1924-06-16

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McGIVERIN (Ottawa) presented the third and fourth reports of the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the third report reading as follows:
Your committee have considered Bill No. 47, incorporating the United Church of Canada, and have agreed to report the same with amendments.
Your committee have found it advisable to amend the preamble of the said bill so as to indicate the reason for some of the amendments which were made to the provisions of the Bill.
Your committee beg to submit herewith for the information of the House a copy of their minutes of proceedings. They have also had the bill reprinted as amended.
Your committee also beg to recommend, in accordance with the usual practice in connection with religious corporations, that the fee and charges paid on this bill, less the cost of printing and translation, be refunded.
All which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I move that, in accordance with the recommendation

continued in the third report of the selectstanding committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the fees and charges paid on Bill No. 47, incorporating the United Church of Canada, be refunded, less the cost of printing and translation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have
received from the Civil Service Commission some further correspondence with respect to the revision of salaries of postal employees. This correspondence is between the officials of the Post Office Department and the Civil Service Commission. I presented the other day what I was given to understand was a complete return, but the member for East York (Mr. Harris) drew my attention to the fact that while it included correspondence between the deputy ministers and the Commission, there might possibly be other correspondence between officials of the department and the Commission. This is the correspondence I now lay on the Table.



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil):: (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 187, to amend the Dominion Lands Act.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Explain.


Charles A. Stewart: This amendment to the Dominion Lands Act is to permit the department to sell small portions of land on .-chool sections. At the present time it is difficult to enter into an agreement of sale owing to the provisions of the act that require a sale by public auction. We frequently have application made to us for small sites for cemetery plots, school sites, and so forth, and in the case of the Winnipeg Greater Water District, the right	of way crosses these
lands. This amendment will affect only the sale of very small areas. We have consulted with the premiers of the three prairie provinces, and have their consent to this legislation, which will permit us to fix the value without a public sale in selling small parcels for the purposes I have mentioned.


Arthur Meighen: The explanation does not explain to me. There always was a method of taking care of the sale of small portions. What I would like to get-perhaps the min-

Questions
ister could give it later better than now-is an explanation of what the new method is as compared with the old. They did not have to proceed by auction before.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my
hon. friend will agree with me that that has been the practice. I know that we have received a great many applications for sand pits, gravel pits, cemetery plots, and school sites particularly. In the case of school sites there never was much difficulty, but there is a great deal of difficulty in connection with other small parcels of lands.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LAND TITLES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 188, to amend the Land Titles Act.
He said:	This is an amendment to
the Land Titles Act to permit us to utilize the services of the Gold Commissioner in the Yukon rather than to emjploy a barrister, as the act now provides. The registrar at present is Mr. Black, and as we have been cutting down the staff very materially we now propose to have the commissioner exercise the duties that formerly devolved upon a barrister. We need legislation in order to carry out that purpose.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 177 (from the Senate), respecting certain patents owned by The Canadian Sumner Iron Works, Limited.-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 178 (from the Senate), for the relief of Katherine Goseage.-Mr. Ross (Kingston) .
Bill No. 179 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alice Moore.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 180 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alexander Cruikshanks.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 181 (from the Senate), for the relief of Francis Albert Armstrong.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 182 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edythe Kathleen Victoria Canniff.- Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 183 (from the Senate), for the relief of Helen Tuer.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 184 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gordon Allingham.-Mr. Chew.
Bill No. 185 (from the Senate), for the relief of Hilda Maud Ward.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 186 (from the Senate), for the relief of Rosie Race.-Mr. Harris.
QUESTIONS:
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-Mr. JAMES STEWART
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	When was James Stewart appointed Canadian National Railway director?
2.	How many meetings of such directors has he attended since? When and at what places?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	October 4, 1922.
2.	1922, October 10, Toronto; 1923, January 29, Ottawa; February 19, Ottawa; March 19, Ottawa; June 11, Montreal; July 24, Winnipeg (Executive Meeting); 1924, January 21, Montreal; February 14, Montreal; May 19, Montreal.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-DIRECTORS' MEETINGS

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	How many meetings of full Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railways have been held since July, 1922?
2.	What directors were at each meeting?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The directors of the Canadian National Railway Company were appointed by order-in-council P. C. No. 2094 dated October 4, 1922, and the first meeting was held October 10, 1922. Nineteen meetings of the Board of Directors and two meetings of the Executive committee have been held.
2.	Canadian National Railway Company. List of Directors present at Board Meetings:
October 10, 1922: Major G. A. Bell, Mr. R. P. Gough, Mr. James Stewart, Mr. E. R. Decary, Mr. Gerard Ruel.
January 29 and 30, 1923: Sir H. W. Thornton, Major G. A. Bell, Mr. James Stewart, Mr. R. P. Gough, Mr. Tom Moore, Mr. E. R. Decary, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Mr. J. H. Sinclair.
February 19, 1923: Sir H. W. Thornton, Major G. A. Bell, Mr. J. II. Sinclair, Mr. E. R. Decary, Mr. R. P. Gough, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Mr. Tom Moore, Mr. James Stewart, Col. 0. E. Talbot.
March 19, 1923:	Sir H. W. Thornton,
Major G. A. Bell, Mr. E. R. Decary, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Mr. R. P. Gough, Mr. F. G. Dawson, Mr. Tom Moore, Col. 0. E. Talbot, Mr. James Stewart.
April 16, 1923:	Sir H. W. Thornton, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Mr. J. H. Sinclair, Mr. R. P. Gough, Mr. Tom Moore, Col. 0. E. Talbot, Major G. A. Bell.
Questions

May 21, 1923: Sir H. W. Thornton, Major
G.	A. Bell, Mr. J. H. Sinclair, Mr. R. P. Gough, Mr. E. R. Deeary, Mr. Tom Moore, Col. 0. E. Talbot, Mr. Gerard Ruel.
June 11, 1923:	Sir H. W. Thornton, Mr. J. H. Sinclair, Col. O. E. Talbot, Mr. James Stewart, Major G. A. Bell, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Mr. Tom Moore, Mr. E. R. Decary.
July 30, 1923:	Sir H. W. Thornton, Mr. R. P. Gough, Mr. Tom Moore, Major G. A. Bell, Mr. E. R. Decary, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Col. 0. E. Talbot.
August 20, 1923: Sir H. W. Thornton, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Mr. E. G. Dawson, Mr. R. P. Gough, Mr. Tom Moore, Col. O. E. Talbot, Mr. J. H. Sinclair.
October 18, 1923:	Sir H. W. Thornton,
Major G. A. Bell, Mr. E. R. Decary, Mr. Gerard Ruel, Col. 0. E. Talbot.



OTTERVILLE POSTMASTER

Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What was the date of the appointment to office of the present postmaster at Otterville, Ontario?
2.	Was the present postmaster appointed over the head of the assistant 'postmaster who had been acting in the capacity for several years?
3.	Was the present postmaster sixty-six years of age at the time of his appointment?
4.	If not, what was his age?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	October 27, 1922.
2.	Mr. Wm. Holmes was appointed to the position and the then acting postmaster, Mr. L. D. Hussey, was also considered, together with a number of others.
3.	The post office inspector's report of May 29, 1922, indicates Mr. Holmes as being sixty-five years of age. (Appointment was made in October of same year).
4.	Date of birth not available.



STEAMSHIPS T. J. DRUMMOND AND J. A. McKEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. .ARTHURS:
1.	Were the steamships T. J. Drummond and J. A. McKee the property of the Canadian government?
2.	If so. when were they purchased and at what price?
3.	Were these vessels operated by the Department of Railways and Canals or any other department previous to operation by tthe Canadian National Merchant Marine?
4.	If so, what were the profits or losses annually during such control, on operating receipts and expenses ?
5.	What amount, if any, was charged for depreciation on such ships during the control of the Department of Railways and Canals?
Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1. While these steamers were operated by Canadian Government Railways revenue and expenses were as follows:

SS. McKee
Year	Revenue	Expenses	Surplus1917	$ 48,071 25	$ 40,584 38	$ 7,486 871918	
102,189 19	67,582	22	34,606	971919	
74,235	45	418,622	66	*344,387	21
'Deficit.
SS. Drummond
Year	Revenue	Expenses	Surplus1917	$ 85,620 00	$31,773 68	$ 53,846 321918	
197,045	94	70,606	39	126,439	551919	
139,380	23	58,705	90	80,674	33
2. During the time these vessels were in the service of the Canadian Government Railways no charge was made for depreciation. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY SECURITIES
On the question:
What is the aggregate amount of bonds, debentures, debenture stock (perpetual or terminable), or other securities now issued in respect of the mileage of lines of railway either constructed, acquired, owned or controlled by the Canadian Government Railways (a) in gross; (b) per mile?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: There is a
clerical error here, and very likely it is my own fault. Instead of "Canadian Government Railways," it should be "Canadian National Railways". The Minister of Railways will see the obvious clerical error there.


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: Stand.	.



SPEAKER'S SECRETARY

Mr. SEGUIN:: What amount was paid to the Speaker's secretary, for the whole year, the last year of the regime of the late Conservative government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 



S4,626.96. COMPARATIVE MILEAGES

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	What are the railway mileages from Edmonton to (a) Vancouver; (b) Prince Rupert?
2.	What are the railway mileages from Calgary to (a) Vancouver; (b) Prince Rupert?
3.	What are the distances from the western entrance of the Panama canal to (a) Vancouver; (b) Prince Rupert?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	(a) 765.47; (b) 956.90.
2.	(a) Via Mirror, Camrose and Terminal
Junction, 993.07; via Mirror, Camrose and Tofield, 1,006.22; via Munson Junction, Camrose and Terminal Junction, 1,028.50; via Munson Junction, Camrose and Tofield, 1,038.95.	(b) Via Mirror, Camrose and Terminal Junction, 1,184.40; via Mirror, Camrose and Tofield, 1,197.55; via Munson Junction, Camrose and Terminal Junction, 1,219.83; via Munson Junction, Camrose and Tofield, 1,230.28.
3.	(a) 4,045 nautical miles; (b) 4,325 nautical miles.

Questions



PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS RIGHTS

Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: What is the legislative or other authority for P.C. No. 607 of April 12, 1924, regarding "the withdrawal from disposal of the petroleum and natural gas rights, the property of the Crown, in townships 84, 85, 80 and 87, ranges 20 and 21 west of the 5th initial meridian"?
delay in obtaining coal. Because neither Inverness Railway and Coal Company nor Bras d'Or Coal Company, could make satisfactory delivery, and because Acadia coal is more suitable for use on Dredge No. 5, the coal was purchased from Hendry, Limited.


Charles A. Stewart: Section 76 of the Dominion Lands Act, which defines the powers of the Governor in Council, provides:
The Governor in Council may withdraw from disposal
under the said act any tract or tracts of land, provided that the reason for withdrawal shall be set forth in the order affecting the withdrawal.



DREDGE No. 5

Mr. JONES:: 1.	Is dredge No. 5 of the Department of Publio Works now at Liverpool, Nova Scotia?
2.	Is coal supplied to this dredge by contract?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded and at what
figure?
4.	(a) Were tenders called for, and (b) if so was the lowest tender accepted?
5.	Were other tenders receivd, and if so what are the names of the tenderers and the amount of the tender in each case?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	No. The dredge is now at Yarmouth, N.S.
2.	Yes.
3.	Hendry Limited, $9.45 per ton for best quality Acadia lump delivered aboard the dredge in such quantity and at such times as may be required.
4.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes, quality and suitability of the coal and the conditions of delivery being considered.
5.	Yes, as follows:
Name of tenderers Inverness Railway & Coal Co.
Ltd	
Bras d'Or Coal Co., Ltd.. ..
Hendry Limited	
Hendry Limited	
Southern Salvage Co., Ltd..
W. N. Macdonald	
Hendry Limited	
Hendry Limited	
Kind of	Price
coal	per ton
Inverness	$ 7 75
Bras d'Or	8 20
Acadia	9 45
Springhill	9 45
Springhill	9 50
Sydney	9 75
Old Sydney	10 55
Old Sydney	
M/R	10 15
The Inverness Railway and Coal Company were twice asked, by wire, to name wharf at Liverpool from which they would deliver coal aboard the dredge. They did not reply. Bras d'Or Coal Company was then asked to name wharf from which they would deliver. They named the government wharf. There is no government wharf at Liverpool. All wharves are privately owned, and none was available for use of the Bras d'Or Coal Company. Hendry, Limited, own a wharf at Liverpool, upon which they maintain a stock of coal, thus ensuring the dredge against any



PUBLIC BUILDINGS, LIVERPOOL, N.S.

Mr. JONES:: 1.	Is the coal for the public buildings in Liverpool, Nova Scotia, supplied by contract?
2.	(a) To whom was the contract awarded and (b) at what cost to the government?
3.	Were tenders called for and was the lowest tender accepted ?
4.	Were other tenders received, and if so what are the names of the tenderers and the amount of the tender in each case?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Hendry Limited, $9.45 per ton for best Acadia lump delivered in bins.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes, quality of coal and conditions of delivery being considered.
4.	Yes, as follows:
		Price	Delivery
		per	at
Name of tenderers Kind of coal		ton	Liverpool
Bras d'Or Coal Co.			
Ltd			49 95	in bins
Southern Salvage	Co.		
Ltd	9 45	in binsJohn Connor.. .	9 20	in binsJohn Connor.. .	8 60	f.o.b. carsGreenwood Coal	Co.	Ltd	8 50	f.o.b. carsEmmerson Coal	Co.	Ltd	. .. Emerson	8 35	in binsMaritime Coal Rail-	way & Power	Co.	Ltd	8 10	f.o.b. carsHISTORIC SITES


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How much has been spent on restoring historic sites in the province of Ontario during the past three years of record ?
2.	Of this sum how much has been spent on restoring the ruins of the battlefields of the War of 1812, 1813 and 1814 in the Niagara district?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	Up to April 1 last, the total expenditure in connection with the restoration, preservation, marking and protection of historic sites in the province of Ontario was $8,518.79.
2.	Up to April 1 last, $2,368.09 was spent in connection with the acquisition, restoration and marking of the battlefields of the War of 1812, 1813 and 1814 in the Niagara district.



MR. HUDSON, M.P.

Mr. HARRIS:: Is Mr. A. B. Hudson, K.C., M.P. member for South Winnipeg, the same A. B. Hudson, K.C., M.P., who
Questions

is a member of the legal firm of Hudson, Ormond, Spice & Symington, the latter member of said firm being the Mr. Symington who is paid by the government as counsel on the Home Bank Inquiry?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: Yes.



HARRIGAN'S COVE, N.S.

Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	What' public works have been or are being carried on at or near Harrigan cove, Halifax county, Nova Scotia ?
2.	Who is the resident engineer in charge of said work ?
3.	What foreman or foremen have been employed in
connection with said work?
4.	What are the names of all workmen employed on said work, what is the number of days work given by each, rate or wages and total amount paid to each?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	During the past fiscal year repairs at a cost of $1,459.09 were made to the public wharf at Turner's island which is situated at the west side -of Harrigan cove.
2.	T. J. Locke, District Engineer at Halifax.
3.	George Turner.
4.
J. H. Stow ell Jones, Walter G. McDonald.. Ernest Rudolph	
Thos. C. Atkins	
Burton E. Atkins	
Wm. Hartling	
Wm. Fraser	
Clarence Shiers	
Geo. H. Snow	
Frank P. O'Leary*. ..
John A. Fraser	
Harris Cross	
James Kirker	
	Rate of	Total
Days	Wages	Paid.. 32	$2 50	480 fiO2 50	55 002 50	77 502 50	51 252 50	62 502 50	62 502 50	70 002 50	58 752 50	46 25.. 241	2 50	61 252 50	61 252 50	10 002 50	10 on



T. EATON DEPARTMENTAL STORES

Mr. DUNCAN:: 1. Does the Post Office Department allow the T. Eaton Departmental Stores a commission on postage stamps used in their own business?
2. Does the Post Office department allow the T. Eaton Departmental Stores a commission on money order business?
3.	If so, what total amount has been allowed the Eaton concern (a) on commissions on postage stamps; (b) commissions on money order transactions?
4.	Are commissions or rebates similarly allowed to other departmental stores or mail order houses?
5.	Has permission been granted to the Eatons to install a mail metering machine?
6.	Where are these mail metering machines manufactured ?
7.	What per cent or rebate is allowed the Eatons on account of postage in connection with th'ise machines?
8.	Is any rebate or commission allowed the Massey-Harris concern on postage used in their own business?
9.	Is any postage rebate allowed the Canada Life Assurance Company on its mailings?
10.	Does the Post Office department propose to continue the giving of discounts to the Eaton Company to the prejudice of the smeller dealers and merchants o 1 Canad a general 1 v ?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (for the Postmaster General):: 1.	The T. Eaton Co. receives commission on stamps sold in post offices located in their stores, being the same rate paid to postmasters in other city sub-post offices.
2.	The T. Eaton Co. acting as a postmaster, receives regular commission on money orders issued, but not in money orders paid.
3.	Discounts on postage stamps and commission on money orders allowed post offices in T. Eaton Co. stores for the fiscal year 1923-4 [Postage stamps, $22,252.51; money orders, $2,018.48.
4.	Similar commissions are allowed to postmasters in sub-offices in any pface of business, including departmental stores and mail order houses.
5.	Yes.
6.	Stamford, Conn., U.S.A.
7.	Two per cent on the first $10,000 of postage purchased by meter each year; one per cent on all purchases in excess of $10,000, these being the rates applied to all postage-meter contracts in view of the work saved the post office through the use of these machines.
8.	No.
9.	No.
10.	There is no intention of treating subpost offices conducted by T. Eaton Co. differently from other sub-post offices.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BENOIT:: 1.	What was the total number of permanent civil servants employed in the various public services of Canada, exclusive of railway employees, during each of the years: 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923?
2.	What was the total amount paid to said employees during each of the above years?


PERMANENT OFFICIALS IN GREAT BRITAIN
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	How many officials are permanently employed by the Canadian government in Great Britain, and what are their duties?
2.	What is the total amount of the salaries and other payments, if any, made to them?
3.	How many officials are temporarily emploved in Great Britain by the Canadian government at the Empire Exhibition or elsewhere7
4.	What are the duties of such temporary officials or employees and what will be the total cost of their services ?
5.	In addition to those already there, how jnanv officials does the government propose to send to Great Britain in connection with the Empire Exhibition and what is the approximate cost?
6.	Is the government bearing in part or whole the expenses of representatives of provincial governments?
7.	What are the duties of these provincial representatives, and will be the approximate expenses?

Unopposed Motions jor Papers



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS


Henry Lumley Drayton: For a copy of the instructions given Dr. Hume with reference to the oil industry in Ontario and all letters, statements, documents and evidence taken or collected by the said Dr. Hume with reference to the said industry and of the report made by Dr. Hume thereon.



MR. LOUIS GAUTHIER

Mr. DOUCET:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents relating to the inquiry regarding Mr. Louis Gauthier, caretaker of the post office at Matane, Quebec; also a copy of evidence given at said inquiry, together with the investigator's report.



HISTORIC SITES AND BATTLEFIELDS

Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports, estimates and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and the Historic Sites Board and the Queen Victoria Niagara Falls Park Commissioners, relating to the improvement, care and -betterment of the historic sites and battlefields, in the Niagara district, of the war of 1812-H.



MR. J. L. BELL

Mr. McQUARRIE:: For a copy of all correspondence in the possession of any department of the government concerning the removal or proposed removal from office of J. L. Bell, police magistrate at Whitehorse, Yukon territory.



MR. JAFFRAY

Hon. Mr. MANION:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters and other documents in the possession of the government relating to the capture by bandits in China of Mr. Jaffray, of Toronto, and the efforts of the government to secure his release.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT, 1918, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Postmaster General) moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolutions:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, by providing,-
1.	That when it has been determined by the Governor in Council that any post office, the employees of which do not come under the Civil Service Act, is to be brought under the said act, any person then employed in such office who has had at least two years' postal experience, one of which has been gained in continuous employment in the office in question immediately preceding the date on which the status of the office is so changed, and who was at the commencement of his service writhin the limits of age prescribed for appointment to the civil service, shall, subject to the certificate of the commission that he possesses the necessary qualifications, be eligible for appointment under the said act irrespective of the principle of competition.
2.	That the salary of such person upon appointment to the civil service shall not be changed, provided that such rate shall not be less than the minimum
rate for the class, and shall not exceed the rate which he would have been in receipt of had he entered the service at the minimum rate for the class in which his position is placed and been allowed the usual annual increases to which his years of service would entitle him; and persons now employed in such post offices shall be considered for appointment to the civil service under the act to be based upon these resolutions irrespective of age.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolutions: Resolved, that it is expedient to provide,-
1.	That the Governor in Council may, from time to time, advance and pay to the corporation of the Vancouver harbour commissioners, in addition to the moneys heretofore authorized to be advanced to the corporation for the construction of harbour improvements by existing legislation, such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $5,000,000, as may be required to enable the corporation to complete construction of terminal facilities in Vancouver harbour for which the plans, specifications and estimates have already been approved by the Governor in Council, and to construct such additional terminal facilities as may be, likewise, approved as necessary, further to properly equip the said port.
2. That during the period of construction of the works referred to, the interest payable on the debentures to be deposited with the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, under the provisions thereof, shall bo deemed to be money acquired in the construction of such works and to be a part of the cost of the construction thereof, and may be paid out of the said sum of $5,000,000; the period of construction herein referred to shall begin on the day when the first advance is made on account of said construction, and terminate on such date as the Governor in Council shall determine.
3.	That no advances shall be paid, as above provided for, unless such detailed plans, specifications and estimates for the works on which the money to be advanced is to be expended, as are satisfactory to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, have been submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council before work on the same has been commenced.
4.	That the corporation shall submit to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for approval, monthly applications for such advances as they may be entitled to apply for, with statements, in detail, in such form as the Minister may direct, and, upon approval of same, authority for the payment of the amount applied for may be granted by the Governor in Council.
5. That the corporation shall, upon any advances being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance debentures of the corporation equal in par value to the advance so made, repayable within twenty_five years from the date of issue, and bearing interest payable half yearly at the rate of five per centum per annum.
6.	That the principle and interest of the sums advanced to the corporation under the authority of
Home Bank
[Stage Direction]
any Act founded on these resolutions shall be payable by the corporation out of all its property and assets and out of all its tolls, rates, dues, penalties and other sources of revenue and income, and shall rank as a charge thereon and have precedence in regard to payment next after payments provided for in section twenty-seven of chapter fifty-four of the statutes of 1913, equally with the advances made under authority of chapter twenty-nine of the statutes of 1923.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MATTHEW McKAY (North Renfrew) :: Mr. Speaker, I beg to draw the attention of the government to an article published in the Ottawa Citizen, Toronto Globe and other papers, of Saturday, June 14th, which reads as follows:
Depositors prepare to move on Ottawa.
Proposed Toronto Deputation before Banking Committee numbers 150.
Toronto, June 13,-Meetings of Home Bank depositors in city branches took place to-night to prepare for the move on Ottawa, when the Banking and Commerce Committee of the House of Commons takes up the report of Mr. Justice McKeown, the royal commissioner.
W. T. J. Lee, chairman of the national executive, said to-night no reply had been received to the message asking if the Banking and Commerce Committee would receive a deputation representing all the depositors. The deputation, if sent, will number 150, but it is possible the Banking Committee at Ottawa may decide to proceed without any representations by a committee of the depositors.
May I ask the government if it is true that these gentlemen have received no reply to their requests.


Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: I beg to state, on behalf of the standing committee on Banking and Commerce, that if this declaration was made by Mr. Lee, it was absolutely unfounded. On June 5 I received from the Secretary of the Home Bank depositors the following telegram:
Lieut.-Col. Thos. A. Vien, K.C., M.P.,
Chairman, Banking Committee, Ottawa.
The executive committee of the Home Bank depositors association desire an opportunity to lay the facts of this matter before your committee next Thursday or on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday of the week following, the earlier the date the better. We would like time for about three speakers to be heard. Would be obliged for as early a reply as possible. Letter following.
I. E. Weldon,
Secretary, Home Bank Depositors'
Relief Committee.
The letter was received the following day confirming that telegram. I immediately ordered the clerk of the committee to answer, which he did on June 6, as follows:
I. E. Weldon,
Secretary, Home Bank Depositors'
Relief Committee,
8 King Street West, Toronto.
Your telegram and letter of fifth instant addressed to Chairman, Banking and Commerce Committee will be placed before committee at their first meeting on Wednesday next, eleventh instant, and their decision communicated to you immediately.
S. R. Gordon,
Clerk to Committee.
And by a letter of the same date, confirming that telegram, the clerk of committee wrote as follows:
Enclosed is confirmation of telegram sent you this evening in reply to your telegram and letter to the chairman of the committee.
Immediately upon the committee deciding on what day they can hear you and the number of speakers I will be glad to advise you.
In the meantime, I am mailing to you as secretary of the Relief Committee a printed copy of the evidence taken to date by the committee; also the " Orders of the Day " for Wednesday containing the " Notices of Motion."
Your truly,
S. R. Gordon,
Clerk to Committee.
On June 11, pursuant to this letter of June 6, the clerk of committee was ordered to send the following telegram, which he duly sent.
I. E. Weldon,
Secretary, Home Bank Depositors' Committee,
8 King Street West, Toronto.
House of Commons Banking Committee to-day decided hear three representatives your organization on a date to be decided after committee has received Mr. Justice McKeown's report. You will be advised of date set.
S. R. Gordon,
Clerk to Committee.
And on the 11th of June we received an acknowledgement from Mr. Weldon which reads as follows:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your telegram of June 11th advising us that the committee decided to hear three representatives of the Home Bank depositors' organization on a date to be decided after committee has received Mr. Justice McKeown's report and that we will be advised of the date set.
We see by the press that Justice McKeown's report is now in the hands of the government and we presume therefore it will soon be before your committee.
Thanking you for your prompt advice of the committee's decision.
Yours very truly,
I. E. Weldon,
Secretary, Home Bank Depositors' Relief Committee.
I therefore w*as exceedingly surprised on Saturday last when I read in the Citizen and also in the Globe that Mr. Lee, Chairman of

Postal Employees
the National Executive Committee had stated at a meeting of depositors that no reply had been received to the message asking that the Banking and Commerce committee should receive a deputation representing the depositors,
. and moreover that it might be the decision of the committee to proceed without any representation by the committee of depositors. I immediately wired Mr. Lee on June 14, as follows:
I notice in Citizen this morning reference to your declarations of last night that no reply had been received to the message asking if the Banking and Commerce Committee would receive a deputation representing the depositors. Kindly inquire from Mr. Weldon your secretary, if he did not receive telegram and letter dated June sixth and June eleventh. We have his acknowledgment dated June twelfth. Kindly correct impression given to the press that committee did not answer your message.
Thomas Vien,
Chairman.
I confirmed that by letter of the same date, as follows:	,
I beg to enclose herewith confirmation of my telegram of to-day. It is with some surprise that I have read in the press this morning that no reply had been received to the message asking if the Banking and Commerce Committee would receive a deputation representing all the depositors. You will find by the copy of the correspondence exchanged and which I beg to attach hereto, that the committee has immediately answered by wire and letter.
May I further state that the committee has deemed it advisable to peruse Mr. Justice McKeown's report before it receives you so as to be able better to appreciate your representations when your delegation is received.
I may state that we shall endeavour to fix the 19th or the 20th to receive your delegation.
The committee will sit on Tuesday the 17th instant and will then fix a date and you shall be informed immediately.
To-day I received the following telegram from Mr. Weldon:
Have been away from office owing to illness past week just learned of newspaper report Lee interview stating no reply received our message asking interview Banking and Commerce committee. Cannot understand this report which we greatly regret. All our communications to you and Banking and Commerce committee have received prompt and courteous reply. Will use every effort to correct false impression.
I have received also from Mr. Lee the following telegram:
Just received your wire. Made no such declaration to press. Explain to committee. Will be in Ottawa Tuesday morning and will see you on arrival.
The House will note that Mr. Lee does not deny having made the declaration to the meeting, but denies only having made it to the press. As the Citizen, the Toronto Globe and several other newspapers contained the information in identical language, I think that we can fairly assume that the declaration was made to the meeting of depositors. I am glad that the interpellation of my hon.
friend gives me an opportunity of correcting the wrong impression given to the public. I do not believe that Mr. Lee intended wilfully to mislead the public; but the least that can be said, if he did make such a declaration, is that he should have taken the trouble of inquiring from the secretary of the executive committee as to the exact facts before making a statement which I consider unjust towards parliament and the committee.



SALARIES OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary) :: I understand the Prime Minister to have said that if there is to be any alteration in the schedule of postal workers' salaries as revised by the Civil Service Commission, it will have to be made by parliament. In view of the widespread dissatisfaction with the reduction in salaries as so provided by that schedule,
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will indicate in what way parliament can deal with this matter and when?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might take advantage
of the question which my hon. friend has asked me just to read to the House the formal expression of view given to the government by the Department of Justice as to the power of the government to deal with any matter of revision and increase of salaries of members of the Civil Service. I submitted to the Department of Justice in May last two questions:	First, whether under the law the
power of revision and increase of salaries of members of the Civil Service resides in the Civil Service Commission or, second, whether the responsibility therefor resides in His Excellency in Council. The answer made and signed by the Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Newcombe, is as follows:
My answer is that the classification of the Civil Service including the several rates of compensation as prepared and signed by the Civil Service Commission of first October, 1919, was submitted to parliament, ratified and confirmed and stands, subject to such amendments in respect of rates of compensation as may be made by the Civil Service Commission with the approval of the Governor in Council. See sections 42 and 45 B of the Civil Service Act.
The Governor in Council has, in my opinion, no authority to regulate rates of compensation independently. He may approve the rates submitted by the commission for approval, and the rates will thus become effective, but he has no authority to approve or sanction any rate in excess of that which is recommended by the commission. Such an increase can be sanctioned only by parliamentary authority.
I think it is well that not only the House but the country should understand clearly that, as respects any revision of salaries of civil servants, the government stands precise-
Postal Employees

ly in the same relation to the Civil Service Commission as it does with respect to most appointments to the service. In order to remove from the arena of politics, as it is termed, any control by the government in the matter of appointments, this parliament, under a previous administration, gave to the Civil Service Commission full power of appointment of most of the members of the Civil Service. Parliament also gave to the commission like powers with respect to revision of salaries of civil servants, so that the power of revision of salaries of civil servants is taken away entirely from the government. This illustrates wherein to some extent we are being governed by commission and not in accordance with a system of a responsible government in the strict meaning of the term. The government, appreciating the position, took care at the outset to associate with the commission, the deputy ministers and the Board of Audit in the matter of the revision of the salaries of civil servants, and in particular the salaries of postal employees which were the first to be referred. On each of two occasions that a report was made by the commission, having learned that the report was not acceptable to the postal employees, the government took such steps as were possible to secure a further consideration by the Civil Service Comlmission of their report. The government has gone in that direction just as far as it is possible to go in the matter, and as my hon. friend has said, if there is to be any further change in salaries, they will have to be made by parliament itself. The government is placed in the position, either of asserting that it is not prepared to accept the legislation which is on the statutes and of being obliged in consequence to ask parliament to enable it to revise or amend that legislation, or to stand by the legislation as it appears. We have not felt, for the present, at least, that we would be justified in asking parliament to amend or repeal the statute under which the civil service commissioners have acted, nor to take action in any way other than in accordance with the recommendations of the commission.


Arthur Meighen: I think the statement made by the Prime Minister just now would have been more appropriately made on an occasion when a discussion might follow. I do not take exception at all to the wording of the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice, nor do I .take exception to the statement of law as made in that opinion; but I
[Mr. Mackenzie King.J
do not think the occasion was opportune to make a veiled attack either on the present system or on the commission at a time when debate is necessarily cut off on the Orders of the Day. If the government desire either an alteration in the general scale or a change in the system, there is in both cases a way in which the government can bring that about. If, on the other hand, the government feel that what the commission has recommended is not fair and just, the government owe it to themselves to take such means as are in their power to remedy the situation.
If, though, the government feel that the scale recommended is fair and right-and their approval would seem to indicate that -then the government should not disavow its responsibility, and if it assumes its responsibility, in the event of improper interference with that responsibility, I am prepared to back the government. I do not like, however, the continual habit of shunting the blame on someone else, unless, at least, it it said that those have acted wrongly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think I can let pass the remark of my right hon. friend to the effect that in any way there was in what I said a veiled attack on the commission. I had not the slightest intention of making any kind of attack, nor do I think my remarks are capable of that interpretation. What I think is important is to make clear to those most affected and to the country the exact position in which the government have been placed by the law respecting the Civil Service Commission as that law stands on the statutes at the present time.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: In view of the
probability of there being some trouble between the government and the men, is there not some action open to the government which might meet the situation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government will be pleased to receive from my hon. friend or any other hon. gentleman any suggestion he wishes to make in that regard.


Arthur Meighen: Is the government not
able to take action itself?


William Findlay Maclean: If they cannot,
there is not responsible government.



THE SOVIET AND UKRAINIAN REPUBLICS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: In view of the case now before the

Montreal courts, will the Prime Minister state whether the agreement between England and Russia of July 3, 1922, was endorsed by Canada? Whether the government of Canada has definitely recognized the union of the Soviet socialist republic? And, further, whether the government recognizes the so-called Ukrainian People's Republic?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I consider my hon.
friend's question as being in the nature of a notice? I shall have to look into the matter and give it some little thought before undertaking to give an answer.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest that
we have an understanding now that our government is not in the recognizing business.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil) (Acting Postmaster General) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act by providing that the Postmaster General may prescribe and enforce such regulations as to letters directed to be registered, as to him seem necessary, in respect to the registration of letters and other matter passing by mail, and to the charge to be made for the same, and to compensation for loss not to exceed one hundred dollars in any one case.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Charles A. Stewart: This will
simply put registered mail and small articles on the same basis as parcel post, and it gives to the department the authority to fix the charges. At the present time the maximum indemnity paid on the loss of registered mail is $25, and for the registration of such mail the Post Office Department charges a fee of 10 cents. In connection with registration it is proposed to charge a fee of 10 cents on a valuation of $25, 20 cents up to $50, 30 cents up to $75 and 40 cents up to $100. The purpose of the resolution is merely to unify the system as between registered mail and parcel post.


Arthur Meighen: Is this resolution complete and effective? It does not specify in any way what the regulations are to be.


Charles A. Stewart: It gives discretion to the department. I have given the list of fees which are now charged.


Arthur Meighen: Should not the resolution set out the effect of the regulations which are proposed? I do not see the value of a resolution if it merely says that the minister
Post Office Act
may make such regulations as he deems advisable.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will notice that the resolution fixes the maximum compensation.


Arthur Meighen: There is only one material point mentioned.


Charles A. Stewart: I have been informed by the Post Office Department that so far there has occurred the loss of only one article out of every forty thousand registered; and while I have quoted the larger fees in force in relation to parcel post, it is anticipated that probably these fees can be greatly reduced. Therefore the fees are now fixed, although the maximum of compensation is stated in the resolution.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister say
that only one loss has occurred.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the information.


Arthur Meighen: I think I must have lost that one.


Charles A. Stewart: I am only
giving the information I have received.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is not referring to registered mail but registered articles?


Charles A. Stewart: Registered
articles, yes.


Arthur Meighen: Oh; and this is intended to increase the amount that may be fixed?


Charles A. Stewart: This is to
give the necessary power to fix the fees.


Arthur Meighen: What fees are proposed
now?


Charles A. Stewart: The fee in effect at the moment is the one I have given.


Arthur Meighen: And are these the fees that are now proposed?


Charles A. Stewart: It is anticipated that they may be reduced; hence they are not fixed in the amendment.


Arthur Meighen: I understand that at the present time the liability was limited to $25.


Charles A. Stewart: On registered articles.


Arthur Meighen: If the maximum liability is $25 how can there be a fee for a value up to $100?


Charles A. Stewart: This is to give the minister discretion-
Post Office Act


Arthur Meighen: I know that; but the minister is giving the present fees.


Charles A. Stewart: On parcel post.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and the liability now is limited to $25.


Charles A. Stewart: On registered articles.


Arthur Meighen: Then why should there be, as exists to-day, a higher fee for a $100 article when the limit of the liability is only $25 in any case?


Charles A. Stewart: There is no higher fee than 10 cents in the case of a $25 article.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has not got my point. He gave us the fees now in force and he says that they range from 10 cents in the case of a $25 article to 40 cents in the case of an article of $100 in value. But he says that the liability is only $25 no matter what the value of the article may be.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. But if the registration is more than $25 the higher fees are charged accordingly.


Arthur Meighen: And up to what limit can one insure now?


Charles A. Stewart: Up to $100.


Arthur Meighen: But I understood the minister to tell us that it was only $25.


Charles A. Stewart: That is what I am seeking to amend at the present time in so far as registered articles are concerned. The insurance of parcel post regulations went into effect in 1921 and we are making the law now apply to registered articles; registered articles which now carry a maximum of $25 we are making comparable with what applies to parcel post.


Arthur Meighen: That is to say, in connection with registered articles the maximum liability at the present time is $25 and it is proposed that it shall be $100, the same as with parcel post.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Robert Forke: I do not understand the difference between registered mail and mail that is insured'.


Mr. STEW  ART@Argenteuil: Insurance is probably not the right term. If you register a letter and it is lost you recover at the present time a maximum of $25, and the same

applies to registered articles. Under the amendment of 1921 we can insure a parcel up to the value of $100. But we cannot accept registration of a letter for more than $25.


Robert Forke: I understand that. But I
have a specific case:	I went to register an
article and was told it would be much cheaper to insure it. What is the difference? I do not get the point. I was told that the insurance rate was only half the registration rate.


Charles A. Stewart: For what amount did you insure?


Robert Forke: About $10.


Charles A. Stewart: This amendment is to permit us to increase our guarantee for registered articles.


Robert Forke: You cannot explain that
point?


Charles A. Stewart: I confess that I aim not sufficiently familiar with the details of the department to do so. By this amendment the department will be able to give a greater return for loss.


Arthur Meighen: Is not the difference
this?-That a certain class of article can go by parcel post, and another class can go by registered mail. Insurance applies to each class, but, in respect of parcels, the value for which the department is liable is $100. This amendment is to make the value for which the department is liable in respect of registered mail $100, too.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 189, to amend the Post Office Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS GUARANTEE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into comlmittee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Canadian National Railways Guarantee Act, 1923, chapter 37, by repealing subsection four thereof and providing,-
1.	That nothing contained in the said act shall be taken to authorize the guarantee of any securities the issue of which has not been authorized by the said act or some other act of parliament, and

C.N.R. Guarantee Act
2.	That where parliament has authorized expenditures on equipment to the extent of twenty-five per cent of the cost of such equipment, the company may make or cause to be made one or more equipment issues for the remaining seventy-five per cent of such cost.
Arthur Meighen: Will the minister explain the effect of the resolution first, please?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, it will be
remembered that last session a bill was introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) with reference to these guarantees, and that it was subsequently amended in the Upper House. The Justice department now casts grave doubts on our power to guarantee securities at all, and the purpose cxf this bill is to cure those doubts without 4 p.m. baking away any of the restrictions imposed by the former act. When an equipment issue is to be guaranteed parliament is called on to vote twenty-five per cent of the issue, if it is to be guaranteed by the government. The second Clause of this resolution is to provide that when that twenty-five per cent is voted by parliament it shall constitute authority to the company bo .issue the remaining 75 per cent. Perhaps it would be as well ,to put on Hansard the opinion of Mr. Ruel as he gave it to me:
Paragraph 4 of section 2, of this last mentioned bill reads as follows: "Nothing herein contained shall be construed as granting power to guarantee any securities the issue of which has not been authorized by parliament."
The trouble with this paragraph 4 was that it prevented, in the opinion of the Department of Justice, the issue of equipment securities for the reason that equipment securities are obligations of the Canadian National Rolling Stock Company, Limited, which is a company incorporated under the Dominion Joint Stock Companies Act. General power is given the Dominion Joint Stock Company to issue securities, but the Justice department considered that paragraph 4, as above quoted, was dealing with specific authority to issue a specific amount of securities and that the general power in the general act to issue securities did not comply with the wording of the paragraph. Consequently we propose to amend the paragraph to read this way:
"Nothing herein contained shall be taken to authorize the guarantee of any securities the issue of which has not been authorized by this act or some other act of parliament."
The "some other act of parliament" covers the provisions of the Companies Act, and we have added the words "this act" so as to overcome the objection which was raised, but not seriously pressed, that the provisions of paragraph 4 destroy the power to issue securities given to the company by the Canadian National Railways Act itself.
For the purpose of further restricting the company in its issue of equipment securities, I have added the second clause to the draft bill to the effect that where parliament has authorized expenditure on equipment to the extent of 25 per cent of the cost, the company may make, or cause to be made, one or more equipment issues for the ramaining seventy-five per cent of
such cost; that means that in order to make equipment issues in the future we will have to go to parliament and obtain an appropriation of the 25 per cent down payment, which is always made in cash. When this appropriation is passed no further legislative authority is necessary to enable us to issue securities and, if deemed desirable, to have them guaranteed for the remaining seventy-five per cent.
The Justice department questions the right of the company to issue any equipment debentures at all since the legislation of last session, and also the right of the government to guarantee such issues.


Arthur Meighen: The last few sentences
of the minister's explanation hit the bull's-eye, because if the Justice department questions the right of the company to issue these securities, certainly this clause would not in any way amplify that right. What the Justice department apparently questions is the power of the government now to guarantee securities so issued unless such issue has been authorized by certain acts. Apparently, if I got the opinion right, it was this, that the mere use of the words "by parliament" would be held to be a parliamentary act attributable to the Canadian National Railways, and not a parliamentary act empowering any of these subsidiary companies, including the rolling stock company, to issue securities. May I ask the minister before we go into committee, is the original clause 1 the Senate amendment of last session?


George Perry Graham: It is clause 4.


Arthur Meighen: Part 1 of clause 4?


George Perry Graham: Subsection 4. A bill
passed this House in another form and was made to take its present form by the Senate.


Arthur Meighen: Is it clause 4 of the
amendment?


George Perry Graham: Yes, subsection 4.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I had a question on the order paper to-day which deals in a practical way with this legislation. The National Railways, under their charter of incorporation, have among many other things given to them the right of issuing bonds to the extent of $75,000 per mile.


George Perry Graham: Does that include equipment?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, the equipment is apart from that entirely. The equipment issues are made under general power, taking advantage of the trust in New York. Of course, it is quite obvious, Mr. Chairman,
C.N.R. Guarantee Act

that if there is a large amount of that $75,000 per mile still unissued, this House is practically giving a blank cheque under the proposed legislation to the government in connection with endorsation. It has been said, however, by the railway officials that there is not much left of that $75,000 per mile. If there is not the right of issue left under the general clause, the situation then would be, as I understand it, under this legislation, that parliamentary authority would 'have to be obtained for further loans and guarantees. Of course, that is how we think it ought to be. The issue between this opposition-I beg my hon. friend's (Mr. Forke's) pardon; I should say the whole opposition-and the government was that under the method in which we carried on business, we took each year, through the railway vote, the right to guarantee these securities.


George Perry Graham: Not equipment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not equipment. We took the right to guarantee these securities, our point being that in connection with capital expenditure, and guarantees given for capital expenditure, further commitments, the right to do that must of necessity rest in parliament. My hon. friends did not agree with that last year, and they got legislation which would enable them, irrespective of the right of guarantee being covered by the annual vote, to get, and they did get, the right to give guarantees to the full extent that the company had the right to issue bonds. There was a little amendment made in the Senate last year, which, while it did not go the full length that this opposition asked in this matter, yet made it clear that the right of guarantee was a right which could only be exercised as and when there was the direct right of issue given. The Department of Justice has ruled, as I understand it, that the right of issue must be a specific right, and cannot be supported by any general power. The present amendment would allow the general right as sufficient. Now, what I wanted to do was to find out what the general right meant. If the truth be that practically all of that right of issue to the extent cf $75,000 per mile has been exhausted, we are discussing merely an academic issue. But if, on the other hand, that right exists, or in large part exists, we would feel it incumbent upon us to oppose this legislation.
In connection with the matter of equipment to which my hon. friend has referred, that was formerly handled in a different way. Undoubtedly, as I think has already been expressed during this session by the hon. Min-
ister of Railways, the right to endorse equipment securities results in a better rate being secured when equipment securities are sold in Canada, for the simple reason that the Philadelphia trust idea is not thoroughly understood by Canadian financiers and the Canadian investing public, and so they are looking for a government guarantee; but in the United States, on the other hand, it makes no difference at all. Millions on millions of dollars worth of bonds are sold there under that plan. Under that plan, in the first instance, the road has to put up twenty-five per cent of the equipment value, and I understand that so far as that is concerned, my hon. friend is perfectly willing that that should be done. And with that twenty-five per cent put up, a trust deed is made which reserves the title in the whole of the equipment in the trustee for the bondholders, and a satisfactory sinking fund is provided for which must retire the claim while the equipment is still in active operation. I think we will have no difficulty therefore in connection with the question of equipment.
To repeat, for it is a somewhat involved situation:	If the original bonding rights of
$75,000 per mile for the Canadian National Railways have been practically exhausted, why then, of course, my hon. friend's government have to come here just as we used to come here, for authority, before they make any issue. If, on the other hand, it exists to a large extent-and the officials all tell me it is practically exhausted-then our attitude must be as it was last year.


