?


William Richard Motherwell: Over the whole of Ontario and a portion of Quebec.


George Arthur Brethen: From what knowledge I have, he is largely attending fairs and bree^-

Supply-M iscellaneous
ers' meetings, and doing general entertainment. Compare his expenses with those of other live stock promoters, and yon will find his out of all proportion.


William Richard Motherwell: These accounts
are all checked up very carefully. I hope my hon. friend is not suggesting that this account is padded or anything of that sort. We take every precaution against anything of that nature.


Arthur Meighen: Who is this live stock
promoter?


William Richard Motherwell: His name is
Stewart.


Milton Neil Campbell: Can the minister give us any figures regarding the shipment of butter and eggs to the Old Country? There was a very serious falling off in both our butter and egg shipments in 1923 over 1922. I would judge from the minister's remarks that there has been an improvement this year. Can he give us any figures for this year?


William Richard Motherwell: We import more eggs than we export, and the reason we do not export more butter is that Canada consumes most of her production herself. You can go on the British market to-day, or any other day, at any time of the year and you will not find Canadian butter there except on a very, very few markets, and if you find it on one market to-day, you may not find it there next week. The result is that the British buyer does not look favourably on our butter because of the non-continuity of the supply. We supply only two and a half or three per cent of their total importation.


Milton Neil Campbell: The production of butter is steadily increasing. I have not the exact figures here, but it seems to be reflected in the price. There was not very much of a drop last year, and a considerable amount of our butter went to New York and paid the eight per cent duty. I can hardly understand that there is no surplus to ship to the Old Country market.


William Richard Motherwell: A great deal of our butter fat goes out in the form of cream. While our butter production is increasing, so is the home consumption, because of the better quality.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Department of Agriculture, province of Nova Scotia, to apply on the amortization of the debt against the Science building at the Agricultural College, Truro, N.S., $20,000.
William Richard Motherwell: This item and the
following one are appropriations for the purpose of making grants to two buildings, one in Nova Scotia and the other in New Brunswick. These provinces have received a grant under the Agricultural Instruction Act, for the past ten years, and these buildings were started. Then when the vote under that act was discontinued, we received representations from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, inasmuch as they suffered more than any other province in the first year this grant was reduced from $1,100,000 to $900,000. That was last year, and it struck the Maritime provinces harder because of their population, which is not growing like it is in the West. Alberta was reduced the first year by about $2,500, and Saskatchewan by $1,300, whereas the two Maritime provinces lost $20,000 apiece because of the reduction in the grant last year, and this year it is altogether wiped out. We propose to continue these payments to these two provinces to equalize matters with the other provinces.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Are these the final payments?


William Richard Motherwell: No, they will have to continue for about four years.


Robert Alexander Hoey: We have an agricultural college in Manitoba that is not paid for yet. I think this is a dangerous precedent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To increase staff in connection with wheat rust investigational work and provide accommodation therefor, $25,000.
William Thomas Lucas: Would the minister explain this item?


William Richard Motherwell: The committee will remember that about a month or so ago the Agricultural committee, after hearing a number of addresses on cereal diseases, recommended an expenditure of $50,000 for investigational work. It is partly due to that recommendation, and partly to the fact that we had come to the same conclusion ourselves, because Canada is losing through cereal diseases alone approximately $100,000,000 a year, that this vote was included. It was thought that nothing like proper care was being taken in the way of curative measures to eradicate these diseases. We have arranged for a conference in Winnipeg next September on the rust problem itself, and we expect to have there the best experts on the continent. After that meeting we will be able to decide where to locate the laboratory for making these investigations. It will probably be in Manitoba.


William Thomas Lucas: Is not a great deal of this work done in the universities?
Mr. Speaker-Ruling


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, in rented buildings, and while we have done good work there, we have been hampered considerably by not having complete control over the buildings. We have some accommodation in Winnipeg, but this disease is too important to be dealt with in buildings in which we have to get the accommodation from other people; the work has to be continued.


William Thomas Lucas: It occurred to me that there has been a good deal of overlapping in very much of this work. If it could be carried on in connection with our universities attended by a great many students, then anyone who is interested in it could see it carried on and afterwards take that knowledge out into the country with him. I think the universities are very well equipped with all the facilities for carrying on such work as this. Could not these investigations be carried on in conjunction with the universities, and thus obviate the necessity of having a separate building?


William Richard Motherwell: As, I think, my
hon. friend knows there are about forty different varieties of rust, and we have first to discover a plant that can resist the rust. Then, after we have discovered that kind of wheat plant we have got to breed into it three or four important qualities-early maturity, quality, and prolificness. That is a tremendous amount of experimentation and it may take twenty-five years, with the facilities we have, to arrive at definite results. We do not know how far we shall get with the new facilities, but we do know that we shall get better results. It is worth While striving to get results because there is a loss of nearly $100,000,-X)0 annually from cereal diseases of one kind ind another.