George Perry Graham: I am glad my hon. friend agrees as to the equipment issue. It is better, I imagine, in order to get the best market price, to have the power to guarantee equipment issues, provided that twenty-five per cent has been voted by parliament, even if the guaranteeing power is not exhausted. As to the other point, I understand that Mr. Ruel is sending my hon. friend some information regarding that. If it has not arrived-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not got
it.


George Perry Graham: -I would suggest that we get this in the form of a bill, and we will not proceed with it further until my hon. friend gets the information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As long as we have a clear understanding that we can discuss the whole matter, and without waiving any right as to the principle of the resolution or anything else.


George Perry Graham: Surely.

C.N.R. Guarantee Act


Arthur Meighen: Is the minister still determined to keep the amount of these guarantees out of the estimates?


George Perry Graham: The amounts of the guarantees such as we had last year, under the Canadian National Railway Act, were in the estimates. The amounts of the regular guarantees under the $74,000,000 were in the estimates last year.


Arthur Meighen: The estimates had been
brought down by the present Minister of Finance when this fine bill of last session went through, but inasmuch as the fine bill did not do its work, the government was not able to avoid using the estimates. But what I want to know is this:	Is the minister prepared to
undertake that, in connection with any guarantees to be given under the amended legislation, the amount of them will be included in the estimates as well as, of course, a statement of the destination of the money?


George Perry Graham: I do not think there is
any idea of anything else, except that construction of the branch lines is provided for in other legislation; I do not think my right hon. friend refers to that. This is not an effort in any way to get' away from the usual practice we adopted last year of bringing down the ordinary expenditure of the Canadian National Railways, to be provided either by grants from parliament or by bonds guaranteed.


Arthur Meighen: As regards the special legislation for branch lines we took our stand on it, but we were voted down, and we are helpless for this session; the minister is unrepentant there. But in respect of the legislation now being amended we took the same position last year and the minister receded. We moved an amendment, as the minister will remember, to provide that the amount of any guarantees given should be included in the estimates. Now, the minister was compelled to use the estimates last year because the act was unworkable. If our amendment had been inserted he would have had to use the estimates anyway. I take the minister's word to-day to mean that as respects this class of guarantee, this class of expenditure, he is not so obdurate as he was last session and will probably accept a specific amendment to that effect. .


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend has
got, I would not say, alarmed, but mixed. I think I took no part in the discussion last year because the bill was introduced by the Minister of Finance.


Arthur Meighen: I mean the government.


George Perry Graham: I took no part in the discussion. The bill was altered in such a way that the Justice department informed us that our powers of guarantee are impaired, perhaps destroyed. There is no idea in the minds of the government, or of the management, of getting away from the usual practice of putting the ordinary expenditures whether by loan, or guarantee, or cash, in the estimates.


Arthur Meighen: I am very pleased to
hear the minister make the statement, and I hope he will support any necessary amendments to see that that is always done.


Mr. CALDWELL:: We are to understand
then that if parliament provides twenty-five per cent for equipment for the Canadian National Railways it would mean $10,000,000 on an issue of $40,000,000, and that the Board of Directors would issue debentures for the balance?


George Perry Graham: As already explained, the
amount to be voted is twenty-five per cent of the issue. The remainder will be taken up by the public.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 190, to amend the Canadian National Railways Act, 1919.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil) (Superintendent General of Indian Affairs) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient,-
(1)	to confirm an agreement for the settlement of certain questions between the government of Canada and Ontario respecting Indian Reserve Lands, made the 24th March, 1924, defining the respective rights of each touching the disposition of lands in Indian Reserves in the Province which are surrendered by the Indians in order that they may be disposed for the benefit of the Band;
(2)	to authorize the payments to the Province provided for in the said agreement of any balance from proceeds of the sale or other disposition of the lands or any portion thereof, together with accrued unexpended simple interest thereon and of one-half of the consideration in the case of the sale, lease or other disposition of mining claims staked on such reserve, or of lands in which minerals are included or may exist or be supposed to exist; and
(3)	to provide that no disposition shall be made of water-power in any such Indian Reserve of a greater capacity than five hundred horse-power except by special agreement, and that the provisions of the Bed of Navigable Waters Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1914, chapter 31, shall apply to grants of such lands or
[Stage Direction]
Indian Reserve Lands
[Stage Direction]
minerals heretofore or hereafter made under the Great Seal of Canada or otherwise under the direction of the government of Canada.
Arthur Meighen: Will the minister tell us, before we go into committee, what designs he has on the Indians?


Charles A. Stewart: No designs
whatever. This has always been a controversial subject between the province of Ontario and the Dominion. Probably if I read a memorandum that has been prepared on the matter it will give a synopsis of the situation:
1.	The respective rights of the Dominion of Canada and the provincce of Ontario in relation to Indian lands within the province first came before the Judicial committee of the Privy Council in 1888, when it was held (in St. Catharines' Milling Company vs. The Queen, 1888, 14 App. Cas. 46) that lands surrendered by the Indians to the Crown subsequent to Confederation belonged not to the Dominion, which had negotiated the treaty, but to the province.
2.	Fourteen years later the question again came before the Judicial committee in a slightly different form, in Ontario Mining Company, Limited, vs. Seybold, 1903, A.C. 73. To that appeal the Dominion was a party, but just before the argument an agreement between Mr. Blake, representing the province, and Mr. Newcombe, representing the Dominion, was entered into, and the latter took no part in the argument, which was followed by a judgment in effect confirming the conclusion arrived at in the earlier appeal.
3.	The agreement (known as "counsel's agreement'', and dated 7th July, 1902), provided that, without prejudice to the legal rights of either the province or the Dominion, and merely as a matter of convenience, the Dominion should, upon their surrender by the Indians, have power to dispose of lands included in reserves in Ontario, the Dominion to hold the proceeds subject to the rights of the province. It was further provided that the question whether this right of disposition by the Dominion should extend to the precious metals should depend upon the instruments and circumstances and law relevant to each particular piece of land.
4.	This agreement has been enacted upon and dispositions made by the Dominion, but no step has ever been taken to settle the legal position even as to ths surface and base metals, and the uncertainty as to the precious metals has stood in the way of the disposition of these, with the result that such precious metals as the reserves may contain have in fact not been dealt with, to the detriment both of the Indians, who would receive the benefit of the disposition, and of the province, which does not obtain the benefit of any taxation on the output of mines, which it might otherwise do.
5.	It was not until 1920 that the strictly legal position of lands in Indian reserves surrendered for sale was discussed before the Judicial committee. Then in a case from Quebec (Attorney General for Quebec vs. Attorney General for Canada, 1921, A.C. 401), it was held that a patent by the Dominion of lands included in a reserve and surrendered by the Indians in trust for sale was ineffective, since upon the surrender the title passed, not to the Dominion, but to the province. It is probable that the strictly legal position in relation to reserves in the province of Ontario is identical with that in Quebec, although practically the situation is altered by counsel's agreement. The statutory confirmation of this agreement would, however, be highly convenient to both the Dominion and the province, and obviously that confirmation should
rMr. C. A. Stewart.]
extend to the settlement of the uncertainty in relation to the precious metals.
6.	The geological formations in Ontario are such that precious and base metals ordinarily occur together and are only separated in the course of refinement. To deal with the precious metals consequently involves dealing also with the base metals, and the arrangement proposed by the present draft agreement is that upon the sale or other disposition of minerals lands one-half of the total proceeds should belong to the Dominion for the benefit of the Indians, and the other half to the Province.
7.	In addition to dealing with the minerals and to confirming counsel's agreement, the present draft agreement also contains a new provision that the capital sum received by the Dominion by way of consideration for the disposition of any interest in lands in reserves may be expended for the benefit of the Indians and that the province, on the extinction of Indian right, becomes entitled only to so much of the capital as may remain unexpended.
That is in brief a sketch of the difficulties the amending legislation has to cover and a statement of what the bill to be founded in this resolution proposes to do.


Robert Forke: I have not observed, Mr. Chairman, that there is any definite consent on the part of the Indians to the proposed agreement. Have they agreed to this? Some hon. member says they have no say in the matter.


Charles A. Stewart: This has
been a very vexed question. It is largely one not affecting the Indians so much as affecting the dispute as to final ownership.


Robert Forke: Between the provinces and
the Dominion?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: It was I who made the
comment that I did not think the Indians
had any say because they are not affected. I do not see that they have the least concern as to where the legal title is, once it passes from the Indians. The Indian has a say, of course, before it passes from him. I was rather surprised to hear my hon. friend say that the Indians had agreed.


Charles A. Stewart: I presume
the Indians would be better satisfied if they had the disposal of the money which comes from the sale of the land. After the sale of the lands all the proceeds are to be used in the interests of the Indians, unless a tribe of Indians becomes extinct, and there may be a small portion of the revenue coming from the land, which should go to the province.


Arthur Meighen: It is between the provinces and the Dominion, and not between the Indians and the Dominion at all. Do

Indian Reserve Lands
I get the real meaning of it? By reason of the judicial opinion of the Privy Council expressed back in the eighties, the surrender of Indian lands in provinces, after those provinces came into confederation, vested the title to the surrendered lands in the provinces instead of in the Dominion. Consequently some action in another form came before the Privy Council in 1902; and instead of giving judgment an arrangement was made between the counsel concerned, Mr. Blake and Mr. Newcombe, the basis of which arrangement is to be ratified and made law by this bill, in so far as Canada is concerned. Necessarily it will, as well, have to be made law by the provinces concerned. Therefore the only matter left to be understood is, what the arrangement is. Have I got the minister's words or his memorandum aright? -the arrangement in effect was this: That the lands, though the property of the province after surrender by the Indians, should be administered by the Dominion for the benefit of the Indians who surrendered it, and when the time arrived that there was an extinction of the Indians' rights by extinction of the tribe, or by some other means, if it ever occurred, the remainder left over should pass to the provincial government. I understood the minister to say it passed to the provincial government?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, my
hon. friend is right. Clause 7 reads:
In addition to dealing with the minerals and to confirming counsel's agreement, the present draft agreement also contains a new provision that the capital sum received by the Dominion by way of consideration for the disposition of any interest in lands in reserves may be expended for the benefit of the Indians and that the province, on the extinction of the Indian right, becomes entitled only to so much of the capital as may remain unexpended.
We have control of the money so long as there is any Indian in existence. We may dispose of the land and use it, if it is in the interest of the Indian, but when the Indian is extinct, and there is no further method by which the government can expend the money in the interests of that tribe, then the province becomes entitled to only so much of the capital as remains unexpended.


Robert Forke: I do not know that I
understand it, and I would really like to. Do I understand that some of these grants of land were made by the British Crown to the Indians before confederation, and these Indians agreed to give up the title to the land?
205i
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil);:	I think
there were treaties in effect between the Indians and the representatives of the government.


Robert Forke: The minister means between the British Crown and the Indians. I think there is more in this than appears on the surface.


Mr. BOYS:: I thought the land was reserved and not granted to the Indians.


Charles A. Stewart: I said there were treaties made.


William Alves Boys: But it involves the question of title. The question was as to whether the lands were granted to the Indians. I always understood that there were no grants but reservations.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend is correct in his interpretation the land is reserved to be set aside for the Indians and to be administered by the Crown.


William Alves Boys: The title remaining in the
Indians?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Alves Boys: It could not be a grant.


Robert Forke: I have seen an agreement
between the government of Queen Victoria and the Indians, and the agreement was practically granting the lands to the Indians. I do not know the exact form in which it was drawn up, but I have never seen anything in the agreement which provided that any day the government could step in and say, "You cannot have this reserve any longer." The Indians have a title of some kind.


Charles A. Stewart: There is no doubt that as long as there are any Indians the reserves which are set apart for the Indians are reserved for them. But what we are seeking to deal with is the case where the Indian has no longer any interest in the land.


Robert Forke: Has the Indian agreed to it?


Charles A. Stewart: If he is dead you cannot get his agreement. As long as he is alive he has an interest in it.


William Alves Boys: I suppose there will be concurrent legislation in the provinces. What is the proposition? Is the title to be in the Dominion?
Mr. STEWART Argenteuil): No. The title is not interfered with. The judgment of the Privy Council indicated that such title to the land as existed was probably in the province, but the land was reserved for the use
Indian Reserve Lands

of the Indians. We are making an arrangement whereby, when the land ceases to be any longer required for the use of the Indians, if that times comes, the province becomes entitled to what is left. Probably I should put it in this way: Under the terms of the agreement the Dominion government have control, and they may sell the lands and use the money under the provisions of the Indian Act and do what seems to be necessary in the interests of the Indians; but when the time comes that there are no more Indians of that particular tribe occupying that particular land, and there is no reserve left, the funds that may remain will go to the hands of the province.


William Alves Boys: Evidently the sale would be
made by the province and the proceeds of the sale would be handed over to the department for its administration on behalf of the Dominion.


Charles A. Stewart: The sale would be made by the Dominion.


William Alves Boys: Then the provinces are agreed that the title for the purposes of this provision shall be in the Indians. They shall make the sale and use the money for the benefit of the Indians;-the title must be either in the Dominion or in the provinces, I understood the minister to say the title was really in the provinces.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend is raising the point as to who issues the title in the case of sale during the life of the Indians? .


William Alves Boys: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: We have full control to expend capital moneys derived from the sale. Mr. Biggar drafted this legislation, and he was consulted generally in connection with the agreement. Section 7, which I have just read covers it pretty well. The province comes in only when the tribe is extinct. When the extinction takes place, if there are any sums remaining from the proceeds of the sales of those lands, that money goes to the provinces. But we have complete control of the lands.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: One point is not very
clear to me. Section (1) speaks of lands being surrendered by the Indians "in order that they may be disposed of for the benefit of the band." What method is taken to get the surrender of the lands by the Indians?


Charles A. Stewart: By a vote
of the band.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Unless by a vote they
voluntarily surrender the land, the government has no authority to sell it?


Charles A. Stewart: The Indian Act gives the government pretty wide authority, but in no case have we attempted to dispose of or to lease land unless we have had a majority vote of the band concerned.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And this legislation is
not taking any further authority than the government now had, because it refers only to lands surrendered by the Indians?


Charles A. Stewart: No.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Arthur Meighen: I thoroughly understand
what the purport of the resolution is, and on its merits in general I have no adverse criticism to offer, but I really did not know before that the holding of the Privy Council applied to all the provinces. I thought this difficulty had arisen in connection with what is really known in law as the reversionary interest, in British Columbia alone.


Charles A. Stewart: This does
Dot apply to all the provinces. This is an agreement between Ontario and the federal government.


Arthur Meighen: The minister's explanation applied to every province. That is what mystified me.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry. I should have to deal separately with every province.


Arthur Meighen: This does not get over
the British Columbia trouble at all?


Charles A. Stewart: No; I
would be glad if it would.


Arthur Meighen: We are not carried very far by this resolution. I had hoped that the minister had made a settlement of the question with all the provinces. It is in British Columbia that the trouble arises. Will the minister explain, if such is the situation to be cured in Ontario, what is the different one in British Columbia? In British Columbia the provincial government has always claimed the reversionary title, that is to say, in lay language, the title after the Indians' rights are extinct by extinction of the Indians themselves or otherwise; but in Ontario I did not know that any such claim was advanced, in the same sense at least as it is in British Columbia. What does British Columbia claim over and above what this decision held to be the right of Ontario?

Indian Reserve Lands


Charles A. Stewart: Is the right
hon. gentleman speaking of the British Columbia government?


Arthur Meighen: What is the trouble in
British Columbia? Is the situation there exactly what it has been in Ontario prior to this agreement?


Charles A. Stewart: Broadly
speaking, the situation has been this. The adjustment between the provincial government and the federal government as to the question of reversion, the administration required in the case of extinction of the Indians' rights, has been in dispute between the governments, and as my right hon. friend is aware, a commission was appointed to go very thoroughly into the question, 'both governments tentatively agreeing to accept the decision of that commission. The commission reported after a good length of time had been taken up in arriving at a decision, 'and the Indians are objecting to the commission's finding which recommends the sale of some of the lands that, the commission say, are not required by the tribes. That deals with the older reserves. But the root of the objection by the British Columbia Indian is his claim that he is entitled, not only to reversion, but to the whole of the area of British Columbia; that is, that his hereditary right has never been extinguished. That is the most serious objection in my opinion. The federal government for the past eighteen months have been endeavouring to reconcile the Indians, that is, to get some further consideration as regards the reserve question. But the other question is the real reason for the British Columbia Indian objecting to a settlement of almost any sort. There are foreshore rights, fishing rights and a number of other rights that, perhaps, we can adjust; but the bigger question that is raised by the friends of the British Columbia Indians themselves is the claim to the original title to the whole area known as British Columbia. I would not care to enter upon a discussion of that question this afternoon.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do they claim the
whole province?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes; they
say their title has never been extinguished.


Arthur Meighen: I hope the minister i3
losing more sleep over the national debt than he is over that question. I remember now very vividly the agitation for acknowledgement of the whole of British Columbia as being still the possession of the Indians.


Mr. PUTNAM:: Will the'right hon- member not wish the minister sound sleep in any event?


Arthur Meighen: No; I think he ought to get the national debt down a little before he has a right to sleep soundly. That is the agitation, if I recall it correctly, headed by the Rev. Mr. O'Meara.


Charles A. Stewart: Not
"reverend"; he is a legal gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: I think he is both; and that is "some" combination. I will not bother discussing that, and the minister cannot be very busy if he occupies much of his time over it. He hardly appreciates the situation as I was endeavouring to lay it before him. I am, or at least I think the government ought to be, very anxious to get a settlement of that reversionary title claim in British Columbia. The question never was crucial in Ontario. It never was brought to the surface while I was connected with the department.


Charles A. Stewart: It comes up now perhaps more acutely in connection with the finding of the commission.


Arthur Meighen: A commission which
looked into the matter brought in a report; the Dominion government were ready to abide by the report, but British Columbia was recalcitrant, and I must admit that I entirely failed to make any progress with the present premier of British Columbia. That, however, is no reason why the minister should not. I notice the premier announces that he is good friends with the Dominion government. I do not know what he is not getting; I notice he is getting an elevator in Prince Rupert and he is apparently going to fix rates in this parliament. Why can the minister not take advantage of this great friendship and secure the settlement of a question that is really crucial in British Columbia namely the reversionary question? It is thwarting, hampering the work in British Columbia all the time. It is big and difficult, and it is complicated. The minister has had two and a half years now, with his colleague from that part of the 'country, to settle the matter. Has he made any progress at all or has his experience been very much like my own?


Charles A. Stewart: It is hardly fair to blame the provincial government for the delay at the moment. The provincial government has shown a disposition to meet us but there are a number of questions involved
Indian Reserve Lands

in addition to the reversionary right which it is difficult to settle. One of these difficulties arose in connection with the question of the fisheries. The federal government, controls that matter in most cases so that it was really not a departmental question. Our Indian wards are not satisfied and I have been endeavouring to appease them with the adjustment that has been made by the commission. They claim that in many cases they are entitled to consideration in relation to foreshore and fishing rights, which consideration they say they have not received under that award. We have been trying to adjust matters and to get the Indians to agree to the settlement, but I am bound to admit that some of their friends have given them bad advice. That has been the chief difficulty; were it not for the class of advice they have got I believe we could have a settlement of the matter in the near future.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Does the
agreement with Ontario affect in any way the present status of the dispute between the Department of Indian Affairs and certain islands in the river St. Lawrence which were originally a, part of the St. Regis reservation? Some half dozen islands were held under 99-year leases at ridiculously low rentals.


Charles A. Stewart: Were they reserves?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes. About six or seven years ago these leases expired, and if I remember rightly the department took the ground that they were not renewable and refused' to renew them. Does this agreement with. Ontario contemplate any change in the status of that dispute with respect to those islands?


Charles A. Stewart: No. This
merely deals with the disposition of receipts from minerals and so on. The federal government has complete control of the management of the estate, if we may use that term, which is being operated in the interests of the Indian. So that any agreement of the character my hon. friend mentions would be dealt with departmentally; this would not touch it at all.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: But it is not merely a matter of agreement, it is a matter of litigation.


Charles A. Stewart: That may
be.	We frequently have difficulty about 
leases and matters of contract but this particular matter is simply one between the lessee and the government. It is not an inter-provincial matter at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 191, for the settlement of certain questions between the governments of Canada and Ontario respecting Indian Reserve Lands.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Minister of the Interior) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend section eight of the Northwest Territories Act, Revised Statutes, 1906, chapter 62, by adding to the subjects on which the Commissioner in Council may make ordinances as therein designated, the levying of an export tax on furs within the territories.
Arthur Meighen: Will the minister state
fully the effect of this resolution?


Charles A. Stewart: The purpose is to impose a fur tax on pelts taken in the Northwest Territories. For some years, I understand, there has been an agitation to have this done. The provincial governments are now collecting a tax on pelts taken within the four western provinces and this legislation will put the territories which lie immediately north of those provinces upon the same basis and thus assist us to some extent in paying for the administration. That is all that the bill purports to do; it gives us authority to collect a tax on furs.


Arthur Meighen: Is the tax applicable only to furs exported?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, it refers to fur coming out of the territory.


Arthur Meighen: Some of that fur would
be export fur, and some would not be exported. Does the word "export" in this connection refer to furs exported out of Canada or merely out of the territory?


Charles A. Stewart: Out of the
territory.


Arthur Meighen: 
Charles A. Stewart: If they are exporters, yes; but usually they are not. Whoever ships furs out of the territory for sale or disposition will pay a tax thereon.


Mr. WARNER:: I have been requested to
ask the minister to let this matter stand; an hon. member who wishes to discuss it is not here.


Charles A. Stewart: Any hon.
member can register his objection when the bill is under consideration. We are merely getting the legislation forward a stage and there will be plenty of opportunity for hon. members to discuss it later.


Daniel Webster Warner: The hon. gentleman will
have an opportunity on some other occasion to discuss it?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes; this is merely to get the bill introduced.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister be good enough to let us know what the rate of tax is to be, whether specific or ad valorem?


Charles A. Stewart: It varies
somewhat from the similar tax collected by the provinces, but is based on the value of the fur. I might read this list to my hon. friend: On each white or polar bear, $2; on each bear not specified, 40 cents; on each beaver, $1; on each fisher, $1.50; on each black fox, $5; on each blue fox, $2,50; on each cross fox, $1.50; on each red fox, 75 cents; on each silver fox, $5; on each white fox, $1.50; on each lynx, 75 cents; on each marten, $1; on each mink, 25 cents; on each muskrat, 5 cents; on each otter, $1; on each skunk, 10 cents; on each weasel, 3 cents; on each wolf, wolverine or coyote, nothing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
having told us what the tax is to be, it would be very interesting if he would let us have the average price which the trapper gets for these pelts, because I have no doubt the minister will thoroughly appreciate that the fur-exporting companies will just take the duty off the price they pay to the trapper. A very large number of trappers are Indians, and they will be taxed just to this extent.


Charles A. Stewart: I will endeavour to get the information from our officers and furnish it when the bill is under discussion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the minister will answer another question it may save discussion later on. Perhaps he has some ground for distinguishing this proposed tax from, or perhaps it is consonant with, the
governmental declaration as to the non-taxation of the original products of the soil with a view to helping those engaged therein, whether by land or by sea. By proposing this taxation the -government is swallowing itself, and doing it very gracefully, because furhunting is an original activity of the Indians. On what grounds is this original activity to be taxed as against exemptions granted in other directions? Is it because there are no representatives of this primary production in the House, no votes to cajole, nothing to be done to keep the government in power when it ought to be put out?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend seems to discover a new mode of attack. This is not a new tax; surely my hon. friend knows that in the northern portions of the four provinces mentioned fur taxes are imposed. Instead of this being a detriment to the Indians we hope it will be of assistance to them. White trappers are going into the territories in ever-increasing numbers to the very great disadvantage of the Indians, so much so that we have to put a rather heavy license fee upon the white trappers in an endeavour to keep them out. The Indian is a most careful hunter with a view to conserving his food supply, but the white trapper does not exercise similar care. Consequently the cost of administration of the Northwest Territories, which is a vast area, is steadily increasing. This is the only country in which to my knowledge there is not such a tax. We think we are entitled to get this tax from the fur trappers in these territories.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman,
my hon. friend does not answer me at all. There is the policy of his government formally declared; here is the action. It is no argument to say that we have taxes on furs in other parts of the country. If he were putting the declared policy of the government into effect he would be taking those taxes off instead of extending them. But here we have a very novel idea seriously advanced by the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: Not at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why not? Is
not this a matter of primitive production? The minister nods his head. He is right, of course it is. Did not the government say it was in favour of looking after primary production? The minister does not nod his head this time. Well, that is what the government say anyway, whether he nods his head or not. He points out that this is not a

Northwest Territories Act
new tax. Well, there were some old taxes on primitive productions, but some of them have been got rid of. Of course, it is 5 p.m. true that others have been imposed. Here, we have this tax on primitive production confined to certain areas, and now it is to be increased. The minister has not answered my query as to how his action jibes with the general policy of the government. I do not think he can. But he has given us this new thought-that any specific industry is helped by taxation! Let us help the Indian. How? By putting a tax on everything that he produces. That is all the minister is doing to help the Indian. Well, that is an extraordinary way of helping the red man. But the trouble is, it does not help. My hon. friend says that there are too many white trappers in the Northwest Territories. If so, there is a way of dealing with them instead of taking money out of the pockets of the Indians, for this tax means that for every bear, mink or marten the Indian catches he will make that much less money. If the minister really wanted to help the Indians he would exact such license fees from, and impose such regulations on, white trappers as would preserve these areas to the Indians. But for the minister to say, "We are helping the Indians by taxing them on their furs," -well, I had hopes of better things from my hon. friend.


Charles A. Stewart: While the
fur the Indian captures is important, it is not so important as the food question in the northwest country. Our Migratory Birds Act, for instance, has caused a very considerable amount of suffering on account of making it impossible for them to shoot in the spring. It is a question of food with the natives, rather than making money out of the fur Fur used in the territory will bear no tax at all. The Eskimo is clothed entirely in fur, with very few exceptions; there are a few, of course, in better financial circumstances who can buy woollen clothing. The Indian's dress, generally speaking, is of fur, and his chief difficulty is his food supply, so much so that we have had to supply them, as did my hon. friends opposite, with food and clothing from time to time. It is the white man who makes the huge profits that are being made to-day in the fur business. It is the white trapper who is jeopardizing the Indian's means of existence to a very serious degree, and who forces this government, and will force succeeding governments, to spend more and more money in policing the territory in the interests of the Indian. We have to do that TSir Henry Drayton.]
unless we are going to spend more and more money in maintaining the Indians. In view of that, I think I am asking only a reasonable tax on this business which is done largely by white trappers brought into that country by the Hudson's Bay people. These trappers come up there by boat in the fall and engage in trapping along the northern coast and to the northwest, and come out again the following year. The Indians will not suffer to any appreciable extent by the imposition of this tax.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I have no intention of
speaking on the virtue or lack of virtue in the tax itself. Men more familiar with the fur trade may do that, but I would like to ask the minister in regard to one rather interesting point involved, and that is the question of taxation without representation. As I understand it, the Northwest Territory has no representation, either federal or provincial, and as I understand the British constitution, which is the Canadian constitution, no one shall be subject to taxation without representation. That has always been the great principle, no taxation without representation, and I would like to ask the minister how he reconciles this tax on the products produced in an unorganized territory by people who have not the franchise wtih that great principle.


Charles A. Stewart: We could
easily adjust that difficulty by granting them the franchise.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who, the Indians?


Charles A. Stewart: No. I
have just been trying to point out to my hon. friend that the Indian will not be seriously affected by the imposition of this tax; I was referring to the white man. Some of the Indians do make a very considerable amount of money trapping, but not generally speaking.


Daniel Webster Warner: Are the Indians exporting fur at all, or do they sell the fur in Canada? Alaska is pretty close there, and I was wondering whether they shipped their furs across the line or sold them in Canada. What are the white trappers doing in that connection?


Charles A. Stewart: The fur
pack goes out of that country in three different directions. Around the western coast it goes out by the Hudson bay, usually by Hudson bay boats. The Hudson's Bay Company sends in a vessel every year with supplies for their posts around by the coast of

Northwest Territories Act
Alaska and in the northern waters, and leaves trappers along the coast. The third way is down the Mackenzie river, and out by Edmonton. Those are the three directions by which the fur we propose to tax is exported.


Daniel Webster Warner: Does the minister mean
exporting when the fur is sold to go outside the territory?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: 
Mr. BAXTER:: I am not quite clear about one thing, a constitutional question. I presume the Northwest Territories are a part of. Canada, and I thought there was a provision in the British North America Act by which the product of any part of Canada should not have a duty placed upon it with reference to any other part. Whether that strictly applies to export or not, I do not know. I would have some doubt -as to the power to impose a duty upon products going from one part of Canada to another. It is perfectly clear a duty could be imposed upon the products of Canada going to a foreign country, going out of Canada as a whole, but whether it is against the letter or not, it is certainly against the spirit of the British North America Act that you should impose what is really a duty as against the other provinces seeking to obtain the prdoucts of any one province. I wonder if that had the consideration of the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: I confess
this is a new thought to me. The provinces have the right to impose a tax on fur and they exercise it. If that is the basic industry my hon. friend is worrying about, the provinces undoubtedly have that right and they exercise it. The Northwest Territories, however, are administered as a territorial unit. Whether that confers authority to impose taxation I am unable to say for the moment, but I will look into the matter.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The point I was making
has no reference to the authority of the territories but to the authority of this parliament. I assume that an export duty can be placed on lumber going from New Brunswick into any other province; and that an export duty may be put on, let us say, iron ore going from Ontario into any other province. But certainly the British North America Act never contemplated the possibility of a
Supply-Tax Collections

system of interprovincial duties even under federal organization. The point only occurred to me a few moments ago, and I should like to look into it further. I would think the minister would require to give the matter very close attention, because it is a much more important affair than the mere size of the tax. It is a question of whether or not the thing can be done at all. In this House I rather think we rush into legislation that will cost many thousands of dollars, and allow the matter to be resolved afterwards by the submission of questions to the Supreme Court and by appeals to the Privy Council, when we might save a good deal of time and misplaced energy by simply giving a little thought to these matters before we enter into them. Section 121 of the British North America Act provides that:
All articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any one of ithe provinces shall, from and after the union, be admitted free into each of the other provinces.
That is entirely inconsistent with the idea of an interprovincial export duty. The only question that remains is whether the Northwest Territories are at all in the status of a province. I have not had time to look into the subsequent acts which gave them the status they now enjoy. I understand they are included now as part of Canada and perhaps the reason referred to might apply.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 192, to amend the Northwest Territories Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting, Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of Supply.
Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) moved in amendment, seconded by Mr. Brown:
That all the words after " that " be omitted, and the following substituted therefor:
Whereas it has been alleged in the public press of Canada that if an inquiry were instituted, some interesting information and astonishing facts, showing how the treasury of Canada failed to receive revenue intended for it, would be disclosed to the taxpayers of the Dominion; and
Whereas, for instance, it has been alleged in the press that cheques totalling about $1,700,000, representing the income and business profits taxes of three well known concerns in Ontario, were received by the Department of Finance in March, 1921, but were not deposited until December 6 of that year; and

Whereas a number of similar specific allegations have been made in the press; and
Whereas it has been alleged in the House of Commons on May 27 of this year, that in the case of a certain corporation the treasury of the Dominion seems to have lost in one year about $800,000 to which it was entitled;
Therefore, in the opinion of this House it is expedient that the standing committee on Public Accounts be and same is hereby instructed to investigate the methods by which the business profits and income taxes, especially in the case of large concerns, have been assessed and collected.
He said:	I referred to one of the matters
mentioned' in the amendment on the 27th, May, as stated in the text, and at the conclusion of the debate the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), and the Prime Minister particularly, assured me that the matters which I submitted to the House, could be taken up before the Public Accounts committee. At least such was my understanding of the assurance given on that occasion. Subsequently I made an effort to secure a meeting of the Public Accounts committee at which Mr. Breadner, Commissioner of Taxation, might be questioned on certain matters. I have exercised a great deal of ingenuity between that date and the present in order to secure a meeting of the committee, but have failed, and it is for that reason that I now ask the House to instruct the committee to take cognizance of this and other similar matters I have been told that I should bring a specific charge of wrong doing against some official. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it must be apparent to the House that after it has been claimed by the Acting Minister of Finance and the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) and all those concerned, that the files and information concerning these matters, are confidential, it is practically impossible for anyone at this stage, to make a definite and specific charge. Section 14 of chapter 11 of the Business Profits War Tax reads as follows:
"No person employed in the service of His .Majesty shall communicate or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled thereto any information obtained under the provisions of this act, or allow any such person to inspect or have access to any written statement furnished under the provisions of this act. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be liable on summary, conviction to a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars."
This I presume is the basis of the statements made by the Acting Minister of Finance and the ex-M'inister of Finance in regard to the impossibility or the difficulty of securing any information. Reference was also made on a former occasion to the fact that some information must have leaked out. I think it must be apparent to all, and I think we

Supply-Tax Collections
may take it for granted, that the information upon which the Globe articles were based, upon which I base nay own case, leaked out through some of the officials. Why did they violate this particular section of the act, and inform parties outside of what they were pledged not to divulge? My conclusion is that some of the officials must have felt that their obligation to the country was greater than their obligation to observe the law. I am not the guardian of their consciences and do not wish to judge them in this matter. However, they have run the risk of dismissal and penalty for violating the law for certain reasons which they must have considered sufficient.
['As this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House, it would require to stand until Wednesday when the order is called, when that consent may be given.\nMotion stands.\nOn motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.45 u.m.\nTuesday, June 17, 1924']
Mr ROBB:: What evidence has my hon.
friend that the information was given out from the Income Tax department?


Mr. GOOD:: I take it that such must
have been the case. Perhaps I might, if I were so disposed, give my hon. friend more particular information. I am satisfied, however, from what you might call general reasoning and very specific information of a confidential character, that such has been the case. Il seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the question which we have before us is in its general aspects one of considerable importance. Is parliament not entitled to know how its own acts are being administered? We have been told that these files are confidential, and that therefore no one can find out what assessments have been made, or anything about assessments and collections. I do not see how we can possibly accept that conclusion. It seems to me a most extraordinary, anomalous, absurd and untenable position to assert that parliament cannot find out how its own laws are being administered. I have taken some little trouble to look into the matter of the powers of parliament in this particular regard, and I venture to submit a statement thereon to the House. First in regard to the obligations which are involved in the present Income Tax Act, I refer to Plaxton and Varcoe, page 254, where I find the following:
Income tax returns are official documents and generally speaking the Crown cannot be compelled to produce them in court if the responsible officer of the department states upon oath that their production would be contrary to the public interest. Upon an application made by the liquidator of a company for the production of returns the court in the exercise of its discretion refused the application on an affidavit being filed that in the opinion of the Board of Inland Revenue such production would be prejudicial to the public interest. In an action for damages for slander it was held that the defender was not entitled to the production of the pursuer's income tax returns.
This shows, I think, that no person in the government service shall communicate any
information to any person not legally entitled, that the Crown has a right to treat the income tax returns as official documents, and that they cannot be compelled to produce them in court. But that is an entirely different matter from the right of parliament or a committee of parliament to call witnesses and secure information. I refer to Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, page 70, where I find the following:
The Senate and House of Commons have the right, inherent in them as legislative bodies, to summon and compel the attendance of all persons, within the limits of their jurisdiction, as witnesses, and to order them to bring with them such papers and records as may be required for the purpose of an inquiry.
At page 74 of the same authority, I find the following:
No witness before either House of parliament or a committee of either House can excuse himself from answering any proper question that may be put to him. While the law of parliament demands the disclosure of the evidence it recognizes to the fullest extent the principle on which the witness is excused from making such disclosure in the ordinary courts of Justice and protects him against the consequences which might otherwise result from his testimony, the rule of parliament being that no evidence given in either House can be used against the witness in any other place without the permission of the House.
At page 75, continuing the same line of thought, I find the following:
The experience of parliament has shown that in the majority of cases select committees are the be3t tribunals for examining witnesses and accordingly it will be found on reference to parliamentary records, evidence is taken whenever practicable before select committees.
At page 480, I find the following:
It is usual in both houses to give committees special authority to send for witnesses or documentary evidence.
At page 482, we find:
In the session of 1891 the committee of privileges and elections to whom was referred a very important inquiry, reported that one of the witnesses refused to place under the immediate control of the committee certain documents, which he (had produced. His conduct was reported to the House, and he was ordered to deliver all accounts and papers to the clerk of the House. He complied at once with the order, and the committee had consequently full control of the documents in question.
I quote from page 74 of Bourinot, the following:
In view of certain prosecutions and suits, criminal and civil instituted by the Department of Justice subsequent to inquiries before the committee of Privileges, and in committee of Public Accounts in 1891, the House ordered in 1892 that all clerks and stenographers who were in the employment of the House, and in attendance on the said committees, "should attend, when required before the courts and give evidence as to the statements made upon oath, and produce all books and papers used before the said committees"; and it was distinctly laid down in the same resolution that the House, "while waiving its privileges in these
Supply-Tax Collections

particular cases with the view of eliciting all the facts and obtaining substantial justice in the premises, does not in any sense give up its well established and undoubted rights, whenever it may deem it in the public interest hereafter at any time to protect all witnesses examined before this House or any committee thereof in respect of anything that may be said by them in their evidence, and to refuse permission to any clerk or officer of the House or shorthand writer employed to take minutes of evidence before the House or any committee thereof to give evidence elsewhere in respect to any proceedings or any examination had at the bar or before any committee of the House."
In, Hansard of 1892, volume 1, at page 1290, Sir John Thompson quotes Cushing, a great American authority, as follows:
A Witness before the House of Parliament cannot excuse himself from answering any question that may be put to him (with a single exception presently to be noticed) on the ground that the answer would subject him to an action or expose him to a criminal proceeding, or be the means of divulging the secret of his client communicated to him in professional confidence, or be ary breach of a judicial oath as grand juror, etc., some of which would be sufficient grounds of excuse in a court of justice. This difference between proceedings in parliament and in the ordinary courts has been established upon grounds of public policy and is considered to be fundamentally essential to the efficacy of a parliamentay inquiry, but while the law of parliament thus demands the disclosure of the evidence, it recognises to the fullest extent the principle upon which the witness is excused from making such diclosure in the ordinary courts of justice and protects him from the consequence which might otherwise result from his testimony.
And so forth. I have some other references, but it is not necessary to quote them on the present occasion. I want to mention in conclusion the case of Mr. R. C. Miller in 1913 which is contained in the Journals of the House, pages 274 to 278. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) will recall this because he seconded a number of motions made at that time. Mr. Miller refused to answer certain questions; he was called before the bar of the House where, on advice of counsel, he refused to answer the questions, and he was imprisoned until the end of the session.
All this evidence, it seems to me, shows an undoubted right of parliament to inquire into any matters such as have been claimed to be confidential and such as are necessary to inquire into in order to find out how the Business Profits War Tax Act and the Income Tax Act are being interpreted and applied. I may take it, therefore, that there is no doubt as to the power of parliament in this connection.
The other day when the Income Tax Act was under consideration, I had prepared an amendment to the act, but I was unfortunately unable to be present and left it in the hands of another member. But under conditions existing on the evening when the

matter was under discussion the amendment was not submitted. I should like to read it to the House now:
Nothing in this act shall be construed to interfere with the privileges of the House or of any committee thereof in ordering the production of returns, statements, reports, memoranda or writings made by any corporation, co-partnership or individual under this act, or to prevent the House or any committee thereof from compelling witnesses to answer questions or give information.
As a matter of fact, I was informed by the law clerk of the House, after a very lengthy discussion, that this amendment was not necessary, although there would be no harm in inserting it in the act, because it was generally understood that parliament has the right at any time to inquire into these matters, to compel the production of papers and to compel witnesses to answer questions even though those answers might incriminate them in the ordinary courts.
In view of these facts, I claim that the committee ought to be open to investigate these matters. I have been asked by the chairman of the committee to make a specific charge. I have told him that I can make no charge more specific than I have already made, and apparently that is not judged sufficient to warrant an investigation. As I said before, I am, therefore, compelled to ask the House to issue instructions to the committee to have this matter investigated.


Arthur Meighen: The operative part of
the hon. member's resolution, the last paragraph states:
It is expedient that the standing committee on Public Accounts be and same is hereby instructed to investigate the methods by which the business profits and income taxes, especially in the case of large concerns, have been assessed and collected.
This is open to the interpretation that all that the committee could investigate would be the principles upon which assessments and taxes are arrived at and how, after being arrived at, they are pressed for collection. Does the hon. member intend that the committee shall be empowered, and that its duty shall be, to investigate the actual facts relevant to the correct assessment, the business affairs themselves and what the assessment should be, in a word, the details of the business or of the individual concerned?


William Charles Good: It is quite possible that the
wording is not the happiest in this respect and, perhaps, not as clear as it ought to be. I may, however, answer my right hon. friend by saying that the idea that I hoped to convey was that the committee should inquire into, not only the facts in so far as those facts
seem relevant to establish certain principles of interpretation and method, but the general interpretation and the general application of the law.


Arthur Meighen: That does not answer my *question. Is the committee to be empowered to summon the man taxed, the officer of the company before it, and to get at the details of the business so as to enable the committee to decide whether that man or firm was rightly taxed or not?


William Charles Good: I think we shall have to leave
the details with the committee, but certainly my intention is that the committee should have whatever powers it considers ample to inquire into the whole matter.


Arthur Meighen: It will not have any
power except what this resolution gives it.


William Charles Good: I hope that if the resolution
does not convey the powers that have just been described, it can be amended so as to convey ample powers of inquiry.


Arthur Meighen: Into the individual
case?


William Charles Good: Yes; and I shall be very glad
to have any amendment to the operative part of the resolution to bring about that result.
I can assure my right hon. friend that I have no desire to limit the inquiry; in fact, I am very anxious that any question which is relevant should be inquired1 into by the committee.
If I may further trespass on the time of the House, there is first the question of the interpretation of the law, and I have in mind particularly a dispute which, after the debate the other day, I got into with Mr. Breadner over the interpretation of the Business Profits War Tax Act. I may be wrong and he may be right, or he may be wrong and I may be right, but the matter of interpretation ought to be cleared up in the committee.


Mr. CRERAR:: That would be a legal
matter, would it not?


William Charles Good: I presume it would, to some
extent, although I think parliament has power over such matters. Further than that, there is the question of actual facts in regard to certain assessments. I should like, for instance, that the committee should take cognizance of the particular assessment that I submitted to the House on a previous occasion and also should inquire into those other assessments that have been referred to in press despatches. In addition to the matters referred to on a previous occasion, and after
the former debate, I received a letter from a man in Toronto whom I do not know at all. He marks it "private and confidential", and therefore I shall not disclose his name. This letter is to the effect that the evasions of the law in Toronto have been legion. He gives me to understand that he knows of numerous cases of what, for want of a better term with which to describe them, I must call evasions, to say the least. I know nothing about this, but it seems to me that the committee might well take cognizance of the matter; my correspondent offers to send me a list of the concerns which he has in mind. He says:
If you decide to go on with this I can furnish you with a list of names.
I do not wish to prolong the discussion further at the present time. I am anxious however that this matter, which has received a good deal of attention in the press and otherwise and about which there is a good deal of talk, should be cleared up; and apparently the only place where that can be done is before the Public Accounts committee.
I therefore urge that the matter be turned over to that committee for such inquiry as they may deem fit. As I said before, if the operative part of the resolution is not worded in such a way as to give to the committee the full and necessary powers to enable them to establish the facts and secure the information that is required, then I should like to see someone who may have better legal qualifications than I, amend the resolution to make it effective.
Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN (Cumberland):
I do not intend to discuss the merits of this resolution but I desire to refer briefly to the statement of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), that he had approached the chairman of the Public Accounts committee and used every ingenuity to have a meeting of that committee called to consider this matter. I happen to be the chairman of the Public Accounts committee, and I may say that when the hon. member approached me I called his attention to the tact that, after all, the powers of the Public Accounts committee are somewhat limited. We receive our powers from parliament and they are stated in a resolution which reads:
That the select standing committee of this House shall severally be empowered to examine end inqill'o into all such matters and things as may be referr=d to them by the House, etc.
We have had the Auditor General's report referred to us, but the matter which the hon. gentleman desired to have investigated was not included among the subjects that had
Supply-Tax Collections

been referred to the committee. I asked him whether he had any charge to make and he said he had not; he only desired to investigate into the methods of administration. It occurred to me that this was rather a wide field to enter upon:	It would necessitate an
investigation into the methods of administration of the Department of Finance, of the Customs department, of the Marine department, of the Department of Justice if the same should be demanded by any member of parliament. It did not appeal to me, therefore, as being particularly a matter which could come within the province of the Publics Accounts committee, a committee which after all, as its name signifies, is a body whose duty it is to examine into public accounts and not to inquire into public methods of administration. In offering this explanation, I do not think that my hon. friend intended to reflect upon my opposition to his proposal in itself; the only question was as to whether we had the power to investigate a matter which had not been referred to the Public Accounts committee, a matter which was not one of public accounts but one that had to do with methods of administration.
So far as I am concerned, I desire that the Public Accounts committee shall be given, not ill-considered directions, but well-defined instructions upon which to act. I think this matter opens up a vast field, and for myself I want specific instructions from the House as to how far we are to keep faith with the taxpayers of the country. We have undertaken to keep secret certain matters in connection with various businesses throughout the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That being so, is the Public Accounts committee now to investigate into the private affairs of every concern in Canada or of every individual? Is that to be its function or not? Without discussing the merits of the case that has been brought forward by the hon. member, I desire to have the considered judgment of the House on this question, for I am of the opinion that it is a matter of supreme importance for us to know how far we are to proceed under the circumstances. If we are to adopt such a proposal as this it is going to change the whole scope of the committee as we have so far understood it. Are we prepared to go as far as this implies? If the House directs that the Public Accounts committee shall investigate all these cases, the committee will of course do so. But we should have specific instructions before undertaking anything of the kind.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance):: As will be found in the report
in Hansard of the evening session of May 27, when my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good) made some reference to methods of collecting income tax, it was then stated on behalf of the government that if any hon. gentleman desired to make any charges relating to the administration of the act such charges would be investigated immediately and those who preferred them would be given an opportunity of appearing before the Public Accounts committee. I have listened to the resolution that has been presented to the House and, as I construe it, it seems that the hon. gentleman desires an inquiry into the method of administration of the department; I do not understand that he proposes to go into the details of the business of every man in this House or in the country. It is reasonable that hon. members who were not in this House when the legislation governing the administration of the Income Tax and the Business Profits Tax Acts were enacted should have an opportunity of inquiring generally into the method of administering the law. I desire now to draw to their attention the provisions of that law as it stands. Section 14 of the Business Profits War Tax Act, chapter 11 of the statutes of 1916, is as follows:
14. No person employed in the service of His Majesty shall communicate or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled thereto any information obtained under the provisions of this act, or allow any such person to inspect or have access to any written statement furnished under the provisions of this act. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a penality not exceeding two hundred dollars.