William Thomas Lucas: Is it the intention of the
minister to hold a conference of the several provincial bodies that are now doing certain work along this line?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, yes, all the
provincial bodies including the presidents of the two universities I have referred to and the best recognized men in the United States.


Arthur Meighen: What is the government holding a conference for? Is not that the work of the Scientific Research Council?


William Richard Motherwell: As a matter of fact the meeting is called by Dr. Tory as one of the signers to the invitation. In fact Dr. Grisdale and Dr. Tory have both signed the invitations.


Arthur Meighen: Will there be a dinner?


William Richard Motherwell: Well, I presume they will dine somewhere.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agriculture-
Salaries	 $713,585
Contingencies	 135,000
Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Will the minister inform the House if it is the intention to appoint a grading inspector for eggs in the province of New Brunswick, or in all the Maritime provinces?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that in the Maritime provinces they are pretty well advanced in the matter of egg grading. They took the work up there before the other sections of Canada did. I understand that we are about to appoint an inspector.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Hewitt Bostock: On the 15th of April a special committee was appointed to consider questions relating to the pensions, insurance and re-establishment of returned soldiers and any amendments to the existing laws in relation thereto which may be proposed or considered necessary by the committee.
On the 15th of July the committee presented its fourth report recommending that the Soldier Settlement Board make provision for reduction on the price of all live-stock advances to soldiers and purchased prior to the 1st of October, 1921; and, further, that in the event of any prepayment the soldier settlers shall receive a discount of five per cent per annum.
Mr. Denis (Joliette) chairman of the committee has moved concurrence in the report and Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil) has moved an amendment to strike out the portion of the report which relates to this five per cent discount. A point of order was raised by Mr. Meighen on the ground that committees have no right to recommend the expenditure of public moneys or to increase the charges upon the people. He pointed out that the House should not be called upon to approve of any expenditure which has not been proposed by a minister and recommended by the Crown. The theory that no private member may ask the House to vote public moneys is well known. An exception is often made for resolutions drafted in general terms, which are taken as pious wishes or recommenda-

Supply Bill
tions to the government. If we are to allow committees to consider questions involving expenditures without a special reference adopted by the House, we shall open the door to what I consider an abuse of parliamentary procedure. The cabinet cannot divest itself of the duty to manage the affairs of the country and it must bear the responsibility of submitting to the House any request for public moneys which may be needed. True, May, Twelfth Edition, page 437-8 says:
Select committees are able to consider and to report
to the House resolutions recommending an outlay of public money for the purposes therein specified, without the previous signification of the royal recommendation (see p. 457), because such a resolution is classed among those abstract resolutions by the house in favour of public expenditure, which are in the nature of suggestions, and are not in themselves binding upon the action of the House.
The precedents quoted in support of this contention go to show that in England a committee is only empowered to recommend an expenditure when it has received a special reference instructing it to examine the advisability of voting a stated amount. In one of the cases cited, the committee was instructed to consider and report whether any and what redress should be afforded to William Henry Barber who had a certain claim against the government. The other instance is that of a committee having been appointed to inquire and report upon a petition of Lord Cochrane praying Her Majesty to complete the gracious act of royal justice which restored the pension of the late Lord Dun-donald. It is evident that in such cases a recommendation to spend money had to be made.
In the present instance the reference to the special committee on Pensions was not instructed by the House to look into any expenditures. The most it could do would be to recommend to the consideration of the House that certain measures might be taken, and upon concurrence of that report, it would be for the government to submit money resolutions with the recommendation of the Crown.	,
I think it is against the spirit of British parliamentary procedure that the House should be called upon to pronounce itself on any charge upon the people before measures covering the same are brought down by a minister in due course. Such a practice would be tantamount to taking a circuitous way to bind the House without giving it the proper guarantees. I therefore rule that the report of the special committee respecting Pensions and Soldiers' Civil Re-establishments is out of
order and cannot be adopted in its present form.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (for the Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of Ways and Means.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1925, the sum of $170,064,353 08 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported 'and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 266 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1925.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the third reading of the bill.
Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the patience of the House-and I know I am asking a good deal [DOT]

for a few moments. It is only after due consideration of the importance of the step which I am now taking that I am speaking at this time for the purpose of moving an amendment to the third reading of this bill. I do so because I am informed by those who know, that this is the proper procedure to take in order to achieve my purpose. I regret to state that, in my opinion-it is my opinion and I speak for myself alone-that a grievous action of, perhaps, I may say, error, on the part of this government has been committed in the voting of the people's money, money which is in our trust, for the purpose of sending people to the Wembley exhibition on a formal joy ride. I protested at the time this vote was under consideration and those around me protested with me. Our voices were at the moment apparently unable to resist the inclination of the government to take this step. I move:
That this bill be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with power to amend it by reducing item No. 62 by the sum of $20,060.
Supply Bill