William Charles Good: Does the Acting Minister of Finance interpret that to mean that the officials may not be called before the committee or before parliament and be compelled to give information on these points?


James Alexander Robb: I am quoting the law as it
is; and the same thing appears in the Income War Tax Act, section 11 of chapter 28 of the statutes of 1917. I want to give to my hon. friend the views of parliament of the time when this legislation was enacted; not the views of any individual but the unanimous opinion of parliament at that time including both sides of the House. When the legislation was before the House on August 8, 1917, Mr. Carvell, the member for Carle-ton, asked the Minister of Finance, Sir Thomas White, what course the government intended to pursue regarding the publication of details of taxation under the business profits war tax. I fancy Mr. Carvell asked

Supply-Tax Collections
that question because there was considerable opposition here and there to the giving out of details of people's business; business and professional men, farmers and others do not care to have the details of their business made known to their neighbours and everyone else.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Farmers have no
secrets.


James Alexander Robb: There were farmers in the
House at that time, and they had the same objection. This is what Sir Thomas White answered:
When the Business Profits War Tax Act, whieh was introduced in 1916, was under consideration, the statement was made that returns would be brought down provided a resolution of the House was passed asking for such information. It was thought inadvisable that details of private business should be given. There seems to be a consensus of opinion that such details should not be made public.
That was Sir Thomas' view as to the consensus of opinion of the House at that time. Then he goes on:
My own view is that a member asking that information of a confidential nature should be brought down and made public, should lay a foundation, indicating that the assessment had not been properly made. Then, if such (position were prima facie sustained in the argument, the government would, I think, be justified in bringing down the information.
But Sir Thomas laid it down that first the member should make out a prima facie case. He communicated with the High Commissioner to ascertain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the practice in Great Britain, and this was the reply by cablegram:
That under no circumstances would they permit the publication of detailed information relating to the business of individuals, firms and companies carrying on business in the United Kingdom and subject to the excess profits tax.


William Charles Good: Does the minister understand that anybody in this House is proposing the publication broadcast of details of people's business? I do not propose it.


James Alexander Robb: I am just making it dear, Mr. Speaker, that if such information was brought before a committee of the House it would be accessible to the newspaper reporters and would be scattered broadcast. But I was going to say that this is a new parliament, and if hon. members are not satisfied with the act and want to amend it, they are at liberty to proceed accordingly. But the government have no desire to keep back information in so far as it can be given under the act, amf therefore we have no objection to the resolution offered by my hon. friend, as I understand it, to bring before the Public Accounts committee inquiry into the administration of the act.


Arthur Meighen: I hope the minister
remembers that the hon. member said that that was just what he did not intend. It is pretty hard to ask the House to accept a resolution as meaning something which its mover says it does not mean.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I am dealing
only with the resolution as it is before the House.


William Charles Good: Mr. Speaker, will you call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: Outside of the recitals, Mr. Speaker, the amendment amounts to very little. I never liked these amendments, worded in such a form as to assume a very threatening and important aspect but really to contain nothing. The hon. member (Mr. Good), in answer to a question which I put to him, intimated that he intended that the amendment should empower the committee to inquire into any business whatever with a view to ascertaining the correctness of the assessment that had been made against it in any year; in a word, that the amendment intended to expose the affairs of whatever business might be under the suspicion of any member of the committee. He must have been somewhat surprised to find the Acting Minister of Finance state to him that the amendment meant nothing of the sort, and that because it meant nothing of the sort he intended to let it go; in a word, he intended to let the amendment pass by like the idle wind, just as the government lets many a motion go by on the assumption that it means nothing and will not do any harm.


William Charles Good: How could a committee investigate methods of assessment and collection without looking into some individual cases?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know, but the
unfortunate part of this amendment is that it does not say they will investigate anything. It says they will inquire into the methods; that is to say, I suppose, they could summon the chief officer and ask him what his methods were, and having got his methods, the organization that is under him, the general plan and scheme of assessment and collection, they could debate that, and I presume make a report to the House upon it. I know that is just what is in the mind of
Supply-Tax Collections

the acting minister, and he will dispute me now if I am wrong. That is the whole compass of the amendment as accepted by the acting minister. What an awful farce this is! What an awful farce! If the hon. member wants the Public Accounts committee empowered to inquire into and expose the affairs of businesses, let him say so in his amendment, or get one of his friends to do so -they cannot do so now in an amendment to this amendment, but the hon. member himself should have said so, and then the House would have had something to deal with. Now we are simply wasting time. This amendment, if it passes, is accepted by the government just because it is innocuous. It is a fraud on the House of Commons. It will not get anywhere; it will lead to no investigation; it is merely a method of evading the subject. What is the use of the hon. member saying, I am prepared to accept an amendment? You cannot move an amendment. He has brought something before the House that means nothing, but I presume it will enable someone to go out and say: We proposed that the committee should know all these facts; and enable someone on the government side to say: We accept the amendment from the Progressive party.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Does the
hon. member suggest that that was the motive underlying the motion?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what the motive was. I will have to leave the suggestion as to it to my hon. friend.


Edward Joseph Garland: But surely he is sincere in the matter?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Well, if he is, he is taking a strange method of getting anywhere. He gets nowhere by this amendment. The hon. member must recognize that from the speech of the Acting Minister of Finance.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
right hon. gentleman suggest a method that would get action?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that I
have been constituted a tutor to the hon. member for Brant. When I have a course to pursue in the House, I put my course in plain language.


Edward Joseph Garland: It might
help hon. members who are anxious to get this action.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid hon. members are helpless. They have gone so far, there is no use suggesting anything. If the hon. member wanted me as counsel he might have come to me before. I had no notice whatever of this amendment; I had no idea it was coming up. Now, in the fon" in which it is before the House it is innocuous, and for the reason that it is innocuous the government accepts it, and for no other reason whatever. Nothing in the way of a motion in this House gets such a warm welcome from the administration as one that means nothing, and that is the reason for the splendid welcome that the hon. member's motion got from the Acting Minister of Finance.
Now as respects this part of the House. We are responsible for the legislation which is on the statute books. We take full responsibility for it; we believe it is the right legislation. However, if this government does not believe it is the right legislation, it is the responsibility of this government to propose an amendment. The House is quite competent to change the act, if in the judgment of the government it should be changed. We do not think it is in the interest of the country that there should be this exposure of private affairs. We believe these taxes must be collected on much the same principle as other taxes are collected. Officials must be provided, there must be supervision by members of the government, there must at the same time be availability of facts on any allegation of wrongdoing or malfeasance of office. These are the principles that we thought correct. We did not believe that any member of this House had any right to expose before the country any single feature of one of these details, unless it has been brought out in the regular way with all opportunity for disclosing the surrounding circumstances and presenting the other side of the case. I never thought it was honourable to throw before the country one exposed fact or allegation of fact. Hon. members on the other side thought differently, and wherever they could get even a rumour or allegation of fact-as for example in the Riordon case-they flaunted it before the country when they knew there was no opportunity for full disclosure, or that all the surrounding circumstances could be known. If any hon. member feels that the system should be different I would welcome a motion placing before this government the responsibility of establishing a different system. We took the responsibility when we were in office. I know of no reason why this government should evade it; and if hon. members to my left

Supply-Tax Collections
feel that there should be full disclosure of the facts of individual businesses, so that individual members of the House could determine whether assessments were right or were wrong, whether the terms were right or were wrong, then let an hon. member move to that effect and let the government take its position. But I am a little impatient of motions which simply evade the whole question and give the opportunity to the government to evade if.


Mr. T. G. McBRIDE (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely opposed to this amendment for the simple reason that I do not think it is fair to business men that such an amendment should be passed. I know a large number of business firms in Vancouver, who call in a chartered accountant, every six months, and have their books audited. When they have this done they give notice to the income tax office and an officer is sent down. He checks over the firm's accounts and the assessment is based on that showing. But the information so afforded is given with the direct understanding that it is confidential. That being so, why should other people be allowed to have this information to satisfy their idle curiosity, and in many cases that is the motive which prompts them to ask for an amendment of this kind. I think if the House adopts any such amendment it will make a very great mistake. In my opinion those who framed the Income Tax Act used good judgment, and the government has no right now to interpret it in such a way as to permit the disclosure of the business of any firm to the public. As the law now stands that is not done. If I had any criticism to offer in connection with this affair, it would be that in my opinion the salaries paid to the officers in charge of the Income Tax branch are not in keeping with the responsibility which devolves upon them. However, that is for the government to say.


Robert Forke: I merely wish to make this
explanation. I was not in the House when the amendment was read from the chair and I have never seen it. Therefore I do not feel in a position to offer any remarks in respect to it.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I think the member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) totally misconceives the idea held by the mover of this amendment; he (Mr. Good) does not want to inquire into the details of anyone's business. At the same time if cor-206
porations or individuals are not paying the taxes they should, there ought to be some way of ascertaining the facts, and whether there is anything wrong or not. If it is to be held that the books of the department are private and that we, as members of parliament, have no right to get any facts in such oases, I should like to ask how we are going to find out whether the government is or is not being defrauded of moneys that it should be collecting?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is the House ready for
the question?


William Charles Good: I understand, Mr. Speaker,
that I have not the right to speak again.


Hewitt Bostock: Paragraph 2 of rule 21
reads as follows:
A reply shall be allowed to a member who has moved a substantive motion or the second reading of a bill, but not to any member who has moved an order of the day, not being the second reading of a bill, an amendment, the previous question, an adjournment during a debate, or an instruction to a committee.
Under this rule the hon. gentleman cannot reply.


William Charles Good: I was going to ask if I might have permission to submit four questions to the Acting Minister of Finance?


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House, the hon. member certainly can.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Are you breaking the
rule, Mr. Speaker?


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent
of the House the hon. member's wish may be granted.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: No, we have had
enough of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is important to make
clear to the House particularly in view of the remarks of my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. McBride) just exactly what the amendment proposes. The leader of the Progressive party may be interested in learning the substantive part of the resolution which is as follows:
That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that the standing committee on Public Accounts be and the same is hereby instructed to investigate the methods by which the business profits and income taxes, especially in the case of large concerns, have been assessed and collected.
My hon. friend will see that that does not necessitate the disclosure of private business or the business of individual firms. If it did occasion such disclosure it would occasion a

Supply-Tax Collections

violation of the section of the statute which says:
No person employed in the service of His Majesty shall communicate or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled thereto any information obtained under the provisions of this act, or allow any such person to inspect or have access to any written statement furnished under the provisions of this act. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars.
It does not follow that became the business of individual firms may not be disclosed before the Public Accounts committee there may not be need for this resolution. There is, I think, in the minds of a good many considerable doubt as to the methods being emploj'ed in 'assessing taxes. For example, to what extent account is being taken of watered stock, how exceptions are arrived at and matters of that sort. I think it would be very much in the public interest to have doubts of that kind removed, and for that reason the government is quite prepared to accept the amendjment which has been moved. It may well he that the Commissioner of Taxation is proceeding in accordance with methods that will commend themselves to the judgment of the House. It is possible that in some particulars methods may be employed which would not be countenanced if the House were fully aware of them. In any event there appears to be doubt, in the minds of some persons as to the methods that are being followed, and if the course suggested by the amendment will help to remove doubts of the kind I should think a reference to the Public Accounts committee would serve a useful purpose.


William Charles Good: May I ask the Prime Minister if he understands that the Public Accounts committee has no power to inquire into any particular case?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Public
Accounts committee, like every other committee of the House, is subject to the laws of the land. The Public Accounts committee can operate within the scope of its authority, but it cannot violate any provisions of existing statutes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know that I can usefully add very much to what I said on the 27th May. I think I made my position very plain. There may be some hon. gentlemen, however, in the House now who were not in the House at that time. I invited discussion then. I invite it now; that is provided those in whose hands the good faith of this country now is reposed desire to break faith. I have

nothing to fear from investigation. It so happens that at present I am not in any way the keeper of the country's good faith. Attacks were made by gentlemen across the floor which were absolutely without foundation, which attacks I could not answer, because I could not keep faith on the one hand and give an answer on the other. Yes, the attacks were made with impunity, because the authors of these attacks thought I would have enough decency and honour to preserve the secrets of the department which were within my knowledge. Attacks were made on me indeed, by gentlemen who should have been very much interested in seeing that the proper secrets of the ratepayers were held inviolate.
The question is entirely one for this government. I am perfectly prepared tomorrow to go into an investigation, which would have to do with the only things that would be useful in a case of that kind, namely: What was done here and what was done there, what this man paid and what he ought to have paid. I am perfectly willing to go into it to-morrow morning. It is not for me to say. When I was keeping the conscience of the department I believed in keeping faith. Gentlemen across the floor were making attacks which they did not believe in, which they knew were wrong, which their own Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) deprecated when he took occasion in this House to say that he never associated himself with them, and attacks which my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) said this session he never associated himself with. But these attacks were made, and if attacks of this character are to be made, the only logical thing to do is just what the hon. member moving this resolution (Mr. Good) desires done. His idea is that you can do nothing useful here unless you find out concretely what was done. That is the thought of everybody. Was there a charge made against me in that campaign as to theory and as to principle? Not at all. The charge was specific having regard to specific taxes and specific individuals; and every one knows that the only successful way in which you can ascertain how an act has worked out, is to apply to it those very principles in question. Every one knows that. I am quite free to make that admission now. On the other hand, it is a good deal better that scurrilous attacks should be made and put up with, rather than that politicians should suffer, or that the business of the country should suffer. I am quite prepared to admit that, and I am quite willing to admit that the legislation which is now on the statute

Supply-Tax Collections
books is the legislation of every civilized country in the world that desires to carry on, of every government that desires to see business carried on properly, of every administration which does not want to expose its business men to the venom of the busybody, or perchance to the blackmailer, by divulging to any one who asks for it, the business secrets of the organization.
Just think what the converse would mean. What chance would business men have if a stronger competitor could get information as to the inside of all his business, his results and the like, and know just exactly where to squeeze him. There are a lot of businesses, particularly to-day where the accounts show results which are not obtained entirely by the application of strict business principles, businesses where losses have taken place, where things are not going in the way they ought to be going-hundreds of them-and why? By reason of writing off depreciation and other similar charges. Just see what it means. If the results of the patient, painstaking stocktaking of a concern under these circumstances were made public, what would it mean? A wealthier or stronger concern would be able to see exactly how close that company was to insolvency and would be able to calculate, as a matter of days, if certain cuts were made, how that competitor could be put out of the way. That is just how it would work out. These are a few of the reasons why all countries that have any serious interest in business want these things kept in such a way that business can still be carried on.
The Prime Minister suggests the necessity of this investigation on account of watered stock. Is that suggestion not ridiculous? Any member of this House in five minutes can satisfy himself on the point as to what is actually done and the instructions given in connection with watered stock. In that inquiry as to watered stock, apart from the general instructions and general policy, how much further will you get, unless you go into particulars to see whether that policy has been lived up to or not, and how are you going to get those particulars, unless again this government breaks faith with its taxpayers? There is no secret whatever in the situation as to watered stock. Everybody who takes the trouble to look at the act knows it and it is no secret whatever.
I really would like to see something definite done one way or the other. Is the government content to waive the provisions of the act which in the last general election were alleged by hon. gentlemen supporting the Liberal party to have been specially arranged 20&i
so that one, Drayton, could get behind them? That is not only what was said but what certain newspapers printed. I should like to have something definite on this. I should like to know whether faith is to be kept or not, and if it is not, I want a hand in that inquiry. I can assure my hon. friends that it will be a bigger one than is here proposed; that I shall have not one answer but many more than one for everything that was said in connection with Riordou. How absurd the whole of this tissue of calumny was! Just for a few months did I know anything about the Riordon matter. My hon. friends have been in office and they have known all about it for two and one-half years. What have they done? Absolutely nothing. Pulp was away down; in the United States, our great market for the product of the Riordons' business was very bad in 1921, particularly bad in the summer of 1921. The market was off. Since then we have seen wonderful activity. We have seen that market taking all the pulp, yes, all the paper that can be offered. We have seen the price advance, yes, multiply. We have seen properties sold at far higher prices than they could have been sold at in those days. But nothing has been done. Why, some hon. gentlemen opposite thought that there should be a royal commission to investigate the Riordon charges. Yes, I was to be the subject of a royal commission. I have mentioned it before. I have invited it. I am getting tired of giving the invitation, but the invitation still stands. I should like an opportunity of meeting some of those valiant gentlemen before a royal commission where an oath could be taken and where it would amount to something. I should like something definite about this matter. Why, the last statement to the Riordon creditors-that is no secret now-shows that not a single soumarquee had been collected, nothing done by these hon. gentlemen that were so virtuous, so insistent and so indignant at a few months' delay. Yet nothing is done for two and a half years. I wonder if we can get something really straight and concrete, because I should like to have it.
As I said before, putting up with what I have put up with, I still say that, as a matter of public honesty, the act ought to be observed; but if that course is to be taken let it be taken openly, firmly, honestly. Do not let us have any more shilly-shallying about this. Either say we can go into this matter or not, what is the use of passing this resolution in view of the declaration already made on the one hand that details cannot be given, and, on the other hand, that details can be given. Why' should this House not know that? I want to know it and I want to be
Supply-Tax Collections

there with my details. Should there not be an end of this beating about the bush and an honest position taken fairly and squarely? As the matter stands now, it is useless to vote for the resolution; it is useless to vote against it. It is simply another negation. Will the government not take a stand now firmly one way or the other? Either let us know that we can give details and be present with them, or else state definitely that that cannot be done; that, the thing is a farce.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have
a little more light on the statement which the Prime Minister made a few minutes ago. which seems to me to involve very directly the rights and powers of this parliament. We have been at this session refused admission to important documents which have passed between the Motherland and this country that bear on the relationship of this country to other nations. Within the past few weeks the government has refused to give information to a committee of this House with regard to the persons present at a cabinet meeting. Within the past few weeks we have been practically told that we have no right to make inquiries into the expenditures of the Canadian National Railways. Only to-day we were told that we had in the Civil Service Commission a body over which we had practically no control. To-day, a few minutes ago, we are told apparently that our tax commission is also a body that is beyond our control. Do I understand from the Prime Minister that this parliament has no right to order an investigation into methods of taxation or into any matter whatever affecting the welfare of this country? The Prime Minister quotes certain provisions of the act. As I understand that act, the provisions bind officials of the department to secrecy with regard to such information as comes before them. But I can hardly understand that the Prime Minister means that that act prohibits this parliament from making inquiries. I thought that this parliament could give instructions to any committee and that that committee could call before it what witnesses it would and ask from them what questions it would. Surely we are not going to abdicate all the rights of this House and say that we have erected all sorts of councils, commissions and departments which are out of our control? I should like to ask a little more definitely from the Prime Minister his understanding of the powers of parliament in this regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend at once that parliament is all powerful to do whatever it wishes to do;

but when parliament has enacted a law which prescribes certain conditions and lays down certain obligations, members of parliament, like the public generally, are obliged to respect the law as it stands. My hon. friend has made to-night a number of statements which, if permitted to pass unnoticed, would convey an entirely wrong impression to the public. He intimated, for example, that we had a Civil Service Commission which, he had been told, parliament could not control. Neither he nor any other member of parliament was ever told any such thing. There is in the statutes a law which gives certain powers to the Civil Service Commission, and as long as that law remains there, members of parliament, the government itself, are bound by that law. Parliament can amend, or change the law when it wishes to do so; but until parliament decides to amend and change laws, they must be respected by members of parliament as well as by everyone else.
As regards the matter under discussion at the moment, parliament has declared in a very special way what the obligations are upon certain public servants filling positions of trust. If my hon. friend wishes to bring in an amendment to the statutes and hav; it discussed, to do away with that obligation, he has a right to bring his amendment here and have it discussed, and if parliament decides to alter the law, the law will be altered and conditions will be changed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do I understand
that without the alteration of that law, that is without special legislation, parliament has no right to make such an inquiry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where parliament has legislated specifically in regard to any particular matter every committee of parliament must take cognizance of such legislation, for it is the law of the land. Parliament has made certain matters criminal; hon. members cannot commit crimes and not come under the law of the land; and because a man is a member of parliament it does not follow that in his conduct or in the assertion of his rights he has any right to supersede any law. Parliament can change the law in any respect or can remove from the category of crimes such acts as at present are constituted criminal; parliament may remove from the statute certain inhibitions which it has created. But so long as any act stands it must be respected.


William Charles Good: Does the Prime Minister contend that section 14, which has been quoted, has any applicability whatever to this House?