In presenting this motion, I have in mind the condition of unemployment in this country, the misery and suffering that will follow the action of this government this morning in regard to the depositors of the Home Bank. I have in mind also the depression that faces many settlers in western Canada who are again confronted with a total crop failure. I do not think this House is justified in voting money for the purpose for which it is apparently intended to be spent, namely in sending these people to Great Britain on what is frankly a junketing or joy ride.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I just wish
to intimate to the House, in view of the discussion which took place on the matter when it was before the committee, that the government reconsidered its proposal, and instead of providing for a large party or a party of eight or ten members of parliament to visit the Wembley exhibition in Great Britain, it deferred to what appeared to be the wish of the House and made a much smaller representation from the parliament of
6 a.m. Canada. We decided that it was the proper thing to have some official representation from the parliament of Canada to the British Empire Exhibition. I will not go into the reasons that actuated us in the matter, but we felt that it was a step that, everything considered, was appropriate from the Canadian and from the Imperial point of view. We decided to send two members from this side of the House. We might have stopped at that point iand had a delegation of only two. We felt, however, that wTe would like any delegation that went abroad to represent not alone the government side, but all parties in this House, and we, therefore, included in the group of commissioners to represent this parliament the Chief Whip of the Progressive party and the Chief Whip of the Conservative party. I am not sure that all four gentlemen will go. I hope they all will. At any rate, if they all go, the total cost to the country will be, I think, in the neighbourhood of not more than $6,000, My hon. friend has suggested that the amount asked for in this bill should be reduced by $20,000. It hardly comes within the purpose that he has in view to have so large an amount. If he deducts that amount, he will be taking away from other supplies that have been voted1. I wish to assure the House that the total expenditure will not exceed, I am told, $6,000 for the four representatives who are going from this House, and who, I think, will prove worthy representatives of 
this parliament at their great imperial exhibition.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is the government carrying out its plan of sending five men from the press gallery, as the Acting Minister of Finance intimated?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry
that in the absence of the Acting Minister of Finance I cannot say. I do not think that as large a representation as that has gone from the press gallery, although I would not be positive.


Arthur Meighen: Any from the Senate?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Milton Neil Campbell: I congratulate the Prime Minister on reducing the number of these men. I should have been better pleased had he reduced it to the vanishing point. It is simply a junketing trip at the expense of tire country, and I regret that the government has seen fit to carry it out.


Joseph Henry Harris: I was paired with the hon. member for Hants. Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I was paired with the hon. member for South Winnipeg. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


John Livingstone Brown: I was paired with the hon. member for Brant. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Main motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


PENSION ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
NON-CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS	[DOT]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved non-concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 255 to amend the Pension Act.
He said: This bill was passed by this House unanimously but I am sorry to say that it has experienced a stormy passage in the upper chamber and has come back to us so mutilated that I can hardly recognize it. No fewer than twelve clauses have been substantially amended, the majority of them being entirely deleted. I am bound to move that we send a message to the Senate asking their Honours to desist from their amendments to some sections of the bill which I consider of importance. The clauses which I shall ask the Senate to allow to stand as we have passed them I shall enumerate:	Section 2 refers to the
granting of pensions in cases where there has been improper conduct. Section 6 extends from five to ten years the privilege of dependents of pensioners in classes 1 to 5 who receive their pension even if the death of the returned man has no relation to war service. Section 9 refers to conditions under which pensions shall be paid to widows; section 10 extends from five to ten years the time during which widows of pensioners in classes 1 to 5 may receive a pension, under certain conditions; and section 15 deals with appeals from decisions of the Board of Pension Commissioners. I therefore beg to move, Mr. Speaker, that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House disagrees with their amendments to clauses 2, 6, 9 subsection (la), (lb), (lb) (i), 10, 15 and 16 of Bill No. 255,
an Act to amend " The Pensions Act," for the following reasons:
These clauses are the result of recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Pensions, Insurance and Re-establishment, as submitted to the House of Commons during the present session.
To clause 19 of the said bill for the following reason:
It is considered that permanency in rate of pension is indispensable to the welfare of pensioners generally.
Arthur Meighen: Is it not a fact that a member of the government-the government leader in the Senate-was a member of the committee which made these amendments and concurred in all of them?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am informed that the hon. leader of the Senate was not a member of the committee.


Arthur Meighen: My information is very distinctly that he was. Will the minister say that he did not concur in the amendments in the Senate?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no information in this connection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House returned to the order " Routine Proceedings."

Thomas Vien: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Boivin, that the thirteenth report of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce be now concurred in.


Arthur Meighen: What is the report?


Thomas Vien: I beg to remind the House that on July 9 the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce presented the thirteenth report, which was pursuant to the order of reference from the House referring to the committee Dr. Tory's report on agricultural credits. The report reads as follows:
Your committee have had under consideration the report of Dr. Tory on Agricultural Credits.
Said report shows that, of the nine provinces of Canada, seven already have on their statute books laws for the purpose of establishing public systems of agricultural credit; and
Whereas a study of the systems existing in these provinces shows that there is considerable variation in the systems, both as to method and detail; and
Whereas it is the purpose of all such rural credit systems, to secure, through the better organization of security, loans for agricultural purposes at better
Banking and Commerce

rates of interest than have been current heretofore; and
Whereas it is doubtful if this purpose could be best served by the establishment of a federal system operating in the above mentioned provinces in addition to and in competition with the systems already in existence or in provinces where the need has not been sufficient, in the opinion of the provincial authorities, so as to justify the establishment of such a system; and
Whereas it would seem to be wise, both from the point of view of efficiency and economy, if a federal system is to be established, that it be a common system for the whole of Canada, and that, of necessity, would entail conferences between the federal and provincial authorities;
Therefore, your committee recommend that the investigation of the subject be continued, in order to determine whether it be possible to co-ordinate the various systems of rural credit now in existence into a federal system, applicable to the whole of Canada, and that 'legislation be prepared based on the said further investigations and calculated to meet the credit needs of the Agricultural classes of the Dominion, and submitted to Parliament at its next Session.


Arthur Meighen: I again enter my protest against a motion to adopt a report which affirms a line of policy that is very considerably involved and also commits the House to legislation of a definite form.


Ernest Lapointe: Only after investigation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg to move:
That fifteen hundred copies in the English language and five hundred copies in the French language of the telegrams exchanged between the British and Canadian governments respecting the representation of the dominions at the inter-allied conference held in London on July 24 laid on the Table of the House this day be printed forthwith and bound in the sessional papers, and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
M-. MACKENZIE KING: I beg to lay on the Table of the House the report of the Royal Commission on Pulpwood. I move:
That fifteen hundred copies in the English language and seven hundred and fifty copies in the French language of the report of the Royal Commission on Pulpwood laid on the Table of the House this day be printed forthwith, and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.
Hewitt Bostock: Shall I dispense?


Arthur Meighen: We might dispense also with the printing. I do not think anybody will read the report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
rMr. Vien.]

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand there is one private bill, relating to the relief of Alma Ducharme Mullins, which an hon. member would like to have disposed of. With the consent of the House I would ask that we return to the order "Private Bills".


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House.


Thomas George McBride: No.


Hewitt Bostock: For Mr. MartelJ, Mr. Duff moves, seconded by Mr. Malcolm, that Bill No. 261 (Letter X6 of the Senate), intituled: "An Act for the relief of Alma Ducharme Mullins" (without amendments) be now read a third time.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Arthur Meighen: In view of the objection which was taken at the same sitting of the House I think it is only fair that hon. members should know that this cannot be taken except unanimously.


Hewitt Bostock: The objection is well
taken.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the House. He said: I suggest that we resume to-day at half past twelve. It will be simply a formal meeting of the House and we propose to have prorogation at three o'clock in the afternoon.
Arthur Meighen: I understand there will be no business except prorogation at half past twelve.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not aware of any business.


William Duff: Private bills.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There may be some report from the Senate.


Hewitt Bostock: 
Arthur Meighen: Beyond that there will be no business?


Thomas Vien: Private bills.


Arthur Meighen: I want to get an answer whether there will or not, because if there is not to be any business, hon. members who have sat here until twenty-five minutes to seven will not likely come down for the mere

Inquiry jor Returns
formality. I think we ought to know. 1 quite agree it is necessary that the Pensions bill, which is before the Senate, should come before the House, that is to say, if any business arises out of the Senate's action. But I think the government should say whether there is to be anything else.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand private bills do not appear in the regular order for to-day, so I presume it would not be possible to take up private bills. I do not know of any other legislation, so that the meeting will be purely formal, just to receive any report that may come from the Senate.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 6.35 a.m. (Saturday).
Saturday, July 19, 1924