Supply-Tax Collections


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Every statute applies to every member of parliament just as it applies to every citizen of the country. My hon. friend shakes his head; he says no. Does he argue that a member of parliament is exempt from the provisions of the law?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there not a
difference between an individual member of parliament and parliament itself?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways):	I happened to be in the House
when this legislation was being discussed and I urged very strongly, as did others, that there should be an income tax, believing that this was a good way of finding money where money existed. But I did agree and am still of the opinion that any provision that would allow the examination into the private business of any firm or individual would not only be bad legislation but that it would wreck the results of the income tax law; because men can devise means of hiding their business transactions if they know that those transactions are to become public. This policy would be a fruitful field for the blackmailers and for all kinds of busybodies who perhaps might have no great interest in income tax themselves but who would fuss a good deal about the income tax of other people not being paid. It would make the conduct of business impossible so far as it related to the income tax.
I am strongly of the opinion that the income tax law is a just law. Theoretically we can talk on a good many subjects with more or less lucidity; but we have to be practical business men particularly in considering legislation which has to do only with business men. There is therefore no sense-and I do not say this offensively-in our endeavouring to find some means by which we can circumvent one of the protections that are afforded to those who are doing business, and so disclose the full particulars of people's affairs. One can imagine very many cases in which mischief might be done. I may refer to the Canadian National Railways, to which reference was also made by my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth). The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) made out the whole case for the railways; he thought that it would be very detrimental to any company or individual if they were compelled to hand their private business over to the tender mercies of a rival for dissection.
As to the government's taking the ground that they must not say even who was at a cabinet meeting, the government did not take
any such ground. Those handling the case took the ground that they must not answer that question; for my part I answered, before the objection was taken, that I did not remember who was present; nor did I and members of the government who have attended cabinet meetings know that, except for some particular business between themselves, they never remember forty-eight hours after just who were present at any meeting. Their own business they will remember, and they will recall those who took part in the discussion; but apart from that their recollection will not be very precise. That, however, is merely by the way.
Let me point out that this parliament has a constitutional method of enacting legislation and of placing its views upon the statute books; and that is what the statute books are for. Parliament cannot one day pass an act, making the whole country liable tc it, and the next day through a committee violate that act. That could not be done. What would be the good of a statute if a committee could say, "We do not care anything for the statute; parliament has appointed us a committee to do certain things and we will do them irrespective of that law"? The king himself could not violate a statute without being brought to task, and this parliament has no right to break its own laws, it has no right to do so, either as a matter of law-if lawyers will allow me to say so-or as a matter of fair play and justice to the taxpayers who have sent them here. If this information is required ty parliament the right procedure is to repeal the statute and then let the committee fire ahead. But I am not in favour of this information being given, because I believe the business of the country at the present time is more sensitive than it has ever been before. If we repeal this statute we shall do more to injure business than all the one-horse investigations which may be carried on will do to help it.
What I am about to say is perhaps a little afield, but I am constrained to make this observation. The whole iworld just now seems to have a mania for investigating everybody but itself. Men in every parliament almost at the present time are on the lookout to see if they can find cause for investigating the other fellow for the purpose of getting something on him, as the saying is.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They have managed to do it in the United States.


George Perry Graham: But they do not violate a statute in doing it; and perhaps when the votes are polled it will be found that the news-
Supply-Tax Collections



paper headings did not amount to so much after all. You never can tell until the votes are in just how the public views these things. Generally speaking, if the public men of the world are held in a measure in disrepute it is their own fault, not because of any guilt on their part but by reason of the fact that people are all the time wanting to investigate rather than legislate. I do not know on the whole that any of us will get anywhere by trying to investigate someone else, because there is so much bad in the best of us and so much good in the worst of us, that it ill behooves any of us to talk about the rest of is.


Robert Forke: That is not bad.


George Perry Graham: So far as this motion is
concerned, I say frankly I would not allow the details of any single transaction to be gone into in the committee; that cannot be done unless the statute is repealed or amended. There may be some general principles on which conclusions are arrived at, such as methods of bookkeeping and so forth, which might be investigated in a general way. But I would be absolutely opposed to compelling John Brown or Bill Smith to open his books to Tom Jones for Tom Jones to poke his nose into them.


Arthur Meighen: I am thoroughly in accord with the doctrine the minister expounds. Will he say, in the face of that, that it is fair to scatter through the country a report as to any detail of any individual business?


George Perry Graham: I should not think that
the committee having got at the details would then scatter them.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister think that it is fair or honourable that such a thing should be done in face of the fact that an investigation cannot be held?


George Perry Graham: I do not know just what
.he hon. member is driving at.


Arthur Meighen: My question is perfectly clear. I should like the minister to be as frank now in answering it as he was in expounding that doctrine. I commend him for defending the law, as well as shielding himself behind the law. The man who shields himself behind the law ought to defend it. Now will the minister be as frank in answering this question: In view of the admitted impotence of the government to investigate the necessary details, is it fair to scatter a rumour of details as to any individual concern?


George Perry Graham: I am not here as judge
in any case.


Arthur Meighen: He should be frank.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I
am not at all sure that I agree with the law as it has been laid down by some hon. members. I think the statute is directed to preventing an individual employee from giving information in the course of his employment, and that means to any member of the public. I very much doubt if the statute at all prevents the exhibition of this information to the high court or parliament itself, but I prefer to put my ground for voting against this resolution on a very different plane. The mover has left this proposal, apparently purposely, in an absolutely nebulous, chaotic state; he has asked for parliament to send it to a committee without any additional facts and without any specific direction, and he has expressed to the House his entire willingness to have any change made that anyone else will offer which will make his motion wider. The hon. gentleman had control of the drafting of his amendment, and he could have made it wide enough to get at the specific thing which he desires to get at. I object to any more time being taken up in discussing some general principles or some theoretical possibilities in connection with our legislation. We have had altogether too much of that, and too little of the practical. We can sit in some committee for hours and discuss the whole scheme of the Income Tax Act and the Business Profits Tax Act over again. But are we going to get any further? Has anyone got a specific change to suggest? Does anyone say that the principle of income taxation is unfair? You will know nothing more when you get through an investigation of that character than you know to-day by intelligently reading the act. But we are not given the alternative, we are not given the form the*hon. mover suggested the investigation might take-that of specific inquiry. Therefore it is fair to conclude that this is simply one of the usual sandstorms that is blown up to attract public attention to some gentleman who poses as a great saviour of the unfortunate downtrodden people. He takes mighty good care not to put any punch into his proposition so anybody can possibly be hurt. To him the glory and to nobody any suffering. I am not going to vote for an investigation of that kind.
If the gentleman who moved this resolution had himself carried out his invitation to this House to add other language to it, we would

Supply-Tax Collections
have had a sort of snooping, prying, suspicious investigating committee with nothing absolute referred to it, a committee that would have hunted around to try to find 9 p.m. some spot or some flaw in somebody's character, and without any member of parliament daring to put his finger upon a specific act of wrongdoing and lay a charge against any officer of this country or any member of the public. I will not vote for that sort of thing. I believe parliament has power to get at the facts, I do not think we are crippled by the statute, but I think we are withheld by our sense of fair play against entering upon any such speculative investigation. As the Scotch bard said, God save us from the unco' guid and the rigidly righteous!
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Good) which was carried on the following
division:	YEAS Messrs.
Arthurs,	Kennedy
Bancroft,	(Glengarry & Stormont),
Beland,	King (Huron),
Benoit,	King, Mackenzie (York),
Binette,	Knox,
Bird,	Kyte,
Boucher,	Lanctot,
Bourassa,	Lapierre,
Bretheu,	Lapointe,
Brown,	Lewis,
Caldwell,	Lovett,
Campbell,	Lovie,
Cardin,	MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.),
Copp,	Macphail,
Crerar,	McConica,
d'Anjou,	McCrea,
Davies,	McGiverin,
Dechene,	Mclsaac,
Denis (St. Denis),	McMurray,
Descoteaux,	Mercier,
Drummond,	Michaud, '
Elliott (Dundas),	Millar,
Euler,	Milne,
Evans,	Munro,
Fansher,	Papineau,
Findlay,	Pelletier,
Forke,	Prevost,
Fortier,	Raymond,
Fournier,	Reed,
Gardiner,	Roberge,
Garland (Bow River),	Robitaille,
Gendron,	Ross (Simcoe),
Gervais,	Sales,
Good,	Savard,
Gould,	Seguin,
Graham,	Speakman,
Halbert,	Spencer,
Hammell,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Hodgins,	Stewart (Humboldt),
Hudson,	Stork,
Hughes,	Sutherland,
Humphrey,	Thurston,
Hunt,	Vien,
Johnston,	Warner,
Kennedy (Edmonton),	Woodsworth,-89.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Baxter,
Black (Halifax),
Boys,
Charters,
Church,
Dickie,
Doucet,
Drayton (Sir Henry), Duff,
Finn,
Forrester,
Garland (Carleton), Grimmer,
Hocken,
Hubbs,
MacLaren,
Maclean (York),
McBride,
McDonald (Timiskaming), Meighen,
Neill,
Preston,
Pritchard,
Stewart (Leeds),
White,
Woods,-26.


Mr. MARTELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for East York (Mr. Harris). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Arthur Meighen: Now that the government has succeeded in defeating itself, may I ask when we may expect its resignation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government indicated that it would accept the amendment of my hon. friend, and in its action in so doing has been sustained by the House.


Arthur Meighen: On an amendment to its own motion!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is quite
proper, if the government so chooses for it to accept an amendment which is not moved in any sense as a want of confidence motion-if the government believes in the wisdom of the amendment, and it is sustained by the House, that is all that is necessary.


Hewitt Bostock: Shall the main motion as amended be carried?


Arthur Meighen: The main motion as
amended cannot be carried. The main motion is lost; the amendment is carried.


Hewitt Bostock: The main motion as
amended is lost.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move the
House do immediately resolve itself into committee of Supply.


Arthur Meighen: I take the ground that as the motion to go into committee of Supply is defeated, the House cannot go into committee of Supply.


Hewitt Bostock: Bourinot at page 421
provides for such a case:
If an amendment has been carried in the affirmative, then it is the practice not to allow the committee of Supply to drop-for that is not the intention in moving amendments at this stage-but to propose a second time the question for the Speaker leaving the chair. It will then be moved-"That the House do on. . . . next resolve itself into committee of Supply."
Supply-Tax Collections

Or, when it is necessary to proceed at once with the estimates it will be resolved "That this House do immediately resolve itself into committee of Supply."


Arthur Meighen: I do not think it can be supported from any British authority. The proviso there has some significance. The government having been defeated on its own motion to go into supply cannot again that day move the House into supply.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is very
dearly put here. I will send the authority over to the hon. member.


Arthur Meighen: What is the significance of "when it is necessary"?


Hewitt Bostock: Bourinot says:
It will then be moved-"That the House do on. . . . next, resolve itself into committee of Supply." Or, when it is necessary to proceed at once with the estimates it will be resolved "That this House do immediately resolve itself into committee of Supply." Mr. Speaker will then again propose the question for his leaving the chair, which is generally agreed to, although it is quite legitimate to propose amendments and debate various matters.
According to May, this is also the British practice.


Arthur Meighen: The point I am taking now is this, that even accepting Bourinot, which I submit is opposed to the British authorities, there must be some significance to the proviso "when it is necessary". Such a case might possibly arise when it was the last day of the session, but in a case like this there is no necessity. The wish of the government does not make it a necessity.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I submit that the government, not the leader of the opposition, is the judge of the necessity of the case.


Arthur Meighen: If it is, the rule amounts to nothing.


Thomas Vien: Test the confidence of the
House.


Hewitt Bostock: It is moved by the right hon. the Prime Minister, seconded by Mr. Graham, that this House do immediately resolve itself into committee of Supply. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?	'
iMotion agreed to, and the House went into committee of Supply.

marine and fisheries
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Ocean and river service-maintenance and repairs to Dominion steamers and icebreakers, $1,500,000.
[Mr. Speaker.!


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was spent under this vote last year?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have repairs apart from maintenance. What was our repair bill last year, and where were the repairs made?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The repairs were made at
the piace where the vessels happened to be at the time'-Halifax, Victoria, St. John, Quebec, Sorel, Montreal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the minister give us the names of the icebreakers now?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Lady Grey, the Stanley, the Montcalm, and the Mikula.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I apologize to
the Minister of Justice if I do not pronounce the name "Mikula" correctly; I know how fastidious he is in a matter of that kind. Now, is this name the result of a second christening? If so, what was the original name of the ship?


An hon. MEMBER:: What difference does
it make?


Mr. LOGAN:: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This vessel was first called the "J. D. Hazen."


Henry Lumley Drayton: What happened to her afterwards?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: She was sold to the Russian government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Did they give her the name "Mikula?"


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That was the name given to her by the Russian government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What has the Mikula cost since we re-purchased her?


Mr. HOCKEN:: Why not change the name to something more distinctive?


Mr. HANSON:: They might call her the
"Alexander Johnston."


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Or the "George P. Graham."


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The figures are as follows:
Original	cost	
$436,000Repairs,	1922-23	
6,749Repairs,	1923-24	
49,890Total	
$492,639
Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the
dates for the active campaign in ice-breaking?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The requests begin about
the middle of January, and the work lasts up to the middle of April.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the ship used
for at this time of the year? Is she in commission?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, she is laid up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is about the annual
cost of operation for that short season?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The cost is $192,800.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What crew does she carry
when in commission, and how much of a crew while she is not in commission? That is a large sum of money for the maintenance of a ship for a period of less than four months in the year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: She carries a crew of 84
men when in commission.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many when she is laid
up?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: When she is laid up the
crew consists of from 15 to 20 men.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What have 15 to 20 men
to do on a ship when she is laid up?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have to take care of
the boat. It is necessary to have watchmen on the boat, and we have to keep her ready to render salvage service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What character of work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: She is fitted for salvage
work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does she keep steam up
the year round?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There was no call for it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How does the minister justify retaining 15 to 20 men on a ship that is laid up, and under no request for any kind of useful service? Is it true the department keeps on the whole staff-captain, first mate, second mate, third mate, first engineer, second engineer and third engineer?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We keep only two officers, the engineer and some men to perform necessary work on the ship. We also have the watchmen.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Do you keep the cook on the boat?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, for these men.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: And the midshipmite?


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many ships has the
department in use, what are the names and where are they located?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The ships under this item
are 28 in number. Of these ships 20 are used on the Atlantic coast and the St. Lawrence, four on the inland waters, and four on the Pacific coast.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What are the names of
the ships on the inland waters?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Concretia at Prescott, the Grenville at Parry Sound, the Murray Stewart at Parry Sound, and the Scout al Prescott.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the Murray Stewart the vessel bought from Mr. J. F. M. Stewart, an alleged shipping man of Toronto, who has some relation with the Home Bank?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is she used for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 


Richard Burpee Hanson: she is laid up?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: two ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: she do at Sorel?
Yes.
Where is she located when Located in Sorel a week or How much salvaging does


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The salvaging is not done
at Sorel; but she is capable of doing salvage work when it is necessary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has she ever done any
salvage work since her purchase?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has she ever been requested to do any since her purchase?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Salvage.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was she used as an icebreaker to take the place of another vessel?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but she was not an icebreaker.


Richard Burpee Hanson: She was purchased for
$80,000 as an icebreaker, but turned out not to be an icebreaker? Is that not the fact?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This vessel was bought to
replace another one which has been destroyed, and this one is much stronger and is capable of taking care of herself in the ice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not a fact that she
was laid up at Midland, Ontario, during the last twelve months because she was not fit

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
to; (perform the work, for which she was intended when purchased, and that the government had to hire private tugs to perform this work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not the fact?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not the fact that after the government purchased that boat large sums of money had to be spent to get her in condition?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Some money was spent, but not a very large amount.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In 1922-23 we spent $1,300.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On her boilers?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, generally, hull and
engines. In 1923-24 we spent $7,100.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was that work done by tender or by day work, and where was it done?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: By tender and contract.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the minister aware that that boat was on the Atlantic in St. John harbour and was hawked all round the coast for $25,000 with no takers before the government purchased her?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have no such information.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What is the wage bill on these boats that are laid up waiting for somebody to call on them for salvage work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: For the Mikula, $39,000.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I want to raise my protest against this wastefulness on the part of the government. This boat is laid up all summer presumably waiting to go out on a call for salvage, and the government is spending $39,000 a year for keeping people on the boat to do nothing, to eat their meals, to walk around the deck, to have a good time and, of course, to vote properly according to the expectations of the employer. That amount of $39,000 is being spent for nothing at all at a time in this country when I contend -and every reasonable man will agree with m*-that there should be no wastefulness or extravagance at all. When men are going into bankruptcy because they are being sued for their income taxes, this government keeps one boat-and I do not know how many others-tied up to a dock at an expense of $39,000 in the summer months

waiting for somebody to call on her to do salvage work, work that she has never done yet and has never been requested to do. I do not know how the minister justifies that kind of thing. Surely there must be some limit to the waste of the money of the tax-' payers of this country. Can he give any justification for such wasteful expenditure? I suppose there is a captain on the boat and he must be employed all the year round although he can be doing nothing. I suppose there will be two or three engineers, twenty men employed there all the time. This is beyond the comprehension of any reasonably-minded man, unless there is some political matter behind it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This vessel is not an
ordinary vessel; she cost a very large sum of money, and we must have on her a man having the necessary qualifications to look after such an expensive vessel and to keep her ready for any emergency that may arise. It is in the interest of shipping generally to have this boat ready and available in case of need.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the emergency that the minister has in mind that makes it necessary to keep twenty men on board this vessel at an expense of $39,000 a year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have already stated the reasons that are sufficient to keep these men on board. I am quite sure if we had not a proper number of men on board this boat with the amount of money she has cost the country, the criticism would come from my hon. friends that we were not taking care of the property of the state.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Let us get away from
that kind of bunk. If the minister says that we are to waste thirty or forty thousand dollars for fear of a little bit of criticism from the other side, he is not showing much common sense. This boat is tied up at Sorel, and there is no likelihood of a call being made on a boat like that. Why there should be a staff of twenty men on board her, no reasonable person can understand. In all the lake ports boats costing quite as much as this boat are tied up all winter. Of course they are not expected to go out on salvage, but they do not have twenty men on board, they have two or three watchmen, caretakers, and that is all that is required. That is all that is required in this case. The smooth explanation of the minister as regards the expensive piece of machinery will not go down with people who are overburdened with taxation. The explanation of the minister is no justification at all. If he has nothing

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
better than that, why can he not get one or two more officials to give him something that will appeal a little more to the committee? What we want in this country is economy, and if the minister, being a new broom, cannot sweep a little cleaner than this, he is not giving us all that was expected of him when he was appointed. I would imagine a minister, on taking office for the first time, would try to make a record for himself, would show a desire to effect some economies in his department. This is as wasteful as anything that has ever occurred in the Marine department, and that is saying a good deal. We ought to cut $50,000 out of this item for the caretaking of boats that he has tied up at docks.


Lewis Herbert Martell: It seems to me that the hon. gentleman would like these boats to lie idle, that is with the machinery all going to waste and no men on them. Then, if accidents occurred at sea, before the ship could go to the aid of the people requiring it, months would elapse. When I hear the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) speaking, particularly when he rises with that air of self-righteousness and endeavours to scold the government or any department for .extravagance, I often wonder what his friends did when they were in power. In this regard, nothing has been done that is too much for the good sailors of the Maritime provinces and of the British Columbia coast. I will say, in conclusion, that my hon. friend reminds me very much of that old quotation, since we are in power and they are over there:
The Devil was sick, the Devil a monk would be;
The Devil was well, the Devil a monk was he.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is really comic. I
did not think my hon. friend was capable of expressions of that kind and of contributing so much to the burlesque of the occasion.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The burlesque is over
there.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: He tells us that when a ship at sea is in distress, this vessel would not be able to go out to aid it. If there was a crew of 84 on board and there was distress at sea, what chance would there be of her going to sea? She is tied up in Sorel, a thousand miles from the ship that is in distress.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Sorel hurts you.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think my hon. friend is
himself in distress. Or perhaps he is like one of the salvage boats; he is trying to come
to the relief of the minister. But he has not succeeded very well.


Lewis Herbert Martell: That is only your opinion.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: He has not said anything of any account, and in that respect he is only normal. I still think, notwithstanding what the hon. gentleman from Hants has said- this oracle of the Maritime provinces-


Lewis Herbert Martell: It is better to be a
Maritime oracle than to be writing burlesque and circulating it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I did not get that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You did not
miss anything.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If the hon. gentleman insists upon being obscure he cannot expect me to understand what he is talking about. But his attempt to come to the rescue of the min-inster is a dismal failure.


Lewis Herbert Martell: In your opinion.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No, that is the opinion
of the committee.


Lewis Herbert Martell: It is only the hon.
gentleman's opinion.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What about taking a vote on it?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Go ahead.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am not surprised at my
hon. friend's views, but he must not advocate extravagance and waste and try to excuse the government by throwing the responsibility on the preceding administration. I do not think there is any parallel at all between the record of the preceding government under normal conditions and the wasteful extravagance that is going on at the present time.


Mr. FINN:: The preceding government was never normal.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: They were normal from
1911 to 1914 when the war broke out. But perhaps the hon. member forgets that there was a war.


Robert Emmett Finn: I have a dim recollection of
it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Things became somewhat
abnormal about that time; what happened from 1914 until the present government came into power was all abnormal in the sphere of government, and there is no parallel between conditions then and conditions now. We have reached the time in this country when we simply must economize; but we are going

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
deeper and deeper into debt all the time. Our debt is increasing alarmingly, the increase this year being over $30,000,000. But notwithstanding that fact no effort is made by the government to practise economy, although in a matter of this kind there is an opportunity for retrenchment. We can cut down expenses even though someone may have to go and find another job on some other boat. This is a time when sailors should be able to find employment; it should not be necessary for them to be kept busy caretaking, waiting for a call from goodness knows where, perhaps an S.O.S. from the Isle of Wight or some place like that. This amount should be cut down.


Mr. DUFF:: Before the hon. member for West Toronto worries any more about this matter perhaps he will allow an old salt water sailor to give a little information to a fresh water one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have just had advice
from the hen. member for Hants (Mr. Mar-tell).


William Duff: Well, you are a fresh water
sailor yourself. If the hon. member will permit me to go on, he can address the committee afterwards. This vessel, which is now called Mikula, was formerly known as the J. D. Hazen, having been named at that time after a celebrated politician from the province of New Brunswick, whence my hon. friend (Mr Hanson) also comes. Mr. Hazen was Minister of Marine in the Tory government from 1911 to 1917 and this vessel was built while he occupied that office. Under Mr. Hazen s regime the J. D. Hazen was built for the same purposes for which, as the Mukula, she is used at the present time; she was so engaged until she was sold to the Russian government. While she was in use under the Tory government she carried the same strength of crew, if not more men that she has now, and her expense was just the same. It amuses me to hear either the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) or the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), or even my genial friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), criticising the present administration in regard to this vessel.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not
started yet.


William Duff: My hon. friend made a fair
attempt but he did not get very far. There is no question that this ship is necessary for service on the St. Lawrence. It is true that during the summer months after the ice has disappeared there is not much for her to do; 
but how could the department hope to retain her officers and crew if it hired them for only three or four months of the year during the ice breaking season? The captain of this ship is one of the best sailors in the country; I know him very well and I can inform the committee that he is one of the most experienced men in his line in Canada. I think therefore that the department is doing the right and proper thing in retaining him on salary for twelve months even although the vessel is laid up at Sorel or somewhere else waiting for a call.
The hon. member for West Toronto evidently does not understand what salvaging means; let me explain the term to him as briefly as I can. As everyone knows, the river St. Lawrence has a tortuous channel and in the summer months when the big steamers arrive from the Old Country they are apt to get into difficulties in going up the river. I think it is a wise precaution for this government as it was for the Tory government when they were in power, to keep the Mikula, or the J. D. Hazen as she was then, or the Earl Grey or some other ship in readiness to go to the relief of vessels when necessary. The fact that no salvage claims have been made is something to be thankful for, and no one complains in that respect. Shipping men and those who have goods to export from Montreal to Liverpool should be thankful indeed, in the first place, that the Mikula is ready to go to their assistance, and in the second place that there is no occasion for her to go. The very fact that no claims have to be made tends to make a difference in the insurance. A few years ago when the Empress of Ireland was sunk in the St. Lawrence by a coal boat coming from Sydney, if a boat like the Mikula had been then in readiness it is possible that a great many of the passengers would have been saved. Does my hon. friend from West Toronto suggest, in the face of that, that this boat should be laid up, her fires drawn, and the crew discharged, so that if an accident of that kind occurred there would be no ship in readiness to render assistance? Although this vessel is costing money, and possibly too much money, the fact remains that the matter is too important for us to take any chances; we cannot allow the ship to be put out of commission for the sake of saving a few dollars in wages of the crew. I say most certainly that she should be kept in 10 p.m. commission all the year round. Indeed, I think it is a mistake that she should have a crew of only twenty. If any accident occurred it would take some time to muster a sufficient force for her to proceed to the rescue. The minister is making a great

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
mistake in my opinion in keeping only twenty men on the ship.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: How long would it take
her to get ready?


William Duff: If it took her as long as it took in the case of the Niobe it would be six weeks. My hon. friend's government did exactly what he proposed a moment ago.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: But they did not buy the Niobe.


William Duff: I know they did not buy the
Niobe, but after they got her Mr. Hazen, allowed her to fall into a state of disrepair, just as my hon. friend would have the department do in this instance. The result in the case of the Niobe was that when war broke out it took six weeks to get her ready and she was obliged to return in a few weeks, her boilers having got into an unsafe condition. If that is what my hon. friend wants to happen to this ship-I do not think he does-then I am glad to make this explanation for his benefit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Now, Mr. Chairman, we
all see the great error made by the Prime Minister when he selected his Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The lecture we have just listened to by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) demonstrates that he should be occupying the) position of the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). But I should like to get down to business. Is the minister serious in saying that this ship is intended as a salvage ship during the season when she is not in commission as an icebreaker, although while so maintained at Sorel less than 24 of the ordinary complement of 84 officers and men are retained? As the hon. member for Lunenburg has rightly pointed out, the only chance of the ship doing salvage work is away down the gulf or near the Newfoundland coast. In a little town like Sorel the ship could not be fully manned inside a week, and it would take her forty-eight hours to get down into the gulf. It would seem that this salvage business on its face is only a camouflage for keeping twenty men on the pay-roll-either they are too many or they are too few. I think the view advanced by the hon. member for Lunenburg is correct, that is, if the ship is intended for salvage work she should be kept in commission at a point where she can do the work without delay instead of being laid up on the mud banks of Sorel.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Chairman, this boat is provided with the finest salvage apparatus obtainable. Not only in the gulf may salvage
work be necessary, but in the St. Lawrence channel from Montreal to Quebec, and even below Quebec. But it is absolutely necessary that we keep this vessel at a point where we can use her with the least possible delay when the occasion demands, and I think Sorel is the best place at the present time. If the boat were laid up at Quebec my hon. friends would have reason to complain of the extra cost because of the larger number of men necessary to handle the vessel on account of the tides.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is there
any difference between the rate of wages paid the officers in the province of Quebec, for example and in the province of British Columbia?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The rates are a little lower in the province of Quebec. The rates in British Columbia are governed to a certain extent by the rates paid on United States vessels.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman's remarks about the tremendous cost of salaries were relevant with respect to an idle salvage ship, but they might create a misapprehension. The salaries paid to these men are not high. For example, in the province of Quebec we have chief engineers pulling down $150 a month. Now, what is the average length of term of a chief engineer's job in Quebec?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The salary of the captain
of the Mikula is $160 a month.


William Duff: That is a disgrace.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: And the chief engineer
gets $150 a month.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I think, as the hon. member for Lunenburg says, such salaries are a disgrace: they are not even a living wage. If we work out the chief engineer's salary on the basis of nine months, which is the general average for the province of Quebec, his annual income is only $1,350. No man can keep a family of five on such an income.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are they not all found?


Edward Joseph Garland: Then we
have the second engineer receiving, on the same basis, $1,125 a year. I protest against the department paying their officers in Quebec these wages, and then pleading as an excuse that private individuals are paying the same rate. As the minister has said, on the Pacific coast the men have a very effective union, and it is a tribute to the union that

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
they have been able to secure salaries for chief engineers at the rate of $185 per month, or $2,220 for the twelve months, which is the average term in British Columbia. I would urgently ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and also the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King), who, too, has a little to do with this aspect of the case, to increase the wages of their chief engineers and other technical men in their employment until they are being paid at least a living wage. The present wages in Quebec are below those necessary to maintain the recognized standard of living and are a disgrace to the government.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Are these men employed
all the year round or only nine months?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Chief officers are employed all the year round'.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Then the argument of the hon. member for Bow River goes by the board.


Edward Joseph Garland: Not in the least. The average time for marine engineers in the province of Quebec is nine months.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: But these men are on the year round.


Edward Joseph Garland: The men on this particular ship are. But we can clear this up in a moment. How many chief engineers are employed the year around and how many on part time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Out of twenty-eight, eleven are in commission the year round.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are the chief engineers
paid the year round? I think that is the point.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.
Mr. HANSON; What is the average of those who are not in commission the year round?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Eight months.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not true that these gentlemen, in addition to their salaries, receive a very substantial allowance? For instance, their uniforms are provided for them.


Edward Joseph Garland: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is an important item; the hon. member need not sneer at it. The men are found in everything, as a matter of fact.


Mr. BUREAU:: This is a free house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But an hon. member has
no right to sneer; it is not polite.


Jacques Bureau: Put it on the ground of
civility, not right.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is not
necessary for me to answer my hon. friend to my right. Will the minister take my suggestion into consideration? These men really deserve more money than they are getting.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have already received a
petition from members of the Engineers' Association and other employees on these boats, asking that their salaries be fixed at the same rate as in British Columbia, I can assure my hon. friend that I will take the matter into serious consideration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I notice another item in
the estimates, a subsidy for wrecking plant, Quebec and British Columbia. Are there other salvage plants on the St. Lawrence besides the Mikula, and if so, where are they located? Does the government own any of the salvage ships in Quebec or in that vicinity?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is a wrecking plant at Quebec.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Subsidized or owned by
the government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Subsidized.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there a salvage ship
attached to that plant too?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So the Mikula is not the sole salvage ship on the river? There is a sort of auxiliary? ,


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: A superfluity.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister give us a few particulars about the Murray Stewart? What information had the department before buying that boat? Did they ascertain how many years she had been tied up at Quebec and St. John? What did they find1 out?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This vessel was built at Port Arthur, and she was two or three years old when we bought her.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was this the
boat that was down at St. John on the Atlantic coast? I would like a plain yes or no.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Henry Lumley Drayton: What had she
been doing down there? What work was she in?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have no information
as to that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the department in a position to deny that she was tied up down there, and attempted to be sold in vain for some years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Having no information,
we cannot say.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON Then apparently the department bought her without knowing anything about her?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Except that-
Sir HENRY DRAYTON. If the minister knows anything about her I am prepared to get the information.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: An examination was made
before we bought her.


Henry Lumley Drayton: An examination of what? Here is a boat that our information says was useless, could not be got rid of for $25,000, and a politician gets her and sells her to the government for $81,000. That is our information, and I want to know if it is correct? Did the department ascertain what she had been doing, how long she had been in the market, and how long she had been tied up?


Richard Burpee Hanson: And how long Stewart
owned her before he sold her to the government?


Jacques Bureau: That is a fair question.
She might have been towing Noah's Ark.


Henry Lumley Drayton: She looked older than that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The boat was built in
1918. Mr. Stewart was the proprietor up to the time we bought her.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What I am
trying to find out is whether the department knew what had happened to that boat from 1918 up until they bought her. Apparently she is the bid boat we knew at St. John. That is where she came from. Did the government make any inquiries at all as to what she had been down there for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think it was
necessary to ascertain that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Did the minister find out when Mr. Stewart bought that boat?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He built it himself in 1918.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was he still
the owner when the government bought her?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I want that
plain and straight, Mr. Chairman. Was Mr. Stewart the owner from the time the boat was built until she was sold to the government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, he was always the
registered owner.


Henry Lumley Drayton: At any rate,
that is all the government knew about it, is it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The boat was
not working down at St. John, was she? Is Mr. Stewart not the gentleman of Toronto, of the Home Bank?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, what did he have that boat for down at St. John?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have no information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I see. Who
valued that boat before the government paid $81,000 for her?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The officers of the department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who were they?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Chief Engineer, Mr. Fraser; the Commissioner of Lights and the Steamboat Inspector also made a report upon her.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are Mr
Fraser's initials?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 


Henry Lumley Drayton: And who was
the other gentleman?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: J. G. Macphail, Commissioner of Lights.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was his
duty in connection with it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He is the Commissioner of Lights.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now I would
like to find out where the government took possession of that boat.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At St. John.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How long die
it take that boat to go from St. John tc Midland.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is hard to answer such
a question at this late date.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON; I suppose the records will show when she began to do business?


Lewis Herbert Martell: The minister did not
keep the log.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But he has a very efficient deputy minister in front of him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jacques Bureau: We all agree.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The deputy minister is not in a position to answer that question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the minister know what coal alone was lost in that movement, when there were other boats up there that could have been bought easily enough?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is very hard to say at
this time, after two years, what it cost to take the boat up there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the minister tell us how many days that boat has been in service since she was bought? My instructions are that she was not fit for service at all, and repairs are said to have been made on her in the first instance. What work did she do the whole of the first year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The usual work in connection with the lights.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does that consist of?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Carrying supplies to the
fights.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the deputy in a position to tell his minister how many days that boat was under repair in 1923-1924 at Midland?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The repairs were made
during the winter months.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How long a
time did they take?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are not in a position
to state at the present time.


Sir HENRI:: DRAYTON: To oome back to the Mikula again. She was sold to the Russian government at about her cost to the Canadian government. Is that right?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That did not
seem to be so very badly done after all. Was she in good condition when she came back?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, she was in good condition.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What icebreaking diid she do during the season of 1923-24? When was she out? We were told she was not out at all.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: She was in commission
all the winter months.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Did she do
anything though?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon.
friend sure about that?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Are the salaries and
wages of the officers and crews included in this vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Coaling and all the
other items of expense?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Where do these boats
operate in winter? They operate from January to April, but where do they operate?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Montcalm and the
Lady Grey operate from Quebec to lake St. Peter on the St. Lawrence.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: All the winter?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where are the supplies,
say of the Mikula, purchased? How is her coal purchased? Is that bought by tender?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are the tenders publicly
advertised for-


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -or is there a patronage list in the department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We ask for tenders from
the different coal dealers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Locally, that is in Sorel?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not in Sorel. There is
none in Sorel, do not be afraid.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if
we have got the whole distinction now between maintenance and repairs. How much is for maintenance and how much for repairs?

* Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Here are the different
items:	Total salaries, 1446,300. That is for
all the twenty-eight boats.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Supplies?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Board, $147,800; fuel,
$351,800; steward's supplies, $126,600; hull and engine repairs, $307,800; uniforms, $29,700; making a total of $1,500,000 for the twenty-eight boats.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is nothing at all in that for repairs?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, the total for hull and engine repairs is $307,800.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then, I think,
the minister said the boat was in commission from January to April. At what point was she working?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Principally at Cap Rouge,
between Quebec and lake St. Peter, on the St. Lawrence.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was that for
the purpose of keeping a ferry running at Quebec, or what was the object?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, she was employed to
keep the ice from forming in the channel of the St. Lawrence between Quebec and lake St. Peter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Just how far
inland do we keep navigation going all the year? The general season of navigation ceases some time in December if I remember We have no sailings from Montreal or Quebec in winter. That being the case why do we do all this amount of work at that time?


Jacques Bureau: I can answer the question
if I may be allowed. The answer is, that it is to protect properties that are above St. Jean des Chaillons, what they call the Richelieu river. The frazil ice forms there, and creates a dam, and if that is allowed to continue all the property between that place and the shore of lake St. Peter is destroyed. Some years before the icebreaker was put on even the main highway was carried away, to say nothing of houses and other property. When the frazil ice forms the water rises, and when the wind is from the north or the south, the bank, and the property on it, is washed away. The icebreaking is done so as not to permit the frazil ice to form.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Examination of masters and mates, $20,000.
Thomas Langton Church: It is a very important
matter to have competent officers on the ships that are operating on the Great Lakes and on 207
the St. Lawrence. I should like to find out from the minister whether examinations are still being held as they have been in the past.
I also should like to know to what class of ships the examinations apply. Are examinations held whenever candidates present themselves, or do they take place every year, and if so, at what particular time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The examinations are held at Halifax, Quebec, Yarmouth, North Sydney, St. John, N.B., Montreal and Prince Edward Island. For the Great Lakes division they are held at Toronto, Collingwood, Port Arthur, and Selkirk in Manitoba; and for the western division at Victoria and Nelson.


Thomas Langton Church: Who is the present
admiral of the fleet. Is it the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) or is it the hon. member for Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Mr. Bureau)?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	*
Navigation schools, $7,000.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Where are these schools located?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At Halifax, Yarmouth,
North Sydney, St. John, Quebec, Kingston, Collingwood and Vancouver.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That seems a
very small amount of money t.o carry on the schools efficiently. What is the idea? What is done?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This appropriation is to
provide for the instruction of seafaring men. and those desiring to qualify as masters and mates, under section 84 of the Canada Shipping Act. The schools at Halifax,Yarmouth and St. John are operated the whole year round. At North Sydney the school is operated for three months in the year, Quebec four months, Kingston three months. Twenty-four lectures are delivered during the winter at Collingwood by the examiner of masters and mates, and twenty-six lectures are delivered during the winter at Vancouver by the examiner of masters and mates.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What are the sources of revenue of these schools? Are these schools maintained out of this appropriation of $7,000 a year? It has been suggested that the lecturers give their services free. Is that a fact?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The examiner at Halifax
receives a salary of $1,860, the examiner at Yarmouth receives $800 and the examiner at North Sydney receives $360 for four months' work. At St. John a salary of $1,500 is paid for the whole year.



Supply-Marine and Fisheries


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Who conducts the school
there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: R. J. Pollock at St. John. The salary at Quebec is $360, and at Kingston there is a grant to a navigation school conducted by Queen's University of $500. At Collingwood Captain Cole, who gives lectures, is paid as an examiner, and the same at Vancouver.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am sure the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) will join with me in congratulating the minister on the good work he is carrying on with such a small amount of money. I am surprised he is able to give instruction at so many points for $7,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many weeks in the
year are these schools carried on? I would not like to have the member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) think that these schools are conducted all the year round.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have just stated that
at Halifax and Yarmouth the schools are conducted all the year round. At North Sydney the school is conducted for four months in the year. At St. John the school is conducted the year round, and at Quebec for four months of the year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Many pupils?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At Halifax there are
seventy-seven pupils, at Yarmouth thirty-seven, at St. John fifty-one, North Sydney six, Quebec forty and Kingston thirty.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How long is the course of instruction? How long does it take a man to qualify?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It depends on the pupil.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister has some idea of the average, I presume.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A good number of these
pupils are in a position to pass the examination after one year.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think the idea is that the men have to take voyages and spend a certain length of time at sea. They also get instruction. In the last ten years has there been any substantial alteration in the number of schools, or in the cost of them, or in the method of their provision?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are spending a larger
amount now than we have spent in the past. A few years ago the Halifax school was only conducted for a certain number of months, and the same at Yarmouth and St. John, but for a few yearn these schools have been conducted the whole year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the temporary relief of distressed seamen, $5,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: How is this
work standing now? There were some difficulties from time to time in connection with it, particularly during the war period. Sailors were stranded. I take it, that this is an international service which we perform in connection with other countries, looking after the sailors of other nationalities. The money is advanced and we are supposed to get the money back. Is this a vote for that purpose?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is to provide only for our own people.


Henry Lumley Drayton: AVhy is it
marked "temporary"?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We make a collection from the owner of the vessel when we can do so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The money is
advanced and you hold the owner of the vessel for it. It is very much the same thing. How did it work out last year? Were we able to make our collections? How much money was advanced, and how much did . the vessel owners pay back to us? What vessels are in arrears?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have spent $4,666.73 for the season of 1923-24. I have all the names here. The list is very long; but unfortunately I have not the amounts.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I never asked for the names of the sailors. Under this vote the money is supposed to be paid back to the Crown by the owners of the vessels, and we spent under it last year $4,600. I was just wondering what diligence there was in collecting it. How much have we collected from the owners of the vessels out of that $4,600 odd. That is the practical thing.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is this relief only for
sailors who are articled to some ship owner? Does this apply to distressed seamen who are not under contract with any ship owners, who are temporarily out of work or in ill health?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; this applies to shipwrecked seamen only.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is it not a fact that if
a crew is taken off a vessel at sea and taken to a foreign port, money is provided for bringing them back to Canada and the department usually endeavours to collect that from the owners of the vessel if they are

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
worth it? The master of the vessel is called upon to pay his own way back. I cannot understand why that should be so, but that is the old rule.


Jacques Bureau: Let the minister bring
down the information in regard to the collections later.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have made no collections. It should be remembered that in a good number of cases, when a vessel is wrecked, it is very hard to run after the proprietor of the vessel and make any collection.
"Sir HENRY DRAYTON: Does this information go far enough to show how many ship owners are in the happy position of not getting their bills, how many wrecks there were or whether there was a great number? The Minister of Customs and Excise suggests that the information might be brought down later. If the minister is not ready, he could give us the list a little later on. Perhaps he will tell us at the same time if any attempt was made to collect the amount of $4,600.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Possibly the minister
could at the same time bring down a statement of what has been collected each year for the last ten years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Registration of dipping, $3,000.
Arthur Meighen: What is this for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is to defray such
costs as may be involved in the registration of Canadian shipping. Part one of the Canada Shipping Act provides that Canadian ships must be registered before engaging in trade and all the necessary facilities are provided by the Department of Marine. The expenditure is principally for printed forms and measuring appliances. As the customs officers at the ports act as registrars of shipping, no salary expenditures are involved. No change is made in the service.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does this apply to shipping on the Great Lakes as well as ocean shipping?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do American boats
which ply to Canadian ports have to be registered under Canadian registry?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Was there not some
regulation last year that they had to register and file a tariff of rates with the Great Lakes' Commission?
207i


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These vessels have not
been transferred to Canadian registry.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: They simply had tc
file their tariff of rates last year for the firs* time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Was that carried out the whole season?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is not under the
Department of Marine and Fisheries, but under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Alfred Speakman: Is a registration fee
charged in those cases?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Arthur Meighen: How much was spent
last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: $2,042.54.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Removal of obstructions in navigable waters, $5,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: How much was spent on
this service last year, and how much was spent in the river St. John?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total amount spent
was $4,972. This vote is for the removal of wrecks, not of natural obstacles.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Under what vote is paid
the cost of removing snags in navigable rivers?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is under the Public
Works department.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is this not for the purposes of carrying out what is known as the Navigable Waters Protection Act? When a vessel is wrecked and she becomes an obstacle to navigation, the department notifies the owner to remove the obstacle, and if he does not do so, the department removes it and, if necessary, brings action against the owner to collect the costs.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Was anything collected from the owners?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have made no collections.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Has the department
got anything back for this work say in the last ten years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: But nothing last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Nothing last year.


Arthur Meighen: How is it that the snags are in one department and the wrecks in another?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


George Perry Graham: They are not in the departments; they are in the streams.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot offer at present
any explanation. I found this situation when I took office.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Are icebreakers used
for this work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, government dredges.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Are the icebreakers not better equipped for this work than the di edges?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We cannot do this work
with the icebreakers. To remove obstacles from the bed) of the river we must use dredges and apparatus of that kind.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: When the minister said that he had excellent equipment I thought that possibly he meant that the department also had the necessary apparatus for removing wrecks. A question has come up regarding salaries. Is it not a fact that the officers and the crews of the vessels are given board and maintenance in addition to their wages?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is to say they
have their board and their clothing and lodging?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The minister might profitably consider the wisdom of trying to get rid of duplication in these services. Something was done some time ago, but surely it would be wise to place in the hands of one department the whole work of taking care of navigation. Just imagine a dredge of the Marine department cleaning up the bed of the river after a wreck, and if there is a snag a hundred yards or so away it can do nothing but another dredge must be sent from the Public Works department to attend to that job. How absurd it really is. There would seem to be no reason why either the Marine department or the other-I do not care very much which, although I fancy the Marine department would more properly take care of this work-should not have all to do with making the river fit for navigation, no matter what the cause for the particular service may be. Dredging of every description should be done under one department, whether it be dredging in rivers or in lakes. Save for construction work, such for example as the building of a dock, which might fairly come within " public works," everything connected with navigation should come under one department. What utter waste it is to have two

departments operating two organizations in the same river, the one aiming at the snags and the other at wrecks.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I d*o not hesitate to say
that the hon. gentleman's suggestion interests me. Undoubtedly it calls for consideration and I may say that the matter is now being studded. We hope to be able to reach a solution of it some day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the work of keeping open the ship channel in the St. Lawrence come under the Marine department or under the Department of Public Works?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Under the Marine department?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am referring to the
dredges in the St. Lawrence below Montreal. Are those the dredges of the Marine department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it a fact that dredging
is also done in the St. Lawrence, below Montreal, by the Public Works department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but not in the channel.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, not in the channel.
But it is true that there are duplicate plants operating in the same sphere at the same time, under a double overhead and practically at double expense to the country, for capital cost and also for maintenance and operation. Is not that a fact?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; there is no doubt
that this is largely the case. But the work performed by the Marine department has to do only with the navigation channel; the work of the Department' of Public Works has nothing to do with that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Take dredging; would1 not that be within the province of the Department of Marine? You might dredge around a pier or a dock, but it is for the purposes of navigation. Under which department does that work come? In the city of St. John they dredge every few years the berths which fil up with silt as a result of the action of the tides. I am informed that they are dredged every year, a depth, say, of some thirty-five feet being required. Is that done by the Marine department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, by the Public Works
department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is not that a matter of
navigation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but it is local.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Richard Burpee Hanson: I d'o not understand the
principle on which this work should be done by the Public Works department while similar work is done by the Marine department in the St. Lawrence.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The separation of these
various services as between the two departments was made several years ago.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose if the dredging were needed in a canal it would have to be done by the Railway department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Here is a great opportunity for reform on the part of the government which is hungering for exercise.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I see good reason for
the government taking this matter into serious consideration; these services should be consolidated. There is something besides the actual dredging involved; the engineers must go to the point and inspect the works and report to the department. If there is a ship berth to be dredged at Quebec, at Montreal or at St. John the engineers of the Public Works department must first pass upon the matter; so that not only the actual dredging, but the plants which the department must maintain, and the elaborate staff of engineers to lay out the work, have all to be taken into consideration. There is therefore excellent reason why th,e government should seriously consider this proposal. And not only should they keep it under consideration; the amalgamation should actually be made.


Thomas Langton Church: The minister might explain somewhat more fully this division of work as between the Marine department and the Public Works department. Some places have to shoulder the cost of this work themselves while other places have the government to fall back upon. This vote seems to apply to the ocean and river service. My hon. friend (Mr. Hanson) referred to the dredging of the St. John river; but the Great Lakes also need periodical dredging and the municipalities have to bear the cost of this -work. In the Niagara there is a very serious obstruction to navigation, and as some 2,000,000 passengers are going in and out at this point every year it is most important that the place should be dredged. Why should not the vote apply to the Great Lakes as well as to the rivers and ocean navigation? Is the Public Works department responsible for the dredging there, or is the 11 p.m. Department of Marine? I do not understand why there should be
this distinction between the two departments in this respect. Some of these votes apply only to the seaboard although the whole country has to contribute to the expenditure. Owing to the obstruction in the Niagara which I have just mentioned the steamers are obliged to make a detour, and although this obstruction has been standing for years the Public Works department will do nothing to remove it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Inspection of live stock shipments, $4,000.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How much was spent
last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There was spent $3,416.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: At what points is the
inspection carried on?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At Montreal, St. John and Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: Why is the vote getting larger?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: More cattle are being
shipped and we have had to provide $500 for inspection at the port of Quebec.


Charles A. Stewart: In view of the
fact that the Department of Agriculture has to undertake the inspection of cattle in order to comply with the British regulations, how does inspection come under this department?
Mr.. CARDIN:	We inspect only the fittings on the ship and make sure that it is in proper condition to carry cattle.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that done to comply with the British Board of Trade regulations?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There seems to me to be
a certain amount of duplication. Could not all this work be done by the same set of inspectors, as suggested by the member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart)?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This work can be more
properly done by the inspectors of the Department of Marine and Fisheries who are in a better position to understand the condition of the ship.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it not a fact that the cattle inspection is conducted by a qualified veterinary surgeon, while the inspection of the ship must be by a man qualified along different lines altogether?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is quite true.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Charles A. Stewart: Is the inspection once a year or on the occasion of every shipment?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The boat is inspected for
every shipment.


George Perry Graham: The inspection is required by the regulations of the British Board of Trade.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is it not a fact that the
Minister of Agriculture has cut off all inspection in his department except that of churches!


Mr. GOULD:: What work is actually performed by the inspector; is it merely the signing of clearance papers?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The fittings of the vessel
are also inspected.


Oliver Robert Gould: I have seen ships in Montreal that were not built for cattle traffic fitted up with temporary accommodation on the upper deck, and I have known of cases where cattle have been lost as a result of these flimsy structures being washed overboard. Did our inspectors pass those ships?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Oliver Robert Gould: They have to pass upon
the soundness of the upper deck work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh yes.


Oliver Robert Gould: They are not held responsible if they pass any flimsy structure?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The case to which my hon. friend apparently refers was an accident due to a bad storm, and the inspector was not held responsible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To continue subsidies for wrecking plants-Quebec and British Columbia, $35,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Are these private wrecking plants?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where are they located;
to whom do they belong; and how many wrecks have they looked after in the last fiscal year? '


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: One of these plants is at
Quebec and is owned by the Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Company Limited; the other is at Esquimalt and is owned by the Pacific Salvage Company Limited of Victoria.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the basis, a flat
vote each year, or so much for the actual work done?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The subsidy payable by
the government to the Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Company Limited is $25,000 per annum. The contract is for five years from May, 1922.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Under that contract are the company compelled to do any work that the department orders them to do?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is there any limit to the amount of work they can be called up to do? And is there any rebate if they do not do any work at all?


Thomas George McBride: I know something about
the wrecking plant at Victoria. The company have to keep that plant ready for work at any time, with steam up, so that no time will be wasted in reaching a wreck if called on. I know it is a very important work. I have had to call upon the company myself for salvage services.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What are the terms of the contract with the Quebec company?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Under the contract the
Quebec Salvage & Wrecking Company have to maintain at Quebec the steamer Lord Strathcona and such other plant as may be required to the satisfaction of the department from May 1 to December 1 each year. The payment of the subsidy is subject to the condition that if in any year during the continuance of the contract the total amount received by the contractors from their salvage and wrecking operations, including the subsidy paid, is in excess of the cost of maintaining the plant, including interest and insurance, the contractor shall pay to the government 50 per cent of such excess, it being understood that interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum is to be allowed on a capital amount of $150,000, and an insurance policy not exceeding $200,000. The British Columbia contract is held by the Pacific Salvage Company Limited of Victoria. The subsidy is $10,000 a year payable quarterly in October, January, April and July of each year. The contract is for ten years from July 1, 1915. The company are obliged to maintain the steamer Algerine, or other suitable vessel, together with a steam tender and one or more scows, all in a thorough state of repair and seaworthiness, supplied with suitable and modern equipment and all up-to-date improvements, with a skilled personnel in constant commission at Esquimalt, to be prepared at all times for salvage of wrecks and to render all necessary service in case of maritime casualties when called upon.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Richard Burpee Hanson: How are the subsidies
arrived at, on an arbitrary basis, or from past experience, or is it the total amount the companies can squeeze out of the government under given circumstances?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They are arbitrary amounts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the value of the
plant the company has to keep up? We ought to know whether there is any principle involved or not in the size of the boats? Did I understand the minister to say that the contract with the Quebec company had been recently entered into?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: May 1, 1922.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did this government have a contract with the same company previous to that, and if so, how much was paid?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; the same amount.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: For how many years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. HANSON:


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: British Columbia.
Five years.
In each case?
Ten years in regard to


Richard Burpee Hanson: About what is the value
of the plant at Quebec? Are they making any money out of this? Further, what actual service have they rendered in the past twelve months?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The plant at Quebec is insured for $200,000.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is the premium
on that amount of insurance?
cost of the plant, which is perfectly fair. Has the government ever received any profit over and above the cost of operation, and if so what amount?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not last year, but in two
years we received a certain amount.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What amount?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is only twice in the
history of the subsidy. It is not a very valuable source of income.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: But the service that is
given by this wrecking plant is very important.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My information is that
this Quebec plant is a good and complete plant, of great value. It is a salvage plant as well. Now is the minister serious in the statement he made to me earlier in the evening that he keeps steam up in the Mikula because she is a salvage ship, when, he has this plant to depend on? I do not think he is serious, but I would like a frank statement from him.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is true that we have the service of the Quebec salvage plant, but I think it is important that we should also have this vessel ready to help.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But she never does.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is the Quebec salvage
plant kept fairly busy?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They had very little to do last year, but some years they have quite a lot of work.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They carry the insurance themselves. The amount paid for this insurance is $5,569.49.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The premium is allowed in the cost of operation, is it not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And five per cent on
the cost of the plant?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unforeseen expenses, $5,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is to provide for
miscellaneous items of expenditure that cannot be anticipated and provided for, such items, last year, for instance, as criminal investigations, legal expenses, arbitration proceedings, advice and assistance of experts, damages. The appropriation is the same as last year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the government
pay that premium out of this vote, or does the company pay it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The company.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Under the contract the minister read, I understand that any profits in excess of cost of operation have to be divided fifty-fifty with the government, and in the cost of operation is included the insurance premium and five per cent on the


Charles A. Stewart: How much was
spent last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: $4,949.


Arthur Meighen: It would look as if the
object of the department was to find as many unforeseen things as would reach up to the vote. How did they happen to run up to within a few dollars of the vote last year? What is the character of these things that are attended to?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: On May 4th, J. S. Rogers received salary for one month's services in connection with installation of refrigerator on the Steamer Canadian Highlander, $85.


Arthur Meighen: Why is not that paid by the mercantile marine? They are making lots of money.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Then to the Receiver
General for Canada for printing forms for harbour commissioners there was paid $24.


Arthur Meighen: Why is not that paid by the harbour commissioners?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is for our own stationery.
Mr. MEIGHEN; In the department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. We have to carry
the same forms as the harbour commissioners for purposes of record.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This would not be unforeseen expenditure, would it?


Arthur Meighen: I think not.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We do not know how long the stationery we have will last; it depends upon how much work we have to do. Another item is Canadian National Railways, expenses of a judge of the Exchequer Court to visit Dominion Iron and Steel Company plant in connection with sitting in regard to cancellation of contract for steel plates, $198.10.


Arthur Meighen: Expenses of the judge
of the Exchequer Court? These expenses are paid under the Judges' Act.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Department of Justice called upon us to pay that.


William Alves Boys: Would the minister tell us on what ground?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Upon the request of the
Department of Justice.


William Alves Boys: I do not suppose the minister pays every bill that is sent to him, without good reason. Will the minister explain to the committee why the usual method of disbursing items of this kind was not adopted, and why this special method was resorted to?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was a suit in which the Department of Marine and Fisheries was involved.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for
Lunenburg will have a very vivid recollection of this. This is the case about which he raised quite a storm two years ago because
IMr. Meighen.l
the initiation of a settlement with the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, and where he secured the promise of the Minister of Finance in very emphatic terms that a final settlement would never be made, but that the courts would effect a final settlement, and where within one week after he got that assurance the government made a final settlement, and the courts did not make it at all.


William Duff: This is the sequel. Sir Henry Thornton should have paid this, not the Marine and Fisheries department. It should be charged to the merchant marine.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know who should pay it, but I imagine. Sir Henry Thornton would be the last.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: He has no money left
after buying the Hotel Scribe.


Arthur Meighen: This is the sequel all
right. 1 have often thought that the hon. member for Lunenburg would laugh in even his most sombre hours when he thinks of what occurred that afternoon.


William Duff: My remarks may have
hastened the settlement.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. Very often the
assurance of the government that there will be no settlement is the best sign there will be one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Life saving service, including rewards for saving life, $100,000.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What equipment does
the department maintain for life saving?


Thomas Langton Church: This is a very important vote for life saving service on both coasts and on the Great Lakes, but the provision is inadequate. I should like to find out on what principle the money is expended. Part of the vote relates to the maintenance of certain stations on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and on the Great Lakes, but the expenditure in the last case seems to be very small. I may say that formerly a life saving station was maintained in the port of Toronto, but four years ago the municipality was notified, through the Harbour Board1, that it would have to establish and maintain its own station. Consequently the Harbour Commissioners had to spend $60,000 to take care of the three million odd people that go in and out of the harbour of Toronto. And yet for the whole of the service comprised in this vote only $100,000 is asked. Part of this vote is to provide rewards for life saving at sea. That is all very well, but why not try and provide

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
also to a greater degree for the services which are rendered by the Harbour Commissioners of Toronto? Not only do they look after their own port but last summer they had to undertake work all over the Georgian bay and the Muskoka lakes; also at Hamilton, Oakville, Port Dalhousie, and points along the north shore of lake Ontario. Virtually they are maintaining a life saving station for lake Ontario, a thing which they have no power to do under their charter. Actually their work should be confined to looking after the millions of passengers who go from Toronto to Niagara, Hamilton, and other points. Take the north shore of lake Ontario and you will not find a single life saving station with the exception of the one at Toronto.
It is true the government gives a few hundred dollars to maintain a life boat at two or three small places, but what would happen in the case of an accident if the life boat was not up-to-date especially when it is remembered that it might take several hours to reach the scene. I call the minister's attention to the need of proper facilities in the Muskoka and Georgian bay districts which are visited annually by thousands of tourists. Last summer a serious accident occurred in the Georgian bay district. Three young men from my constituency were on their way up the Moon river when they unfortunately lost their lives. No life saving station nearer than Toronto was available for rendering assistance. Two or three life guards and some other help were sent up from Toronto, and the waters in the district were dragged for over a month without finding the bodies. I claim that the first duty of the department is to try and save the lives of the citizens of this country.
Complaints on this score are not confined to Toronto; they come from other places.The year before last there was an accident at Port Dalhousie. A poor girl was out on a raft, or some other contrivance, but there was no life saving station there to render her help, the nearest being at Toronto. The same situation exists at Grimsby beach and Burlington beach. I am sorry the member for West Hamilton (Mr. Stewart) is not here to-night. I am sure that if he were he would support the plea I am making. There has been an insistent demand from the people of that city for a life saving station, also from the people of Oakville, and many places on the north shore of lake Ontario, east of Toronto. I suppose there are altogether two or three million people that go out from Toronto to Niagara, and other places, during the summer months. What would happen to a boat like the Cayuga, that carries several
hundred people, if she met with a mishap? And she did run on a sand shoal last summer. What would happen to the passengers of other boats running to Port Dalhousie, and other places, in the event of a mishap? Last summer a deck hand fell off a steamer running between Toronto and Rochester, and the body was not recovered for several months. The life saving appliance on the ship could not be lowered, and they did not even throw the poor deck hand a life belt. It is a very serious situation and I contend something ought to be done to provide an adequate remedy. The department abandoned the former system and told the people of Toronto some four years ago. "We will give you a few hundred dollars yearly but you will have to maintain your own station."
That the station is doing good1 work is shown by the fact that the last year it saved forty-four people from drowning. Had i". not been for the Toronto station that number of people would have lost their lives. I urge .the government to grant a larger vote for this purpose. The country is growing and the Canadians are an aquatic race. The possibility of accidents is increasing all the time. The loss of life at the summer resorts of Canada has been very large in comparison with our population. A great many of these deaths could have been prevented if we had had proper life saving stations and appliances in the districts to which I have referred. I would ask the minister now to grant a larger vote for this purpose. I would ask him also to consider the case of the relatives of the three young men who were drowned on the Moon river. The parents of these poor victims had to spend, I think, $2,000 in efforts to try and recover the bodies. Are we going to wait until a catastrophe occurs before voting increased sums for life saving purposes. The city of Toronto-which is overburdened with taxation, which is paying a very large sum annually to the government of Canada-[DOT] should receive some relief. The life saving work which was formerly carried on by the government there should be again taken over by them and the $60,000 which the city spends on life saving service, or a part of it, should be refunded to Toronto. Because, as I say, the life saving station at Toronto not only renders service on lake Ontario but also on the Muskoka lakes and the Georgian bay. The city of Toronto has been put to great expense in that regard, and has not been reimbursed for the large expenditure which it has incurred.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where are the principal
stations on the Atlantic coast located?
Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In New Brunswick there
is a station at Escuminac.
. Mr. HANSON: That must be a very small station?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, it is a small one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is the principal
station in the Bay of Fundy?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At Little Wood island.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the cost of it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The cost is $7,500.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many men are there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Nine men.


Thomas Langton Church: I would like to get an answer to my question. What life saving stations has the department established on lake Ontario, and how much money has been spent on them? How much money has been spent on Toronto? Does the government propose to recoup the Harbour Commissioners of Toronto for doing life saving work in and out the city of Toronto?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The life saving stations
are at Cobourg, Goderich, Long Point, Pelee island, Port Stanley and Southampton.


Thomas Langton Church: How many lives have
these stations saved during the last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not the figures.


Thomas Langton Church: When danger arises at these different places on lake Ontario, they have had to wire the life saving station at Toronto to come and help to save lives. Lake Ontario is a very large area of water with a great deal of navigation. The number of steamboats on lake Ontario is probably larger than the number of boats on any of . the upper lakes. They do more actual passenger business, and the life-saving stations on lake Ontario are very inadequate. Is the department going to wait until they have a disaster in the Niagara district, Port Dalhousie or some other place on the lake before taking action? When will the department establish up-to-date life-saving stations on lake Ontario? At Charlotte and other places on the American side of lake Ontario they have proper life-saving stations. At Buffalo, at Toledo and at Detroit they have large up-to-date life-saving stations, these are under the control of the War department, and they are maintained by companies of men. At Buffalo they have a regular company of naval men who look after that particular port and there is a large volume of steamboat business there. Along the Great Lakes on the American side' [Mr. Hanson.J
they have proper life-saving stations. But what have we on the Canadian side of the border? We have one or two rowboats, or what they call lifeboats. We have small stations with very few boats. I maintain that we should have proper stations established on the Canadian side of lake Ontario if we are to make proper provision for the saving of lives. We have a station at Toronto which saved forty-four lives in four years, as a result of having up-to-date equipment.


William Alves Boys: How does the minister explain the reduction of $40,000? This is an important item. Of course if some part of the service can be done away with, well and good; but I think the service should be maintained in a most efficient manner, and I can hardly see how that can be done with this reduction. I should not think there would be less of that sort of work to perform now. How is the $40,000 saved? Is it by cutting out some of the stations or by reducing the salaries? How is it brought about? A good deal of progress has been mad-e to-night with these, estimates, and it is thirty-five minutes after the hour at which we have been usually adjourning.


Arthur Meighen: After the usually promised adjournment hour,


William Alves Boys: I have missed a week it is
true. I was away last week.


George Perry Graham: And we missed you.


William Alves Boys: I presume the order of affairs which was more or less agreed upon was observed during last week; and that being so, and this being an important item, the minister might let it stand. I do not believe that ultimate progress will be delayed by acceding to the suggestion.


Oliver Robert Gould: Are life-saving stations maintained during the holiday season in our national parks, where there are several lakes?


William Alves Boys: If the minister will not adopt my reasonable suggestion, I would ask him to at least answer the questions I put to him, and I think they will be followed by many other questions.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We think we will be able
to cope with the situation next year with this amount, because last year we spent only $80,000. This will mean an economy of $20,000. We expect that we will be in a position to effect some economies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would appear that there has been a very drastic cut in the expenditure in relation to this item. I understood

United, Church oj Canada
the minister to say a few moments ago that the service in the Bay of Fundy at Wood island1 was costing $7,000 a year. I would like to point out that that is a most important station, probably the most important on the Atlantic coast, and I would like to know the reason why the service has been reduced. I do not think that is a matter about which we should have a cheese-paring policy.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We do not propose to
reduce it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It has been reduced within two years-I will tell the minister that for his information, and the number of men has been reduced. It may not have been reduced within twelve months, but it has been reduced within two years.


Thomas Langton Church: It is cut out altogether up
west.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The service has been about cut in two at Wood island. If hon. members will turn up the Auditor General's report they will see it cost nearly $14,000. I would like to know what the minister is doing as a matter of policy in connection with this matter; because I am sorry to admit that the Bay of Fundy is a very dangerous piece of water to navigate. In the parish of Grand Manan and on the southern portion of Nova Scotia, there have been a good many wrecks, and it is necessary to maintain at Grand Manan an up-to-date life saving station with all modem appliances. There have been a great many lives lost there in my own memory. Happily we do not have many wrecks, but when we do have a wreck it is a bad one and many lives are lost. As a resident of the country for many years and knowing perfectly the conditions that prevail there, I believe that station should be maintained in a thoroughly efficient manner. I should like to know the view of the department with regard to their policy at that particular station. The minister has made pretty good progress tonight, and if he will take a hint from his friends over here, he will let the committee rise and report progress.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will be quite ready to
accede to the suggestion of my hon. friend if he will let this item pass.


Arthur Meighen: There seems to be a
feeling that an equitable policy is not being pursued with respect to life-saving stations; that certain sections are being allowed to save their own lives and other sections are being helped by the government. I do not think the passing of this act will ever save the government's life. The minister has put through ten items tonight, involving something like two million dollars, and this has been done since half past ten. We cannot be sitting here till midnight continuously.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I agree.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



Robert Forke: As Bill No. 47, incorporating the United Church of Canada, stands in my name, and, I hope, will be reached to-morrow evening at eight pm., I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if he, with the consent of the House, would agree to set 'apart Wednesday, June 18, for consideration of this bill, if not disposed of on Tuesday evening. Its importance not only to the millions of people directly interested, but to the country as a whole, I submit, places the bill in the same position as a public bill. With the consent of the Prime Minister, I would move, seconded by Mr. Putnam:
That Bill No. 47, incorporating the United Church of Canada, be the first order for Wednesday, June 18, and given precedence until disposed of unless disposed of on Tuesday evening.


William Duff: Before that motion is put, it seems to me that it is rather unusual. Members who are interested in this bill should have been consulted with regard to the matter. I have made an important engagement in Montreal for Wednesday, and I should like to be present when this bill is reached. I, therefore, object to this motion.


Arthur Meighen: It has to be unanimous.


Robert Forke: There Wias no intention of
causing any inconvenience to anyone. During the last few days there has been general talk around the House that this bill was coming up on Wednesday, and this was only for the purpose of facilitating business. If any inconvenience is going to be caused to anyone who wishes to take part in the debate, I understand the consent must be unanimous. No discourtesy was meant in making the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government rather
hoped that it might be possible to dispose of the bill to-morrow evening in the regular order. Certainly, if it is not disposed of then, it would be our wish to expedite the disposition of it. On the other hand, it requires the unanimous consent of the House to change
Mr. Murdock and Home Bank

the order. If it can be arranged to the satisfaction of members of the House to have the bill proceeded with on Wednesday, assuming that it cannot be disposed of to-morrow night, the government will be only too ready to acquiesce in the request of my hon. friend, but he understands, of course, that it is open to any hon. member to object.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: As this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House, it would require to stand until Wednesday when the order is called, when that consent may be given.
Motion stands.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.45 u.m.
Tuesday, June 17, 1924